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  

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 14th

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 15-276CF

State of Florida

                v.

Theodore L Whidden

                Defendant.

_______________________________/

 

DEFAMATION (PHOTO)

 

TRESPASS (PHOTO)

 

RACKETEERING

 

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

 

VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

 

BROADCASTING PERSONAL INFORMATION

 

TERRORISM/DOMESTIC TERRORISM

 

RACKETEERING

 

FALSE LIGHT

 

UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE

 

COUNTERFEITING

 

EXTORTION

 

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

 

This filing is made “Pro Se” by the undersigned in hopes that the State Court as listed above and the Honorable Judge Shonna May can intervene in the train wreck of malicious prosecution attempted by the State/County in this case, and redirect to the appropriate authorities. 

The Defendant as a victim of a host of crimes by the State and County does not feel safe doing business within Jackson County or their Courts.  A wide array of deceptions, conspiracies and corruption has been uncovered.  If the Judge/Court was unaware of the runaway corruption within this Court and its officers, then it is now being made aware through this and numerous other filings.

Apparently the STATE, the JUDGE, the COURT, and/or the Public Defender (??) office does not feel comfortable going forward with this case, noting specifically:

1)      There is unlawful, unwarranted targeting and tracking of the Defendant in the Courthouse.  For some reason some of the predator prosecutorial types apparently have found it necessary to place the Undersigned on a “watch list” of some kind.  Note Appendix A public posting of Detainee Photo of the Undersigned.

A)     The image attached is/was posted on the back of the XRAY machine at the entrance to the Jackson County Courthouse, Marianna, Florida.

B)      Photo was for the eyes of law enforcement (and anyone who walked in to the clerks office).

C)      The photo has two phone numbers on it.  One belongs to the Defendant.  The other phone number belongs to Guy Green, 850-526-8406

D)     The photo constitutes DEFAMATION for posting/broadcasting such a photo and the fear that is likely created.

E)      This Photograph specifically solicits misinterpretation as there is no attempt to interpret or diffuse the criminal targeting of the State/County.  The photograph is specifically posted for ambiguous reasons, therefore any interpretation is incorrect as there is no accurate explanation.

F)      The posting is a clear and present danger creating reckless endangerment of all those who see it, and/or all future business of the subject of the photo.

G)     The image in many ways appears to be a “wanted poster” (or wanted sign) which is a poster distributed to let the public know of an alleged criminal whom authorities wish to apprehend. They will generally include either a picture of the alleged criminal when a photograph is available, or of a facial composite image produced by police.

H)      

2)      TRESPASS:  This is an independent cause of action that can be asserted whether on not violation of the right of privacy occurs. “Trespass” is defined as any intentional entry onto the property of another without consent. There must be an affirmative, intentional act, but it is not necessary to show damage as a result of the act. If consent for such entry is induced by deceit or misrepresentation, and the consent would not have been given but for such deceit or misrepresentation, the consent is void. The plaintiff who can show trespass is entitled to actual damages, but if actual damages cannot be proved, the plaintiff is still entitled to “nominal” damages which enables the plaintiff also to receive punitive damages if it can be shown that the trespasser acted in willful or malicious disregard of the rights of others. A photographer may be civilly and criminally liable in trespass if he or she enters on private property without the permission of the owner in order to take a photograph, even if no photograph is taken.

3)      Racketeering:  The Court and Court Officers/agents are creating an unsafe environment in my world, in the County, in the Court, and in all manner of speaking.   They are creating unwarranted, undue pressures while requiring that I return to the area.  This YO-YO effect of creating false or perceived pressures and liabilities while requiring me to do business in a hostile environment is RACKETEERING.  The Court is functioning like a mafia or mob rule of threat of pressure only they can bring and only they can relieve.

4)      Reckless Endangerment:  The Criminal Mischief and Prosecutorial Misconduct under the “Color of Law” constitutes Reckless Endangerment.

5)      Violation of the Oath of Office:  The Criminal nature and behavior of the Court and Officials of the Court is outside the Oath of Office to protect and serve each and every member of the Court.

6)      Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:  The Court and Court officials are knowingly, with forethought, committing willful and wanton abuses of the Defendant, their office, their appointment, their oath.  It is a Criminal Conspiracy and RICO Statute set of violations that is endangering and tormenting the Defendant.  Meanwhile, the STATES ATTORNEY has indicated they think the Defendant is mentally disturbed or tormented.  Whether true or not, the State and their Agent have acknowledged they are knowingly messing with someone they believe to be impaired.  (RICO Act: Chapter 825)

7)      Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress:  The Court and Court officials are knowingly, with forethought, committing willful and wanton abuses of the Defendant, their office, their appointment, their oath.  It is a Criminal Conspiracy and RICO Statute set of violations that is endangering and tormenting the Defendant.  Meanwhile, the STATES ATTORNEY has indicated they think the Defendant is mentally disturbed or tormented.  Whether true or not, the State and their Agent have acknowledged they are knowingly messing with someone they believe to be impaired.  (RICO Act: Chapter 825)

8)    RICO Act Statutes relating to the case at this juncture include but are not limited to:

A)     Chapter 825, relating to abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult.

B)      Section 836.05, relating to extortion.

C)      Chapter 837, relating to perjury.

D)     Chapter 838, relating to bribery and misuse of public office.

E)      Chapter 843, relating to obstruction of justice.

F)      Sections 914.22 and 914.23, relating to tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant, and retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant.

 

9)      Many would assert that aggression of this nature is always an illegitimate encroachment upon another individual's life, liberty, or property, or attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained.

10)   The defamation and posting of the image with or without the text is an unsolicited intervention by others, either to prevent society from being harmed by the individual’s actions or to prevent an incompetent individual from being harmed by his or her own (in)actions.  No matter, this is an unlawful intrusion or Trespass.

11)    

 

Counterfeiting and Extortion:

The corruption within the County and Officials precludes the expectation of reasonable safety and fair trial in this venue.

The corruption of multiple state and county agencies working together on this ruse likely makes this Court subject to Federal oversights and protections for the Defendant.   The case likely belongs in Federal Court now.

The State lacks a case of substance and appears to be going to irregular lengths at Extortion to further their Criminal Conspiracy, their Scheme to Defraud and other such issues listed herein and elsewhere.  The State clearly lacks substance to try this case in Court, and are playing a dangerous game with the freedom of others.   A request for Emergency Change of Venue is made to protect all those involved, including the Defendant who has been subjected to numerous criminal offenses as outlined in the States Attorney file and elsewhere.  The FBI, FDLE, Attorney General and others should quickly see the abuses outlined.

                The State (States Attorney office) partnering with the State (Public Defender Office) to cause undue harm to a citizen causes the State Court to lose jurisdiction and authority.  This is now a Federal matter and it is mandated that this Court/Judge notify proper Federal authorities, initiate investigation, and work towards prosecution of the State and County to protect the rights of all involved.

                The State has engaged in numerous acts in violation of the U.S. Constitution Civil Rights title 42 Section 1983.  Numerous counts of theft and misuse of power to affect the Civil rights of a citizen have occurred.  As a result this is a Federal Case, and not State.

                The States Attorney has purposely engaged in Frivolous Litigation with a very low probability of ruling in their favor.  They have unlawfully accepted the statements known to be false statements in their original filings.  These known false statements come from a less than credible witness who routinely conflicts themselves.  The State’s case has lacked merit from inception.  The undersigned was patient initially, but the conduct of the State representatives and County gives clear indication they do not feel they are bound by law, and the undersigned fears the abuse and corruption will escalate and/or continue.  The Court is being notified of this runaway train staged by officers of their Court.  The Court should it fail to act is partying with the Criminals and seen to be in Collusion with the Criminal actions and inactions of the State.   The State is well outside their protections for standard protection in Malicious Prosecution.

 It is clear the Defendant cannot get a fair trial in this Court.  This is based on the corruption of officers in the Court to this point.

It is clear the Defendant cannot anticipate being treated fairly in this County.  This is based on the widespread and repeated corruption of the local Sheriff department.  It would be impossible for anyone to conceive handling of the defendant, drug screens, evidence, or anything can be handled by these officers without temptation to further tamper with elements of the case.

It is clear the States Attorney had used the Sheriff’s officers in retaliatory measures against the Defendant.  They clearly do not see the difference between their duty to serve and the unlawful demands of their predator and chief.  As such the Sheriff’s office and officers of the Court have privileged their oath of office and authority in this Court, and as it regards this Defendant.  Federal intervention is required and the removal of Sheriff’s office corruption from the Court.

                The States Attorney representatives have committed numerous felony offenses.  The vindictive nature of the corrupt and incompetent legal representation of the State has them partying with (Aiding and Abetting) and facilitating as many as six (6) felony counts of Grand Theft, Tampering with Evidence, Obstructing Justice and a host of violations.

                The ongoing and sustained unlawful attacks by the State, the County, and the agents of these entities is tantamount to TERRORISM, including DOMESTIC TERRORISM defined as:  Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2]

                The actions/inactions and operations of this Court and the Court officers in this instance and others outlined is tantamount to RACKETEERING as filed herein and elsewhere.  It is an ongoing CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to harass.  Clearly all those party to the crimes can see and understand the abuses.  Clearly they have willing, knowingly with forethought committed Willful and Wanton acts of Criminal Mischief in the scheme of RACKETEERING.  RACKETEERING is defined in Florida Law as: 

895.02 Definitions.—As used in ss. 895.01-895.08, the term:

(1) “Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to commit, to conspire to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate another person to commit:

(a) Any crime that is chargeable by petition, indictment, or information under the following provisions of the Florida Statutes:

2. Section 316.1935, relating to fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer and aggravated fleeing or eluding.

22. Section 775.13(5)(b), relating to registration of persons found to have committed any offense for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang..

27. Chapter 790, relating to weapons and firearms.

29. Former s. 796.03, former s. 796.035, s. 796.04, s. 796.05, or s. 796.07, relating to prostitution.

30. Chapter 806, relating to arson and criminal mischief.

31. Chapter 810, relating to burglary and trespass.

32. Chapter 812, relating to theft, robbery, and related crimes.

33. Chapter 815, relating to computer-related crimes.

34. Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses, fraud generally, and credit card crimes.

35. Chapter 825, relating to abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult.

38. Chapter 831, relating to forgery and counterfeiting.

40. Section 836.05, relating to extortion.

41. Chapter 837, relating to perjury.

42. Chapter 838, relating to bribery and misuse of public office.

43. Chapter 843, relating to obstruction of justice.

44. Section 847.011, s. 847.012, s. 847.013, s. 847.06, or s. 847.07, relating to obscene literature and profanity.

46. Chapter 874, relating to criminal gangs.

47. Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control.

49. Sections 914.22 and 914.23, relating to tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant, and retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant.

50. Sections 918.12 and 918.13, relating to tampering with jurors and evidence.

                I order the State to immediately suspend this frivolous pursuit, dropping all charges and “Conditions of Release” and move towards instigating controls, arrest, and disbarment of the States Attorney and Public Defender personnel while mitigating losses for all offended parties.  I would like to initiate Federal investigation with full charges against all named parties effective immediately.

As we move along it is clear the Court in which this has been launched is likely out of its authority, element, and jurisdiction.  This likely became a Federal matter as soon as the State legal representatives began partying to affect the life and livelihood of a citizen.  This is clearly a violation of Civil Rights via the U.S. Code title 42 section 1983 at a minimum.  By using their office and opportunity to bring about unlawful hindrances of personal rights this escalated out of their own jurisdiction and authority at or immediately after the filing of the initial unsubstantiated, frivolous complaint.  Clearly the Court must now invite Federal oversight to this case and turn the records and officers over for Federal prosecution.

I reserve the right to amend any and all filings as well as bringing additional filings as deemed necessary.  In the meantime this harassment/abuse is costing me substantial hardship financially, physically, and otherwise.

Notification of the Agent signifies notification of the Principal.  Notification of the Principal signifies notification of the Agent.

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY this as a true copy of the foregoing to be delivered to the States Attorney office and State Legal Representation via their accomplice to their crimes, Larry Birge at the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office.  Attention:

 

Ana Maria Garcia, Florida Bar #577162;

Laura Wahlquist, Florida Bar #87776

Attention Glenn Hess, States Attorney Florida Bar # 287806

Herman Laramore, Public Defender Bar #131906

Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Florida Bar # 886440

Elijah Smiley, Chief Justice 14th Judicial, Florida Bar # 508918

FBI, Regional Office

Publicly made available.

 

Jackson County Board of County Commissioners

2864 Madison Street

Marianna, Florida 32448

Telephone: (850) 482- 9633

Fax: (850) 482- 9643

E-mail: support@jacksoncountyfl.com

 

                                                                                THEODORE WHIDDEN

                                                                                The Victim of the Crimes/Conspiracy

THEODORE WHIDDEN, The Victim of the Crimes/Conspiracy, DEFENDANT in lawful presentation of Jackson County Case No. 15-276CF; 

P.O.Box 158, Chipley, Florida 32428

Phone: 850-685-2353  Email: TedWhidden@gmail.com

 

By:___________________________________________

THEODORE L. (Ted) WHIDDEN

An Abused Member of the Public

                                                                                2/16/2016

 


 

APPENDIX A

 

This Appendix is a photo posted in plain site in the Jackson County Courthouse.  Notice it is on the Xray machine located at the entry of the Courthouse main lobby.  This is unlawful targeting and invasion of privacy.

Noting content of the unlawfully posted image.  This is presumably an image from the Jail/County records of July 29/30, 2015  UNLAWFUL arrest and detainment at a time when law enforcement stole firearms and other items from the person in the photo.  The crooked bastards unlawfully kept the firearms for five months, only releasing them due to an ACAP filing (Florida bar complaint on the States Attorneys).

The photo is labelled DETAINEE which is false.  It appears the photo is associated with the jail. This is false.  The name of the image is unlawfully posted with social security number partially scratched through.

The phone numbers posted in plain view are upper (850)685-2353 (Ted Whidden).

The second phone number is for the crooked bastard of a Public Defender it seems.  When called 850-526-8406 one gets GUY GREEN.  Guy Green appears to be unlawfully targeting, slandering, defaming, etc Whidden.  This is predatorial in nature and retaliatory as Green has numerous felony charges lodged in this case. 

This photo/image clearly places the Defendant in a difficult place when entering the Court, Courthouse, etc.  This photo clearly places others at risk for failing to understand the intent and purpose of this filing.  This is left to widespread misinterpretation.

Before the crooked bastards go too far with this, the photo is clearly viewed from the Clerk’s Office which has a glass front and is to the right of the front door and thus behind the Xray machine.

Not only is the Public Defender’s office apparently connected to this unlawful targeting and offense(s) but the Sheriff’s Department working in collusion and as an accomplice in the long standing criminal corruption case, thefts, unlawful detention, etc is deeply connected.  Their people appear to have either posted the photo, allowed the photo to remain, or maintained the photo.

The image as seen was provided to me by a third party who saw it and recognized the illegal nature and the implications and misinterpretations.

This image posted in a public place precludes my ability for safe and reasonable business in the Courthouse and the County.

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 NOTES:

 

Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.

 

Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.

 

You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.

 

 

 

 

Let's say you accidentally leave a personal letter containing private information on a public park bench, and that letter is picked up and read by someone else. Even if the sharing of this information damages your reputation or causes other harm, it is not a violation of your privacy. That requires a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, which would apply if the letter was not left out in public. But if you are having a private conversation in your home and a neighbor uses an electronic device to eavesdrop (and this causes some kind of injury), then your expectation of privacy has in fact been violated.

 

Therefore, an invasion of privacy occurs when there is an intrusion upon your reasonable expectation to be left alone. This article covers the four main types of invasion of privacy claims, a civil tort largely controlled by state laws. See Invasion of Privacy Claim: Attorney Intake Form, Is There a Difference Between Confidentiality and Privacy?, and What are Intentional Torts? to learn more.

 

The four main types of invasion of privacy claims are:

 

 

 

Intrusion of Solitude

Appropriation of Name or Likeness

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

False Light

 

 

 

1. Intrusion of Solitude

 

Intruding upon another's solitude or private affairs, physically or otherwise, is subject to liability if this intrusion would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person. This type of invasion of privacy is commonly associated with "peeping Toms," someone illegally intercepting private phone calls, or snooping through someone's private records.

 

While taking photographs of someone in public would not count, using a long range camera to take photographs of someone inside his or her home would qualify. One or two unsolicited telephone calls may not constitute a privacy invasion, but incessant harassment by calling repeatedly after being asked to stop would. Unlike other forms of invasion of privacy, intrusion of solitude does not require any publication of private facts or images—the act of intrusion alone violates the law.

 

Example: A man with binoculars regularly climbs a tree in his yard and watches a woman across the street undress through her bathroom window. Her injury is the emotional distress she suffers upon seeing the perpetrator looking at her.

 

2. Appropriation of Name or Likeness

 

Plaintiffs may make a claim for damages if an individual (or company) uses their name or likeness for benefit without the other party's permission. Usually this involves a business using a celebrity's name or likeness in an advertisement. In fact, some states limit this type of invasion of privacy tort to commercial uses.

 

This is not always the case, though. For example, a private detective who impersonates someone else in order to obtain otherwise confidential information has invaded that person's privacy. The recognition of this tort is similar to a property right; in other words, a person's name and likeness are treated as that person's property. For celebrities, this is often referred to as "right of publicity."

 

Example: In 2005, an advertising agency approached musician Tom Waits with regard to an ad campaign for a new automobile. Waits, who has a distinctive and easily recognizable voice, declined. So the advertisers hired someone who sounds like him to do the soundtrack, prompting Waits to sue the automaker for appropriating his likeness.

 

3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts

 

This type of invasion of privacy claim must be weighed against the First Amendment's protection of free speech. Unlike defamation (libel or slander), truth of the disclosed information is no defense. Legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public.

 

For example, a woman about to deliver a baby via caesarian section agrees to allow the operation to be filmed for educational purposes only; but instead it is shown to the public in a commercial theater. This is an invasion of her privacy. However, publishing an article about a politician known for his family values rhetoric but who has been having an affair with a staffer is of public concern and therefore not an invasion of his privacy. New York and some other states do not recognize this type of claim.

 

Example: In 1931, the maiden name of a former prostitute who was acquitted of murder was revealed in a film about the case. Since the trial, she had moved to another city, gotten married and adopted a new lifestyle. Her new friends were unaware of her past, so the disclosure of this true but embarrassing information was deemed an invasion of her privacy.

 

4. False Light

 

A false light claim is similar to a defamation claim in that it allows an individual to sue for the public disclosure of information that is misleading (or puts that person in a "false light"), but not technically false. The key difference is that defamation claims only apply to the public broadcasting of false information; and as with defamation, sometimes First Amendment protections prevail.

 

Generally, a false light claim must contain the following elements: (1) a publication by the defendant about the plaintiff; (2) it was done with reckless disregard; (3) it places the plaintiff in a false light and (4) it would be highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person.

 

Example: In 1992, a 96-year-old woman sued an Arkansas newspaper for printing her picture next to the headline, "Special Delivery: World's oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she's pregnant!" The woman, who was not pregnant, was awarded damages of $1.5 million.

 

- See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/invasion-of-privacy.html#sthash.QaO2Lp0l.dpuf

 

 

 

"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