Fane Lozman

Last updated

Fane Lozman is an American inventor and futures and options trader known for his long-running legal battles with the city of Riviera Beach, Florida. His litigation against the city has reached the U.S. Supreme Court twice: a 2013 case about whether a floating home is a vessel and a 2018 case about retaliatory arrest for protected speech. The court ruled in his favor in both cases.

Contents

Prior to moving to Riviera Beach, Lozman lived in North Bay Village, Florida, where his investigative efforts resulted in the arrests of corrupt government officials. For his activism in Riviera Beach and North Bay Village, Lozman has been described as a "persistent gadfly" [1] and a "relentless opponent of public corruption". [2]

Early life, education, and career

Born in Miami, Florida, Lozman received a B.A. in mathematics from the University of Miami. He then joined the United States Marine Corps, [3] [4] where he served a tour of duty as a Marine attack pilot. [3] [5] [6]

After returning to civilian life, Lozman moved to Chicago and invented a new market trading screen interface, which he named Scanshift. [7] The interface was "modeled on the cockpit displays of the planes he used to fly", [7] along with the technology that is used to land fighter planes on aircraft carriers. Scanshift employs a visually ergonomic layout incorporating a hub and spoke display that uses "a variety of rectangles, lines, and arrows to indicate which kinds of securities were moving and what that movement signaled". [5]

Lozman filed a patent application for his Scanshift interface in 1994, and the patent was issued on November 18, 1997. [8] [7] Lozman formed a small brokerage firm called Terra Nova, that became the foundation for the Terra Nova ECN, later renamed Archipelago ECN. [7] After several years of futures trading and options trading, he became a "self-made millionaire". [4]

As of 2016, Lozman had become involved in real estate development with an overwater stilt home community called Renegade on a 25 acres (10 ha) parcel of submerged lands. This property, with 1,025 feet (312 m) of private beach, was located on the northwest side of Singer Island, Florida, adjacent to the intracoastal waterway. [9] [10]

North Bay Village

In 2002, Lozman moved back to South Florida to escape the Chicago winters. [11] He purchased a 60 by 12 ft (18.3 by 3.7 m) two-story floating home [12] and had it towed from Fort Myers, Florida to North Bay Village, Florida, in northern Miami-Dade County. [13] [11] After mooring his residence in a North Bay Village marina, Lozman became embroiled in a dispute with the marina landlord over a proposed wheelchair ramp for a disabled World War II veteran, for which Lozman offered to pay. [11] The landlord evicted Lozman, who then began researching the landlord's business activities, discovering an illegal connection to a Village elected official. [11] While calling out this corrupt behavior, Lozman was ejected from public meetings on several occasions, and was arrested on two occasions for publicly accusing officials of corruption. [3] The state attorney declined prosecution in both instances. Lozman's efforts ultimately led to the arrest of the mayor and three city commissioners and their subsequent removal from office. [3] [11]

Riviera Beach

Lozman remained in North Bay Village until the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, when the marina where his floating home was moored was destroyed by Hurricane Wilma. [3] Lozman then had his home towed about 70 miles (110 km) north to the City of Riviera Beach.

Sunshine Law suit and attempted eviction

The day Lozman arrived at the City marina with his floating home, Lozman learned that the City planned to redevelop its waterfront, by using the power of eminent domain. The City intended to take 2,200 homes and adjacent businesses, along with the City marina, for a $2.4 billion redevelopment plan, and then transfer these properties to a private developer. [14] Lozman became an outspoken critic of the plan, accusing the Council members of corruption in public meetings. [3] [12] Before the City could finalize its agreement with the developers, the Florida Legislature passed a bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private purposes. But the day before the Governor signed the bill into law, the City convened a meeting to approve its agreement with the developer. [2] In response, Lozman filed a lawsuit alleging that the agreement was invalid as violative of Florida's Sunshine Law. After Lozman filed his lawsuit, members of the City Council came under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. [15]

On June 28, 2006, the City Council held a closed-door meeting to discuss the lawsuit Lozman had recently filed. The Council members were in agreement that Lozman should be "intimidated" and made to feel "unwarranted heat". [15] [4] The City undertook a series of actions against Lozman, which began with legal actions to evict Lozman and his floating home from the City marina. During the eviction trial, the City argued that Lozman's ten pound dachshund, "Lady", might bite someone. After a three-day jury trial, with Lozman proceeding pro se , the jury ruled in Lozman's favor, finding that the eviction was unlawful retaliation for Lozman's exercise of his right to free speech. [16] [17] : 439 

Floating home dispute and first U.S. Supreme Court case

After failing to evict Lozman from the Riviera Beach marina under state landlord-tenant law, the city asked Lozman to sign an agreement requiring that his floating home be able to be moved in an emergency. [17] : 441  When he refused, the city brought a lawsuit under federal admiralty law against Lozman's floating home in 2009. [12] Lozman, acting pro se, asked the federal district court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the court lacked admiralty jurisdiction. The court improperly found that the floating home was a "vessel" and concluded that admiralty jurisdiction was proper. The judge awarded the City $3,039.88 for dockage along with $1 in nominal damages for trespass. [12] The court ordered Lozman to sell the home at auction. [17] : 441  The City purchased it and had it destroyed. [18] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court and Lozman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. [12]

Lozman gained his first Supreme Court victory, when the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in a landmark admiralty opinion, ruling that floating structures are subject to a "reasonable observer" test in determining if they are vessels for the purposes of United States law. Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer stated: "Not every floating structure is a 'vessel.’ To state the obvious, a wooden washtub, a plastic dishpan, a swimming platform on pontoons, a large fishing net, a door taken off its hinges, or Pinocchio (when inside the whale) are not 'vessels,' even if they are 'artificial contrivances' capable of floating, moving under tow, and incidentally carrying even a fair-sized item or two when they do so". [19] [12] [3] Chief Justice John Roberts stated in a later interview that the Lozman case was his favorite case of the term. [20] [21] A federal judge later awarded Lozman only $7,500 for his damages. [3] In 2016, Lozman returned to Riviera Beach with a new, larger floating house, bearing a banner that read "Fane Lozman returns, THANK YOU... U.S. Supreme Court". [22]

Arrest and second U.S. Supreme Court case

Lozman's arrest

The City Council met in regular session on November 15, 2006, at which time the City abandoned its plans to redevelop the waterfront. [23] During a time for members of the public to make comments to the council, Lozman began to raise the subject of corruption charges brought against Palm Beach County officials. [4] [24] Council chairperson Elizabeth Wade interrupted Lozman and instructed him to stop speaking. When Lozman refused, the council member ordered a police officer to "carry him out"; Lozman, objecting that his First Amendment rights were being violated, was then handcuffed and placed in a jail cell at the police station, [18] and charged with disorderly conduct and trespass. The trespass charge was later whited out and modified to one of "resisting w/out violence, to wit obstruction". [16] : 1401  [17] : 440  The state's attorney later dismissed the charges as having "no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution". [25]

In 2008, Lozman filed a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit, claiming his 2006 arrest for refusing to leave the podium at a City Council meeting and the City's effort to evict him from the City marina were part of an unconstitutional effort to stop him from criticizing the City and its policies. [3]

The case finally went to trial in November 2014, with Lozman representing himself once again on a pro se basis. The district judge instructed the jury that Lozman needed to prove a new charge that was only added for the first time during the second week of trial, that there was no probable cause for the offense of "disturbing a public assembly". The jury found for the City, and Lozman appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, and Lozman again successfully filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. During oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts stated: "I found the video pretty chilling. I mean, the fellow is up there for about fifteen seconds, and the next thing he knows he's being led off in handcuffs, speaking in a very calm voice the whole time". [18] [4]

On June 18, 2018, in an eight-to-one opinion authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Supreme Court once again ruled in Lozman’s favor, vacating the Eleventh Circuit opinion and remanding to the appellate court with instructions to determine whether the City acted with animus in Lozman's arrest. [26] While the Eleventh Circuit was drafting its opinion on remand, Lozman offered to settle the matter for "$650,000, an apology and an invitation to address the city council". [27] After the Eleventh Circuit remanded Lozman's case to the district court, a retrial was scheduled for April 2020. In lieu of a second trial, the City settled with Lozman in February 2020 for $875,000, a substantial increase of $225,000 from Lozman's earlier settlement offer. [28]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Riviera Beach, Florida</span> City in Florida, United States

Riviera Beach is a city in Palm Beach County, Florida, United States, which was incorporated on September 29, 1922. Due to the location of its eastern boundary, it is also the easternmost municipality in the Miami metropolitan area. In the 2020 U.S. Census, the total population of Riviera Beach residents was 37,604 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida</span> United States federal district court in Florida

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is the federal United States district court with territorial jurisdiction over the southern part of the state of Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas More Law Center</span> Christian conservative law firm in Michigan, US

The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to the Thomas More Law Center website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman Catholic Diocese of Palm Beach</span> Latin Catholic ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Florida, USA

The Diocese of Palm Beach is a Latin Church ecclesiastical territory, or diocese, of the Catholic Church in eastern Florida in the United States The patron saint of the diocese is Mary, mother of Jesus, under the title Queen of the Apostles.

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether state counties enjoyed sovereign immunity from private lawsuits authorized by federal law. The case involved an admiralty claim by an insurer against Chatham County, Georgia for its negligent operation of a drawbridge. The Court ruled unanimously that the county had no basis for claiming immunity because it was not acting as an "arm of the state."

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Florida since January 6, 2015, as a result of a ruling in Brenner v. Scott from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The court ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional on August 21, 2014. The order was stayed temporarily. State attempts at extending the stay failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court denying further extension on December 19, 2014. In addition, a state court ruling in Pareto v. Ruvin allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Miami-Dade County on the afternoon of January 5, 2015. In another state case challenging the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, a Monroe County court in Huntsman v. Heavilin stayed enforcement of its decision pending appeal and the stay expired on January 6, 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Circuit court (Florida)</span> State court in Florida, United States

The Florida circuit courts are state courts and trial courts of original jurisdiction for most controversies. In Florida, the circuit courts are one of four types of courts created by the Florida Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel T. K. Hurley</span> American judge (born 1943)

Daniel T. K. Hurley is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In re: Gill is a landmark Florida court case that in 2010 ended Florida's 33-year ban on adoptions by homosexuals. In 2007, Frank Martin Gill, an openly gay man, had petitioned the circuit court to adopt two boys that he and his partner had been raising as foster children since 2004. Gill was prohibited from adopting by a 1977 Florida law prohibiting adoption by gay men and lesbians in that state. After a four-day trial challenging the law, on November 25, 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman declared the ban violated the equal protection rights of the children and their prospective parents under the Florida Constitution, and granted Gill's adoption request.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Florida</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Florida have federal protections, but many face legal difficulties on the state level that are not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity became legal in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the state since January 6, 2015. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations is outlawed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. In addition, several cities and counties, comprising about 55 percent of Florida's population, have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances. These include Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, among others. Conversion therapy is also banned in a number of cities in the state, mainly in Palm Beach County and the Miami metropolitan area. In September 2023, Lake Worth Beach, Florida became an official "LGBT sanctuary city" to protect and defend LGBT rights.

The Florida State Courts System is the unified state court system of Florida.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Female toplessness in the United States</span>

In the United States, individual states have primary jurisdiction in matters of public morality. The topfreedom movement has claimed success in a few instances in persuading some state and federal courts to overturn some state laws on the basis of sex discrimination or equal protection, arguing that a woman should be free to expose her chest in any context in which a man can expose his. Other successful cases have been on the basis of freedom of expression in protest, or simply that exposure of breasts is not indecent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aileen Cannon</span> Colombian-American judge (born 1981)

Aileen Mercedes Cannon is a Colombian-born American lawyer who has served as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida since 2020. Previously, Cannon worked for the corporate law firm Gibson Dunn from 2009 to 2012, and then as a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida from 2013 to 2020. She was nominated by then President Donald Trump to become a district judge and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in November 2020.

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. ___ (2021), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, dealing with nominal damages to be awarded to individuals whose right to freedom of speech has been suppressed by an entity but subsequently rendered moot due to intervening circumstances. In an 8–1 decision, the Court held that such nominal damages satisfy the Article Three requirement of redressability, when awarded for a past violation of a legal rights.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.

Fane Lozman and the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, have been parties to a number of lawsuits, two of which have been heard by the United States Supreme Court.

A retaliatory arrest or retaliatory prosecution is an arrest or prosecution undertaken in retaliation for a person's exercise of their civil rights. It is a form of prosecutorial misconduct.

References

  1. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 18, 2018). "A Persistent Gadfly Wins Again in the Supreme Court". The New York Times .
  2. 1 2 Barnes, Robert (February 25, 2018). "A Florida provocateur has his day before the U.S. Supreme Court—again". The Washington Post.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Lozman faces Riviera Beach in U.S. Supreme Court for rare second time". The Palm Beach Post.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "U.S. Supreme Court chief justice calls Fane Lozman's arrest 'chilling'". The Palm Beach Post.
  5. 1 2 ID: Magazine of International Design, Volume 54, Issues 1-4, p. 87.
  6. ↑ "That's The Ticker". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. June 20, 2007.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Gary Wolf, Joey Anuff, Dumb Money: Adventures of a Day Trader (2000), p. 86-87.
  8. ↑ United States Patent 5,689,651.
  9. ↑ Keegan, Charlie (December 7, 2016). "Developer receives addresses for property he plans to turn into floating community". WPTV Channel 5, West Palm Beach.
  10. ↑ Kleinberg, Eliot (November 14, 2016). "Judge gives Riviera Beach five days to assign Fane Lozman addresses". The Palm Beach Post.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 "Crusader Upends Tiny South Florida Town". The Orlando Sentinel.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach , 568U.S.115 (2013).
  13. ↑ David R. Maass, "If it Looks Like a Vessel: the Supreme Court's "Reasonable Observer" Test for Vessel Status", Florida Law Review, Volume 65, Issue 3 (2013), p. 896.
  14. ↑ Garvin, Glenn (January 13, 2018). "He's a Marine, a renegade, a vanquisher of corrupt pols. And now: First Amendment icon". The Miami Herald.
  15. 1 2 Norman, Bob (December 13, 2007). "Targeting Citizen Lozman". New Times Broward-Palm Beach . Retrieved June 23, 2018.
  16. 1 2 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 39F.Supp. 3d1392 (S.D. Fla.2014).
  17. 1 2 3 4 Snyder, Jesse (January 1, 2019). "What Fane Lozman Can Teach Us About Free Speech". Wyoming Law Review. 19 (2): 419–451.
  18. 1 2 3 "Fane Lozman Goes to the Supreme Court, Again". The New Yorker. March 2, 2018.
  19. ↑ Barnes, Robert (January 15, 2013). "Floating home is not vessel, Supreme Court says". The Washington Post.
  20. ↑ "Everyday heroes etched in Supreme Court history". USA Today.
  21. ↑ "Fourth Judicial Conference, Justice John Roberts talks about the Lozman case". C-SPAN. August 19, 2013.
  22. ↑ "First the city sank his house. Now, he's at the Supreme Court over free speech case". The Miami Herald.
  23. ↑ Cooper, William (November 17, 2006). "Fears fail to ease over loss of land". The Palm Beach Post.
  24. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (February 27, 2018). "The Curious Case Of A Florida Man Who Called Politicians Corrupt, Got Thrown In Jail". NPR . Retrieved June 23, 2018.
  25. ↑ Liptak, Adam (December 4, 2017). "This 'Tenacious Underdog' Won His First Supreme Court Case. Now He's Back". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved February 1, 2022.
  26. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court hands Fane Lozman second win against Riviera Beach". The Palm Beach Post.
  27. ↑ "Fane Lozman to Riviera Beach: Ending lawsuit will cost $650K, apology". The Palm Beach Post.
  28. ↑ Anderson, Curt (February 5, 2020). "After 2 Supreme Court wins, Florida man gets $875K from city". ABC News .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.