Florida Senate - 2012 (NP) SB 20 By Senator Smith 29-00148-12 201220__ 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; providing for 18 severability; providing an effective date. 19 20 WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of 21 law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The 22 Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980) and 23 The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer Representation 24 in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180-1181, 1183-1184 25 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary having concurrent 26 jurisdiction to regulate such, and 27 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has exercised this privilege since 2001 28 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later confirmed by the 29 Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final order 30 dated November 6, 2003, at clause (1) declaring “unless 31 otherwise authorized by Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, 32 administrative rule, or the rules regulating The Florida Bar,” 33 and 34 WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, the 35 Second District Court of Appeal, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of 36 Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the State 37 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and 38 The Florida Bar have, without cause, continued to deprive Mr. 39 Pitts of the privilege of practicing law as prescribed by the 40 Legislature and Florida Supreme Court, subjecting him to civil 41 and criminal proceedings and penalties on an ongoing basis, and 42 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court, by virtue of the broad, 43 general, and ambiguous language of its 2003 final order in case 44 number SC02-247, has subjected Mr. Pitts to entrapment, and has 45 needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed upon many requests by 46 Mr. Pitts to clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate 47 court rules through The Florida Bar following original 48 proceedings brought or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the 49 matter, and 50 WHEREAS, this course of misconduct has been ongoing from 51 2001 to 2010, such that the courts, The Florida Bar, and the 52 State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of 53 Florida being in continual collusion against Mr. Pitts in cases 54 SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07 55 12964CFANO, CTC07-03965 MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03 56 01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO, and such action has resulted 57 in wrongful and unlawful incarcerations of Mr. Pitts in the 58 Pinellas County jail for a total of nearly 1 year, and 59 WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was to 60 retaliate against Mr. Pitts and, by way of his detainment, to 61 thwart his pending pro se actions for relief from said collusion 62 by civil, appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from 63 the above criminal cases, and 64 WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts 65 was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit 66 for his exceptional degree of technical and performance 67 competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced 68 member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or 69 implied communication that he would not receive the relief 70 requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member 71 of The Florida Bar, as a matter of camaraderie, and 72 WHEREAS, though appearing pro se in said cases and other 73 actions seeking relief from said collusion, Mr. Pitts was at 74 times represented by appointed counsel, however, such 75 proceedings proved to be futile because the proceedings were 76 staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s Office for the 77 Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory, and the courts 78 failed to abide by binding precedent and stare decisis, where 79 applicable, as well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by 80 the series of filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, hence depriving 81 Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive due process, equal 82 protection of the law, self-representation, and representation 83 by counsel under the United States Constitution, and 84 WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal has declared 85 in Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) 86 that “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the 87 constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly 88 expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an 89 appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has 90 been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no 91 objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the 92 constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain 93 silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will 94 somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three 95 appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no 96 evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious, 97 patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and 98 confidence in the institution of courts of law”; compare, 99 Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), yet they have 100 deliberately and intentionally, in concert with the Florida 101 Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by said rules of law as 102 to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original proceedings brought 103 and maintained by him or his counsel, and 104 WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office further 105 participated in the concerted effort of the courts, The Florida 106 Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office by illegally incarcerating 107 Mr. Pitts in the Pinellas County jail during the time periods of 108 January 2003 through April 2004 and March 22, 2010, through July 109 4, 2010, and by refusing him administrative alternative 110 sentencing without cause, and by subjecting him to living 111 conditions and circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail 112 Standards (2.15)(c), (9.08), (9.06)(b), (5.08)(a)&(c)(1)-(8), 113 (12.03)(d)-(g)&(i), (12.06), (5.08)(j), (10.01), (6.02), 114 (11.12), (11.16), Appendix A, (4.12), (4.13), (4.15), and (9.10) 115 and in violation of ss. 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, 116 and by extending his sentence an additional 40 and 10 days of 117 detention over the ordered sentences in violation of Inmate 118 Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss. 119 951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting 120 him to cruel and unusual punishment, subjecting him to false 121 imprisonment, and denying him due process and equal protection 122 of the law. See Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); 123 Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. 124 Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. 125 Supp. 835 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 126 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 127 2000); Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and 128 WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are 129 reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010, 130 and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without 131 a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of 132 articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s 133 suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting 134 jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010, “Jail 135 standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010, 136 “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated 137 May 15, 2010, “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough 138 oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010, and other 139 articles, and 140 WHEREAS, such misconduct is a clear abuse of judicial, 141 executive, and administrative authority as to the state court 142 system and local government, including the State Attorney’s 143 Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and the 144 Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 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, 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, he has not benefited from 152 constitutional protections against unlawful trusts by public 153 officers and employees (oath of office) and double jeopardy as 154 to criminal proceedings and sanctions, he has suffered mental 155 anguish and emotional distress as the result of the intentional 156 misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State 157 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The 158 Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating 159 to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and, 160 further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti 161 trust laws (Sherman Act), which were violated in this case, and 162 WHEREAS, the cases involving Mr. Pitts fail to comply with 163 the requirements of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states 164 in part: “The judicial branch has the purpose of determining the 165 constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of 166 adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or 167 application of the laws,” and 168 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer, 169 significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property, 170 and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution 171 resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to 172 his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and 173 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts, on many occasions, appears before the 174 Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or 175 against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics 176 and subject matter in fact and law in a exceptional degree of 177 technical and performance competence that would be expected of 178 any trained and experienced member of The Florida Bar, and 179 WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of 180 justice is impervious to human error, and 181 WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that the state’s 182 system of justice sometimes yields imperfect results that may 183 have tragic consequences, and 184 WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal 185 obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its own acts and 186 inherent authority to correct a wrong whereby normal or other 187 state authority, remedy, or resolution has been intentionally 188 avoided and denied in an arbitrary and capricious manner, 189 resulting in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and 190 WHEREAS, this is in accord with rulings of the courts 191 concerning legislative claim bills as expressed in Circuit Court 192 of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 193 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla. 1976), in which the court held that one 194 may seek a claim bill through the Legislature, for “[a]bsent 195 legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity . . . this 196 Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial process”; 197 Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla. 1985), 198 in which the court stated, “we agree with the Department of 199 Transportation’s assertion that a judgment in this case was not 200 a prerequisite to Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the 201 legislature”; Jetton v. Jacksonville Elec. Auth., 399 So. 2d 202 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), in which the court held that, 203 while the Legislature has placed limits on recovery, “claimants 204 remain free to seek legislative relief bills, as they did during 205 days of complete sovereign immunity”; and Dickinson v. Bradley, 206 298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), in which the court held that 207 “any claim bill is restricted to less than the general public 208 and its purpose is to discharge the state’s moral obligation to 209 any individual or other entity whom or which the legislature 210 recognizes as being entitled to such . . . The Legislature may 211 enact a claim bill for what would be a tort if a private party 212 was involved just as effectively as for what would constitute a 213 contractual debt,” and 214 WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made 215 pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the 216 state for any and all present and future claims arising out of 217 the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE, 218 219 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 220 221 Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are 222 found and declared to be true, and all judicial and 223 administrative remedies were exhausted as of May 12, 2010, and 224 July 4, 2010, respectively. 225 Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall 226 appoint an administrative law judge or special master to conduct 227 a hearing and determine a basis for equitable relief for the 228 purpose of compensating Mr. Pitts for any wrongful act or 229 omission of the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office 230 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas 231 County Sheriff’s Office in proportion to what occurred in the 232 investigations, the civil and criminal proceedings relating to 233 Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law, 234 and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001 to 235 2010. 236 Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special 237 master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence 238 whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for 239 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County 240 Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and 241 whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds, 242 the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr. 243 Pitts an amount of up to $375,000, to be paid proportionately by 244 the parties that wronged him and to be paid in lump sum or in 245 payments over a period of no more than 10 years. 246 (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall 247 report his or her determination to the President of the Senate 248 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2012. 249 The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in 250 satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law 251 judge or special master, as provided in this act, and to pay the 252 warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund within the state 253 courts system and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to 254 Brian Pitts. Pinellas County is directed to and shall pay the 255 warrant out of its general revenue fund or by other means it has 256 provided for to pay valid claims against the local government as 257 pertains to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and as to its 258 share of the total award to Mr. Pitts. 259 (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation 260 for all present and future claims arising out of the factual 261 situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or 262 unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection 263 with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed 264 or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling 265 nearly 12 months from 2001 through 2010. The total amount paid 266 for attorney’s fees, lobbying fees, costs, and other similar 267 expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25 percent of the 268 amount awarded under this act. 269 (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions, 270 and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and 271 restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC02-247, CRCAB 272 90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07 273 03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03 274 01887MMANO, wherein Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant, 275 are null and void and are annulled by this act by virtue of the 276 doctrine of separation of powers because the courts failed to 277 recognize the Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments 278 authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar 279 v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of 280 inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida 281 House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla. 282 2008), Trianon Park Condo. Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So. 2d 283 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); and by virtue of checks and balances 284 exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex Rel. 285 Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in which the 286 court found, “A clear violation of the constitutional provisions 287 dividing the powers of government into departments should be 288 checked and remedied.” As the court found in State v. City of 289 Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he general rule is 290 that the Legislature is supreme in the legislative field, which 291 is the most powerful branch of government, so long as it does 292 not violate any of the provisions of the organic law. There is 293 to our minds no justifiable exception of any class of 294 legislation from this all-pervasive and fundamental principle.” 295 (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court, 296 as to cases SC06-1279 and SC02-247, and the clerk of the court 297 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB-90407CFANO, 298 CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03 299 09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03-01887MMANO, all 300 pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to remove from 301 public and private access all dockets, records, documents, and 302 recorded orders or liens related to those cases and transmit 303 them to the Department of Law Enforcement to fulfill the duties 304 required under section 6 of this act. The Department of Law 305 Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from public and private 306 access all record history and information of a criminal nature 307 concerning Mr. Pitts. This includes, but is not limited to, 308 fingerprints, felon registration, and all other matters 309 concerning the case numbers cited in this subsection. Said 310 records, information, or documents may not be used by or 311 accessed for any purpose by anyone unless access to those 312 records is required by federal authorities or for investigations 313 conducted under section 6 of this act. 314 (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure 315 the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4) 316 and (5) of this section, and shall provide protective services 317 to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights, privileges, and safety under 318 sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act. 319 Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s 320 final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained 321 in clause (1) of that ruling, unless otherwise authorized by 322 Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or 323 the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr. 324 Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes 325 Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following 326 designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity 327 as a lay counselor or lay representative: 328 (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified 329 representative. 330 (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated 331 representative. 332 (3) Section 709.08, Florida Statutes, relating to an 333 attorney in fact. 334 (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 335 relating to representation by a realty property manager. 336 (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 337 relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms. 338 (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 339 relating to representation in county or small claims civil 340 proceedings. 341 (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 342 relating to third party standing representation. 343 (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida 344 Bar. 345 (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority 346 doctrine. 347 (10) Federal law or any other clearly expressed rule, 348 statute, or court or administrative decision or order under 349 other federal, state, or local law and authority. 350 Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr. 351 Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held 352 or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the 353 practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the 354 right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing 355 supported by law, or, if he is the subject of civil, 356 administrative, or criminal proceedings, Mr. Pitts retains the 357 right to represent himself without a lawyer in court and in 358 administrative actions or cases. 359 Section 6. Due to the period of ongoing misconduct against 360 Mr. Pitts as described in this act, the Legislature directs the 361 Department of Law Enforcement, assisted by Mr. Pitts, to 362 investigate these acts committed by: 363 (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for 364 violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 365 843.03, 839.13(1), 839.24, 876.10, 843.0855(2) and (3), 895.03, 366 914.22(2)(f), 914.22(4)(f), and 918.13, Florida Statutes, and 18 367 U.S.C. ss. 241, 242, 1512, 1951, and 1962, relating to the 368 court’s final ruling rendered February 22, 2010, in case number 369 SC06-1279 for the incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 370 2010 legislative session pending proceedings on Senate Bill 58. 371 (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to 372 Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings; 373 the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys 374 involved for violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and 375 (3), 839.13(1), 839.24, 918.13, 836.05, 843.03, 876.10 777.04(2) 376 and (3), and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 377 1951, and 1962. 378 (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued 379 charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for 380 violations of ss. 839.13(1), 918.13, 836.05, 777.04(2) and (3), 381 and 895.03, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951, and 382 1962, as well as s. 542.21(2), Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C. 383 1, 2, and 3, relating to the practice of law by lawyers and 384 nonlawyers. 385 (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of 386 ss. 775.15(12)(b), 843.0855(2) and (3), 843.03, 839.13(1), 387 876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241 388 or 242. 389 390 The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority 391 it has under general law to investigate criminal violations 392 under this act and shall refer any evidence of such crimes to 393 the appropriate officials for prosecution. Charges arising out 394 of the criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand 395 jury impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of 396 this act. 397 Section 7. If any provision of this act or its application 398 to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity 399 does not affect other provisions or applications of this act 400 which can be given effect without the invalid provision or 401 application, and to this end the provisions of the act are 402 severable. Mr. Pitts retains the right to make future requests 403 of the Legislature for any relief severed in part or in whole. 404 Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.