CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 14th
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
State of Florida
Theodore L Whidden
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
14th AMENDMENT/BILL OF RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
The following is being filed “Pro Se” by the Undersigned to this Court in
regards to the ongoing BAD FAITH, Abuse of Process, Prosecutorial
Misconduct, and Harassment administered and overseen daily and routinely by
this Court and its Officers. The abuse is extreme and routine in this
Court, this circuit, and this office.
Seemingly in conjunction with the criminally operating States Attorney
Laura Wahlquist the Judge Shonna Young Gay have attempted to make some form
of mental determination as it regards the Defendants mental state. This
poses several problems.
Laura Wahlquist (and presumably Judge Shonna Young Gay) are attempting to
practice medicine without a license. They are operating well outside of
their scope and training and this is an unlawful violation of the
Undersigned’s Civil Rights.
2) Note in
the Court recording of 1/19/2016 (Presumably this recording will be disposed
of or damaged to make it inaccessible) the States Attorney made the
assertion that they are questioning the mental state of the Pro Se litigant
with whom they have been fucking with for some seven (7) months. Keep in
mind the following:
Florida Rico Statutes as they have already been filed it is expressly
prohibited and cited in regards to those entities who mess with the mentally
Specifically this section of RICO addresses; Chapter 895.02
Chapter 825, relating to abuse, neglect, or exploitation
of an elderly person or disabled adult.
The State by way of assertion, questioning, request for testing have
acknowledged they are knowingly and with forethought fucking around with
someone they believe to be mentally irregular or altered in one way, shape,
The continued harassment of a person they perceive may or
may not be impaired is criminal on a number of levels. This in and of
itself will serve a conviction under RICO whether it is real or perceived.
Nonetheless they unnecessarily pursued a case long past the ability to bring
and prove a case on someone with or without an impairment.
failure of the State to respect the rights of another is a violation of Due
Process laws under the 14th Amendment. The continued CIVIL
RIGHTS violations should be quickly apparent to a Federal Court.
ongoing and routine abuses of Civil Rights by this Court and its officers
should call for a shut down and audit of their entire system.
5) Rules of
Criminal Procedure do not allow for the Prosecutor to unilaterally make
their un-professional opinion known. This crooked fucking court has no
right to challenge my mental condition. The Rules of Procedure 12.2 are in
the event the Defense chooses to use an insanity plea. It is once again
unconstitutional for you to imply am not right in the head.
Amendment Rights in connection with 14th for Due Process and how
a Defendant is to be treated are well out of line.
is crazy in someone’s eyes. Did you think about that? Do any of you idiots
think at all? I would like to see all the evaluations for the last ten
years, and I wonder why someone would comply with your unlawful prying in to
their personal situation for your purposes. Please accept this as a Freedom
of Information Act request for a list of all names the County and this
District have submitted for Mental Evaluation over the last 5 years. This
should prove worthwhile in a Class Action Civil Suit for Civil Rights
crooked bastards are using laws the local people do not understand to strip
them of their dignity and their Constitutional Rights. I hope you all burn
in hell. (Tell that to your mental health professional.)
provide me a full and complete list of all Mental Health
Counsellors/Evaluators the County/State uses in this areas for this
10) The filing
of an order for Mental Evaluation on 1/27/2016 is pre-empted by the request
for Emergency Change of Venue filed on 1/19/2016, and all actions by this
Court thereafter appear retaliatory and Racketeering attempts.
The Federal investigation and CLASS ACTIONS suits to follow should be made
aware that in Jackson County the Courts and the Sheriff’s Office routinely
use this “Mental Examination” ploy to strip persons of their God Given
Rights and those given under the U.S. Constitution and other documents.
The claim of mental studies using corrupted reporting for corrupted purposes
appears to be routinely used to strip persons of their rights. It should be
reasonably simple to find a host of people who would enjoy pursuit of a
Class Action lawsuit against these people. In fact, I reserve the right to
begin running ads seeking more of those who have been harmed by this
tactic. I have already met several. It is a common practice in Marianna
and Jackson County. By way of a third party once entangled in this system
I have been advised there is a health professional who may testify to 4 or
more of these dubious attempts to strip a person’s civil rights per month.
It is easy to see Laura Wahlquist has failed in her 14th
Amendment duties to stop pursuit of a BAD FAITH or unsupportable claim.
(Note I quote Federal Statute because that is where we are heading. The
State has already shit its own bed as far and jurisdiction and authority.)
Wahlquist is a disgrace to all legal professionals and any Court allowing
her to operate in this manner should be suitably addressed.
Clearly Attorney Laura Wahlquist is in violation of her OATH OF OFFICE in
failing to allow inspection, copies and presentation of evidence to file by
a defendant. By way of copy to a new ethics filing on Wahlquist and Hess we
hope to see this educational issue changed within their criminal
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,
Notification of the Agent signifies notification of the Principal.
Notification of the Principal signifies notification of the Agent.
RICO Act Racketeering is becoming easier to demonstrate at
each round. Maybe someone wants to read what has been filed with the Court
and/or sent to them?
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
Pam Bondi, Attorney General, Florida
Bar # 886440
Elijah Smiley, Chief Justice 14th
Judicial, Florida Bar # 508918
FBI, Regional Office
Publicly made available.
Board of County Commissioners
2864 Madison Street
Fax: (850) 482-
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
Phone: 850-685-2353 Email:
THEODORE L. (Ted) WHIDDEN
An Abused Member of the
Rule 12.2 Notice of an Insanity
Defense; Mental Examination
(a) Notice of an Insanity Defense. A
defendant who intends to assert a defense of insanity at the time of the
alleged offense must so notify an attorney for the government in writing
within the time provided for filing a pretrial motion, or at any later time
the court sets, and file a copy of the notice with the clerk. A defendant
who fails to do so cannot rely on an insanity defense. The court may, for
good cause, allow the defendant to file the notice late, grant additional
trial-preparation time, or make other appropriate orders.
(b) Notice of Expert Evidence of a Mental Condition.
If a defendant intends to introduce expert evidence relating to a mental
disease or defect or any other mental condition of the defendant bearing on
either (1) the issue of guilt or (2) the issue of punishment in a capital
case, the defendant must—within the time provided for filing a pretrial
motion or at any later time the court sets—notify an attorney for the
government in writing of this intention and file a copy of the notice with
the clerk. The court may, for good cause, allow the defendant to file the
notice late, grant the parties additional trial-preparation time, or make
other appropriate orders.
(c) Mental Examination.
(1) Authority to Order
an Examination; Procedures.
(A) The court may order the defendant to submit to a competency examination
18 U.S.C. §4241.
(B) If the defendant provides notice under
the court must, upon the government's motion, order the defendant to be
18 U.S.C. §4242.
If the defendant provides notice under
the court may, upon the government's motion, order the defendant to be
examined under procedures ordered by the court.
(2) Disclosing Results
and Reports of Capital Sentencing Examination. The results and
reports of any examination conducted solely under
after notice under
must be sealed and must not be disclosed to any attorney for the government
or the defendant unless the defendant is found guilty of one or more capital
crimes and the defendant confirms an intent to offer during sentencing
proceedings expert evidence on mental condition.
(3) Disclosing Results
and Reports of the Defendant's Expert Examination. After
of the results and reports of the government's examination, the defendant
must disclose to the government the results and reports of any examination
on mental condition conducted by the defendant's expert about which the
defendant intends to introduce expert evidence.
(4) Inadmissibility of a
Defendant's Statements. No statement made by a defendant in the
course of any examination conducted under this rule (whether conducted with
or without the defendant's consent), no testimony by the expert based on the
statement, and no other fruits of the statement may be admitted into
evidence against the defendant in any criminal proceeding except on an issue
regarding mental condition on which the defendant:
(A) has introduced evidence of incompetency or evidence requiring notice
or (b)(1), or
(B) has introduced expert evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding
requiring notice under
(d) Failure to Comply.
(1) Failure to Give
Notice or to Submit to Examination. The court may exclude any
expert evidence from the defendant on the issue of the defendant's mental
disease, mental defect, or any other mental condition bearing on the
defendant's guilt or the issue of punishment in a capital case if the
defendant fails to:
(A) give notice under
(B) submit to an examination when ordered under
(2) Failure to Disclose.
The court may exclude any expert evidence for which the defendant has failed
to comply with the disclosure requirement of
(e) Inadmissibility of Withdrawn Intention.
Evidence of an intention as to which notice was given under
or (b), later withdrawn, is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding,
admissible against the person who gave notice of the intention.
amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 protect
a criminal defendant's right to a speedy trial. The sixth amendment
mandates, in part, that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The Speedy Trial Act of 1974
specifies time limits designed to protect a defendant's speedy trial right.
To determine whether or not there has been a speedy-trial-right violation, a
court must review four related factors: length of delay, reason for delay,
defendant's efforts to facilitate a speedy trial, and prejudice to the
defendant. The latter factor pertains to the prevention of oppressive
incarceration, reduction in the accused's anxiety and concern for the case
outcome, and a limitation on the impairment of defendant's ability to put on
a defense. The only method to remedy a violation of the speedy trial right
is to dismiss the case. Because this remedy is so severe, courts are
hesitant to find that a constitutional violation has occurred. The Speedy
Trial Act of 1974 specifies a 30-day time limit for indictment and a 70-day
time limit for bringing a defendant to trial. Excludable periods of delay
are in four general categories: delays caused by pretrial motions and
interlocutory appeals, delays relating to defendants, delays caused by the
unavailability of witnesses or defendants, and delays relating to
continuances. In determining whether or not to dismiss a case with or
without prejudice, the act's remedy provision states that a district court
must consider three factors: the seriousness of the offense, the facts and
circumstances of the case that led to the dismissal, and the impact of a
reprosecution on the act and the administration of justice.
"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