Sei sulla pagina 1di 18
STATE OF FLORIDA RICARDO *RICK™ MORALES. 0 JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION a iroerahmce axl aroe eee ee Feb. 5, 2015 Mr. Enrique Varona 14823 8.W. 125 Court Miami, F1 33186 Re: Docket No. 14-666; Arzola Dear Mr. Varona: The Investigative Panel of the Commission has completed its review of your complaint in the above matter and has determined, at its most recent meeting, that the concerns you have expressed are not allegations involving a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct warranting further action by the Commission but are matters for review through the normal court process. The purpose of the Commission is to determine the existence of judicial misconduct and disability as defined by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. If such misconduct or disability is found, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action to the Florida Supreme Court. ‘The Commission has found no basis for further action on your complaint that therefore has been dismissed. Sincerely yhurs, Alexander J. Williams Assistant General Counsel AJWime. nguries by the Commission are confidential pursuant to Art. V, See 12(a)() of the Florida Constitution and Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION : + Post Office Box 14106 Tallahassee, FL 32317 (850) 488-1581 COMPLAINT FORM This form is designed to provide the Commission with information required to make an initial evaluation of your complaint. PLEASE NOTE: COMPLAINT FORM MUST BE TYPED OR LEGIBLY HAND PRINTED, DATED AND SIGNED BEFORE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED, (Note: This form can be typed into here, then printed, or print it out and fill it in by hand.) 1. Person Making Complaint Name Mr. Varona’ Enrique Jose Mr. (Lasty ° (First) Middle) Ms, Mrs. Address 14823 S.W. 125 Court Miami, Florida 33186 Telephone Number(s): (Day) (305) 812-3784 ening, SAME Il, Judge Against Whom Complaint s Made Name Arzola Antonio sy First) (Widdley ‘Address _Dade County, Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street, Room 1110 SSS ‘Supreme Court District Court of Appeal Circuit Court Division CA 21 County Court REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF JUDGE ANTONIO ARZOLA FOR VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT "The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect, the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it and certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite. For judges who look outside the Constitution and the law, only look into themselves." President Ronald Reagan. seek to expose the scandalous corruption in Judge Antonio Arzola’s ("Judge Arzola") Court, of the 11th Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, Division 21. Were Florida law and the citizens constitutional protections are being systematically and recklessly destroyed through unlawful judicial practices such as willful misconduct in office, persistent failure to perform his duties, knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, in violation of his duty under the law, in "fraud upon the court" to aid and abet others in criminal activity, thus making himself a principal in the criminal activity. Judge Arzola's conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice and. brings both his judicial office and the judiciary into disrepute. A judge should strive to maintain confidence in our judicial system (Preamble to The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct), but Judge Arzola’s actions destroy confidence in the judicial system. Unless he is severely disciplined or removed from office, he will continue to violate the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, 1. THE FLORIDA CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ‘The Florida’ Supreme Court issued the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct as Supreme Court Rules ("SCR"). The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct is incorporated herein as a part of this Complaint. Supreme Court Rules are law in a courtroom, and must be followed by litigants, attomeys, and all Circuit and Appellate Court judges. Compliance with SCR is not discretionary, but is mandatory. Any noncompliance is unlawful, and judges have no lawful authority to act unlawfully. PART 1 CASE NO.: 11-20527 CA 21 (LTA LOGISTICS, INC., et al, Vs. ENRIQUE VARONA) 2. JUDGE ARZOLA A TRESPASSER OF THE LAW On June 2011 A lawsuit was filed as case no.: 11-20527 CA 21 (Miami-Dade County, 11th circuit) LTA LOGISTICS, INC., LESTER TRIMINO v. ENRIQUE VARONA, ("Complaint"), and the full and complete record of that case is incorporated as a part of this complaint. The claims were: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Tortious Interference; 3) Tortious Interference Injunction; and 4) Defamation re: LTA LOGISTICS, Inc.; and 5) Defamation re: LESTER TRIMINO. The lawsuit sought to enforce an illegal employment contract as it violated basic rights and restrained trade which are violations of state & federal antitrust laws. + Fla, Stat, $542.18 Restraint of trade or commerce—Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce in this state is unlawful, + Fla, Stat. § 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, + 15 U.S.C. §1: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. + 15 U.S.C. §2: Every pérson who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine ot conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, ot with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. + Restraint of trade is defined as; A contract that is legal between buyer and seller, employee and employer preventing the seller or employee from having a similar business within the geographical area during a set time period. 2. A contract that is illegal by attempting to damage another person's opportunity or ability to cary on in business. Black’s law Dictionary 2™ Edition. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that under Florida law, to state a cause of action for breach of contract the plaintiff must allege: * the existence of a valid contract; * amaterial breach of the contract; and * damages. See Brooks Tropicals, Inc. v. Acosta, 959 So.2d 288, 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Barbara G. Banks, P.A. v. Thomas D. Lardin, P.A., 938 So.2d 571, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Judge Arzola knew, ot should have known, that he had a duty to dismiss this case as he could not have subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit seeking to enforce an illegal contract. Instead Judge Arzola decided to conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly operate against the law. In doing so he ignored established case law on the issue. 1, Illegality is a compelling reason not to enforce a contract. See Title & Trust Co. of Fla, v. Parker, 468 So. 2d 520, 524 (Fla. Ist DCA 1985) (holding that where a “contract contains a clause that is illegal, a court ought not to enforce the illegal term, as a contract cannot give validity to an otherwise illegal act”). 2, The Court has an affirmative duty to take notice of illegal contracts coming before it, Citizen's Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714, 717 (1931). 3. Florida cases indicate a broad refusal to aid the enforcement of illegal contracts. The principle that courts will not enforce illegal contracts is well established. . To do otherwise would be for the law to aid in its own undoing”. Gonzalez v. Trujillo, 179 So. 2d 896, 897-98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (citations omitted); see also Harris v. Gonzalez, 789 So. 2d 405, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (where a contract is void as violative of Florida law, it “confers no enforceable rights on appellants based upon it”); Schaal v. Race, 135 So. 2d 252, 256 (Fla, 2d DCA 1961). Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that under the law of Florida he was a trespasser of the law that he had no lawful authority to act directly or indirectly in such a manner that allowed a case to proceed without subject-matter jurisdiction, . Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57109 (1870) ("if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers."); Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828), In addition, claim no.: 5) Defamation re: LESTER TRIMINO, (see, complaint, page no.:15, paragraphs 80 through 83), is a claim alleging “criminal conversation” resulting in "alienation of affection” between the Plaintiff LESTER TRIMINO and his wife. Bringing such a claim in Florida is illegal: + Fla, Stat. §771.01 Certain tort actions abolished—The rights of action heretofore existing to recover sums of money as damage for the alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction or breach of contract to marry are hereby abolished. + Fla, Stat. §771.05: Unlawful to file certain causes of action —It_shall hereafter be unlawful for any person, either as a party or attomey, or an agent or other person in behalf of either, to file or serve, cause to be filed or served, threaten to file or serve, or threaten to cause to be filed or served, any process or pleading, in any court of the state, setting forth or seeking to recover a sum of money upon any_cause of action abolish barred by this law, whether such cause of action arose within or without the state. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that he violated the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, that the 14th Amendment required All state officials and federal officials to come under federal guidelines in order to hold any state or government office. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of Florida statutes and case law, he did so by enforcing an employment contract that is illegal. A violation of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2(A), 2(8), and 3(B)(2): + Canon 1; A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity And Independence of the Judiciary. * Canon 2(A): A judge shall respect and comply with the Jaw and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. + Canon 2(8); A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. + Canon 3(B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and ‘maintain professional competence in it. 3. JUDGE ARZOLA OBSTRUCTS EVIDENCE Judge Arzola systematically obstructed all my efforts to obtain relevant evidence in support of my defense, During the course of the litigation I filed five motions to produce and to answer interrogatories in accordance with the Fl. R. Civ. Proc, rule 1.360., and rule 1.370, Four orders to compel production of this information were issued by the Court. The Plaintiff attorney ignored the courts orders and NONE of the orders to compel were complied with and the Court refused to impose sanctions as a result of their non-compliance with the Court orders. Further, the case should have been dismissed for contempt of Court. On May, 2013 Judge Arzola, dismissed my 4 SubPoena Duces Tectum seeking evidence to prove or disprove claims of damages. A violation the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 1, 2(8), 3(D)(2) and 3(B)(5) which states: * Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity And Independence of the Judiciary. + Canon 2(8): A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. * Canon 3 (D)(2): A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. * Canon 3(B)(5): A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice, 4. TWO MOTIONS TO RECUSE DENIED “Every person “has a constitutional and statutory right to an impartial and fair judge at all stages of the proceeding,” Liteky v USS., 510 US 540 (1994). For due process to be secured, the laws must operate alike upon all and not subject the individual to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. (Marchant v. Pennsylvania R.R., 153 U.S. 380, 386 ." On March 4", 2013 and then on June 6%, 2013 I filed Motions to Disqualify Judge Arzola, on the following grounds: + Violations of state law and federal law. + Obvious bias against me as a defendant, and at the very least, the appearance of impartiality. + Violations of my rights to due process under Article VI of the Constitution and civil rights. + For conducting bogus hearings that did not provide me the opportunity to be heard, and ignored the truth that he was obligated to accept in order to stop me from exposing corruption, + By depriving me of the inherent right to honest service and the protections and immunities expressly inherent is statutes and law. + Violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Arzola denied both motions, The motions complied with court rules, had their accompanying affidavits hereto; clearly stating the facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudiced exists, being definite as to the circumstances of judicial conduct, which demonstrate bias in favor of the adverse party and prejudice towards me which would impede or prevent impartiality in the case. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that he acted unlawfully when he failed to recuse himself in violation of: + Fla, Stat. §38.10 (1999), “Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes, in which the prescribing judge is disqualified.” Judge Arzola has used his position of power to deny facts and law. Judge Arzola has not demonstrated the impartiality required of a judge. A violation of Judicial Canon 3(B)(1), 3(B)(3) and 3(E)(1): * Canon 3(B)(1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required. + Canon3(B)(3): A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge. + Canon 3(E\(1). Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3(E)(1) apply. + Canon 3(6): A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words, gestures, or other conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others... 5. THE KANGAROO COURT "Slang for an authorized court or legal proceeding in which fair proceedings are impossible due, for example, to a partial judge or excessive press coverage." ILLUSTRATIVE CASE LAW: See, e.g. Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct, 2896, 2914-17 (2010) and Rideau v, Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 726 (1963). Judge Arzola's obstruction of my evidence and testimony during trial was astonishing elevating the term of Kangaroo Court toa state of the art level. On December 4", 2013 the first day of a four day trial. The Plaintiff attomey, Warren P. Gammill, P.A.,("Gammill"), presented the trial court with a “Motion in Limine” (“motion”), The motion forbid me from pronouncing an opening statement, to present my Affirmative Defenses, by stating that I had failed to plead Aifirmative Defenses in my Answer to the Complaint (a fraud upon the Court), forbid me from claiming the immunities of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law as a defense. Specifically, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Freedom of Speech. In violation of Florida’s Constitution which recognizes the defense of truth and good motive (Article 1, §4) as an absolute defense against a Defamation claim. Judge Arzola made comments reflecting a bias towards me personally, improperly threatened me with fines and contempt, made comments during trial that disparaged me, forbid me from telling the jury my opening statement, displayed anger and rudeness towards me several times in front of the jury, obstructed my evidence, forbid me from introducing affidavits from witnesses that were part of the record, and from showing the jury police reports which exposed perjury on the stand by the Plaintiffs, forbid me from telling the jury about Florida laws that rendered the Plaintiff lawsuit unlawful. Judge Arzola excluded the U.S. and Florida's Constitution, federal and state antitrust laws, violations of Article IV, §1 of the U.S. Constitution which states: + Article IV, § 15 of the U.S. Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Judge Arzola through the use of lawyer rules, or otherwise trumped up legal technicalities, maneuvers and instructions effectively “handcuffed” me and the jury from adjudicating the case based on the rule of law. An act that is no more or less than the denial of the right to a jury of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and the law in this case. In granting and enforcing such a dishonest motion Judge Arzola perpetrated “intrinsic fraud" upon the court: * “Fraudulent conduct that arises within a proceeding and pertains to the issues in the case that have been tried or could have been tired”. Id. Quoting DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So, 2d 375-377 (Fla. 1984). JUDGE ARZOLA DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that Article 1, §21 of the Constitution of the state of Florida establishes that the Courts will be open and accessible to citizens to address all legitimate grievances through due process of law. The essential elements of due process of law are: 7 * "Due process consists of notice, and opportunity to be heard, and the right to defend is ing” Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co., 125 So. 2, 7 (Fla. 1929). + "An orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the case. Kazubowski v. Kazubowski, 45 I.2d 405, 259, N.E.2d 282, 290." Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500. + "Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, + Canon 3(7): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. PART 2 CASE NO.: 13-35996 CA 21 (ENRIQUE VARONA Vs. LTA LOGISTICS, INC., et al,) On November 13, 2013 I filed a lawsuit against LTA as case no.: 13-35996 CA 21, ENRIQUE VARONA v. LTA LOGISTICS, INC. LESTER TRIMINO, ANNETTE VASQUEZ TRIMINO, for unlawful antitrust violations as per Florida Statutes $542.18 and $501,204, and the full and complete record of that case is incorporated as a part of this Complaint. My lawsuit, intended amongst other things to obtain equitable relief for the loss of my business and attack the void previous Judgment Order rendered by Judge Arzola in the previous case no.: 11-20527. My lawsuit was a legal strategy in compliance with Padavano Florida Civil Practice Volume 5, 2004- 2005 Edition, Relief from Judgment §13.8; Independent Action: + "A party can file an independent action to vacate a judgment on the ground of fraud but that opportunity is limited to fraud which is sometimes described as a fraud upon the court.” Judge Arzola knew , or should have known, that on September 2, 2014 he issued a Judgment Order dismissing my lawsuit on account of me not appearing at a special set hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment, The dismissal is predicated on a hoax perpetrated by the + “Because it was alleged at all times that the Court was, proceeding in violation of Florida statutes §542.18 and §501.201 hence, proceeded without subject’ matter jurisdiction, any judgment obtained is void. Hargrave v. Hargrave, 495 So.2d 904 (Fla, 1st DCA 1986); Laney v. Laney, 487 So.2d 1109 (Fla. Ist DCA 1986); Mouzon v. Mouzon, 458 So.2d 381 (Fla, Sth DCA 1984). Cf, Kimbrough v. Rowe, 479 So.2d 867 (Fla, Sth DCA 1985).” * "This court and other Florida courts, have stated that a void judgment may be attacked “at any time” because a void judgment creates no binding obligation upon the patties, is legally ineffective, and is a nullity. See Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So, 2 (1939); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926); Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So.2d 674, 10 FLW 624 (Fla, Sth DCA Mar. 7, 1985); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Canal Authority, 423 So.2d 421 Fla. Sth DCA 1982); Tucker v. Dianne Elect., Inc., 389 So.2d 683 (Fla. Sth DCA 1980); T.L.K. v. N.B., 237 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1984)." 7._"THE HOAX" opposing counsel as: 1 2. I never received notification of a special set hearing scheduled to take place on August 25, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Inever received a copy of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The dismissal constitutes “extrinsic fraud” upon the Court: “The prevention of an unsuccessful party froin presenting his case, by fraud or deception practiced by his adversary, keeping the opponent away from the Court...Fraudulent representation of a party without consent or connivance in his defeat, and so on...” De Claire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, (Fla. 1984)(quoting Fair v. Tampa Elec. Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514, 525 (1946)). Simply stated, extrinsic fraud arises where a litigant is prevented from effectively participating in the action. De Claire v. Yohanan. 453 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 1984).” Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that Gammill had perpetrated a hoax and had committed fraud upon the Court. A violation of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 3(D)(2) and 3(7): * Canon 3 (D)(2): A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action. + Canon 3(7): A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the tight to be heard according to law 8. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Judge Arzola in granting the opposing counsel dismissal motion of my case deceitfully credited two reasons for doing so: 1, The matters alleged in the Complaint needed to have been raised by Enrique Varona as a compulsory counter claim in the prior lawsuit, case no.: 11-20527. 2. The matters raised in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that I did raise the illegality of the contract and under the law the statute of limitation to bring forward an action for antitrust violations is four years. + Fla, Stat. § 542.26 - Limitation of actions: “(1) Any action brought under s. 542.21 or s. $42.22 must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action accrues. Judge Arzola's stating that "The matters raised in the Complaint are barred by the doctrine of res judicata" cither was a statement made to deceive the parties before the court, or was a ‘demonstration of his lack of competency, in violation of Judicial Canon 3(B)(5): + Canon 3(B)(5): A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, 10 and shall not permit staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so. Judge Arzola knew, ot should have known, that it is a fraud upon the court to unlawfuly state that a private employment contract drafted and executed by a Florida mom & pop corporation is immune from federal and state antitrust laws. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that it is a fraud upon the court to fraudulently state that a lawsuit for breach of contract, tortous interference, and defamation are the same causes of action as antitrust violations. This is also a demonstration of his incompetence. The fact that Judge Arzola has stated that statutory violations were indeed "brought up", "determined" and "adjudicated" hence, res judicata, is clear evidence or was a demonstration of his failure to respect and comply with the law. A violation of Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 2(A), and 3(B)(2); * Canon 1: A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity And Independence of the Judiciary. + Canon 2(A): A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. * Canon 2(8): A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly. + Canon 3(B)(2): A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. 9. THE OATH OF OFFICE Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that Article II, § 5(b), of the Constitution of the State of Florida requires that all Judges including Judge Arzola take an Oath of Office in order to practice as a circuit court judge. The Oath state: “Ido solemnly swear that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am dully qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of on which I am now about to enter, so help me God”. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that having taken an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Florida, Judge Arzola has 11 acted in violation of the Constitution the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). Judge Arzola knows, or should have known , that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in violations of his oath of office to the U.S. & Florida Constitution: 10. VIOLATION OF FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTION * Violation of Article 1, §2: All natural persons are created equal before the law: Tudge Arzola by fraudulently claiming subject matter jurisdiction, prosecuting and adjudicating lawsuit case no.: 11-20527, in violation of Florida Statute §542.18 and 501,201 and Title 28 U.S.C. §1652., Judge Arzola has de facto suspended my privileges and immunities under the Constitution and has discriminated against me as I have been treated differently under the law. + Violation of Article 1, §4: In all civil actions for Defamation the truth may be given into evidence: Judge Arzola forbids me from telling the truth to the jury in my defense for Defamation during trial, * Violation of Article 1, §9: Due process- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or Property without due process of law: Judge Arzola has deprived me of due process rights, liberty, and property by prosecuting and adjudicating a lawsuit in violation of Florida statutes in a lawsuit that should have been dismissed from the beginning as it is not actionable under the law. + Violation of Article 1, $10: Prohibited laws- no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed: Judge Arzola seems to have legislated his own law to suspend state statute $542.18 and §501.201. As only a law can suspend a law. A Judge cannot pass laws (See below Art. 2, §3 and Art. 3, $1) his Final Judgment order is nothing more than a bill of attainder secured through the issuance of an undisclosed ex post facto law. * Violation of Article 2, §3: Branches of government- the power of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers to either of the other branches. + Violation of Article 3, $1: Composition. the legislative power of the State shall be vested in a legislature of the State of Florida. Judge Atzola has no Constitutional authority to invalidate laws or issue new laws as he is not the legislative branch of government. 11. VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION + Violation of Article 1, §7: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. Judge Arzola by issuing void judgments raising revenue against the rule of law and by requiring equity in payment for those void judgments. 12 Violation of Article 1, §8: Congress shall regulate Commerce with Foreign nations, and amongst the States... Judge Arzola by upholding, prosecuting, and adjudicating a contract which violates state and federal antitrust laws has usurped Congress powers. Violation of Article 1, §8: Congress shall make all laws which shall be necessary and Proper for the Government of the United States...Judge Arzola in suspending or refusing to uphold state and federal antitrust law has usurped Congress by invalidating their laws and granting immunity from suit to the violators. Violation of Article 1, §9: No bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Judge Arzola has issued his own ex post facto laws from the bench pertaining to the cases in front of his Court. Violation of Article 1, §9: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. Judge Arzola by issuing void unlawful Judgment orders in violation of the law has manufactured unlawful debts. Violation of Article HI, $1: The Judges both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior. Judge Arzola has failed to obey Florida law, federal law, the Constitution and has aided and abetted criminal acts. He is not apt to hold office. Violation of Article IV, §1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. Judge Arzola has ruled in case no.: 13-35996 that antitrust laws that affect interstate commerce are not enforceable and an employment contract is immune from antitrust laws, and suit, in addition he has ruled that the Constitution is inadmissible in his courtroom. lation of Article IV, §2: The Citizens of each State are entitled to all privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states. In overthrowing the government of Florida in his Court, prosecuting and adjudicating an unlawful contract; Judge Arzola has suspended privileges and Immunities of citizens. lation of Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States..under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Judge Arzola believes the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Violation of the Ist Amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Judge Arzola makes laws that abridge Freedom of speech and prosecutes citizens for claiming their rights. Violation of the Sth Amendment: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Judge Arzola believes that due process of law is what a fellow "brother" attomey says regardless of the facts, he also does not allow the rule of law, or Constitutional protections in his courtroom. Violation of the 8th Amendment: Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Judge Arzola in issuing a 13 Final Judgment Order for $96,000 for a violation of an unlawful contract has inflicted excessive and cruel and unusual punishments * Violation of the 11th Amendment: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity. Judge Arzola has no judicial powers in law or equity, all his judgments are unconstitutional, * Violation of the 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction. Judge Arzola creates a fraudulent financial obligation which can only be paid by involuntary servitude. * Violation of 14th Amendment, §1: No State shall make or enforce any law that which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive a person of life, liberty, or property; without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that he had conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in violations of Florida statutes Title 33 Florida Statute §542.18 and §501.201 and Title 28 U.S.C. §1652., and The Constitution of the State of Florida Article 1, §2; Article 1, §4; Article 1, §9; Article 1, $10; Article 1, §17; Article 1, §21; Article 2, §3; Article 3, §1; and Article I, §7, §8, §9; Article IM, §1; Article IV, §1, §2; Article VI, ; The Ist, Sth, 8th, 11th, 13th , and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2(A) and Rule 3(B)(2) and Rule 3(B)(S). 12. TREASON "We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. [clarification added] U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L-Ed 257 (1821). “If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Bd.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 LEd 257 (1821)". Judge Arzola knew, or should have known, that he should not have engaged in treason to the Constitution, a Constitution to which he has taken a personal oath to support, In addition any 14 judge or attorney who has not reported Judge Arzola for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of mis-prison of treason, 18 U.S.C. § 2382. 13. JUDGE ARZOLA SHOULD NOT AID AND ABBET NOR PARTICIPATE IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY Extortion is defined as; "The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, Judge Arzola knew, or reasonably should have known, that by his issuing a void Judgment that any execution on the void order could lead to a criminal act being performed by others, based on the void order, and that no judge should aid and abet criminal actions. Judge Arzola knew, or reasonably should have known that, should anyone execute on the void order and if such execution should interfere with interstate commerce, such as interfering with my purchase of any items involved in interstate commerce, United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985), then Judge Arzola would become a principal, 18 U.S.C. §1, in the interference with interstate commerce, Should anyone attempt to execute on the void Judgment Order then he would have personally aided and abetted a scheme of extortion and other criminal activity. Judge Arzola would then be involved in the unlawful act of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. $1951. 14, CONNIVANCE WITH FELLOW REPUBLICAN PARTY CRONIES IN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS. Judge Arzola has full heartedly granted Mr. Gammill, P.A., one unlawful ruling after another, in what I believe to be political “favors” at the expense of my legal rights, constitutionally protected rights, and physical and mental wellbeing. Judge Arzola and Mr. Warren P, Gammill, P.A., have one thing in common, Judge Arzola was appointed by “Governor Jeb Bush” and Mr. Warren P, Gammill, P.A., is a Republican party operator and donor, who’s law firm associate, Mrs. Madelin dArce’s husband was a Republican candidate for State Representative for District 112 in Miami-Dade County in a recent election. Judge Arzola has combined with attomey Warren P. Gammiill, P.A., to deny me due process of law in his Court. This conduct is established as “criminal acts” of “Conspiracy against rights” 18 USC §241. Whereby they have conspired to deny, deprive and refuse me due process of law, rights under the law and protection of the law. This is the “common practice” of Judge Arzola in his Court. CONCLUSION Judge Antonio Arzola has no respect for the law, does not comply with the law, does not install public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, is not faithful to the law, and 15 does not maintain professional competence in the law. Further, he conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly: engaged in conduct in violation of his duty as a judge and of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, engaged in actions in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land and the law of Florida, engaged in acts of judicial treason, committed fraud upon the court, engaged in acts as a trespasser of the law, exceeded his lawful authority, engaged in actions to interfere with the litigant’s legal duty imposed by the rule of law, engaged in actions to cover-up the unlawful acts of attomey's and their client, committed fraud upon the State of Florida, aided and abetted criminal activity, and connived with Warren P, Gammiill, P.A., a Republican party operative and donor to unlawfully prosecute and adjudicate lawsuits brought to his Court, I request that a full and complete investigation into the willful violations of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge Antonio Arzola be made by the Judicial Inquiry Board. ‘Yours Truly, Enrique Varona Victim/Petitioner 16