Tanzler served as Goldens criminal defense counsel in a 1984 sexual battery criminal case. Golden filed suit claiming that Tanzler had a conflict of interest in the criminal case because Tanzler was an “officer of the court.” Golden also claimed that the criminal case filings that list his name in all capital letters cannot refer to him because his name is not written in such a way. These absurd claims are derived from fanciful sovereign citizen legal theories and constitute an abuse of the courts. See Barber v. Bay Cnty. Sheriffs Off. Jail Facility, 308 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). We reject these claims on appeal.
This Courts records reflect a 35-year history of Golden making repetitive and frivolous filings. Since 1987, Golden has filed at least 29 pro se actions.
*
Each had considerable resources dedicated to its resolution, diminishing our ability to use those resources for the consideration of legitimate claims. Golden was sanctioned by our Court once before to dissuade him from further abusive filings. Golden v. Buss, 60 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We now consider more serious measures.
Under State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999), Golden will show cause within 20 days of the date of this order why sanctions should not be imposed on him, including a prohibition on further pro se filings in this Court, attorneys fees assessed against him under section 57.105 for filing a frivolous claim, and a referral of this matter to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
Appellant is advised that the failure to comply with the terms of this order within the time allowed may result in the imposition of sanctions without further opportunity to be heard. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.410.
AFFIRMED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. 1DBL-0300 (postconviction, reversed summary denial of claim; Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)); 1D87-1660 (postconviction, affirmed after remand in 1DBL-0300; Golden v. State, 528 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)); 1D99-1218 (prisoner litigation, granted with directions to enter a written order; Golden v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 739 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); 1D99-1384 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D99-1617 (prisoner litigation, dismissed); 1D00-3546 (prisoner litigation, dismissed); 1D01-0655 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D01-0841 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D01-2418 (prisoner litigation, denied); 1D01-3153 (prisoner litigation, denied); 1D01-3834 (prisoner litigation, denied); 1D01-3862 (prisoner litigation, denied); 1D01-4361 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D01-4438 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D01-5119 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D02-0857 (postconviction, affirmed); 1D02-4685 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D03-0766 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D08-3397 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D09-1511 (prisoner litigation, denied); 1D09-1871 (prisoner litigation, dismissed); 1D10-1652 (postconviction, dismissed); 1D10-2059 (postconviction, reversed to preserve right to appeal; Golden v. State, 54 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); 1D10-2591 (prisoner litigation, affirmed with sanctions imposed); 1D11-2565 (postconviction, affirmed after remand in 1D10-2059); 1D13-0871 (prisoner litigation, affirmed); 1D16-4960 (prisoner litigation, reversed to preserve Goldens right to appear telephonically; Golden v. Estate of Tanzler, 257 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)); 1D17-1747 (postconviction, affirmed); 1D17-2218 (postconviction, affirmed); 1D19-4552 (postconviction, affirmed).The recounting of these cases, particularly the older ones, may be incomplete. Goldens litigiousness has continued throughout multiple iterations of this Courts record-keeping systems.
LONG, J.
ROWE, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS, J., concur.