News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Thoughts on the District’s response to Disney’s motion to dismiss (state case):
  • They don’t exactly seem confident that SB 1604 is going to be upheld.
  • Have to love how they contradict Garcia’s speech about how they had to do this by claiming they technically acted first and ignore that they called a special session in response to being sued.
  • They brought up the nuclear canard! A true sign of understanding and a strong argument! When in doubt, bring out the nuclear boogeyman.
  • No surprise that they have the 11th Hour lie.
  • Love the righteous indignation over the idea of Disney controlling development at a place name, let me check here, oh right, Walt Disney World that they largely own.
  • The District argues that the development agreements would actually come back into effect in 2028 but that ignores the requirement for them to reratify them.
  • I like how they get to page 8 and then suddenly decide they need to define void ad initio In the main body of the argument.
  • Seriously, have these people never actually looked at who they’re supposed to be serving? It’s one thing to parade on TV about how you have work to do and people to serve, but to actually put it in a motion is something else
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Now reading the state’s motion to dismiss Disney’s case in federal court:
  • Right into the mischaracterizations and omissions. Other districts set their taxes. The state didn’t require building codes when the District was created.
  • Nuclear! And on page 2 to boot.
  • 11th Hour lie. Check.
  • Contradicts District’s claim that they would be bound by the development agreements in the future when SB 1604 expires
  • They cite the OPPAGA report that doesn’t really support their actions.
  • Calls votes by land Owners an “oddity” which we know is a lie
  • Calls other districts, that were not actually changed “antiquated”
It seems the state is really hoping that nobody checks what anyone is saying and just believes whatever they say.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
Now reading the state’s motion to dismiss Disney’s case in federal court:
  • Right into the mischaracterizations and omissions. Other districts set their taxes. The state didn’t require building codes when the District was created.
  • Nuclear! And on page 2 to boot.
  • 11th Hour lie. Check.
  • Contradicts District’s claim that they would be bound by the development agreements in the future when SB 1604 expires
  • They cite the OPPAGA report that doesn’t really support their actions.
  • Calls votes by land Owners an “oddity” which we know is a lie
  • Calls other districts, that were not actually changed “antiquated”
It seems the state is really hoping that nobody checks what anyone is saying and just believes whatever they say.
Click to expand...
That language truly annoys judges.
 
Weather_Lady

Weather_Lady

Well-Known Member
As an experienced attorney/employee in the federal courts, I'm surprised by the at-turns flamboyant, inflammatory, and unsophisticated language used in these filings. Is this typical of legal writing in the Southern states -- perhaps a cultural difference between what is considered proper there, and up here in the northeast? Or is this just the work of attorneys who are transparently trying to titillate the public or give sound bytes to the tabloid news, rather than be taken seriously by the court?

At the level and location where I work, judges would roll their eyes at this kind of writing -- if not openly rebuke the attorneys who engaged in it.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Weather_Lady said:
As an experienced attorney/employee in the federal courts, I'm surprised by the at-turns flamboyant, inflammatory, and unsophisticated language used in these filings. Is this typical of legal writing in the Southern states -- perhaps a cultural difference between what is considered proper there, and up here in the northeast? Or is this just the work of attorneys who are transparently trying to titillate the public or give sound bytes to the tabloid news, rather than be taken seriously by the court?

At the level and location where I work, judges would roll their eyes at this kind of writing -- if not openly rebuke the attorneys who engaged in it.
Click to expand...

No, it is absolutely not typical of Southern legal writing. I'm in Atlanta at one of the largest corporate law firms in the world and we'd never file something like this.

This is PR spin as a legal filing.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Weather_Lady said:
As an experienced attorney/employee in the federal courts, I'm surprised by the at-turns flamboyant, inflammatory, and unsophisticated language used in these filings. Is this typical of legal writing in the Southern states -- perhaps a cultural difference between what is considered proper there, and up here in the northeast? Or is this just the work of attorneys who are transparently trying to titillate the public or give sound bytes to the tabloid news, rather than be taken seriously by the court?

At the level and location where I work, judges would roll their eyes at this kind of writing -- if not openly rebuke the attorneys who engaged in it.
Click to expand...
I clerked for a state appellate court judge many years ago and he wouldn't even put up with this type of language in the parties' briefs. He was known to sua sponte strike a statement of facts section with leave to file an amended brief within 24 hours of the entry of the order. Once a few attorneys were seriously inconvenienced by this nonsense, we tended to get much more readable briefs.
 
drnilescrane

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
DCBaker said:
Ah, yes! I was just coming back to ask if you were talking about the Federal suit.
Click to expand...
The CFTOD Federal Motion to Dismiss was filed yesterday too - I think it went unnoticed because of the state action.

I thought we'd get some spicy language in this one, but no, they *really* just want to fight this in state court and aren't even going to bother making any arguments.
 

Attachments

  • show_temp.pl-4.pdf
    134.6 KB · Views: 155
Last edited:
Weather_Lady

Weather_Lady

Well-Known Member
flyakite said:
With Ashley Moody’s name first as submitter, is it assumed she had a main role in it’s writing?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Underlings often do the heavy lifting when it comes to researching and writing, so she may have made significant changes and be responsible for the style, or she may simply have reviewed it and signed her name. Regardless, a lawyer is ultimately 100% responsible for the things to which they sign their name, whether they wrote them or not.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So does the District not think the federal judge knows what “void ad initio” means? It’s just striking how they don’t use the phrase at all in their federal filing after using it so much in the state filing.

You have to love though how they argument that the venue is inappropriate because of the requirements in the agreements they say are void. Again, do they think the contradiction won’t be noticed? When it’s adjacent sentences?
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
So does the District not think the federal judge knows what “void ad initio” means? It’s just striking how they don’t use the phrase at all in their federal filing after using it so much in the state filing.

You have to love though how they argument that the venue is inappropriate because of the requirements in the agreements they say are void. Again, do they think the contradiction won’t be noticed? When it’s adjacent sentences?
Click to expand...
It’s void ab initio. Did they misspell it or was this an autocorrect?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom