affidavit in support plaintiff response to motion for

1

1

Affidavit in Support of 2nd Amended Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THEODORE L. “TED” WHIDDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS S. ROBERTS, et al.,

Defendant

______________________________/

Case No. 5:190-cv-80-MCR/MJF

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

Plaintiff Response to Motion for Summary Judgment

2nd Amended Complaint

Conspiracy, Count 13, etal

Plaintiff alleges the Defendant(s) (SHERIFF and BIRGE) engaged in numerous conspiracies and

patterns (Believed RICO in nature) demonstrated in part as outlined in Plaintiff Response to MSJ.

The original affidavit prepared for presentation on/about 5/29/2020 somehow “missed” being

filed/acknowledged with the Court. The entire process of filing has been affected by a host of hurdles.

Plaintiff’s 5/29/2020 timely filing in person was turned away at the Federal Court Building in Pensacola

due to Covid-19 restrictions. A clerk was ultimately made available to receive documents on a windy

sidewalk in front of the building. The wind blew some pages away during this process, and potentially

the Affidavit for 5/29/2020 was lost. The attached represents truths compiled regarding the handling of

Plaintiff case in lower court.

Affidavit Prepared by:

Theodore L Whidden

Pro Se, considered impaired by unilateral hostile opinion of the State.

Unemployed since and as a result of the proceedings considered frivolous in the lower court to which

this case refers.

Central to many aspects of the multi-faceted scheme is the CONSPIRACY TO INTIMIDATE (Title 42

Section 1985, 2), CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT

2

2


THEFT/CONVERSION/EXTORTION. In each example there is an intent to deceive/defraud in some

manner, and in each an overt action by the Defendants to facilitate the unlawful purpose of the scheme.

A) Defendant BIRGE worked with Complainant SLAY in Sheriff’s case (2015-009475) to formulate a

basis for Sheriff’s case.

i) SLAY sends text on May 11, 2015 advising that “she was going to play dirty”. This was the day

before filing her complaint. The text formed part of her complaint, conflicting her complaint

making her a suspect. (See Exhibit R, Plaintiff Response to MSJ)

ii) SLAY filed hearsay complaint with BIRGE May 12, 2015.

iii) Exhibit A (Plaintiff Response to MSJ) email from SHERIFF office 11/2019 advises Investigator

BIRGE never left the office on 5/12/2015.

iv) Exhibit A (Plaintiff Response to MSJ) email from SHERIFF received in late 2019 advises

BIRGE followed “custom and practice” faking a radio call to get a file number.

v) Nowhere in any archived file of any kind is there an indication of day, date, time BIRGE

initiated contact with the accused (PLAINTIFF).

vi) In BIRGE’s 10/8/2015 deposition (concealed BRADY MATERIAL at the time of the case)

BIRGE advises he turned the complaint over to SAO (State Attorney office) within 24 hours.

vii) BIRGE never attended the property of Plaintiff.

viii) BIRGE never did a background check on Plaintiff.

ix) BIRGE forwarded a spurious, hearsay complaint to prosecutors with NO attempt to contact the

accused.

x) BIRGE forwarded a spurious, hearsay complaint to prosecutors with NO probable cause.

xi) BIRGE forwarded a spurious, hearsay complaint to prosecutors with NO evidence.

xii) BIRGE forwarded a spurious, hearsay complaint to prosecutors with NO witness.

xiii) BIRGE forwarded a spurious, hearsay complaint to prosecutors with NO crime.

xiv) BIRGE did not conduct a poor investigation, BIRGE did NO INVESTIGATION whatsoever

before filing with prosecutors.

xv) BIRGE furthered a spurious claim in conjunction with a dubious complainant (SLAY)with

whom BIRGE had partnered before. (See Jessica Millard case).

xvi) BIRGE and complainant SLAY “played dirty” in a coordinated, replicated scheme which they

had implemented before on others. (Exhibit R, Plaintiff Response to MSJ)

xvii) BIRGE failed to list, acknowledge, vet or contact any of the other potential suspects in the case.

xviii) BIRGE ignored numerous issues potentially involved in the case including ignoring the

conflicting evidence given by the complainant.

xix) BIRGE lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xx) BIRGE’s handling is considered outrageous and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

xxi) BIRGE’s behavior throughout a case of his own making demonstrates bad faith, malice, willful

and wanton disregard for civil rights and his civil responsibilities.

xxii) (Exhibit A of Plaintiff Response to MSJ, Exhibits).

xxiii) On July 30, 2015 BIRGE arranged an offsite meeting with the arresting officer Quinton Hollis

and Plaintiff.

3

3


xxiv) The purpose of the offsite meeting in part was to arrange for Quinton Hollis to return certain

personal property of Plaintiff that was never inventoried, stored, or managed according to

protocols.

xxv) The day, date, time of the meeting was concealed from all archived files related to the case. (See

Exhibit R, Plaintiff Response to MSJ)

xxvi) At the meeting with officer Quinton Hollis, officer Hollis apologized to Plaintiff for being

involved in the dubious arrest.

xxvii) In Hollis words he advised the case was nothing more than a “wild fishing expedition” which

lacked foundation and cause.

xxviii) Hollis advised that if certain things happened it would all blow over.

xxix) Approximately 90 days after Plaintiff’s name/identity was “flagged” in a national database a

letter was sent out advising him that in essence due to “moral turpitude” concerning the frivolous

felony charges he would lose his clearances and accesses to work, thus ending a career with an

estimated $200,000 per year income. Termination letter submitted to court in Plaintiff evidence.

xxx) BIRGE lacks immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

xxxi) Plaintiff had clearly established civil rights violated in a case where investigator furthered a

hearsay case to prosecutors without evidence, probable cause, witnesses or a crime. BIRGE fails

to qualify for immunity per Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223

(2009)

B) Event set “B”

i) In August 2019 Defense Counsel provided a document set entitled “BINDER1.pdf” to Plaintiff

via email.

ii) The “BINDER1.pdf” document set has been contentious since receipt as the page count did not

match page numbers on the document.

iii) The “BINDER1.pdf” document set has been contentious since receipt since the vast majority of

pages in this presentation do not exist properly in third party archived files.

iv) “BINDER1.pdf” revealed in part that BIRGE and complainant knew one another from a previous

scheme very similar in nature to the alleged encounter with Plaintiff.

v) BIRGE and SLAY had conspired previously in a similar case/instance/scheme.

vi) Replication of the scheme demonstrates SLAY and BIRGE knew each other (a replication of

scheme A above).

vii) In BINDER1.pdf presented as evidence by Defense we see a very similar scheme/case involving

Jessica Millard, making this a repetitive scheme staged before (likely RICO).

viii) In the deposition of 10/8/2015 (concealed BRADY MATERIAL) BIRGE states he did not know

the complainant SLAY. This is a lie.

ix) BIRGE lied under sworn oath stating he did not know SLAY demonstrating he will lie under

oath and has low credibility.

x) BIRGE also lied in his “affidavit” as contested by Plaintiff in his Response to Defenses MSJ.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/635/case.html


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/223/opinion.html


4

4


ii) Evidence of the replicated scheme by BIRGE and Complainant from Defense presentation of

BINDER1.pdf pages WHI1-59, WHI1-60, WHI1—61, WHI1-62, WHI1-63, WHI1-64 ,WHI1-

65.

iii) BIRGE lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout. BIRGE initiated and continued

operating in Bad Faith.

iv) BIRGE’s handling is considered outrageous and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

v) BIRGE and complainant partied together in this and similar schemes multiple times. This was

concealed from Plaintiff. BIRGE lied under oath about their acquaintance and involvement.

BIRGE lacks immunity failing to pass the two point standard in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194

(2001)

C) i) Complainant SLAY filed a complaint with the accomplice BIRGE on 5/12/2015.

ii) On 5/11/2015 the day before the spurious complaint SLAY advised in written text found in the

archived file (SAO) yet concealed by Sheriff that she would “Play Dirty”. (Exhibit R, Plaintiff

Response to MSJ)

iii) On 5/10/2015 Jeremy L Tolbert called Plaintiff leaving a threatening voice mail which is kept on

file with SAO archived file.

iv) Jeremy Tolbert is the exhusband of complainant SLAY and believed an accomplice/co-

conspirator with SLAY and BIRGE in their initial scheme.

v) Sheriff, Defendant BIRGE failed to maintain accurate record keeping on their copy/file on the

accomplice Jeremy Tolbert threats.

vi) Jeremy Tolbert on 5/10/2015 1745 hours according to Sheriff Radio CAD call 2015-009349

(BINDER1.pdf page WHI1-3) was on scene obstructing issues.

vii) Jeremy Tolbert telephoned Plaintiff the evening of 5/10/2015 and left voice mails threatening to

block access and deny access to all, which is precisely what the Sheriff has alleged happened.

viii) Jeremy Tolbert (Complainants ex-husband) claims during a recorded voice mail made available

as evidence in this case that he has influences that can sway the SHERIFF office.

ix) Jeremy Tolbert in a recorded voice mail implies he will use the Sheriff Office for his retribution.

x) Jeremy TOLBERT in the 5/10/2015 voice mail advises that he will go to the Plaintiff property

blocking the gate denying access to all others and “dares” Plaintiff to do anything about it.

xi) Complainant SLAY and BIRGE fabricate a case alleging Plaintiff blocked access to his own

property following a co-conspirator advising in recorded statement that he would/did the

blocking of the access. BIRGE has ignored the admission, failing to address the complainant as

suspect in a scheme. Thus BIRGE appears complicit in the SLAY/TOLBERT scheme in which

he was an integral part.

xii) The scheme staged by Tolbert, Slay and BIRGE is precisely what Plaintiff was charged for.

xiii) Sheriff/BIRGE have disposed of their copy(copies) of the recording which implicates their office

in a scheme with Tolbert/Slay.

xiv) Defense counsel have stated in official filing that Tolbert is NOT an employee of jail. Tolbert

acting outside the Sheriff office yet influencing SHERIFF behavior as he professed makes this a

conspiracy (Failure of the Intercorporate Conspiracy Doctrine).



5

5


xv) Tolbert states he will block the gate at Plaintiff property and deny entry to all, using the Sheriff

as a tool of his retribution. (Exhibit N of Plaintiff response to MSJ, Exhibits)

xvi) Tolbert was never questioned as a witness nor suspect in the case.

xvii) BIRGE lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xviii) BIRGE’s handling is considered outrageous and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

xix) In the SHERIFF/BIRGE original filing of complaint the Complainant should have been held as a

suspect for:

A) Filing a text the day prior alerting to “Playing dirty” to get back at land owner.

B) Internal photos provided to BIRGE/Sheriff of a property allegedly in which complainant

claimed to not have access to were included in the complaint/evidence thus presenting a

conflict.

C) The last photo in the photo sequence of the SHERIFF file filed by the complainant is the

chain/locked gate they locked on their way out, should have been obvious to investigator that

the claim/case was staged.

D) BIRGE/SHERIFF clearly were in violation of a property owner’s rights furthering a spurious

claim with no evidence, when all alleged evidence absolved the Plaintiff and pointed to the

complainant running a scheme.

E) A file set of evidence/documents that showed up almost 4-5 years after this event (Brady

Material Failure) demonstrates multiple locks, changing locks, lock patterns, etc indicating

SHERIFF, conspirators, and others may have had access to the gate, locks, chain while

Plaintiff was out of town.

F) The multiple photos/images concealed were material exculpatory evidence obtained through

unlawful means, and concealed through unlawful means by SHERIFF/BIRGE/co-

conspirators.

G) Sheriff/BIRGE lack immunity per Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555

U.S. 223 (2009)

D) i) Plaintiff called Sheriff office on 5/7/2015 due to discovery of a hazmat/meth lab issue on the

property of Plaintiff. (Five days before dubious filing of complaint by SLAY.)

ii) Plaintiff arranged “Caution Tape” around hazmat area on or before 5/10/2015 which appears to

be the triggering effect for Tolbert’s threatening phone calls, and Slay’s threatening to “Play

Dirty” text which preceded the dubious complaint filing. (Exhibit R, Plaintiff Response to MSJ)

iii) Sheriff representative (Ellerbee) took charge and advised Plaintiff how to dispose of the

hazmat/meth issue.

iv) After the event Plaintiff realized he had unknowingly conspired with Sheriff department

representative to tamper evidence/conceal/dispose of evidence (hazmat/meth) per radio log

5/7/2015, (BINDER1.pdf, Exhibit WHI-1).

v) Many of the references to Meth/Hazmat were stripped from the Sheriff/Investigator file. Few

exist in the archived third-party files.

vi) Radio/Call logs cross reference this set of events with the complaint/complainant but the file of

BIRGE and complainant file fails to cross reference these events.

vii) BIRGE (SHERIFF by way of Ellerbee) lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.




6

6


viii) BIRGE’s (SHERIFF by way of Ellerbee) handling is considered outrageous and malicious and

objectively unreasonable.

ix) Sheriff /BIRGE by way of Ellerbee lacks immunity, Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)

E) i) On 5/18/2015 Plaintiff communicated with Sheriff office (Donnie Branch) via email

concerning issues which had arisen on Plaintiff property prior to departing the area.

ii) Donnie Branch concealed emails from file which are not/were not made available to SAO nor

others.

iii) Donnie Branch has a familial connection to the Complainant SLAY to include close friendship

with the father of SLAY, (Duckey Slay).

iv) Donnie Branch worked with SAO and public defender office to conceal exculpatory evidence

(emails) and other relevant data, photos, communications, and evidence considered BRADY

MATERIAL. (SAO17, SAOTwilight file, Sheriff Correspondence files)

v) Donnie Branch on behalf of Sheriff supervised Larry BIRGE (investigator).

vi) Donnie Branch supervised and instructed C. Edwards.

vii) Donnie Branch was confronted in the Sheriff’s office by Plaintiff and BRANCH taunted Plaintiff

advising him to go ahead and sue the Sheriff. BIRGE witnessed the encounter between Plaintiff

and the sarcastic Donnie BRANCH.

viii) Plaintiff followed up the BRANCH encounter with a letter to SHERIFF office (BIRGE) advising

BRANCH was a “menace to society and a liability to the Sheriff office” taunting a person to

litigate against the SHERIFF.

ix) The encounter with Branch in the Sheriff office was outlined in correspondence with the Sheriff

investigator BIRGE but has been concealed/removed from official files.

x) Donnie Branch dispatched and instructed C.Edwards to Plaintiff’s property.

xi) C.Edwards under instruction of BRANCH accessed Plaintiff property without permission.

xii) BRANCH, EDWARDS, BIRGE, SHERIFF worked together to conceal evidence obtained

through EDWARDS unlawful attendance.

xiii) BIRGE, BRANCH, EDWARDS, SHERIFF lack “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xiv) BIRGE, BRANCH, EDWARDS, SHERIFF handling is considered outrageous and malicious

and objectively unreasonable.

xv) C.Edwards clearly lacked lawful access and protections via Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635

(1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971)

xvi) Sheriff by way of Donnie Branch lacks immunity, Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388

(1971)

xvii) Sheriff by way of Donnie Branch/BIRGE lacks immunity failing the two part test in Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194 (2001)

F) i) Sheriff (C.Edwards) worked with SAO and others to conceal attendance.

ii) Sheriff (C.Edwards) worked with SAO and others to conceal evidence.

iii) Sheriff (C.Edwards) worked with SAO and others to conceal exculpatory information.

iv) Sheriff (C.Edwards) accessed Plaintiff property without permission of owner.









7

7


v) Sheriff (C.Edwards) took photos and concealed them. (Exhibit B, Exhibit Y of Plaintiff response

to MSJ)

vi) All manner of attendance/records of C.Edwards involvement was concealed from Plaintiff until

August 2019 release in the dubious “BINDER1.pdf” document set.

vii) The identity, role, and involvement of C.Edwards has been withheld and concealed by Defense

throughout introduction.

viii) BIRGE, EDWARDS, DEFENSE COUNSEL lacks “clean hands” from inception and

throughout.

ix) BIRGE, EDWARDS, DEFENSE COUNSEL handling is considered outrageous and malicious

and objectively unreasonable.

x) Within Defense’s “Rule 26 Disclosure” and “Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosure” effort is made

by defense counsel to conceal identity and role of C. Edwards.

xi) Defense Counsel appears complicit in the unlawful behavior of the SHERIFF and co-

conspirators.

xii) Defense Counsel (Tim Warner, Alyssa Yarbrough, Erik Alexander Kreb) represents SHERIFF in

a multitude of cases of conspiracy/schemes involving targeted individuals through what the State

of Florida (FDLE) has determined to be RICO/Racketeering. As such Counsel for Defense

through their actions to conceal are complicit with their client as stated by Plaintiff in filings.

xiii) Edwards clearly lacked immunities acting behalf of Sheriff/BIRGE, Anderson v. Creighton, 483

U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971)

xiv) Edwards and the chain of command to include SHERIFF and BIRGE lack immunity in this instance as it

expands failing to pass the two standard test of Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan,

555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

G) i) On October 8, 2015 the STATE deposed Defendant Larry BIRGE for the purposes of the

underlying case.

ii) The STATE in a STATE orchestrated scheme (case 15-276CF) appointed H.Guy GREEN as

public defender without request or approval of Plaintiff. GREEN worked in collusion/concert with the

SAO and other co-conspirators such as SHERIFF in furthering a hearsay, spurious case without cause,

evidence or crime. GREEN was terminated in open court once found in collusion (co-conspirator) with

other STATE operatives driving this frivolous scheme.

iii) The STATE personnel in attendance (Laura Wahlquist-Parish and H.Guy Green) with others

in support concealed the existence, nature, and substance of the BIRGE deposition. (Exhibit C, Plaintiff

Response to MSJ)

iv) The deposition of BIRGE is considered exculpatory (Failed Brady Material) evidence to

absolve plaintiff in a case of those being deposed making. Concealment/Fraud of same makes those

involved complicit.

v) As recent as November 2019 Public Defenders (co-conspirators) have made effort to conceal

evidence (Deposition testimony of Investigator Defendant BIRGE). (Exhibit C of Plaintiff response to

MSJ).

vi) The scheme to conceal deposition of BIRGE on 10/8/2015 appears an ongoing effort.







8

8


vii) In the deposition BIRGE admits he never was able to establish the complainant had any right to

be on the property of Plaintiff.

viii) In the deposition BIRGE advises Plaintiff is concerned about a “Conspiracy” attempt to send him

to prison.

ix) In the deposition BIRGE advises he reached out to Plaintiff “as he always does”.

x) BIRGE failed to attempt/communicate with Plaintiff, thereby “as he always does” makes his

failure to communicate a “custom and practice” scheme and scheme to cover.

xi) In the deposition BIRGE advises he did not know the complainant which is not true. BIRGE

knew complainant from the Jessica Millard scheme.

xii) BIRGE lied under oath denying acquaintance of complainant who he had previously partied with

in a similar scheme.

xiii) The BIRGE deposition was specifically requested leading to trial yet was concealed and has been

for 4+ years.

xiv) BIRGE backtracks on his deposition manner in separating from the conspiracy he initiated in

November 2015 when he arranges to block/intimidate Plaintiff at entry to courthouse via a fake

trespass order.

xv) GREEN failed in his fiduciary to kill the frivolous case at the hoax deposition he would later

conceal. ACAP Florida Bar complaints were filed on GREEN for extortion, collusion, and

failing in his fiduciaries among other things.

xvi) WAHLQUIST-PARISH (SAO) failed to kill the frivolous case at the hoax deposition 10/8/2015

failing to adhere to Prosecutor Rule 3B requiring them to drop a case if they cannot prosecute.

An ACAP Florida Bar filing was filed on WAHLQUIST-PARISH for staging and perpetuating

federal frauds and civil rights violations under Color of Law.

xvii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xviii) BIRGE’s and his co-conspirators handling is considered outrageous and malicious and


xix) BIRGE and his co-conspirators knew he was acting outside the scope of his job, furthering a

case/charges he could not substantiate. He admitted as much in his deposition, which his

accomplices (witnesses in this case) concealed. BIRGE lacks immunity per Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

xx) BIRGE and his co-conspirators immunity fails under the two standard test required by Saucier v.

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

H) i) Sheriff personnel removed personal property from Plaintiff’s farm without any form of

inventory at any time, July 31, 2015.

ii) SAO worked with Sheriff to conceal/retain personal property seized through unlawful police/sheriff

action.

iii) SAO and Sheriff worked together to retain property well past lawful resolution of the events in

which property was seized.

iv) SAO and Sheriff worked together to obscure, retain, and distort inventories of personal property and

disposition of same.






9

9


v) SAO and Sheriff released a portion of personal property of Plaintiff only after filing of ACAP

Florida Bar complaint against prosecutors.

vi) The Sheriff in what appears a custom and practice scheme required Plaintiff to fill out a list of

property which Plaintiff assumed the Sheriff had, leave the list with the Sheriff and if the property

was in fact with the Sheriff, then Sheriff would return property.

vii) NO COUNTER SIGNATURE paperwork upon seizure was provided by Sheriff of property.

viii) NO INVENTORY in totality of seizures of personal property were made, retained, countersigned,

nor shared.

ix) Research indicates Sheriff is running a custom and practice scheme to seize property without

inventory or counter signature of their victims.

x) The forms of the Sheriff department reveal a custom and practice property seizure scheme by the

department under the guise of the Sheriff office.

xi) Sheriff has retained and concealed property and records for 4+ years including withholding

following lawful resolution and by defense counsel in this case.

xii) No records have been produced nor exist for removals from Plaintiff property 7/31/2015.

xiii) No records have been produced nor exist for removals from Plaintiff property from Plaintiff vehicle

7/29-30/2015.

xiv) No records have been produced nor exist for removals from Plaintiff property from Plaintiff’s person

at any point in time. (See Exhibits from Plaintiff response to MSJ/Exhibits DD: ACAP Florida Bar

filings against SAO and Public Defender as accomplices).

xv) The property inventory records submitted by Defense Counsel in the federal civil case appear

tampered, altered, or forgeries.

xvi) The property inventory records submitted by Defense Counsel lack counter signature of Plaintiff.

xvii) The property inventory records for firearms indicate 4 firearms were for “Safe Keeping” not as

evidence, yet no indication they were returned.

xviii) The property inventory records for firearms indicate two were for “Evidence” yet there is no

indication they were returned.

xix) The property inventory records for the vehicle were never shared with Plaintiff.

xx) There are no photos in any known files of vehicles, firearms, or disposition of property at scene or at

time of seizure.

xxi) There are no known images of any aspect of property/conditions at the time of arrest, release, or

period surrounding same.

xxii) Inventory records appear significantly tampered.

xxiii) Plaintiff filed with Sheriff through BIRGE a long list of complaints and issues noted surrounding the

mismanagement of inventory and manipulation of records by Karen Watson who works for Sheriff.

Sheriff has concealed and continues to conceal this correspondence.

xxiv) BIRGE, WATSON, HOLLIS, TIPTON, BRANCH, SHERIFF, SAO lacks “clean hands” from

inception and throughout.

xxv) BIRGE, WATSON, HOLLIS, TIPTON, BRANCH, SHERIFF, SAO handling is considered

outrageous and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

10

10


xxvi) SHERIFF (personnel to include Hollis, Watson, BIRGE) lacks immunity per Anderson v. Creighton,

483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,

403 U.S. 388 (1971)

xxvii) SHERIFF personnel to include Hollis, Watson, Tipton, BIRGE, BRANCH lack immunity failing to

pass the two standard test per Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223

(2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

I) i) In a sworn deposition 10/8/2015 Defendant BIRGE advises SAO (Wahlquist-Parish) and

public defender (H.Guy Green) there is/was no basis for a case, yet it is disregarded and concealed.

ii) In deposition BIRGE reveals to his accomplices (Wahlquist-Parish and Green) that Plaintiff is

aware of a conspiracy.

iii) Attempts to conceal the deposition of BIRGE continue through 2019.

iv) Attempts to conceal deposition of BIRGE has been aggressively concealed for nearly 5 years.

(Exhibit C of Plaintiff response to MSJ).

v) The public defender office on two separate occasions in late 2019 filed written notice via email

and regular mail inferring and/or stating the BIRGE deposition was never taken or does not exist.

vi) The deposition of BIRGE which has been aggressively concealed since October 2015 has been

made available to the defense counsel and the Court in this case in December 2019 and February

2020 at minimum.

vii) H. GUY GREEN (public defender) a co-conspirator and his office have aggressively sought to

conceal the 10/8/2015 deposition(s) for 5 years.

viii) H. GUY GREEN (public defender) a co-conspirator and his office are in violation of Florida

Statute 24.70 Section 8 requiring them to turn over their file once removed as counsel.

ix) H. GUY GREEN (public defender) a co-conspirator in theory had a fiduciary responsibility to

stop the unlawful progression of the case made evident by the failed testimony of the

“investigator” BIRGE. In so failing it became clear GREEN was involved in a conspiracy with

BIRGE, SHERIFF, SAO (WAHLQUIST-PARISH) and others.

x) WAHLQUIST-PARISH (SAO) a co-conspirator had an obligation under Prosecutor Rule 3B to

stop the pursuit of the frivolous case as soon as they knew it could not be prosecuted, yet failed.

xi) BIRGE, GREEN, WAHLQUIST-PARISH lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xii) BIRGE, GREEN, WAHLQUIST-PARISH handling is considered outrageous and malicious and


xiii) BIRGE lacks immunity due to his admission under oath that he knew there was never an

established “right” for the complainant to be on the property of Plaintiff nor was there a right to

make a complaint. BIRGE lacks immunity failing the two standard test of Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

J) i) Sheriff, Defendant BIRGE, SAO, and Public Defender (H. Guy Green) worked together to

post and maintain a public notice (described elsewhere as a “Wanted Poster” in the foyer of the Court

House in Marianna for 9+ months without any form of process, nor justification.

ii) BIRGE made an unsolicited phone call to Plaintiff in early Nov 2015 (see Exhibit N, and

Voicemail Recording, Plaintiff Response to MSJ regarding voice mails).










11

11


iii) BIRGE in a self-recorded voice mail advised Plaintiff of a “trespass notice” for Plaintiff not to

return to the public courthouse.

iv) BIRGE refers to a “trespass notice” which is/was never served and does not exist in any form

anywhere on record.

v) Any trespass notice if in existence has been concealed long term.

vi) None of the third party archived files examined demonstrates any form of trespass or justification

for this action.

vii) No process whatsoever was followed in the public posting of Plaintiff’s personal details.

viii) Evidence of what has been referred to as a wanted poster issue was made available to this Court

and Defense in 12/2019 and 2/2020. (As evidence in docket 15-276CF and complaints filed

against H.Guy Green with ACAP Florida Bar.) (From CD#6, 2016.2.22.Defamation.Photo.pdf)

ix) Request was made in the docket of 15-276CF to remove the image from the courthouse foyer

was made with the court.

x) The image of Plaintiff remained posted in the Court house foyer well past resolution of all cases

and issues.

xi) Cases were resolved in a dubious manner in February 2016.

xii) The images of Plaintiff in the courthouse remained in public view well into October 2016.

xiii) The images of Plaintiff were attended to by Sheriff personnel/deputies in a building maintained

by the Clerk.

xiv) The images of the Plaintiff included personal data such as birth date, social security number, and

phone number.

xv) The images of the Plaintiff included phone numbers of the public defender (H. Guy Green).

xvi) The images of Plaintiff is believed posted in conjunction with the Larry BIRGE phone

call/recording of an alleged “trespass notice” which was never served, 11/2015.

xvii) The image of Plaintiff remained in public view in the courthouse foyer for one year.

xviii) BIRGE, SHERIFF lacks “clean hands” from inception and throughout.

xix) BIRGE, SHERIFF handling is considered outrageous and malicious and objectively

unreasonable.

xx) BIRGE in his role making a fraud (wire fraud) phone call about a non-existent trespass notice,

and then facilitating the blocking scheme at the Court House lacks immunity per Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

xxi) BIRGE knowingly committed a series of frauds to further a scheme of a concerted effort of

persons working together (SAO, Public Defender, SHERIFF, BIRGE). BIRGE with knowledge

violated Plaintiff’s rights thus losing any immunity failing the two standard test per Saucier v.

Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

K) i) Defendant BIRGE in a self-recorded voice mail (Exhibit N, Plaintiff Response to MSJ)

advised Plaintiff there was a “trespass order” issued preventing him from entering the Jackson County

Court House.

ii) There is/was never a “trespass order” served for Plaintiff’s denial of access/entry to Jackson

County Court house.






12

12


iii) Defendant BIRGE working with SAO and Public defender schemed to deny and intimidate

Plaintiff to deter his access to courthouse to address a color of law scheme initiated/manufactured by

BIRGE and his accomplices.

x) Defendant BIRGE serving the SAO in a scheme of their making attempted to intimidate/coerce

Plaintiff Whidden from access to Jackson County Court house Marianna (Title 42 Section 1985

section 2 violation).

xi) As evidenced in the court docket via a virtual “Wanted Poster”(11/2015 thru 10/2016 estimated)

active intimidation by JCSO (Sheriff personnel) existed for a period in excess of 9 months.

xii) In the voice mail recordings left by BIRGE(11/2015) was the only contact/notice attempt

regarding “trespass” issues during this period.

xiii) No evidence of any form exists in any known archived files of Sheriff or third parties.

xiv) There is no reference whatsoever in the Sheriff’s case files discovered through this case or

through FOIA regarding the believed unlawful trespass issues.

xv) All records of this issue have been withheld from this court by Defense. All records appear to

either have been struck from record or never existed. Either event is a violation of law.

xvi) The only known lawful reference to this unlawful aggression appears in the docket 15-276CF as

filed by Plaintiff for the removal of the offensive posting. (From CD#6,

2016.2.22.Defamation.Photo.pdf) (Plaintiff response to MSJ Exhibit N: Voice mail recordings)

xvii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, GREEN) lacks “clean hands” from inception

and throughout.

xviii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, GREEN) handling is considered outrageous

and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

xix) BIRGE with knowledge facilitated a scheme to block plaintiff through a fake “trespass order”

which does not exist and never did. BIRGE lacks immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S.

635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

xx) BIRGE knew there was no “trespass order”. BIRGE knew it was unlawful to block a citizen

from a public building. BIRGE had revealed in sworn deposition one month prior (10/8/2015)

he knew he furthered the base case lacking any evidence, right, crime, cause, or witness. BIRGE

knew he was furthering what appears a concerted scheme tantamount to RICO to violate the

rights of a citizen. BIRGE lacks immunity failing the two standard test of Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194 (2001)

xxi) BIRGE had obligations under “Misprision of Felony” to call a halt to the runaway miscarriage of

justice against Plaintiff even if BIRGE himself started it (proximate cause). BIRGE furthered

the “trespass order” and “wanted poster” scheme (11/2015) AFTER he had disclosed under oath

one month earlier the core case lacked foundation, thus BIRGE made concerted effort with

others outside SHERIFF organization with full knowledge they were outside the scope of law

enforcement. BIRGE lacks immunity failing tests of Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

L) i) No radio calls exist in any known third party archived file.

ii) SAO (State Attorney Office) file is missing “radio calls” and “CAD” calls for both case 15-619MM

and 15-276CF.









13

13


iii) Sheriff/BIRGE provided “radio calls” and “CAD” evidence prominently first in their BINDER1.pdf

document provided 8/2015.

iv) Sheriff/BIRGE/SAO/Public Defenders worked in concert to conceal a multitude of records to

include “Radio/CAD calls” which only now 5 years later SHERIFF provides as a result of this

litigation.

v) Sheriff failure to provide Radio call/CAD documentation facilitated SAO/Public Defender

concealments and Brady Material Failures making Sheriff seemingly an accomplice in the State’s

schemes.

vi) Sheriff/BIRGE and their counsel continue to conceal evidence by way of Radio Calls/CAD

concerning a meeting held between Plaintiff and arresting officer (Quinton Hollis) on 7/30/2015

following release from jail.

vii) The concealed meeting between Plaintiff and Quinton Hollis 7/30/2015 was staged by

DEFENDANT BIRGE. Record exists in radio call page 2, JCSOFOIA.pdf.

viii) At the 7/30/2015 meeting between Plaintiff and Hollis personal property concealed from record,

retained by JCSO/Sheriff unlawfully was in part returned.

ix) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, HOLLIS) lacks “clean hands” from inception and

throughout.

x) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, HOLLIS) handling is considered outrageous and

malicious and objectively unreasonable.

xi) SHERIFF lacks immunity for the concealment of Radio Calls/CAD calls now seen by their defense

as relevant evidence on a case in which they were withheld 5 years ago. SHERIFF lacks immunity

per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

xii) SHERIFF/BIRGE find their radio calls/CADs important for their defense however failed to provide

them to prosecutors withholding crucial BRADY MATERIAL in the underlying trial process. This

was purposeful with knowledge, considered custom and practice. BIRGE/SHERIFF lack immunity

failing the two part test Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

M) i) The Sheriff/Office worked in a concerted effort with the office of Judge Mercer (Probation

Officer Stacey Goodson) who on 7/31/2015 (approx. 10am) contacted Plaintiff ordering him to unlock

the gate to his property under threat of probation.

ii) The removal of lock on the gate by order of the Probation officer facilitated access (without

permission) by officers (Sheriff officer Shane Tipton and others) who removed personal property

from the Plaintiff/Pollywog property.

iii) The property accessed and/or removed from Plaintiff property was not at any time inventoried

before, during or after facilitating conversion/theft of personal property, obstruction of justice,

tampering with evidence, and a host of issues outlined by Plaintiff in response to Court/Sheriff in

a timely manner.

iv) Plaintiff filed notice with the Sheriff office of the perception of their violation promptly. The

notice has been stripped/removed from Sheriff record/files.

v) Shane Tipton accessed the property of Plaintiff following a call to Stacey Goodson ordering him

to have the lock removed.





14

14


vi) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, GREEN, COMPLAINANT SLAY) lacks

“clean hands” from inception and throughout.

vii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, GOODSON, TIPTON, COMPLAINANT SLAY)

handling is considered outrageous and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

viii) Tipton/SHERIFF had no reasonable means/belief to think access was lawful. Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

ix) Tipton/SHERIFF had no reasonable means/belief to think access was lawful. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.

194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403

U.S. 388 (1971)

N) i) The removal of personal property without inventory allowed Sheriff personnel to facilitate

removals by complainant SLAY.

ii) Sheriff office worked in concert with complainant SLAY at minimum from 5/12/2015 filing of

false/spurious claim through unlawful removal of an untold inventory of personal effects.

iii) Quinton Hollis the arresting officer knew there was no probable cause, no crime, and the case

lacked foundation. As such the removals were plainly unlawful “fruit of the poisonous tree” and

lacks immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223

(2009), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

iv) Officer Quinton HOLLIS maintained personal property of an undisclosed amount, nature, type

and style in any records of SHERIFF/BIRGE investigation. HOLLIS/BIRGE/SHERIFF lack

immunity per Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

v) It was clear prior to time of arrest the warrant was unlawful. It was clear following arrest the warrant was

unlawful. It was clear furthering the crimes against Plaintiff were unlawful “Fruit of the poisonous tree”.

Immunity is lost failing the two standard test Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

O) i) In this case, Plaintiff “telegraphed” his intentions in early filings.

ii) In the early filings with “telegraphed” intentions, Plaintiff removed (withdrew) filings.

iii) The Defense in this case coordinated with Sheriff/SAO/Public Defenders the removal of

documents from archived third party and first party official records.

iv) The documents removed (Title 18 Section 2071) from official record by SAO (State Attorney)

were all that was needed from their file to win this case.

v) SAO/Defense arranged to have all SAO references to “mental incompetency” to include SAO

memo 1/22/2016 and Court filings removed from public record.

vi) Following the “telegraphing” of intentions in August 2019, Plaintiff waited 6+ weeks, filed

FOIA with SAO only to discover SAO had coordinated file tampering with Defense/Counsel.

vii) Public Defenders office in violation of Florida Statute 24.70 Section 8 have withheld copy of

their file for 5+ years.

viii) Defense counsel have worked in concert with others to conceal (defraud) public record access,

blocking and manipulating public archived data found (or not found) in FOIA’s.

ix) The ongoing record manipulation of public record can be demonstrated clearly using Plaintiff

evidence filings 12/2019 and 2/2020 in this case.











15

15


x) Ongoing record tampering demonstrates an ongoing current aggressive commitment to the

original conspiracy/schemes as Plaintiff asserts RICO to further RICO.

xi) The Defense knowingly committed a criminal Title 18 USC 2071 records manipulation and all

those party to it or benefiting from it lack immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987)

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

P) i) Currently, aggressive actions are being taken to conceal material inventory records for this

case.

ii) In BINDER1.pdf, page WHI1-53, WHI1-107, WHI1-104 we see where Defense Counsel,

Sheriff, SAO, and Public Defender have coordinated to conceal the actual inventory records and

personal property records as recently as this case.

iii) An effort to conceal archived records continues all the way to the filing of the frivolous MSJ

3/5/2020 by Defense Counsel.

iv) Concealment or tampering of inventory records is believed Title 18 Section 2071 violation, a

violation of FOIA access/rights, and civil rights records compliance.

v) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, PUBLIC DEFENDER) lacks “clean hands”

from inception and throughout.

vi) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, PUBLIC DEFENDER) handling is considered


vii) Sheriff (records and inventory personnel) are furthering a scheme under Color of Law and lack

immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

viii) In this ongoing conspiracy SHERIFF/BIRGE have purposefully altered their files and arranged for third

party archived files to be materially tampered. Failing the two standard test BIRGE/SHERIFF lack

immunity Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)

Q) i) The Sheriff and BIRGE worked in concert with SAO (State Attorney Office) to remove and

retain private property of an unnamed inventory, quantity and quality through a spurious arrest and

detainment scheme.

ii) Firearms were removed and retained unlawfully by Sheriff.

vi) Tampered firearm inventory documents (tantamount to fraud) have been provided to this court

by Defense.

vii) Tampered firearm inventory documents stipulate 4 firearms were “retained” for “Safe Keeping”.

viii) The “Safe Keeping” firearms should have been returned along with the vehicle when Plaintiff

was released from jail. They were not.

ix) The “evidence” firearms (2) were retained almost 6 weeks following lawful resolution of what

Plaintiff believes is and has always been an unlawful use of process (Color of Law).

x) The tampered firearm documents provided to this court by Defense lack counter signatures of

Plaintiff.

xi) The tampered inventory paperwork provided to demonstrate “chain of command” of firearms

does not exist in any known third party archived file and have never been seen before.

xii) Tampered inventory paperwork provided to demonstrate “chain of command” lack signatures

and appear forgeries provided to this court by Defense with intent to deceive.






16

16


xiii) The tampered/forged vehicle inventory paperwork was concealed at the time of trial, and appears

tampered.

xiv) None of the personal property paperwork provided by the Defense has a counter signature by

Plaintiff/owner indicating they still possess the property and their “conversion/theft” is complete.

xv) The property records of Sheriff/Defense lacks photos of personal property from the time of

arrest, vehicle, and firearms.

xvi) Additionally personal property of any unnamed type, style, and quantity were maintained in the

arresting officer’s possession without turning over at any time to SHERIFF/BIRGE for

inventory. BIRGE staged a meeting for return of said property in limited amount.

BIRGE/HOLLIS/SHERIFF lack immunity per Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S.

388 (1971)

xvii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, WATSON) lacks “clean hands” from

inception and throughout.

xviii) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, WATSON) handling is considered outrageous

and malicious and objectively unreasonable.

xix) The Sheriff and officers under his employ including BIRGE lack immunity per Anderson v.

Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

xx) As a custom and practice of this SHERIFF/BIRGE and their operation they lack proper records, personal

property management and tracking systems. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of countersigned

documents in this evidence/case. The SHERIFF/BIRGE lack immunity failing the two part standard

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

R) The aggressive schemes of the Jackson County Sheriff Office, area law enforcement, and accomplices

are repetitive, ongoing, and aggressive.

S) The schemes of the Jackson County Sheriff Office are pervasive well outside their jurisdiction and

venue through accomplices statewide as exhibited in a 143 page FCIC, NCIC, FDLE FOIA response.

T) i) The schemes and aggression of Jackson County Sheriff office have spilled over into other

jurisdictions with other related aggressions creating an organic nature which perpetuates with no sign of

relief.

ii) As evidenced in the data provided Court and Defense 12/2019 and 2/2020 ten days after filing

the section 768 Notice of Intent to litigate against JCSO in this case Plaintiff was unlawfully aggressed

in what appears retaliation in an adjacent jurisdiction.

iii) Aggression in adjacent jurisdiction without cause continued until Plaintiff scheduled a

meeting with Sheriff and advised him to tell his people to back off. This was a recent meeting.

U) i) SAO who was working in tandem throughout this scheme with Sheriff made multiple

references in their files and filings to a belief that Plaintiff was mentally impaired.

ii) SAO and their accomplices have made efforts to conceal or destroy the mental competency

questions/issues from their files following filing of a section 825 RICO charge in this case.

iii) In the evidence filed by Plaintiff identifies 76 pages known to have been removed from public

record (Title 18 USC 2071) called “Twilight” file.

iv) The “Twilight” file represents documents/issues coordinated with SAO to protect Sheriff in this

case.





17

17


v) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, PUBLIC DEFENDER) lacks “clean hands”

from inception and throughout.

vi) BIRGE and his co-conspirators (SHERIFF, SAO, PUBLIC DEFENDER) handling is considered


vii) Officers to include BIRGE and SHERIFF personnel as custom and practice use the

abuse/manipulation of “mental competency” statutes and persons to commit heinous crimes and

to defraud civil rights of citizens. They lack immunity per Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635

(1987) Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

viii) BIRGE/SHERIFF and their accomplice/co-conspirators named as “witnesses” by defense have a clearly

established custom and practice of aggressing those believed impaired using “Baker Act” type/style

proceedings as a tool. Failing the two standard test they lack immunity per Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194

(2001)

V) A corporate wide scheme appears prevalent through the experience and investigation by Plaintiff.

i) The hoax complaint/investigation submitted by Defendant BIRGE appears proximate cause of

introduction to the mismanagement of property scheme outlined herein.

ii) Defendant BIRGE furthered a concerted scheme of a replicated nature in which he worked with

complainant Jennifer Nicole Wright SLAY.

iii) Defendant BIRGE worked at the time for Chief Deputy Donnie BRANCH.

iv) Donnie BRANCH has personal and family connections to Duckey Wright, father of Jennifer

Nicole WRIGHT Slay.

v) Defendant BIRGE knowingly furthered a complaint lacking cause and crime to prosecutor.

vi) BIRGE worked in a concerted effort with State Attorney Office to further a hoax/spurious

complaint to form a dubious warrant.

vii) BIRGE worked in concert with others in his department (namely BRANCH and C.EDWARDS)

to conceal information known to absolve Plaintiff of any wrongdoing.

viii) BIRGE worked in concert with C.EDWARDS to fabricate and conceal information to form basis

for his report(s) to prosecutor.

ix) Prosecutors who worked in concerted effort with BIRGE have now stripped material records

from the State archived database in what appears a Title 18 USC 2071 violation to conceal

material records.

x) BIRGE’s hoax investigation leading to frivolous warrant lead to an unlawful arrest.

xi) BIRGE appears proximate cause to an unlawful arrest which propagated more conspiracy theory

hoaxes to cover the schemes.

xii) Quinton HOLLIS exercised warrant conducting arrest as directed by SHERIFF LOU ROBERTS

who was on the scene.

xiii) SHERIFF LOU ROBERTS is considered a final decision maker.

xiv) SHERIFF LOU ROBERTS personally directed Quinton HOLLIS to arrest Plaintiff on an alleged

“warrant” to which HOLLIS claimed to have NO KNOWLEDGE.

xv) In HOLLIS original paperwork he states “He was made aware of a warrant” (Paraphrased).

xvi) In HOLLIS later report he stated “He had previous knowledge of the warrant” (Paraphrased).

xvii) HOLLIS committed a material deception in his statements which are in conflict.






18

18


xviii) HOLLIS took possession of personal property of Plaintiff to include entire vehicle, tools,

firearms, etc.

xix) HOLLIS took possession of an untold inventory of personal effects WITHOUT EVER providing

any pictoral evidence, inventory or paperwork for counter signature.

xx) The “arrest” of plaintiff on 7/29/2015 is seen as a Color of Law guise for common law theft of

property lacking inventory, evidence, or counter signature.

xxi) The “arrest” of plaintiff on a dubious warrant based on NON-existing investigation lays

foundation for a 4th Amendment violation scheme with theft/conversion part of the scheme.

xxii) At no point in any archived file are there any photos/images of Plaintiff personal property

taken/seized/controlled by SHERIFF.

xxiii) In this federal case Defense/Counsel provided NO INVENTORY nor evidence paperwork with

countersignature by Plaintiff, thus demonstrating a scheme to conceal

paperwork/inventory/conversion in this case.

xxiv) The vehicle “inventory” provided by SHERIFF/Defense in this case was NEVER provided to

Plaintiff.

xxv) Immediately upon release from jail while still in custody Plaintiff arranged to be taken to

Defendant BIRGE, 7/30/2015. Release from custody occurred in the presence of BIRGE who

initiated the scheme.

xxvi) BIRGE ultimately advised Plaintiff to get out of his office, not to return, and once he was gone

whatever he had was all he would get.

xxvii) BIRGE withheld vehicle and firearm inventory paperwork from Plaintiff.

xxviii) SHERIFF/SAO withheld vehicle and firearm paperwork from Plaintiff.

xxix) Failing any form of paperwork for checks and balances Plaintiff realized there was a common

law theft/conversion opportunity for SHERIFF/BIRGE through the guise of the false arrest.

xxx) RICO to commit modified “civil asset seizure” by SHERIFF as an organized unit became

immediately a concern.

xxxi) Upon departing BIRGE office as instructed (without paperwork) Plaintiff had a meeting

(afternoon 7/30/2015) with arresting officer Quinton HOLLIS.

xxxii) The meeting with Quinton HOLLIS upon release was staged/arranged by Defendant BIRGE

from his office, by telephone in the presence of Plaintiff.

xxxiii) HOLLIS met Plaintiff initially at “Darby’s Store” in Cypress, Florida then departed following

PLAINTIFF to a property of Plaintiff.

xxxiv) Radio Call by HOLLIS provides evidence on 7/30/2015 of the staged meeting by BIRGE at the

property of Plaintiff. This radio call has been concealed, and was not made available to this

court in the this proceeding.

xxxv) At the meeting HOLLIS advised Plaintiff that he wanted to apologize for being part of the arrest,

due to the arrest having no basis, no cause, and for other factors discussed.

xxxvi) HOLLIS advised Plaintiff the arrest/process was nothing more than a “wild fishing expedition”

lacking foundation.

19

19


xxxvii) HOLLIS advice to Plaintiff demonstrated knowledge within the department that a scheme was

afoot.

xxxviii) HOLLIS at the 7/30/2015 meeting returned some personal effects to Plaintiff without record

of any form due to the fact personal property remained in the SHERIFF car overnight.

xxxix) The material mishandling of property records by BIRGE, by HOLLIS, by SHERIFF, and by

design was abundantly clear to Plaintiff.

xl) At NO TIME leading to resolution was any effort made to provide inventories of belongings.

xli) The SAO and Public Defender were clearly working in concerted effort (termed “Conspiracy”)

as discussed in the 10/8/2015 deposition of Defendant BIRGE by SAO and Public Defender.

xlii) SAO and Public Defender worked in concert to conceal the BIRGE deposition.

xliii) The efforts of Public Defender (a co-conspirator) to conceal BIRGE deposition (considered

exculpatory) continues to this day as evidenced in Plaintiff Response to MSJ.

xliv) Upon dismissal of frivolous firearm charges by Judge Mercer due to CIVIL RIGHTS violations

the SAO (Wahlquist-Parish) worked in concerted effort with SHERIFF (through Karen and

Virgil Watson) to continue to possess firearm inventory of Plaintiff.

xlv) Karen Watson and Virgil Watson worked with SAO (Wahlquist-Parish) to block access to

personal property of Plaintiff.

xlvi) Upon Plaintiff filing ACAP Florida Bar complaints against SAO officers for conspiracy to

commit Grand Theft/Armed robbery multiple counts, the SAO advised the SHERIFF (Watson)

to release the inventory.

xlvii) Upon arriving at the SHERIFF office to collect possessions, Plaintiff was given BLANK PAPER

FORMS and turned away.

xlviii) Upon seeking personal property Plaintiff was told to write down on a list whatever property

Plaintiff “thought” the SHERIFF had, and if they had whatever Plaintiff thought was there they

would consider returning it. THIS IS DOCUMENTED IN ARCHIVED FILES BUT

CONCEALED.

xlix) The SHERIFF through WATSON demonstrated a CONCERTED EFFORT as a CORPORATE

SCHEME to procure personal property without record, which is theft/conversion using 4th

Amendment violation under Color of Law.

l) The form for requesting property has been provided to this Court in the evidence for Response to

MSJ.

li) The form(s) for requesting property as compared to inventory lacking counter signature that had

been withheld left open the door of FRAUD of official records/documents.

lii) The inventory for firearms withheld was provided via later meeting with WATSON after the

“blank” personal inventory was filled out, early 12/2015.

liii) The inventory records provided to this court have been stated to be forgeries, tampered, and

fraud by the undersigned.

liv) The inventory and personal property records continue to be produced and manipulated by

SHERIFF.

20

20


lv) The paperwork scheme of mismanagement is a CORPORATE SCHEME orchestrated and

overseen by the SHERIFF under one of his departments.

lvi) The Corporate Scheme to defraud paperwork and personal property conversion would indicate

ALL ARRESTS and ALL OFFICERS of JCSO are party to the corporate wide scheme (RICO)

to separate persons from their property without records, or with tampered records.

lvii) The separation of persons from property while manipulating records/inventory is a

CORPORATE WIDE conspiracy in concert with the SAO who facilitates false warrants,

detentions, etc to “justify” the property retention without proper record.

lviii) The SAO directed and manipulated a host of records, archived and otherwise in this frivolous

case to willfully and purposefully defraud a citizen of rights and property. The SAO

(Wahlquist-Parish) appears to be using RICO and departmental separation to avoid being seen as

party to the SHERIFF’s frauds/schemes.

lix) The SHERIFF and SAO are as a matter of Custom and Practice using “immunity” schemes of

SAO and SHERIFF as a form of “Protection Racket” (RICO) for crimes against citizens.

lx) SAO to cover for SHERIFF/BIRGE in this wide ranging scheme have manipulated, damaged, or

concealed more than 76 pages of an official file, thus committing a Title 18 USC 2071 records

manipulation to conceal aspects of the conspiracy.

lxi) The SAO records manipulation (destruction of records) taking place 11/2019 was in direct

response to filings (telegraphing) by Plaintiff in this case, indicating a coordinated effort to

conceal records with Defense Counsel in this case and SAO an accomplice in the SHERIFF

conspiracy.

lxii) SAO, Public Defender and BIRGE were operating a conspiracy as early as 10/2015 as discussed

by BIRGE in recorded deposition of 10/8/2015 with GREEN (Pub Defender) and Wahlquist-

Parish (SAO) present. They have worked in concert to conceal this recording, but it has been

made available to the Court and to Defense.

lxiii) Plaintiff took an assignment to review dozens of SHERIFF encounters for private citizens

involved in one of the other conspiracy schemes of the SHERIFF.

lxiv) In the review by Plaintiff of private records of those encountering this SHERIFF not a SINGLE

PERSON had any inventory, nor counter signature paperwork for their personal property.

lxv) The modified “civil asset seizure” without records of documents provided is a large ranging,

multifaceted, corporate wide scheme by SHERIFF to steal property for purposes of conversion

under Color of Law.

lxvi) The SHERIFF is a thief, and his office thieves by design and thus a RICO organization. They

operate in conjunction with the SAO office who support similar style schemes like the Zachary

Wester crimes. Criminal investigation has been requested of this Court multiple times by this

Plaintiff.

lxvii) Civil Asset Seizure without records creates an unlawful income stream without taxation for those

perpetrating this hoax. Department of Treasury (IRS) needs to be involved to investigate the tax

advantages derived by the department heads and personnel.

21

21


lxviii) Additional crimes appear apparent from Plaintiff’s review of cases and material mismanagement

at all levels in the corporate fraud known as Jackson County Sheriff’s office.

lxix) BIRGE’s hoax investigation for a case lacking a crime or cause was proximate cause to this

entire chain of events.

lxx) BIRGE facilitated continuance of this pattern and events well past November 2015. BIRGE is

being pursued at this time for the Civil wrongs that lead to the criminal abuses which followed.

lxxi) Many of the co-conspirators with BIRGE have claimed “immunity” as designed for this

protection racket under Color of Law to continue.

The words in this memorandum number, 9121, addressing a multitude of conspiracy type activity and

attempts by Defense.

THEODORE L. WHIDDEN

June 16, 2020

P.O. Box 158, Chipley, Fla 32428

850-685-2353

[email protected]

Sent via Email to Defense prior to filing.

mailto:[email protected]

affidavit in support plaintiff response to motion for

Documents