Bill Text: FL S0050 | 2015 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Relief of Brian Pitts by the State of Florida
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Failed) 2015-05-01 - Died in Special Master on Claim Bills [S0050 Detail]
Download: Florida-2015-S0050-Introduced.html
Florida Senate - 2015 (NP) SB 50
By Senator Braynon
36-00015-15 201550__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act for the relief of Brian Pitts; directing the
3 Division of Administrative Hearings to appoint an
4 administrative law judge or special master to
5 determine a basis for equitable relief for the purpose
6 of compensating Mr. Pitts for the wrongful acts or
7 omissions of the State of Florida or officials
8 thereof; requiring a report to the Legislature;
9 authorizing compensation to Mr. Pitts upon a
10 determination by an administrative law judge;
11 providing an appropriation to compensate Mr. Pitts for
12 injuries and damages sustained; providing a limitation
13 on attorney fees and costs; directing that certain
14 court orders and judgments be declared null and void;
15 specifying the limited circumstances under which Mr.
16 Pitts may represent himself or others in judicial or
17 administrative proceedings; directing the Department
18 of Law Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts
19 committed by certain persons; authorizing the
20 Governor, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker
21 of the House of Representatives to sever portions of
22 this act under certain circumstances; providing an
23 effective date.
24
25 WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of
26 law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The
27 Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980), and
28 in The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer
29 Representation in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180
30 1181, 1183-1184 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary
31 having concurrent jurisdiction to regulate such, and
32 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has exercised this privilege since 2001
33 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later enjoined by the
34 Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final order
35 dated November 6, 2003. As stated in the order, “respondent
36 Brian Pitts is enjoined from engaging in the practice of law in
37 the State of Florida as specified in the referee’s report.
38 Specifically, respondent is hereby enjoined from engaging in any
39 of the following activities: (1) appearing in any Florida court
40 as a representative of a party, giving legal advice in a Florida
41 case, or otherwise participating in any Florida litigation on
42 behalf of any party unless otherwise authorized by Florida
43 statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or the
44 Rules Regulating The Florida Bar . . . .” See The Florida Bar v.
45 Pitts, 861 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2003)(No. SC02-247, November 6,
46 2003), www.floridasupremecourt.org, and
47 WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, Mr.
48 Pitts contends that the Second District Court of Appeal, the
49 Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas
50 Counties, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
51 Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar have, without cause,
52 continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the privilege of practicing
53 law as prescribed by the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court,
54 subjecting him to civil and criminal proceedings and penalties
55 on an ongoing basis, and
56 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts opines that the Florida Supreme Court,
57 in its 2003 final order in case number SC02-247, has subjected
58 him to entrapment and needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed
59 to exercise its constitutional duty upon his many requests to
60 clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate court rules
61 through The Florida Bar following original proceedings brought
62 or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the matter, and
63 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the courts, The Florida
64 Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
65 Circuit of Florida have engaged in a course of misconduct and
66 colluded against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB
67 65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965
68 MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO
69 from 2001 to 2012 and that such misconduct has resulted in his
70 wrongful and unlawful incarceration in the Pinellas County Jail
71 for a total of nearly 1 year, and
72 WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was, in
73 Mr. Pitts’ opinion, to retaliate against him for not being a
74 member of The Florida Bar despite being lawfully otherwise
75 authorized to represent third persons he assisted in legitimate
76 legal matters and, by way of his detainment, to thwart his
77 pending pro se actions for relief from the collusion by civil,
78 appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from the above
79 criminal cases, and
80 WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
81 was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
82 for his exceptional degree of technical and performance
83 competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
84 member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
85 implied communication that he would not receive the relief
86 requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member
87 of The Florida Bar, as matter of camaraderie, and
88 WHEREAS, although Mr. Pitts appeared pro se in said cases
89 and other actions seeking relief from said collusion, he was at
90 times represented by appointed counsel; however, such
91 proceedings proved to be futile because, Mr. Pitts contends, the
92 proceedings were staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s
93 Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory,
94 and
95 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the courts failed to abide
96 by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, as
97 well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of
98 filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed
99 counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive
100 due process, equal protection of the law, self-representation,
101 and representation by counsel under the United States
102 Constitution, and
103 WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal declared in
104 Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that
105 “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
106 constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
107 expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
108 appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
109 been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
110 objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
111 constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
112 silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
113 somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
114 appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
115 evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
116 patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
117 confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare,
118 Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and
119 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the judges who presided in
120 his cases have deliberately and intentionally, in concert with
121 the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by these
122 rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original
123 proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and
124 WHEREAS, it has become evident, in Mr. Pitts’ opinion, that
125 The Florida Bar, State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
126 Circuit of Florida, and the judges and justices involved at each
127 level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal and private,
128 rather than public, interest at issue in deterring Mr. Pitts
129 from engaging in the authorized practice of law as prescribed in
130 this state, and
131 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that such determent is due to a
132 matter of camaraderie among those of the legal profession and an
133 interest in protecting it by any means from lawful competition,
134 where applicable, and
135 WHEREAS, this determent demonstrates a lack of neutrality,
136 proper motives, and discretion which deprives Mr. Pitts of the
137 required process and means of justice or resolution as normally
138 expected of esteemed persons in their official capacities, and
139 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the Pinellas County
140 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
141 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
142 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by illegally incarcerating
143 him in the Pinellas County Jail during the time periods of
144 January 2003 through April 2004 and March 12, 2010 through July
145 4, 2010, refusing him administrative alternative sentencing
146 without cause, and subjecting him to living conditions and
147 circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail Standards
148 (2.15)(c); (4.12); (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1)-(8), and
149 (j); (6.02); (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12);
150 (11.16); (12.03)(d)-(g), (i); (12.06); Appendix A; and ss.
151 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and
152 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts also contends that the Pinellas County
153 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
154 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
155 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by extending his sentence
156 an additional 50 days of detention in violation of Inmate
157 Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss.
158 951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, which subjected him
159 to cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, and a
160 denial of due process and equal protection of the law. See
161 Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); Miller v.
162 Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d
163 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 (M.D.
164 Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975);
165 Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Douthit v.
166 Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
167 WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
168 reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010,
169 and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without
170 a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of
171 articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s
172 suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting
173 jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010; “Jail
174 standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010;
175 “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated
176 May 15, 2010; “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough
177 oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010; and other
178 articles, and
179 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that such conduct was a clear
180 abuse of judicial, executive, and administrative authority as to
181 the state court system and local government, including the State
182 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and
183 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, which resulted in a public
184 embarrassment to this state because such authorities knew that
185 there was not any basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts
186 against him, and
187 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that his good name and
188 reputation have been damaged; he has been deprived of due
189 process, the ability to conduct a lawful business, freedom of
190 speech, property, liberty, and equal protection of the law; he
191 has not benefited from constitutional protections against
192 unlawful trusts by public officers and employees under oath of
193 office and double jeopardy protections as to criminal
194 proceedings and sanctions; and he has suffered mental anguish
195 and emotional distress as the result of the intentional
196 misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State
197 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The
198 Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating
199 to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and,
200 further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti
201 trust laws, which were violated in the subject cases, and
202 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
203 significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property,
204 and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution
205 resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to
206 his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and
207 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the
208 Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
209 against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics
210 and subject matter in fact and law with an exceptional degree of
211 technical competence that would be expected of any trained and
212 experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
213 WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
214 justice is impervious to human error, and
215 WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that any system of
216 justice may sometimes yield imperfect results that may have
217 tragic consequences, and
218 WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
219 obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act
220 on its authority to correct a wrong when those actions have
221 resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
222 WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with
223 the holdings of the Florida Supreme Court regarding legislative
224 claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v.
225 Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla.
226 1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity
227 . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial
228 process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172
229 (Fla. 1985)(“[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s
230 assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to
231 Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and
232 WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v.
233 Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st
234 DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed
235 limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative
236 relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign
237 immunity,” and
238 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley,
239 298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is
240 restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to
241 discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or
242 other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being
243 entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill
244 for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as
245 effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,”
246 and
247 WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
248 pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the
249 state for any and all present and future claims arising out of
250 the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
251
252 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
253
254 Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
255 found and declared to be true, and all judicial and
256 administrative remedies were exhausted as of September 9, 2003
257 April 30, 2004; September 30, 2005; May 21, 2007; September 7,
258 2007; December 12, 2008; September 14, 2009; February 22, 2010;
259 March 11-July 4, 2010; and March 30, 2012, respectively.
260 Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
261 appoint an administrative law judge, or a special master shall
262 be appointed, to conduct a hearing to determine a basis for
263 equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Mr. Pitts for
264 any wrongful act or omission of the State of Florida, the State
265 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
266 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations
267 involving Mr. Pitts, the civil and criminal proceedings relating
268 to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of
269 law, and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001
270 to 2012, if not longer.
271 Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
272 master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
273 whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for
274 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County
275 Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and
276 whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds,
277 the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr.
278 Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1
279 million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged
280 him and to be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of
281 no more than 10 years.
282 (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
283 report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
284 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2015.
285 The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in
286 satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law
287 judge, special master, or Legislature, as provided in this act,
288 and to pay the warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or
289 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system
290 and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts.
291 Pinellas County shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue
292 fund or by other means it has provided to pay valid claims
293 against it relating to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and
294 as to its share of the total award to Mr. Pitts.
295 (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
296 for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
297 situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
298 unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
299 with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed
300 or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
301 nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2012. The
302 total amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
303 other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
304 percent of the amount awarded under this act.
305 (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
306 and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and
307 restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC09-195 and SC09
308 2243, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO,
309 CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
310 01887MMANO, in which Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant
311 are null and void by this act by virtue of the doctrine of
312 separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the
313 Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments, in addition to the
314 courts’ own lawful and valid case precedent, rules, and orders,
315 authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar
316 v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of
317 inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida
318 House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla.
319 2008), Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468
320 So. 2d 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); by virtue of checks and
321 balances exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex
322 Rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in
323 which the court found, “[a] clear violation of the
324 constitutional provisions dividing the powers of government into
325 departments should be checked and remedied.” As the court found
326 in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he
327 general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the
328 legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of
329 government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions
330 of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable
331 exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive
332 and fundamental principle.” Finally, by virtue of the cases
333 involving Mr. Pitts, the courts failed to comply with the
334 mandates of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states that
335 “[t]he judicial branch has the purpose of determining the
336 constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of
337 adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or
338 application of the laws.”
339 (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
340 as to cases SC06-1279, SC09-195, and SC09-2243 and the clerk of
341 the court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB
342 90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07
343 03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
344 01887MMANO, all pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to
345 remove from public and private access all dockets, records,
346 documents, and recorded orders or liens related to those cases
347 and transmit them to the Department of Law Enforcement to
348 fulfill the duties required under section 6 of this act. The
349 Department of Law Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from
350 public and private access all record history and information of
351 a criminal nature concerning Mr. Pitts. This record history and
352 information include, but are not limited to, fingerprints, felon
353 registration, and all other matters concerning the case numbers
354 cited in this subsection. These records, information, or
355 documents may not be used by or accessed for any purpose by
356 anyone unless access to those records is required by federal
357 authorities or for investigations conducted under section 6 of
358 this act.
359 (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
360 the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
361 and (5) of this section and section 6, and shall provide
362 protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights,
363 privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
364 Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
365 final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
366 in clause (1) of that order, unless otherwise authorized by
367 Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
368 the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr.
369 Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
370 Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
371 designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
372 as a lay counselor or lay representative:
373 (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
374 representative.
375 (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
376 representative.
377 (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney
378 in-fact under a durable power of attorney, when coupled with an
379 interest in any personal or property claim, election, right, or
380 interest.
381 (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
382 relating to representation in real property management.
383 (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
384 relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
385 (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
386 relating to representation in county or small claims civil
387 proceedings.
388 (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
389 relating to third-party standing representation.
390 (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida
391 Bar.
392 (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
393 doctrine.
394 (10) Federal law, state law, local rule, statute, local
395 law, or any other court or administrative decision or order
396 under federal, state, or local law and authority.
397 Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
398 Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
399 or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
400 practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the
401 right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing
402 supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil,
403 administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to
404 represent himself without a lawyer in court and in
405 administrative actions or cases.
406 Section 6. Due to the ongoing conduct from 2001 to 2012
407 against Mr. Pitts as described in the preamble of this act, the
408 Legislature directs the Department of Law Enforcement, assisted
409 by Mr. Pitts, to investigate these acts committed by:
410 (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for
411 violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and
412 18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on
413 February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279, which resulted in the
414 incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 Legislative
415 Session while proceedings on SB 58 were pending, and in Mr.
416 Pitts’ cases relating to motions, reviews, and original
417 proceedings for violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
418 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1),
419 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
420 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
421 242, 1951, and 1962.
422 (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
423 Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
424 the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
425 involved in violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
426 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1),
427 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
428 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
429 242, 1951, and 1962.
430 (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued
431 charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for
432 violations of ss. 542.21(2), 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015,
433 838.016, 839.13(1), 895.03, and 918.13, Florida Statutes; 15
434 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 242, 1951, and 1962.
435 (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of
436 ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1), 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3),
437 876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 201,
438 241, or 242.
439
440 The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
441 granted to it under general law to investigate criminal
442 violations under this act and shall refer any evidence of such
443 crimes to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution.
444 Failure of the Department to Law Enforcement to investigate
445 these criminal violations and refer any evidence of such
446 violations to the appropriate officials is a misdemeanor of the
447 first degree under s. 775.15(12)(b). Charges arising out of the
448 criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand jury
449 impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of this
450 act.
451 Section 7. The Governor, the President of the Senate, or
452 the Speaker of the House of Representatives may sever in whole
453 or in part any section of this act, excluding this section,
454 which remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon
455 becoming law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall
456 retain the right or privilege during future legislative sessions
457 to request the relief severed in whole or in part by virtue of
458 this section until fully remedied.
459 Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
