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, September 30, 2010 4:47 AM
To: David Brill

Cc: Pusey; Rori Strickland

; jPecoraro

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

; Insurance Commissioner
Subject: Re: ACF1001306


Mr. David Brill!

It was very nice seeing you once again.  I can’t recall exactly when it was last that I saw you, but my memory isn’t what it once was.  It may have been in regards to one of the reconstruction classes/seminars, FHP Advisory Council work, or consumer advocacy work we have done.  Anything is possible.

Your early arrival was not a problem.  Thank you for respecting my day and notifying.  I apologize on behalf of your client and the loss for your late notification and the rush to comply by your client/customer.

 It seems that after the Commissioner of Insurance and Finance investigators began looking in to this claim that a lot of action was initiated.  Never to worry, the third party adjuster in Ocala and Jacksonville for PDA are seeing similar knee jerk reactions due to improper actions and inactions of your principle.

Your forensic study of the Porsche in Jacksonville will indicate that the lights were not on, as it was the towed vehicle (atop the trailer).  Please make special note of the length of the vehicle, because one would think the “cushion” effect of the car(s) crushing, breaking of multiples of chains, straps, etc would affect the impact to the vehicles and passengers.  The effect of the crushing of some much was effectively a multiple impact wreck as I will demonstrate should this go to court.  As noted the impact was forceful with the seat backs of the Blazer both breaking under the force.  As I recall you and I estimated it would take 3500 pounds of force for this, or 10 to 20 times the force of gravity.  Yes, I am glad they broke, or we would have been dead. I now have accident recreation footage that demonstrates a nearly 50-60 "G" force from the impact.  It is astounding the horrific footage available these days for crash simulation. Meanwhile I met this week with FHP officer Cox from Marianna and briefly described parts of the event in our impromptu meeting.  His advice/indication is that with so many factors involved in the 1100-1300 feet slide/impact area the possibility of noting force of impact was likely compromised.  For some reason the merits of the loss are only now being looked at.  Too much misdirection has taken place leading to this.

An odd spin on your involvement in this instance is your study itself. The study is the result of one of many questions the underwriter/adjuster has of their own client’s integrity and credibility.  They have opened their claim refuting statements, claims, and operations of their client before they research it.   Why this has been conveyed to the victim/third party of the loss seems irregular to me.  What they may find is they have successfully challenged the credibility of their own client and their only “witness” to the event.  This separation initiated by them against their own will likely tend to prejudice any position anyone on their side of the claim has made.   They have likely failed in part of their fiduciary obligations to protect their client.  It all seems odd to me.  What the adjuster/underwriter appears to have done is isolated themselves and depended on odd tactics of their own design to handle the case.  The urgency of your appointment at late notice is in part evidence of their delay.  This would be a publicity disaster for a reputable company.  If attorneys are engaged, I can see the most exhorbitant lawyer fees they have ever seen.

As you can imagine, our encounter (as well as the third party adjuster inspection of the trailer and blazer) was fully recorded.  Recording was done with proper written notice when you entered the property pursuant to Florida state law.  One can imagine that a guy like myself who has oversight into a video production and reproduction operation that the appointment would be recorded.  Now, your principle is notified that their witnesses will be used as my witnesses should this go to court.   Furthermore, since you recorded it as well, feel free to submit copy to your principle to advise what the full content of our discussion included.  You will note the commentary on the lense visibility, settlement incentives prior to trial, etc was all recorded.  Recording was running when you arrived the property and continued until your departure. With the absence of short term memory on my part, this was necessary for me to remember our discussion.  I hope this does not cause too big a problem.

At this juncture our personal vehicle losses have not been properly addressed nor resolved by the trucking insurance company.  Our costs for alternative transportation, storage, handling, etc continue to climb.  Prompt resolution of the related issues is in everyone’s best interest, but they will not acknowledge our request for a meeting.

Now that they have their inspections initiated (one month after the incident), then maybe they can keep moving at the brisk pace recently introduced.  I look forward to the possibility that no further reports need to be produced and this can be resolved.  It seems in everyone’s best interest.

Many kind regards,





On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM, David Brill

<dbrill@windstream.net> wrote:

> Mr. Whidden,

> I have a truck inspection in Perry, Florida in the morning and as soon

> as I have completed that inspection, I will travel to your location.  

> I will try to be in Chipley as early as possible to lessen any

> inconvenience to you with regards to this inspection.  I will call

> your cell phone 1 hour before my arrival to set up a location to meet.  

> I do not expect the inspection to last more than 1 to 1 1/2 hours.

> David Brill

> Collision Analysis & Investigations

> 386-266-8033

> -----Original Message-----

> From: www.tedwhidden.com>

[mailto:The Desk of Ted Whidden]

> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 3:02 PM

> To: Pusey

> Cc: Rori Strickland

; jPecoraro

@aequicap.com; Florida Department of

> Financial Services; Michael Lee

; Insurance Commissioner;

> dbrill@windstream.net

> Subject: Re: ACF1001306

> Ms. Pusey


> Prior to your email I had a call from Mr. Brill and subject of your

> message below had already been discussed and agreed.

> It is with appreciation that I see that finally on month after the

> incident your firm is arranging to have an independent adjuster attend

> and do the necessary inspections.  It is noted that you severely

> dropped the ball where this is concerned on both the investigation you

> now initiate with the vehicle and trailer, as you also did with the

> Porsche.  Your records if kept accurate and not doctored to cover the

> deceptions leading to this point will show that only now you are

> initiating an inspection of the towed vehicle (Porsche).  The records

> will clearly show unless they have been doctored that your action

> finally comes after being advised by the State Commissioner of

> Insurance that your file and this case is subject of state and Federal

> investigation for your handling issues/maneuvers of good faith.  Your

> late moves are demonstration of the type fault/complaint lodged with

> the commission.

> Meanwhile, a good faith question of the devious tactics by you and

> your counterpart Ms Rori

would typically require that you defer

> it to another person for handling.  Since you and your counterpart are

> specifically and accurately addressed in my letter of 19 September

> 2010, and that has been acknowledged by your principle (Tower

> Group/CastlePoint) you people remain suspect of your devious behavior.

> Your managers need to understand that I prefer to have nothing to do

> with you whatsover.  They need to be made aware that I am preparing to

> send a follow-up letter to my 19 September 2010 letter.  By keeping

> that in copy to DBPR, State Insurance Commissioner, and others

> concerned, your actions and inactions are under scrutiny.

> Please refer this file to someone of greater talent and integrity,

> otherwise you risk escalating the bad faith issues of the claim.  Your

> legal counsel should be involved, because your continued contact with

> me is in violation of good faith conduct once it is called out.  Your

> manager (Mr. John Pecoraro

, CPCU/SCLA) will likely find himself in

> violation of proper good faith handling by allowing you to remain on

> the file.  Since this notice is being given to you after the good/bad

> faith notification from the state, and since it is before your copying

> of your file to the state by way of their electronic request, it

> should become part of your file copy to them, and you are officially

> on notice.  I give you this notice in case the continued bad faith is

> blamed on lack of knowledge or incompetence, neither of which is a

> good defense.............In short, you did it again.

> Since I am dealing with head injuries it is recommended that Mr. Brill

> call one hour in advance of our meeting to remind me.  This is the

> only call authorized.  As you can imagine with the devious tactics

> shown by your group and agents thus far I prefer contacts in writing.

> If/when a reasonable assessment is obtained by your team then we

> remain available to discuss settlement with someone other than you.

> It has taken one month for you to do the normal and necessary.  Of

> course since it took so long for you to take the actions you are of

> this week, it appears this was a maneuver on your part to purposefully

> "miss" the opportunity to investigate, and to do the needful so you

> can present what superficially may appear a proper file to the

> investigating bodies with oversight into your area.

> I look forward to Mr. Brill's inspection and copy of his report as

> soon as it is available.  I thank your company in advance for

> providing same to me via: Post Office Box 158, Chipley, Florida 32428

> as well as the PDA (independent adjuster) files on all three of the

> crash vehicles.

> Sincerely,

> www.tedwhidden.com>

> Reference:

> Service Request Number:1-686998078

> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Pusey

> <Pusey







> wrote:

>>  Mr. Whidden,

>>     In order to complete our investigation of this claim, it is

>> necessary

> to

>> inspect your 1993 Chevy Blazer and trailer. It is my understanding

>> that

> the

>> vehicle and trailer are being stored at your farm in Chipley, Fl. We

>> have retained independent investigator, David Brill

for the

>> inspection. He has requested to perform the inspection on Wednesday, September 29th at 2pm.

>> Please contact Mr. Brill to confirm you are available on this date.I

>> have provided Mr. Brill's phone number and email address.  If you

>> have any questions, feel free to contact the undersigned.


>> David Brill

>> dbrill@windstream.net

>> (386) 266-8033



>> Pusey

>> Aequicap Claims Services

>> 954 493-6565  Ext. 120




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