www

 

www.FraudDocumentation.com  

 

Home

RICO Act Violation

Civil Filings

Buy the Book, Fraud: The Unforgivable Crime

Personnel

Correspondence

CPCU/SCLA/DBPR

Law

Charges/Issues 

www.TheBrainCan.com

Contact Us

===

www.tedwhidden.com

Facebook

 

'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.)

From: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Subject: CPCU/John R Pecoraro response to your October 13, 2011 letter

To: Jim Prendergast <JPrendergast@buterajoneslaw.com>

Cc: "Elliot Orol, SVP General Counsel Tower Group" <eorol@twrgrp.com> , "Joel Weiner, SVP Strategic Planning Tower Group" <jweiner@twrgrp.com> , "Austin Young, Director Tower Group" <ayoung@twrgrp.com> , "Christian Pechmann, SVP Marketing and Dist. Tower Group" <cpechmann@twrgrp.com> , "Jan Van Gorder, Director Tower Group" <jvangorder@twrgrp.com> , Rori Strickland <Rori_Strickland@aequicap.com> , Susan Eylward <seylward@twrgrp.com> , "Salvatore Abano, CIO Tower Group" <SAbano@twrgrp.com> , EPalmer@twrgrp.com , Michael Lee <info@twrgrp.com> , "Pusey, Keisha" <KPusey@twrgrp.com> , "Steven Schuster, Director Tower Group" <sschuster@twrgrp.com> , "Strickland, Rori" <RStrickland@twrgrp.com> , "Laurie Ranegar, SVP Operations" <lranegar@twrgrp.com> , "William Fox, Director Tower Group" <wfox@twrgrp.com> , John Pecoraro <John_Pecoraro@aequicap.com> , LAptman@twrgrp.com , "Pecoraro, John" <JPecoraro@twrgrp.com> , Adam Perri <aperri@twrgrp.com> , MSturm@twrgrp.com , Keisha Pusey <Keisha_Pusey@aequicap.com> , "William Hitselberger, CFO Tower Group" <whitselberger@twrgrp.com> , MGuiry@twrgrp.com , "Robert Smith, Director Tower Group" <rsmith@twrgrp.com> , "Gary Maier, SVP Chief Underwriting Officer Tower Group" <gmaier@twrgrp.com> , "Charles Bryan, Director Tower Group" <cbryan@twrgrp.com> , "Michael Lee, CEO Tower Group" <MLee@twrgrp.com> , Ruth Oren <ROren@twrgrp.com> , "William Robbie, Director Tower Group" <wrobbie@twrgrp.com> , ibarahona@twrgrp.com , cbyrd@twrgrp.com , edemps@twrgrp.com , ldavila@twrgrp.com , acarty@twrgrp.com , mestepa@twrgrp.com , rgaynor@twrgrp.com , tkennedy@twrgrp.com , amccoy@twrgrp.com , cmilian@twrgrp.com , dnelson@twrgrp.com , racosta@twrgrp.com , jbaron@twrgrp.com , jclaxton@twrgrp.com , miler@twrgrp.com , mkahn@twrgrp.com , clovisone@twrgrp.com , jphillips@twrgrp.com , jquach@twrgrp.com , breed@twrgrp.com , nscola@twrgrp.com , rszumigata@twrgrp.com , Donna Popow <popow@cpcuiia.org> , Jack T Frost <jfrost@gaflaw.com> , pow@theinstitutes.org

 

 

Mr. James E. Prendergast

Cc: Ms. Donna Popow

 

Mr. Prendergast,

 

I have received your letter of October 13, 2011 and would like to

thank you deeply for the information included therein.  I will try to

cover a few points to demonstrate my gratitude.

Your first letter of July 15, 2011 was rather weak.  Your conclusion

and explanation was devoid of substantial information.  It indicated

both a weak understanding/review, and a poor representation of the

actual stance and reasoning of the “Institute”.  It would seem a moron

could have created such a simple and potentially inaccurate

conclusion.

Your October 13, 2011 letter differed.  It actually has some

substance, so it appears your “practice” and understanding of law is

improving.  Your letter actually makes a few points the second time

around that I will help outline and address for you and those in copy.

 

In your paragraph four (4) you request documents, “…..which indicate

that Mr. Pecoraro was adjudicated or found guilty of some wrong doing

by any governmental or administrative agency………..”  This seems to be

the point of your mis-diagnosis of your member’s ethics/code of

conduct violation.  You are looking for a third party charge to

substantiate your action.  This indicates you are a follower of

leaders, and not a leader of followers.  The absence of adjudication

may only be temporary, and based on the perceived insistence for the

need of an authoritative review I will continue with proceedings as

started involving your member.  It may serve both mine and your

interests to fully prosecute this element of an industry with such a

high level of corruption.  Based on my read of your letter the only

reason Pecoraro was not found guilty of ethics/code of conduct

violation is because you await a civil authority to judge your member.

 I had hoped to get some momentum in that direction so that Pecoraro

might not be prosecuted for all the charges since they will not only

involve professional action and fines, but potentially prison time.  I

would anticipate a sensible member of your society would prefer CPCU

action rather than adjudication, but if it requires both, then so be

it.

 

You make reference to a perceived “threat”.  This is somewhat

humorous, because if you have to “review” this to see if it is a

threat, then you are indeed “practicing/learning” law.  As you will

see I have posted approximately 50 Civil Remedy filings as per Florida

Statute involving your member, with the concept of following through

for litigation.  A problem is being encountered because your member

seems to commit an unlawful act with virtually every filing,

appointee, or encounter it seems.  The filings typically require a 60

day wait and then Pecoraro often commits another offense (often by his

delay alone!).  There is no “threat” as you state.  The concept of

“threat” is quite the opposite.  Public opinion will likely see your

member/industry as the predator conveying a threat.  I will address

this below.  (It appears you are helping me explore new areas of law

to prosecute your member/clients!)  I am in the process and following

process.  This may “pose a threat” to someone but it is entirely

within the concept called “due process”.  Your member however has

threatened me for following process.  I believe this is indeed an

“actionable” violation of your Rules/Code.  Isn’t it?  There is indeed

a threat, and possibly it is your member threatening me?

 

Further to the concept a “threat” being posed to your member, you will

see that I have filed yet a third ethics/code of conduct filing on

your member.  This one was promised (not threatened) earlier.  As one

can clearly see Pecoraro on behalf of his client company hired a

lawyer with the stated purpose of retaliating for my lawful filings

such as those filings with the CPCU, SCLA, Civil Remedy, etc.  No

doubt this is in direct violation of your rule 9.3.   I could have

filed this one second, but I needed your response of October 13, 2011

to clear up the ambiguity in your handling of the first filing.

Additional filings will likely be made, but exploring what is and is

not considered a violation seems a bit more cumbersome than a person

of integrity might think.  I hope to persevere.  Interestingly, you

and the CPCU have provided the stimuli to find a new direction for the

legal pursuit.  That is the nature of fraud in way as I see it, the

digger you dig the deeper it gets until the guilty party admits  and

addresses it.

 

Your letters, as does that of Donna Popow and printed material from

the Institute assists in other ways.  Your material clearly indicates

that ethics/Code of Conduct filings against members will be assessed

and then sent to outside counsel/review if warranted.  Your review of

both the first and second filing appears (and states??) that this is

such an outside review.  Whereas you may have only been looking for

points of adjudication, your mere review and commentary indicates the

filings warranted review.  This indicates there was some perceived

merit or base for the claim even if adjudication was not found at this

time.  This puts us in an interesting situation, because your member

has made AT LEAST 36 recent filings with the state of Florida advising

that my claims against him and his organization are “false, baseless,

and defamatory”.   Interestingly, each of these three descriptors

(false, baseless, and defamatory) appears to be in error and may

constitute the ongoing fraud by the member.  If the claims were

false/baseless, then my filings on same with the Institute would not

have warranted a review, would they?  If the claims were “defamatory”

then the onus is on the member to point out specifically when and

where the defamation occurred.  Thus far Pecoraro has not identified a

single defamatory comment, and it is not anticipated that he will.

Since all statements (and there are many harsh ones!) are true to my

knowledge, maybe he can help us out.  Otherwise Pecoraro’s 36

statements of “false, baseless, and defamatory” each constitute 3

frauds, or 36 x 3 = 108 frauds.  Your review of facts indicates there

is a base, some level of merit, and no indication of a falsehood has

been made, only a hollow claim of a dishonest claims

manager………….Please do not be offended if I call your member dishonest.

 I have also indicated he may be incompetent as well.  You can see the

Florida public filing where I made those statements.  Meanwhile I

thank the Institute for indicating there is indeed base and merit for

the claims I have made.

 

Further to your adjudication comments, in paragraph 5 of your October

13, 2011 letter you refer yet again to “…proof that any court or

agency has ever ruled that Pecoraro committed any crime or fraud.”

Again, we are in the process and sticking to process in an effort to

follow this to the end.   The wheels of the system may not move as

fast as we would all like, but we keep turning the wheel.  Your member

however apparently hires lawyers to affect the process.  There is

Civil Remedy filings in this regard as well including the most recent

filing sent to the Institute to review as it relates to Rule 9.3.

Sooner or later you’ll make the right decision.  We can all hope for

sooner.

 

Your consideration for Mr. Pecoraro’s wellbeing is commendable.  Often

members of a group stick together, and this will work well in this

instance.   It is a tangled web and the Institute and its

representatives will likely want to be on the right side of the

situation.  Meanwhile, if Pecoraro keeps up his behavior then your own

file and statements he makes to you may not only be the making of his

own demise, but may be worthy of discovery in the adjudication

procedures.  Please advise what is required to discover your files if

need be.  You understand that he has lied so many times on so many

issues, we anticipate he will lie to your ethics committee to

circumvent process……?  By advising him CPCU records will be deposed we

close a few more of his deceptive options, don’t we?

 

Unfortunately, it is anticipated additional filings will be in order

with the State of Florida/New York, CPCU, and additional entities.

Florida ethics rules may require that I make these filings so I am

hoping the CPCU ethics committee can see the severity and sincerity as

we go.  It is all a matter of compliance, someone following “ethics”

to file for the “ethics” review.  It will soon be clear who is

operating ethically and who is not.  We can only hope that we gain the

media sensation of something like the Erin Brockoich expose’ and that

everyone is properly aligned for their best interest.  (I new thought

is triggered!)

 

Recently another law firm has been appointed by Pecoraro to operate

for his principle and where their approach and motives seem a bit more

veiled than the past attempts, they still seem to smell a little

fishy.  Given the activity to this point one has to be suspicious.

Can’t you agree?

 

Thank you for acknowledging the merit, base, and sincerity of my

filings.  Even your absence of action in this instance served a

purpose.  There is little doubt that utilizing all the avenues of the

process will bring about a faster, more efficient resolution for all

concerned.   We are still awaiting a reputable party from the other

side of our dispute, but we keep getting Pecoraro or his agents

despite numerous advices that his continued involvement may constitute

bad faith.  (You will note, in his October 8, 2010 introduction

Pecoraro appears to have committed more than one offense including but

not limited to what appears an attempt at fraud.  He repeated it

numerous times as the months passed, and then refused to deal at all

with the matter.  This is important as many of these filings were made

by Pecoraro through public record where he utilized his CPCU/SCLA

endorsements with his signature in his potentially deceptive filings.

Surely, someone should be speaking to him from your organization.

Right?)

 

Your organization has been duly advised of your member’s activity.  As

stated in one of Pecoraro’s threatening attempts through an agent,

“GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY”.  If this wasn’t so serious it would

appear to be a joke.

 

I will be contacting the company and calling for Pecoraro’s

termination in an effort to resolve this situation.  Fortunately, if

they hang on to him any longer they become more deeply entangled in

his deceptions.  If they let him go they may avoid actions to come.

Where you will try to paint some fear/threat out of this, it is fairly

common in everyday life to appeal to the manager of a situation when

corruption is noted at the employee level.  I did just that.  Enough

deception was spotted and quickly arrived at the dishonest CPCU member

John R Pecoraro.  Pecoraro appears to have not only managed a corrupt

system, but has his own actions and inactions played a direct role.

It is normal to appeal to his superiors, and insurance practice would

require his removal before a good faith negotiation can begin.  Seems

simple, doesn’t it?  In any/all bad faith situations the offending

party is removed.  This should even be clear to a “practicing”

attorney.  One would think the CPCU, SCLA and such would know this.

Pecoraro is guilty of and perpetuating bad faith.  Clearly violations

of ethics/Code of Conduct, and practice have occurred.  He was advised

as was his board of directors long ago.  The company’s only choice is

to separate from your member.  These things happen sooner or later,

and the sooner the better for most.

 

Prendergast, to my knowledge you are the first one to bring up this

concept of “threat”.  This poses an interesting new direction for this

case.  I have not considered predator laws yet and the fact that your

member (claims manager John R Pecoraro) and his client

company/employer (Tower Group/Castle Point) would likely be considered

predators in the eyes of the consumer/public, for their numerous

devious tactics employed by their actions and inactions!  We do have a

predator among us and it is an industry (insurance) gone abusive

against the consumer.  Not only would most jurors consider the

insurance and law practices employed this far to be predatory,

orchestrated, premeditated, etc BUT this may even constitute “Domestic

Terrorism”.  Think about it….. According to Wikipedia “domestic

terrorism” is defined as:  "the unlawful use of force or violence,

committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or

property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian

population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or

social objectives."  Mr. Prendergast we are clearly moving towards a

media trial.  I offered to address this matter privately, but your

member/clients have opted for a public display.  Please understand the

option was given with proper wait period for response.

 

In continued service for the good of the public, I remain.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ted Whidden

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Pecoraro, John <JPecoraro@twrgrp.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Subject: Out of Office: CPCU/John R Pecoraro response to your October 13, 2011 letter

To: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com>

 

 

I am currently out of the office and will return on Wed, 01/12.

 

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. This email is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return mail and permanently delete the copy you received.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Scola, Nathalie <NScola@twrgrp.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Subject: Out of Office: CPCU/John R Pecoraro response to your October 13, 2011 letter

To: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com>

Please be advised that I will be out of the office on Friday Oct 28. I will respond to your e-mail on Monday.

Sincerely

Nathalie Scola

CastlePoint Risk Management

Tower Risk Management

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. This email is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return mail and permanently delete the copy you received.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Strickland, Rori <RStrickland@twrgrp.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Subject: Out of Office: CPCU/John R Pecoraro response to your October 13, 2011 letter

To: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com>

i am out of the office on oct 28 and will return on mon oct 31.  i will reply to your email upon my return.

thank you

Rori

 

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. This email is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return mail and permanently delete the copy you received.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Byrd, Chris <cbyrd@twrgrp.com>

Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Subject: Out of Office: CPCU/John R Pecoraro response to your October 13, 2011 letter

To: Ted Whidden <www.tedwhidden.com>

Hello,

I am currently out of the office and  I will be back on Tuesday 11/02/11

This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and/or CONFIDENTIAL. This email is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by return mail and permanently delete the copy you received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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