Preview
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
CASE NO. CACE-21-011922
FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, § IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
,
Plaintiff §
9 THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
VS. §
§ COURT IN AND FOR
MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC:, §
and OHAD GUZI, and
007028=J
§ BROWARD
GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC., §
f
Individually, §
Defendants § JUL 2 7 2021
,
JJ
.By
ANSWER, RESPONSE, REBUTTAL, AND OPPOSITION
TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAGAINSTOHAD GUZI AND
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND
MOTION TO DENY SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Cometh now, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI,
Defendant ("Guzi") to file this Answer, Response, Rebuttal, and Opposition against Plaintiff,
FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST ("First-Citizens" or the "bank"), and Motion to Deny Default
Judgment against your Defendants- (collectively herein with Guzi, "Defendants"). Your
Defendants herein can make no payment on any debt or obligation to pay pursuant to costs,
fees, any contract or fine, settlement, or order of the court, until the appropriateform of payment
is clarified and defined by the payee or court, in consideration of the following adopted and
incorporated herewith as my duly certified statement of presumed fact in Law.
PREMISE OF LAW FIRSTLY
It should be noted that historically, even the old "Silver Certificate" which was invalidated in
1965, was NEVER lawfully considered as a United States "Dollar". It clearly was merely a
"certificate" that only "certified", as thereon stated, that there was a United States [solid silver]
"Dollar" in the Treasury of the United States of America Payable to the Bearer on Demand". In
-
other words, it merely "certified" that there was a real United States [solid silver] "Dollar" way
over there, at the Treasury of the United States. It, therefore, was NOT a United States "Dollar"
itself. It was merely a "Dollar Bill" that was to be presented, AS A BILL", for "Payment" of a real
United States [solid Silver] "Dollar", and that presentment action was to be done at the Treasury
of the United States of America. Of course, that is not possible today, nor since 1965.
The undersigned is therefore genuinely confused as to what this CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY can lawfully "require" regarding its requested "payment" of the subject
alleged amount due, as none of the above "Mediums of Exchange" are even remotely
considered "at par" today with the historic and specific United States "Dollar," "Cent", and "Mille"
as clearly specified in the, and the United States Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 A.D.1
The Supreme Court has ruled that Lawful Money of the United States could
only be gold and
silver coin or that which, by law, is made its equal so as to be exchangeable therefor at par, and
on demand, and does NOT include a currency, which
though nominally exchangeablefor coin at
its' face value, is not redeemable on demand.2 Checks, drafts, money orders and bank notes
]
Florida Statutes, Section 673.6031
1
Bronson v. Rhodes, 74 U.S. 229,247,19 L. Ed. 141.
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
are not lawful money of the United States.3 Real money is. money which has real metallic,
intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts.4
PREMISE OF LAW SECONDLY
No state may make anything but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts5 and ["the United
States"] states or further states that only gold certificates of the United States payable to bearer
on demand shall be and are legal tender in payment of all debts and dues, public and private.
However, no payment in gold or silver may be demanded in payment of any debt or obligation
because of government declared bankruptcy.6 No one is bound to do what is impossible.7
PREMISE OF LAWTHIRDLY
The responsibility of coining gold and silver money was by the people ceded to Congress at
Article I; §8, Clause 5, U.S. Constitution. It was certainly not within the enumerated powers of
Congressional authority in law to transfer the issuing of gold and silver certificates, and
ultimately supplanting United States Notes with Federal Reserve Notes, to the private Federal
Reserve being a foreign power with respect to lawful government. Congress is not permitted by
the Constitution to abdicate, or to transfer to others, the essential legislative functions with which
it is vested.8
PREMISE OF LAW THE FOURTH
The giving of a note does not constitute a cash payment.9 The legal tender quality of paper
money is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty [...110. By agreeing to pay fines, court
costs, or any other obligation or debt in commerce or monetary exchange with any private party
or public institution by means of paper money only valuable for the
purpose of dishonesty,
whether or not intentionally, willfully, or knowingly, having been under inducement, tricked, or
3 State v. Mellon, 73 Pac. 21,43 Ore. 168
4
Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition
5
Article 1 sec 10, US Constitution, Public Law 103 ofDec. 24, 1919
6
Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; 31 USC §5112, §5119;
50 U.S. Code App. 7 Sec. 7(e), 50 U.S. Code §4305(b)(2) and §4307(e), 12 USC 95*2); confirmed in Pero v.
-
US. 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912 (1935)
7
1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601. A l'impossible nul n'est tenu
8 Art.
I, § 1; Art. I, § 8, par. 18. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp.
v. United States, 295 U.S. 495
(1935), quoting
Panama Refining Co.
Ryan, 293v.U. S. 388. R 295 U. S. 529. See, also 66th Congress Sess. II Chapter 15,
(December 24, 1919)-Public Law No. 103 CHAR 15-An Act to make gold certificates of the United States payable
to bearer on demand legal tender. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativesof the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that gold certificatesof the United States payable to bearer on demand shall be and
are hereby made legal tender in
payment of all debts and dues, public and private. Gold Reserve Act of March 14,
1900; [§3511] Sec. 2. That United States notes, and Treasury notes issued under the Act of July 14, 1890, when
presented to the Treasury for redemption, shall be redeemed in gold coin of the standard fixed in the first section of
this Act..." No law makes Federal Reserve Notes Lawful Money or Legal Tender, and they do not meet either of
these lawful requirements for legal tender for the Citizens ofthe several states.
9
Echart v Commissioners, C.C.A. 42 F2d 158; 283 U. S. 140
'O
Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871)
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
coerced by any criminal element corporate or private, or under color of law in representation of
government, into paying any debt, obligation, or fine, in anything other than gold or silver, one
would be as such, in law, either pressured, coerced and intimidated, or threatened under
duress, drawn into by deceit, or conspiring with criminal intent, to engage in the crime of
counterfeiting and forgery, being a felony, and so should and must respectfully decline any offer,
and resist or reject any pressure to accept or succumb to any inducement to be drawn into
contributing, aiding, or abetting, whether directly or indirectly, any manner of criminality, such as
defined in and by law as forgery and/or the counterfeiting of money or value in any manner.
ASSERTION OF LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASED UPON PREMISE OF FACTS ASSERTED
AS CONTROLLING LAW
WHEREFORE, argument is valid only if its conclusion follows logically from the combination
an
of itspremises, the Defendant can make no payment on any fine, obligation or debt assessed
pursuant to the terms and conditions of any court order, contract, bill, invoice or obligation as
such imposed or assessed, until such time as specific clarification of the form of money and
appropriate tender in payment by First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Prosecutor, or Court is
made in amendment to the same said bill, order to pay, invoice, or demand for payment, as
herewith requested, in consideration of the forgoing facts in and at Law, and so requests the
same be made forthwith, in equity, faith and good conscience.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.11 No man can give that which he has not [nor that
which he cannot be required to have, such as contraband Federal Reserve Bank Notes
counterfeited as money].12
RELIEF CURRENTLY SOUGHT IN CLARIFICATIONOF TERMS AND CONDITIONS/NATURE
AND CAUSE OF DEMANDS AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT
WHEREFORE, I, and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI,
as a man
Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S
INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" requests the court to direct and compel opposing counsel
to clarify and identify in writing, for the record of these proceedings, a suitable and acceptable
form of payment under law in amendment to and with respect to payments, arrears, fines
assessed or obligations imposed by judgment or contract, pursuant to any void and incomplete
contract, judgment or settlement as a matter of public record, or void the contract, settlement, or
order to pay that in fact already is; nunc pro tune ab initio, the same being void for ambiguity
and lack of clarification.
11
Constitution of the State of Texas Art. 1 § 18, 1876
12
Jackson v. Brodfbid, 4 Wend. (N.Y.) 619
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized
Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP,
INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" ask the court to deny
Plaintiffs motion for summary and default judgment against you defendant and that all parties
leave with their cost.
With sincerity and to that which is ANSWERED, RESPONDED, REBUTTED, OPPOSED AND
MOTIONED.
Date: 7/27/2021
All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI
Moved by Authorized representative agent: Guzi ohuD
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER, RESPONSE, REBUTTAL, AND OPPOSITION
TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI AND
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND
MOTION TO DENY SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Firstly, I, and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI,
as a man
Defendant, tendered my promise to FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST (the "payee") in the
amount of $53,572. Under equal application of law, I make claim and do claim that my promise
of $53,572 is just good as any other promise that the payee could receive from any other
as
source in the amount $53,572. A copy of my promise has been made to F.IRST-CITIZENS
BANK & TRUSL The declaration made by the United States Congress at 31 USC §510113
clearly states that no court has decided the value of money, and rightly so. The value of money
-
is a political question and cannot be addressed by the court. In fact, all questions concerning the
nature of money are political questions and cannot addressed by any state court.
There are three things that are involved in the payee's demands.
First is the value of money. Congress declares that there has been no decision on the
value of money or money of account, /d.; and
Secondly, the Constitution of the United States at Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1
("US
Const. at 1 -10-1")
clearly states that no State shall [...]; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin
a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]. This article of the constitution operates to restrict the court
from ordering any payment made in any other form other than gold or silver coin; and
Thirdly, the absence of any gold or silver coin in general circulation operates in a manner
that creates a political question as to whether I can be compelled to accept legal prejudice by
using or accepting any form of money other than gold or silver coin. For the foregoing reasons,
the ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT should be denied.
The second argument in this case that estops the court from even ruling in this matter is
a problem that has been generated by a conflict betwixt the statutes created by the Congress of
the United States and the Constitutionof the United States. This conflict is reflected in the policy
of First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company and how the said conflict operates against Guzi's
political position as the beneficiary of the paramount trust ("The Constitution of the United
States'). Here are the actors at this scene.
First, there is Guzi, the beneficiary of the paramount trust who has never knowingly and
with intent ever waived any of the rights of his beneficial position. Then there is the Judge in this
matter where he/she is the Trustee of the paramount trust -do to his/her oath to protect and
defend the paramount trust. Then there is the Attorney for Plaintiff who has taken an oath to
protect, support and defend the paramount trust and is also an officer of the court.
These conditions operate t6 place the Judge in this matter, the prosecutor for First-
Citizens Bank & Trust Company in the unique position of making sure that Guzi is granted and
afforded protections under the paramount trust, otherwise the trustee or co-trustee commits
perjury of oath which may be considered capital felony treason. The ability for the Attorney {or
the Cou/Y} to collect for a penalty or fine in this matter turns on the political choices and rights
available to Guzi and generated by the paramount trust cited at US Const. at 1 -10-1
13
The word "money" is substitutedfor "money of account" to eliminate unnecessarywords. As far as can be
determined, the phrase "money of account" has not been interpretedby any court or Government agency
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda ID. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
Congress of the United States has created statutes that are in conflict with the
paramount trust and those statutes were made without authority. Those statute operated to
remove gold and silver coin (the "coin") from circulation used by the beneficiary of the
paramount trust. The removal of the coin from circulation forces the Citizens of the several
states (the "Citizens") to have to make the political choice to either waive their protection under
the paramount trust and use an authorized form of payment of debts to the government, or have
no money of exchange to provide for their life.
The money system moved forward by ignorance of the citizens, even though the only
form of payment authorized by the paramount trust still to date is gold and silver coin. This set of
circumstances operates to create a political choice for Guzi when dealing with payments to any
political subdivision of the state government or agencies of government, including, without
limitation, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company. He would waive his rights and protection
-
created by the paramount trust created for his benefit and agree to deal with the government in
an unauthorized, and therefore illegal form of exchange, or he could come to the Court and
demand that the trustees and co-trustees sworn to defend his rights and protections set out in
the conditions of the paramount trust do their sworn duty, thereby trustees and co-trustees with
sworn oaths could avoid the peril of becoming conflicted trustees and commit perjury of oath.
All courts are aware that all
aspects of money are political. Congress has exclusive
control over the value and creation of money; however, the form of the money is controlled by
the conditions set forth in the paramount trust. Therefore, issues such as these raised by Guzi
are non-justiciable political subject and outside the jurisdiction of this and any other court. At this
time, the court has the opportunity the court for the benefit of Guzi as a beneficiary to the
paramount trust or commit perjury of oath and operate the court pursuant to some other rules or
other undisclosed or alternate trust not made known to the citizens that was generated by some
United States banking emergency back in the early 1930s.
Since the court is estopped by the US Const. at 1-10-1 to issue any order that orders
Guzi to pay a default judgment in federal reserve notes or bank credits, there is no set of facts
that the attorney can present that would allow him or First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company to
receive the relief they are seeking for the payment of a default judgment. Therefore, Guzi has
the right to have,this matter dismissed with prejudice in summary judgment.
The third argument is that there is another set of legal circumstances that are quite
compelling when brought forWard and presented with the liabilities that run against the state
when the system is contra to the conditions set out in the paramount trust. Currently the State of
Floria is operating it day to day operations including the court system outside the requirements
of the US Const. at 1 -10-1. Since Congress removed from circulation the gold in 1933 and silver
in 1965 and the US Const. has not changed in reference to artl:secl0:cll, a conflict of law is
continually in place. For the courts to continuously operate with some appearance to provide
justice, judges hadto be provided some shield to keep them form operating totally outside the
supreme law of the land. Since January.19, 1965, there has been technically no lawful nioney in
circulation. The courts, in order to give the appearance of providing justice, had to move to a
completely commercial venue. Such a venue was provided by the Uniform Commercial Code
(the UCC) {or BUS & COM}. The UCC, by definition of money at BUS & COM §1.201(b)(24),
provides the court with. a form of shield by utilizing a presumption. The UCC provides that the
purpose of the UCC is outlined at BUS & COM §1.103(a)(1), (2), (3) and (b). The court depends
on Guzi to stay silent about this set of circumstances and let the court make the presumption
that Guzi accepts the position of "party" found at BUS & COM §1.201(b)(26) and that he accepts
the definition of money and move forward with this transaction. Guzi has not entered into any
transaction or made any agreements with the Plaintiff or with the Judge in this matter and will
provide an affidavit to that effect. Under those set of circumstances, the court cannot utilize the
****
FILED: BR-OWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
presumption of "party" "money" against Guzi. The affidavit provided by Guzi does shift the
or
burden to the Plaintiff to bring forth a contract or statement that proves that Guzi did, with
intent, waive his protection under US Const. at 1 -10-1 to pay his debts in gold or silver coin. At
that juncture of the matter, the court will no longer will be able to utilize the presumption that this
matter will go forward with Guzi as a party as defined, /d. and under the money, /d. Once the
court's presumptions controverted and Guzi claims his political right under US Const. at 1 -10-1,
the Court is bound by the supreme law of the land to defend and protect. This set of
circumstances operates to place the court and all officers in this matter who are possessed of
said oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is a paramount oath and perjury of that oath
is capital felony treason. Under the foregoing set of circumstances there is no set of facts that
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company can bring forward that can allow this court to grant the
relief it is seeking.
Therefore, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD
GUZI, Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S
INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" demands that the court and its officers comply with their
oath and dismiss the claim against Guzi with his cost. Guzi will not participate in any act that will
conspire against the US Constitution or the Florida Constitition, respectively.
With sincerity to all that which is AUTHORED this July 27, 2021.
All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI
Moved by Authorized representative agent:
****
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.****
The Affidavitl4 of Ohad Guzi
The State of Florida'
Broward county k to wit:
I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI,
Defendant, your a#iant in this, his affidavit, affirms that the material matters in this, his affidavit,
made of his own firsthand knowledge of the facts, are true, complete and correct and are free of
prolixity, impertinence and scandal, and those made as on information he is possessed of his
faith and believes it to be true, complete and correct, and that such information expressed
herein is believed to be free of prolixity, impertinence and scandal.
My affirmationsare several:
1. Your affiant never acted or performed any acts or performances with the intent to
waive any protections under U.S. Constitution artl:secl 0:cll.
2. That such an act or performance then made was done so through fraud, coercion,
deceit deceptionl5; and fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and
or
even judgmentsl6
For these
cogent and truthful reasons, and constrained by every obligation of justice and
honor, I, Ohad Guzi, do here and now solemnly affirm that he did not knowingly and with intent
or mutuality waive any protections under U.S. Constitution artl:secl 0:cll and believes no
evidence exists to the contrary. Your affiant believes, in good faith and conscience, that he is
acting within the law.
With sincerity and to all which is respectfully AFFIRMED
Jurat to Affidavit
Affirmed and subscribed
under'penalty of perjury
under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica
.
e:r. ,
before this court this July 27,2021
#-WA-4=t--
All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI
GUL Ohad
Il#? .v/EZCMEA. -A.rmed by Authorized representative agent and Affiant:
Ilf:i*b) -[
11%? EOHEW.6.rzikB 11
-
E33*r,tdi/+3*LE+1
-=---,AA=-
14
Indeed, no more than affidavits are necessary to make the Prima facie case; United States K Kis, 658 F. 2nd, 526,
536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert Denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169; S. Ct March 22, 1982
15
Fraud vitiates everything it touches. (common law maxim) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416.
Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Boyce k Executors v. Gruna> (1830) 28 U.S. 210.
\6
United States v. Throckmorton(1878) 98 JU.S. 61,70.
Preview
**** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** CASE NO. CACE-21-011922 FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, § IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF , Plaintiff § 9 THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL VS. § § COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC:, § and OHAD GUZI, and 007028=J § BROWARD GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC., § f Individually, § Defendants § JUL 2 7 2021 , JJ .By ANSWER, RESPONSE, REBUTTAL, AND OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAGAINSTOHAD GUZI AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND MOTION TO DENY SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT Cometh now, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, Defendant ("Guzi") to file this Answer, Response, Rebuttal, and Opposition against Plaintiff, FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST ("First-Citizens" or the "bank"), and Motion to Deny Default Judgment against your Defendants- (collectively herein with Guzi, "Defendants"). Your Defendants herein can make no payment on any debt or obligation to pay pursuant to costs, fees, any contract or fine, settlement, or order of the court, until the appropriateform of payment is clarified and defined by the payee or court, in consideration of the following adopted and incorporated herewith as my duly certified statement of presumed fact in Law. PREMISE OF LAW FIRSTLY It should be noted that historically, even the old "Silver Certificate" which was invalidated in 1965, was NEVER lawfully considered as a United States "Dollar". It clearly was merely a "certificate" that only "certified", as thereon stated, that there was a United States [solid silver] "Dollar" in the Treasury of the United States of America Payable to the Bearer on Demand". In - other words, it merely "certified" that there was a real United States [solid silver] "Dollar" way over there, at the Treasury of the United States. It, therefore, was NOT a United States "Dollar" itself. It was merely a "Dollar Bill" that was to be presented, AS A BILL", for "Payment" of a real United States [solid Silver] "Dollar", and that presentment action was to be done at the Treasury of the United States of America. Of course, that is not possible today, nor since 1965. The undersigned is therefore genuinely confused as to what this CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY can lawfully "require" regarding its requested "payment" of the subject alleged amount due, as none of the above "Mediums of Exchange" are even remotely considered "at par" today with the historic and specific United States "Dollar," "Cent", and "Mille" as clearly specified in the, and the United States Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 A.D.1 The Supreme Court has ruled that Lawful Money of the United States could only be gold and silver coin or that which, by law, is made its equal so as to be exchangeable therefor at par, and on demand, and does NOT include a currency, which though nominally exchangeablefor coin at its' face value, is not redeemable on demand.2 Checks, drafts, money orders and bank notes ] Florida Statutes, Section 673.6031 1 Bronson v. Rhodes, 74 U.S. 229,247,19 L. Ed. 141. **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** are not lawful money of the United States.3 Real money is. money which has real metallic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts.4 PREMISE OF LAW SECONDLY No state may make anything but gold or silver coin tender in payment of debts5 and ["the United States"] states or further states that only gold certificates of the United States payable to bearer on demand shall be and are legal tender in payment of all debts and dues, public and private. However, no payment in gold or silver may be demanded in payment of any debt or obligation because of government declared bankruptcy.6 No one is bound to do what is impossible.7 PREMISE OF LAWTHIRDLY The responsibility of coining gold and silver money was by the people ceded to Congress at Article I; §8, Clause 5, U.S. Constitution. It was certainly not within the enumerated powers of Congressional authority in law to transfer the issuing of gold and silver certificates, and ultimately supplanting United States Notes with Federal Reserve Notes, to the private Federal Reserve being a foreign power with respect to lawful government. Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to abdicate, or to transfer to others, the essential legislative functions with which it is vested.8 PREMISE OF LAW THE FOURTH The giving of a note does not constitute a cash payment.9 The legal tender quality of paper money is only valuable for the purposes of dishonesty [...110. By agreeing to pay fines, court costs, or any other obligation or debt in commerce or monetary exchange with any private party or public institution by means of paper money only valuable for the purpose of dishonesty, whether or not intentionally, willfully, or knowingly, having been under inducement, tricked, or 3 State v. Mellon, 73 Pac. 21,43 Ore. 168 4 Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition 5 Article 1 sec 10, US Constitution, Public Law 103 ofDec. 24, 1919 6 Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933; 31 USC §5112, §5119; 50 U.S. Code App. 7 Sec. 7(e), 50 U.S. Code §4305(b)(2) and §4307(e), 12 USC 95*2); confirmed in Pero v. - US. 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912 (1935) 7 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 601. A l'impossible nul n'est tenu 8 Art. I, § 1; Art. I, § 8, par. 18. A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), quoting Panama Refining Co. Ryan, 293v.U. S. 388. R 295 U. S. 529. See, also 66th Congress Sess. II Chapter 15, (December 24, 1919)-Public Law No. 103 CHAR 15-An Act to make gold certificates of the United States payable to bearer on demand legal tender. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativesof the United States of America in Congress assembled, that gold certificatesof the United States payable to bearer on demand shall be and are hereby made legal tender in payment of all debts and dues, public and private. Gold Reserve Act of March 14, 1900; [§3511] Sec. 2. That United States notes, and Treasury notes issued under the Act of July 14, 1890, when presented to the Treasury for redemption, shall be redeemed in gold coin of the standard fixed in the first section of this Act..." No law makes Federal Reserve Notes Lawful Money or Legal Tender, and they do not meet either of these lawful requirements for legal tender for the Citizens ofthe several states. 9 Echart v Commissioners, C.C.A. 42 F2d 158; 283 U. S. 140 'O Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871) **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** coerced by any criminal element corporate or private, or under color of law in representation of government, into paying any debt, obligation, or fine, in anything other than gold or silver, one would be as such, in law, either pressured, coerced and intimidated, or threatened under duress, drawn into by deceit, or conspiring with criminal intent, to engage in the crime of counterfeiting and forgery, being a felony, and so should and must respectfully decline any offer, and resist or reject any pressure to accept or succumb to any inducement to be drawn into contributing, aiding, or abetting, whether directly or indirectly, any manner of criminality, such as defined in and by law as forgery and/or the counterfeiting of money or value in any manner. ASSERTION OF LOGICAL CONCLUSION BASED UPON PREMISE OF FACTS ASSERTED AS CONTROLLING LAW WHEREFORE, argument is valid only if its conclusion follows logically from the combination an of itspremises, the Defendant can make no payment on any fine, obligation or debt assessed pursuant to the terms and conditions of any court order, contract, bill, invoice or obligation as such imposed or assessed, until such time as specific clarification of the form of money and appropriate tender in payment by First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, Prosecutor, or Court is made in amendment to the same said bill, order to pay, invoice, or demand for payment, as herewith requested, in consideration of the forgoing facts in and at Law, and so requests the same be made forthwith, in equity, faith and good conscience. JUDICIAL NOTICE No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt.11 No man can give that which he has not [nor that which he cannot be required to have, such as contraband Federal Reserve Bank Notes counterfeited as money].12 RELIEF CURRENTLY SOUGHT IN CLARIFICATIONOF TERMS AND CONDITIONS/NATURE AND CAUSE OF DEMANDS AND ORDER FOR PAYMENT WHEREFORE, I, and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, as a man Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" requests the court to direct and compel opposing counsel to clarify and identify in writing, for the record of these proceedings, a suitable and acceptable form of payment under law in amendment to and with respect to payments, arrears, fines assessed or obligations imposed by judgment or contract, pursuant to any void and incomplete contract, judgment or settlement as a matter of public record, or void the contract, settlement, or order to pay that in fact already is; nunc pro tune ab initio, the same being void for ambiguity and lack of clarification. 11 Constitution of the State of Texas Art. 1 § 18, 1876 12 Jackson v. Brodfbid, 4 Wend. (N.Y.) 619 **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** PRAYER WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" ask the court to deny Plaintiffs motion for summary and default judgment against you defendant and that all parties leave with their cost. With sincerity and to that which is ANSWERED, RESPONDED, REBUTTED, OPPOSED AND MOTIONED. Date: 7/27/2021 All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI Moved by Authorized representative agent: Guzi ohuD **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER, RESPONSE, REBUTTAL, AND OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OHAD GUZI & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND MOTION TO DENY SUMMARY AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT Firstly, I, and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, as a man Defendant, tendered my promise to FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST (the "payee") in the amount of $53,572. Under equal application of law, I make claim and do claim that my promise of $53,572 is just good as any other promise that the payee could receive from any other as source in the amount $53,572. A copy of my promise has been made to F.IRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUSL The declaration made by the United States Congress at 31 USC §510113 clearly states that no court has decided the value of money, and rightly so. The value of money - is a political question and cannot be addressed by the court. In fact, all questions concerning the nature of money are political questions and cannot addressed by any state court. There are three things that are involved in the payee's demands. First is the value of money. Congress declares that there has been no decision on the value of money or money of account, /d.; and Secondly, the Constitution of the United States at Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 ("US Const. at 1 -10-1") clearly states that no State shall [...]; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]. This article of the constitution operates to restrict the court from ordering any payment made in any other form other than gold or silver coin; and Thirdly, the absence of any gold or silver coin in general circulation operates in a manner that creates a political question as to whether I can be compelled to accept legal prejudice by using or accepting any form of money other than gold or silver coin. For the foregoing reasons, the ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT should be denied. The second argument in this case that estops the court from even ruling in this matter is a problem that has been generated by a conflict betwixt the statutes created by the Congress of the United States and the Constitutionof the United States. This conflict is reflected in the policy of First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company and how the said conflict operates against Guzi's political position as the beneficiary of the paramount trust ("The Constitution of the United States'). Here are the actors at this scene. First, there is Guzi, the beneficiary of the paramount trust who has never knowingly and with intent ever waived any of the rights of his beneficial position. Then there is the Judge in this matter where he/she is the Trustee of the paramount trust -do to his/her oath to protect and defend the paramount trust. Then there is the Attorney for Plaintiff who has taken an oath to protect, support and defend the paramount trust and is also an officer of the court. These conditions operate t6 place the Judge in this matter, the prosecutor for First- Citizens Bank & Trust Company in the unique position of making sure that Guzi is granted and afforded protections under the paramount trust, otherwise the trustee or co-trustee commits perjury of oath which may be considered capital felony treason. The ability for the Attorney {or the Cou/Y} to collect for a penalty or fine in this matter turns on the political choices and rights available to Guzi and generated by the paramount trust cited at US Const. at 1 -10-1 13 The word "money" is substitutedfor "money of account" to eliminate unnecessarywords. As far as can be determined, the phrase "money of account" has not been interpretedby any court or Government agency **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda ID. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** Congress of the United States has created statutes that are in conflict with the paramount trust and those statutes were made without authority. Those statute operated to remove gold and silver coin (the "coin") from circulation used by the beneficiary of the paramount trust. The removal of the coin from circulation forces the Citizens of the several states (the "Citizens") to have to make the political choice to either waive their protection under the paramount trust and use an authorized form of payment of debts to the government, or have no money of exchange to provide for their life. The money system moved forward by ignorance of the citizens, even though the only form of payment authorized by the paramount trust still to date is gold and silver coin. This set of circumstances operates to create a political choice for Guzi when dealing with payments to any political subdivision of the state government or agencies of government, including, without limitation, First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company. He would waive his rights and protection - created by the paramount trust created for his benefit and agree to deal with the government in an unauthorized, and therefore illegal form of exchange, or he could come to the Court and demand that the trustees and co-trustees sworn to defend his rights and protections set out in the conditions of the paramount trust do their sworn duty, thereby trustees and co-trustees with sworn oaths could avoid the peril of becoming conflicted trustees and commit perjury of oath. All courts are aware that all aspects of money are political. Congress has exclusive control over the value and creation of money; however, the form of the money is controlled by the conditions set forth in the paramount trust. Therefore, issues such as these raised by Guzi are non-justiciable political subject and outside the jurisdiction of this and any other court. At this time, the court has the opportunity the court for the benefit of Guzi as a beneficiary to the paramount trust or commit perjury of oath and operate the court pursuant to some other rules or other undisclosed or alternate trust not made known to the citizens that was generated by some United States banking emergency back in the early 1930s. Since the court is estopped by the US Const. at 1-10-1 to issue any order that orders Guzi to pay a default judgment in federal reserve notes or bank credits, there is no set of facts that the attorney can present that would allow him or First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company to receive the relief they are seeking for the payment of a default judgment. Therefore, Guzi has the right to have,this matter dismissed with prejudice in summary judgment. The third argument is that there is another set of legal circumstances that are quite compelling when brought forWard and presented with the liabilities that run against the state when the system is contra to the conditions set out in the paramount trust. Currently the State of Floria is operating it day to day operations including the court system outside the requirements of the US Const. at 1 -10-1. Since Congress removed from circulation the gold in 1933 and silver in 1965 and the US Const. has not changed in reference to artl:secl0:cll, a conflict of law is continually in place. For the courts to continuously operate with some appearance to provide justice, judges hadto be provided some shield to keep them form operating totally outside the supreme law of the land. Since January.19, 1965, there has been technically no lawful nioney in circulation. The courts, in order to give the appearance of providing justice, had to move to a completely commercial venue. Such a venue was provided by the Uniform Commercial Code (the UCC) {or BUS & COM}. The UCC, by definition of money at BUS & COM §1.201(b)(24), provides the court with. a form of shield by utilizing a presumption. The UCC provides that the purpose of the UCC is outlined at BUS & COM §1.103(a)(1), (2), (3) and (b). The court depends on Guzi to stay silent about this set of circumstances and let the court make the presumption that Guzi accepts the position of "party" found at BUS & COM §1.201(b)(26) and that he accepts the definition of money and move forward with this transaction. Guzi has not entered into any transaction or made any agreements with the Plaintiff or with the Judge in this matter and will provide an affidavit to that effect. Under those set of circumstances, the court cannot utilize the **** FILED: BR-OWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** presumption of "party" "money" against Guzi. The affidavit provided by Guzi does shift the or burden to the Plaintiff to bring forth a contract or statement that proves that Guzi did, with intent, waive his protection under US Const. at 1 -10-1 to pay his debts in gold or silver coin. At that juncture of the matter, the court will no longer will be able to utilize the presumption that this matter will go forward with Guzi as a party as defined, /d. and under the money, /d. Once the court's presumptions controverted and Guzi claims his political right under US Const. at 1 -10-1, the Court is bound by the supreme law of the land to defend and protect. This set of circumstances operates to place the court and all officers in this matter who are possessed of said oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It is a paramount oath and perjury of that oath is capital felony treason. Under the foregoing set of circumstances there is no set of facts that First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company can bring forward that can allow this court to grant the relief it is seeking. Therefore, I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, Defendant and collectively with MIAMI S&E GROUP, INC., OHAD GUZI, and GUZI'S INVESTMENTS, LLC, "Defendants" demands that the court and its officers comply with their oath and dismiss the claim against Guzi with his cost. Guzi will not participate in any act that will conspire against the US Constitution or the Florida Constitition, respectively. With sincerity to all that which is AUTHORED this July 27, 2021. All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI Moved by Authorized representative agent: **** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL Brenda D. Forman, CLERK. 7/27/2021 4:30:00 PM.**** The Affidavitl4 of Ohad Guzi The State of Florida' Broward county k to wit: I, as a man and Benefactor, Authorized Representative agent for OHAD GUZI, Defendant, your a#iant in this, his affidavit, affirms that the material matters in this, his affidavit, made of his own firsthand knowledge of the facts, are true, complete and correct and are free of prolixity, impertinence and scandal, and those made as on information he is possessed of his faith and believes it to be true, complete and correct, and that such information expressed herein is believed to be free of prolixity, impertinence and scandal. My affirmationsare several: 1. Your affiant never acted or performed any acts or performances with the intent to waive any protections under U.S. Constitution artl:secl 0:cll. 2. That such an act or performance then made was done so through fraud, coercion, deceit deceptionl5; and fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and or even judgmentsl6 For these cogent and truthful reasons, and constrained by every obligation of justice and honor, I, Ohad Guzi, do here and now solemnly affirm that he did not knowingly and with intent or mutuality waive any protections under U.S. Constitution artl:secl 0:cll and believes no evidence exists to the contrary. Your affiant believes, in good faith and conscience, that he is acting within the law. With sincerity and to all which is respectfully AFFIRMED Jurat to Affidavit Affirmed and subscribed under'penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica . e:r. , before this court this July 27,2021 #-WA-4=t-- All rights reserved, no recourse; For: OHAD GUZI GUL Ohad Il#? .v/EZCMEA. -A.rmed by Authorized representative agent and Affiant: Ilf:i*b) -[ 11%? EOHEW.6.rzikB 11 - E33*r,tdi/+3*LE+1 -=---,AA=- 14 Indeed, no more than affidavits are necessary to make the Prima facie case; United States K Kis, 658 F. 2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert Denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169; S. Ct March 22, 1982 15 Fraud vitiates everything it touches. (common law maxim) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. Boyce k Executors v. Gruna> (1830) 28 U.S. 210. \6 United States v. Throckmorton(1878) 98 JU.S. 61,70.