Opinion
Case No. SC02-1527
November 4, 2002
Decision Without Published Opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Petitioner Austin V. Tasse has submitted a petition for writ of mandamus.
The petition contains scandalous and insulting language full of obscenities. It contains offensive language directed at specific attorneys and judges, as well as generalized insults directed toward attorneys, judges, The Florida Bar, the Judicial Qualifications Committee, and the legal system as a whole. While this Court will not reprint the entire petition, printed below is a small sample taken from an attachment to Tasse's petition:
[The] Nazi judge gave [petitioner] his LAW 101 bullsh*t cliche "fool for a client" ad nauseam to perpetuate the DIRTY ATTY GAME. [Petitioner] told him [he did] not need atty, since [he] had defeated 30 scumbags [and had] studied law in San Quentin Prison in 69 when framed by LA and BURBANK PIGS. . . . [Petitioner] vowed NO NAZI JUDGE, D.A., COP, ATTY, NOBODY WOULD EVER WALK ON [him] AGAIN. Then [petitioner] met the dirty motherf***er 4 judges of [location omitted], A HICK AREA OF HILLBILLIES. . . . [Petitioner] sent out thousands of letters on this dishonorable motherf***er Nazi, so [the trial judge] recused [himself] and appointed [name omitted] who set non-jury trial. . . . [Then that judge recused himself and] then a 3rd NAZI JUDGE [name omitted] set a 3rd trial date aug. 8, 01. [Petitioner] told this stupid motherf***er he could not hold a MOCK TRIAL, case over . . . . [Petitioner] told this dishonorable prick who had bought his license for law at Walgreens that [he] would never enter his FASCIST COURT. . . . [The judge] held the farce MOCK TRIAL . . . This IMBECILE JUDGE, WHOSE AGE AND I.Q. TOGETHER WOULDN'T TOTAL 100 . . . . [is like a]ll courts [which] are corrupt, see case so and so, as they quote from some irrelevant bullsh*t. . . . Only LOSER attys become judges, could not make the BILLABLE HOURS. . . . They kiss the a** of the party, get on ballot, the public does not know 1 a**hole atty from the another. Voted in, they kiss the a** of the Gov for promotions. . . . [T]he DCA and ALL HIGH COURTS RUBBER STAMP DENIED as in [petitioner's] cases. The DCA denied appeals with IRREFUTABLY PROVEN PEJURY [sic]. . . . The FLORIDA BAR, set up to con the public they police their own, gave [the defendant's attorney] his license to lie, would do nothing. Judicial Qualifications, set up by has been judges to con the public they police their own, would do nothing on the NAZIS. State Atty General [name omitted] did nothing on [petitioner's] criminal complaint . . . . Federal Judge [name omitted] . . . . a simple minded prick said "I CANNOT WADE THROUGH 50 PAGES OF WRIT" . . . . [T]his lazy prick did not do his job [and the] female attys on [their] period could not do job . . . . [Then petitioner] filed a case in [location omitted], Nazi judge [name omitted], THE LOUSE, DENIED case saying "frivolous, SCANDLOUS" . . . . Yes it was a scandal as it was in L.A. where I brought down 15 pigs.
This Court cannot allow its judicial processes to be misused by Tasse to malign and insult those persons and institutions which have been unfortunate enough to come in contact with Tasse. Tasse has litigated the matters he raises in his petition repeatedly, and this is not the first time Tasse has filed scandalous pleadings in this Court. This Court has the authority and the duty to prevent the misuse and abuse of the judicial system. It appears quite evident that Tasse is unable to maintain the bare minimum standard of decorum and respect for the judicial system that all litigants must have when filing court pleadings and seeking court rulings. Since it is quite evident that Tasse cannot meet that standard and cannot conduct himself with that basic level of decency, it appears to this Court that it may be necessary to forbid Tasse from filing any further pro se pleadings in this Court. Consequently, the Court hereby denies the instant petition and issues this order to show cause:
See Tasse v. Norman, 819 So.2d 140 (Table) (Fla. 2002) (No. SC01-1615) (mandamus denied); Tasse v. Norman, 782 So.2d 401 (Table) (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (No. 5D00-3476) (summary affirmance); Tasse v. Nielson, 786 So.2d 1189 (Table) (Fla. 2001) (No. SC01-207) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision denied based on lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. Norman, 760 So.2d 948 (Table) (Fla. 2000) (No. SC00-200) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. New River Boat Club, Inc., 745 So.2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (No. 99-2237) (summary affirmance); Tasse v. Denowitz, 660 So.2d 715 (Table) (Fla. 1995) (No. 86,113) (petition for discretionary review of Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); Tasse v. Denowitz, 654 So.2d 933 (Table) (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (No. 94-0880) (per curiam affirmance).
TO: AUSTIN V. TASSE:
It appears to the Court that you have abused the judicial system by filing abusive and offensive pleadings in this Court. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that you shall show cause on or before November 19, 2002, why, as a sanction for abusing the judicial system, this Court should not direct the Clerk of this Court to reject for filing any pleadings from you that are not signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS and CANTERO, JJ., concur.