Disney Checkmates DeSantis

[HisArpy]

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.

WHO is the "last living descendant"? That's the issue. WHO is the "last living descendant"?

It's not the "youngest" because "youngest" doesn't mean he will live longer than his ancestors. If the "youngest" dies too soon, does that mean that the designation switches to some other person? If so, how does that show the person so named is definite and certain?

The courts have dealt with this and determined that such a designation violates the Rule because the person so named in that manner cannot be made definite and certain. This is precedent.

I think it's wonderful that you and others want to believe that Disney's attorneys did this because they're smarter than the rest of the world. Perhaps it's true because they seem to have bamboozled YOU into believing that they did it out of magnanimity instead of the cold harsh reality that every minute they spend defending their crap means they get paid more money on top of the money they got paid to craft it. And they get to do it without fear of the consequences that they will be held liable for any damages their monster created. Unlike their client.




I'm not afraid of rubbery. That you seem to think bravery requires his incessant bigotry and personal attacks to be required reading only shows that you're stupider than I have come to believe.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

WHO is the "last living descendant"? That's the issue. WHO is the "last living descendant"?

It's not the "youngest" because "youngest" doesn't mean he will live longer than his ancestors. If the "youngest" dies too soon, does that mean that the designation switches to some other person? If so, how does that show the person so named is definite and certain?

The courts have dealt with this and determined that such a designation violates the Rule because the person so named in that manner cannot be made definite and certain. This is precedent.

I think it's wonderful that you and others want to believe that Disney's attorneys did this because they're smarter than the rest of the world. Perhaps it's true because they seem to have bamboozled YOU into believing that they did it out of magnanimity instead of the cold harsh reality that every minute they spend defending their crap means they get paid more money on top of the money they got paid to craft it. And they get to do it without fear of the consequences that they will be held liable for any damages their monster created. Unlike their client.




I'm not afraid of rubbery. That you seem to think bravery requires his incessant bigotry and personal attacks to be required reading only shows that you're stupider than I have come to believe.

Name the court case.

 

[Comshaw]

Name the court case.

JHC. Every once in a while I have to click on 'harpy's posts to see what he is blathering about. What he's trying to do this time is to insist that the covenant isn't valid because the last living descendants of King Charlies isn't specified, when in reality anyone who can read English can see it is pretty plain. The passage reads as follows:

This one passage: "...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration." pretty much details who this timetable is based on. Anyone with one good eye and half a brain can see that. There is no ambiguity. There is no doubt. 'harpy is just doing his regular thing, arguing to argue, even though he is utterly wrong and knows it. And asking 'harpy to cite a case that upholds his opinion is like asking a mule to talk. it ain't never going to happen, 'cause a mule can't and there is no such case law.

'nuff said


Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

JHC. Every once in a while I have to click on 'harpy's posts to see what he is blathering about. What he's trying to do this time is to insist that the covenant isn't valid because the last living descendants of King Charlies isn't specified, when in reality anyone who can read English can see it is pretty plain. The passage reads as follows:
View attachment 2224151
This one passage: "...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration." pretty much details who this timetable is based on. Anyone with one good eye and half a brain can see that. There is no ambiguity. There is no doubt. 'harpy is just doing his regular thing, arguing to argue, even though he is utterly wrong and knows it. And asking 'harpy to cite a case that upholds his opinion is like asking a mule to talk. it ain't never going to happen, 'cause a mule can't and there is no such case law.

'nuff said


Comshaw

Lawyers generally suck.

Bad lawyers (like Harpy) generally suck more.

Even “the dream team” lawyers that “masterfully” got OJ acquitted basically called for jury nullification.

SAD!!!

 

[RobDownSouth]

DeSantis petulantly firing back today, says his handpicked goon squad might use its remaining powers in the Reedy Creek district to declare all roads going into Disney to be toll roads.

 

[HisArpy]

JHC. Every once in a while I have to click on 'harpy's posts to see what he is blathering about. What he's trying to do this time is to insist that the covenant isn't valid because the last living descendants of King Charlies isn't specified, when in reality anyone who can read English can see it is pretty plain. The passage reads as follows:
View attachment 2224151
This one passage: "...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration." pretty much details who this timetable is based on. Anyone with one good eye and half a brain can see that. There is no ambiguity. There is no doubt. 'harpy is just doing his regular thing, arguing to argue, even though he is utterly wrong and knows it. And asking 'harpy to cite a case that upholds his opinion is like asking a mule to talk. it ain't never going to happen, 'cause a mule can't and there is no such case law.

'nuff said


Comshaw

WHO is "the last survivor"?

NAME THEM or forever shut the fuck up.

 

[DeluxAuto]

WHO is "the last survivor"?

NAME THEM or forever shut the fuck up.

lol.
lolol.
lololol.
lolololol.

 

[HisArpy]

Name the court case.

It's not "a case," it's an entire body of case law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

This is a fairly decent primer, and while I don't agree with all of it, there's still a lot of nuance in the cross over areas you need to think about which the Disney grant doesn't cover at all as far as I can see. (The area of adoption for instance. Under adoption law adopted children are for all legal purposes the same as natural children and have exactly the same rights.) Merely reciting the "21 years" mantra, as the Disney grant does, isn't enough to clear the hurdle because there's a LOT more to it than just some words.

Further, Florida has abolished the common law rule and placed statutory limits on the time frames which cannot be exceeded (I believe it's 90 years) and attempts to get beyond those statutory time frames are legally invalid.

The point here is that Disney is trying to do something which is forbidden and is attempting to use artful language to achieve that end. Whether they'll be successful or not depends on a lot of things. Which is why I've always maintained that the grant MAY violate the Rule Against Perpetuities rather than saying it "does."

Additionally, the State of Florida is looking into other issues such as violations of the open meetings act, conspiracy, and so on. If they find anything they can revoke the grant as being the product of unlawful conduct.

Finally, there's the aspect most people aren't even thinking about. If you were going to contract with someone and they pulled the kind of stunt the Reedy Creek Board did when they crafted the grant, would you think that the people you were doing business with were on the "up and up"?

 

[RobDownSouth]

WHO is "the last survivor"?

NAME THEM or forever shut the fuck up.

Seriously, Timmeh, you're being obtuse.
King Charles had five direct living descendants at the time the covenant was recorded
1. Prince William
2. Prince Harry
3. Prince George
4. Princess Charlotte
5. Prince Louis

Whomever is the last of this group of five to die will have been the last survivor.
Presumably it will be Prince Louis as he is the youngest of the bunch, but I wouldn't put it past Florida's governor to send assassins after all of the above.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Seriously, Timmeh, you're being obtuse.
King Charles had five direct living descendants at the time the covenant was recorded
1. Prince William
2. Prince Harry
3. Prince George
4. Princess Charlotte
5. Prince Louis

Whomever is the last of this group of five to die will have been the last survivor.
Presumably it will be Prince Louis as he is the youngest of the bunch, but I wouldn't put it past Florida's governor to send assassins after all of the above.

Because he’s afraid of you I’m quoting.

 

[jaF0]

Presumably it would be the as yet un-conceived, child, grandchild, great grandchild, niece or nephew of one of the above .... which could be a hundred years or more.

 

[ll74]

DeSantis' actions are fascistic. No doubt about it now.
The dude is off his rocker going after Disney. If the legislature had any backbone, they'd impeach him

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/06/desantis-disney-hotel-taxes-toll-rodes-00090959

 

[Lazaran]

I’m sure DISNEY didn’t have access to lawyers far more competent than Harpy when they proceeded with this legal slap down of Florida “man” Ron De”Santos”.

Harpy

 

[Comshaw]

Presumably it would be the as yet un-conceived, child, grandchild, great grandchild, niece or nephew of one of the above .... which could be a hundred years or more.

No it wouldn't be unconceived or unborn descendants. Again, '...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration."
And because the covenant does not say "direct descendent" those to be included aren't just the 5 Rob listed it also includes any children of those five that are born as of the declaration. Lilibet, Meghan and Harry's daughter is the youngest living decedent of King Charles. I think she is 2 years old or thereabouts. Puts a whole new spin on it huh?

Comshaw

 

[DeluxAuto]

Seriously, Timmeh, you're being obtuse.
King Charles had five direct living descendants at the time the covenant was recorded
1. Prince William
2. Prince Harry
3. Prince George
4. Princess Charlotte
5. Prince Louis

Whomever is the last of this group of five to die will have been the last survivor.
Presumably it will be Prince Louis as he is the youngest of the bunch, but I wouldn't put it past Florida's governor to send assassins after all of the above.

Because he’s afraid of you I’m quoting.

Just in case.
And just piling on.

 

[Lazaran]

Presumably it would be the as yet un-conceived, child, grandchild, great grandchild, niece or nephew of one of the above .... which could be a hundred years or more.

“Last survivor” - “lLIVING as of the date of this declaration”.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No it wouldn't be unconceived or unborn descendants. Again, '...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration."
And because the covenant does not say "direct descendent" those to be included aren't just the 5 Rob listed it also includes any children of those five that are born as of the declaration. Lilibet, Meghan and Harry's daughter is the youngest living decedent of King Charles. I think she is 2 years old or thereabouts. Puts a whole new spin on it huh?

Comshaw

It will be interesting to read HisArpy's "legal explanation" of the word "descendant".

*nods*

 

[HisArpy]

No it wouldn't be unconceived or unborn descendants. Again, '...after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles, King of England living as of the date of this declaration."
And because the covenant does not say "direct descendent" those to be included aren't just the 5 Rob listed it also includes any children of those five that are born as of the declaration. Lilibet, Meghan and Harry's daughter is the youngest living decedent of King Charles. I think she is 2 years old or thereabouts. Puts a whole new spin on it huh?

Comshaw

"Youngest" doesn't mean "last living." The potential is there but it's not a guarantee. Thus the choice is a moving target incapable of being determined until after the fact.

And again, this totally ignores the fact that Florida limits such covenants to 90 years.

How old was Elizabeth when she died? Plus 21 years if her descendants are lucky enough to live as long means that the grant violates Florida law on it's face and as time potentially runs.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Presumably it would be the as yet un-conceived, child, grandchild, great grandchild, niece or nephew of one of the above .... which could be a hundred years or more.

Ditto
Last descendant…. Not those specific people
Then? Add 21 years for good measure.
Game Set Match

Toll roads? Interesting. What an ass they elected!

 

[zipman]

WHO is the "last living descendant"? That's the issue. WHO is the "last living descendant"?

It's not the "youngest" because "youngest" doesn't mean he will live longer than his ancestors. If the "youngest" dies too soon, does that mean that the designation switches to some other person? If so, how does that show the person so named is definite and certain?

The courts have dealt with this and determined that such a designation violates the Rule because the person so named in that manner cannot be made definite and certain. This is precedent.

I think it's wonderful that you and others want to believe that Disney's attorneys did this because they're smarter than the rest of the world. Perhaps it's true because they seem to have bamboozled YOU into believing that they did it out of magnanimity instead of the cold harsh reality that every minute they spend defending their crap means they get paid more money on top of the money they got paid to craft it. And they get to do it without fear of the consequences that they will be held liable for any damages their monster created. Unlike their client.




I'm not afraid of rubbery. That you seem to think bravery requires his incessant bigotry and personal attacks to be required reading only shows that you're stupider than I have come to believe.

I can tell you one person Disney's lawyers are smarter than - YOU!!!

 

[HisArpy]

I can tell you one person Disney's lawyers are smarter than - YOU!!!

Well that answers the question of whose lifespan determines the length of the grant then. How silly of me not to think that them being smarter than me was the key to clarifying how long the grant is for. Or that I know that Florida has a statute which limits this type of thing to 90 years.

Which is something Disney's lawyers apparently didn't know. Or you either for that matter.

But according to you they're smarter than me so that makes it all gooder or something.

Or maybe you're just a fuckwit without a clue.

 

[zipman]

Well that answers the question of whose lifespan determines the length of the grant then. How silly of me not to think that them being smarter than me was the key to clarifying how long the grant is for. Or that I know that Florida has a statute which limits this type of thing to 90 years.

Which is something Disney's lawyers apparently didn't know. Or you either for that matter.

But according to you they're smarter than me so that makes it all gooder or something.

Or maybe you're just a fuckwit without a clue.

Or maybe I've seen you state wrong interpretarions of the law so many times I don't give a shit what you have to say?

 

[HisArpy]

Or maybe I've seen you state wrong interpretarions of the law so many times I don't give a shit what you have to say?

Or you've got a hard on for proving how fucking stupid you are in public.

BTW, them Interpretarions got into their spaceships and left. Seems they couldn't stand ol' Joe neither.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Turley’s right. The preemptive move by the Disney-controlled board was clever but the state of Florida has the means to ensure the state-appointed board of the Central State Tourism Oversight Special District has full governing authority.

“Disney's move is breathtaking and, in my view, uniquely stupid. Picking a fight with a state with general tax authority is pretty dumb when you have billions sunk into fixed real estate and assets in the state.”

 

[ll74]

Turley’s right. The preemptive move by the Disney-controlled board was clever but the state of Florida has the means to ensure the state-appointed board of the Central State Tourism Oversight Special District has full governing authority.

“Disney's move is breathtaking and, in my view, uniquely stupid. Picking a fight with a state with general tax authority is pretty dumb when you have billions sunk into fixed real estate and assets in the state.”

The government is the one that picked the fight... specifically DeSantis. The company is protecting itself from government overreach.