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.
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
E) By failing
to comply with Court order the State and their agent compromised rights of the
F) By failing
to comply with Court order the State and their agent may have facilitated thefts
G) By failing to
comply with Court order the State and their agent covered the evidence of crimes
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.
The original “Warrant” is based on an undisclosed, unidentified,
imprecise, inaccurate accounting of what was or was not at the property.
The original “Warrant” based on frivolous foundation was for a felony
level of charges unsubstantiated by value or by any other means.
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
The intrusion on my property by the State and/or their agent counter to
the Court order constitutes at a minimum;
Access, Entry, Search, and Seizure.
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;
The complainant alleges a lock was placed on a gate denying her access to
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.
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.
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 anticipate the State is prosecuting WFECA for having a lock on the
gate/chain as well, aren’t you?
The WFECA lock appears to be the only lock with ownership identified.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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.
in to the existence of an “Equine Rescue” in Jackson County will reveal there is
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
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.
While on the subject of childhood endangerment:
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
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.
management and dumping of risky animals by the County poses a risk of danger to
complainant’s use of the property for housing, maneuvering, and/or liquidating
stolen property poses a risk to the children.
complainant forced her children to carry raw sewage in buckets.
complainant forced her children to live in a place without running water.
complainant forced her children to live in a place without electricity.
complainant under her conditions of unlawful habitation was found to be unable
to maintain power (electricity) to the property, which by default halted any
will likely accuse someone else of interrupting her services. Interesting
approach, but…………What did she do with service issues? Why?
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.
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.
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
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
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
"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