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

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
How is this creative or novel? What loopholes were used? These types of agreements are specifically authorized by state law.

To say it a different way - to use very strong deference of contracting to insulate powers for a private institution in an effort to limit the powers rightfully given to a district's leadership. It simply sets up a potential legislative intent argument for the statute.

I'm not saying that is the right or wrong interpretation. Rather, there are facts here to set up that argument, should a party with standing want to advance it.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Hey, everyone. I think it's important we all take a breather and reflect on the one thing that has been revealed today. In fact, it's the only thing that I take away from this thread with over fifty thousand posts, and it's this:

England doesn't have a king.
 

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.

Except this type of arrangement is common in FL, specifically enabled by FL law, and is something that is in place for other theme park operators in the state.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Long live the King of Canada!
🇨🇦
8405ABBF-AABA-4155-A641-E0C31CD14FB2.jpeg
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
Except this type of arrangement is common in FL, specifically enabled by FL law, and is something that is in place for other theme park operators in the state.

Yes. But it's important to remember - a court is not typically in the business of determining if the arrangement itself is good or bad. They can get involved if the circumstances around the formation of the arrangement are sufficiently problematic enough to challenge the contract's enforceability. That (obviously) gets very complicated based on many, many circumstances. But, if a court says it's ok to enter into an agreement in xyz circumstances (in decided case law), it means, in theory, that can be done in the future in similar circumstances. And, judges will look to that "legacy".
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
It depends on the case. When I say public policy, I mean the legal theory of interfering with something that would normally be handled between private parties. You are 100% right that there are many laws that are more dangerous. I'm talking solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.

A court would never decide whether the terms of the agreement were in the public's interest. Rather, if the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement would be significantly suspect enough that the court would need to step in to limit or invalidate the contract as a matter of pubic policy - such that other similar situations would not be incentivized in all circumstances.

They could find either way. They could also do a very narrow opinion saying it's ok in this exact circumstance, but not generally (or vice versa). I'm simply saying the circumstances and involvement of the public agencies like this could open the door - especially for a judge that is sympathetic to it. Rather than it being a clear and decisive win for Disney with no chance of a challenge.

I'm also an attorney.

My thinking here is that it's such a unique situation that it's not applicable to basically any other municipality (and thus really has no overarching public policy concerns), and it would be easy to narrowly tailor an opinion.

That said, you can never truly know how a judge will decide until it's issued.
 
Last edited:

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
I'm also an attorney.

My thinking here is that it's such a unique situation that it's not applicable to really any other municipality (and thus really has no overarching public policy concerns), and it would be easy to narrowly tailor an opinion.

That said, you can never truly know how a judge will decide until it's issued.

Totally. I think we're talking past each other.

I'm arguing that there is a pathway here, especially if a judge wants to. Your argument that this could be easily tailored (or even dismissed) is equally possible, if not more probable. It's just not a shut case, should someone choose to make something of it with a potentially sympathetic judge (as you were saying here).
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
Totally. I think we're talking past each other.

I'm arguing that there is a pathway here, especially if a judge wants to. Your argument that this could be easily tailored (or even dismissed) is equally possible, if not more probable. It's just not a shut case, should someone choose to make something of it with a potentially sympathetic judge (as you were saying here).
The good news is the CFTOD just hired Guliani level talent that bills at Avenatti rates.
 

Rob562

Well-Known Member
All of this reminded me of the end of Mad Men season 3. Stuck with employment contracts in a situation they don't want to be in, the partners convince Lane Pryce to fire them. He uses the fact that their head office is in London to their advantage by sending the telegram after close of business Friday there. That way they fly under the radar until someone finds out on Monday morning.



-Rob
 

NotCalledBob

Well-Known Member
So as the sun sets on Walt Disney World's 50th anniversary, it seems fitting that we all now discover who is actually 'The Magic'.

It's King Charles III.

Or.... whoever it was that came up with this genius play. Take a bow and claim your rightful title of 'The Magic'. His or her job must be the safest at TWDC right now.
 

montydysquith-navarro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
So I was reading the Royal lives clause page on Wikipedia and noticed that on the sample clause there, it states "...21 years from the death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of [his late Majesty King George V or some other British monarch] who have been born on the date of this agreement."

The RCID King Charles III clause didn't have that. Instead, it says: "...until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration." While I know it's a just sample and probably isn't used in legal practice, it's interesting that the clause didn't include similar wordage as the sample one. I'm no attorney/lawyer, but to me, this implies that the coverage of the clause not only spans the lifetimes of those in the recognized lineal line (William, Harry, George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie, and Lilibet) but also the ones outside the line (assuming that Charles III had secret illegitimate children who then had descendants of their own, albeit just unrecognized by the Royal Family because "dirty laundry").

If somehow the lineal line died out (either through wars, accidents, illness, ) and if there are people outside the lineal line who call Charles III a direct ascendant with valid proof (DNA testing, NDAs from RF, etc.), the clause will still hold. Knowing how protective RF is of their dirty laundry, CFTOD would have to move heaven and earth to find all unrecognized descendants and uh, liquidate them, just to gain full control of the property.

Clever move, Disney. Clever move.

(Now, I'm not saying that Charles III actually has illegitimate children, but wouldn't it be wild if he did...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
A bit off topic but does anyone know if the King has visited a Disney park?

I know Diana took William and Harry in the 90s and stayed at the GF but I can’t find anything to say King Charles has ever visited. With his interests in architecture and farming a visit to the land at Epcot or celebration would be a good fit at some point IMO.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So I was reading the Royal lives clause page on Wikipedia and noticed that on the sample clause there, it states "...21 years from the death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of [his late Majesty King George V or some other British monarch] who have been born on the date of this agreement."

The RCID King Charles III clause didn't have that. Instead, it says: "...until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration." While I know it's a just sample and probably isn't used in legal practice, it's interesting that the clause didn't include similar wordage as the sample one. I'm no attorney/lawyer, but to me, this implies that the coverage of the clause not only spans the lifetimes of those in the recognized lineal line (William, Harry, George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie, and Lilibet) but also the ones outside the line (assuming that Charles III had secret illegitimate children who then had descendants of their own, albeit just unrecognized by the Royal Family because "dirty laundry").

If somehow the lineal line died out (either through wars, accidents, illness, ) and if there are people outside the lineal line who call Charles III a direct ascendant with valid proof (DNA testing, NDAs from RF, etc.), the clause will still hold. Knowing how protective RF is of their dirty laundry, CFTOD would have to move heaven and earth to find all unrecognized descendants and uh, liquidate them, just to gain full control of the property.

Clever move, Disney. Clever move.

(Now, I'm not saying that Charles III actually has illegitimate children, but wouldn't it be wild if he did...)
Your quote is missing the part that says living at the time the agreement is executed. Future descendants don’t count. Unknown descendants could count but would of had to be alive in February.
 

Riviera Rita

Well-Known Member
So I was reading the Royal lives clause page on Wikipedia and noticed that on the sample clause there, it states "...21 years from the death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of [his late Majesty King George V or some other British monarch] who have been born on the date of this agreement."

The RCID King Charles III clause didn't have that. Instead, it says: "...until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration." While I know it's a just sample and probably isn't used in legal practice, it's interesting that the clause didn't include similar wordage as the sample one. I'm no attorney/lawyer, but to me, this implies that the coverage of the clause not only spans the lifetimes of those in the recognized lineal line (William, Harry, George, Charlotte, Louis, Archie, and Lilibet) but also the ones outside the line (assuming that Charles III had secret illegitimate children who then had descendants of their own, albeit just unrecognized by the Royal Family because "dirty laundry").

If somehow the lineal line died out (either through wars, accidents, illness, ) and if there are people outside the lineal line who call Charles III a direct ascendant with valid proof (DNA testing, NDAs from RF, etc.), the clause will still hold. Knowing how protective RF is of their dirty laundry, CFTOD would have to move heaven and earth to find all unrecognized descendants and uh, liquidate them, just to gain full control of the property.

Clever move, Disney. Clever move.

(Now, I'm not saying that Charles III actually has illegitimate children, but wouldn't it be wild if he did...)
Highly unlikely that Charles has any illegitimate children, despite the claims by Diana's fan club, he only had one love in his life who he was prevented from marrying in the 1970s, he has now been happily married to her for 15 years and counting, so to quote the fairy tale 'And they lived happily ever after'.
I love my King and Queen Consort, just so you know.
 
Last edited:

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
Interesting! The self-appointed editors of Wikipedia move fast!

Something I've noticed is that the version of the clause in the RCID agreement goes much further than the version described in the Wikipedia article and the piece shared earlier by @Chi84. The RCID agreement gives the timeframe as "(21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III" (emphasis added), whereas the usual form of the clause refers to the last living descendent alive at the time of the document's drafting. Does anyone know if the RCID version, which could in practice mean forever, is an accepted variant?
Too many posts to go through to see if someone explained, so pardon me if they did.

The RCID version says 'currently living'. So its not forever. The 'regular' version is usually valid forever.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom