There is no known prior precedent when law-abiding people were issued trespass warning for going shopping to the shopping centers, especially when consent is given by the businesses (tenants of the shopping plaza). There is no trespass when consent is present Gruver v State, App.5. Dist., 816 So. 2d 835 (2002). Additionally, Florida Statute clearly states that consent can be given by "lessee of the premises".
But RK Centers and Raanan Katz is a different story. In spite of prior court ruling against them, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, and RK Centers continued to abuse Trespass law and harass people, depriving them from Constitutionally protected activities. Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, and RK Centers are subject to trespass and/or conversion themselves if they enter leased premises without business owner authorization or prior notice.
![]()
Several courts have held that individuals may exercise their free speech rights on private property. In a number of these cases, the result is justified because the shopping mall or other private property have become the functional equivalent of town squares where political speeches were once given. The first case to resolve the conflict between free expression and private property ownership was Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946).
In Food Employees Union 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 US 308, 88 S.Gt. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968) the court determined that the shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district involved in Marsh.
"The State," said Justice Marshall, "may not delegate the power, through the use of it's trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment Rights on the premises in a manner and for the purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put" (391 U.S at 319-20)
RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz continued abusing trespass law violating People's Constitutional Rights. RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz are represented by attorneys Alan Kluger, Todd Levine of Miami based law firm Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen, Levine. In 2009 Cort ruled against RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz on trespass matter, they were represented by the same attorneys in that case 2009-79604-CA02.
But RK Centers and Raanan Katz is a different story. In spite of prior court ruling against them, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, and RK Centers continued to abuse Trespass law and harass people, depriving them from Constitutionally protected activities. Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, and RK Centers are subject to trespass and/or conversion themselves if they enter leased premises without business owner authorization or prior notice.
Several courts have held that individuals may exercise their free speech rights on private property. In a number of these cases, the result is justified because the shopping mall or other private property have become the functional equivalent of town squares where political speeches were once given. The first case to resolve the conflict between free expression and private property ownership was Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946).
In that case, the US supreme court held that the town, holly owned by the private corporation had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside of it's ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In the circumstances the court reasoned, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." (326 U.S. at 506.) When the Court balanced the owner's interest against the "preferred position" given to First Amendment freedom, the owners rights had to give way. Id. at509.
In Food Employees Union 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 US 308, 88 S.Gt. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968) the court determined that the shopping center was the functional equivalent of the business district involved in Marsh.
"The State," said Justice Marshall, "may not delegate the power, through the use of it's trespass laws, wholly to exclude those members of the public wishing to exercise their First Amendment Rights on the premises in a manner and for the purpose generally consonant with the use to which the property is actually put" (391 U.S at 319-20)
RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz continued abusing trespass law violating People's Constitutional Rights. RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz are represented by attorneys Alan Kluger, Todd Levine of Miami based law firm Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen, Levine. In 2009 Cort ruled against RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniels Katz on trespass matter, they were represented by the same attorneys in that case 2009-79604-CA02.