Disney Checkmates DeSantis

[Willywin]

LOL! You're so confused.

Because Democrats make lousy totalitarians

 

[Willywin]

Whatever - I am more concerned that a business, a corporation that serves one purpose, to get the most for its shareholders may have the power to override the authotity of a democratically elected Government - Rollerball is here?
Why have elections?

 

[Comshaw]

Whatever - I am more concerned that a business, a corporation that serves one purpose, to get the most for its shareholders may have the power to override the authotity of a democratically elected Government - Rollerball is here?
Why have elections?

Because the existing laws of the land prevail over elected officials' wants and desires. Those officials are also responsible for putting those laws on the books, so you can say, in a roundabout way, they engineered their own defeat.

Comshaw

 

[Dribble]

Because the existing laws of the land prevail over elected officials' wants and desires. Those officials are also responsible for putting those laws on the books, so you can say, in a roundabout way, they engineered their own defeat.

Comshaw

Ouch...you could have used more lube on him

 

[HisArpy]

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.

Like I said, you don't understand the Rule Against Perpetuities. If you did you wouldn't say stupid things like this.

Ouch...you could have used more lube on him

You do understand that those existing laws are subject to change by those self same elected officials, yes? And that once the law is changed the people and corporations in the State have to obey it?

Or do you think that Disney is somehow above the law?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Like I said, you don't understand the Rule Against Perpetuities. If you did you wouldn't say stupid things like this.




You do understand that those existing laws are subject to change by those self same elected officials, yes? And that once the law is changed the people and corporations in the State have to obey it?

Or do you think that Disney is somehow above the law?

It’s not me you’re accusing of not knowing it. You’re accusing the $1,000 an hour corporate attorneys who work for Disney.

If you know it so well, explain it so we’ll all understand.

 

[HisArpy]

It’s not me you’re accusing of not knowing it. You’re accusing the $1,000 an hour corporate attorneys who work for Disney.

If you know it so well, explain it so we’ll all understand.

Lol, It's like you suddenly believe lawyers know what they're saying while at the same time you're insisting that lawyers don't know what they're talking about.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is complex and it really requires more in an in depth understanding than you have shown you have the capability of. However, it can be summed up in GENERAL TERMS to say that; when giving a grant, the grantee must be alive and capable of being named as the recipient without the court making the determination of who is the intended grantee. Or, in this case, the person whose life span the grant is to be measured by must be capable of being named without the court having to make the determination of whose life span is to be applied.

Or in legal terms, the grant must be definite and certain as to the recipient or which life span is to be used. "Last living descendant" is neither definite nor certain and has already been determined to be such because it gives rise to uncertainty. Whose life? The life of someone already born? Or the life of someone yet to be born from a pregnant mother and whose birth may not occur or for whom the date of conception cannot be accurately stated?

The question isn't trivial. Thus the conveyance from the Reedy Creek Board to Disney Corporate may not be legal.

 

[Dribble]

Lol...some one needs their meds upped again.

 

[HisArpy]

Lol...some one needs their meds upped again.

It's not my fault you're stupid.

 

[Dribble]

"All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law.".

Disney has invested billions into maintaining the Reedy Creek District to the standard set by Walt himself. They do not want uncontroled commercialization on the road into and out of the park. They want the experience of Disney World to remain pristine. Of course...Disney can close the place down and move it. I am sure other land can be found

 

[HisArpy]

"All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law.".

This is not a fact. It is an opinion stated by a party with a stake in the outcome.

That you believe it to be a fact is why you're stupid.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lol, It's like you suddenly believe lawyers know what they're saying while at the same time you're insisting that lawyers don't know what they're talking about.

The Rule Against Perpetuities is complex and it really requires more in an in depth understanding than you have shown you have the capability of. However, it can be summed up in GENERAL TERMS to say that; when giving a grant, the grantee must be alive and capable of being named as the recipient without the court making the determination of who is the intended grantee. Or, in this case, the person whose life span the grant is to be measured by must be capable of being named without the court having to make the determination of whose life span is to be applied.

Or in legal terms, the grant must be definite and certain as to the recipient or which life span is to be used. "Last living descendant" is neither definite nor certain and has already been determined to be such because it gives rise to uncertainty. Whose life? The life of someone already born? Or the life of someone yet to be born from a pregnant mother and whose birth may not occur or for whom the date of conception cannot be accurately stated?

The question isn't trivial. Thus the conveyance from the Reedy Creek Board to Disney Corporate may not be legal.

The contract determines exactly whose life.
Any other legal issues you need me to explain to you?

 

[RobDownSouth]

<derp snip>

Or in legal terms, the grant must be definite and certain as to the recipient or which life span is to be used. "Last living descendant" is neither definite nor certain and has already been determined to be such because it gives rise to uncertainty. Whose life? The life of someone already born? Or the life of someone yet to be born from a pregnant mother and whose birth may not occur or for whom the date of conception cannot be accurately stated?

The question isn't trivial. Thus the conveyance from the Reedy Creek Board to Disney Corporate may not be legal.

Oh look, Timmeh is flexing.
The "vague" language is anything but vague, it's only "Vague" because Timmeh cherry-picked his analysis of the convenant. It was very SPECIFIC.
https://i.imgur.com/vbPSZoK.png

 

[jaF0]

Awww, poor widdle Wonnie.....

Ron DeSantis calls for investigation into Disney World power move

 

[JohnnySavage]

Harpy knows lots of legal words and phrases. He just doesn't know what very many of them mean. I suspect he's a legal secretary or paralegal in some small PI firm. Probably has a certificate in Legal Studies.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Iger, answering a question at the company's annual shareholder meeting, said Disney may not have handled its position on the bill well, but added that corporations have a right to express opinions. He said it appeared DeSantis "decided to retaliate against us."
"To seek to punish a company for the exercise of a constitutional right, that just seems really wrong to me," Iger said.
"These efforts simply to retaliate for a position the company took sounds not just anti-business, but it sounds anti-Florida," Iger said.

https://www.reuters.com/business/me...irman-parker-other-board-nominees-2023-04-03/

 

[HisArpy]

The contract determines exactly whose life.
Any other legal issues you need me to explain to you?

Lol, spoken by the idjit who didn't even know what the legal terminology meant. But if you're so legally omnipotent, tell us EXACTLY WHO's life is the grant to be measured by? Use the specific terms of the grant rather than your belief of who they meant in order for you to name the person.

After that please let us know if there are any other legal theories you want to debunk in your ignorance of ALL things law related?

 

[HisArpy]

Harpy knows lots of legal words and phrases. He just doesn't know what very many of them mean. I suspect he's a legal secretary or paralegal in some small PI firm. Probably has a certificate in Legal Studies.

^ classic symptoms of dopamine withdrawal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Harpy knows lots of legal words and phrases. He just doesn't know what very many of them mean. I suspect he's a legal secretary or paralegal in some small PI firm. Probably has a certificate in Legal Studies.

*gasp* Shade of "Karen Kraft"!

 

[Rotadom]

Imagine rooting for a fascist to bully a mouse. Sad people are sad.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Harpy knows lots of legal words and phrases. He just doesn't know what very many of them mean. I suspect he's a legal secretary or paralegal in some small PI firm. Probably has a certificate in Legal Studies.

Wow. You got another one right. Careful, you'll be accused of being a liberal soon

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Lol, spoken by the idjit who didn't even know what the legal terminology meant. But if you're so legally omnipotent, tell us EXACTLY WHO's life is the grant to be measured by? Use the specific terms of the grant rather than your belief of who they meant in order for you to name the person.

After that please let us know if there are any other legal theories you want to debunk in your ignorance of ALL things law related?

Rob already did this.

 

[HisArpy]

Rob already did this.

Considering that I have rubbery on iggy now, please enlighten me as to the name of the person whose name is STATED IN THE GRANT and upon whose lifespan the grant duration is measured by.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Considering that I have rubbery on iggy now, please enlighten me as to the name of the person whose name is STATED IN THE GRANT and upon whose lifespan the grant duration is measured by.

Teh cowardly barrister has me on ignore, so somebody quote me so I can inform Timmeh that teh restrictive covenant (which he erroneously calls a "grant") expires upon the death of the last grandchild of King Charles III who was alive as of the date the covenant was approved.

That is an accepted legal condition, Timmeh's caterwauling to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Considering that I have rubbery on iggy now, please enlighten me as to the name of the person whose name is STATED IN THE GRANT and upon whose lifespan the grant duration is measured by.

I didn’t know you were afraid of Rob.

It ends 21 years after the death of his last living descendant who was alive in February 2023.