Disney sues Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over loss of special district

OMG! He willingly admitted to violating their 1st amendment rights. No conservative judge will rule in his favor.

 

It's amazing that you fail to understand that Reedy Creek was not Disney, unless Disney committed securities fraud by claiming that the municipal bonds that Reedy Creek put out were not for the sole benefit of Disney.

Florida did nothing to Disney. Florida dissolved Reedy Creek and allowed the area to create a new special district as every other special district in Florida. Disney does not have the right to be it's own government.

 

Just lol. Before DenSantard changed things, the Reedy Creek Board was handpicked by the majority landowner in the district. I wonder who that is.

 

1. They were put out for the benefit of Reedy Creek, in which Disney is (by far) the majority land owner. The beneficiary was primarily Disney but they were not the SOLE beneficiary. (Not that it matters whether they were or not)
2. Disney does not have the right to deal established in 1967 but once they had the deal it was unconstitutional for Florida to rescind in retaliation for Disney engaging on Constitutionally protected speech
a. US Constitution Article I, Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

In short, the state of Florida cannot void a contract without a compelling government interest. It's very hard to argue that there was a compelling government interest all of sudden after 50 years of RCID existence with no problem.

b Supreme Court, O'Hare Truck Service vs. City of Northlake

In this case the Supreme Court ruled, "Respondents' theory [City of Northlake], in essence, is that no justification is needed for their actions, since government officials are entitled, in the exercise of their political authority, to sever relations with an outside contractor for any reason including punishment for political opposition. Government officials may indeed terminate at will relationships, unmodified by any legal constraints, without cause; but it does not follow that this discretion can be exercised to impose conditions on expressing, or not expressing, specific political views,"

 

You think Disney had a contract with Florida that has been violated? Pray tell, what is the contract that Florida violated by dissolving Reedy Creek? What service was Disney providing that Florida is no longer partaking of?

Here's a hint. O'Hare Truck Service vs. City of Northlake is nowhere near on point. Disney and Florida did not have a contract of any kind. Even if you want to try to say that there was a contract, even though there wasn't, Disney has failed to live up to their end of the bargain. The presentation to the legislature that Walt Disney, himself, gave to the Florida Legislature looks nothing like today's Disney World. EPCOT was supposed to be a city with residents, not a theme park.







If you're trying to claim that the restrictive covenant entered into between Reedy Creek and Disney was a contract, you'd be wrong. It falls under statutory Florida law and Reedy Creek failed to properly notice the property owners. Therefore the covenants fail, on their face.

 

“All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” the company said. Documents for the February 8 meeting show it was noticed in the Orlando Sentinel as required by law.

 

No. They weren't. They failed to notify all effected residents, by mail, before the meeting. They also "passed" a different version of the agreements in the second meeting than what was proposed in the first, which is illegal. Disney, also, can not be given governmental powers through an agreement. Again, Disney does not have the right to be its own government. Giving Disney authority over the governmental functions of the Central Florida Oversight Board would be a violation of the Florida Constitution. SECTION 11. Prohibited special laws.— (10) disposal of public property, including any interest therein, for private purposes; and (12) private incorporation or grant of privilege to a private corporation.

By the way, still waiting on the contract that Florida and Disney are supposed to be bound by.

 

It's all probably moot, anyway. DeSantis has openly admitted to punishing them for their speech. That's a no no. The very conservative court will not care that he's a republitard. They will honor the constitution, first.

 

Disney is not being punished for their speech. Nothing is being done to Disney, at all. Conflating Disney with Reedy Creek is Disney admitting to securities fraud. I'm not sure how many times you have to be told that.

 

As the majority landowner, Disney got to pick the Reedy Creek Board. So they controlled Reedy Creek.

 

They are being punished. There was an agreement between Reedy Creek and Disney, Ron DumDum is seeking to void that agreement by replacing Reedy Creek with this Central Florida Tourism board.

 

Well, DeSantis disagrees with you. He said it himself. Said he'd show them whose boss by putting a prison on Disney property.

 

Reedy Creek is gone. It is not coming back.

Again, the agreement was invalid on its face. It was not legal and nothing will change that.

Desantis did not say he will put a prison on Disney property. He said that people were making suggestions as to what to do with parts of Reedy Creek that weren't owned by Disney and that it would be, "analyzed as to what would make sense."

Facts matter.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dWSjqNYVReM

 

It was legal.

But that's why Disney has filed suit.

 

It is bizarre how so many, including DeSantis, didn't even know what Reedy Creek was until the day after Disney used it's freedom of speech rights. DeSantis clearly asked his team to figure out a way to punish Disney. Now, he's butthurt because he know he screwed up, so, he admitted he violated their rights, and doubled-down with the "maybe a prison yuck yuck yuck."

It's obvious to everyone except those who can't see past their loyalty to DeSantis. The man ADMITTED it. But here you are, "nu uh, no he didn't."

LOL.

Can't wait for the CONSERVATIVE court to hear this case.

 

The best part is Ron DeSantis ending his political career over this.

I also like how he is willing to kill jobs for Floridians except his buddy Gilzean and his 400k/year handout.

 

Their market cap is down $11B since the Trans Launch.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BUD?p=BUD&.tsrc=fin-srch

'Tranheuser-Busch's current VP of marketing (currently on leave, not fired) said that Bud Light's image had been "fratty" and involved "low humor."'

Customers' said "Fine" and moved on.

'Oooh, it's like a regional competition now:'



http://ace.mu.nu/archives/404356.php

 

PRIDE Alert: "Family-friendly" "Pride" event organizers cancel an event in Florida, because they're "worried" about the new law signed by DeSantis stating that businesses can lose their licenses if they put on shows featuring nudity or simulated sex in public.

'But this is a "family-friendly" event, supposedly! Surely you weren't planning on showing naked men and simulated gay sex in a "family-friendly" event, were you? Apparently that was the plan, so they're cancelling.'



What a loss.

 

Projection: Disney's hand-picked judge reverses, recuses -- and accuses

• Disney is in Central Florida.
• Disney went judge shopping to North Fl to get a judge that hates DeSantis and loves Disney.
• FL counter sues in Central FL
• Judge finally forced to recuse, accuses Fl of 'Judge shopping.'

'Now Disney’s in a jam' with the case reassigned to an impartial 'judge. The big problem' for 'Disney' is that they 'can’t win on the law and can’t win the public forum, and' their shopped judge was 'probably the only Plan B they had. At some point, Disney will have to come to grips with the fact that they killed their golden-egg goose in Reedy Creek by foolishly engaging in the kind of partisan and culture-war politics they had avoided for decades in order to maintain their privileged position. And they’d better start figuring out a way to exit gracefully from the fight, or at least recognize the First Rule of Holes.'

Disney's biggest problem that they 'can’t show a Contracts Clause violation, or get damages under the First Amendment or the Takings Clause, if all you lost was a contract that wasn’t enforceable.'

Disney stuck their big fat nose in between the Free Folks of Florida and their desire to end sex grooming of K-3rd graders by the politically extreme teacher's unions. They expected that they could force the State to reverse and instead, got their special favor dissolved. The 11th circuit precedence is not as favorable to Disney as some of the lying fake news propagandizers' like to pretend.

'dissolution is the withdrawal of specially legislatively granted governmental power, not a generally available benefit or contracting opportunity, and that may well be constitutional.'

For Example: 'In 2011, the Alabama Legislature barred payroll deductions "of any contribution to an organization that uses any portion of those contributions for political activity." A union (the Alabama Education Association) sued, claiming the statute violated the First Amendment "the subjective motivations of the lawmakers in passing the Act were to retaliate against AEA for its political speech on education policy. No, said the court in In re Hubbard (11th Cir. 2015):'

Why?

'[A]s a matter of law, the First Amendment does not support the kind of claim AEA makes here: a challenge to an otherwise constitutional statute based on the subjective motivations of the lawmakers who passed it.'

Well, that's interesting, that seems to be precisely the argument that Disney is trying to make.

So how clear is precedent on this point? Pretty darn clear, it turns out:

'In United States v. O'Brien, the Supreme Court held that, as a "principle of constitutional law," courts cannot "strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive." The plaintiff in O'Brien had challenged a congressional statute on free-speech grounds by citing from the legislative history statements of three Congressmen and then using those statements to argue that "the 'purpose' of Congress" in passing the statute "was 'to suppress freedom of speech.'" The Supreme Court rejected the challenge outright, citing the "fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication" that courts may not "void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it."'

No wonder they judge shopping for a Disney loving, DeSantis hating judge, their position has some very serious problems.

'This Court's precedent applying O'Brien recognizes that, when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose. We have held that many times.'

'The O'Brien rule applies here because Act 761 does not, on its face, impinge on any constitutional rights…. The only basis for AEA's retaliation claim is the alleged retaliatory motive that Alabama's lawmakers had when passing Act 761. That is precisely the challenge that O'Brien, and our decisions following it, foreclose.'

Ooof!

 

For all the mental midgets that still think Disney's lawsuit is valid...

I'll just leave this right here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna103965

 

I have no real desire to care because things will go right back to the way it was when DeSantis term ends. But your link doesn’t do what you think it does. Not even sure Disney isn’t stalling here.

• Disney last week had asked to drop its other claims in the case because they are being actively pursued in a separate state-level lawsuit in Florida.

 

Disney drops everything but the First Amendment claim. So all the Special District Crap that they filed in Federal Court, they have conceded as FL successfully moved this to the State Court.

And that First Amendment is squarely counted by 'formidable 11th Circuit precedent, Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. Bentley (In re Hubbard), 803 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir 2015).'

'Under Hubbard, "when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose."

Disney has decided to drop several claims it brought in federal court.

'Disney got outlawyered here by DeSantis's team. The people who told you it had a slam-dunk federal case have some egg on their faces right now.'

 

Yeah... not so much. There have been people crowing in this thread about how hard Florida is going to lose in federal court and that the state court has no jurisdiction. They've been declaring, loudly, that other, "legal scholars" have said that Disney is in the right and will lose the case in federal court. You should go back and read the thread and actually understand the issues here, before you decide to step in it.

Things will not go back to the east they were when DeSantis' term ends. The Central Florida Tourism Board doesn't have the same powers that the Rest Creek Improvement District had and it will not be a puppet government of Disney.

 

That will certainly strike fear into the heart of Disney and the DP.

“Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” Voltaire

 

I don't think it's Disney's right to have their own special districts so I don't think this case is going to go too well