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.)


From: www.tedwhidden.com>

[mailto:The Desk of Ted Whidden]

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:44 AM
To: John Pecoraro

Cc: Pusey; Rori Strickland

; David Brill

Subject: Re: ACF1001306 Theodore & Kenneth Whidden v. Frank Delgado

Yera & Oliva

Delivery Service, Inc. d/l 08/29/10


John R Pecoraro



Please understand that fraud is a crime.  You have committed fraud multiple times.  Every one of your filings to the State Commissioner of Insurance includes fraud, elements of fraud, and attempted frauds.  In my September 2010 letters/emails to you I advised that losses would exceed all policy limits, and that your company's mishandling issues early on stood to increase the value of the claim substantially.  Now, you have committed multiple frauds in your attempt to use unlawful means to avoid liability (which is a fraud in itself).  Understand fraud typically has no statute of limitations, no limit of liability, and has nothing to do with the claim/liability.  This is a crime you committed that ADDS to your company's liabilities.  You have done an extremely poor job of protecting your company/client's interests.  Instead of limiting liability you have removed all limitations and opened up Pandora's box of options for us to pursue you and your company.  Mr. Pecoraro

, I advised you and your principles within 2-3 weeks of the incident to stop the pattern of abuses noted at that time.  Since then your parent company appears to have endorsed your illegal behavior making each of you personally, professionally, and corporately responsible.  The somewhat humorous part is that you have committed your frauds TO THE STATE agency that investigates and enforces this type of behavior.  If I wasn't writing a book about such stupid maneuvers and frauds by corporations I would have to start one now.  I think you will make history if you keep going in the direction you are going.  


In case you are concerned (which would be a change) the doctors have indicated I have permanent concussion/brain damage, and will have to undergo therapy to help cope.  Your frivolous pursuits have made this much more difficult than it needs to be.  You need to stop your abuses and games.  I fully expect your unlawful maneuvers to cost you and your company.  You need to advise your superiors and E&O of your problems otherwise risk increasing the losses and exposure more.


Your response to our correspondences leading to date demonstrate either severe incompetence on your part or extreme dishonesty. Please have the following read to you by someone who understands insurance, law, and the English language.  Your continued failure in these areas is not a defense.  The letters/endorsements behind your name would indicate to most people that you have knowledge in these areas.  They demonstrate a level of knowledge and responsbility, therefore the only thing left to destroy is your integrity and character, which you seem to do a very good job of.


Mr. Pecoraro

, you and your company represent commercial carriers in over the road trucking.  It seems more probable to those outside your organization that the vast majority of the losses/claims you are involved in regard a trucker hitting a citizen/consumer.  I do not know that I have ever heard of a car hitting an 18 wheeler, so the majority of your "claims" you see would seem to be wherein your assured/client is fully at fault.  Your hooligan tactics to offend the public make you an enemy to the consumer/citizen, and these are criminal acts you commit routinely as a matter of course in your daily business.


The incident that brought rise to my and your encounter involved a rear-end collision by a trucker charged with reckless driving.  He hit us from behind on a long, clear stretch of road and admitted at the scene to not having his eyes on the road leading to the accident.


Your creative (dishonest and deceptive) response of October 8, 2010 constitutes multiple counts of attempted fraud and fraud.  I will outline a few of them, but they have become far more complicated for you than ever before.  On several occasions (you refer to a "myriad of complaints") I have encouraged you to review your file giving you opportunity to amend your foolish stance.  On five or more times now it seems you have insulted me, your industry and the Commissioner of Insurance by filing your frauds and attempts at fraud to them.  You have complicated your frauds, attempts at fraud, and other charges by dropping the letters to the Commissioner in to the U.S. mail.  Pecoraro

!  Understand you are guilty of Federal Mail Fraud!!  Not only are you guilty of state, interstate, and federal frauds, but all those in your organization who participated in your correspondence and strategizing are party to the fraud.................You see incompetence and dishonesty seems to permiate virtually every correspondence I have received from your team.  Much of this began when I questioned the ability and integrity of those under your management, then you ramped up the deceptions!!    What a person is to do?  Where does it end with you?  I kept thinking sooner or later wisdom would prevail, but your deceptions continue.


Oddly, no reasonable person can see how you can deny liability in a rear-end collision. No matter what your reasoning is, your stance is absurd.  Your support for your stance constitutes attempts at fraud, to mislead and deceive to the ultimate end you desire which is denial of liability.  Your denial is actual, and is a perfection of your own fraud attempt. 


At this juncture any change of your claims stance based on a letter insulting you would serve to demonstrate you are manuevering to "miss" the fraud, thus it would be an admission of guilt.  You see the problem with fraud once committed is that you are incriminated any way you turn.  You REALLY need to advise your Errors and Omissions coverage underwriters as I told you to do in my September/October 2010 letters.  You are now operating in violation, and very likely they can avoid covering your legal costs because of late notification........Of course, as you should know "late notification" is only a defense for underwriters if it can be demonstrated that the late notification prejudiced their defenses.  You have indeed prejudiced their defenses........Further to this, you have incriminated your corporate parent (Tower Group and CastlePoint) because they have been held in copy throughout, and Tower Group's Lowell

Aptman endorsed your criminal behavior in his September 2010 letter..............Pecoraro

, your frauds remove statutes of limitations and limits of liability and the frauds should concern YOU and your principle.  They were not committed by your assured, they are fully yours financially, legally, etc.  This "loss" is not something you can pass on to your assured's loss record, and it may not be something you can pass on to the reinsurance market, PLUS your E&O may be off the hook as well.   You and your people need to get concerned.


Please allow me to outline some of your frauds herein using only the response below (and those documents which attach).


fraud One:  Frank R. Delgado

(Yera) and/or his company appear to have committed fraud at the scene of the accident by providing false insurance verifications.  Meanwhile, Delgado

(has been party to or has perpetrated a fraud) is your only witness in the accident.  His credibility and that of his company are already in question.  Their testimony is considered tainted or questionable at any rate.


fraud Two:  The insurance verification given by Delgado

at the accident indicated the truck/driver was covered by a specific Aequicap Property and Casualty policy, making Aequicap and their personnel potentially party to Delgado


Delivery Services fraud.


Attempted fraud:  Your handling of claim/case under "reservation of rights" is likely an unlawful (but common?) maneuver.  Do you understand the ramifications of this deception?


Improper Notification: In a panic to avoid good faith charges being reviewed by the Commissioner of Insurance your people arranged for David Brill

to attend.  We were only given 12-20 hours notice prior to arrival and Florida law requires you provide 48 hours.  Mr. Brill's investigation will consume much of the rest of this message, but is not the full extent of the weaknesses in your case.  Additional charges will be addressed later if need be.


Brill's investigation was for the express purpose of using a type/style of forensic research to determine if the truck/trailer rig I was driving was illuminated.  Mr. Brill's investigation clearly revealed that lights were illuminated at the time of incident, YET you state they were not.  This is fraud!  Not only did you commit attempts at fraud in your allegations lights were out, but when you state that Brill's report/testimony indicate lights were not illuminated is clearly a misuse of fact.  You have committed fraud.


Your denial of liability is an apparent attempt to maneuver the claim.  Maneuvering the claim in this manner is fraud and attempted fraud itself.  When you state something in an attempt to deceive, mislead, conceal, then you have committed fraud AGAIN! 


As we proceed we see numerous other attempts to deceive, mislead, conceal:

1)  The FHP officer comment, stating lights were not illuminated is an attempt at fraud.  The FHP report provided to you by me clearly states the FHP officer arrived 32 minutes after the wreck.  The comment is irrelevant, but you use it to try to add weight to your deception.

2)  The FHP officers did require the truck/trailer/wreckage be illuminated to depart the scene.  The lights clearly worked. Your statement to the contrary is either a mistake or there is some confusion on the party you received it from, or it appears you have lied again.  It is clear you are a liar, so there is no reason to trust anything you have said.  Repeatedly we have asked for someone with integrity to be appointed to handle this case.

3)  Irregardless of lights on or off, the fault in the rear-end collision belongs to your assured (the 18 wheeler operator).  The use of "lights on-lights off" discussion in itself is an attempt to deceive, mislead, and conceal and constitutes a fraud on its own.

4)  The statement you use regarding Brill's report blocking the tail-lights of the truck may be an attempt at fraud.  Obviously, you are trying to mislead the recipients or anyone reading your response that the truck lights are "material".  Your statement ignores the fact that the trailer lights were not obscurred, and proved by Brill's investigation to be illuminated.  Your use of "blocking of tail-lights" (which is likely a lie at any rate) in itself is an attempt to mislead, deceive or conceal.........Pecoraro

all of your handling is plagued with frauds.

5)  John, your reference to my "possession" of the trucks, trailer, and wreckage is a warm up to your next set of frauds.  It is an attempt at fraud.  Meanwhile, the next set of frauds you commit IN YOUR FILING to the STATE COMMISSIONER!  You not only continue this pattern of fraud, you appear to have no respect for law enforcement or insurance practice.  (Eventually you state that I do not own any vehicle in the wreck.  This is clearly a lie and fraud on your part.  I sent you copy of the registration, FHP report and other such information was sent to your claims people early on.  They would likely not have it otherwise because their investigation was so weak.)


Allow me to outline some of your frauds in your first filing to the State Commissioner.  At this point you have made about 5 filings to the State Commissioner and then placed them in the mail.  These not only constitute fraud, but when you mailed them to me you and your Pusey

posse committed Federal Mail fraud.  Your entire organization is now implicated, and since Florida ethics law requires all licensed personnel to report any and all criminal violations to which they are aware, then your people are party by way of that law/connection.


In your "Amended Response" (October 13, 2010) to the Commissioner of Insurance/Financial Services Division of the State of Florida:

fraud One: The day and date of the accident is incorrect.  We have corrected this numerous times for you, and advised you to review your file and the documents we submitted to you.  You have failed, not only perpetuating the fraud, but demonstrating lack of proper investigation in the process.  Whoever fed this information to you is party to your fraud.  Those who copied this type/style of error (such as Lowell

Aptman and Michael Lee

and Monica Sturm

) are party to your fraud and attempt.


Reporting times and discussions appear in error.  This could be the result of ignorance, incompetence, or dishonesty.  All are readily apparent throughout the dealings and correspondence with your company.  I was advised by your claims people (Rori Strickland

/Pusey) within the first 2 weeks that your intention is/was to deny covering the claim to/for your principle/assured for late reporting.  It looks like you are holding on to this incorrect date despite many, many advices otherwise to cause your denial/fraud to be made evident later.  Otherwise, why wouldn't the simplest of investigations reveal and correct the date.  Your maneuvers at every level appear devious.  Fortunately, one of your claims people indicated early on this was the plan.


Attempt at fraud: Your reference advising that is your "understanding" that none of the vehicles in the accident belong to the driver (Theodore Whidden) is clearly an attempt to erode the interest of the victim.  It is a lie stated from a position of "understanding" to hide the fraud.  This is an attempt to deceive, conceal, mislead, meanwhile the FHP report and vehicle registration provided to you clearly indicates I am the owner of the blazer, and your opinion and understanding is not really worth that much to anyone at this point. You were sent registration paperwork within 3-4 weeks of the wreck. You should never have made this mistake.  Improper investigation.   Your insurance/license endorsements should cause you to be held to a higher standard, but your tactics are brutalizing citizens and appear to be "endorsed" by both your corporate parents and the State Insurance Commissioner (if they allow this to occur/continue).


In paragraph 3 of Pecoraro

's first letter to the Commissioner he addresses the trucker's statement.  Meanwhile, Pecoraro

knows the truck driver/company provided false insurance verification at the scene of the wreck.  Their credibility is already in question/investigation, and effectively there are no credible third party witnesses to the wreck, nor credible insurance/claims personnel seen to be working on the file.  The incident and handling is riddled with fraud.



repeats his frivolous stance/statement:  "We retained an accident reconstruction expert to inspect the Blazer, trailer and Porsche, and based on his inspection, it is our position this trailer was not illuminated or visible while being operated on the interstate."..............This is clearly fraud.  The "reconstruction expert" is a retired FHP officer and hopefully will understand and recognize the use of fraud.  He is now party to fraud.  If he indeed backs up Pecoraro

's LIE, then we reserve the right to use the recordings of Brill's attendance, and encourage him to retain those recordings he made.  These people were clearly informed that a fraud case was underway prior to Brill's assignment and arrival.  Further they were notified at the time of attendance and thereafter that all conversations were being recorded.  NOW, if Brill sides with Pecoraro

, then Brill himself is committing fraud.  If Brill tells the truth, then his client who committed the fraud is clearly on the hook for his own crime.



further states:  "And based on the dimensions of the Porsche, the taillights on the Blazer were blocked from view. There are no known disinterested witnesses, and the investigating FHP officer confirmed the trailer taillights were not on when he arrived on the scene."

These are repeated attempts at fraud from Pecoraro

's October 8, 2010 email (see below).  Since ultimately the insurance company will be held responsible to validate these statements it would be wise to retain an identical blazer, Porsche, and trailer for reconstruction.  It seems clear that the statements of the "expert" are being embellished.  The blocking of the lights may lack proper reconstruction, and is not even relevant since the trailer lights were visible, not blocked and demonstrated illuminated by Brill's testing.  Brill's testing was the express reason for his attendance and you have ignored his findings because it did not go the way you wanted.  Fraud!  (The discussion of the "blocking of the tail-lights" of the truck is in itself a fraud, since the trailer tested as illuminated making truck lights potentially irrelevant in the discussion.)



is clearly guilty of numerous frauds, attempts at fraud, and other legal offenses.  His stance of denying liability is in itself an attempt at fraud, and there are numerous frauds and attempts he uses to support this frivolous position.  I will be encouraging law enforcement to investigate this particular behavior and all past behavior if necessary.


At this juncture I would like to move forward with my life as likely would all others.  Doctors advise me the brain damage from the wreck now appears permanent.  I want to move on. 



, Pusey

, and Strickland

 are unfit to be any part of future negotiations.  Pecoraro

appears to be a menace to society and a poses a huge criminal risk to consumers in vulnerable situations.


As a first step it would be encouraging to see him dismissed from his position and the company, and to see the State of Florida strip him of his licenses and professional titles.  As we have a new Commissioner of Insurance/Finance, and you snubbed your nose at the last one, it would make a strong demonstration of dedication to public good to have you removed from practice.  Of course failing to do this in light of the evidence would bring undue attention to the Office of Finance for the State.  At some point, a level headed person will be able to see that instead of mitigating exposure..  It is all about risk management.


Clearly, Pecoraro

would prefer to keep his criminal activity hidden from those around him, but this and other unlawful activity implicates all those held in copy.  Out of respect for them and the possibility that wisdom will prevail I hold them all in copy..........Despite his request to keep his criminal activity private.....Isn't THAT an attempt to conceal?  fraud again!


I gave you plenty of chances to change your tactics.  You entrenched in the unlawful.  Have someone from your parent company contact me to resolve this issue.






P.S.  John,  since you responded to the "myriad of complaints" you committed fraud each time, multiple counts, multiple ways.  You put them in the mail (or had them put in the mail) making it federal mail fraud.  This does not look like something an intelligent, honest, professional would do.



On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:57 PM, John Pecoraro wrote:

Mr. Whidden, I have your letters dated September 19 and October 1, 2010 written to Tower Group and AequiCap Claim Services. Pursuant to your request, I am emailing you our response to your most recent correspondence.    


According to my review of the claim file, you were correctly informed early on by both AequiCap Claim Representatives that there is a coverage issue involved in this claim.  The coverage issue has to do with the Truck driven by Mr. Yera not being listed on the policy.  As a result, we commenced our investigation, and are continuing to handle this claim under a reservation of rights as to the Truckers liability policy.  During the course of our investigation, we determined this Truck was on an interstate commerce trip hauling goods under Oliva

Delivery Services Motor Carrier Authority.  There is an MCS-90 endorsement separately attached to the Truckers policy, and as such, this endorsement will afford coverage for this interstate commerce trip.  A Coverage Disclosure Affidavit and copy of the policy was sent to your  former legal representative, Mr. Coy Browning.


As you know, we had an appraiser assess the damage to the 1993 Chevy Blazer, 16' trailer, and 1986 Porsche that was on the trailer at the time of this crash.  We also retained Mr. David Brill

, who is a certified accident reconstructionist, and with your permission he inspected both vehicles and the trailer.  We took a statement from the Truck driver and obtained your version of the accident as well.  As you know, there were no known disinterested witnesses to this accident, and the FHP officer that handled this accident neither observed the trailer lights being on when he arrived at the scene, nor did he test whether they were working. And according to Mr. Brill's inspection, the dimensions of the Porsche blocked the view of the Blazer's taillights.       


Based on the results of our investigation, it is our position this trailer was not illuminated or visible while being operated on this dark, unlighted section of I-10, and that this lack of illumination was the cause of this accident. As a result, we are herewith denying liability for this claim.  Finally, according to the police report, you are not listed as the owner of the Chevy Blazer or trailer that was damaged in this accident.  However, since you have possession of the Blazer and trailer, and you advised us Mr. Browning is not representing you or your brother, this denial applies to all claims, including your brother's bodily injury claim and property damage claim for the damage to his 1986 Porsche. 


Mr. Whidden, if you feel compelled to respond to this email, I respectfully ask that you please direct all correspondence exclusively to my attention and also refrain from making defamatory comments. 


Thank you.


John R. Pecoraro


Vice President, Claims

AequiCap, Inc.

954-493-6565 ext 572

954-938-8689 fax




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