BaconPancakes
Well-Known Member
There's a reason they are destroying the dept of education.Well when you spend months lying to your voters they may not fully understand what they are voting for.
There's a reason they are destroying the dept of education.Well when you spend months lying to your voters they may not fully understand what they are voting for.
Like sands through the hourglass…Nah. Football no. Old school soap opera yeah. Stand by for the next episode as the now brilliant move unravels and plot twist. It is entertaining.
You should start back at page 1. You have a few things wrong here.
With Disney now directly the subject of these legal attacks (and no longer RCID), it makes me wonder if they can now unleash first amendment/retaliatory type arguments. Tweets like this make it pretty easy. They can't help themselves.
That benefit comes from paying twice the taxes because the county taxes -- that WDW does indeed pay -- does not come back to them in services and infrastructure provided by the county. WDW pays a second tax on top of that to the RCID in order to get the services and infrastructure they need.and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors
Serious legal question.
Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?
For example, something along the lines of:
"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."
Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
That tweet is a disgrace, it gives away the agenda of DeSantis and his cronies.
But RCID technically still exists, right? The Per Diem Posse is just a layer of red tape over it, correct?Serious legal question.
Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?
For example, something along the lines of:
"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."
Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
You claim you're not wading further into the dumpster fire, yet you're perfectly happy to add fuel to it with this far-fetched nonsense. It's rather ironic that you're accusing Disney of exploiting "an innocent, multi-racial child" when you're the one using her to make your partisan point.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.
That's like asking for records proving that someone is trying to find out what deductions to take on one's taxes before April 15th rolls around so they can legally pay less taxes.
It's not illegal to avoid negative consequences of new laws. This isn't conspiracy to commit a crime.
Can the attorney general even ask for these documents? Disney only made a deal with Reedy Creek, and now the CFTOD.
Not a lawyer. But this is what I assume is going to happen.Serious legal question.
Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?
For example, something along the lines of:
"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."
Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
It's a Public Records request -
Disney:Can the attorney general even ask for these documents? Disney only made a deal with Reedy Creek, and now the CFTOD.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.