IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION

DIVISION CASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21

LTA LOGISTICS, INC. LESTER TRIMINO, et a/;

Plaintiff,
V.

Enrique Varona,
Defendant,

"When a judge acts were he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act of treason" Cohen vs. Virginia9 U.S. 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821).
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HERE COMES THE DEFENDANT, Enrique Varona, who is Sui Juris on this cause and states on the record in the interest of justice the following. The Honorable Judge Antonio Arzola is deemed to know the law and has acted with malice, intent, and knowledge to violate it. By his "Oath of Office" Judge Antonio Arzola is bound to support the Constitutions for the United States of America and the State of Florida,

bound to comply with the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the State of Florida, and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida case law. Judge Antonio Arzola has claimed a nefarious ad hoc jurisdiction to determine rights, tampered with evidence, has unlawfully changed law venue and forum selection as stated by the contract entered into the courts record on February 26, 2013 to assert a fraudulent personal and subject matter jurisdiction over this action in an effort to further the business interests of Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., and has establish a contract between counsel and Defendant The Defendant in

through constructive fraud and false pretenses.

compliance, under duress, with Judge Antonio Arzola's order dated May 30th, 2013, makes note that this "Answer" is being entered into the record. FACTS OF THIS CASE 1. Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., acting as "The Plaintiff

Attorney of record", has entered this cause of action under fraudulent pretences by his claims, (Title 31 Subtitle III Chapter 37 3729), seeking to stop the lawful conduct of the Defendant and seeking to interfere with the defendants constitutionally protected 1st amendment right of freedom of speech.

2.

Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., "Amended Complaint" is

without merit, without an injured party, and against the welfare of the general public and those engaged in interstate commerce and is the product of his misguided beliefs of what should be done without authority of law. 3. Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has attempted to interfere

with my right to contract under 42 USC 1981. Counsel is not a contracting party, lacks firsthand knowledge of the facts, and has no authority to challenge the contract dated June 9, 2009, or support the "alleged" contract dated November 5, 2009. "A party cannot be both witness and counsel in the same cause." United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 775. 4. Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., claims are all "Fraud" 18

USC 1001, to interfere with commerce in violation of 18 USC 1951, counsels conduct is clearly "Racketeering Activity" as defined in
18 USC 1961.

5.

Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., portrays LTA LOGISTICS, the

INC., LESTER TRIMINO, et al., (From here on, "Plaintiff)

"Corporation" as the honest business person being violated, when in fact it is the "Corporation" acting in bad faith and fraud. Since, they refuse

to do honest business as required of all engaged in commerce under 18

USC 1346.

IN RESPONSE TO COUNT 1 "BREACH OF CONTRACT" 6. Defendant denies this allegation on the grounds that the business

practices of the Plaintiff were "unconscionable" as plaintiff expected Defendant as his agent to violate interstate commerce law, federal and state laws, statutes, codes, regulations, rules and refuses to do honest business required of all engaged in commerce under 18 USC See, SCHEDULE "A" UNCONCIONABLE 1346.

BUSINESS

PRACTICES OF PLAINTIFF A through Z, + (attached). 7. The only valid "Contract" that exists dated June 9th, 2009 cannot

have been "breached" because it has been lawfully discharged by notice of cancellation. The Plaintiff dishonored, never objected to, or rebutted the cancellation notice under the law of contract. Therefore, the contract is null and void. By his actions counsel is in violation of the "Fair

Debt Collection Act" 15 USC 1962, specifically "Harassment & Abuse" prohibited by 18 USC 1692g . The attempts by the plaintiff and its counsel to profit on this alleged obligation is clearly

"Extortionate Credit Transactions" 18 USC 891-894 by attempting to

enforce and collect on an contract that has been satisfied in full. See, exhibit 1. 8. The alleged "Contract" dated November 5th, 2010 was created

unlawfully by corporate agents in an attempt to defraud the Defendant in violation of "fictitious obligation" 18 USC 514 also, "Party

cannot be bound by contract he has not made or authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts." Alexander vs. Bothsworth, 1915. Wherefore, Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has demonstrated their clear ignorance of the law, by believing they can establish a cause for "Breach of Contract" without a valid contract to enforce, facts, law, and by knowingly employing fraudulent devices,

witnesses,

evidence, and means to support their position. This case should be dismissed with prejudice.

IN RESPONSE TO COUNT II TORTOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (DAMAGES) 9. Defendant denies this allegation on the grounds that Plaintiff (a)

does "NOT" have any business relationships, (b) Defendant cannot possibly have knowledge of business relationships that do not exists, (c) Defendant cannot possibly interfere with business relationships that do

not exists, (d) and there can be no monetary damages resulting from interference with business relationships that do not exists. 10. Plaintiff is prohibited by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,

rule 1.350(b)(2)(A)(B)(C)(D) from entering into the record evidence of business relationships or monetary damages as a result of customers that do not exists allegedly interfered with by the Defendant. Defendant objects to the entering into the record of such evidence at this point. Wherefore, Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has demonstrated the law, by believing they can establish a claim without Business customers interfered

their clear ignorance of "Tortious Interference"

with, without facts, law, injured party or evidence to support their position. This case should be dismissed with prejudice.

IN RESPONSE TO COUNT III TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) 11. 12. Defendant denies this allegation. There is no need for an "injunction" to stop what has been fraudulently

fabricated by Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A.,

complaining without facts, law, injured party or evidence to support their position. This case should be dismissed with prejudice.

IN RESPONSE TO COUNT V DEFAMATION / (LIBEL) 13. Defendant denies this allegation on the grounds that all the

"frauds" perpetrated by the plaintiff and described by the Defendant are true. The "Truth" is an absolute defense against a charge of Libel / Defamation. 14. All the statements made by Defendant on the record have been An un-rebutted affidavit

made under sworn Affidavits of truths. becomes the facts of the case.

"Truth" is the law of "Commerce".

"Judgment" must follow the "Truth". Failure to do so is denial of the truth. 15. The Plaintiff who at all times retained legal counsel in this

litigation failed to rebut or contest the Defendants sworn notarized affidavits. (See, DEFENDANT' S NOTICE OF FELONY, December

12, 2012). Also see, (a) Non Rebutted Affidavits are "Prima Facie Evidence in the Case," United States vs. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536-337 (7th Cir. 1981); ( b) Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22, 1982. "Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) Case." Wherefore, Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has demonstrated their clear ignorance of the law, by believing they can establish a is necessary to make the Prima Facie

"Defamation / Libel" claim without, facts, law, injured party or evidence to support their position. This case should be dismissed with prejudice. CONCLUSION Regardless of what this Court rules, Enrique Varona, who is Sui Juris in this action is a private citizen who has not breached any lawful contract he has ever entered into. To date I have not been presented with any

law I have violated and will continue my private business and the full enjoyment of my rights until a law violated is provided. If there is no law I have violated, then my conduct must be deemed lawful. cause should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, This subject

matter jurisdiction, improper venue and improper choice of law with all other relief the court deems just and proper. Rtespeqfully submitted by,

\Varona, Sui Juris 125 Court Miami, Florida 33186 enriquevarona@ymail.com

SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Enrique Varona, Sui Juris, solemnly affirm and verify that I have read the foregoing, and know its contents to be true to the best of my knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. This instrument is submitted upon good faith effort that is grounded in fact, warranted by existing law for the modification or reversal of existing law and submitted for proper purposes, and not to cause harassment and unnecessary delay or costs, so help me God. See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and Treaties are all the supreme Law of the Land). I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the STATE OF FLORIDA, that the foregoing is true and correct:

Enrique Varona, Sui Juris 14823 SW 125 Court Miami, Florida 33 186 On this day came before me the Affiant, a living flesh and blood man/woman to oath and attest and affirm the signature is true, complete, and correct on the foregoing affidavit. Enrique Varona, the above signed, who is personally known by me or upon proper oath and identification, personally came before me, the subscriber, a notary public in and for said Miami-Dade County and the State of Florida, and Duly Affirmed the truth of the foregoing Affidavit in my presence. The Affiant also acknowledged the signing thereof to be his own voluntary act and deed, signing the within instrument in my presence and for the purpose therein stated. Date : / 3 Of f 3 Identification provided:
fl <>r,vf, /.&>/ Sf

Notary Public:
My co
s

^^^^Q/^

^>

exmres on: i/^

x^"

/r

NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA > JUAN V. HERNANDEZ I Commission #FF014667 Expires: May 5, 2017 BONDED THRU AARON NOTARY

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

SCHEDULE"A" UNCONSCIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE PLAINTIFF A Through Z + (a) 65 FR 15421 D.O.T. 371 (a) (b\ Plaintiff demand that then-

agents misrepresent his services to shippers as being those of a Motor Carrier instead of those of a load broker. (b) Title 18 Part I Chapter 47 1033 (b)(c) (Crimes by or affecting

persons engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce). Plaintiff demand that their agents "convert" cargo insurance policies by demanding truckers issue a certificate of insurance payable to his company who is a third party to the transaction and does not hold title to the insured cargo without the shippers consent. (c) Title 18 USC 1341 (relating to mail fraud). Plaintiff demands

that their agents send promotional company postcards via U.S. Mail with a picture of a truck and trailer that do not exist showing his company logo. These images can be seen at the Plaintiff website. (d) Title 18 USC $ 1343 (relating to wire fraud). Plaintiff advertises

through videos on the internet in Yellowpages.com and YouTube.com showing/ claiming that images of "225" nonexistent "blue trucks" that they allege to "own and operate" are their company truck fleet.

(e)

Title USC 18 659 (relating to theft of interstate shipment).

Plaintiff routinely kidnaps / hijacks machinery and other cargo from shippers and bring them to a storage facility in Homestead Florida.

There are circuit court judgments against the Plaintiff to this effect. (f) Title USC 18 1512 (relating to retaliating against a witness,

victim, or an informant). Plaintiff conduct, communications, comments, allegations towards Defendant and his employer Landstar Ranger. (g) Title 18 USC 1341 (Frauds and swindles) having devised or

intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations ... (h) Title 18 USC 1346 ("scheme or artifice to defraud") to deprive

another of the intangible right of honest services such as Plaintiff customers who believe they are contracting a motor carrier and not a broker or 3rd party to the transaction. (i) Title 18 USC 1961-1968. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO) Because of (c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h) above. (j) (k) Fl. Title 45, 772.104 m. Plaintiff is liable under Florida RKXX Fl. Title 31. Subtitle III. Chapter 37 Subchapter III. 3729

fAB) (makingfalse claims).

(1)

Title 15 U.S.C. 45(al). Plaintiff is in violation of the methods of competition

Federal Trade Commission Act, Unfair unlawful; (m) practices:

Fl Title 33 Ch. 501 Part II 501.204. Unlawful acts and (1) Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or

practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. (n) Fl Title XLVI Ch 817 Part I 817.41 (Misleading advertising

prohibited). (o) Fl Title XLVI Ch 817 Part I 817.02 (Obtaining property by

false representations). (p) Fl Title XLVI Ch 817 Part I 817.034 (Florida Communications

Fraud Act). (q) Fl $ 775.0844 "White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act".-

(deceived and cheated by criminals who commit nonviolent frauds and swindles, frequently through the use of the Internet...). (r) Fl Title XXXIII 542.31 which repeals 542.33. Plaintiff forces

agents to enter into "contracts" in order to secure employment.

(s)

Fl Title 33 542.18 (Restraint of trade or commerce) Every

contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful. (t) Fl Title 33 Ch 501 542.19 (Monopolization; attempts, Plaintiff has created a

combinations, or conspiracies to monopolize).

monopoly on trade by falsely claiming to own "trade secrets". (s) Fl Title 49 Ch 685. 685.101 (Choice of Law) by filing this

law suit in Miami-Dade County against "contract choice of law clause". (u) Fl Title 49 Ch 685, 685.102 (Jurisdiction) by filing this lawsuit

in Miami-Dade County against "contract choice of venue clause." (v) Title 15 USC 1125 Lanham Act (False description or

representation in commerce). (w) Fl Title 31 Ch 448 448102. (Prohibitions) An employer may

not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee... (x) Fl Title 31 Ch 448 448.045 (Wrongful combinations against

workers). (y) Title 17 USC 5(c). [unlawful Copyright infringement notices)

Plaintiff has filed over 100 such notices while not having a copyright license to unlawfully remove Defendants material from the internet. (z) Code 7202 of the Internal Revenue Code ("willful" failures to

"collect, account for, and pay over" payroll taxes). Plaintiff has

designed a "payroll scheme" to defraud his "employees" by making them sign contracts as employees then issuing 1099 as independent contractors, in order to avoid paying matching payroll taxes, which liability is then transferred to the employee. (+) Title 18 USC 4. (Mis-prison of felony) Defendant is required

by law to expose plaintiff crimes. (+) Title 18 USC 3. (Accessory after the fact) failure by the

Defendant to expose and inform on plaintiff crimes makes him an accomplice and an accessory after the fact. (+) Title 18 USC 1001 (Perjury) Violations through entry of false court answers to requests of admissions, production. (+) Title 18 USC 891-894 (Extortionate credit transactions)

Violations against agents and customers of plaintiff. (+) Title 18 USC 514 (Fictitious obligations) Through the

presentment of a fraudulent contract allege to be signed by Defendant to this court in pursuit of this action.

enrique varona [cnp4ad@yahoo.coml

To:

todd@ltalogistics.
OF AGREEMENT CANCELLATION. LTAAGREEMENTCANCELATION.pdf

Subject: Attachments:
T0:

Annette 14331 SW 120 th Street of Agreement Cancellation Served Via Email

otice has been formally served via emaU. This notice Regards, Enrique Varona

-V

NOTICE OF CONTRACT and/or AGREEMENT CANCELLATION. NULLYFICATTON AND TERMINATION

IN REFERENCE TO AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT and/or AGREEEMENT known as the;

"LTA LOGISTICS. INC. NONDISCLOSURE ANT) NDNSOLIC1TATION AGREEMENT"

From here on called the "AGREEMENT' (see attached); Signed on the 9 of June, 2009 between Annette Trimino, as an Officer for LTA, Logistics, Inc. And all it's officers, directors and stockholders; and, Enrique Varona; an employee.

Please be advised that such "AGREEMENT' is now NULL AND VOID. On account of the following: 1) The fixed term "agreement" was unfairly negotiated to conceal the TRUE intentions of the parties. 2) The "agreement'' is being used to deny the employee his legal rights. 3) The "agreement" has been allowed to overrun the end of the fixed period,
-.1-

II

THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen, Enrique Varona, Hereby certifies, by rights secured under provisions of the Constitution, of the United States of America, the Constitution of the Several States, Common Law, Nature and the Laws of Natures God, that these Rights are retained FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held andpgfptscted with special regard to rights designated and/or set forth as follows: -\ 1) The Right to WORK FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETETTERED is guaranteed as a Right and not a mere privilege. That the Right to WORK, is a BASIC pONCOMMITANT of a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. , 2) The undersigned has never willingly and knowingly entered into .ANY "Agreement" or Contract giving up ANY Constitutional Rights whic^ar&^ecured by the CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, This Common Law citizen has NOT uamuii any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety and well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Common Law Citizen is merely excercising the BASIC RIGHT TO WORK UNENCUMBERED AND UNFETTERED, which is their RIGHT TO DO SO!! 1 3) Conversion of a RIGHT TO WORK into a PRIVILEGE and/or crime is a FRAUD and is in clear and direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO CITIZEN is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH "AGREEMENT' OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY AND FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW, NO CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL "AGREEMENT*. Contract or Law.
ii-

' '

4) Further, LTA, is FORBIDEN BY LAW frnm converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a FEE CHARGED, COMPENSATION AND/OR REPARATION for the exercise of a BASIC RIGHT. And if LTA, does ERRONIOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and requires any form of FEES, COMPENSATION AND/OR REPARATION a citizen may IGNORE THE FEES. COMPENSATION AND/OR REPARATIONS WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. 5) The payment for a Privilege requires a. benefit to be received As the RIGHT TO WORK is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges or fees or compensation without direct damage to the specific party. NOR may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the excercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO WORK. 6) OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC RIGHT TO WORK, for a regular Common Law Citizen. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The above named citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS'!!

YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen!!!

7) THE undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER. 8) ANY VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!! )TE: "Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING"- by the Honorable i BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT