IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIALCIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISIONCASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21

LTA LOGISTICS, INC.LESTER TRIMINO, et al; THE ORIGINALPlaintiff,

MAY 2 4 2013V>

IN THE OFFICE OFCIRCUIT COURT DADE CO., FL

Enrique Varona,Defendant,

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION FORLEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND COMPLAINT

HERE COMES THE DEFENDANT, Enrique Varona, who is Sui

Juris acting Pro-se, who objects to the Plaintiff motion for leave ofcourt to amend the complaint on the basis that the amended complaint as

proposed by counsel contains numerous statements and conclusions of

law that are false, libelous, and shows this court the following;

NEW ATTORNEYS / NEW COMPLAINT /NEW MISREPRESENTATIONS

The Defendant has cataloged a number of misrepresentations in the

Plaintiff counsel proposed amended complaint.

1. On paragraph 5_ of the amended complaint, Plaintiff counsel

incorrectly states that this Circuit Court is the proper venue for this

action. As per contract terms between Plaintiff and Defendant (see

Page 3, Section 10 of the contract) the proper "venue of any action

brought (is) exclusively in the circuit court of Henrico, Virginia or the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.'1' Defendant has

not agreed to waive any provision of his employment agreement with

the Plaintiff including section 10, venue and choice of law .

2. On paragraph 8 of the amended complaint, Plaintiff counsel states

that Defendant was hired by Plaintiff to maintain and service certain of

their "high degree of cultivated and well developed customer

relationships'". Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any

"customers" to service or maintain during his employment. Defendant

an independent contractor, owned his own portfolio of clients which

predated his employment agreement with the Plaintiff and these were

the only customers he serviced while employed by the Plaintiff, (see

IRS form 1099, tax year 2009, exhibit 1 proof of Independent

contractor).

3. On paragraph 9 of the amended complaint, Plaintiff counsel

fraudulently states that Defendant and Plaintiff entered into an

employment "Agreement" dated November 5, 2009. Mr. Scott

Egelston P.A. previous counsel for Plaintiff entered into the courts

records the only legitimate employment "agreement" between Plaintiff

and Defendant which is dated June 9, 2009 (see, PLAINTIFF

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO PRODUCE,

February 26, 2013 answer to interrogatory no. 1).

4. On paragraph 13 of the amended complaint, Plaintiff counsel

fraudulently states that the load posted by Defendant on getloaded.com

on June 24, 2010 was from a Plaintiff customer. See sworn affidavit

of UNIVERSAL FREIGHT BROKERS, INC.

5. On paragraph 23. and Paragraph 43 of the amended complaint,

Plaintiff counsel falsely states that Defendant published on the internet at

a blog called "Blacklist.org" the following defamatory message:

"Lester Trimino, SOE Asshole in Miami who screws everyone,got an extensive rap sheet. This blog is intended for all victimsof Lester Trimino and LTA LOGISTICS, INC. I believe theCustomers should know the truth behind the company."

The Defendant has never published anything at "Blacklist.org" the

Defendant considers such a preposterous allegation made by the Plaintiff

counsel as libelous. The Defendant strongly suggests the plaintiff

counsel inquire with "Blacklist.org" who was the person(s) responsible

for publishing the blog they refer to before falsely accusing the

Defendant of being the publisher of such an unprofessional, offensive,

and disrespectful statement.

6. On paragraph 48 of the amended complaint, the Plaintiff counsel

states that "LTA has suffered damages totaling $11,300.00 in payments

to third parties for assistance in removing Defendant's defamatory

internet materials from internet results." The company the Plaintiffused for these "services" was NATIONAL POSITIONS SOE, of

California and this company through its manager denies ever offering

these types of services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has been served

with a subpoena regarding the invoices it claims to have paid for these

services. However, the Plaintiff did successfully remove some of the

defendant's video postings from YouTube.com by filling over 100

fraudulent "Copyright infringement notices" on a non existent

copyright, a violation of federal law (see, title 17 sec 5(c)) each

fraudulent copyright infringement notice is a second degree felony.

THE YOUTUBE.COM VIDEOS ISSUE

7. On paragraphs 24, 25, 44, 45, of the amended complaint,

Plaintiff counsel makes deceitful, incomplete, and impartial reference

to the YouTube.com video postings on the internet by the defendant

between February through April 2011. Videos posted on the

defendant's private YouTube.com channel such as "Liar, Liar, Pants

on fire" ... "Deception form LTA LOGISTICS, INC"...and "LTA

LOGISTICS a true or false quiz you decide....

8. These videos were posted in response to Plaintiff own

YouTube.com video postings and advertising campaigns were Plaintiff

fraudulently advertised to the public at large that their transportation

services consisted of their "ownership" and "management" of 225

blue trucks and trailers. The fact of the matter was/ is that the Plaintiff

is not licensed as a motor carrier, Plaintiff does not own any trucks or

trailers, Plaintiff is a broker who is a third party logistics company who

arranges transport of goods between a carrier and a shipper and makes a

commission for doing so. It is against federal law to misrepresent

broker services for those of a motor carrier. It is against state law to

misrepresent the facts in any advertising campaign.

9. As a result of an agreement between the Plaintiff previous counsel

Mr. Scott Egleston P.A., and Defendant, both parties agreed to stop

posting videos on YouTube.com (1) provided the Plaintiff stooped

posting false advertising misrepresenting his companies services and

claiming to own 225 trucks on the internet in exchange for (2)

Defendant agreeing to stop posting videos exposing the Plaintiffs

fraud. This agreement has been in place since April 2011 to this day,

for a total of over 2 years. On information and belief both parties have

uphold their agreement to this date.

THE DEFENDANT'S POSTINGS ON SCRIBD

10. On paragraph 46 of the amended complaint, Plaintiff counsel

raises an issue with what she claims are alleged "defamatory"

statements against the Plaintiff posted by defendant on his Scrib

website account. Scribd is a free website were people post documents

such as legal papers, books, and any written material they so please.

The "offending" postings consist of most of the papers which are public

court records pertaining to this case, of 25 postings the defendant has

the Plaintiff counsel has issues with posting 1, posting 2, and posting 7.

11. The Plaintiff who at all times has retained legal counsel in this

litigation failed to rebut or contest the Defendants affidavits stating that

he was and how he was in violation of both federal and state RICO

statutes which makes him by definition a racketeer. (See,

DEFENDANT' S NOTICE OF FELONY, December 12, 2012). Also

see,

a) Non Rebutted Affidavits are "Prima Facie Evidencein the Case,"United States vs. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536-337(7thCir. 1981);

b) Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22,1982. "Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) is necessary tomake the Prima Facie Case."

c) Seitzer v. Seitzer, 80 Cal. Rptr. 688 "UncontestedAffidavit taken as true in support of Summary Judgment."

12. The Plaintiff by claiming to own and operate 225 trucks in his

video advertising is perpetrating a scam and a fraud against the shipping

public. In addition, the Plaintiff conduct in this case is an example of

malicious, abusive, and criminally negligent behavior by failing to

answer two requests of production, deceitfully answering two request

of admissions, defaulting on two court order to compel production of

documents, ignoring subpoenas for relevant records, egregious acts of

malfeasance and corruption against the court, against the defendant and

against due process of law. AND NOW, the Plaintiff has an issue with

the Defendant calling the cattle black.

13. The biggest problem for this Plaintiff appears to be the truth.

14. Defendant believes that he is free to express his "opinions" as a

private citizen on the internet, and while the defendant believes he

enjoys first amendment protection for his freedom of speech, he is also

an accommodating person. The Defendant has edited these 3 postings

(1,2,7) to remove the alleged "offending" words even though they are

truthful and legally accurate descriptions of the Plaintiff and his

behavior. In addition the Defendant would remind this court that Court

records, pleadings, motions and so forth are public documents available

to the public at large.

15. The only reason the Plaintiff should feel embarrassed is for his

own conduct and behavior during this litigation. Issues the Plaintiff has

to resolve within himself and not through the Defendant. Is clear that this

Plaintiff needs mental and emotional professional counseling. I hope he

gets it.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff counsel has asked this court for leave to amend the

complaint with a proposed new lengthy complaint that contains 86

paragraphs of statements most of which are false representations of the

facts, conclusions of law, and hearsay . It claims actions for Breach of

contract, Tortious Interference with business relationship (damages),

asks for Permanent Injunctive relief, and defamation against LTA

LOGISTICS (against a fiction of law), and for Defamation against

LESTER TRIMINO. The reason they request this leave to amend

complaint is (1) to establish a "contract" with the defendant through

fraudulent inducement, false considerations and (2) in the so called

interest of justice and (3) to clean the pleadings. The Defendantopposes this request by the Plaintiff counsel for the following reasons:

(a) of 86 statements only statements 1, 2, 3, 6, 40 are true (b) 13

statements misrepresentations of the facts (c) 31 statements are

predicated on the applicability of the terms contained on a fraudulent

contract dated November 5, 2010. A contract that has expired 2 years

age (d) 24 statements are mere conclusions of law and hearsay made by

the counsel (e) 9 statements deal with TRIMINOS unbalanced

psychotic personality and marital problems brought about by his own

actions and that are irrelevant to the legal issues at hand (f) In two years

of litigation the Plaintiff has failed to identity one customer of his the

defendant interfered with (g) In two years of litigation Plaintiff has

failed to identify any monetary damages except for the bogus $11,300

which services they refuse to provide invoices for (h) Pretends to

enforce an employment contract that expired 3 years ago (i) and

complain about videos from YouTube.com that were removed two years

ago and have not been posted ever since.

In the interest of justice, time, the rule of law, common sense, and basic

human decency, the Plaintiff should not be allowed to file an amended

frivolous complaint he does not intend to prosecute or provide any

evidence in support of his claims. Instead this court should dismiss the

Plaintiff SLAPP complaint with prejudice and the defendants

counterclaim should be scheduled for trial as soon as the court sees fit.

>uld be justice.

Rqspectmilly suomitt&d by,

4_x_v_yQrYN>->^__,nriqAe\Varona, Sui Juris acting Pro-se

14823ysV- 125 CourtMiami, Florida 33186enriquevarona@ymail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was

mailed by US certified mail number. # on May I/O ,2013 to

WARREN GAJVflLL & ASSOCIATES, P.A. at Suite 1050,

Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130.

ctfully,

inricpe Varona, Sui Juris acting Pro-se25J.W. 125 Court

Miami, Florida 33186