www.FraudDocumentation.com   

 

Home

RICO Act Violation

Buy the Book, Fraud: The Unforgivable Crime

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  

Base Document Held

 

Per mandate of the Court I am reporting to the Jackson County Probation office (Office of Judge Mercer) this morning, 8/5/2015.   I would like to take this opportunity to properly place the Court and State’s Attorney’s office on notice.

Your use of probation, warrants based on inaccurate police reporting, poor witness character/credibility, and lack of evidence constitutes Abuse of Process, Criminal Mischief, and a host of issues and potential charges/claims against the County, State, and Court.  I will outline some of this as we go, meanwhile understand your warrant, arrest, and detainment is/was likely unlawful, and anything/everything stemming from that is compromised.   Understand also that I work/travel out of area on short notice for extended periods of time.  For the duration of your frivolous pursuits I must take my name out of rotation for work, and thus there is substantial financial loss/duress created by your unlawful pursuits.  I reserve the right to charge the County, State, and Court system my lost income should there be any, plus expenses as it relates to this abuse.  As the State’s Attorney office appears distracted by the wrong part of this case, I would anticipate the true predator, Jennifer Slay, will likely go unpunished, because if the case can be redirected the State’s Attorney will fiddle around until I am off on a worthwhile business pursuit and unable to attend.

Note:

1)      The original “Warrant” is based on false charges.

A)     The State has no indication or evidence of theft whatsoever.

B)      The State has failed to investigate the reports of stolen property being housed within the property of the complainant.

C)      The State and their agents failed to comply with Court order for removal of said “property” alleged stolen.

D)     By failing to comply with Court order the State and their agent lost the ability to control and record items inventoried before, during or after any alleged intervention or acts.

E)      By failing to comply with Court order the State and their agent compromised rights of the property owner.

F)      By failing to comply with Court order the State and their agent may have facilitated thefts and crimes.

G)     By failing to comply with Court order the State and their agent covered the evidence of crimes previously reported.

2)      The original “Warrant” was based on a person unlawfully storing belongings on my property.  There is therefore no theft.  There are/were multiple dwellings/residences involved, with no record authorizing any use.

3)      The original “Warrant” is based on an undisclosed, unidentified, imprecise, inaccurate accounting of what was or was not at the property.

4)      The original “Warrant” based on frivolous foundation was for a felony level of charges unsubstantiated by value or by any other means. 

5)      The ownership of material stored at the property is/was never established.  The State and law enforcement had been duly advised of thefts from within the property that may have been mixed within the housing/contents.  The State and their agent’s facilitation in the theft of property from my land may constitute a crime facilitated by the State against a land owner fully within their rights.

6)      The intrusion on my property by the State and/or their agent counter to the Court order constitutes at a minimum;

A)     Trespassing

B)      Theft

C)      Collusion

D)     Unlawful Access, Entry, Search, and Seizure.

7)      A

The unlawful detainment (July 29/30, 2015) of Mr. Whidden may constitute reckless endangerment among other things.  As the arrest and detainment was unlawful foundationally at its inception, and an unnecessary detainment occurred, the State and their agents put the detainee at undue risk.  Note:  The file of the detainee clearly states that the detainee is subject to respiratory acidosis triggering nervous disorder issues and potentially seizures, PTSD, stemming from TBI/concussion issues.  Breathing irregularities for the detainee posts a number of risks which were not respected at any time during detainment.  Specifically every single guard at the jail was asked to provide aspirin and explained that it was needed as a blood thinner to facilitate oxygen to the brain.   The detainee requested numerous times to see the doctor/medic to discuss and obtain aspirin.  Each time the request was denied.  Upon speaking to the medic/paramedic/”doctor” at the time of departure from the facility the detainee discussed and advised of the respiratory acidosis condition which he has/had no understanding, knowledge or foundation.  If he has a clue what it is at the present time would be because he looked it up.  Failure to take due caution given the condition of the detainee in to consideration is a failure on the jail’s part at a minimum.  It also brings into question the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  Throughout the process I have been treated as a criminal, when in fact the State has no evidence for a case.  It is a baseless case.

The complainant in my case clearly has a number of credibility issues, character flaws, and holes in their story;

1)      The complainant alleges a lock was placed on a gate denying her access to the property.

2)      Apparently neither the complainant, nor the State or their agents have determined who added that lock, when precisely it happened, or how it came to be, or its purpose.

3)      The complainant (as known by the State Attorney’s office and should be evident in their file) sent a text message to the land owner stating that she had a “game” of her own for retaliation using law enforcement as a pawn in her ruse immediately before the “lock” appears to have shown up.  The State’s Complainant is playing a game of her own making, and fucking the State and the landowner around for sport.

4)      The first notice to the property owner of a “lock” on the gate was made by phone call from David Weeks of West Florida Electric Co-Op.  His records should indicate thusly.

A)     The point above brings a unique perspective.  As seen in any/many hunting leases, shared property accesses, etc those who “know” they have access to a chained gate simply cut the chain and place their own lock.

B)      WFECA did not question their right or access, but rather informed the landowner as a courtesy that they were installing a lock on a chained gate.  Apparently this is the process several of the owners took.

C)      If the “complainant” or her legal advisors at any point “really” thought she had lawful access then cutting the chain and adding a lock is simple.

D)     Note:  The second or third lock on the gate appears to be that of WFECA.

i)                    I anticipate the State is prosecuting WFECA for having a lock on the gate/chain as well, aren’t you?

ii)                   The WFECA lock appears to be the only lock with ownership identified.

iii)                 There are four locks on the gate at this time as I was told it has been since May 2015.  The last lock installed on the chain is the land owner.  Please advise the precise ownership and order of attachment of all the locks on the gate.

iv)                 Fortunately, for the State the WFECA lock and records can determine a timeline for the locks on the gate.  If the State would conduct an investigation they would find this record.

v)                  Fortunately, for the State the WFECA lock and records will determine that the locks/gate is/was likely a retaliatory move by the complainant against the owner to fulfill her “game”, otherwise what other “Game” maneuvers were made.

vi)                 The above will indicate the complaint has no merit, the complainant has corrupted any case of the State, and the State is pursuing a frivolous matter, because the State is too stupid to see they are being used by a criminal to harass a landowner.

E)      The first lock (as it appears)(presumed to be owned and operated by the complainant herself) has never been demonstrated to belong to the land owner.

F)      There are 4-5 dwellings on/near the property, with several buildings onsite, there is no way to determine who, when, why someone perceived the need or interest to put a lock on the gate.  The complainant in playing their game and trying to get someone’s attention has the greatest motive…………(Very likely it has not and is not playing out as they wished, but the State supporting the criminal in this instance can’t see they are a puppet for abuse.)

5)      One of the locks on the gate could just as well belong to persons of the employ of the County/Sheriff’s Department, so prosecution of the Sheriff’s Department may be required as well.

A)     Investigation in to the existence of an “Equine Rescue” in Jackson County will reveal there is not one.

B)      Jackson County often depends on Washington County for Equine rescue, especially donkeys.

C)      If one should call Jackson County rescue for a donkey issue, they would be referred to Washington County, who would most likely refer you to Mr. Whidden. 

D)     Mr. Whidden would refer you to the property on Pollywog Lane for dropping off Equine or Donkeys.

E)      The County has recently used the property for one white male donkey on or about March 2015, so the complainant was not the only jack ass to come to the property.

F)      The County’s use of the property for their Equine Rescue would pose a hazard to children (Child Endangerment) should children be present.  Any parent that would subject themselves and their children to that are putting their children at risk.

i)                    While on the subject of childhood endangerment:

a)      The State/County has been advised of active, ongoing illicit drug manufacture on the property at Pollywog lane.

b)      Evidence and run off from the illicit drug production has been on the ground, and flowing while the complainant squatted the property.

c)       The mere existence of raw sewage on the ground poses a risk to child endangerment.

d)      The crystal meth remnants on the ground poses a risk to children.

e)      The sewage lines were detached from the house when the complainant arrived to “clean” for the land owner.  The sewage lines went thru a number of changes in the weeks to follow the initiation of squatting.

f)       The sewage line once reinstalled new collapsed under the weight of the lithium batteries, plastics, garbage, and shit coming from the toilet of Jennifer Slay (complainant).

g)      The septic tank was inspected, pumped by a contractor, then “clean-out” was diverted to the ground to see what was causing the problem.  Raw sewage was on the ground, and clearly an ongoing dumping problem from the dwelling.  Hazardous material was on the ground which came from the dwelling.  The landlord could not keep up with the destruction of property.

h)      The back steps of the property which was under construction when the complainant squatted the property poses a risk to the children.

i)        Livestock management and dumping of risky animals by the County poses a risk of danger to the children.

j)        The complainant’s use of the property for housing, maneuvering, and/or liquidating stolen property poses a risk to the children.

k)      The complainant forced her children to carry raw sewage in buckets.

l)        The complainant forced her children to live in a place without running water.

m)    The complainant forced her children to live in a place without electricity.

n)      The complainant under her conditions of unlawful habitation was found to be unable to maintain power (electricity) to the property, which by default halted any water use.

o)      Complainant will likely accuse someone else of interrupting her services.  Interesting approach, but…………What did she do with service issues?  Why?

p)      Child Protective services need to be involved because of the squatter/complainant’s own statements she failed to sufficiently provide safe housing, services, etc, and in so doing perpetually endangers her children.

q)      The complainant was ordered to leave the property as a trespasser and for failing to maintain any aspect of normal habitation.  She was notified as a trespasser, because there are/were no other documents stipulating her permission or existence. .  She was notified that her unlawful activity was not to be conducted at the property (A condition of normal tenancy under the Laws of the State of Florida.)

r)       The State must understand that the unlawful habitation by the complainant and the unlawful nature of their activities would make the landowner liable for these gross negligence issues to the children.  These gross negligence issues were brought on in large part by the complainant and complainant’s irregular nature of her demand for dwelling use/access.

ii)                   a

6)      The complainant has developed a unique problem for herself and those who try to represent her;

A)     If she is/was squatting without right, then she has no rights.

B)      If squatting then the State has no authority for the “Grand Theft” charge as it is “caca de vaca”. (Drop the charge)

C)      If squatting then the State for this and other reasons (some stated above) has no basis for any extenuating charges for “denial” of access to belongings.  More “caca de vaca”.  (Drop the charge)

D)     Clearly based on the points above the State’s case is baseless, without merit, and constitutes harassment. (Drop the charges)

E)      In order to establish a “tenancy” there are four conditions of contract (Basic Law 101), terms, receipts, etc which the State has no ability to establish. (Drop the charges)

F)      In order to establish tenancy the “tenant” must have changed driver’s license, paid bills in their name, etc.  There is no such indication. (Drop the charges)

G)     In some cases the State erroneously accepts a “letter” or mail as an indication that a person has a right of tenancy.  Meanwhile, we can see the State makes a lot of mistakes.  At this point the State has fouled this up so bad that the State or the Complainant herself could have sent themselves mail to an absentee road front mailbox to establish this.  Again, there is no basis to establish tenancy by sending mail to a roadside mailbox of a deserted dwelling.

H)     If/when the complainant attempts the mail presence route to establish tenancy I would like to file Mail Fraud charges as they apply in the case.  (Drop the charges)

I)        If the State “proves” a “Landlord-Tenant” situation, then they gain nothing, because the missed the focus/point of the denial of access, so with or without Landlord-Tenant the State has no case. 

J)       The State is basing “Tenancy” on a rather weak set of facts that in no regard supports their case.  The case and pursuit is frivolous.  Meanwhile in order for the State to even present a “Landlord-Tenant” argument then the complainant must establish their own terms and conditions of a lease.  These terms and conditions of the lease must be plausible within the income level and cash flows of the tenant, or the tenant has committed Felony Fraud by moving in and “contracting” on any terms which they were unable or unwilling to fulfill.

K)      If she is/was a “tenant” under the laws of the State of Florida, then she is chargeable (and I INSIST a second time) that she committed a Felony Fraud by moving in to a place without the ability or intention to pay rent.   She is chargeable on her own terms and can be convicted without input, or attendance by the landowner.  She is about to convict herself.  She should not be allowed to get off due to the extenuating circumstances (harassment) of the owner by the State.  The State is remiss in seeing this aspect of tenancy and should begin to prosecute.  This would make a fine example as these types of predators are using the State to abuse landowners.

L)       The State will learn in many/most situations these days when a tenant moves in without any intention to pay then there are illegal drugs used and in production.  Often they seek loose terms of tenancy with no intention to fulfill.  They leave no way to point the “meth” mess back to them.  If the State/County would get their focus corrected they could use landlord-tenant violations and the “Felony Fraud” for tenancy without intention to pay for a whole host of investigations into the improprieties of these people.  Understand these are calculated implementations of Fraud by these people.  They do it repeatedly because the State/County apparently do not understand there is another worthwhile aspect to “Landlord-Tenant” in protecting the landowner, taxpayer, voter.

M)   For the “Sake of Good Order” verification of the deadbeat tenant to drug use and felony behavior local law enforcement can cite:  Mike and Ike Whittington, Joshua Miller, Bobby and Lucy Dunaway, Craig Rountree, Dixie Ford, and a host more that the landowner has advised the County/State of.  The State eventually prosecuted each.  Jennifer Slay is no different in her approach or implementation of her ruse.

The State’s pursuit of me for defending myself from a predator has no merit and is baseless.  The State is wasting time and resources pursuing a frivolous case filed by someone who admittedly is playing a game with the State.  If the State continues this fruitless pursuit then clearly they are enamored with the complainant as a client, and partying with them in thei

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 2016, All rights reserved by Ted Whidden