RICO Act Violation

Civil Filings

Buy the Book, Fraud: The Unforgivable Crime







Contact Us





'Ted' Theodore Lewis Whidden

Create Your Badge

     Exposing Fraud and Deception to protect the public good.

    www.frauddocumentation.com     www.frauddemonstration.com    www.frauddevelopment.com  

Contact us by e-mail for more details on this particular project.

E-Mail fraud@phdservice.com

Correspondence contained herein is considered a reasonable copy of the original.  During formatting some content may have been electronically altered.  In some cases names have been masked or modified to assist in connecting or protecting those involved. In several instances the disclaimer at the bottom of emails shared thru the underwriter's messaging system were removed in web formatting. It will likely be found that the use of disclaimers in their email footers is an attempt to conceal material data, and to use this as a tactic to intimidate victims. (Thus another pattern of fraud emerges.)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: www.tedwhidden.com>

<The Desk of Ted Whidden>
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: ACF1001306 Theodore & Kenneth Whidden v. Frank Delgado

Yera & Oliva

Delivery Service, Inc. d/l 08/29/10
To: John Pecoraro<JohnPecoraro@aequicap.com>
Cc: Keisha Pusey <KeishaPusey@aequicap.com> , Rori Strickland <RoriStrickland@aequicap.com> , Florida Department of Financial Services <ServicePoint@fldfs.com>, Michael Lee <info@twrgrp.com> , Insurance Commissioner <InsuranceCommissioner@floir.com>, dbrill@windstream.net

Mr. Pecoraro,

I am in receipt of your email sent at your close of business last
Friday, October 8, 2010.  In that email you state you are responding
to my letters/emails of September 19 and October 1, 2010.  Thank you
for acknowledging receipt of those documents, meanwhile your response,
actions, and inactions regarding those letters further serves to prove
the bad faith, potentially attempted fraud and more by your company.
As stated in the letters there is a potential for fraud and pattern of
fraud that runs thru your organization and handling procedures.  Thank
you for helping demonstrate where these operating procedures come
from.  It looks like the personnel are trained at the highest levels
to behave in this manner, or that incompetence at the highest levels
filters thru the entire organization.

At this juncture I acknowledge your request to keep this between you
and I.  Unfortunately, in the letter wherein you ask to keep this
private you fail to take responsibility for the loss, fully
acknowledge the coverage issue, and try to shift liability.  By your
own letter you render your request null.   You have no authority in
the loss by way of the letter wherein you request authority.  Do you
see it?  You cannot restrain someone wherein you have no good faith
arrangement.  I can see how you would want to keep your misdealings
hidden and in secret.  Incompetence and dishonesty are terrible things
to be revealed in the open.  Meanwhile, since under your management
and control your people have commited such incredible ethics
violations I remain appealing to the professional ethics of someone,
ANYONE, in your organization who can see your house of cards
collapsing.  In order to gain some level of respect to negotiate a
claim you have to accept some responsibility.  Is that too complicated
for you to understand?

Since there appears to be a lack of training and understanding within
your organization I have sent a copy of the ethics rules for insurance
personnel within the state of Florida.  Your organization is in
blatant disregard for many of these issues, including but not limited
to your late appointment and forced rush to cover your tracks in
appointing your investigators.  The late appointment itself is a
violation.  The less than 48 hour notice is another, and the list goes
on and on.  The problem with ethics, bad faith, and fraud is one
action creates confusion in the next, and the next and the next.  This
is one reason why it is illegal, and a disgrace to professionals in
the industry wherein you practice.

In your letter/email of October 8, 2010 you materially misrepresent
facts to your benefit. This is often considered an attempt at fraud or
at least bad faith.  This will be addressed at another time.

In your letter/email of October 8, 2010 you attempt to shift
cause/liability for the loss in our direction.  It is anticipated that
you made such a wacky move in an effort to get me to argue with you.
In that instance you and I would be having a liability discussion when
the 17 October 2010 deadline for you to submit your file to the state
rolls around.  I will not give you that argument at this time, because
if you wish to shift liability we can rest until you either solidify
your position or it dissolves around you for being baseless.  You see
you now have committed a bad faith or worse issue by
misstating/misusing your contract investigator’s information and
report.  I repeat, your investigator taped the
interaction/investigation, and so did I.  You have now been caught in
what appears to be fraud.  The tapes should as of my September 30,
2010 email to David Brill

and your personnel should now be part of the
state discovery due by your office on 17 October 2010.  Mr. Brill who
I hold in copy is a former law enforcement officer, and surely he
understands the ramifications of mis-handling of the information and
the tapes themselves.  Mr. Brill was informed by me on September 28,
2010 verbally and in writing that a good faith and potentially fraud
investigation was ongoing with this file.  He was advised on September
30, 2010 that his recording was discoverable and should be submitted.
Surely he took the protections necessary to document his part in this
investigation.  I further advised you that if you intended to use
reputable investigators then your witnesses would soon become my
witnesses (see my September 28, 2010 email).  You see in order for you
to commit the offenses you attempt at every turn, then you have to
have a complete entourage of dishonest people.  Now that they have a
copy of the ethics rules they must begin to decide whether to go down
with the ship and be removed from the business entirely or to come
clean.  Mr. Brill is encouraged to submit his recording yet again, and
prepare copy for the state investigation.

Mr. Pecoraro, part of the reason for this message to you is to address
your material mishandling, delay, and deception referring to
compliance with the demand for copy of the policy.  For the benefit of
those reading the file I will recap the events material to this

On September 7, 2010 an attorney Coy Browning sent a letter demanding
copies of insurance policies and other documents he felt material to
the injuries sustained in the accident of 29 August 2010, wherein
Frank Delgado (Yera) a truck driver fell asleep at the wheel of a high
speed semi-truck in transit along Interstate 10.  The sleeping truck
driver struck a vehicle (my vehicle) from the rear, shoving it 133-150
feet down the road before the driver woke up and hit the brakes.

On September 9, 2010 the letter from Coy Browning was acknowledged as
received by the adjusters at Aequicap.  Thereafter Mr. Browning was
removed from the case by the victims.  Ms Keisha Pusey responded to
the Browning letter with her list of demands.  Her fax sent September
9, 2010 clearly acknowledges receipt of the Coy Browning letter.

Keisha Pusey’s letter/fax and its intended use is material at this
juncture for a number of reasons.  Please get a copy of that letter
and look at it at this time.

Note in paragraph one Keisha Pusey declares herself claims handler
over the entire claim.  It now appears she is Rori Strickland's boss.
This complicates things because this fiasco blew to bits when I spoke
to Keisha Pusey regarding Rori's lack of integrity (see September 19,
2010 letter follow up to conversations with Keisha

Pusey September 17).

As we look at paragraph one only of the Keisha

Pusey demand letter we see in
the last sentence where she states, “A certified copy of the policy
will follow under separate cover”.  This is where Ms. Keisha

Pusey and her devious behavior practices and delays comes in to play.  She never
sent the policy.  The mis-direction and delay herein becomes very
material for a number of reasons.  As stated above when one acts
dishonestly then more dishonest or ethical issues come in to play.
Recall she advises on 9 September 2010 that the policy is to be sent.

That policy promised on 9 September 2010 was not received at the
lawyer office until one month later (7 October 2010).  Isn’t this
amazing!  It took her one month to comply with a simple demand for a
policy that she should have had readily available. The delay is an
ethics violation of prompt action and due diligence.  It gets even
more complicated from there.

The policy was only sent after Keisha

Pusey's deception was called out in the
October 1, 2010 letter, as a clear demonstration of bad faith and
potentially fraud.  Follow-up emails to Keisha

Pusey clarifies this further.
My email October 7, 2010 was likely the motivation behind finally
attempting to comply.

It now appears that the only reason the policy was sent to the lawyer
was so that Pecoraro could state in his October 7, 2010 email/letter
that the policy had been sent.  This not only implicates Pecoraro

in this slight of hand action, but it indicates he was either not as
involved as he should have been in this at this point, or he was
involved and fumbling about in some manner.  Incompetence is rarely an
excuse for bad faith.  The involvement of management at such late
juncture is in and of itself a good faith violation, and his
mishandling of his involvement create a more dishonest appearance.

As we look further in to the late compliance with Mr. Coy Browning’s
letter which the late response in itself is a violation, we see
something else materially develop.  In the phone call of September 17,
2010 (the first of two) Ms. Keisha Pusey was informed verbally that Mr.
Browning was no longer involved in the loss, and she was to have no
further contact with Browning Law firm in this regard.  Keisha Pusey was
advised that a letter further to follow up would be sent.  Ms. Keisha

Pusey disregarded this advice.  Ms. Keisha

Pusey called the law office and lied to
the paralegal in an effort to side step the process and to obtain some
form of information she was seeking.  This is rather obvious devious
behavior to benefit their claim, at the detriment to the offended
party.  This is bad faith and attempted fraud.  The law office who had
been told to stand down properly contacted me and advised me of the
phone call attempt by Pusey

.  (Her phone records and that of the law
firm will evidence this call).  I called immediately afterwards and
spoke to Pusey

.  Pusey

advised that she could do anything she wanted
because she was the claims adjuster.  This is quite obviously a
misunderstanding of her position and a demonstration of the abuses she
believes in part and parcel to her manner in doing business.  As a
supervisor to Strickland

and a subordinate of Pecoraro

this conveys a
pattern and mindset in the organization to routinely abuse their

As we look further still into the apparent intent to comply with the
Browning letter of September 7, 2010, we see that Aequicap’s
compliance one month later is another problem.  Following the
September 17 phone calls (two of them) it should have been clear to

and Aequicap they were to have nothing further to do with the
Browning Law firm.  Their late response is a violation of this

As we look further into the sending of the policy to Browning, we see
that in the September 19, 2010 letter which Pecoraro

acknowledges, the
Aequicap people were officially advised in writing as promised to have
nothing further to do with Browning.  Any contact with Browning
thereafter would have been outside their scope and a continued attempt
to mis-direct information.  For some reason they violated the
September 19, 2010 letter in October when they sent the policy.  Note
paragraph four of my September 19, 2010 letter clearly spells this

In the October 1, 2010 letter Aequicap was clearly advised many times
and many ways (see the following and the attached) to have nothing to
do with the Browning Law firm.  They clearly ignored the September 17
phone calls, the September 19 letter/email, and the October 1
letter/email if they sent anything to Browning following those dates.
Each is an attempt at an “end round” or misdirection.  Further to this
specific directions are given in the October 1, 2010 letter how at the
late juncture the adjuster is to respond to the inordinate delay.
Note wherein it states:
Mr. Pecoraro

, Aptman, and Pusey

, since you are likely looking for an
opportunity to act in good faith and demonstrate your intent to
comply, Note the demands of the Coy Browning Law Firm letter of 7
September 2010, acknowledged by you as received on 9 September 2010.
It is now more than 3 weeks after your receipt of that letter.  Your
opportunity to comply has now expired.  If you were indeed operating
in “good faith” then you would have gathered the documents in
anticipation of the attorney involvement issue was to be resolved.
If you find yourself (erroneiously) subject of the Browning letter
then you should have sent the completed package as requested.  Have
you?  Good faith?   If you did not send the package, you should at
least have it put together for on forwarding.  Good faith?  At this
point, you should be able to overnight the completed package to
whoever is the rightful recipient.  You are instructed to immediately
overnight the completed package to my attention at my physical address
listed as Post Office Box 158, Chipley, Florida 32428.  Your prompt
compliance is appreciated.

People you are in terrible violation and even after being told that
you are under investigation for bad faith, potentially fraud and
patterns of such you maintain the patterns.  What is it? You don’t
know any better?  This is very bad.

Bringing your attention now to my October 1, 2010 letter, wherein it
is demonstrated that CastlePoint/Tower Group appears to be party to
the material mishandling of this loss, and appears to be endorsing
both the incompetency and indecency of the behavior, we see further
compliance issues with providing of the insurance policy.   Note in my
paragraph seven of the letter you acknowledge October 1, 2010.  I
quote from my own letter:
Since you cannot seem to read, I will recap your position, Mr.
Browning’s, and mine in this regard.  Line one of paragraph three.  My
letter of 19 September 2010 withdraws Mr. Browning from your contact

In the October 1, 2010 letter you were advised:
You were asked to have nothing to do with Mr. Browning, but failed to
follow instructions.  These are bad faith attempts to circumvent the
offended party.
Unfortunately, you continue to attempt mis-direction and confusion in
handling of the loss.  The October 1, 2010 statement is repeated
herein for the benefit of all those in copy.  You were asked to have
nothing to do with Mr. Browning, but failed to follow instructions.
These are bad faith attempts to circumvent the offended party.

Further still in the October 1, 2010 letter I quote regarding the
policy handling by the adjuster:
The Aequicap claims handler in her letter responding to what she
perceived was an attorney letter advised that she was sending a
certified copy of a policy.  This was a lie, because to my knowledge
she never sent it.  Weeks have passed now, and it has not been
sent/nor received.  If in fact she had sent it certified as she says,
then she should have evidence in her file.  If she does not, then this
is another instance of fraud and deception.  Either she sent it or
not, either way it appears to be an act or attempt at fraud.

The October 1, 2010 letter further asks:
The Aequicap letter sent in response to Browning’s letter advised a
certified copy of a policy was being sent.  To this point that policy
has not been received from what I understand.  Was this failure to
fulfill the Aequicap letter and send the policy another deception?
Seems so…………..

The October 1, 2010 letter further states:
The appearance was that since such a long and abnormal set of demands
was sent, then nothing more was needed for her or from her, so we
waited for the promised policy which apparently was never sent.  Her
certified mail records may shed some light of truth or deception on

The October 1, 2010 letter further states:
It appears that Pusey

lied about sending the policy.  Her follow-up
phone calls to the attorney were unwarranted, so her claim to have
called the attorney’s office on 15 and 17 September were unwarranted.

The October 1, 2010 letter further states:
As stated my 19 September 2010 letter the letter of 7 September from
Browning should have never been sent.  I have already apologized for
this.  Since your operation uses deception at every turn I
specifically asked the Browning Law Firm to do nothing so that they
would not fall prey to your tactics of confusion, bad faith, fraud,
and deception.

The October 1, 2010 letter further states:
When I clarified in my phone call to Pusey

that the attorney was to be
withdrawn from the file, and advised that I would immediately send a
letter to clarify it, she immediately picked up the phone and lied to
the paralegal.  You see the difficulty I see in all this is bad faith,
fraud, and attempted fraud is a way of life or corporate culture with
the way you people do business

I am not sure what part of this and how much of this you and your
people do not understand, but your continued actions and inactions are
viewed as rather harsh and devious.  We have a very simple loss
wherein your assured rear-ended us on a clear open road at a high rate
of speed while sleeping at the wheel.  Your driver shoved us hundreds
of feet down the road.  Now, you and your personnel continue to abuse
and brutalize our situation because of some perceived advantage you
think you have.  Meanwhile you are in violation of virtually every
ethics standard posted/available.  You have not only established your
abuses by way of action/inaction, you perpetuate these abuses as a way
of life or pattern of operation.  This gets more serious at every
turn.  Your apparent disregard for law and the rights of others, as
well as your own obligations to your assureds, underwriters, etc is
overwhelming.  This is one reason that good faith dealing is mandated
in these instances.

We remain available to discuss the material points of the loss if/when
a reputable claims handler is put in place and reasonable actions are
seen to be taken.  Meanwhile, I continue to hold all those personally
and corporately responsible for the dealings, misdealings, actions,
and inactions that are derailing the process.



        October 1, 2010 letter including attachments.


Supreme Court ruled unanimously written by Judge William Rehnquist concerning Hustler Magazine v Jerry Falwell

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."

Supreme Court Judge Scalia wrote concerning Pope v Illinois

"Just as there is no use arguing about taste, there is no use litigating about it."

Copyright May 2011, All rights reserved by Ted Whidden