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

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Likely someone beat them to the ownership for CFTOD(dot)org and they didn't want to pay for it.
Looks like cftod.org was registered on 2023-02-06 20:25:01 UTC. That's about when the law passed right?
While oversightdistrict.org was registered on 2023-07-19 14:45:11 UTC, clearly wasn't a rush.
Still, cftoversightdistrict.org is available right now for anyone that wants it.

I am hopeful they don't dump the RCID domain out of spite before the lawsuits are resolved given how many links are out there in the world.
They probably have internal stuff using it too, and easier for them to keep it for that reason.
 

pdude81

Well-Known Member
Looks like cftod.org was registered on 2023-02-06 20:25:01 UTC. That's about when the law passed right?
While oversightdistrict.org was registered on 2023-07-19 14:45:11 UTC, clearly wasn't a rush.
Still, cftoversightdistrict.org is available right now for anyone that wants it.


They probably have internal stuff using it too, and easier for them to keep it for that reason.
Filed in the Florida House on 2/6. But you'd have to assume more competency and foresight than any of these processes have shown for me to believe that it was registered on the same day the bill popped up. My guess is that somebody scooped this up for 20 bucks as soon as they found out what was going on. Domain registration seems to hit sometime around 5pm on the day of filing.

However, the legislator who filed or someone else in the know could have grabbed this up with the intention of transferring to CFTOD in the future. But if CFTOD owns this domain, then RCID would immediately own it if the original district is reconstituted later by a judge.

In another oddity, oversightdistrict(dot)org, rcid(dot)org, and ctfod(dot)org all point to different IP addresses.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Filed in the Florida House on 2/6. But you'd have to assume more competency and foresight than any of these processes have shown for me to believe that it was registered on the same day the bill popped up. My guess is that somebody scooped this up for 20 bucks as soon as they found out what was going on. Domain registration seems to hit sometime around 5pm on the day of filing.

However, the legislator who filed or someone else in the know could have grabbed this up with the intention of transferring to CFTOD in the future. But if CFTOD owns this domain, then RCID would immediately own it if the original district is reconstituted later by a judge.

In another oddity, oversightdistrict(dot)org, rcid(dot)org, and ctfod(dot)org all point to different IP addresses.
oversightdistrict.org is the current site. Redirect code was likely added to the old site of rcid.org. In fact, the entirety of the site could still be there but since the redirect code is encountered first, it sends you to oversightdistrict.org. I just tried cftod.org. Apparently no one owns it right now. This explains three different IP addresses.
 

pdude81

Well-Known Member
oversightdistrict.org is the current site. Redirect code was likely added to the old site of rcid.org. In fact, the entirety of the site could still be there but since the redirect code is encountered first, it sends you to oversightdistrict.org. I just tried cftod.org. Apparently no one owns it right now. This explains three different IP addresses.
CFTOD was registered the same day the legislation was introduced, hence my guess that domain/patent troll grabbed it, since it only resolves to the registrar's site. The other two sites having different IPs is odd to me, as you can have cname records for multiple domains to point to the same IP and web server.

If they were changing hosting to a different company then that would explain it. The old redirects are a little clunky but work for the most part.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
CFTOD was registered the same day the legislation was introduced, hence my guess that domain/patent troll grabbed it, since it only resolves to the registrar's site. The other two sites having different IPs is odd to me, as you can have cname records for multiple domains to point to the same IP and web server.

If they were changing hosting to a different company then that would explain it. The old redirects are a little clunky but work for the most part.
Old site was AWS. New site is Cloudflare. The hosting choice probably depends on who got the contract to redesign it.
 

flyakite

Well-Known Member
Orlando sentinel:


A search warrant affidavit released Friday sheds more light on the sexual battery accusations Christian Ziegler is facing amid growing bipartisan calls that he should quit his job as Florida’s Republican Party chair.

The allegations are being brought by a woman who says she had a previous consensual sexual encounter that included Ziegler and his wife, Bridget, also a player in Florida politics, according to the affidavit.

The document obtained through a public records request corroborates details from anonymous sources that were first reported Thursday by the Florida Center for Government Accountability.

Ziegler has not been charged with a crime, and his attorney, Derek Byrd, says he will be cleared of wrongdoing.

Sarasota Police outlined the accusations when applying for a search warrant in the 12th Judicial Circuit for Ziegler’s cellphone, Google email and Google Drive.

Ziegler and the woman who he’d known for 20 years agreed to have a sexual encounter including his wife on Oct. 2, but the woman canceled when she learned Bridget was unable to make it, police said in the affidavit.

The woman told detectives she opened her door to walk her dog and Ziegler entered her apartment and sexually assaulted her, the affidavit states.

“The victim advised Christian did not wear a condom, and he stated ‘I’m leaving the same way I came in,'” the affidavit states.

Ziegler was on surveillance footage visiting the apartment, police said in the affidavit.

Ziegler told detectives in an interview with his attorney present he had consensual sex with the woman and took video of it, initially deleting it but then uploading it to his Google Drive since the allegation, according to the affidavit. Police said in the affidavit that they have not located the footage.

Bridget Ziegler told detectives she was involved in a sexual encounter with her husband and the woman once over a year ago, the affidavit states.

Christian Ziegler is facing calls to resign from both Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Fried, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party.

“I don’t see how he can continue with that investigation ongoing given the gravity of those situations,” DeSantis told reporters following his Georgia debate with California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, according to NBC News. “And so I think he should step aside. I think he should tend to that.”

A heavily redacted Sarasota Police report released Thursday offered few details but included an accusation from a person who reported being “sexually battered” in an Oct. 2 incident at a home in Sarasota.

The redacted police report does not mention Ziegler by name but was released in response to questions about a complaint filed against him.

Although “innocent until proven guilty,” the GOP cannot have a party chair “under that type of scrutiny,” DeSantis said.

“I hope the charges aren’t true. I’ve known him, I’ve known [his wife] Bridget, they’ve been friends. But the mission is more important,” he said.

Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of the conservative education group Moms for Liberty, serves on the board of DeSantis’ Disney World oversight district and also is a member of the Sarasota County School Board.

AND BBC:

 

Brian

Well-Known Member
Who is the district accountable to?
The people. More specifically, the taxpayers of the district.

At least, that's how it should be.

Also, while I disagree with this characterization, CFTOD themselves equated the district to an internal government agency in their court filings.
I did not see these filings, but I'm assuming that by 'internal government agency' they are considering themselves a state executive branch agency, and not an independent special district?
 

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
The people. More specifically, the taxpayers of the district.

At least, that's how it should be.


I did not see these filings, but I'm assuming that by 'internal government agency' they are considering themselves a state executive branch agency, and not an independent special district?
By taxpayers do you mean Disney as they pay most of the taxes and so far, they have not been accountable to them. One board member has gone as far as to say they're there to control Disney's content

Pretty much so
 

Stripes

Premium Member
The people. More specifically, the taxpayers of the district.

At least, that's how it should be.
If the taxpayers of the district could vote out the board, then I’d say you’d be correct.
I did not see these filings, but I'm assuming that by 'internal government agency' they are considering themselves a state executive branch agency, and not an independent special district?
In their Motion to Dismiss filing (for the 2nd amended complaint), the district equated RCID with a “state agency” that had become “irrevocably politically hostile.”

As you might imagine, Disney’s lawyers took them to the cleaners for that comparison.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
The people. More specifically, the taxpayers of the district.

At least, that's how it should be.

And how are they accountable? It's called voting. Something the taxpayers in the District no longer have.

I did not see these filings, but I'm assuming that by 'internal government agency' they are considering themselves a state executive branch agency, and not an independent special district?

Then read them before commenting on their contents. That the Board of Supervisors of the CFTOD thinks it is an agency of the executive branch speaks loudly.

No executive branch state agency has taxing authority. However, special districts, which operates more as a county does, do.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
If the taxpayers of the district could vote out the board, then I’d say you’d be correct.

In their Motion to Dismiss filing (for the 2nd amended complaint), the district equated RCID with a “state agency” that had become “irrevocably politically hostile.”

As you might imagine, Disney’s lawyers took them to the cleaners for that comparison.

RCID was never a "state agency". It was, in essence, a local government.
 

Stripes

Premium Member
RCID was never a "state agency". It was, in essence, a local government.
Exactly, which is what Disney responded with.



IMG_0557.jpeg


IMG_0558.jpeg
 

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

Back
Top Bottom