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

Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
JGamer said:
The number of wanna-be or actual low-level lawyers in this thread is astounding. Do you really think you are a better lawyer then Disney's legal team? I have no doubt every argument that has come up in this thread was reviewed by multiple legal experts on Disney's legal team because that is their job.

Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation that pays millions of dollars a year to their legal team. They know what they are doing. The only way this gets overturned is by a partisian judge trying to make a statement. If that happens, I have no doubt this ends up in the Supreme Court and could result in Citizen's United being overturned. Do you really think politicians want to lose all that sweet lobbying money?

Disney came up with a plan and executed it. They counted on the fact that the state really didn't understand what they were doing and what power Disney actually had in the situation. They did everything in public knowing this was just for headlines and the State was too arrogant to pay attention.
Click to expand...
As an “actual low level lawyer,” I doubt anyone here thinks they are better acquainted with the subject matter than Disney’s legal team. But hey, it’s a discussion board so people are going to discuss 😊
 
Weather_Lady

Weather_Lady

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
I don’t think you understand the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Click to expand...
From Facebook today (and being shared back and forth by and between all my lawyer colleagues)...
338434927_1150453602289409_6318293637789538875_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.

Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?



Really, it invokes King Charles?

/smh



LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.

I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.

Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.

But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...
Click to expand...
Some believe Lilibet isn't the granddaughter of King Charles III, but rather James Hewitt.
 
Spokker

Spokker

New Member
Sir_Cliff said:
It makes him look silly as everyone else is talking about geopolitics, China, Russia, etc. and he is having to talk about fighting Disney World. The whole thing will stick in people's heads and make his main opponent look almost statesmanly in contrast.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The debate moderator is not going to be constantly hammering DeSantis with questions about this while they ask more "legitimate" questions to the other candidates. DeSantis will no doubt have the same opportunity to opine on China, Russia, geopolitics, etc. as the other candidates.

This is assuming this topic is a negative for him, which is not a foregone conclusion.

DeSantis won re-election in a landslide after he started fighting with Disney. This was in a formerly purple state and he even won Miami-Dade County. Social media, which does not represent the average voter, may get a kick out of all this legal maneuvering and King Charles and all that stuff, but DeSantis seems to have connected with voters who don't normally vote Republican by standing against values these voters think are too far-left. There's a chance he may do it nationally and you might miss it if you only hang out on social media, Reddit and pro-Disney echo chambers.

And if DeSantis does make it out of the primary, it's not going to matter what push polls say about Americans being so aghast over what DeSantis has done in Florida. What matters in presidential politics is what a relatively small handful of voters in swing states think and online chatter does not generally reflect what they think.

And this is a guy that turned a swing state dark red.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
JGamer said:
The number of wanna-be or actual low-level lawyers in this thread is astounding. Do you really think you are a better lawyer then Disney's legal team? I have no doubt every argument that has come up in this thread was reviewed by multiple legal experts on Disney's legal team because that is their job.

Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation that pays millions of dollars a year to their legal team. They know what they are doing. The only way this gets overturned is by a partisian judge trying to make a statement. If that happens, I have no doubt this ends up in the Supreme Court and could result in Citizen's United being overturned. Do you really think politicians want to lose all that sweet lobbying money?

Disney came up with a plan and executed it. They counted on the fact that the state really didn't understand what they were doing and what power Disney actually had in the situation. They did everything in public knowing this was just for headlines and the State was too arrogant to pay attention.
Click to expand...
I looked up the average salary of a lawyer at TWDC. Its $167K per year. It is not earth shattering salaries. My former classmate is a lawyer in NYC , his salary is $450K per year working approx 75 hours per week.
 
Vegas Disney Fan

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Spokker said:
I doubt it. The debate moderator is not going to be constantly hammering DeSantis with questions about this while they ask more "legitimate" questions to the other candidates. DeSantis will no doubt have the same opportunity to opine on China, Russia, geopolitics, etc. as the other candidates.
Click to expand...

It’s not the moderator he needs to worry about, it’s the smarta$$ who’s going to be standing next to him on stage and mocking him with it in answer to unrelated questions.

This fight with Disney was supposed to help him win the primary, now it’s looking like a liability.
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
JGamer said:
The number of wanna-be or actual low-level lawyers in this thread is astounding. Do you really think you are a better lawyer then Disney's legal team? I have no doubt every argument that has come up in this thread was reviewed by multiple legal experts on Disney's legal team because that is their job.

Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation that pays millions of dollars a year to their legal team. They know what they are doing. The only way this gets overturned is by a partisian judge trying to make a statement. If that happens, I have no doubt this ends up in the Supreme Court and could result in Citizen's United being overturned. Do you really think politicians want to lose all that sweet lobbying money?

Disney came up with a plan and executed it. They counted on the fact that the state really didn't understand what they were doing and what power Disney actually had in the situation. They did everything in public knowing this was just for headlines and the State was too arrogant to pay attention.
Click to expand...
I can forgive folks here for being clueless about law. What baffles me is the number of politicians with J.D.s who don’t know how laws work. What were they doing in law school?

Hell, some of them don’t even seem to understand lessons from their high school civics class.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Nothing about this implies wishing for or calling for the death of anyone.
Click to expand...

Right now, somewhere in the world two things are likely occurring:

1 - In the depths of some mysterious message board someone is creating a detailed list of "the descendants". They'll probably give it a "cool" nickname too.

2 - People who are responsible for the security of that group are deciding if the first item and the use of the list for this metric changes their security exposure at all.

The second group is likely determining there is no impact from the first group at all. :)
 
Spokker

Spokker

New Member
JGamer said:
The number of wanna-be or actual low-level lawyers in this thread is astounding. Do you really think you are a better lawyer then Disney's legal team?
Click to expand...
This should be a kind of fallacy, the assumption that because people are paid a lot they must know what they are doing so don't even try to oppose them. My wife is an attorney and works for the court, and she has talked about highly paid lawyers employed by major banks making the stupidest mistakes and not understanding the law. These are banks that people would apply your comment to. "Really think you can win against a big bank? Don't even try."

The only way this gets overturned is by a partisian judge trying to make a statement.
Click to expand...
Hey, no spoilers, please. You may have already decided the outcome but that doesn't mean the rest of us have. Does this mean the judge that upholds it would not be partisan? Or do we just judge every legal matter on whether the judge was appointed by a Republican or a Democrat?
 
ToTBellHop

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
Right now, somewhere in the world two things are likely occurring:

1 - In the depths of some mysterious message board someone is creating a detailed list of "the descendants". They'll probably give it a "cool" nickname too.

2 - People who are responsible for the security of that group are deciding if the first item and the use of the list for this metric changes their security exposure at all.

The second group is likely determining there is no impact from the first group at all. :)
Click to expand...
They’ve been found and are doing Charles proud:
1680199747641.gif
 

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

Back
Top Bottom