Florida Senate - 2011                            (NP)    SB 2212
       By Senator Braynon
       33-02792-11                                           20112212__
    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 to be declared null
   14         and void; prohibiting certain specified clerks of
   15         court from restricting access to court papers relating
   16         to Mr. Pitts; authorizing Mr. Pitts to practice law
   17         under certain circumstances; directing the Department
   18         of Law Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts
   19         committed by certain persons; providing an effective
   20         date.
   22         WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of
   23  law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The
   24  Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980) and
   25  The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer Representation
   26  in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180-1181, 1183-1184
   27  (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary having concurrent
   28  jurisdiction to regulate such, and
   29         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has exercised this privilege since 2001
   30  in Pinellas County, and his practice was later confirmed by the
   31  Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final order
   32  dated November 6, 2003, at clause (1) declaring “unless
   33  otherwise authorized by Florida statutes, court rule, case law,
   34  administrative rule, or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar,”
   35  and
   36         WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, the
   37  Second District Court of Appeal, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of
   38  Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the state attorney
   39  for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar
   40  have, without cause, continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the
   41  privilege of practicing law as prescribed by the Legislature and
   42  Florida Supreme Court, subjecting him to civil and criminal
   43  proceedings and penalties on an ongoing basis, and
   44         WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court, by virtue of the broad,
   45  general, and ambiguous language of its 2003 final order in case
   46  number SC02-247, has subjected Mr. Pitts to entrapment, and has
   47  needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed upon many requests by
   48  Mr. Pitts to clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate
   49  court rules through The Florida Bar following original
   50  proceedings brought or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the
   51  matter, and
   52         WHEREAS, this course of misconduct has been ongoing from
   53  2001 to 2010, such that the courts, The Florida Bar, and the
   54  state attorney’s office for Pinellas County being in continual
   55  collusion against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB
   56  65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965
   57  MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO,
   58  and such action has resulted in wrongful and unlawful
   59  incarcerations of Mr. Pitts in the Pinellas County jail for a
   60  total of nearly one year, and
   61         WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was to
   62  retaliate against Mr. Pitts and, by way of his detainment, to
   63  thwart his pending pro se actions for relief from said collusion
   64  by civil, appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from
   65  the above criminal cases, and
   66         WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
   67  was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
   68  for his exceptional degree of technical and performance
   69  competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
   70  member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
   71  implied communication that he would not receive the relief
   72  requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member
   73  of The Florida Bar, as a matter of camaraderie, and
   74         WHEREAS, though appearing pro se in said cases and other
   75  actions seeking relief from said collusion, Mr. Pitts was at
   76  times represented by appointed counsel, however such proceedings
   77  proved to be futile because the proceedings were staged by the
   78  courts and state attorney to be illusory, and the courts failed
   79  to abide by binding precedent and stare decisis, where
   80  applicable, as well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by
   81  the series of filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, and then his
   82  appointed counsel engaged in similar misconduct, hence depriving
   83  Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive due process, equal
   84  protection of the law, self-representation, and representation
   85  by counsel under the United States Constitution, and
   86         WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal has declared
   87  in Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
   88  that “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
   89  constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
   90  expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
   91  appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
   92  been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
   93  objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
   94  constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
   95  silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
   96  somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
   97  appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
   98  evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
   99  patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
  100  confidence in the institution of courts of law”, compare Bedford
  101  v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), yet they have
  102  deliberately and intentionally, in concert with the Florida
  103  Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by said rules of law as
  104  to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original proceedings brought
  105  and maintained by him or his counsel, and
  106         WHEREAS, the sheriff of Pinellas County further
  107  participated in the concerted effort of the courts, The Florida
  108  Bar, and the state attorney’s office by illegally incarcerating
  109  Mr. Pitts in the Pinellas County jail during the time periods of
  110  January 2003 through April 2004 and March 22, 2010, through July
  111  4, 2010, and by refusing him administrative alternative
  112  sentencing without cause, and by subjecting him to living
  113  conditions and circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail
  114  Standards (2.15)(c), (9.08), (9.06)(b), (5.08)(a)&(c)(1)-(8),
  115  (12.03)(d)-(g)&(i), (12.06), (5.08)(j), (10.01), (6.02),
  116  (11.12), (11.16), Appendix A, (4.12), (4.13), (4.15), and (9.10)
  117  and in violation of ss. 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes,
  118  and by extending his sentence an additional 40 and 10 days of
  119  detention over the ordered sentences in violation of Inmate
  120  Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), ss.
  121  951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting
  122  him to cruel and unusual punishment, subjecting him to false
  123  imprisonment, and denying him due process and equal protection
  124  of the law. See Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979);
  125  Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v.
  126  Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F.
  127  Supp. 835 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515
  128  (M.D. Fla. 1975); Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA
  129  2000); Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
  130         WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
  131  reflected in the St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5,
  132  2010, and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released
  133  without a judge ever setting bail”, which was complemented by a
  134  series of articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including
  135  “Florida’s suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to
  136  inspecting jails leaves them vulnerable” dated April 8, 2010,
  137  “Jail-standards chief defends system of checks” dated May 15,
  138  2010, “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?”
  139  dated May 15, 2010, and “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails
  140  need tough oversight, not coddling” dated May 18, 2010, and
  141         WHEREAS, such misconduct is a clear abuse of judicial,
  142  executive, and administrative authority as to the state court
  143  system and local government, including the state attorney and
  144  sheriff of Pinellas County, thereby resulting in a public
  145  embarrassment to this state since said authorities knew there
  146  was no basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts against Mr.
  147  Pitts, and
  148         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts’ good name and reputation have been
  149  damaged and he has been deprived of due process, the ability to
  150  conduct a lawful business, freedom of speech, property, liberty,
  151  and equal protection of the law, and neither has he benefited
  152  from constitutional protections against unlawful trusts by
  153  public officers and employees (oath of office) and double
  154  jeopardy as to criminal proceedings and sanctions, and he has
  155  further suffered mental anguish and emotional distress as the
  156  result of the intentional misconduct and gross negligence of the
  157  courts, the state attorney’s office, The Florida Bar, and the
  158  sheriff of Pinellas County relating to his practice of law as a
  159  nonlawyer in this state, and further there is no state action
  160  exception to the resulting violation of anti-trust laws (Sherman
  161  Act), and
  162         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
  163  significant monetary damage by means of lost income, property,
  164  time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution resulting
  165  from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to his alleged
  166  unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and
  167         WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts, on many occasions, appears before the
  168  Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
  169  against proposed legislation covering a large spectrum of topics
  170  and subject matter in fact and law in a exceptional degree of
  171  technical and performance competence that would be expected of
  172  any trained and experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
  173         WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
  174  justice is impervious to human error, and
  175         WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that the state’s
  176  system of justice sometimes yields imperfect results that may
  177  have tragic consequences, and
  178         WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
  179  obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its own acts and
  180  inherent authority to correct a wrong whereby normal or other
  181  state authority, remedy, or resolution has been intentionally
  182  avoided and denied in an arbitrary and capricious manner,
  183  resulting in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
  184         WHEREAS, this is in accord with rulings of the courts
  185  concerning legislative claim bills as expressed in Circuit Court
  186  of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d
  187  1113, 1116-1117 (Fla. 1976) (One may seek a claim bill through
  188  the legislature, for “[a]bsent legislation waiving the state’s
  189  sovereign immunity . . . this Court cannot authorize relief
  190  through the judicial process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472
  191  So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1985) (“we agree with the Department of
  192  Transportation’s assertion that a judgment in this case was not
  193  a prerequisite to Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the
  194  legislature”); Jetton v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 399 So. 2d
  195  396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (while the Legislature has placed
  196  limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative
  197  relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign
  198  immunity”); and Dickinson v. Bradley, 298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla.
  199  1974) (“any claim bill is restricted to less than the general
  200  public and its purpose is to discharge the state’s moral
  201  obligation to any individual or other entity whom or which the
  202  legislature recognizes as being entitled to such. . . . The
  203  legislature may enact a claim bill for what would be a tort if a
  204  private party was involved just as effectively as for what would
  205  constitute a contractual debt.”), and
  206         WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
  207  pursuant to this act be the sole compensation to be provided by
  208  the state for any and all present and future claims arising out
  209  of the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
  211  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
  213         Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
  214  found and declared to be true, and all remedies were exhausted
  215  as of May 12, 2010, and July 4, 2010, both judicially and
  216  administratively, respectively.
  217         Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
  218  appoint an administrative law judge or special master to conduct
  219  a hearing and determine a basis for equitable relief for the
  220  purpose of compensating Mr. Pitts for any wrongful act or
  221  omission of the State of Florida, the state attorney of Pinellas
  222  County, or the sheriff of Pinellas County in proportion to what
  223  occurred in the investigations, the civil and criminal
  224  proceedings relating to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or
  225  unauthorized practice of law, and his incarcerations totaling
  226  nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 to 2010.
  227         Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
  228  master is to determine by a preponderance of the evidence that
  229  the State of Florida, the state attorney of Pinellas County, or
  230  the sheriff of Pinellas County committed a wrongful act or
  231  omission and that a basis for equitable relief exists, and the
  232  administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr. Pitts
  233  an amount of $7 million, unless it is determined that a lesser
  234  award is in order which shall be no less than $1 million in
  235  proportionate shares to be paid in lump sum or payments over a
  236  period of no more than 10 years.
  237         (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
  238  report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
  239  and the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than
  240  July 1, 2011. The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a
  241  warrant in satisfaction of the relief awarded by the
  242  administrative law judge or special master, as provided in this
  243  act, and to pay the warrant out of the state courts trust fund
  244  and state attorneys trust fund in the State Treasury to be
  245  payable to Brian Pitts. Pinellas County is directed to and shall
  246  pay the warrant out of its general revenue fund of the county or
  247  by other means it has provided for to pay valid claims against
  248  said local government as pertains to the sheriff of Pinellas
  249  County, as to its share to be payable to Mr. Pitts.
  250         (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
  251  for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
  252  situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
  253  unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
  254  with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed
  255  or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
  256  nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2010. The
  257  total amount paid for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
  258  other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
  259  percent of the amount awarded under this act.
  260         (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
  261  and orders or liens as to fees, fines, costs, and restitution
  262  rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC02-247, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB
  263  65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03
  264  09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, wherein Mr.
  265  Pitts is the respondent or defendant, are hereby null and void
  266  and are annulled by this act by virtue of the doctrine of
  267  separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the
  268  Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments authorizing lay
  269  representation as expressed in The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So.
  270  2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of inherent authority of
  271  this Legislature as expressed in Florida House of
  272  Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla. 2008),
  273  Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 912,
  274  918, 919 (Fla. 1985); and by virtue of checks and balances
  275  exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex Rel.
  276  Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918) (“A clear
  277  violation of the constitutional provisions dividing the powers
  278  of government into departments should be checked and remedied”).
  279  As declared in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla.
  280  1929), “[t]he general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in
  281  the legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of
  282  government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions
  283  of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable
  284  exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive
  285  and fundamental principle.”
  286         (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
  287  as to cases SC06-1279 and SC02-247, and the clerk of the court
  288  for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB-90407CFANO,
  289  CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03
  290  09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03-01887MMANO, relating to
  291  Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to remove from public and private
  292  access all dockets, records, documents, and recorded orders or
  293  liens on said cases handing said records or documents over to
  294  the Department of Law Enforcement to fulfill their duties under
  295  section 6 of this act. The Department of Law Enforcement is
  296  hereby directed to remove from public and private access all
  297  record history and information of a criminal nature concerning
  298  Mr. Pitts. This includes, but is not limited to, fingerprints,
  299  felon registration, and all other matters concerning the case
  300  numbers cited in this subsection. Said records, information, or
  301  documents are prohibited from being used by or accessed for any
  302  purpose by anyone unless inquired to by federal authorities or
  303  for investigations under section 6 of this act.
  304         (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
  305  the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
  306  and (5) of this section, and shall and is directed to provide
  307  protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights,
  308  privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
  309         Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
  310  final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
  311  in clause (1) therein declaring “unless otherwise authorized by
  312  Florida statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
  313  the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar,” thereby authorizing Mr.
  314  Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
  315  Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
  316  designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
  317  as a lay counselor or lay representative:
  318         (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
  319  representative.
  320         (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
  321  representative.
  322         (3) Section 709.08, Florida Statutes, relating to an
  323  attorney-in-fact.
  324         (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  325  relating to representation by a realty property manager.
  326         (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  327  relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
  328         (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  329  relating to representation in county or small claims civil
  330  proceedings.
  331         (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
  332  relating to third party standing representation.
  333         (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida
  334  Bar.
  335         (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
  336  doctrine.
  337         (10) Federal law or any other clearly expressed rule,
  338  statute, or court or administrative decision or order under
  339  other federal, state, or local law and authority.
  340         Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
  341  Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
  342  or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
  343  practice of law. In all circumstances, Mr. Pitts retains the
  344  right anytime he has valid standing supported by law or, if he
  345  is the subject of civil, administrative, or criminal
  346  proceedings, retains the right to represent himself without a
  347  lawyer in court and administrative actions or cases.
  348         Section 6. Due to the period of ongoing misconduct against
  349  Mr. Pitts as described in this act, the Legislature directs the
  350  Department of Law Enforcement, assisted by Mr. Pitts, to
  351  investigate these acts committed by:
  352         (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices for violations of
  353  ss. 914.22(2)(f) or 914.22(4)(f), Florida Statutes, and 18
  354  U.S.C. 1512 relating to their final ruling rendered February 22,
  355  2010, in case SC06-1279 for the incarceration of Mr. Pitts on
  356  the eve of the 2010 legislative session pending Senate bill 58
  357  proceedings.
  358         (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
  359  Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
  360  the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
  361  involved for violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and
  362  (3), 839.13(1), 839.24, 918.13, 836.05, 843.03, 777.04(2) and
  363  (3), and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951,
  364  and 1962.
  365         (3) The Florida Bar and their unlicensed practice of law
  366  prosecutors involved for violations of ss. 839.13(1), 918.13,
  367  836.05, 777.04(2) and (3), and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18
  368  U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951, and 1962, as well as s. 542.21(2),
  369  Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3 relating to the
  370  practice of law by lawyers and nonlawyers.
  371         (4) The sheriff of Pinellas County for violations of ss.
  372  775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and (3), 843.03, 839.13(1), 950.09,
  373  and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241 or 242.
  375  The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
  376  it has under general law to pursue criminal violations under
  377  this act and refer the evidence of such crimes to the officials
  378  authorized to conduct the prosecution which shall be placed
  379  before a grand jury to be impaneled in Leon County to make
  380  presentment as to the criminal matters under this section of the
  381  act within one year.
  382         Section 7. The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
  383  House of Representatives, or the Governor may sever in whole or
  384  in part any section of this act, excluding this section 7, which
  385  remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon becoming
  386  law. Notwithstanding severance, Mr. Pitts shall retain the right
  387  or privilege in future Legislatures to request the relief
  388  severed in part or whole by virtue of this section until fully
  389  remedied.
  390         Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.