30. LTA LOGISTICS v Enrique Varona (Answer to LTA Amended Complaint)

7/28/2019 30. LTA LOGISTICS v Enrique Varona (Answer to LTA Amended Complaint)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/30-lta-logistics-v-enrique-varona-answer-to-lta-amended-complaint 1/17

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI D ADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 11 20527 CA 21

LTA LOGISTICS, INC.

LESTER TRIMINO, et a/;

Plaint i f f ,

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 PLAINTIFFFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

HERE COMES THE DEFENDANT, Enrique Varona, who is Sui

Juris on this cause an d 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

Con stitutions 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

through constructive fraud and false pretenses. The Defendant in

com pliance, under duress, with Judge Antonio Arzola's order dated

May 30 th, 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 De fendan t and seeking to

interfere with the defendants constitutionally protected 1s t amendment

right of freedom of speech.



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

without merit, without an injured party, an d 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,

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

"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. Defendan t 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 §1346.

See, SCHEDULE "A" UNCONCIONABLE BUSINESS

PRACTICES OF PLAINTIFF A through Z, + (attached).

7. The only valid "Contract" that exists dated June 9 th , 2009 cannot

have been "breached" because it has been lawfully discharged by notice

of cancellation. The Plaintiff dishonored, nev er objected to, or rebutted

the cancellation no tice 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, spec ifically "Harassment &

Abuse" prohibited by 18 US C § 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 an d collect on an contract that has been satisfied in full. See,

exhibit 1.

8. The alleged "Contract" dated Novem ber 5 th , 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.

W herefo re, W arren 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,

witnesses, law, and by know ingly emp loying fraudulent devices,

evidence, and mean s to support their position. This case should be

dismissed with prejudice.

IN RESPONSE TO COUNT II TORTOUS INTERFERENCE

WITH A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP (DAMAGES)

9. Defe ndan t denies this allegation on the grounds that Plaintiff (a)

does "NOT" have any business relationships, (b) Defendant cannot

possibly have know ledge 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 mo netary 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 ev idence at this point.

W herefo re, W arren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has demonstrated

their clear ignorance of the law, by believing they can establish a

"Tortious Interference" claim without Business customers interfered

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. De fendan t denies this allegation.

12 . There is no need for an "injunction" to stop what has been

fabricated by W arren Gam ill & Associates, P.A., fraudulently

complaining without facts, law, injured party or evidence to support

their position. This case shou ld be dismissed w ith prejudice.



IN RESPONSE TO COUNT V DEFAM ATION / (LIBEL)

13. Defendant denies this allegation on the grounds that all the

"frauds" perpetrated by the plaintiff an d 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

made under sworn Affidavits of truths. An un-rebutted affidavit

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 De fendants sworn notarized

affidavits. (See, DEFENDANT' S NOTICE O F 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 (7 th

Cir. 1981); ( b) Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22, 1982.

"Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) is necessary to make the Prima Facie

Case."

Wherefore, Warren Gamill & Associates, P.A., has demonstrated

their clear ignorance of the law, by believing they can establish a



"Defamation / Libel" claim without, facts, law, injured party or

evidence to support their position. This case should be dismissed with

prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of wh at 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 m y 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. This

cause should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, subject

matter jurisdiction, improper venue an d 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

[email protected]



SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Enrique Varona, Sui Juris, solemnly affirm an d 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 m atters, 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 (C onstitution, 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 an d correct:

Enrique Varona, Sui Juris

14823 SW 125 Court

Miami, F lorida 33 186

O n this da y came before me the Affiant, a living flesh an d blood man/woman to oath

an d attest and affirm the signature is true, complete, and correct on the foregoingaffidavit. Enrique Varona, the above signed, who is personally know n by me or upon

proper oath an d 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. Th e 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 O ff 3

Identification provided:

Notary Public: ^̂^̂Q̂

s x̂ " /—r

My co

^>

fl <£>r,vf, / .&>/» Sf

NOTARY PUBLIC STATE O F FLORIDA

exmres on: i/̂ £

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

> JUAN V . HERNANDEZ

I Commission #FF014667

Expires: May 5, 2017

BONDED THRUAARON NOTARY



SCHEDULE"A"

UNCONSCIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES

OF THE PLA INTIFF 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 a f f e c t

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 w ithout the shippers consent.

(c ) Title 18 USC§ 1341 (relating to mail fraud). Plaintiff demands

that their agents send prom otional comp any 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 judgm ents against the P laintiff to this effect.

(f) Title USC 18 § 1512 (relating to retaliating against a witness,

victim, or an informant). Plaintiff conduct, communications, comments,

allegations towards Defendan t 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) Fl. Title 45, § 772.104 m. Plaintiff is liable unde r Florida R K X X

(k) Fl. Title 31 . Sub title III. Chapter 37 Subchapter III. § 3729

f A ¥ B ) (makingfalse claims).



(1) Title 15 U.S.C. § 45(a¥l). Plaintiff is in violation of the

Federal Trade Commission Act, Unfair methods of competition

unlawful;

(m ) Fl Title 33 Ch. 501 Part II § 501.204. Unlawful acts and

practices: (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 (M isleading advertising

prohibited).

(o) Fl Title XLVI Ch 817 Part I § 817.02 (O btaining 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 wh o 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, com bination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in

this state is unlawful.

(t) Fl Title 33 Ch 501 § 542.19 (Monopolization; attempts,

combinations, or conspiracies to monopolize). Plaintiff has created a

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 employe e. ..

(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 unla wf ully remove Defendants m aterial from the internet.

(z) Code 7202 of the Internal Revenue Code ("willful" failures to

"collect, accoun t 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 an d 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 fraudu lent contract allege to be signed by Defendant to

this court in pursuit of this action.



enrique varona [[email protected]

To:

Subject:Attachments:

T0Annette

14331 SW 120 th Street

[email protected] AGREEMENT CANCELLATION.

LTAAGREEMENTCANCELATION.pdf

of Agreement Cancellation

Served Via Email

otice has been formally served via emaU.This notice

Regards,

Enrique Varona r

- 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,

II-.1-

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 aRight and not a mere privilege. That the Right to WORK, is a BASIC pONCOMMITANT of a FREE

PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. ,

ii- ' ' •

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 ANDTHEREBY ARENULL 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 ITNEVER

EXISTED IN LAW, NO CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL

"AGREEMENT*. Contract or Law.



4) Further, LTA, is FORBIDEN BY LAW frnm converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGEand 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 SUCHEXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT.

5) The payment for a Privilege requires a . benefit to be received As the RIGHT TO WORK isalready secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges or fees or compensation without directdamage to the specific party. NOR may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the excercise of a

CONSTITUTIONALRIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO WORK.

6) OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASICRIGHT TO WORK, for a regular Common Law Citizen. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The abovenamed citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTYMAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OFTRESPASS'!!

YOU ARE TRESPASSING ONTHIS Common Law Citizen!!!

7) THE undersigned does hereby claim, declare, an d certify ANY AND ALL theirCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in the UNITED STATESCONSTITUTION 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, BEWARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSOTAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT ANEXCUSE!!!

)TE: "Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING"- by the Honorable

i BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT

Documents

30. LTA LOGISTICS v Enrique Varona (Answer to LTA Amended Complaint)