‘The Florida Bar Inquiry/Complaint Form PART ONE (See Page 1, PART ONE ~ Complainant Information. Your Name: Enrique Varona Organization: Address: 1: City, State, 36 Telephone: E-mail: enriquevarona@ymailcom ACAP Reference No. Have you ever filed a complaint against a member of The Florida B: Eyes, how many complaints have you filed? Does this complaint pertain to a matier currently in Titigation? Yes [OF _ No_[ PART TWO (See Page 1, PART TWO — Attorney Informatioa.): Attorney's Name: Warren P, Gammill City, State, Zip Code! Telephone: 30: iami, Florida 33130 00 PART THREE (See Page 1, PART THREE — Facts/Allegations.): The speeifie thing or things 1 am complaining about are: (attach additional sheets as necessary) (Note that this fictd maxes out at 1800 characters - attach additional sheets as necessary) A detaited explanation is attached...PART FOUR (See Page 1, PART FOUR - Witnesses.): The witnesses in support of my allegations are: [sce attached sheet}. PART FIVE (See Page 1, PART FIVE - Signature.): Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete.STATEMENT OF THE FACTS THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY WARREN P. GAMMILL., P.A. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 1 Enrique Varona, (from here on, “petitioner” or “Varona”), a citizen of the United States and the state of Florida do hereby file this complaint against Warren P. Gammill, P.A., Florida Bar no.: 151221 (from here on, “Mr. Gammill”), for violations of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct in detriment to the administration of justice, the rule of law, and the Constitutional rights of the petitioner in violation of his oath of office as a Florida Bar attorney. All the statements contained here are truthful and if called upon to testify will corroborate these facts. On of about May 2013, The law firm of Warren Gammill & Associates, L.P.. who upon information and belief is owned by attorney Warren P, Gammill, became the attorney of record LTA LOGISTICS, Inc., et al, (from here on, “LTA”). Mr. Gammill took over circuit court case no.: 1120527 CA21, from a previous attorey who had withdrawn from the case citing “irreconcilable differences” with LTA. Originally a three count lawsuit which Mr. Gammill amended to a five count lawsuit, to include a Count 1 for Breach of contract, (See attached copy of “Amended Complaint” as Exhibit “1”) L1A’s lawsuit sought to enforce an unlawful employment contract. (Unlawful because it violates Florida Stat §542.18), The contract titled “Nondisclosure/Non solicitation Agreement”, dated November 5, 2009 (from here on, “agreement” or “contract”). (See the employment contract as Exhibit 2”). Mr. Gammill at all times was aware that the employment contract was unlawful. Between December 4 through the 9 of 2013 there was a jury trial. The jury ruled for Varona on three counts and against him in two. The case is on appeal in the 3* DCA Court of Appeal as case no.: 3D14-87 mISSUE. FORCI AN UNLAWFUL Mr. Gammill, on behalf of his client knowingly, willingly, and maliciously sought to enforce an unlawful employment contract as per Title XXXII Regulation of Trade, commerce, investments, and solicitations- Fl, Stat. $542.18., Combinations restricting trade or commerce, which says: 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. Notwithstanding Fla. Stat. §542.18, some employment contracts. are enforceable as long as they are lawful (reasonable) and the party seeking to enforce the contract complies with the remedies and procedures in conformity with Fla, Stat. $542.335(1)(4). That is to seek a court injunction and the posting of a bond. LTA failed to comply with Fla, Stat, $542.335(1). Petitioner promptly notified Mr. Gammill of the illegality of his client’s contract on his answer to the amended complaint filed on June 06, 2013, (See Petitioners Aaswer to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit “3”), Varona’s First Affirmative Defense was that the contract was “unconscionable” because it violated Florida law. In bringing and asserting an unlawful issue Mr, Gammill breached Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4-3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. In bringing and asserting an issue that lacks a basis in Jaw, and actually is unlawful as it restrains trade in violation of Florida law and by making. his, client believe that he has a case based on the legality of his employment contract, and rule of law. Mr. Gammill is in breach of Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically rule 4-1.2, which says: PiRule 4-1.2 Objectives and scope of representation: (d) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer shall not counsel a client 10 engage, ot assist a client, in_conduet that the lawyer knows ot reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent, However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law. In telling the Judge and jury, and other third parties in this action that his client had a legal basis and a reasonable opportunity to succeed at trial and by omitting the fact that the employment contract he was enforcing was unlawful, Mr, Gammill breached Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4-4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others: In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person: or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6. Mr. Gammill has a duty to inform his client that his employment contract violates Florida law. Mr. Gammill failed to provide truthful and competent representation to his client by making him believe he had a case based on the violation of his employment contract. In doing so Mr. Gammill breached Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduet: Rule 4-1.1 Competence: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and _ preparation reasonably necessary for the representation, ‘The behavior and actions of Mr. Gammill during the representation of his client LTA, who now wrongfully believes that their contract is lawful and enforceable in Florida courts, a violation of Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits the lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent, All of the above constitute a pattern of ongoing conduct Blin violation of Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or mistepresentation. In the end it is the courts and the peoples trust in our legal system and its processes that’s affected by this behavior in violation of Rule 4-8.4(4) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, ISSUE 2: VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND BAR RULES. On the Amended Complaint, Count V Defamation (Libel) re: Lester Trimino, on page 15, between paragraphs 80 through 83 (refer to Exhibit “I"). Mr. Gammill clearly suggests that Varona had engaged in “criminal conversation” as, Defamation/libel resulting in alienation of affection between his client and his wife. Bringing such a claim in Florida is unlawful under Fla. Title XLV Fla. Stat. §771.01, which states: 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. Further, by bringing a lawsuit predicated on criminal conversation resulting in alienation of affection between his client and his wife; Mr. Gammill breached Florida Stat, §771.05 which states: 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 abolished or barred by this law. whether such cause of action arose within or without the state. Mr. Gammill as an attorney is barred by Florida law from bringing a claim predicated on alienation of affection through criminal conversation in the form of a libel/defamation claim as stated in his amended Complaint in Count V. In (4)bringing such a claim against Varona, Mr. Gammill breached Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-1.2 Objectives and scope of representation: (d) Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct. A lawyer shail not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent, However, a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law. Rule 4.3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Further, On November 13, 2013 Petitioner sent a letter via email to Mr. Gammill (See email letter and attachment as Exhibit “4” ), informing him of the fact that his Amended Complaint was predicated on claims that were in violation of Florida Law. Regardless of my good will, notice, and the opportunity I gave him to not oppose him amending the Amended Complaint; Mr. Gammill proceeded in complete disregard for the information I conveyed to him, the rule of law, and breach of Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.; Rule 4-1.2(d) prohibits the lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is criminal or fraudulent, Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits the lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so. Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. [5]Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rule 4-4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others: In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6, ISSUE 3: FRAUD UPON THE COURT DURING TRIAL On the morning of the first day of trial, December 4%, 2013 Mr. Gammill, surprisingly presented the trial court with his Motion in Limine (“motion”). (See, Motion in Limine as Exhibit “S”), The motion forbid Varona from pronouncing an opening statement, to argue his Affirmative Defenses_by fraudulently claiming that no Affirmative Defenses had been pled; (refer to Exhibit “3"), and forbid Varona from claiming the immunities of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to argue that the contract being enforced was unlawful under federal and Florida anti-trust law. Mr. Gammill stated to the court “that Varona had never pled Affirmative Defenses”, in saying so counsel offered false testimony in support of his motion as Varona’s first Affirmative Defense was that the contract was unconscionable because it was unlawful under Florida law . The trial court abused its discretion and granted the motion based on Mr. Gammiill’s deceitful statement. False testimony in a court proceeding is intrinsic fraud., See, DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla. 1984). Because the trial court and the jury received and considered counsel’s false statements that no Affirmative Defenses had been pled and issued a judgment based on that information the trial court , the jury, and the defendant have been victims of intrinsic fraud by the opposing party, See, Fair v. Tampa Elec. Co., 158 Fla. 15, 27 So.2d 514(1946). In [6]committing this fraud upon the trial court Mr. Gammill is in breach of Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4-3.3 Candor towards the tribunal; (a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to comrect a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rule 4-3.4 Faimess to opposing party and counsel lawyer must not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foresceable proceeding; nor counsel or assist another person to do any stich act; Rule 4-4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6. ISSUE 4: FRAUD UPON THE APPEAL COURT. DURING APPEAL Upon receipt of the final judgment order Petitioner filed an Appeal with the 3% DCA Court of Appeal in Miami Dade County. The Appeal case is currently pending as of this time, and is Appeal case no.: 3D 14-87 7]Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure rule 9.110 (4)(e) prescribes how the record of the case is to be transferred to the appeal court and this rules prescribes that such transfer conforms with rule 9.200 (a)(1) which requires both parties to determine which records will be selected by the Clerk of the court to be presented to the Appellate judges. This rule specifically says that both parties must participate in this process. Mr. Gammill disregarded Appellate procedure rules and unilaterally forwarded court records that were incomplete as 27 critical filings were missing. The missing documents included multiple requests for production, court orders compelling them to produce which they ignored, documents that prove a pattern of obstruction of justice and contempt of court. There are a total of 27 such records. Now these records have gone missing from the court file. Fortunately Petitioner kept his copies and has made them available to the Appellate court. As of this day no copies of any communications between Mr. Gammill’s office and the Clerk of the Court has been provided to Petitioner regarding how these records were requested and how they were selected. Petitioner filed a document with the Appellate court titled “Appellant's Judicial Notice of Felony for Fraud Upon the Appeal Court” This document is entered here as Exhibit “6”. The Judicial Notice is self- explanatory. These acts by Mr. Gammill are violations of Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits the lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct or knowingly assisting another to do so. Rule 4-8.4(c) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. [8]Rule 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is, prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rule 4-3.4 Faimess to opposing party and counsel: A lawyer must not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is relevant to a pending or a reasonably foreseeable proceeding: nor counsel or assist another person to do any such act; ‘These are just a partial list of the issues petitioner has had to deal with, in the interest of justice I hope all appropriate actions are taken by this honorable institution. VERIFICATION OF ENRIQUE VARONA 1, Enrique Varona, swear that [ am authorized to make this verification and that the facts alleged in the foregoing Bar Complaint are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters I believe them to be true. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct based upon my personal knowledge. Respectfully submitted by, Enrique Varona, [9]