No. 23-5182

In Re Richard Charles Lussy

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2023-07-24
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: administrative-procedure civil-rights constitutional-writ due-process evidence-code forfeiture non-delegation-doctrine public-office sovereign-immunity standing
Key Terms:
Antitrust DueProcess FirstAmendment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

to compel his standing due to unavailability: 'forfeiture of public office for wrong doing.' From: Incompetent Abraham Skinner's(IAS'S) Appellee Team to: RICK Pro Se Candidate.

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : QUESTIONS-RELIEF SOUGHT: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES 1,) Issue To Decide: “to compel his standing due to unavailability: ‘forfeiture of public office for wrong doing.’ From: Incompetent Abraham Skinner’s(IAS’S) Appellee Team to: RICK Pro Se Candidate.’ IAS’S not above law through non-gov’t organization (NGO) trade union: JAS’S did not provide information that: they are required by law to-give-the-public’ to enforce both Federal & Florida Evidence Codes as powerful ministerial & non-discretionary law for all via supremacy clause, non-delegation doctrine. Imminent to document by ’24 election: Oct. 31, 2023?” 2,) Issue To Decide: “to compel compliance to rules of law & to Civil Administrative Procedure Act?” 3,) Issue To Decide: “to compel application: U.S. Evidence Code §804(b)(6) & Florida Evidence Code Statute §90.804(1)(e) for this court’s Forfeiture Order from Skinner to RICK Pro Se: Collier court?” 4.) “Issue To Decide: ‘vexatious’ litigant obstructs unadjudicated ‘cases’! Stole all estate-3-heirs Probate 95-540: Fla. Supreme Court (10-63-sc collier) sco1-933: Lussy v Fenniman ren-106633 Mrs. Margaret Alfa Buob?” 5.) “Issue To Decide: Regional Civil Law Counsel, petition to secure court appointed civil competent experienced appellate attorney for temporary indigent petition reference: “All Constitutional Writs?” 6.) “Issue To Decide: file Qui Tam Lawsuit no probable cause file 4-illegal lawsuits not protect public?” 7.)“Issue To Decide: (i) right to dissent grand corruption unadjudicated & unsworn answers to FEC 16-245 & FEC 16-357 is impermissible bias. (ii) For Collier County Circuit Court venue change from Leon. Location 3X, County Appraiser Election (iii) coverup creating RICK Pro Se’s poverty/hate crime: by Luxemburg’s HQ economic espionage (iv) Apply self-proving to enforce Election 104/106 Chapters, Admin. Procedure Act Appellee’s culpability; (y) violates U.S. 10t, 1st & 7 Amendments & with Fla. Const. Art. I, §9, §18, §21, §22; in 100 percent jury trial due process redress (JTV-DP-R) with 4-cameras pursuant 3-elections?” 8.)“Issue To Decide: (i) To nullify ABA a nongov't organization(NGO) lawyer judges gradually replace with Appraisal Institute/Cert. Public Accountants independent, open, objective & neutral, (ii) as ABA “no tickie (attorney-fees) no laundry (public justice) is ‘systemic’ violating: fee simple public purpose?” 9.) Issue To Decide: (i) “Breach of trust, fail duty to act: ministerial sacred oath of office(MSOOOF) (ii) Coverup by American Bar Assn(ABA) not train for jury trials & boast: juris-doctor-fraud: no doctor internship; (iii) retaliate & obstruct adjudicate hearsay is entrapment?” 10.) Issue To Decide: (i) “All Appellees are dishonest wrong doers in actions purposed to obstruct all . law process pre 2024 after 2016 & 2020 elections. As: prosecutor, judge, jury & judge editorialized Brown (Property Appraiser) v. COE ‘person seeking fees does not have to prove actual malice’ to vitiate §768.28(9)(a) Fla. Stat, Waiver sovereign immunity are: falsified public records. (ii) Compel use of publiclaw & to prohibit Appellee team of gov't sourced money use by IGM-Etc. secret third-party accessory-tofact: to file this fraud attorney fee claim of $10,862.50, secured $5,000 fine & public censure stigmata. (iii) Determine if incompetent court administrators will continue in competent courts of jurisdiction?” ii

Docket Entries

2023-10-02
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2023-09-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-18
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2023)

Attorneys

Richard Lussy
Richard Charles Lussy — Petitioner