Notes (from Feb. 17):

1. I believe this proposal is a fabrication!
   I recall on Dec. 16th being told that the plumber
   could not see what was blocking pipe and
   there was no other choice. To clear the blockage
   they had to dig up the pipe. I was told they would use
   a concrete saw to cut the floor and then dig up the
   pipe to find the blockage, and it could cost about $2000.
   I do not recall being shown or given a written estimate,
   I do not recall signing a proposal or estimate of any sort,
   and I have no record or copy of any proposal other than
   the fax copy scanned and linked above, given to me today
   (February 17) by Channel 9 Reporter Brian Patrick,
   two months and one day after the original was
   supposedly provided. My notes and event diary
   make no mention of any estimate or proposal.

2. If you are using Internet Explorer, it may scale-down
   the large images to fit your browser window. If so, you may
   want to turn this feature off under Tools, Internet Options,
   Advanced, and toggle off "Enable Automatic Image Resizing.

Subj: roto-rooter proposal
Date: 2/18/03 7:16:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: bpatrick@wcpo.com

Hi Mr. Patrick,

As always, thank you for hanging in with this, and especially for forwarding the Roto-Rooter proposal to me yesterday.

I'm writing this morning because I cannot say that the Roto-Rooter proposal is a false document and that my signature on that form is a forgery. I cannot in good conscience state that is so, based simply on my memory of all that occurred that day (Dec. 16). It may be that this document is false (I have no memory of seeing or signing it) or not, but I cannot say categorically one way or the other, regardless of anyone's insistence that I must do so.

As you know, I was surprised to hear that Roto-Rooter had a proposal signed by me that they believe justifies their bill. When you faxed the proposal to me, I searched my memory and my notes for any indication I'd seen this proposal before, and I could not find any such record. I didn't believe the signature on the form looked like my normal signature, and I questioned whether the proposal was bogus and my signature was forged. After we spoke I continued to challenge myself to try and remember the interaction. I was not able to dredge up any memory of the proposal form.

When I got home last night I took a close look at the two bills I had from Roto-Rooter, each with two signatures, and at the proposal you faxed. The two signatures on the bill from Dec. 16 looked very different from the signature on the proposal, but one of the signatures on the bill from Dec. 20 looked a lot like the one on the proposal. Perhaps Mr. Jennings would have had to have some sort of paperwork in place to go forward with sending a digging crew to come to our house, and that would be a function of the proposal. Also, the proposal (allegedly from the 16th) and the bill (from the 20th) have the same work order number, which would make sense, assuming Roto-Rooter has some sort of automated way of generating those things. (Perhaps Mr. Abrams can check that out for us.)

When I woke up this morning, I recalled your question to me regarding my assessment of Mr. Jennings. You asked whether I had had any indication he would fabricate a proposal. I answered I had had no such indication, and actually thought of him as a stand-up guy that talked easily and openly about his work experiences, his family, and so on. Based on that, my current feeling is that this proposal cannot be false.

It just doesn't make sense to fabricate something like this, if only because it does nothing to address the central concern in my complaint, that Roto-Rooter should have consulted or had me consult MSD before opening up the floor in my garage.

Thanks again,
Ray Owens