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

[mikejs78]

I believe there are legitimate holes the state will poke in the contracts that will sink them. Disney’s only response thus far has been to call the findings “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities.” I’ve looked into some of the alleged infirmities and there is definitely reason for Disney to be concerned.

I think you're dead wrong on this. There is nothing I've seen that would give cause to void the contracts, and for the infirmities listed, I don't think the board would even have standing to challenge.

 

[RamblinWreck]

What is happening in Florida frightens me. I’ll be honest, I don’t think the contracts are gonna hold up in court.

I believe there are legitimate holes the state will poke in the contracts that will sink them. Disney’s only response thus far has been to call the findings “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities.” I’ve looked into some of the alleged infirmities and there is definitely reason for Disney to be concerned.

Whether Disney will win on First Amendment grounds is 50/50 at best, in my opinion. Setting Disney aside for a moment, the idea that a legislature/governor can retaliate against a citizen or private company for speaking their mind in the way that DeSantis and company have sets a very dangerous precedent. The 1st Amendment may as well not even exist if that’s the case. This case may very well go down as one of the most significant cases in U.S. history. I certainly hope that the Supreme Court is so appalled by this situation that they take up the case.

Disney has other arguments they could make against the takeover in Florida courts, but those will eventually make their way to the Florida Supreme Court. 4 of the 6 justices on that court were appointed by DeSantis.

Can you elaborate on some of the reasons Disney should be concerned?

 

[GrumpyFan]

You know - and this is all hypothetical, because what do I know? - if you told me that Walker was actually the third judge to be offered this case after two others passed on it as a no-win career-killer, I would totally believe that.

Like "If I rule according to the facts, I'll never move up in a Republican administration. And if I rule for the state, I'll get smacked down on appeal and spend the rest of my career eating lunch at the Pompano Applebees with Aileen Canon."

Hypothetically.

Just curious your thoughts on this suit being the first of several potential, if it fails? Or maybe even if it succeeds?
What other causes might they submit to the court for a ruling?
I would be willing to bet money that Disney's lawyers have at least two or three more drafts and several other ideas if this suit fails.

 

[danlb_2000]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

Not sure what kind of compromise could have been reached on this. It all originated with the Governor being unhappy that Disney opposed legislation. Either the governor agrees to be ok with that, or Disney retracts their opposition

 

[LAKid53]

I was just referring to the part where Disney admits in its own pleading that the state has a valid interest in overseeing how its special districts are run.

Of course the other side gets to present its case, but it will be awhile before that happens, so in the interim we're speculating as to what that will be and how successful it will be.

Analyzing precedent is also very difficult; the well-established principle in this country is that government is not authorized to use its official power to punish citizens for their political speech and this extends to corporations. I've read many cases and haven't seen one where a government official was so brazen about using the legislature to punish and control speech. Most of the cases involve subtle actions that need to be analyzed to determine whether the right to free speech was impacted. Here, we know what was done and why and are looking at precedent to see if there's a way it can be justified under current principles of law. In short, this case is different.

The remainder of your post makes me sad. It is true - and has always been true - that judges have ideological leanings. They are human beings with beliefs, values and experiences that come to bear on their rulings. But federal judges in particular are highly qualified lawyers who take pride in their ability to analyze the law and apply legal precedents to their rulings. Implying that any judge on that level will make a decision based on politics without considering the issues is not fair.

State court judges are more of a wildcard when it comes to qualifications, but I'm not even comfortable with the idea that the Florida courts would immediately come out in favor of the state on this issue. I'm aware that things are changing, but I hope our judges still have some principles.

I would agree with your last statement about state judges, but the Florida Supreme Court ruling that several districts created in 2020, both Florida Legislature and Congressional, did not violate either of the Fair Districts amendments approved by voters in 2010, does not give me hope. Voters in Florida passed those two amendments to prevent, or at least minimize, gerrymandering by EITHER party. That the highest court in the state would ignore specific language that was upheld by the 11th Circuit on appeal when the amendments were challenged after voter approval is troubling.

 

[LAKid53]

Sitting down to end feud only works when both sides are interested in a resolution. It is quite obvious here that DeSantis just wants destruction of Disney because they dared to speak up against him.

And it scores points with a segment of the voting population.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

There is the problem, "Good leaders".

 

[Stripes]

I think you're dead wrong on this. There is nothing I've seen that would give cause to void the contracts, and for the infirmities listed, I don't think the board would even have standing to challenge.

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of asking the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

 

[Chi84]

Can the appeals court if they overturn a favorable ruling for Disney on 1a then opine on the other complaints if they were not ruled on by the initial judge or would Disney need to refile the complaint in a new case minus the 1a sections?

Actually, when I answered your initial question my mind was on intermediate courts, not trial courts. Different rules apply to what should be decided by trial courts in the first instance. I'm not familiar with federal practice at the district court level.

As a general rule, appeals courts will give varying levels of deference to trial court decisions based on the stage of the litigation and what went into making the decision. Findings of fact made after hearing testimony are given great deference, but if the matter before a reviewing court is solely a question of law it can conduct de novo review, which means it can decide on another basis without further input from the trial court. Appeals courts have various powers, including remanding for further fact findings or determinations. Again, this is very general and not specific to federal law. I'm sure there are people here better qualified to answer.

 

[RamblinWreck]

Not sure what kind of compromise could have been reached on this. It all originated with the Governor being unhappy that Disney opposed legislation. Either the governor agrees to be ok with that, or Disney retracts their opposition

The governor had many opportunities to be petty and vindictive, without being THIS petty and vindictive, and it would have worked just fine. And Disney would have played ball.

 

[mikejs78]

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of having the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

What are those issues? I haven't seen any.

 

[scottieRoss]

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of having the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

Can you give an example of these issues?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

No, it could not have been resolved with a sit down and “compromise”. There is no legitimate disagreement to discuss in good faith. Compromise involves mutual concessions, but Disney was the only party with things to give up because the District issue has always been a means to other illegitimate ends.

 

[tissandtully]

No, it could not have been resolved with a sit down and “compromise”. There is no legitimate disagreement to discuss in good faith. Compromise involves mutual concessions, but Disney was the only party with things to give up because the District issue has always been a means to other illegitimate ends.

Just the existence of conflict was unconstitutional because it was retaliatory. No compromise to be made with someone who sucker punches you.

 

[flynnibus]

Not sure what kind of compromise could have been reached on this. It all originated with the Governor being unhappy that Disney opposed legislation. Either the governor agrees to be ok with that, or Disney retracts their opposition

There could have been compromise... in both greedy elements and token wins.

Disney could have agreed to bind their efforts against the state and quietly returned to donations.. and in turn the Gov could have backed off with just acknowledging Disney's right to disagree without any efforts to silence it... and basically each walk away

Disney could have given up some token seats on the district board as an appeasement so the gov could claim he broke down the old status quo in exchange for limiting the takeover attempt

Both sides could have drafted a new charter that give some token victories (like taking out the stupid nuke and airport lines), while modernizing different parts and maybe giving up some other lesser carve-outs Disney had... so DeSantis could claim he fixed up the corporate perks while both sides call a truce on the law, etc.

There is lots of ways they could have appeased the Gov without really giving up anything of actual value to them. The Gov was never going to give up his already passed law... nor could he.. so concessions from the Gov would be more about limiting the engagement and getting him to back off.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of asking the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

Disney is not hinting at known infirmities. They’re pointing out that there is a series of potential remedies that exist if a contract has deficiencies that all come before tossing out the whole thing, much less doing so unilaterally.

 

[Stripes]

What are those issues? I haven't seen any.

At minimum, points 9, 18, 21, 34, 35, 36(c), 36(d), and 74, are issues of great concern.

https://www.rcid.org/document/4-26-23-bos-package/

 

[lentesta]

Just curious your thoughts on this suit being the first of several potential, if it fails? Or maybe even if it succeeds?
What other causes might they submit to the court for a ruling?
I would be willing to bet money that Disney's lawyers have at least two or three more drafts and several other ideas if this suit fails.

My sense is this is their one chance.

 

[hopemax]

You know - and this is all hypothetical, because what do I know? - if you told me that Walker was actually the third judge to be offered this case after two others passed on it as a no-win career-killer, I would totally believe that.

Like "If I rule according to the facts, I'll never move up in a Republican administration. And if I rule for the state, I'll get smacked down on appeal and spend the rest of my career eating lunch at the Pompano Applebees with Aileen Canon."

Hypothetically.

It’s a good thing this is all just hypothetical. Because it might eventually become some sort of impediment to justice, if judges pick the “ignore” option, rather than making a just decision (ruling on the facts). Especially if they are making that choice out of self-interest. If enough judges were to make similar choices, what would that imply about the realities of “justice for all?” People might have to start thinking that somebody should do something about that. So it’s really good this is only hypothetical because otherwise people might have to think critically and advocate and stuff. Judges also determining “ruling on the facts” would invite retaliation from the state… yep, good thing it’s hypothetical.

 

[GrumpyFan]

No, it could not have been resolved with a sit down and “compromise”. There is no legitimate disagreement to discuss in good faith. Compromise involves mutual concessions, but Disney was the only party with things to give up because the District issue has always been a means to other illegitimate ends.

I could not be in further disagreement with you on that. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

"All conflict can be traced back to someone’s feelings getting hurt, don’t you think?" — Liane Moriarty, Big Little Lies
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." — Winston Churchill
"Arguments drag out because one is too stubborn to forgive and the other is too proud to apologise." — Unknown

In most cases, it costs MUCH less to try and sit down to find a compromise than fight a prolonged battle.
Good leaders understand this. Insecure and immature ones always like to escalate a fight beyond what's necessary and to the point that it often hurts others in the process.

The Disney RCID agreement, while not perfect, and maybe questionable in some regards, has been a tremendous benefit to Florida, and of course their own business interests.