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  

Florida Filing 181942

Jessie Stalnaker, was one of the officers in attendance alongside the road for the wreck of 0005 hours, August 29, 2010.  Stalnaker is said to have written the report of incident or FHP report.

Review of the FHP report indicates the report of incident was written up based on what the victims in shock indicated happened in the wreck.  The highway markings, skid marks, etc show a bit of a different story and an accurate road study/report that a more dynamic set of events occurred than recorded in the FHP report.

Stalnaker is said to be acquainted with the forensic accident expert, David Brill, who was appointed on behalf of Aequicap.  David Brill apparently visited with Stalnaker following the wreck, and is likely when/where the underwriter representation, John Pecoraro, claims to have obtained statements from the FHP officer.  David Brill's meeting was clearly recorded by both himself and the victim, and his testimony has been greatly misused by either himself or his client it would appear, because his taped discussion and their report of the results is vastly different demonstrating an attempt at fraud and fraud itself. It is anticipated that similar manipulation of testimony of Stalnaker will occur in the hands of the insurance claims personnel.  Stalnaker may have been compromised as a witness by way of his connection and relationship to David Brill.

It appears that John R. Pecoraro has mis-directed and misrepresented pertinent aspects of David Brill's report, study, or attendance, and it is anticipated that the FHP officer's testimony may be similarly twisted or affected by Pecoraro and his team.  Meanwhile, throughout the first several months of the case discussion the Aequicap/Tower Group team have failed to acknowledge and accept the simplest detail of the FHP report.  They continue to miss day, date, and time as well as other material fact, either through failure to properly investigate or through willful and knowingly committing fraud.  Significant errors and omissions have been pointed out to the claims team within the first 3 weeks of the incident (August 29, 2010 incident) and since, which they have failed to address.  These facts come from the original FHP report to which the claims team for Aequicap/CastlePoint/Tower Group have all ignored.  How they can use the FHP officer as a witness and ignore his base report is a bit of a mystery, unless it is intentional attempts to conceal, misrepresent and that would likely indicate a pattern of fraud.

Unfortunately, Aequicap contact with the FHP officer has likely tainted his ability to be used as a proper witness.

Mr. Jessie Stalnaker appears to have a "hobbie" of studying ancient American Indian artifacts.  Stalnaker spent a substantial amount of time with the victim the night of the accident discussion his passion of Paleo-Indian Archaeology or something to that effect.  Stalnaker showed the wreck victim arrowheads, pictures, discussed diving, speaking engagements and a wide host of his personal interests in this field.  In fact, there were a number of officers at the wreck/site the night of August 29, 2010.  The officers argued over who would take Mr. Whidden (Theodore L. Whidden) in to town and onwards to the hospital to pick up his brother.  When Mr. Stalnaker threw his hat in the ring vying for the opportunity to spend some time with the victim, the other officers backed off and allowed it.  Officer Stalnaker spoke at length with the victim about archaeology, and in short about the victim's recollection of the events of the wreck, including but not limited to the victims recollection and understanding of the events.  The FHP report seems to be a reasonably simple reproduction of what the victim shared immediately post accident while in shock, but may not be accurate in the details as it has been reflected on and evidenced.  Surely, a victim in shock could/would miss a detail or two.  The road study presently available sheds a substantial amount of light on the subject.

To this point it seems that every Civil Remedy Filing we have made (and there are a "myriad" of them according to some) has been responded to by the claims manager John R. Pecoraro who is clearly dishonest and incompetent as has been demonstrated in previous filings wherein the simplest of details such as day, date and time are confused by him 9 months after the wreck.  Pecoraro is clearly guilty of knowingly and willingly committing fraud as a course of his normal behavior and sticking to his frivolous and devious stance once it is revealed.  John Pequeno is clearly a toxic asset to the claim and potentially to the companies he works for.  His continued involvement after his introduction (October 8, 2010) is clearly bad faith claims handling, and shows lack of good faith, as his first frauds, lies, and deceptions were made at his late introduction.  In anticipation of continued bad faith interactions with the deviant John R. Pecoraro, I ask that each recipient to the Civil Remedy Filings of this date respond on their own.  It is everyone's best interest for the toxic effect of Pecoraro to be fully exposed and removed.  His continued existence is actually a proof of lack of good faith...............Pecoraro's assignment as claims manager was presumably to manage risk.  What Pecoraro has done is MUSHROOM the risk.  He has set an unwinnable course of action with an ever increasing cost and exposure.  Early resolution is in everyone's best interest.  Very soon all correspondence, evidence, recordings, etc will begin to be released for public viewing at www.FraudDocumentation.com .  As advised to the Board of Directors on March 23, 2011, this can be handled privately or publicly.  The choice has always been available to the responsible company, yet they chose to behave as thugs and deviants. (The March 23, 2011 notice to the Board of Directors as well as all other correspondence is being made available for viewing at www.FraudDocumentation.com .

It seems the tactic exercised by claims personnel concerning the incident listed above are attempting what appears to be an age old insurance trick to deny a claim (frivolously?) which is clearly bad faith, and have gone so far as to lie to support their stance (fraud)They have knowingly and willingly concealed and misrepresented information and material fact and recently have insisted the only course of action is litigation in court.  Meanwhile notice has been given to their board of directors who have failed to intervene, thus making the claims manager, board of directors, and all those party to this file guilty of both Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.  The clear case of fraud to avoid the responsibility is compounded by the outrageous, extreme, intentional, and reckless.   There is a clear pattern of repetitive abuses, to our vulnerable position, while the claims personnel failed in their duties to provide good faith handling, and to the contrary committed fraud.  Each member of the board of directors for failing to properly act/intervene are at the least party to the fraud and guilty of negligent infliction of emotional distress by failing to act.




Not attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests.
624.155(1)(b)(2) Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made.
624.155(1)(b)(3) Except as to liability coverages, failing to promptly settle claims, when the obligation to settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
624.401(1) No person shall act as an insurer, and no insurer or its agents, attorneys, subscribers, or representatives shall directly or indirectly transact insurance, in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to the insurer by the office, except as to such transactions as are expressly otherwise provided for in this code.
624.401(2) No insurer shall from offices or by personnel or facilities located in this state solicit insurance applications or otherwise transact insurance in another state or country unless it holds a subsisting certificate of authority issued to it by the office authorizing it to transact the same kind or kinds of insurance in this state.
624.401(3) This state hereby preempts the field of regulating insurers and their agents and representatives; and no county, city, municipality, district, school district, or political subdivision shall require of any insurer, agent, or representative regulated under this code any authorization, permit, or registration of any kind for conducting transactions lawful under the authority granted by the state under this code.
624.401(4)(a) Any person who acts as an insurer, transacts insurance, or otherwise engages in insurance activities in this state without a certificate of authority in violation of this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



































































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