From a strictly lay person point of view it looks like a combination of what the........... and pulled from their collective behinds, then throwing it all against the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully one of our legal eagles can shed some light on it
Thank youThoughts on the District’s response:
- In their argument for a stay they state the outcome of no other cases would depend on the federal case proceeding. This seems to contradict their reasoning for the state case, that this is an issue that is likely to reoccur.
- They point to the forum selection clause of the restrictive covenants, which they claim has never legally existed.
- They claim public interest should not factor after highlighting it as a reason for why the state case is continuing.
- They seem unprepared to deal with the RCID’s original charter and how it provided for certain unique processes. That’s less important here but it’s likely important to Disney’s defense in the state case.
- They imply the development agreement rezones the District which isn’t true as the Development agreements locked in the established zoning, zoning that remains largely the same from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and still has not been changed by the District.
- As in so many of their statements, there is just complete denial that for all intents and purposes Disney is their constituent.
- The actual timeline regarding the agreements and HB 9B is predictably absent.
- They sure weren’t acting like their legislative declaration was just an opinion with no actual validity when they passed it.
- Now SB 1604 is just fine and dandy. They weren’t so sure in state court. If the law is valid as they argue then there is no need for the state case.
- “purported retaliatory motive”
- They point out that SB 4C applied to other districts but conveniently ignore that they were reconstituted largely as-is which of course also undermines the argument that SB 1604 has general application.
“purported retaliatory motive”
What's your take on the state claiming that enjoining them from enforcing 9B (and potentially 4C) doesn't mean a rollback to a pre-4C state?
That’s a question better asked of someone else.
Seems quite ironic (if not moronic) them trying to deny any responsibility to enforce state laws while also citing laws that would enforce state laws. It's quite laughable and I hope a judge will rule accordingly. Seems he's trying to parse the law and re-define his duty?
Umm, seems to be the basis of an indictment defense this week? I'm not confident it will prevail in the final judgement
Probably, but the truth is real whereas misleading thoughts spoken as if it were fact, is still incorrect. The part that settles all that is that the burden is on the state to prove that the person knew it was wrong but said it anyway. We've had a lot of that around lately. Evidence is the key here in determining the truth along with common sense. What if I woke up one morning and was positive that I was the King of Egypt, that alone wouldn't make me the King of Egypt, proof and evidence would determine that.
True.
I seriously doubt any of the lawyers are filing false pleadings. There is a difference between facts and the legal conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. Most of the hyperbole involves the latter.
Most charging documents include intent and state of mind. Intent is tough to prove on a thought and state of mind is even harder. A charging document has multiple parts, so lets just use your "King of Egypt" for an example. The charging document echoes the charge which would be in the federal, state, or local criminal code. So if the criminal code read "if a person a. knowingly attempted to defraud another b. with intent to defraud c. by impersonating the identity of Egyptian Royalty then they have committed X crime. Then you have to prove a person knowingly attempted to defraud by knowing they were impersonating Egypt royalty. You have to prove each part of that. Even if defrauding was their true intent. If you can't prove that they didn't believe they weren't Egyptian royalty then you have no case. This is a stretch but I am a retired LEO and I have seen many good cases gone south by a bad choice of charges. If you over reach on charges that are tough to prove, most times you don't win. Back then DA's wanted the big headlines in a re-election year. Now I just wish the DA's would prosecute crime.
It is not the basis of a recent indictment that has made national headlines.
