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.
   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,
  252  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  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.
  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.