Florida Senate - 2018                              (NP)    SB 22
       By Senator Braynon
       35-00148-18                                             201822__
    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         directing that the clerk of the court for the Supreme
   16         Court and for the Sixth Judicial Circuit remove access
   17         to specified cases; directing the Department of Law
   18         Enforcement to remove access to criminal records
   19         related to Mr. Pitts and to ensure the compliance,
   20         execution, and enforcement of specified provisions;
   21         specifying the limited circumstances under which Mr.
   22         Pitts may represent himself or others in judicial or
   23         administrative proceedings; directing the Department
   24         of Law Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts
   25         committed by certain persons; authorizing the
   26         Governor, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker
   27         of the House of Representatives to sever portions of
   28         this act under certain circumstances; providing an
   29         effective date.
   31         WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of
   32  law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The
   33  Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980), and
   34  in The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer
   35  Representation in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180
   36  1181, 1183-1184 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary
   37  having concurrent jurisdiction to regulate such, and
   38         WHEREAS, Brian Pitts has exercised this privilege since
   39  2001 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later enjoined by
   40  the Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final
   41  order dated November 6, 2003. As stated in the order,
   42  “respondent Brian Pitts is enjoined from engaging in the
   43  practice of law in the State of Florida as specified in the
   44  referee’s report. Specifically, respondent is hereby enjoined
   45  from engaging in any of the following activities: (1) appearing
   46  in any Florida court as a representative of a party, giving
   47  legal advice in a Florida case, or otherwise participating in
   48  any Florida litigation on behalf of any party unless otherwise
   49  authorized by Florida Statutes, court rule, case law,
   50  administrative rule, or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar . .
   51  . .” See The Florida Bar v. Pitts, 861 So. 2d 432 (Fla.
   52  2003)(No. SC02-247, November 6, 2003),
   53  www.floridasupremecourt.org, and
   54         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that, since the inception of
   55  Mr. Pitts’ practice, the Second District Court of Appeal, the
   56  Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas
   57  Counties, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
   58  Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar have, without cause,
   59  continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the privilege of practicing
   60  law as prescribed by the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court,
   61  subjecting him to civil and criminal proceedings and penalties
   62  on an ongoing basis, and
   63         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts opines that the Florida Supreme Court,
   64  in its 2003 final order in case number SC02-247, has subjected
   65  him to entrapment and needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed
   66  to exercise its constitutional duty upon his many requests to
   67  clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate court rules
   68  through The Florida Bar following original proceedings brought
   69  or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the matter, and
   70         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that from 2001 to 2012 the
   71  courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for the
   72  Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida engaged in a course of
   73  misconduct and colluded against Mr. Pitts in case numbers SC02
   74  247, SC06-1279, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07
   75  12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03
   76  01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO and that such misconduct
   77  resulted in his wrongful and unlawful incarceration in the
   78  Pinellas County Jail for a total of nearly 1 year, and
   79         WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was, in
   80  Mr. Pitts’ opinion, to retaliate against him for not being a
   81  member of The Florida Bar despite being otherwise lawfully
   82  authorized to represent certain individuals whom he assisted in
   83  legitimate legal matters and, by way of his detainment, to
   84  thwart his pending pro se actions for relief from the collusion
   85  by civil, appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from
   86  the above criminal cases, and
   87         WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
   88  was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
   89  for an exceptional degree of technical and performance
   90  competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
   91  member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
   92  implied communication that he would not receive the relief
   93  requested in any such proceeding unless represented by a member
   94  of The Florida Bar, as a matter of camaraderie, and
   95         WHEREAS, although Mr. Pitts appeared pro se in these cases
   96  and other actions seeking relief from such collusion, he was at
   97  times represented by appointed counsel; however, such
   98  proceedings proved to be futile because, Mr. Pitts contends, the
   99  proceedings were staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s
  100  Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory,
  101  and
  102         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the courts failed to abide
  103  by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, as
  104  well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of
  105  filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed
  106  counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural due process and
  107  substantive due process, equal protection of the law, self
  108  representation, and representation by counsel under the United
  109  States Constitution, and
  110         WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal declared in
  111  Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), that
  112  “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
  113  constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
  114  expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
  115  appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
  116  been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
  117  objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
  118  constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
  119  silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
  120  somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
  121  appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
  122  evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
  123  patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
  124  confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare Bedford
  125  v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and
  126         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the judges who presided in
  127  his cases have deliberately and intentionally, in concert with
  128  the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by these
  129  rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original
  130  proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and
  131         WHEREAS, it has become evident, in Mr. Pitts’ opinion, that
  132  The Florida Bar, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth
  133  Judicial Circuit of Florida, and the judges and justices
  134  involved at each level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal
  135  and private, rather than public, interest at issue in deterring
  136  Mr. Pitts from engaging in the authorized practice of law as
  137  prescribed in this state, and
  138         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that such determent is due to a
  139  matter of camaraderie among those of the legal profession and an
  140  interest in protecting it by any means from lawful competition,
  141  where applicable, and
  142         WHEREAS, this determent demonstrates a lack of neutrality,
  143  proper motives, and discretion which deprives Mr. Pitts of the
  144  required process and means of justice or resolution as normally
  145  expected of esteemed persons in their official capacities, and
  146         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the Pinellas County
  147  Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
  148  the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
  149  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by illegally incarcerating
  150  him in the Pinellas County Jail during the periods of January
  151  2003 through April 2004 and March 12, 2010, through July 4,
  152  2010, refusing him administrative alternative sentencing without
  153  cause, and subjecting him to living conditions and circumstances
  154  in violation of Florida Model Jail Standards (2.15)(c); (4.12);
  155  (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1)-(8), and (j); (6.02);
  156  (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12); (11.16);
  157  (12.03)(d)-(g) and (i); (12.06); and Appendix A; and ss. 951.03
  158  and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and
  159         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts also contends that the Pinellas County
  160  Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
  161  the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
  162  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by extending his sentence
  163  by an additional 50 days of detention in violation of Inmate
  164  Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss.
  165  951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, which subjected him
  166  to cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, and a
  167  denial of due process and equal protection of the law. See
  168  Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); Miller v.
  169  Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d
  170  741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 (M.D.
  171  Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975);
  172  Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Douthit v.
  173  Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
  174         WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
  175  reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010,
  176  appearing under the headline “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates
  177  released without a judge ever setting bail,” which is
  178  complemented by a series of articles released by the Orlando
  179  Sentinel, including “Florida’s suspect jails: The state’s hands
  180  off approach to inspecting jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated
  181  April 8, 2010; “Jail-standards chief defends system of checks,”
  182  dated May 15, 2010; “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is
  183  it deserved?” dated May 15, 2010; and “Beef up jail oversight:
  184  Florida jails need tough oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18,
  185  2010; and other articles, and
  186         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that such conduct was a clear
  187  abuse of judicial, executive, and administrative authority as to
  188  the state court system and local government, including the State
  189  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and
  190  the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, which resulted in a public
  191  embarrassment to this state because such authorities knew that
  192  there was not any basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts
  193  against him, and
  194         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that his good name and
  195  reputation have been damaged; he has been deprived of due
  196  process, the ability to conduct a lawful business, freedom of
  197  speech, property, liberty, and equal protection of the law; he
  198  has not benefited from constitutional protections against
  199  unlawful trusts by public officers and employees under oath of
  200  office and double jeopardy protections as to criminal
  201  proceedings and sanctions; and he has suffered mental anguish
  202  and emotional distress as the result of the intentional
  203  misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State
  204  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The
  205  Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating
  206  to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and,
  207  further, that there is no state-action exception to federal
  208  antitrust laws, which were violated in the subject cases, and
  209         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
  210  significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, lost
  211  property, lost time, and expenses, fees, fines, costs, and
  212  required restitution resulting from the civil and criminal
  213  proceedings relating to his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed
  214  practice of law, and
  215         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the
  216  Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
  217  against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics
  218  and subject matter in fact and law with an exceptional degree of
  219  technical competence that would be expected of any trained and
  220  experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
  221         WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
  222  justice is impervious to human error, and
  223         WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that any system of
  224  justice may sometimes yield imperfect results that may have
  225  tragic consequences, and
  226         WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
  227  obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act
  228  on its authority to correct a wrong when those actions have
  229  resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
  230         WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with
  231  the holdings of the Florida Supreme Court regarding legislative
  232  claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v.
  233  Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla.
  234  1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity
  235  . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial
  236  process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172
  237  (Fla. 1985)(“[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s
  238  assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to
  239  Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and
  240         WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v.
  241  Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st
  242  DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed
  243  limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative
  244  relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign
  245  immunity,” and
  246         WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley,
  247  298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is
  248  restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to
  249  discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or
  250  other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being
  251  entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill
  252  for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as
  253  effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,”
  254  and
  255         WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
  256  pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the
  257  state for any and all present and future claims arising out of
  258  the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
  260  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  262         Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
  263  found and declared to be true, and all judicial and
  264  administrative remedies were exhausted as of September 9, 2003
  265  April 30, 2004; September 30, 2005; May 21, 2007; September 7,
  266  2007; December 12, 2008; September 14, 2009; February 22, 2010;
  267  March 11-July 4, 2010; and March 30, 2012, respectively.
  268         Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
  269  appoint an administrative law judge, or a special master shall
  270  be appointed, to conduct a hearing to determine a basis for
  271  equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Brian Pitts for
  272  any wrongful act or omission of the State of Florida, the State
  273  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
  274  the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations
  275  involving Mr. Pitts, the civil and criminal proceedings relating
  276  to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of
  277  law, and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001
  278  to 2012, if not longer.
  279         Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
  280  master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
  281  whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for
  282  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County
  283  Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and
  284  whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds,
  285  the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr.
  286  Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1
  287  million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged
  288  him and to be paid in a lump sum or in payments over a period of
  289  no more than 10 years.
  290         (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
  291  report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
  292  and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2018.
  293  The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in
  294  satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law
  295  judge, special master, or Legislature, as provided in this act,
  296  and to pay the warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or
  297  State Courts Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system
  298  and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts.
  299  Pinellas County shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue
  300  fund or by other means it has provided to pay valid claims
  301  against it relating to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and
  302  as to its share of the total award to Mr. Pitts.
  303         (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
  304  for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
  305  situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
  306  unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
  307  with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unauthorized
  308  or unlicensed practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
  309  nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2012. The
  310  total amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
  311  other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
  312  percent of the amount awarded under this act.
  313         (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
  314  and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and
  315  restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC09-195 and SC09
  316  2243, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO,
  317  CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
  318  01887MMANO in which Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant are
  319  null and void by this act by virtue of the doctrine of
  320  separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the
  321  Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments, in addition to the
  322  courts’ own lawful and valid case precedent, rules, and orders,
  323  authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar
  324  v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of
  325  inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida
  326  House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla.
  327  2008) and Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468
  328  So. 2d 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); by virtue of checks and
  329  balances exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex
  330  Rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in
  331  which the court found, “[a] clear violation of the
  332  constitutional provisions dividing the powers of government into
  333  departments should be checked and remedied.” As the court found
  334  in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he
  335  general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the
  336  legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of
  337  government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions
  338  of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable
  339  exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive
  340  and fundamental principle.” Finally, by virtue of the cases
  341  involving Mr. Pitts, the courts failed to comply with the
  342  mandates of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states that
  343  “[t]he judicial branch has the purpose of determining the
  344  constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of
  345  adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or
  346  application of the laws.
  347         (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
  348  as to cases SC06-1279, SC09-195, and SC09-2243, and the clerk of
  349  the court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB
  350  90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07
  351  03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
  352  01887MMANO, all pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to
  353  remove from public and private access all dockets, records,
  354  documents, and recorded orders or liens related to those cases
  355  and transmit them to the Department of Law Enforcement to
  356  fulfill the duties required under section 6 of this act. The
  357  Department of Law Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from
  358  public and private access all record history and information of
  359  a criminal nature concerning Mr. Pitts. This record history and
  360  information include, but are not limited to, fingerprints, felon
  361  registration, and all other matters concerning the case numbers
  362  cited in this subsection. These records, information, or
  363  documents may not be used by or accessed for any purpose by
  364  anyone unless access to those records is required by federal
  365  authorities or for investigations conducted under section 6 of
  366  this act.
  367         (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
  368  the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
  369  and (5) of this section and section 6, and shall provide
  370  protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights,
  371  privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
  372         Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
  373  final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
  374  in clause (1) of that order, unless otherwise authorized by
  375  Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
  376  the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr.
  377  Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
  378  Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
  379  designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
  380  as a lay counselor or lay representative:
  381         (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
  382  representative.
  383         (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
  384  representative.
  385         (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney
  386  in-fact under a durable power of attorney, when coupled with an
  387  interest in any personal or property claim, election, right, or
  388  interest.
  389         (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  390  relating to representation in real property management.
  391         (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  392  relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
  393         (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  394  relating to representation in county or small claims civil
  395  proceedings.
  396         (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  397  relating to third-party standing representation.
  398         (8) Rule 5-15, Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to
  399  Admission to the Bar.
  400         (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
  401  doctrine.
  402         (10) Federal law, state law, local rule, statute, local
  403  law, or any other court or administrative decision or order
  404  issued under federal, state, or local law and authority.
  405         Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
  406  Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
  407  or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
  408  practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the
  409  right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing
  410  supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil,
  411  administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to
  412  represent himself without a lawyer in court and in
  413  administrative actions or cases.
  414         Section 6. Due to the ongoing conduct from 2001 to 2012
  415  against Mr. Pitts as described in the preamble of this act, the
  416  Legislature directs the Department of Law Enforcement, assisted
  417  by Mr. Pitts, to investigate these acts committed by:
  418         (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for
  419  violations of s. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and
  420  18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on
  421  February 22, 2010, in case number SC06-1279, which resulted in
  422  the incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010
  423  Legislative Session while proceedings on SB 58 were pending, and
  424  in Mr. Pitts’ cases relating to motions, reviews, and original
  425  proceedings for 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         (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
  431  Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
  432  the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
  433  involved in violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
  434  777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1),
  435  839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
  436  Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
  437  242, 1951, and 1962.
  438         (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives who pursued
  439  charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts for
  440  their violations of ss. 542.21(2), 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05,
  441  838.015, 838.016, 839.13(1), 895.03, and 918.13, Florida
  442  Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 242,
  443  1951, and 1962.
  444         (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of
  445  ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1), 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3),
  446  876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 201,
  447  241, or 242.
  449  The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
  450  granted to it under general law to investigate criminal
  451  violations under this act and shall refer any evidence of such
  452  crimes to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution.
  453  Failure of the Department to Law Enforcement to investigate
  454  these criminal violations and refer any evidence of such
  455  violations to the appropriate officials is a misdemeanor of the
  456  first degree under s. 775.15(12)(b), Florida Statutes. Charges
  457  arising out of the criminal investigation shall be brought
  458  before a grand jury impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after
  459  passage of this act.
  460         Section 7. The Governor, the President of the Senate, or
  461  the Speaker of the House of Representatives may sever in whole
  462  or in part any section of this act, excluding this section,
  463  which remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon
  464  becoming law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall
  465  retain the right or privilege during future legislative sessions
  466  to request the relief severed in whole or in part by virtue of
  467  this section until fully remedied.
  468         Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.