Disney Checkmates DeSantis

[zipman]

Hahaha!!!

"DeSantis' board has now revealed that, while they were snoozing, Disney executed an agreement with their predecessors that strips the new board of all its powers except the authority to "maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure,” according to one of the new board members.

Hilariously, the agreement Disney reached will remain in effect at least until 21 years "after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England," currently living."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/column-disneys-lawyers-brutally-manhandled-150434800.html

 

[PaxNurgle]

I still can't fathom how that KKK prick got elected governor in the first place. If there was ever a case to investigate "Massive Voter Fraud" I would think the Florida governor's election would be a good place to start.

 

[adrina]

I still can't fathom how that KKK prick got elected governor in the first place. If there was ever a case to investigate "Massive Voter Fraud" I would think the Florida governor's election would be a good place to start.

• Enough people don't vote
• The democrats put up an ex republican last round
• The democrats put up a druggie for the round before that. Bernie should have backed Gwen.

 

[zipman]

Not to mention Disney is hosting an lgbtq summit there.

 

[Chernosoth]

I still can't fathom how that KKK prick got elected governor in the first place. If there was ever a case to investigate "Massive Voter Fraud" I would think the Florida governor's election would be a good place to start.

A guy with a face like an old man's butt seems normal for Florida. Can you verify the KKK allegation?

 

[HisArpy]

There are many things potentially wrong with the power transfer from the board to corporate.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is one. Another is that, once Desantis signed the Fla law revoking their status, the board may not have had the power to do it regardless of whether the law was effective or not. A third is that if one board can make a resolution, another subsequent board can undo it. There are other possibilities too and Fla's AG is looking into those as we speak with a FOIA request from the new board.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There are many things potentially wrong with the power transfer from the board to corporate.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is one. Another is that, once Desantis signed the Fla law revoking their status, the board may not have had the power to do it regardless of whether the law was effective or not. A third is that if one board can make a resolution, another subsequent board can undo it. There are other possibilities too and Fla's AG is looking into those as we speak with a FOIA request from the new board.

Timmeh, there is a difference between a "resolution" and a duly recorded restrictive covenant. The new board can make all the resolutions they like, but they are not legally binding on property owners until the property owners have a public vote on the resolution and it must pass the vote in order to be recorded and legally enforceable.


If you think Disney, as the primary property holder in the district, is going to vote in favor of any resolutions of the incoming whackadoodle political hacks, you sorely mistaken.

Obviously, your law school didn't spend much time on real property law.

Also, legal experts are marvelling at how airtight the RAP is on the covenant. When I read that, my first thought was "Timmeh is going to have an issue with this, but he won't provide any legal justification".

Finally anything and everything the previous board did until their term ended on February 8th was entirely legal and defensible. The outgoing lame duck board never lost it's authority to govern. (You may recall that DeSantis' first notion was to dissolve the board immediately, but that would have triggered Florida law forcing homeowners in Central Florida to assume responsibility for the billion dollars in outstanding bonds that Disney had).

So DeSantis tried to pack the board by kicking the existing board to the curb, and the law of unintended consequence bit him.

 

[butters]

Under the terms of the agreement, the new district is prohibited from using the name “Disney” or any symbols associated with the theme park resort without the company’s permission, nor can it use the likeness of Mickey Mouse, other Disney characters or other intellectual property in any manner. The company can sue for damages for any violations, and the agreement is in effect until perpetuity, according to the declaration.

If the agreement is deemed to violate rules against perpetuity, it will be in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of England’s King Charles III, the declaration said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...p&cvid=b5dedd41c8ce46a2d3acd52aa9cba552&ei=88

 

[Dribble]

But he has hired 4 law firms to start the "protracted" (his word not mine) battle against Disney. One...charges $795 per hour. Guess who pays that bill?

 

[DeluxAuto]

There are many things potentially wrong with the power transfer from the board to corporate.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is one. Another is that, once Desantis signed the Fla law revoking their status, the board may not have had the power to do it regardless of whether the law was effective or not. A third is that if one board can make a resolution, another subsequent board can undo it. There are other possibilities too and Fla's AG is looking into those as we speak with a FOIA request from the new board.

Timmeh, there is a difference between a "resolution" and a duly recorded restrictive covenant. The new board can make all the resolutions they like, but they are not legally binding on property owners until the property owners have a public vote on the resolution and it must pass the vote in order to be recorded and legally enforceable.


If you think Disney, as the primary property holder in the district, is going to vote in favor of any resolutions of the incoming whackadoodle political hacks, you sorely mistaken.

Obviously, your law school didn't spend much time on real property law.

Also, legal experts are marvelling at how airtight the RAP is on the covenant. When I read that, my first thought was "Timmeh is going to have an issue with this, but he won't provide any legal justification".

Finally anything and everything the previous board did until their term ended on February 8th was entirely legal and defensible. The outgoing lame duck board never lost it's authority to govern. (You may recall that DeSantis' first notion was to dissolve the board immediately, but that would have triggered Florida law forcing homeowners in Central Florida to assume responsibility for the billion dollars in outstanding bonds that Disney had).

So DeSantis tried to pack the board by kicking the existing board to the curb, and the law of unintended consequence bit him.

That was painful. Poor Derpy.

 

[HisArpy]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...p&cvid=b5dedd41c8ce46a2d3acd52aa9cba552&ei=88

It's like some people think that one private company can tell the State what it can and can't do...

 

[Dribble]

It's like some people think that one private company can tell the State what it can and can't do...

Well...only in a Fascist run states do people think the State can tell a private company what it must do. For example...why should the State be allowed to use copyrighted images such as Mickey Mouse for their use without the approval of the private company? But keep being the Fascist you are...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

It's like some people think that one private company can tell the State what it can and can't do...

The private company hasn’t told the state to do anything.

 

[PaxNurgle]

It's like some people think that one private company can tell the State what it can and can't do...

In a free society, is not the role of the State to tell people what they can and cannot do, but rather it is both the private sector and private individuals who tell the State what it can and cannot do. This is how democracy functions.

And you make it clear, more and more with each and every post, that you either do not understand, or do not approve of a free and democratic society.

 

[phrodeau]

So a guy with ten years of political experience tries to take on a century-old firm.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This is the second time Disney had punched DeSantis in the dick. It would be nice if Ron stopped refusing to do his job.

 

[Bray123]

Give some people a pair of white wellies, they think they can do anything.

 

[HisArpy]

In a free society, is not the role of the State to tell people what they can and cannot do, but rather it is both the private sector and private individuals who tell the State what it can and cannot do. This is how democracy functions.

And you make it clear, more and more with each and every post, that you either do not understand, or do not approve of a free and democratic society.

Lol, what an asinine statement.

Tell us; do you believe the State can't tell you what to do, or do you believe the State can tell you that you can't have guns?

 

[HisArpy]

Well...only in a Fascist run states do people think the State can tell a private company what it must do. For example...why should the State be allowed to use copyrighted images such as Mickey Mouse for their use without the approval of the private company? But keep being the Fascist you are...

Lol, sure. Try that as a defense the next time a cop pulls you over. Or the IRS tells you to pay taxes. Or that you have to move along because you can't camp under the bridge anymore.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lol, sure. Try that as a defense the next time a cop pulls you over. Or the IRS tells you to pay taxes. Or that you have to move along because you can't camp under the bridge anymore.

LOL, sure!
A cop pulls someone over when the cop has reasonable suspicion they broke the law, Disney didn't break the law. Disney pays their taxes, and Disney owns the bridges on their property.
Disney followed the law, so what's the legal issue here?

 

[HisArpy]

LOL, sure!
A cop pulls someone over when the cop has reasonable suspicion they broke the law, Disney didn't break the law. Disney pays their taxes, and Disney owns the bridges on their property.
Disney followed the law, so what's the legal issue here?

Disney's board MAY NOT have followed the law when they did the power transfer.

You can't say they did because I'm 100% positive that you don't understand the Rule Against Perpetuities. (Mostly because most people including more than a few judges and lawyers don't understand it either.) OTOH, I've read the resolution and I'm fairly certain that the board F'd Disney corporate by it because it appears to violate the Rule by it's express language and intended purpose. Which is why the Florida AG's office is investigating.

As for the reasonable suspicion part of your post: Wasn't the original point something about the state not being able to tell people what to do? How does reasonable suspicion abrogate that idea? Either the State can or it can't tell you what to do.

Or can the State tell you what to do sometimes when what you do affects others or could cause harm in some manner? If so, then maybe Disney's situation is one of those types of thing.

 

[Comshaw]

As I said in this thread:
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...private-industry.1582359/page-4#post-96418678

I had no idea what Disney would do but I knew they weren't just going to roll over and let De Santis do as he pleased. The corporation had spent years building Disney World. They have been careful to make sure it was as pristine as they envisioned it and have taken great pains to protect its image as well. They weren't going to go off half-cocked and do something that would endanger the operation. They didn't. It appears they have out-maneuvered De Santis and company. They have protected Disney World from him, any unwanted construction or building in the district, protected the image of Disney and insulated themselves against any further retribution by him or the legislature.

It is hilarious to watch those claiming that 'it violates the in perpetuity rule!' While they did include that protection in the agreement reached between Disney and the ReedyCreek board, it was also backup by the inclusion of a clause that uses the royal family as a marker of how long the agreement will be valid. A thing that has been part of common law for a very long time. So even if the first clause is ruled invalid because it violates the perpetuity rule, the second will take effect. And since the original board was still in power, with all rights and responsibilities that entails, when the agreement was forged it is lawful.

Yep, I figured they had something up their sleeve. they did. Florida governor De Santis got owned!

Comshaw

 

[DeluxAuto]

Disney's board MAY NOT have followed the law when they did the power transfer.

You can't say they did because I'm 100% positive that you don't understand the Rule Against Perpetuities. (Mostly because most people including more than a few judges and lawyers don't understand it either.) OTOH, I've read the resolution and I'm fairly certain that the board F'd Disney corporate by it because it appears to violate the Rule by it's express language and intended purpose. Which is why the Florida AG's office is investigating.

As for the reasonable suspicion part of your post: Wasn't the original point something about the state not being able to tell people what to do? How does reasonable suspicion abrogate that idea? Either the State can or it can't tell you what to do.

Or can the State tell you what to do sometimes when what you do affects others or could cause harm in some manner? If so, then maybe Disney's situation is one of those types of thing.

LOL! You're so confused.

 

[Comshaw]

Here's the PDF of the agreement:

https://www.wuft.org/news/files/2023/03/2023-02-08-Reedy-Creek-Disney.pdf

And here's the text of the paragraph that is being so hotly debated. Decide for yourself if it violates the perpetuity rule, or if Disney's lawyers built in enough protections to cover their client:



Comshaw

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Disney's board MAY NOT have followed the law when they did the power transfer.

You can't say they did because I'm 100% positive that you don't understand the Rule Against Perpetuities. (Mostly because most people including more than a few judges and lawyers don't understand it either.) OTOH, I've read the resolution and I'm fairly certain that the board F'd Disney corporate by it because it appears to violate the Rule by it's express language and intended purpose. Which is why the Florida AG's office is investigating.

As for the reasonable suspicion part of your post: Wasn't the original point something about the state not being able to tell people what to do? How does reasonable suspicion abrogate that idea? Either the State can or it can't tell you what to do.

Or can the State tell you what to do sometimes when what you do affects others or could cause harm in some manner? If so, then maybe Disney's situation is one of those types of thing.

As Rob pointed out, the deal the former board won’t last forever, it will eventually end, so perpetuity isn’t in effect here.

The state can tell people what to do if that something would harm other people, for example, DUI. The deal here doesn’t harm anyone or take away their rights, so the state won’t be able to do anything about it.