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