-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
JAB
Well-Known Member
Can someone with more legal expertise please explain how they have any legal grounds to refuse a deposition? Seems to this layperson like they're just trying the "nuh uh" tactic with no legitimate basis simply because if they had to answer questions under oath, it would be not so great for them. Reminds me a bit of "Liar Liar" - "I object!"; "Why's that?"; "Because it's devastating to my case."
One can attempt to quash a deposition IF the reasons for said motion meet law. You just can't say no...a motion has to be filed and a hearing set on that motion. Until that happens, most depositions will be stayed.
Rule 1.410 - SUBPOENA, Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.410 | Casetext Search + Citator
Read Rule 1.410 - SUBPOENA, Fl. R. Civ. P. 1.410, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
What, the out of state lawyer hired to represent the district? There wasn't a single lawyer in the State of Florida unable to provide legal services to the District in this matter? No retired judges, law professors, etc? What's John Morgan or Dan Newlin doing?
GCTales
Well-Known Member
You have a link for these?
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
And that is probably the driving force behind this motion. They longer the state delays the better and making this motion at this time is too good an opportunity to forgo
No idea whether Gilzean hired him directly or the district hired him to represent Gilzean.
Here’s the list of lawyers at this guy’s firm: https://burkegroup.law/our-team/
Direct links to the individual filings don’t usually work, but you can find everything on the court’s site:
Choose the search for “Civil Case Records”. I usually search business name “Walt Disney” for anything filed after May 1/23. Currently that will show you 7 pages of results, with the Public Records lawsuit near the end of page 2 (case 2023-CA-017887-O) and CFTOD’s lawsuit against Disney on page 7 (case 2023-CA-011818-O).
They updated it to change the wording
8.1 Board Consideration of Request from Stephanie Kopelousos to serve as District
Administrator.
They’ve also added a closed session to discuss the 3 court cases involving Disney.
(BTW: this version of the agenda doesn’t include the “Informational Reports” or any of the contracts and budget discussions that were in the other version.)
Also, they’ve finally removed Garcia from the list of Board Members on their website (although they forgot to remove him from the Planning Board list). Gilzean is still identified as the Administrator.
Last edited:
JKick95
Active Member
Any predictions on what a settlement between the two parties would actually look like?They updated it to change the wording
8.1 Board Consideration of Request from Stephanie Kopelousos to serve as District
Administrator.
They’ve also added a closed session to discuss the 3 court cases involving Disney.
(BTW: this version of the agenda doesn’t include the “Informational Reports” or any of the contracts and budget discussions that were in the other version.)
Also, they’ve finally removed Garcia from the list of Board Members on their website (although they forgot to remove him from the Planning Board list). Gilzean is still identified as the Administrator.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
So do you think there is any significance to these permits being filed by Walt Disney instead of CFTOD?
My (completely uninformed) guess is that the Governor and the District would never settle in the traditional sense. I'm watching for who DeS puts on the Board to replace Garcia, and how that person & his pick to replace Gilzean move forward. That pick is very much part of the DeS world, but apparently she's worked with Disney before plus she actually has some experience in municipal management.
So, is the intention to find new ways to inflict harm on Disney and the District (& Cities), or are they looking for an offramp toward normalcy?
Best case dream scenario that I could see as maybe marginally possible?: They continue to claim victory because they've supposedly addressed all the horrible things that Disney and the prior Board did; they signal a shift towards business as usual by running the district in a constructive manner and appointing a marginally competent Board member or two to actually run things properly and/or just stay out of the way of a competent administrator and the knowledgeable senior staff who haven't left; they sign a new development agreement that gives Disney sufficient assurance that they can get back to business as usual, but allows them to tout their moral victory of voiding the prior "egregious" agreement; *maybe* over time they start to talk about (1) legislation to gradually change the make-up of the Board somewhat, and (2) everyone abandoning their lawsuits.
Or: they're just switching out the players for their own reasons; the carnage and grift continues unabated; they find a way to sell off the utilities and generally hollow out the district's finances while also raising taxes; they try to grab Disney's land for development by friends & donors; the lawsuits (which also enrich their friends) proliferate.
Neither of these scenarios, or anything in-between, would surprise me in the slightest, because nothing about this has been rational in terms of actual governance. It's about grift and control (and catchphrases/misdirection for the public to obscure that).
n.b. Some of this is obviously political, but I've tried (successfully I hope?) to keep my comments within the bounds that mods have allowed as having direct relevance to these issues. PLEASE, if anyone wants to discuss, let's keep it civil so we don't lose chunks of what has generally been a wonderfully informative thread
.
My (completely uninformed) guess is that the Governor and the District would never settle in the traditional sense. I'm watching for who DeS puts on the Board to replace Garcia, and how that person & his pick to replace Gilzean move forward. That pick is very much part of the DeS world, but apparently she's worked with Disney before plus she actually has some experience in municipal management.
So, is the intention to find new ways to inflict harm on Disney and the District (& Cities), or are they looking for an offramp toward normalcy?
Best case dream scenario that I could see as maybe marginally possible?: They continue to claim victory because they've supposedly addressed all the horrible things that Disney and the prior Board did; they signal a shift towards business as usual by running the district in a constructive manner and appointing a marginally competent Board member or two to actually run things properly and/or just stay out of the way of a competent administrator and the knowledgeable senior staff who haven't left; they sign a new development agreement that gives Disney sufficient assurance that they can get back to business as usual, but allows them to tout their moral victory of voiding the prior "egregious" agreement; *maybe* over time they start to talk about (1) legislation to gradually change the make-up of the Board somewhat, and (2) everyone abandoning their lawsuits.
Or: they're just switching out the players for their own reasons; the carnage and grift continues unabated; they find a way to sell off the utilities and generally hollow out the district's finances while also raising taxes; they try to grab Disney's land for development by friends & donors; the lawsuits (which also enrich their friends) proliferate.
Neither of these scenarios, or anything in-between, would surprise me in the slightest, because nothing about this has been rational in terms of actual governance. It's about grift and control (and catchphrases/misdirection for the public to obscure that).
n.b. Some of this is obviously political, but I've tried (successfully I hope?) to keep my comments within the bounds that mods have allowed as having direct relevance to these issues. PLEASE, if anyone wants to discuss, let's keep it civil so we don't lose chunks of what has generally been a wonderfully informative thread
The criteria under which a governmental body can seize land via eminent domain is codified in Florida statute. And THAT includes utilities. The Board would have to prove the utility operator isn't able provide services to its customers.
IIRC, the RCES power plant provides ~ 25% of the property's electricity, with the rest provided by Duke and perhaps FPL. Origis Energy constructed the huge solar farm along 429. That site alone is capable of powering 2 of the parks.
JKick95
Active Member
Thank you for the response. You made good points in my opinion. I guess we will stay tuned regarding who they pick to fill Garcias seat. Also, it appears some board members terms expire the first half of 2025.My (completely uninformed) guess is that the Governor and the District would never settle in the traditional sense. I'm watching for who DeS puts on the Board to replace Garcia, and how that person & his pick to replace Gilzean move forward. That pick is very much part of the DeS world, but apparently she's worked with Disney before plus she actually has some experience in municipal management.
So, is the intention to find new ways to inflict harm on Disney and the District (& Cities), or are they looking for an offramp toward normalcy?
Best case dream scenario that I could see as maybe marginally possible?: They continue to claim victory because they've supposedly addressed all the horrible things that Disney and the prior Board did; they signal a shift towards business as usual by running the district in a constructive manner and appointing a marginally competent Board member or two to actually run things properly and/or just stay out of the way of a competent administrator and the knowledgeable senior staff who haven't left; they sign a new development agreement that gives Disney sufficient assurance that they can get back to business as usual, but allows them to tout their moral victory of voiding the prior "egregious" agreement; *maybe* over time they start to talk about (1) legislation to gradually change the make-up of the Board somewhat, and (2) everyone abandoning their lawsuits.
Or: they're just switching out the players for their own reasons; the carnage and grift continues unabated; they find a way to sell off the utilities and generally hollow out the district's finances while also raising taxes; they try to grab Disney's land for development by friends & donors; the lawsuits (which also enrich their friends) proliferate.
Neither of these scenarios, or anything in-between, would surprise me in the slightest, because nothing about this has been rational in terms of actual governance. It's about grift and control (and catchphrases/misdirection for the public to obscure that).
n.b. Some of this is obviously political, but I've tried (successfully I hope?) to keep my comments within the bounds that mods have allowed as having direct relevance to these issues. PLEASE, if anyone wants to discuss, let's keep it civil so we don't lose chunks of what has generally been a wonderfully informative thread
I feel like if they attempt to take Disneys land then they will be immediately sued and this battle is going to be further drawn out. I’m very curious about what they are trying to do that they have not yet stated. It somewhat seems like they (the district) have a big secret they aren’t yet willing to share.
I agree that such actions should be unlikely to survive constitutional challenge (based on my extremely limited and vague understanding of the law). But you can cause a lot of chaos while lawsuits make their way through the courts and, however it turns out, Disney essentially ends up paying all the lawyer and "expert" fees for both sides.
Florida statute outlines the process that must, by law, occur.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
At a minimum it seems like a way to avoid providing funds where possible. It also seems like it could be evidence of shenanigans being played with the permitting process.
The utilities are already owned by the District. Reedy Creek Energy Services is just the contracted operator.
Gainesville would like a word...
Was GRU unable to provide utility services to its residents? The statute addresses that issue.
Sorry, I was just pointing out that sometimes governments do things that are clearly contrary to statute, such as ignoring the residency requirements of Board members in the Gainesville example (I take no position at all on the statute itself, or the operation of the utility before or after the statute.)