Florida Senate - 2012                              (NP)    SB 56
       
       
       
       By Senator Siplin
       
       
       
       
       19-00090A-12                                            201256__
    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 to determine a basis for
    5         equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Mr.
    6         Pitts for any wrongful act or omission by the State of
    7         Florida or officials thereof; requiring a report to
    8         the Legislature; authorizing compensation upon a
    9         determination by the administrative law judge;
   10         providing an appropriation to compensate Mr. Pitts for
   11         injuries and damages sustained; providing a limitation
   12         on the payment of fees and costs; directing that
   13         certain court orders and judgments be declared null
   14         and void; authorizing Mr. Pitts to practice law under
   15         certain circumstances; directing the Department of Law
   16         Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts
   17         committed by certain persons; authorizing the
   18         President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of
   19         Representatives, and the Governor to sever portions of
   20         this act under certain circumstances; providing an
   21         effective date.
   22  
   23         WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of
   24  law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The
   25  Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So.2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980) and The
   26  Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer Representation in
   27  Securities Arbitration, 696 So.2d 1178, 1180-1181, 1183-1184
   28  (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary having concurrent
   29  jurisdiction to regulate such, and
   30         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has exercised this privilege since 2001
   31  in Pinellas County, and his practice was later confirmed by the
   32  Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final order
   33  dated November 6, 2003, at clause (1) declaring “unless
   34  otherwise authorized by Florida Statutes, court rule, case law,
   35  administrative rule, or the rules regulating The Florida Bar,”
   36  and
   37         WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, the
   38  Second District Court of Appeal, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of
   39  Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the State
   40  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
   41  The Florida Bar have, without cause, continued to deprive Mr.
   42  Pitts of the privilege of practicing law as prescribed by the
   43  Legislature and Florida Supreme Court, subjecting him to civil
   44  and criminal proceedings and penalties on an ongoing basis, and
   45         WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court, by virtue of the broad,
   46  general, and ambiguous language of its 2003 final order in case
   47  number SC02-247, has subjected Mr. Pitts to entrapment, and has
   48  needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed upon many requests by
   49  Mr. Pitts to clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate
   50  court rules through The Florida Bar following original
   51  proceedings brought or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the
   52  matter, and
   53         WHEREAS, this course of misconduct has been ongoing from
   54  2001 to 2010, such that the courts, The Florida Bar, and the
   55  State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of
   56  Florida being in continual collusion against Mr. Pitts in cases
   57  SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07
   58  12964CFANO, CTC07-03965 MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03
   59  01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO, and such action has resulted
   60  in wrongful and unlawful incarcerations of Mr. Pitts in the
   61  Pinellas County jail for a total of nearly 1 year, and
   62         WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was to
   63  retaliate against Mr. Pitts and, by way of his detainment, to
   64  thwart his pending pro se actions for relief from said collusion
   65  by civil, appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from
   66  the above criminal cases, and
   67         WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
   68  was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
   69  for his exceptional degree of technical and performance
   70  competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
   71  member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
   72  implied communication that he would not receive the relief
   73  requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member
   74  of The Florida Bar, as a matter of camaraderie, and
   75         WHEREAS, though appearing pro se in said cases and other
   76  actions seeking relief from said collusion, Mr. Pitts was at
   77  times represented by appointed counsel, however, such
   78  proceedings proved to be futile because the proceedings were
   79  staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s Office for the
   80  Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory, and the courts
   81  failed to abide by binding precedent and stare decisis, where
   82  applicable, as well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by
   83  the series of filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court
   84  appointed counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and
   85  substantive due process, equal protection of the law, self
   86  representation, and representation by counsel under the United
   87  States Constitution, and
   88         WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal has declared
   89  in Denson v. State, 711 So.2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that
   90  “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
   91  constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
   92  expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
   93  appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
   94  been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
   95  objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
   96  constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
   97  silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
   98  somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
   99  appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
  100  evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
  101  patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
  102  confidence in the institution of courts of law”; compare,
  103  Bedford v. State, 633 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), yet they have
  104  deliberately and intentionally, in concert with the Florida
  105  Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by said rules of law as
  106  to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original proceedings brought
  107  and maintained by him or his counsel, and
  108         WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office further
  109  participated in the concerted effort of the courts, The Florida
  110  Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office by illegally incarcerating
  111  Mr. Pitts in the Pinellas County jail during the time periods of
  112  January 2003 through April 2004 and March 22, 2010, through July
  113  4, 2010, and by refusing him administrative alternative
  114  sentencing without cause, and by subjecting him to living
  115  conditions and circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail
  116  Standards (2.15)(c), (9.08), (9.06)(b), (5.08)(a)&(c)(1)-(8),
  117  (12.03)(d)-(g)&(i), (12.06), (5.08)(j), (10.01), (6.02),
  118  (11.12), (11.16), Appendix A, (4.12), (4.13), (4.15), and (9.10)
  119  and in violation of ss. 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes,
  120  and by extending his sentence an additional 40 and 10 days of
  121  detention over the ordered sentences in violation of Inmate
  122  Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss.
  123  951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting
  124  him to cruel and unusual punishment, subjecting him to false
  125  imprisonment, and denying him due process and equal protection
  126  of the law. See Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979);
  127  Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v.
  128  Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F.
  129  Supp. 835 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515
  130  (M.D. Fla. 1975); Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA
  131  2000); Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
  132         WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
  133  reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010,
  134  and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without
  135  a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of
  136  articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s
  137  suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting
  138  jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010, “Jail
  139  standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010,
  140  “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated
  141  May 15, 2010, “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough
  142  oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010, and other
  143  articles, and
  144         WHEREAS, such misconduct is a clear abuse of judicial,
  145  executive, and administrative authority as to the state court
  146  system and local government, including the State Attorney’s
  147  Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and the
  148  Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, thereby resulting in a public
  149  embarrassment to this state since said authorities knew there
  150  was no basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts against Mr.
  151  Pitts, and
  152         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts’ good name and reputation have been
  153  damaged, he has been deprived of due process, the ability to
  154  conduct a lawful business, freedom of speech, property, liberty,
  155  and equal protection of the law, he has not benefited from
  156  constitutional protections against unlawful trusts by public
  157  officers and employees (oath of office) and double jeopardy as
  158  to criminal proceedings and sanctions, he has suffered mental
  159  anguish and emotional distress as the result of the intentional
  160  misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State
  161  Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The
  162  Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating
  163  to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and,
  164  further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti
  165  trust laws (Sherman Act), which were violated in the subject
  166  cases, and
  167         WHEREAS, the cases involving Mr. Pitts fail to comply with
  168  the requirements of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states
  169  in part: “The judicial branch has the purpose of determining the
  170  constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of
  171  adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or
  172  application of the laws,” and
  173         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
  174  significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property,
  175  and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution
  176  resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to
  177  his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and
  178         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts, on many occasions, appears before the
  179  Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
  180  against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics
  181  and subject matter in fact and law in a exceptional degree of
  182  technical and performance competence that would be expected of
  183  any trained and experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
  184         WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
  185  justice is impervious to human error, and
  186         WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that the state’s
  187  system of justice sometimes yields imperfect results that may
  188  have tragic consequences, and
  189         WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
  190  obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its own acts and
  191  inherent authority to correct a wrong whereby normal or other
  192  state authority, remedy, or resolution has been intentionally
  193  avoided and denied in an arbitrary and capricious manner,
  194  resulting in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
  195         WHEREAS, this is in accord with rulings of the courts
  196  concerning legislative claim bills as expressed in Circuit Court
  197  of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So.2d
  198  1113, 1116-1117 (Fla. 1976), in which the court held that one
  199  may seek a claim bill through the Legislature, for “[a]bsent
  200  legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity . . . this
  201  Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial process”;
  202  Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1985), in
  203  which the court stated, “we agree with the Department of
  204  Transportation’s assertion that a judgment in this case was not
  205  a prerequisite to Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the
  206  legislature,” and
  207         WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v.
  208  Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 399 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA
  209  1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed limits on
  210  recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative relief
  211  bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign immunity,”
  212  and
  213         WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley,
  214  298 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is
  215  restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to
  216  discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or
  217  other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being
  218  entitled to such . . . The Legislature may enact a claim bill
  219  for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as
  220  effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,”
  221  and
  222         WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
  223  pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the
  224  state for any and all present and future claims arising out of
  225  the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
  226  
  227  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  228  
  229         Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
  230  found and declared to be true, and all judicial and
  231  administrative remedies were exhausted as of March 12, 2010, and
  232  July 4, 2010, respectively.
  233         Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
  234  appoint an administrative law judge or special master to conduct
  235  a hearing and determine a basis for equitable relief for the
  236  purpose of compensating Mr. Pitts for any wrongful act or
  237  omission of the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office
  238  for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas
  239  County Sheriff’s Office in proportion to what occurred in the
  240  investigations, the civil and criminal proceedings relating to
  241  Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law,
  242  and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001 to
  243  2010, if not longer.
  244         Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
  245  master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
  246  whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for
  247  the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County
  248  Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and
  249  whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds,
  250  the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr.
  251  Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1
  252  million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged
  253  him and to be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of
  254  no more than 10 years.
  255         (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
  256  report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
  257  and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2012.
  258  The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in
  259  satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law
  260  judge or special master, as provided in this act, and to pay the
  261  warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or State Courts
  262  Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system and the State
  263  Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts. Pinellas County is
  264  directed to and shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue
  265  fund or by other means it has provided for to pay valid claims
  266  against the local government as pertains to the Pinellas County
  267  Sheriff’s Office and as to its share of the total award to Mr.
  268  Pitts.
  269         (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
  270  for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
  271  situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
  272  unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
  273  with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed
  274  or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
  275  nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2010. The
  276  total amount paid for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
  277  other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
  278  percent of the amount awarded under this act.
  279         (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
  280  and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and
  281  restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC02-247, CRCAB
  282  90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07
  283  03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
  284  01887MMANO, wherein Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant,
  285  are null and void and are annulled by this act by virtue of the
  286  doctrine of separation of powers because the courts failed to
  287  recognize the Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments
  288  authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar
  289  v. Moses, 380 So.2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of
  290  inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida
  291  House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So.2d 601, 611 (Fla.
  292  2008), Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d
  293  912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); and by virtue of checks and balances
  294  exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex Rel.
  295  Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in which the
  296  court found, “A clear violation of the constitutional provisions
  297  dividing the powers of government into departments should be
  298  checked and remedied.” As the court found in State v. City of
  299  Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he general rule is
  300  that the Legislature is supreme in the legislative field, which
  301  is the most powerful branch of government, so long as it does
  302  not violate any of the provisions of the organic law. There is
  303  to our minds no justifiable exception of any class of
  304  legislation from this all-pervasive and fundamental principle.”
  305         (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
  306  as to cases SC06-1279 and SC02-247, and the clerk of the court
  307  for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB-90407CFANO,
  308  CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03
  309  09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03-01887MMANO, all
  310  pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to remove from
  311  public and private access all dockets, records, documents, and
  312  recorded orders or liens related to those cases and transmit
  313  them to the Department of Law Enforcement to fulfill the duties
  314  required under section 6 of this act. The Department of Law
  315  Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from public and private
  316  access all record history and information of a criminal nature
  317  concerning Mr. Pitts. This includes, but is not limited to,
  318  fingerprints, felon registration, and all other matters
  319  concerning the case numbers cited in this subsection. Said
  320  records, information, or documents may not be used by or
  321  accessed for any purpose by anyone unless access to those
  322  records is required by federal authorities or for investigations
  323  conducted under section 6 of this act.
  324         (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
  325  the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
  326  and (5) of this section, and shall provide protective services
  327  to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights, privileges, and safety under
  328  sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
  329         Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
  330  final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
  331  in clause (1) of that ruling, unless otherwise authorized by
  332  Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
  333  the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr.
  334  Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
  335  Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
  336  designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
  337  as a lay counselor or lay representative:
  338         (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
  339  representative.
  340         (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
  341  representative.
  342         (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney
  343  in-fact and durable power of attorney, including when coupled
  344  with an interest in any personal or property claim, election,
  345  right, or interest.
  346         (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  347  relating to representation by a realty property manager.
  348         (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  349  relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
  350         (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  351  relating to representation in county or small claims civil
  352  proceedings.
  353         (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  354  relating to third party standing representation.
  355         (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida
  356  Bar.
  357         (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
  358  doctrine.
  359         (10) Federal law or any other clearly expressed rule,
  360  statute, or court or administrative decision or order under
  361  other federal, state, or local law and authority.
  362         Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
  363  Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
  364  or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
  365  practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the
  366  right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing
  367  supported by law, or, if he is the subject of civil,
  368  administrative, or criminal proceedings, Mr. Pitts retains the
  369  right to represent himself without a lawyer in court and in
  370  administrative actions or cases.
  371         Section 6. Due to the period of ongoing misconduct against
  372  Mr. Pitts as described in this act, the Legislature directs the
  373  Department of Law Enforcement, assisted by Mr. Pitts, to
  374  investigate these acts committed by:
  375         (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for
  376  violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and
  377  18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on
  378  February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279 resulting in the
  379  incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 legislative
  380  session while proceedings on Senate Bill 58 were pending, and
  381  other violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and (3),
  382  839.13(1), 839.24, 918.13, 836.05, 843.03, 876.10, 777.04(2) and
  383  (3), and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951,
  384  and 1962.
  385         (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
  386  Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
  387  the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
  388  involved for violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and
  389  (3), 839.13(1), 839.24, 918.13, 836.05, 843.03, 876.10 777.04(2)
  390  and (3), and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242,
  391  1951, and 1962.
  392         (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued
  393  charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for
  394  violations of ss. 839.13(1), 918.13, 836.05, 777.04(2) and (3),
  395  and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951, and
  396  1962, as well as s. 542.21(2), Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C.
  397  1, 2, and 3, relating to the practice of law by lawyers and
  398  nonlawyers.
  399         (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of
  400  ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and (3), 843.03, 839.13(1),
  401  876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241
  402  or 242.
  403  
  404  The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
  405  it has under general law to investigate criminal violations
  406  under this act and shall refer any evidence of such crimes to
  407  the appropriate officials for prosecution. Charges arising out
  408  of the criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand
  409  jury impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of
  410  this act.
  411         Section 7. The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
  412  House of Representatives, or Governor may sever in whole or in
  413  part any section of this act, excluding this section 7, which
  414  remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon becoming
  415  law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall retain the
  416  right or privilege during future legislative sessions to request
  417  the relief severed in part or whole by virtue of this section
  418  until fully remedied.
  419         Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.