Florida Senate - 2013 (NP) SB 174 By Senator Bullard 39-00449-13 2013174__ 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act for the relief of Brian Pitts; directing the 3 Division of Administrative Hearings to appoint an 4 administrative law judge or special master to 5 determine a basis for equitable relief for the purpose 6 of compensating Mr. Pitts for the wrongful acts or 7 omissions of the State of Florida or officials 8 thereof; requiring a report to the Legislature; 9 authorizing compensation to Mr. Pitts upon a 10 determination by an administrative law judge; 11 providing an appropriation to compensate Mr. Pitts for 12 injuries and damages sustained; providing a limitation 13 on attorney fees and costs; directing that certain 14 court orders and judgments be declared null and void; 15 specifying the limited circumstances under which Mr. 16 Pitts may represent himself or others in judicial or 17 administrative proceedings; directing the Department 18 of Law Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts 19 committed by certain persons; authorizing the 20 President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of 21 Representatives, and the Governor to sever portions of 22 this act under certain circumstances; providing an 23 effective date. 24 25 WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of 26 law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The 27 Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So.2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980) and The 28 Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer Representation in 29 Securities Arbitration, 696 So.2d 1178, 1180-1181, 1183-1184 30 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary having concurrent 31 jurisdiction to regulate such, and 32 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has exercised this privilege since 2001 33 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later confirmed by the 34 Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final order 35 dated November 6, 2003, at clause (1) declaring “unless 36 otherwise authorized by Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, 37 administrative rule, or the rules regulating The Florida Bar,” 38 and 39 WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, the 40 Second District Court of Appeal, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, the 41 Office of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and 42 The Florida Bar have, without cause, continued to deprive Mr. 43 Pitts of the privilege of practicing law as prescribed by the 44 Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court, subjecting him to 45 civil and criminal proceedings and penalties on an ongoing 46 basis, and 47 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court, by virtue of the broad, 48 general, and ambiguous language of its 2003 final order in case 49 number SC02-247, has subjected Mr. Pitts to entrapment, and has 50 needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed upon many requests by 51 Mr. Pitts to clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate 52 court rules through The Florida Bar following original 53 proceedings brought or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the 54 matter, and 55 WHEREAS, this course of misconduct has been ongoing from 56 2001 to 2012, such that the courts, The Florida Bar, and the 57 Office of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit 58 being in continual collusion against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02 59 247, SC06-1279, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07 60 12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03 61 01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO, and such action has resulted 62 in the wrongful and unlawful incarceration of Mr. Pitts in the 63 Pinellas County Jail for a total of nearly 1 year, and 64 WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was to 65 retaliate against Mr. Pitts and, by way of his detainment, to 66 thwart his pending pro se actions for relief from said collusion 67 by civil, appellate, or original proceedings regarding the 68 criminal cases, and 69 WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts 70 was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit 71 for an exceptional degree of technical and performance 72 competence that would be expected of an experienced member of 73 The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or implied 74 communication that he would not receive the relief requested in 75 any given proceeding unless represented by a member of The 76 Florida Bar, as a matter of camaraderie, and 77 WHEREAS, though appearing pro se in said cases and other 78 actions seeking relief from said collusion, Mr. Pitts was at 79 times represented by appointed counsel; however, such 80 proceedings proved to be futile because the proceedings were 81 staged by the courts and the Office of the State Attorney for 82 the Sixth Judicial Circuit to be illusory. The courts failed to 83 abide by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, 84 as well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of 85 filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed 86 counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive 87 due process, equal protection of the law, self-representation, 88 and representation by counsel under the United States 89 Constitution, and 90 WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal has declared 91 in Denson v. State, 711 So.2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that 92 “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the 93 constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly 94 expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an 95 appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has 96 been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no 97 objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the 98 constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain 99 silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will 100 somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three 101 appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no 102 evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious, 103 patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and 104 confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare, 105 Bedford v. State, 633 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and 106 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the trial judges and 107 appellate judges have deliberately and intentionally, in concert 108 with the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by said 109 rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original 110 proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and 111 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that The Florida Bar, the 112 Office of the State Attorney, and the judges and justices 113 involved at each level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal 114 and private interest in deterring Mr. Pitts from engaging in the 115 authorized practice of law as prescribed in this state and, 116 thus, have failed to afford Mr. Pitts the required process and 117 means of justice or resolution as normally expected of esteemed 118 persons in their official capacities, and 119 WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office participated 120 in the concerted effort of the courts, The Florida Bar, and the 121 Office of the State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit 122 illegally incarcerating Mr. Pitts in the Pinellas County Jail 123 from January 2003 through April 2004 and from March 22, 2010, 124 through July 4, 2010, by refusing him administrative alternative 125 sentencing without cause, and by subjecting him to living 126 conditions and circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail 127 Standards (2.15)(c); (4.12); (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1) 128 (8), and j; (6.02); (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12); 129 (11.16); (12.03)(d)-(i); and (12.06), Appendix A, and in 130 violation of ss. 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and by 131 extending his sentence an additional 50 days in violation of 132 Inmate Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and 133 ss. 951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, thereby 134 subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment and false 135 imprisonment and denying him due process and equal protection of 136 the law. See Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); 137 Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. 138 Carson, 563 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. 139 Supp. 835 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 140 (M.D. Fla. 1975); Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So.2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 141 2000); and Douthit v. Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and 142 WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are 143 reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010, 144 and published under the headline “Thousands of Pinellas jail 145 inmates released without a judge ever setting bail,” which was 146 complemented by a series of articles published by the Orlando 147 Sentinel under the respective headlines “Florida’s suspect 148 jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting jails leaves 149 them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010; “Jail-standards chief 150 defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010; “If all Central 151 Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated May 15, 2010; 152 “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough oversight, not 153 coddling,” dated May 18, 2010; and other articles, and 154 WHEREAS, such misconduct is a clear abuse of judicial, 155 executive, and administrative authority as to the state court 156 system and local government, including the Office of the State 157 Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit and the Pinellas County 158 Sheriff’s Office, thereby resulting in a public embarrassment to 159 this state since said authorities knew there was no basis in 160 fact or law for their unlawful acts against Mr. Pitts, and 161 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts’ good name and reputation have been 162 damaged; he has been deprived of due process, the ability to 163 conduct a lawful business, freedom of speech, property, liberty, 164 and equal protection of the law; he has not benefited from 165 constitutional protections against unlawful trusts by public 166 officers and employees under oath of office and double jeopardy 167 as to criminal proceedings and sanctions; he has suffered mental 168 anguish and emotional distress as the result of the intentional 169 misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the Office of the 170 State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, The Florida Bar, 171 and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating to his 172 practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and, further, 173 there is no state-action exception to federal antitrust laws, 174 which were violated in the subject cases, and 175 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer, 176 significant monetary damage by virtue of expenses, fees, fines, 177 costs, restitution, and lost income, property, and time 178 resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to 179 his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and 180 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the 181 Legislature to instruct, advise, and inform members and to 182 advocate for or against proposed legislation covering a broad 183 spectrum of topics and subject matter in fact and law, always 184 demonstrating an exceptional degree of technical and performance 185 competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced 186 member of The Florida Bar, and 187 WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of 188 justice is impervious to human error, and 189 WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that the state’s 190 system of justice sometimes yields imperfect results that may 191 have tragic consequences, and 192 WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal 193 obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act 194 on its authority to correct a wrong, when those actions have 195 resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and 196 WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with 197 holdings of the Florida Supreme Court concerning legislative 198 claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. 199 Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So.2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla. 200 1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity 201 . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial 202 process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So.2d 1170, 1172 203 (Fla. 1985)(”[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s 204 assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to 205 Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and 206 WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v. 207 Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st 208 DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed 209 limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative 210 relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign 211 immunity,” and 212 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley, 213 298 So.2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is 214 restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to 215 discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or 216 other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being 217 entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill 218 for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as 219 effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,” 220 and 221 WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made 222 pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the 223 state for any and all present and future claims arising out of 224 the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE, 225 226 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 227 228 Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are 229 found and declared to be true, and all judicial and 230 administrative remedies have been exhausted. This act is the 231 remedy of last resort available to Mr. Pitts. 232 Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall 233 appoint an administrative law judge or special master to conduct 234 a hearing and determine a basis for equitable relief for the 235 purpose of compensating Mr. Pitts for any wrongful act or 236 omission of the State of Florida, the Office of the State 237 Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, and the Pinellas County 238 Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations involving Mr. Pitts, 239 the civil and criminal proceedings relating to Mr. Pitts’ 240 alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law, and his 241 incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001 to 2012, if 242 not longer. 243 Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special 244 master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence 245 whether the State of Florida, the Office of the State Attorney 246 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, or the Pinellas County Sheriff’s 247 Office committed a wrongful act or omission and whether a basis 248 for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds, the 249 administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr. Pitts 250 an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1 million, to 251 be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged him and to 252 be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of no more than 253 10 years. 254 (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall 255 report his or her determination to the President of the Senate 256 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2013. 257 The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in 258 satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law 259 judge or special master, as provided in this act, and to pay the 260 warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or State Courts 261 Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system and the State 262 Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts. Pinellas County is 263 directed to and shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue 264 fund or by other means it has provided for to pay valid claims 265 against the local government as pertains to the Pinellas County 266 Sheriff’s Office and as to its share of the total award to Mr. 267 Pitts. 268 (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation 269 for all present and future claims arising out of the factual 270 situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or 271 unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts. The total 272 amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and other 273 similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25 274 percent of the amount awarded under this act. 275 (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions, 276 and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and 277 restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC02-247, CRCAB 278 90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07 279 03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03 280 01887MMANO, wherein Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant, 281 are void and are annulled by this act by virtue of the doctrine 282 of separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize 283 the Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments authorizing lay 284 representation as expressed in The Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 285 So.2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of inherent authority 286 of this Legislature as expressed in Florida House of 287 Representatives v. Crist, 999 So.2d 601, 611 (Fla. 2008), 288 Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 289 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); and by virtue of checks and balances 290 exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex Rel. 291 Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in which the 292 court found “[a] clear violation of the constitutional 293 provisions dividing the powers of government into departments 294 should be checked and remedied.” As the court found in State v. 295 City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he general 296 rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the legislative 297 field, which is the most powerful branch of government, so long 298 as it does not violate any of the provisions of the organic law. 299 There is to our minds no justifiable exception of any class of 300 legislation from this all-pervasive and fundamental principle.” 301 (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court, 302 as to cases SC06-1279 and SC02-247, and the clerk of the court 303 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB-90407CFANO, 304 CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03 305 09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03-01887MMANO, all 306 pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to remove from 307 public and private access all dockets, records, documents, and 308 recorded orders or liens related to those cases and transmit 309 them to the Department of Law Enforcement to fulfill the duties 310 required under section 6 of this act. The Department of Law 311 Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from public and private 312 access all record history and information of a criminal nature 313 concerning Mr. Pitts. This includes, but is not limited to, 314 fingerprints, felon registration, and all other matters 315 concerning the case numbers cited in this subsection. The 316 records, information, or documents may not be used by or 317 accessed for any purpose by anyone unless access to those 318 records is required by federal authorities or for investigations 319 conducted under section 6 of this act. 320 (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure 321 the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4) 322 and (5) of this section, and shall provide protective services 323 to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights, privileges, and safety under 324 sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act. 325 Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s 326 final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained 327 in clause (1) of that ruling, unless otherwise authorized by 328 Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or 329 the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr. 330 Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes 331 Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following 332 designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity 333 of lay counselor or lay representative: 334 (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified 335 representative. 336 (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated 337 representative. 338 (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney 339 in-fact and durable power of attorney, including an interest in 340 any personal or property claim, election, right, or interest. 341 (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 342 relating to representation by a realty property manager. 343 (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 344 relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms. 345 (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 346 relating to representation in county or small claims civil 347 proceedings. 348 (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 349 relating to third-party standing. 350 (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida 351 Bar. 352 (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority 353 doctrine. 354 (10) Federal law or any other clearly expressed rule, 355 statute, or court or administrative decision or order under 356 other federal, state, or local law and authority. 357 Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr. 358 Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature does not 359 constitute the practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts 360 retains the right to represent himself at any time he has valid 361 standing supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil, 362 administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to 363 represent himself without a lawyer. 364 Section 6. Due to the period of ongoing misconduct against 365 Mr. Pitts as described in this act, the Legislature directs the 366 Department of Law Enforcement, assisted by Mr. Pitts, to 367 investigate these acts committed by: 368 (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for 369 violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and 370 18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on 371 February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279 resulting in the 372 incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 legislative 373 session while proceedings on Senate Bill 58 were pending, and 374 other violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 777.04(2) and (3), 375 836.05, 839.13(1), 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 376 895.03, and 918.13, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 377 1951, and 1962. 378 (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to 379 Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings; 380 the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys 381 involved for violations of ss. 775.15(12)(b), 777.04(2) and (3), 382 836.05, 839.13(1), 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 383 895.03, and 918.13, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 384 1951, and 1962. 385 (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued 386 charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for 387 violations of ss. 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 839.13(1), 895.03, 388 and 918.13, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 1951, and 389 1962, as well as s. 542.21(2), Florida Statutes, and 15 U.S.C. 390 1, 2, and 3, relating to the practice of law by lawyers and 391 nonlawyers. 392 (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of 393 ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1), 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 394 876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 241 395 or 242. 396 397 The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority 398 it has under general law to investigate criminal violations 399 under this act and shall refer any evidence of such crimes to 400 the appropriate officials for prosecution. Charges arising out 401 of the criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand 402 jury impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of 403 this act. 404 Section 7. The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the 405 House of Representatives, or the Governor may sever in whole or 406 in part any section of this act, excluding this section 7, which 407 remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon becoming 408 law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall retain the 409 right or privilege during future legislative sessions to request 410 the relief severed in part or whole by virtue of this section 411 until fully remedied. 412 Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.