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.