RICO Act Violation

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     TheBrainCan.com    www.frauddevelopment.com  






CASE NO: 15-276CF

State of Florida


Theodore L Whidden




 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1








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.

1)      Attorney 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:

A)     Under 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 challenged.

B)      Specifically this section of RICO addresses; Chapter 895.02 Chapter 825, relating to abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult.

C)      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, or form. 

D)     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.

3)      The 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.

4)      The 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.

6)      6th Amendment Rights in connection with 14th for Due Process and how a Defendant is to be treated are well out of line.

7)      Everyone 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 Violations.

8)      You 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.)

9)      Please provide me a full and complete list of all Mental Health Counsellors/Evaluators the County/State uses in this areas for this type/style evaluation.

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 organization.

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.

                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?



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: [email protected]


                                                                                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: [email protected]




An Abused Member of the Public




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 under 18 U.S.C. §4241.

(B) If the defendant provides notice under Rule 12.2(a), the court must, upon the government's motion, order the defendant to be examined under 18 U.S.C. §4242. If the defendant provides notice under Rule 12.2(b) 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 Rule 12.2(c)(1) after notice under Rule 12.2(b)(2) 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 disclosure under Rule 12.2(c)(2) 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 under Rule 12.2(a) or (b)(1), or

(B) has introduced expert evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding requiring notice under Rule 12.2(b)(2).

(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 Rule 12.2(b); or

(B) submit to an examination when ordered under Rule 12.2(c).

(2) Failure to Disclose. The court may exclude any expert evidence for which the defendant has failed to comply with the disclosure requirement of Rule 12.2(c)(3).

(e) Inadmissibility of Withdrawn Intention. Evidence of an intention as to which notice was given under Rule 12.2(a) or (b), later withdrawn, is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against the person who gave notice of the intention.



The sixth 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 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