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

[Goofyernmost]

He will be out of office in 2028. It's extremely hard (but not impossible) for a candidate without an office, unless they were a former VP.

Also depends how he does. If he finishes 2nd, maybe. But I wouldn't discount a complete flame-out.



Scott is up for election in 2024. If he wins reelection he won't be up again until 2030.

I thought Ron will have used up his initial gubernatorial allowance in 2024. They don't have 6 year terms for governor in Florida do they? If he loses the primary in 2024 he could run for Scotts seat instead couldn't he?

 

[pdude81]

I thought Ron will have used up his initial gubernatorial allowance in 2024. They don't have 6 year terms for governor in Florida do they? If he loses the primary in 2024 he could run for Scotts seat instead couldn't he?

Only as an independent. Rick Scott and Joe Biden are both running for reelection in 2024.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I thought Ron will have used up his initial gubernatorial allowance in 2024. They don't have 6 year terms for governor in Florida do they? If he loses the primary in 2024 he could run for Scotts seat instead couldn't he?

The governor of Florida is elected during the presidential midterms. Unless he resigns or is otherwise incapacitated, DeSantis’ term as governor will not end until January 2027.

 

[mikejs78]

I thought Ron will have used up his initial gubernatorial allowance in 2024. They don't have 6 year terms for governor in Florida do they? If he loses the primary in 2024 he could run for Scotts seat instead couldn't he?

His next election is 2026. If he loses the primary (unless he drops out really early) he would have a hard time being able to pivot and run for Senate in 2024 because of ballot qualification requirements and such...

 

[mikejs78]

Disney Seeks Mediation, But DeSantis Says Mediation Wouldn't Be Productive in First Amendment Fight Headed to Federal Court

Disney suggested mediation, but Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' legal team said that mediation would not be productive

blogmickey.com

 

[James Alucobond]

'Member when people said they should compromise?

 

[JoeCamel]

'Member when people said they should compromise?

'Member when some people thought this was a serious action and not just a political stunt?

 

[Andrew C]

What about meditation instead?

 

[mkt]

With DeSantis on the Stump, Disney Sees a Long Campaign Ahead

The company, long allergic to controversy, is likely to be the subject of very public and partisan criticism throughout the Republican primary.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Lilofan]

'Member when people said they should compromise?

DeSantis should compromise, wear Mickey Ears at his next public appearance and pray his approval numbers running for higher position rise above 10%.

 

[afterabme]

Counting down till Disney’s motion to dismiss is heard in State Court on Friday.

Also BlogMickey article: https://blogmickey.com/2023/07/disn...sm-oversight-district-in-state-level-lawsuit/

 

[lazyboy97o]

So we now have two competing affidavits.

In her affidavit, Erika Washington Perry seems to suggest that since Tina Graham was out of the office the matter was better handled by Tracey Borden, to whom she would bring the materials. So why didn’t she have Borden come to the lobby? It does seem like she didn’t really know what was happening and didn’t pay it too much attention. Information in the process servers notices of her age, height and weight suggest a longer interaction in line with her own affidavits.

Reading Perry’s affidavit again, what struck out to me was the last sentence under point 7 where she states “The process server did not ask for Mr. Garcia as the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Classe as District Administrator, or any individual Board Member”. Both affidavits agree that Bedford, the process server, arrived at the District headquarters looking for the named individuals. The only reason Perry was involved is because those individuals and others were not present. Guessing here, but it sounds like the issue is that, upon learning that none of the named individuals were present, that Bedford didn’t then again ask Perry for each individual by name and title in the specific order. That seems weasely and a bit disingenuous to me. They weren’t there. No amount of asking different people by title or in any order would change that basic fact.

 

[Disney Analyst]

So we now have two competing affidavits.

In her affidavit, Erika Washington Perry seems to suggest that since Tina Graham was out of the office the matter was better handled by Tracey Borden, to whom she would bring the materials. So why didn’t she have Borden come to the lobby? It does seem like she didn’t really know what was happening and didn’t pay it too much attention. Information in the process servers notices of her age, height and weight suggest a longer interaction in line with her own affidavits.

Reading Perry’s affidavit again, what struck out to me was the last sentence under point 7 where she states “The process server did not ask for Mr. Garcia as the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Classe as District Administrator, or any individual Board Member”. Both affidavits agree that Bedford, the process server, arrived at the District headquarters looking for the named individuals. The only reason Perry was involved is because those individuals and others were not present. Guessing here, but it sounds like the issue is that, upon learning that none of the named individuals were present, that Bedford didn’t then again ask Perry for each individual by name and title in the specific order. That seems weasely and a bit disingenuous to me. They weren’t there. No amount of asking different people by title or in any order would change that basic fact.

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.

 

[James Alucobond]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.

It's just part of the ongoing argument over how the members of the CFTOD board were served. CFTOD is basically saying that the server did not properly inquire about the presence of each board member separately by name and title in a sequence of distinct queries, instead asking for all in list form by name only as a single inquiry. Sounds like a quest for an esoteric technicality to me, though I have no idea if there's any merit to it.

 

[GoofGoof]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.

Yeah it seems pointless to argue this point, but they are desperate to have something I guess. I am guessing why it matters is if Disney failed to properly serve the federal lawsuit papers to the board then the state lawsuit would have been formally started first which gives it more grounds to be heard before the Federal case. If the Federal case started first then they should defer the state case until the federal is resolved. I’m no lawyer so maybe that’s way off base but why else would it matter so much for the state case? If the papers were not served the right way couldn't they just serve them over again? Thats why I assume its related to the timing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.

In their reply to Disney’s motion to dismiss the state case, the District argued that the state case is actually the first case because Disney didn’t properly serve the District defendants in their federal case. The District argued that Disney’s process server didn’t follow the rules of how to serve government officials laid out in state law. To support this claim, the District included an affidavit (a sworn written statement) from Eryka Washington Perry, the director of communications for the District.

Disney filed their comment on the District’s reply to the motion for dismissal and included two affidavits from the process server, Maranatha Bedford. Bedford’s affidavits are more detailed and suggest a longer interaction than I think is suggested by Perry’s affidavit.

The rules for service of governments and their officials require that certain persons be tried first. You’re supposed to have someone whose job it is to accept such documents (registered agent), and from there you basically work your way down the ladder until you get to the point where you can leave the documents with any employee at the main office. The District’s reply to the motion to dismiss argues these rules were not followed but doesn’t get into the specifics of how the process was not followed and just points to Perry’s attached affidavit.

The District admits they did not have a registered agent (as required by state law), so we know the problem wasn’t with not serving the registered agent. Based on the affidavits, we also know that the defendants were not present at the District headquarters. Statement 5 of Perry’s affidavit acknowledges that she knew the process server was there to serve the board members and district administrator. So what then is the actual problem if there was no registered agent and nobody in the follow up hierarchy was present? I think the clue is in statement 7 where Perry declares that she was not asked for Garcia, Classe and the rest of the board by name and title. I’m guessing that the District is arguing that they were not properly served because Bedford did not stop and ask Perry for each individual by name and title in the proper order even though both knew they were not present and Perry knew Bedford was there serving legal documents.

It’s a good bit of back and forth, but I was trying to figure out how Disney failed to perfect service as has been claimed a few times now. I know courts and lawyers like rules, technical details and procedures, but this just seems a bit ridiculous. How many times was Bedford supposed to ask and be told that individuals were not present before being allowed to move on to the next person on the list? Perry wasn’t even the first person she spoke to regarding the presence of the defendants. Not being allowed to inquire about the presence of multiple persons at once seems nonsensical and is not specifically prohibited by the statute. There might be more specific rules regarding conduct when serving documents with which I’m unfamiliar but it seems like they would have been mentioned.

 

[JoeCamel]

That seems weasely and a bit disingenuous to me.

Ya think?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah it seems pointless to argue this point, but they are desperate to have something I guess. I am guessing why it matters is if Disney failed to properly serve the federal lawsuit papers to the board then the state lawsuit would have been formally started first which gives it more grounds to be heard before the Federal case. If the Federal case started first then they should defer the state case until the federal is resolved. I’m no lawyer so maybe that’s way off base but why else would it matter so much for the state case? If the papers were not served the right way couldn't they just serve them over again? Thats why I assume its related to the timing.

Correct. The District is trying to set up their case in state court as the technically first case which should therefore be handled first.

Despite their own declaration and SB 1604, the District has still yet to act in a way contrary to the agreements. My guess is that they understand that they can’t actually act unilaterally and that SB 1604 is of dubious validity. This is the venue where they need that win. Even if they win in federal court, they’d still have to win this case.

On the federal level, getting the contracts declared void ab initio would seriously undermine a lot of Disney’s case. There are no violations of the contracts clause or takings clause if there are no valid contracts in the first place.

 

[GoofGoof]

Correct. The District is trying to set up their case in state court as the technically first case which should therefore be handled first.

Despite their own declaration and SB 1604, the District has still yet to act in a way contrary to the agreements. My guess is that they understand that they can’t actually act unilaterally and that SB 1604 is of dubious validity. This is the venue where they need that win. Even if they win in federal court, they’d still have to win this case.

On the federal level, getting the contracts declared void ab initio would seriously undermine a lot of Disney’s case. There are no violations of the contracts clause or takings clause if there are no valid contracts in the first place.

In theory if the state wins in Federal court doesn’t that validate SB 1604 since that has now been added to the Federal case? So in theory Disney could win in state court but then have the contracts invalidated by SB 1604 if they lose in Federal court.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In theory if the state wins in Federal court doesn’t that validate SB 1604 since that has now been added to the Federal case? So in theory Disney could win in state court but then have the contracts invalidated by SB 1604 if they lose in Federal court.

No, and this gets to Disney’s argument for mootness. If the federal courts uphold SB 1604 there is no state case because the District didn‘t re-enter the agreements as required by the law. SB 1604 does not provide for an opt-out, it requires a second opt-in.