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  


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.)


-----Original Message-----

[mailto:The Desk of Ted Whidden]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 4:31 PM
To: Pusey
Cc: Rori Strickland

; jPecoraro

@aequicap.com; Florida Department of Financial Services; Michael Lee

; Insurance Commissioner
Subject: Re: ACF1001306


Ms. Pusey,

To this point, 5-6 weeks after our loss we have not been contacted by a reputable agent or claims person from your organization.  You will recall from my last conversation with you that you stated that, you were the adjuster and you could do whatever you wanted in regards to the claim.  Unfortunately, on that September day you opted for calling a lawyer and lieing to the lawyer's paralegal in order to tempt them in to talking to you against BOTH your orders by me for you to leave them alone, and their orders by me to remain out of the file.

Ms. Pusey your move that day in September (17th?) to call the attorney's paralegal was a very bold maneuver.  When you stated that you had spoken to my brother Ken you over-stepped your authority and brought your integrity more in to question.  For the benefit of those in copy no one from Aequicap has ever spoken to my brother Ken.

Imagine the paralegal's horror when she heard the deceitful adjuster claiming to have spoken to someone that it was not remotely possible that she could have spoken to.  Imagine if you will if my brother had been a deaf-mute, or comatose or in a vegetative state as a result of the accident or some aspect of the accident.  Ms. Pusey's lie to circumvent the privacy, common decency and respect of a potential claimant is ruthless...........Recall to this point no "claim" for personal injury was being made.  An attorney had made an attempt to contact the adjuster regarding personal injury representation in error and had been called down on this matter.  Ms. Pusey had sent a demand letter days before.  What was so urgent that she HAD to speak to someone right then?  What gave her the authority to go against the victim/claimant's wishes and contact the attorney?  What gave her the excuse, reason, or authority to lie to the paralegal stating she had spoken to someone she had not?  This is a rather blatant ethics violation to a person of the court.  No matter what Pusey claims.  No matter what she says, if she said she had talked to me, then she should have never made the call, and if she said she spoke to my brother whom she had never talked to she was being dishonest.  This is bad faith and more.  There is a practice within the Aequicap handling that was spotted immediately.  They were warned about this deceptive practice, but they continued.

To this point the devious counterpart of Ms. Pusey is Ms. Strickland Strickland advised me over the phone in the first few days of the notice that she was not going to send anyone to look at the Porsche carried as a towed vehicle behind my vehicle.  She advised within the same conversation she had, had not, would, and would not assign an adjuster to look at the Porsche.  She lied in so many ways in one phone call, and lied in every phone call with her, that I made a call to her supervisor Ms. Pusey that someone else be placed on the file.

That is when Pusey decided to make the mis-guided phone call above.

Both are obviously devious people.  Meanwhile, now that Strickland who is has established a pattern of dishonesty sees in writing that it is openly admitted that no one from Aequicap spoke to my brother, she is likely to use that as an excuse for not looking at the Porsche.  It is a nice play by a devious person, MEANWHILE their late attempts to look at the vehicle have now taken a week extra for them to look at the vehicle at CO-Parts in Jacksonville.  What one will find is the vehicle sat for one month in an independent storage lot awaiting the appointment of adjusters/investigators.  Since the adjusters were not appointed for over one month, there was delay.  Since my brother has YET to speak to them they have now demonstrated they could have indeed looked at the vehicle at any point in time.  Permission was granted and it was fully accessible all along.  It is a tangled web of deception these adjusters weave.  Clearly the delay to look at the Porsche is a maneuver planned by Strickland

.  Imagine if you will that the vehicle underwriter tried to subrogate against Aequicap. They could have claimed they never looked at the car!!  An attempt to save some expense and side-step liability at the same time.  Now, Aequicap should be made to not only explain why they did not look at the Porsche, but why they finally did at such late juncture (after the state inquiry was initiated), and what their plan to resolve the damage is.  To this point, they still have an obvious liability and responsibility to the owner of the Porsche.

To this point it has taken 5-6 weeks for independent adjusters to be assigned to look at vehicles from a routine traffic accident.  The cost to myself and my brother has been enormous because these are primary vehicles that have been stalled in the process due to the deceptive and delayed tactics by the adjusters.

Only now, approximately 6 weeks after the wreck are we allowed to move our vehicles. Meanwhile, the details of the wreck and their investigation confirms that we were rear-ended by their assured's 18 wheeler at high rate of speed on a clear, open stretch of road at or around midnight with our tail-lights illuminated.  The 18 wheeler was charged with careless driving and the charges in a court of law can spiral from there extending to the insurance company and handlers from there.  The deviant adjusters have tried to avoid coverage issues for the trucking company without real reason, and have tried to avoid liability without success.  It seems there is no one willing to accept the position of liability or responsibility.  If it is deemed they or their client are responsible/liable in this situation, then they have made a number of missteps.

Since it appears the adjusters and investigators have looked at all the vehicles involved would someone advise who is responsible for our losses?  We need to move forward with our situation and need to do something with the vehicles.  There are towing costs, storage costs and losses mounting.

It is my understanding that the state insurance/financial division is looking in to this case and discovering the files.  Please make sure that this request for release/disposition is included in their file.

It would be appreciated if a reputable adjuster/claims handler would contact me via email to advise what kind of offer of settlement you would like to make for our personal property.  I would hope the personal property discussions move better than they have to this point. We must keep them in writing as one can imagine so the file is fully discoverable.

The state investigators will likely want to "discover" the voice files of Mr. David Brill because they have been discussed in previous e-mails and helps outline the insurance/adjuster outlook on this file.





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

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