Just admit it you were wrong to criticize them this time. Nobody is all knowing on this forum no need to act like you’re expert on everything concerning Disney.
The state wouldn't be suing Disney. The CFTOD would be.
This is already sounding like a good episode for the next season of South Park between Mickey Mouse and King of Canada.Hubris in action- there is always someone cleverer than you!
Seriously though it would be interesting to see how this works legally.
The royal proclamation (which I witnessed being read out) said:
‘Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of his other realms and territories, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the faith’
England is a part of Great Britain (along with Scotland and Wales) so the King is King of England in the same way that Biden is President of Florida - its a legal fact but not a title
They should have gone full south park though and used his title King of Canada
They could do this to a point. If they don't provide a level of service above & beyond what the local building departments do, then the CFTOD's building department could be absorbed by the local departments. This is why RCID had such a strict building code & inspection/permitting process, they had to set it at a level beyond what Orange County's building department could operate at.
They already do this & have for years.
No, it is not a way to invalidate the change to the district. The contract was entered into before the law existed. That the district was not dissolved means there was no harm created by dissolution. Disney winning an ensuing legal battle with the district just results in the contracts being upheld as valid. The state is not a party to the litigation and the issue is not the law, it somehow being declared invalid would almost certainly be a prime example of inappropriate judicial overreach.
I have no doubt of that. I went to an RCID meeting many years ago.
Its actually a thing - really only used by old school lawyers & the Bar Exam:
That is not true. Reedy Creek Improvement District’s authority over building was not delegated from the counties. There was absolutely no way it could be devolved to the counties as the municipalities also had that authority over their incorporated land.
A few people actually. I will edit my original post to reflect this.
Sorry, I meant edited the wiki. Looks like one person 'The Inedible Bulk'.
John Oliver returns next Sunday, can't wait to hear his discussion on this.I really can’t wait to see what late night skits come of this! I can’t stop laughing just reading through the pages here on the forum.
How? The state would not be a party to the litigation. Disney would also be the defendant, not the state. In order to get the law overturned means someone with standing needs to challenge the validity of the law. The District seeking to nullify a contract doesn’t do that.
AlsoBob Iger today btw:
It’s not just semantics. The actual specifics of who is what and differences between de facto and de jure have been important to this subject the entire time. It’s important to understanding how Reedy Creek Improvement District was originally conceived and worked. Now it is important to understanding who would be taking action against whom.
