Florida Senate - 2016                              (NP)    SB 18
       By Senator Braynon
       36-00080-16                                             201618__
    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.
   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, Brian Pitts has exercised this privilege since
   33  2001 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later enjoined by
   34  the Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final
   35  order dated November 6, 2003. As stated in the order,
   36  “respondent Brian Pitts is enjoined from engaging in the
   37  practice of law in the State of Florida as specified in the
   38  referee’s report. Specifically, respondent is hereby enjoined
   39  from engaging in any of the following activities: (1) appearing
   40  in any Florida court as a representative of a party, giving
   41  legal advice in a Florida case, or otherwise participating in
   42  any Florida litigation on behalf of any party unless otherwise
   43  authorized by Florida statutes, court rule, case law,
   44  administrative rule, or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar . .
   45  . .” See The Florida Bar v. Pitts, 861 So. 2d 432 (Fla.
   46  2003)(No. SC02-247, November 6, 2003),
   47  www.floridasupremecourt.org, and
   48         WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, Mr.
   49  Pitts contends that the Second District Court of Appeal, the
   50  Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas
   51  Counties, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
   52  Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar have, without cause,
   53  continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the privilege of practicing
   54  law as prescribed by the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court,
   55  subjecting him to civil and criminal proceedings and penalties
   56  on an ongoing basis, and
   57         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts opines that the Florida Supreme Court,
   58  in its 2003 final order in case number SC02-247, has subjected
   59  him to entrapment and needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed
   60  to exercise its constitutional duty upon his many requests to
   61  clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate court rules
   62  through The Florida Bar following original proceedings brought
   63  or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the matter, and
   64         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the courts, The Florida
   65  Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
   66  Circuit of Florida have engaged in a course of misconduct and
   67  colluded against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB
   68  65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965
   69  MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO
   70  from 2001 to 2012 and that such misconduct has resulted in his
   71  wrongful and unlawful incarceration in the Pinellas County Jail
   72  for a total of nearly 1 year, and
   73         WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was, in
   74  Mr. Pitts’ opinion, to retaliate against him for not being a
   75  member of The Florida Bar despite being otherwise lawfully
   76  authorized to represent third persons he assisted in legitimate
   77  legal matters and, by way of his detainment, to thwart his
   78  pending pro se actions for relief from the collusion by civil,
   79  appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from the above
   80  criminal cases, and
   81         WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
   82  was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
   83  for his exceptional degree of technical and performance
   84  competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
   85  member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
   86  implied communication that he would not receive the relief
   87  requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member
   88  of The Florida Bar, as matter of camaraderie, and
   89         WHEREAS, although Mr. Pitts appeared pro se in said cases
   90  and other actions seeking relief from said collusion, he was at
   91  times represented by appointed counsel; however, such
   92  proceedings proved to be futile because, Mr. Pitts contends, the
   93  proceedings were staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s
   94  Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory,
   95  and
   96         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the courts failed to abide
   97  by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, as
   98  well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of
   99  filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed
  100  counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive
  101  due process, equal protection of the law, self-representation,
  102  and representation by counsel under the United States
  103  Constitution, and
  104         WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal declared in
  105  Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that
  106  “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
  107  constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
  108  expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
  109  appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
  110  been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
  111  objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
  112  constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
  113  silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
  114  somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
  115  appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
  116  evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
  117  patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
  118  confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare,
  119  Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and
  120         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the judges who presided in
  121  his cases have deliberately and intentionally, in concert with
  122  the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by these
  123  rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original
  124  proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and
  125         WHEREAS, it has become evident, in Mr. Pitts’ opinion, that
  126  The Florida Bar, State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
  127  Circuit of Florida, and the judges and justices involved at each
  128  level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal and private,
  129  rather than public, interest at issue in deterring Mr. Pitts
  130  from engaging in the authorized practice of law as prescribed in
  131  this state, and
  132         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that such determent is due to a
  133  matter of camaraderie among those of the legal profession and an
  134  interest in protecting it by any means from lawful competition,
  135  where applicable, and
  136         WHEREAS, this determent demonstrates a lack of neutrality,
  137  proper motives, and discretion which deprives Mr. Pitts of the
  138  required process and means of justice or resolution as normally
  139  expected of esteemed persons in their official capacities, and
  140         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the Pinellas County
  141  Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
  142  the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
  143  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by illegally incarcerating
  144  him in the Pinellas County Jail during the time periods of
  145  January 2003 through April 2004 and March 12, 2010, through July
  146  4, 2010, refusing him administrative alternative sentencing
  147  without cause, and subjecting him to living conditions and
  148  circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail Standards
  149  (2.15)(c); (4.12); (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1)-(8), and
  150  (j); (6.02); (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12);
  151  (11.16); (12.03)(d)-(g), (i); (12.06); Appendix A; and ss.
  152  951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and
  153         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts also contends that the Pinellas County
  154  Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
  155  the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
  156  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by extending his sentence
  157  an additional 50 days of detention in violation of Inmate
  158  Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss.
  159  951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, which subjected him
  160  to cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, and a
  161  denial of due process and equal protection of the law. See
  162  Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); Miller v.
  163  Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d
  164  741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 (M.D.
  165  Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975);
  166  Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Douthit v.
  167  Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
  168         WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
  169  reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010,
  170  and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without
  171  a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of
  172  articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s
  173  suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting
  174  jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010; “Jail
  175  standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010;
  176  “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated
  177  May 15, 2010; “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough
  178  oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010; and other
  179  articles, and
  180         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that such conduct was a clear
  181  abuse of judicial, executive, and administrative authority as to
  182  the state court system and local government, including the State
  183  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and
  184  the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, which resulted in a public
  185  embarrassment to this state because such authorities knew that
  186  there was not any basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts
  187  against him, and
  188         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that his good name and
  189  reputation have been damaged; he has been deprived of due
  190  process, the ability to conduct a lawful business, freedom of
  191  speech, property, liberty, and equal protection of the law; he
  192  has not benefited from constitutional protections against
  193  unlawful trusts by public officers and employees under oath of
  194  office and double jeopardy protections as to criminal
  195  proceedings and sanctions; and he has suffered mental anguish
  196  and emotional distress as the result of the intentional
  197  misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State
  198  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The
  199  Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating
  200  to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and,
  201  further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti
  202  trust laws, which were violated in the subject cases, and
  203         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
  204  significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property,
  205  and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution
  206  resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to
  207  his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and
  208         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the
  209  Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
  210  against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics
  211  and subject matter in fact and law with an exceptional degree of
  212  technical competence that would be expected of any trained and
  213  experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
  214         WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
  215  justice is impervious to human error, and
  216         WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that any system of
  217  justice may sometimes yield imperfect results that may have
  218  tragic consequences, and
  219         WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
  220  obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act
  221  on its authority to correct a wrong when those actions have
  222  resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
  223         WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with
  224  the holdings of the Florida Supreme Court regarding legislative
  225  claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v.
  226  Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla.
  227  1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity
  228  . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial
  229  process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172
  230  (Fla. 1985)(“[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s
  231  assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to
  232  Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and
  233         WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v.
  234  Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st
  235  DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed
  236  limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative
  237  relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign
  238  immunity,” and
  239         WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley,
  240  298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is
  241  restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to
  242  discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or
  243  other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being
  244  entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill
  245  for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as
  246  effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,”
  247  and
  248         WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
  249  pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the
  250  state for any and all present and future claims arising out of
  251  the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
  253  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  255         Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
  256  found and declared to be true, and all judicial and
  257  administrative remedies were exhausted as of September 9, 2003
  258  April 30, 2004; September 30, 2005; May 21, 2007; September 7,
  259  2007; December 12, 2008; September 14, 2009; February 22, 2010;
  260  March 11-July 4, 2010; and March 30, 2012, respectively.
  261         Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
  262  appoint an administrative law judge, or a special master shall
  263  be appointed, to conduct a hearing to determine a basis for
  264  equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Brian Pitts for
  265  any wrongful act or omission of the State of Florida, the State
  266  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
  267  the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations
  268  involving Mr. Pitts, the civil and criminal proceedings relating
  269  to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of
  270  law, and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001
  271  to 2012, if not longer.
  272         Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
  273  master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
  274  whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for
  275  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County
  276  Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and
  277  whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds,
  278  the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr.
  279  Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1
  280  million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged
  281  him and to be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of
  282  no more than 10 years.
  283         (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
  284  report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
  285  and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2016.
  286  The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in
  287  satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law
  288  judge, special master, or Legislature, as provided in this act,
  289  and to pay the warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or
  290  State Courts Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system
  291  and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts.
  292  Pinellas County shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue
  293  fund or by other means it has provided to pay valid claims
  294  against it relating to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and
  295  as to its share of the total award to Mr. Pitts.
  296         (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
  297  for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
  298  situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
  299  unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
  300  with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed
  301  or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
  302  nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2012. The
  303  total amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
  304  other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
  305  percent of the amount awarded under this act.
  306         (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
  307  and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and
  308  restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC09-195 and SC09
  309  2243, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO,
  310  CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
  311  01887MMANO in which Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant are
  312  null and void by this act by virtue of the doctrine of
  313  separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the
  314  Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments, in addition to the
  315  courts’ own lawful and valid case precedent, rules, and orders,
  316  authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar
  317  v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of
  318  inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida
  319  House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla.
  320  2008), Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468
  321  So. 2d 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); by virtue of checks and
  322  balances exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex
  323  Rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in
  324  which the court found, “[a] clear violation of the
  325  constitutional provisions dividing the powers of government into
  326  departments should be checked and remedied.” As the court found
  327  in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he
  328  general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the
  329  legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of
  330  government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions
  331  of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable
  332  exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive
  333  and fundamental principle.” Finally, by virtue of the cases
  334  involving Mr. Pitts, the courts failed to comply with the
  335  mandates of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states that
  336  “[t]he judicial branch has the purpose of determining the
  337  constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of
  338  adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or
  339  application of the laws.
  340         (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
  341  as to cases SC06-1279, SC09-195, and SC09-2243, and the clerk of
  342  the court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB
  343  90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07
  344  03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
  345  01887MMANO, all pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to
  346  remove from public and private access all dockets, records,
  347  documents, and recorded orders or liens related to those cases
  348  and transmit them to the Department of Law Enforcement to
  349  fulfill the duties required under section 6 of this act. The
  350  Department of Law Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from
  351  public and private access all record history and information of
  352  a criminal nature concerning Mr. Pitts. This record history and
  353  information include, but are not limited to, fingerprints, felon
  354  registration, and all other matters concerning the case numbers
  355  cited in this subsection. These records, information, or
  356  documents may not be used by or accessed for any purpose by
  357  anyone unless access to those records is required by federal
  358  authorities or for investigations conducted under section 6 of
  359  this act.
  360         (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
  361  the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
  362  and (5) of this section and section 6, and shall provide
  363  protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights,
  364  privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
  365         Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
  366  final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
  367  in clause (1) of that order, unless otherwise authorized by
  368  Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
  369  the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr.
  370  Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
  371  Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
  372  designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
  373  as a lay counselor or lay representative:
  374         (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
  375  representative.
  376         (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
  377  representative.
  378         (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney
  379  in-fact under a durable power of attorney, when coupled with an
  380  interest in any personal or property claim, election, right, or
  381  interest.
  382         (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  383  relating to representation in real property management.
  384         (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  385  relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
  386         (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  387  relating to representation in county or small claims civil
  388  proceedings.
  389         (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  390  relating to third-party standing representation.
  391         (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida
  392  Bar.
  393         (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
  394  doctrine.
  395         (10) Federal law, state law, local rule, statute, local
  396  law, or any other court or administrative decision or order
  397  under federal, state, or local law and authority.
  398         Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
  399  Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
  400  or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
  401  practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the
  402  right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing
  403  supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil,
  404  administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to
  405  represent himself without a lawyer in court and in
  406  administrative actions or cases.
  407         Section 6. Due to the ongoing conduct from 2001 to 2012
  408  against Mr. Pitts as described in the preamble of this act, the
  409  Legislature directs the Department of Law Enforcement, assisted
  410  by Mr. Pitts, to investigate these acts committed by:
  411         (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for
  412  violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and
  413  18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on
  414  February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279, which resulted in the
  415  incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 Legislative
  416  Session while proceedings on SB 58 were pending, and in Mr.
  417  Pitts’ cases relating to motions, reviews, and original
  418  proceedings for violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
  419  777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1),
  420  839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
  421  Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
  422  242, 1951, and 1962.
  423         (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
  424  Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
  425  the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
  426  involved in violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
  427  777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1),
  428  839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
  429  Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
  430  242, 1951, and 1962.
  431         (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued
  432  charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for
  433  their violations of ss. 542.21(2), 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05,
  434  838.015, 838.016, 839.13(1), 895.03, and 918.13, Florida
  435  Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 242,
  436  1951, and 1962.
  437         (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of
  438  ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1), 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3),
  439  876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 201,
  440  241, or 242.
  442  The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
  443  granted to it under general law to investigate criminal
  444  violations under this act and shall refer any evidence of such
  445  crimes to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution.
  446  Failure of the Department to Law Enforcement to investigate
  447  these criminal violations and refer any evidence of such
  448  violations to the appropriate officials is a misdemeanor of the
  449  first degree under s. 775.15(12)(b). Charges arising out of the
  450  criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand jury
  451  impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of this
  452  act.
  453         Section 7. The Governor, the President of the Senate, or
  454  the Speaker of the House of Representatives may sever in whole
  455  or in part any section of this act, excluding this section,
  456  which remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon
  457  becoming law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall
  458  retain the right or privilege during future legislative sessions
  459  to request the relief severed in whole or in part by virtue of
  460  this section until fully remedied.
  461         Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.