Florida Senate - 2016 (NP) SB 18 By Senator Braynon 36-00080-16 201618__ 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 Governor, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker 21 of the House of Representatives 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 28 in The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer 29 Representation in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180 30 1181, 1183-1184 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary 31 having concurrent jurisdiction to regulate such, and 32 WHEREAS, Brian Pitts has exercised this privilege since 33 2001 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later enjoined by 34 the Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final 35 order dated November 6, 2003. As stated in the order, 36 “respondent Brian Pitts is enjoined from engaging in the 37 practice of law in the State of Florida as specified in the 38 referee’s report. Specifically, respondent is hereby enjoined 39 from engaging in any of the following activities: (1) appearing 40 in any Florida court as a representative of a party, giving 41 legal advice in a Florida case, or otherwise participating in 42 any Florida litigation on behalf of any party unless otherwise 43 authorized by Florida statutes, court rule, case law, 44 administrative rule, or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar . . 45 . .” See The Florida Bar v. Pitts, 861 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 46 2003)(No. SC02-247, November 6, 2003), 47 www.floridasupremecourt.org, and 48 WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, Mr. 49 Pitts contends that the Second District Court of Appeal, the 50 Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas 51 Counties, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial 52 Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar have, without cause, 53 continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the privilege of practicing 54 law as prescribed by the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court, 55 subjecting him to civil and criminal proceedings and penalties 56 on an ongoing basis, and 57 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts opines that the Florida Supreme Court, 58 in its 2003 final order in case number SC02-247, has subjected 59 him to entrapment and needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed 60 to exercise its constitutional duty upon his many requests to 61 clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate court rules 62 through The Florida Bar following original proceedings brought 63 or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the matter, and 64 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the courts, The Florida 65 Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial 66 Circuit of Florida have engaged in a course of misconduct and 67 colluded against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB 68 65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965 69 MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO 70 from 2001 to 2012 and that such misconduct has resulted in his 71 wrongful and unlawful incarceration in the Pinellas County Jail 72 for a total of nearly 1 year, and 73 WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was, in 74 Mr. Pitts’ opinion, to retaliate against him for not being a 75 member of The Florida Bar despite being otherwise lawfully 76 authorized to represent third persons he assisted in legitimate 77 legal matters and, by way of his detainment, to thwart his 78 pending pro se actions for relief from the collusion by civil, 79 appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from the above 80 criminal cases, and 81 WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts 82 was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit 83 for his exceptional degree of technical and performance 84 competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced 85 member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or 86 implied communication that he would not receive the relief 87 requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member 88 of The Florida Bar, as matter of camaraderie, and 89 WHEREAS, although Mr. Pitts appeared pro se in said cases 90 and other actions seeking relief from said collusion, he was at 91 times represented by appointed counsel; however, such 92 proceedings proved to be futile because, Mr. Pitts contends, the 93 proceedings were staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s 94 Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory, 95 and 96 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the courts failed to abide 97 by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, as 98 well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of 99 filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed 100 counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive 101 due process, equal protection of the law, self-representation, 102 and representation by counsel under the United States 103 Constitution, and 104 WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal declared in 105 Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that 106 “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the 107 constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly 108 expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an 109 appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has 110 been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no 111 objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the 112 constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain 113 silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will 114 somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three 115 appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no 116 evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious, 117 patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and 118 confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare, 119 Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and 120 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the judges who presided in 121 his cases have deliberately and intentionally, in concert with 122 the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by these 123 rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original 124 proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and 125 WHEREAS, it has become evident, in Mr. Pitts’ opinion, that 126 The Florida Bar, State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial 127 Circuit of Florida, and the judges and justices involved at each 128 level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal and private, 129 rather than public, interest at issue in deterring Mr. Pitts 130 from engaging in the authorized practice of law as prescribed in 131 this state, and 132 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that such determent is due to a 133 matter of camaraderie among those of the legal profession and an 134 interest in protecting it by any means from lawful competition, 135 where applicable, and 136 WHEREAS, this determent demonstrates a lack of neutrality, 137 proper motives, and discretion which deprives Mr. Pitts of the 138 required process and means of justice or resolution as normally 139 expected of esteemed persons in their official capacities, and 140 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the Pinellas County 141 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of 142 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for 143 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by illegally incarcerating 144 him in the Pinellas County Jail during the time periods of 145 January 2003 through April 2004 and March 12, 2010, through July 146 4, 2010, refusing him administrative alternative sentencing 147 without cause, and subjecting him to living conditions and 148 circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail Standards 149 (2.15)(c); (4.12); (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1)-(8), and 150 (j); (6.02); (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12); 151 (11.16); (12.03)(d)-(g), (i); (12.06); Appendix A; and ss. 152 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and 153 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts also contends that the Pinellas County 154 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of 155 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for 156 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by extending his sentence 157 an additional 50 days of detention in violation of Inmate 158 Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss. 159 951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, which subjected him 160 to cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, and a 161 denial of due process and equal protection of the law. See 162 Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); Miller v. 163 Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 164 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 (M.D. 165 Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975); 166 Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Douthit v. 167 Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and 168 WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are 169 reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010, 170 and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without 171 a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of 172 articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s 173 suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting 174 jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010; “Jail 175 standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010; 176 “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated 177 May 15, 2010; “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough 178 oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010; and other 179 articles, and 180 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that such conduct was a clear 181 abuse of judicial, executive, and administrative authority as to 182 the state court system and local government, including the State 183 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and 184 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, which resulted in a public 185 embarrassment to this state because such authorities knew that 186 there was not any basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts 187 against him, and 188 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that his good name and 189 reputation have been damaged; he has been deprived of due 190 process, the ability to conduct a lawful business, freedom of 191 speech, property, liberty, and equal protection of the law; he 192 has not benefited from constitutional protections against 193 unlawful trusts by public officers and employees under oath of 194 office and double jeopardy protections as to criminal 195 proceedings and sanctions; and he has suffered mental anguish 196 and emotional distress as the result of the intentional 197 misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State 198 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The 199 Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating 200 to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and, 201 further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti 202 trust laws, which were violated in the subject cases, and 203 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer, 204 significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property, 205 and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution 206 resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to 207 his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and 208 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the 209 Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or 210 against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics 211 and subject matter in fact and law with an exceptional degree of 212 technical competence that would be expected of any trained and 213 experienced member of The Florida Bar, and 214 WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of 215 justice is impervious to human error, and 216 WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that any system of 217 justice may sometimes yield imperfect results that may have 218 tragic consequences, and 219 WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal 220 obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act 221 on its authority to correct a wrong when those actions have 222 resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and 223 WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with 224 the holdings of the Florida Supreme Court regarding legislative 225 claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. 226 Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla. 227 1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity 228 . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial 229 process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172 230 (Fla. 1985)(“[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s 231 assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to 232 Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and 233 WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v. 234 Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st 235 DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed 236 limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative 237 relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign 238 immunity,” and 239 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley, 240 298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is 241 restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to 242 discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or 243 other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being 244 entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill 245 for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as 246 effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,” 247 and 248 WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made 249 pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the 250 state for any and all present and future claims arising out of 251 the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE, 252 253 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 254 255 Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are 256 found and declared to be true, and all judicial and 257 administrative remedies were exhausted as of September 9, 2003 258 April 30, 2004; September 30, 2005; May 21, 2007; September 7, 259 2007; December 12, 2008; September 14, 2009; February 22, 2010; 260 March 11-July 4, 2010; and March 30, 2012, respectively. 261 Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall 262 appoint an administrative law judge, or a special master shall 263 be appointed, to conduct a hearing to determine a basis for 264 equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Brian Pitts for 265 any wrongful act or omission of the State of Florida, the State 266 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and 267 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations 268 involving Mr. Pitts, the civil and criminal proceedings relating 269 to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of 270 law, and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001 271 to 2012, if not longer. 272 Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special 273 master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence 274 whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for 275 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County 276 Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and 277 whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds, 278 the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr. 279 Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1 280 million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged 281 him and to be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of 282 no more than 10 years. 283 (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall 284 report his or her determination to the President of the Senate 285 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2016. 286 The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in 287 satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law 288 judge, special master, or Legislature, as provided in this act, 289 and to pay the warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or 290 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system 291 and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts. 292 Pinellas County shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue 293 fund or by other means it has provided to pay valid claims 294 against it relating to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and 295 as to its share of the total award to Mr. Pitts. 296 (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation 297 for all present and future claims arising out of the factual 298 situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or 299 unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection 300 with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed 301 or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling 302 nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2012. The 303 total amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and 304 other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25 305 percent of the amount awarded under this act. 306 (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions, 307 and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and 308 restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC09-195 and SC09 309 2243, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, 310 CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03 311 01887MMANO in which Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant are 312 null and void by this act by virtue of the doctrine of 313 separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the 314 Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments, in addition to the 315 courts’ own lawful and valid case precedent, rules, and orders, 316 authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar 317 v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of 318 inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida 319 House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla. 320 2008), Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468 321 So. 2d 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); by virtue of checks and 322 balances exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex 323 Rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in 324 which the court found, “[a] clear violation of the 325 constitutional provisions dividing the powers of government into 326 departments should be checked and remedied.” As the court found 327 in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he 328 general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the 329 legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of 330 government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions 331 of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable 332 exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive 333 and fundamental principle.” Finally, by virtue of the cases 334 involving Mr. Pitts, the courts failed to comply with the 335 mandates of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states that 336 “[t]he judicial branch has the purpose of determining the 337 constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of 338 adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or 339 application of the laws.” 340 (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court, 341 as to cases SC06-1279, SC09-195, and SC09-2243, and the clerk of 342 the court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB 343 90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07 344 03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03 345 01887MMANO, all pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to 346 remove from public and private access all dockets, records, 347 documents, and recorded orders or liens related to those cases 348 and transmit them to the Department of Law Enforcement to 349 fulfill the duties required under section 6 of this act. The 350 Department of Law Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from 351 public and private access all record history and information of 352 a criminal nature concerning Mr. Pitts. This record history and 353 information include, but are not limited to, fingerprints, felon 354 registration, and all other matters concerning the case numbers 355 cited in this subsection. These records, information, or 356 documents may not be used by or accessed for any purpose by 357 anyone unless access to those records is required by federal 358 authorities or for investigations conducted under section 6 of 359 this act. 360 (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure 361 the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4) 362 and (5) of this section and section 6, and shall provide 363 protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights, 364 privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act. 365 Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s 366 final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained 367 in clause (1) of that order, unless otherwise authorized by 368 Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or 369 the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr. 370 Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes 371 Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following 372 designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity 373 as a lay counselor or lay representative: 374 (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified 375 representative. 376 (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated 377 representative. 378 (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney 379 in-fact under a durable power of attorney, when coupled with an 380 interest in any personal or property claim, election, right, or 381 interest. 382 (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 383 relating to representation in real property management. 384 (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 385 relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms. 386 (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 387 relating to representation in county or small claims civil 388 proceedings. 389 (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court 390 relating to third-party standing representation. 391 (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida 392 Bar. 393 (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority 394 doctrine. 395 (10) Federal law, state law, local rule, statute, local 396 law, or any other court or administrative decision or order 397 under federal, state, or local law and authority. 398 Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr. 399 Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held 400 or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the 401 practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the 402 right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing 403 supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil, 404 administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to 405 represent himself without a lawyer in court and in 406 administrative actions or cases. 407 Section 6. Due to the ongoing conduct from 2001 to 2012 408 against Mr. Pitts as described in the preamble of this act, the 409 Legislature directs the Department of Law Enforcement, assisted 410 by Mr. Pitts, to investigate these acts committed by: 411 (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for 412 violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and 413 18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on 414 February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279, which resulted in the 415 incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 Legislative 416 Session while proceedings on SB 58 were pending, and in Mr. 417 Pitts’ cases relating to motions, reviews, and original 418 proceedings for violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b), 419 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1), 420 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13, 421 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 422 242, 1951, and 1962. 423 (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to 424 Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings; 425 the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys 426 involved in violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b), 427 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 838.015, 838.016, 838.022, 839.13(1), 428 839.24, 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13, 429 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 430 242, 1951, and 1962. 431 (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued 432 charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for 433 their violations of ss. 542.21(2), 777.04(2) and (3), 836.05, 434 838.015, 838.016, 839.13(1), 895.03, and 918.13, Florida 435 Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 242, 436 1951, and 1962. 437 (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of 438 ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1), 843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 439 876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 201, 440 241, or 242. 441 442 The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority 443 granted to it under general law to investigate criminal 444 violations under this act and shall refer any evidence of such 445 crimes to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution. 446 Failure of the Department to Law Enforcement to investigate 447 these criminal violations and refer any evidence of such 448 violations to the appropriate officials is a misdemeanor of the 449 first degree under s. 775.15(12)(b). Charges arising out of the 450 criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand jury 451 impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of this 452 act. 453 Section 7. The Governor, the President of the Senate, or 454 the Speaker of the House of Representatives may sever in whole 455 or in part any section of this act, excluding this section, 456 which remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon 457 becoming law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall 458 retain the right or privilege during future legislative sessions 459 to request the relief severed in whole or in part by virtue of 460 this section until fully remedied. 461 Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.