the mouse has replyed to rhonda SATAN

OVER 3 HOURS OF PRIME TIME on ABC LAST NITE

HERE IS THE FIRST 1/2 HOUR

https://youtu.be/Pmabgk-BDXI

RHONDA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER
this will not end well for rhonda

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-01-2023).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: the mouse has replyed to rhonda SATAN OVER 3 HOURS OF PRIME TIME on ABC LAST NITE HERE IS THE FIRST 1/2 HOUR https://youtu.be/Pmabgk-BDXI RHONDA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER this will not end well for rhonda

I'm not sure what you think is going to happen...? Do you think the courts are going to mandate that Disney be allowed to operate outside the bounds of the state constitution? Of course not. Disney only has a potential civil law suit for damages against Florida, stating that they've lost business because of it. They will never get back the rights they had before, they cannot operate outside of state constitutional law. So again... think beyond the rhetoric...

rhonda is the one with constitutional problems

he is working on violating every one of the bill rights except the gun BS
but con's doNOT care about any others then the gun stuff

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-01-2023).]

quote “Yea” might be turned into “Nay” and vice versa if a sufficient quantity of wordage was applied to the matter.

-The Duke of Grand Fenwick

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 06-01-2023).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: rhonda is the one with constitutional problems he is working on violating every one of the bill rights except the gun BS but con's doNOT care about any others then the gun stuff

Actually...you are wrong there.

Us "cons" care about the word and idea "no"

The gun is simply a tool to make azzwipes go away.....but, go ahead. **** around and find out.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-01-2023).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: rhonda is the one with constitutional problems he is working on violating every one of the bill rights except the gun BS but con's doNOT care about any others then the gun stuff

RayB, I encourage you for a moment to consider what is actually going on in court right now... rather than the totally uneducated rhetoric that's being passed around the liberal news stations. If I asked you any specifics about this lawsuit, you wouldn't be able to tell me anything about it, other than you think Desantis is violating "free speech" laws. Ok, great. In law, there is a term called "redress." This is when there are damages, and the court rules in favor of the plaintiff and the redress is the payment (or right the wrong) made by the defendant. Simple enough, but this isn't a civil lawsuit.

You don't even know what is included in the lawsuit. But I've done the work for you. The lawsuit DOES NOT challenge the law that was passed last year that eliminated Reedy Creek. I repeat, they are NOT challenging the legislature-passed law in Florida that eliminates the Reedy Creek district. That is done and gone, and now Disney will be forced to operate under new district guidelines the same as the rest of the special districts in the state of Florida. THIS IS NOT BEING CHALLENGED.


The Federal lawsuit that Disney filed challenges three things:

1 The right for DeSantis to appoint the new members of the board (rather than being confirmed or elected)
2 The right of the state of Florida code inspectors/engineers to inspect Disney’s theme parks
3 The right of the state of Florida to have design authority of any new Disney buildings (e.g., what the building looks like)


My guess is that this will be a split ruling.
1. Disney MAY win #1, which if they do, the state legislature can just elect the members in a special session, and it becomes legal.
2. They will absolutely lose #2 because Florida will always have this right to manage inspections on anything except Federally owned lands.
3. Maybe Disney wins #3, but again… everything will still need to be approved and to code, so unlikely this makes a huge difference (I also doubt the state of Florida wants to design Disney’s attractions for them).


So... I don't know what else to say to you. This is what the lawsuit is about. The media, Reddit, and your liberal boating forum (that threatened to kill me) will have you believe that the 1st amendment is at stake here. They're simply alleging this, but the three things I listed above are the ones that are actually in the lawsuit.

Furthermore, Desantis filed a counter-lawsuit in state courts. Legal precedence typically states that the Judicial branch / Federal courts will not hear (or don't want to hear) a case while there is a related case on-going in state courts. That means that the counter-suit from Desantis likely needs to be resolved FIRST in the state of Florida, before any further proceedings can even take place in Federal court for Disney's lawsuit. State of Florida could even ask a Federal judge to waive or dismiss the Disney case, and it would likely happen. Never the less, the counter-suit in Florida will likely happen first. Do you know what the make up of the Florida Supreme Court is? There are 7 members on Florida's Supreme Court... 5 of the 7 were appointed by Ron Desantis, two of them were appointed by Crist during a time when he was still Republican, and had to pass a Republican legislature. I can assure you, I know which way that case is going.

Let's say by some magic that Disney prevails in the counter-suit... which seems unlikely in my opinion. So the Federal case goes on. Let's say that Disney wins all three of the things they're asking for. This isn't a civil case, so no damages will be awarded... it's not a class action, or any kind of personal injury or negligence case.

What I laid out above, is more likely. NONE OF THIS... and I repeat, NONE OF THIS gives Disney back the old "Reedy Creek" special district privileges that they once had. It does not, there is absolutely no possible way this could even be possible. If you understand how our government works, we have what's called "Vertical Federalism." That means that the states make all their own laws, so long as they do not conflict with Federal laws. There is nothing here that conflicts with Federal law. There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that states that Disney, or any corporation, has the right of sovereignty in a state, and can violate a state's supreme court.

Disney had been grandfathered in, because the Reedy Creek agreement was made prior to Florida's passage of a state Constitution. There was essentially nothing that enshrined that right from Florida, other than the fact that they just didn't do anything about it. It was kind of like... we know you're going 5 miles over the speed limit, we'll ignore it.

The state literally passed a law that went through the legislature, and signed by the governor, that eliminated special privileges, and defined that all special districts must abide by the same rules, in accordance with the Florida state constitution.


I cannot make this make sense to you any more than I have. And yes, I have a law degree.

you are correct about the first court case on reedy creek

but ron wrote a book
and boasted about what he did to disney
with Malice
not a good idea ron
lawyers love to READ ron

there will be far more lawsuits
ron is a dummy
just for fighting a mouse and a rump
two fronts he can't win or tie on
while trying to gain fame but really lame

evil nasty thug type is the local govinator
a far worse national candidate then the rump
and you know my nonlove for lying sacks of rump

ray b, I see that Ron DeSantis he is YOUR governor, how's that sand in your cooter workin for ya?

BWHAHAHAHAH!

The judge overseeing the Federal court case from Disney against Desantis in district court, just recused himself. He's known as a staunch anti-Desantis judge who's ruled against Desantis in nearly every case that's been brought before him. I suspect Disney had hoped in this case that the judge would do the same in this instance.

The judge recused himself because he said he personally owned 30 shares of Disney. I can take him at his word, but I think that's rather silly, personally. If he's truly doing this to be fair and impartial, then that's great. But 30 shares doesn't even amount to $3,000 bucks. I have exactly 100 shares of Disney, and I would simply just sell the stock before I agreed to take the case. So I think there's something else going on here. I'm not going to be an ******* and say $2,700 is peanuts... but a District Judge makes about $195k a year, so yes... $2,700 is kind of peanuts. It's not like you'd lose it, you'd just sell the stock before you take the case, done.

So... likely, the judge who will take this case will likely be a judge formerly appointed by a Republican (is my guess), and while I don't think it matters at all which way the case will go, I suppose Disney hoped that the Obama-appointed judge would have given them more support. My guess, as I said, is that there's more going on here, and they know Disney doesn't really have a case, and the judge didn't want to have to be the one to make the ruling ... which in my opinion is a dereliction of duty somewhat.

Whatever, it's silly. All everyone wants (the majority of the country, including most Democrats), is for companies to stop being political and focus on making a good product, and that's that. People don't want politics forced down their throats during school, at sports venues, on every commercial, in every movie, and everywhere they go. Of course, this is all intentional, but it's destroying the economy, and it's destroying business. My Democrat friends say I should just ignore it... (e.g., bury my head in the sand), but I refuse to support companies that are actively trying to politically destroy this country and shape it into something it was never meant to be. I'm also vehemently against victim mentality, and the sexualization of our children. I cannot support a company that simply does that.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-02-2023).]

suspect the rare honest judge

as many are crooked lawdogs who get elected and never indited
and have known price tags and bag men to collect the fees listed

was more common in old miami circles but discrete unlike the cowboys
who got the feds looking at far too much by the 80's
but still know far more then the published facts direct from those who did pay the fees
the chains are hidden but the links know the next step up or down

now days the future options will go to an old g/f with an unknown kid who is well taken care of
but no messy traceable connections
or other odd method but the money still flows but is far harder to follow

joe corollo former mayor
$63M verdict against Miami commissioner accused of ...
WRAL.com

20 hours ago — Attorneys for Fuller and Pinilla claimed that Carollo infringed on their free speech rights by weaponizing police and code enforcement to harass ...

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 06-02-2023).]