Brian
Well-Known Member
I don't see a way the records search (in response to the AG and Sentinel's request) could have been handled exclusively by attorneys without the district staff's cooperation.This would have been handled by attorneys.
I don't see a way the records search (in response to the AG and Sentinel's request) could have been handled exclusively by attorneys without the district staff's cooperation.This would have been handled by attorneys.
But that isn't what they were looking for. Disney saying we want to discuss new agreements isn't an issue. They were looking for something showing intent. They didn't find that.The question is when did the agreements first get discussed? The meeting minutes don’t suggest Disney just showing up and saying “Hey, how about this?” There was some point before the public hearings when the board was presented with the idea (or even potentially vice versa) and those documents were given to the board. There should be a record of someone sending the contracts to the board at the very minimum.
No but any communications between the RCID board and its attorneys are fairly safe.I don't see a way the records search (in response to the AG and Sentinel's request) could have been handled exclusively by attorneys.
I get that, but what you keep describing goes beyond documents not just meeting the very specific request. It does seem odd though that a newspaper wouldn’t use broader wording I. Their own request.But that isn't what they were looking for. Disney saying we want to discuss new agreements isn't an issue. They were looking for something showing intent. They didn't find that.
Interesting point. I do wonder, now that new board members have taken over, if they can waive attorney-client privilege.No but any communications between the RCID board and its attorneys are fairly safe.
Nothing stopping them (or anyone else really) from giving it a second, broader try.I get that, but what you keep describing goes beyond documents not just meeting the very specific request. It does seem odd though that a newspaper wouldn’t use broader wording I. Their own request.
It is? Where? I’m admittedly skimming, but I don’t see it in the meeting minutes before the first public hearing.The request is in the public record, I believe.
Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.Interesting point. I do wonder, now that new board members have taken over, if they can waive attorney-client privilege.
If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.
The new board doesn’t have the same attorney. The old RCID board was represented by Edward Milgrim. The new board is not.If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.
ETA: They could plead the 5th, but that would likely result in a loss in the court of public opinion.
Without commenting on all that: Bottom line is I seriously doubt there is anything to find. I would bet just about anything on it.If this ultimately ends up in formal legal proceedings, the attorneys might have to testify under oath, and if the CFTOD board were able to waive attorney-client privilege (after all, they are the client now), their only legally acceptable excuse to keep their mouths shut would be gone.
ETA: They could plead the 5th, but that would likely result in a loss in the court of public opinion.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if the same attorney was still around.The new board doesn’t have the same attorney. The old RCID board was represented by Edward Milgrim. The new board is not.
At the time the board was not going to be replaced. There were rumors but the official state position was that the board would be no more.Honestly, in this case I don’t think it would even matter. Everyone knew what was going on and the RCID was being replaced and was friendly to Disney. The lawyers would have had to be pretty incompetent to say something suspect.
I hope, for the sake of ending this crap show, and the state focusing on more pressing/winnable matters, you're right.Without commenting on all that: Bottom line is I seriously doubt there is anything to find. I would bet just about anything on it.
Same result. The board didn't need to know anything more than what was placed in front of them.At the time the board was not going to be replaced. There were rumors but the official state position was that the board would be no more.
I do believe the new board could waive attorney client privilege. Which isn’t to say there would be anything incriminating.Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering if the same attorney was still around.
This is not a rhetorical question: notwithstanding the prior attorney being dismissed, couldn't the CFTOD board (representing the client now) waive the attorney-client privilege so Mr. Milgrim would have to speak to what happened with this contract, if under oath?
Survey says… bzzzztIt's not. Legal, that is.
They can pass a resolution calling themselves the Grand High Poo Bahs of the Kingdom of the United States if they want. Neither Disney nor anyone else has no obligation to listen to them.
The contracts supercede any resolution.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.