Plaintiff Attorneys:  Why are you not suing the agents for the insurance companies as well? I am not referring to those selling the policy. I am referring to the independent locksmiths that hold themselves out as forensic experts in the examination of the vehicle, as to how it was last operated. Most carry a minimum of $1,000,000 E&O or shopkeepers insurance as required by the client insurance companies. This holds the expert out for accountability as to if he can prove the conclusions he about the vehicle made were based on fact. Was is it possible he made statements that were baseless in his forensic report?  You bet! More commonly than not! Could it be the statements were construed as fact, were mainly opinion implicating the insured in being party to the theft of their vehicle? For years, there has been no accountability on the part of the independent forensic locksmith. Maybe if they knew they could be sued for making conclusions they could not support with clear and convincing evidence, they would think twice about inferring the insured was involved in the theft of their vehicle. Because such net opinion is treated as fact, and in many circumstances, launch un-founded investigations on innocent insureds.  These experts should have to take responsibility for their actions. There are many situations in which an innocent insured has a position in which involves trust. Just some examples would be: Police officer, correction officer, real estate person, firefighter, etc. I know for a fact of people later being proved innocent in these categories that have had their job in jeopardy.  Some lost their jobs because the insurance company inferred that the vehicle was not stolen because of the  forensic locksmith expert's report and additional factors. When the expert report on the vehicle infers that the insured was involved in the theft of the vehicle, by stating  key of the proper type was used, the insurance company now builds circumstantial evidence on top of the report to support insurance fraud. The fraud indicators (red flags) are now employed and although very general and contradictory, are used as fact. Examples are: Vehicle recovered- missing selected parts, vehicle recovered stripped, vehicle recovered-missing no parts. It is kind of like "pick one." I get a kick out of seeing in a report "Surgical strip." What does this mean? Does it mean the parts were carefully removed by the insured to sell the parts or to replace them  after the insured gets the check? Could it be that the parts were carefully removed in what is considered a "Legitimate Theft" (Oxymoron) so the parts have value to a professional thief? Vehicle equipped with  a so-called anti-theft system: I hate this terminology because it is fraud in itself. There is no such system available that can prevent theft of a vehicle. The term "Anti-theft" is a blatant lie, even if so described by a vehicle manufacturer. I have no problem stating in my opinion, GM fraudulently misrepresented to consumers 23 years ago and forward, by calling the VATS Vehicle Anti-Theft System "Anti Theft." Ford was no better calling it's "Securilock" (PATS) Passive Anti-Theft System. Another out right lie to the consumer! There are more, but these are the most blatant misrepresentation. Because these manufacturers lied, insurance company personnel and their so-called experts have used the fact the vehicle was so-equipped that it was unstealable. Commonly, the plaintiff attorney or criminal defense attorney will take these cases of insurance denial, and sometimes be intimidated because the insurance company has a "Forensic" report on the vehicle inferring that the vehicle was last operated by the use of a proper key. I have found after review of these reports that 95% of the time, there was no scientific testing of the ignition lock/key(s) or interrogation of the transponder or other electronic anti-theft system. In fact, the examiner commonly includes the factory description and operation from the factory manual. There is no consideration of methods of defeat and commonly I see where locksmiths are opining on how they would make a key for the vehicle. Bottom line: If a vehicle is reported stolen, the first thing in the claim that is looked at is does the vehicle have an anti-theft system? Immediate red flag! Again, for this action alone, I think GM and Ford should be held accountable, because they created this problem for the insured by their blatant misrepresentation of their product!!! This is not to say all insurance personnel are ignorant, because some of them know these systems do not prevent theft, but again, it is in their employer's best interest, to deny insurance claims. Some of the experts know these systems do not prevent theft, however this is contrary to their agenda of last key used.   The court system is built on semantics. How words are used reflects the outcome of a case. Look at the Clinton impeachment--Define sex, what is is? The term "anti-theft" to a jury with the average person is going to believe the car can't be stolen. Insurance defense attorneys harp on "anti-theft" to make it appear the insured had a part with the theft, because the report states the vehicle was last operated with a key of the proper type. As redundant as I am on this site, redundancy is on this site to get very important points across! We need to define "Key of the proper type" as well as "anti-theft" to keep innocent insureds accused of being party to the theft of their vehicle. "Key of the proper type" Mr. Rick Pacheco, in a video deposition in July 2005 (Ledin v. Mercury Insurance) went on to say "There are many different types of proper keys." This is a man that claims to be able to determine the last key used. In the same deposition he states his "key pathway" process can work on 40% of all claims with a 98-99% error rate (98-99% is his company report card for quality control). These figures are commonly confused with an actual error rate, that would be supplied after testing the process with a non-biased organization or association involved in tool mark identification. Such an organization would have no financial gain in promoting the process if valid. Right now, key/lock analysis is being peer reviewed and accepted by other locksmiths for a piece of the insurance pie. When I say this, it is very easy to  prove. One locksmith in Ohio uses his own  version of this process by calling it "Key Track Analysis." Another locksmith from California will agree with "Key Pathway" and to determine the last proper key used. Where this gets a little dicey, is where Robert Mangine in sworn testimony states Rick Pacheco was his mentor and has written two chapters of a book stating "Insert the key to test the lock function." Yet, Mr. Pacheco, in an article he wrote for the insurance company states: "Never insert a key because it will damage evidence." Which is it boys? Your the experts! I am just a back alley mechanic--Right? Now, as Mr. Pacheco stated in this deposition "there are many different types of proper key."  One that I will specify is cut with exacting specifications coinciding with the ignition lock in the vehicle, in other words, the correct key for the vehicle. Proper key can also be a duplicate key made to operate the vehicle. Proper key can be a very worn key that will operate a worn ignition lock. Proper key could be a key close in cuts, not exact that will operate the lock. (GM & Chrysler locks because of their design to have sloppy tolerances, even when manufactured new). Key of the proper type is a very general term that implies exact accuracy involving the insured's key. "Anti-theft": It is commonly assumed that this terminology implies that the vehicle is theft-proof or "Unstealable." Some "Anti-Theft" systems out there, are the GM VATS (Vehicle Anti-Theft System). First introduced in 1986 and used far too long into 2005. The concept was simple to have a resistor in the ignition key blade that when inserted into the lock, completed the circuit with two contacts in the ignition lock. There were 14 different resistors since 1992. The two tiny VATS wires ran down through the steering column and were susceptible to breakage causing a (No start at times) event. In theory, if the thief did not have the correct resistor, the engine would not start. The problems from this system were many. The no start problem was most common. Thieves could get around this system quickly, however if you listened to a locksmith opinion on this system it was common to hear "identification was needed to obtain a key from a dealer by supplying the VIN." This of course was not true. I obtained many unauthorized keys for these vehicles. Sometimes I just had to supply the VIN and sometimes I had to give the dealer a story (like a thief would do). The other argument by the insurance expert locksmith was that there was a 4 minute waiting time between the use of different resistor keys. This is because of ignorant assumption on the part of the insurance locksmith expert. The actual time between key usage was 2 minutes. The locksmith ASSUMED that it was 4 minutes because there was a 4 minute timer on his interrogation machine. All this "Unstealable" crap was based on the assumption that the GM VATS was even functioning at the time of the theft because these systems were commonly bypassed with components from alarms for remote start known as the "VATS bypass kit." Since this system is heralded as anti-theft and the items addressed above were commonly performed, kind of tells you, that GM was fraudulent in making the statement "Anti-theft"  the way they did. Better yet, this system did not prevent theft from towing ever!!!!!!!!!! Another fraud  is calling the Ford Securilock A/K/A Ford PATS  (Passive Anti-Theft System), anti-theft. Although designed  to operate with specific coded transponder keys, the system was proven to be defeated with one wire strategically placed under the hood. Secondly, this system DOES NOT prevent theft!!!!! This system does not stop or even slow down towing!!!!!! In turn, presenting this system to the public as anti theft is a blatant lie. I could be softer and say it is just misrepresentation by Ford, but I won't. I repeat, This was a lie to all consumers, which gave the insurance company the golden opportunity in accusing an innocent insured of being involved in the theft of their vehicle!! There are many more anti theft systems out there. Many are defeated very simply. Many offer some deterrence from operating the vehicle without the use of an assigned ignition key. The one thing that is common to all anti-theft systems:  They cannot stop or prevent theft from towing, pushing or pulling!!!! The newer the vehicle, the less secure. More reliability on electronics while mechanical locking devices are being phased out. Locking steering wheels are a thing of the past as are ignition locks. The newer the vehicles get, the less secure they are. The next time you hear the word anti-theft, realize it is a blatant lie commonly used to deny your insurance theft claim. Forensic Expert Witness on the Subject of Auto Theft Why would you want Rob Painter as your expert? It depends on who you are. If you are an insurance company that wants an examination of the reported stolen vehicle with a fully detailed report determining how the vehicle was last operated, I would be glad to serve you. The caveat however, is that I take all known hypotheses must be taken into consideration, and let the chips fall here they may. If I can't prove the issue, I don't not state I can. Plaintiff attorneys: It appears as though State Farm all the way from their head office in Bloomington, IL will have their representatives very concerned if I am involved in a case opposing them. You should look at this as a calling card. They don't want me opposing their experts! In fact, in one case, State Farm on their letterhead  refused to recognize me as an opposing expert. Think about this, they don't have the capability of determining who is an expert, only the court does! When the opposition does not want me opposing them, there is a reason. They are scared! I along with my client attorneys have cost State Farm millions of dollars because their experts could not support their opinion with fact. In the Los Angeles trial (March 2007) McCoy vs. Progressive, the attorney for Progressive stated: "Mr. Painter, you state you will not work for insurance companies you feel are evil, yet didn't you represent Progressive in the Stropki vs. Progressive"? My answer was no, Stropki was my client. This answer left Progressive in my opinion as being EVIL! Allstate doesn't like me either. Every time I oppose these insurance defense attorneys, they attempt to hash out the same old crap as being new and compelling, like me getting kicked out of the good ole' boy club IAIL (International Association of Investigative Locksmiths), which was done conveniently on a Saturday afternoon directly before I was to testify on the following Monday morning. Hmmm..... timing is everything. Then in my opinion, the unethical prosecutor that was conspiring with them to win the case attempted to make it appear as though I lied about my certification standing, because I had not changed my resume over the weekend. He did what he needed to do to win the case, not based on fact, but to make it appear as though I lied to the jury about my certification. You sir (prosecutor Voyles from Santa Clara County, California), in my opinion are  unethical,, having to shop for a new expert and get the client convicted with the obfuscation of the truth. Allstate and other insurance companies through their crack defense teams, likes to pull up is the California case Salazar vs. Farmers in Fresno California. The defense attorneys like to really stretch the truth on this case. They state that I was disqualified by a judge to testify. This borders on an outright lie! The judge went by my deposition testimony. At that time I demanded to examine the ignition lock in order to make a conclusion as to how the vehicle was last operated. I never had the opportunity to examine the lock. I never appeared in that court. I WAS NEVER DISQUALIFIED!!!!!!!! Since I never appeared in the trial and I never had access to the ignition lock, the judge had no idea as to what I would be able to testify to! Infinity--I was involved in nothing  California civil case  of $12K, that's it. Because they were so concerned of their exposure for using one expert firm exclusively, they sent me a subpoena. Not a normal subpoena being 4 or 5 pages long. This one was special. This subpoena was hand served to a Wisconsin judge. 79 pages demanding all my work, all my writings over 35 years, with great emphasis on anything related to their expert Robert Mangine. I had 10 days to supply this information! This was considered a reasonable amount of time!   If you want an expert the insurance companies are scared of, you need Rob Painter. The opposition has gone much farther than attacking him on a professional level. They went personal. In fact, they went so far to deflect the truth enough ,that there was consideration of federal charges of federal perjury and hiding funds. I was totally exonerated from these bogus federal charges and am now golden. In 19 depositions that they had available, State Farm's defense attorney "Jack Cramer of Indiana", not once, could find where Rob Painter perjured himself! If you want the best to oppose the fraud, corruption and lies put out as truth from the insurance forensic experts, there is only one who has paid his dues and shines above the rest and his name is Rob Painter! I have actually been involved in the repair of more than 10,000 theft recoveries. Who do you want? A locksmith that looks at a stolen vehicle as to how he would make a key for the vehicle? Or, someone who thinks like a thief? Working as a team, the plaintiff or criminal defense attorney successfully gets their points out about the case and I check to see if the words in the report as well as the statements about the vehicle are accurate and can be proven. If the insurance expert did not use the scientific methodology (common sense) to rule out all known hypotheses, I reflect that. If the forensic expert based his conclusions as to how the vehicle was last operated, based only on (Net opinion), that too is reflected. Since the early nineties, I have done thousands of reports for insurance companies. Only three have been contested in court. Two were found in my client's favor and the third was not a question on forensics, but was a policy issue where the jury favored the insured, even though the insured was still paying for his last repossession. The numbers are much different though when opposing insurance experts and the record is about 78-4. If you are a plaintiff attorney or criminal defense attorney and need scrutiny of the insurance expert's report on the vehicle, who would you want for your expert? If you are an insurance company of a insurance defense firm, involving a reported stolen vehicle, who would you want as your expert? The choice is obvious. I look forward to your business.