America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 months ago by DrMaddVibe. 479 replies replies.
10 Pages«<5678910>
DeSantis vs. Disney
HockeyDad Offline
#401 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Disney hasn’t been attacked. They are untouched.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#402 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
HockeyDad wrote:
Disney hasn’t been attacked. They do the touching.


Fixed it for you!

Herfing
DrMaddVibe Offline
#403 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
drglnc wrote:
And the Big D even said it outload on tape... he specifically said the reason he is doing all of this is because of the public statements Disney made related to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill. seems like an attack by the government on free speech to me... i think we have a document that forbids that or something...


We've already tackled the "Free Speech" angle to this narrative.

http://www.cigarbid.com/...is-vs-Disney#post4661929


Pretty sure the thing...you know the thing, was put into motion by a bunch of guys that recently removed the yoke of Tyranny from their necks and wanted protections for citizens from government. Last thing they could've ever imagined were corporations behaving like federal agencies and government protecting bad actors and laws.
rfenst Offline
#404 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
HockeyDad wrote:
Go ahead and dismiss that lawsuit. Disney thinks RCID is their private property and it was taken without just compensation. Disney is claiming a government is their property.

I don't think that is the right legal analysis. But, I could be dead wrong. Disney's property, no matter how titled, makes Disney, at least, its beneficial owner.

Giving Disney special status (Reedy Creek), regardless of its fairness when compared to other businesses/theme parks, was a business decision agreed to in writing by Disney and the state, whether by contract or not, that Disney had a reasonable right to rely on in its past and future business dealings.

Detrimental reliance is a defense to the claim of no binding or improper agreement/contract. All it requires is reasonableness.

Unilateral, direct, retaliatory changes to an agreement by a governmental body is unconstitutional.


(Nikki Haley has already offered to help Disney out if it wants to start up anything in her state. So will many other states...)



(amended)
HockeyDad Offline
#405 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
RCID was created by the state legislature. It wasn’t given to Disney. It’s not Disney property. It is a governing body. Disney did not sign any agreement.

The Reedy Creek Improvement Act, otherwise known as House Bill No. 486,[1] was a law introduced and passed in the U.S. state of Florida in 1967 which established the area surrounding the Walt Disney World Resort (the Reedy Creek Improvement District) as its own governmental authority, granting it the same authority and responsibilities as a county government.
HockeyDad Offline
#406 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
I look forward to Disney bulldozing the parks and selling off the land for housing.

The problem they will have in all other states is the weather! Maybe global warming will help with an all-season park elsewhere.

MACS Offline
#407 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,584
They could always move to SoCal... maybe carve out a spot by Disney Land?
drglnc Offline
#408 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 680
DrMaddVibe wrote:
We've already tackled the "Free Speech" angle to this narrative.

http://www.cigarbid.com/...is-vs-Disney#post4661929


Pretty sure the thing...you know the thing, was put into motion by a bunch of guys that recently removed the yoke of Tyranny from their necks and wanted protections for citizens from government. Last thing they could've ever imagined were corporations behaving like federal agencies and government protecting bad actors and laws.



The "Free Speech Angle" is not a Narrative... the Gov in his own words said on tape that all of this is happening BECAUSE of Disney speaking out... ALL of it is based on that free speech. In the end Disney will live on, Disney will prosper.
Brewha Offline
#409 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,143
DeSantis would like the have an recording play at all of the Florida airports:

"Welcome to Florida. Please remember to set your watch back 200 years.."
rfenst Offline
#410 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Look, governments make long-term, sweetheart-deals with corporations all the time- to entice their business away from others/elsewhere, and to generally increase prosperity for towns, cities, counties and states. Think... tax breaks promised for building a major local Amazon distribution warehouse or tax concessions for a huge auto plant. It is completely and openly the norm.

I have read the 90 or so page bill signed by the governor over like 50 years ago. In the one FSC case I read so far, Florida v. Disney, the FSC adamantly rejected Florida's challenges to the constitutionally of the law and found that the unique community needs and benefits were a fair bargain for both parties for multiple reasons.

Unless the State can win a stunningly rare total dismissal up front, this case could drag on for years and years. It could even have the potential to ultimately be heard by SCOTUS. But, I still have to read Disney's Complaint...

Disney will be willing to spend tens (or more) of millions of dollars and has the very sharpest lawyers in this fight by a long, long mile. This is going to cost taxpayers a hell of a lot of money.

For what?

This should be settled out of court so that neither Disney nor DeSantis get too much egg on their faces together. The worst Disney's settlement will be is to reinstitute Reedy Creek control and then phase it out over an agreed upon time- so that it can adjust to changes in its business plans for any changes that may be coming.
HockeyDad Offline
#411 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Liquidate RCID. It’s balance sheet shows it’s assets worth more than its debt.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#412 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
drglnc wrote:
The "Free Speech Angle" is not a Narrative... the Gov in his own words said on tape that all of this is happening BECAUSE of Disney speaking out... ALL of it is based on that free speech. In the end Disney will live on, Disney will prosper.



Sorry, you didn't read and comprehend what Disney had said and done to prompt the removal of their charter.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#413 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
rfenst wrote:
Disney will be willing to spend tens (or more) of millions of dollars and has the very sharpest lawyers in this fight by a long, long mile. This is going to cost taxpayers a hell of a lot of money.



Henny Penny the sky is not going to fall out. Just like you and everyone else in the 2 counties didn't receive a 300K+ tax property bill.

Stop reading the NYT for Christ's sake and switch to decaf!
RayR Online
#414 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
I heard sharpie corporate lawyers like Disney has always cost taxpayers a hell of a lot of money because all they really care about is getting some.
rfenst Offline
#415 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
A timeline of the DeSantis-Disney feud



Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has been at loggerheads with the Walt Disney Company for more than a year over a controversial bill. Here’s how it developed.

The Walt Disney Co. is suing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), accusing him of violating the entertainment giant’s constitutional rights, teeing up a contentious court battle between two of Florida’s power centers.

It’s the latest skirmish in an ongoing dispute between the Walt Disney World Resort’s corporate parent and the state’s conservative governor. For more than a year, Disney has openly opposed Republican-imposed restrictions against covering issues like homosexuality and gender identity in public schools. DeSantis, meanwhile, has criticized Disney as a “woke corporation” while working with the legislature to limit its power.

Here are the major events leading up to Disney’s lawsuit.

January 2022
State lawmakers on Jan. 11 introduced HB 1557, officially called the Parental Rights in Education bill, which prohibits lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools through the third grade. Critics quickly took to calling it the “Don’t say gay” bill.

March 2022
March 3: Protestors gathered at theme parks in Florida and California to protest Disney’s failure to publicly oppose the law, according to a local CBS affiliate.
March 8: Florida state senators voted 22-17 in favor of HB 1557, sending it to DeSantis for his approval.
March 9: Disney CEO Bob Chapek told the company’s annual shareholder meeting that he called DeSantis “to express the company’s disappointment and concern that the legislation, if enacted, could be used to unfairly target gay, lesbian, nonbinary, and transgender kids and families.” The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, wasn’t satisfied with Chapek’s statement and rejected a donation from Disney. “This should be the beginning of Disney’s advocacy efforts rather than the end,” HRC’s interim president Joni Madison said in a release.
March 10: DeSantis criticized Chapek’s decision to speak out, and vowed to move forward with the education restrictions. “In Florida, our policies are going to be based on the interests of Florida citizens, not on the musings of woke corporations,” DeSantis said, according to the local news station WESH Channel 2.
March 28: DeSantis signed the bill into law. In response, Disney issued a sharper statement opposing it, saying “our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts.”

State lawmakers on April 21 passed legislation dissolving the Reedy Creek special district that has allowed Disney to largely govern its own affairs in Walt Disney World and the surrounding area. DeSantis signed the bill the next day even as local officials raised concerns that the move would create a “debt bomb” catastrophic for local taxpayers. “If you dissolved Reedy Creek, that $105 million in revenue literally goes away, it doesn’t get transferred,” Orange County tax collector Scott Randolph told CNBC at the time.

May
Taxpayers from the area around Disney World filed a complaint May 16 in federal court against DeSantis, expressing concerns about debt and political retaliation, according to Disney Food Blog, a local website that has closely followed the dispute. The lawsuit was later dismissed.

November
Former CEO Bob Iger reassumed control of Disney on Nov. 20. In a media appearance soon after his return, Iger said he “was sorry to see [Disney] dragged into that battle.” Iger also emphasized that Florida and Disney have been mutually important to each other for a long time.

February 2023
Feb. 6: In a special session of the legislature, Republican lawmakers propose a bill renaming the Reedy Creek district as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District and stipulating that board members should be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
Feb. 8: In one of their last acts before DeSantis’s appointees took over, the outgoing Reedy Creek supervisors — all chosen by Disney — signed a new agreement with the company that stripped the board of power and handed significant authority directly to Disney. The move took place with no fanfare at the time, although the company later said that legal requirements were met for public notices before the meeting.
Feb. 27: DeSantis signed legislation that overhauls and renames the special district and packs it with DeSantis donors and conservative activists.

March 2023
March 29: The special district’s DeSantis-appointed board announced it only learned of the new Disney agreement weeks after the deal was approved. The new board decried the move as an illegal act and retained several law firms to look for holes in the agreement.

April 2023
April 3: DeSantis called for a state investigation into the development agreement, and Iger criticized DeSantis as “anti-business” and “anti-Florida” during a meeting with Disney shareholders.
April 17: DeSantis announced additional measures against Disney, including legislation to nullify the development agreement and subject Disney to outside safety inspectors. He also floated other possible actions, such as raising taxes, adding tolls, building a prison next to Disney World, or building a non-Disney theme park nearby.
April 26: The board declared Disney’s agreement null and void. Disney files suit the same day.
rfenst Offline
#416 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Disney CEO blasts DeSantis, saying fight is about one thing: retaliation

“Does the state want us to invest more, employ more people and pay more taxes — or not?” the CEO said.


Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau

TALLAHASSEE — Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger on Wednesday accused Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida GOP legislators of misleading the public and singling out his company for “retaliation,” and made a veiled threat that the company’s investment in the state may be at stake.

“Our plans were to invest $17 billion over the next 10 years, which is what the state should want us to do,” Iger said during Disney’s second-quarter earnings call, referring to the previously announced investment in the past tense.

“We operate responsibly,” he continued. “We pay our fair share of taxes. We employ thousands of people and, by the way, we pay them above the minimum wage.” He added that the company’s employee benefits and wages are “substantially” higher than those dictated by the state and include paying all college tuition and fees for hourly employees in Florida.

Iger concluded: “Does the state want us to invest more, employ more people and pay more taxes — or not?”


The Disney chief’s statement came in response to a question from a financial analyst who suggested that the company was “stuck with this fight” with DeSantis over the future of the governing district that oversees Disney’s Orlando-area real estate and asked about the company’s “future risk.”

But if Iger and his colleagues at the entertainment giant are having second thoughts about their investment in Florida, none of the financial analysts on the call followed up.

DeSantis spokesperson Jeremy Redfern would not respond to requests for comment about Iger’s threat. He referred to the governor’s exclusive interview on Friday with the conservative website Newsmax instead.

The fight between DeSantis and Disney continues to escalate after legislators earlier this year authorized the governor to replace members of the Reedy Creek Improvement District governing board with his allies who do not live in the district.

The DeSantis board was renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District and its first major decision was to void its contracts between Disney and the previous board, prompting the company to sue the state. The board counter-sued Disney last week.

On Wednesday, the board met again and appointed a new district administrator for the governing board, DeSantis ally Glenton Gilzean Jr., president of the Central Florida Urban League. The board voted to pay him $400,000, $45,000 more than his predecessor, John Classe, who was retained by the board as a special adviser.

The board also voted to create a new code enforcement system that will answer to the new administrator and have the authority to fine Walt Disney World for code violations of up to $500 a day. The company is known for taking meticulous care of its grounds and buildings.

Iger said Wednesday that Disney had enjoyed a “terrific relationship with the state for more than 50 years” and “never expected to be in the position of having to defend our business interests in federal court.”

But he indicated the company would continue its lawsuit because “this is about one thing and one thing only and that’s retaliating against us for taking a position about pending legislation.”

The conflict began last year after the company voiced its opposition to the bill known as the Parental Rights in Education Act, called the Don’t Say Gay bill by critics because of the chilling effect they said it would have on classroom speech relating to gender and sexual orientation. Legislators responded by passing a bill at the governor’s urging to dissolve Disney’s special taxing district by June of this year.

But that effort failed because it would have cost taxpayers more than $1 billion, so Republican leaders returned this year with a plan to instead replace the governing board controlled by Disney with one controlled by the governor.


Meanwhile, Disney had quietly lined up its legal options and used the last public meeting of the governing board in February to secure new development agreements that would freeze the pacts that were in place with the governing district for years to come.

When the governor’s appointees learned of the contracts between the company and the district, it voted to void them and legislators passed a bill to allow them to do it retroactively. Disney responded with a lawsuit, accusing the state of violating both its First Amendment and property rights.

“You can’t have a situation where the Legislature has spoken and one company just decides to contract out against the will of the people,” DeSantis said Friday in the Newsmax interview, given shortly before he signed the bill into law to allow the board to void the contracts. “At the end of the day, they just have to understand the party is over for them.”

The company on Monday amended its lawsuit to include the governor’s latest statements and actions.

“At the Governor’s bidding, the State’s oversight board has purported to ‘void’ publicly noticed and duly agreed development contracts, which had laid the foundation for billions of Disney’s investment dollars and thousands of jobs,” Disney said in its amended complaint.

“Days later, the State Legislature enacted and Governor DeSantis signed legislation rendering these contracts immediately void and unenforceable. These government actions were patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional.”

DeSantis said that he was confident that the state would prevail in its lawsuit and also proclaimed victory over the company for silencing its opposition to the expansion of the Parental Rights in Education bill.

“They have not made a peep,” DeSantis boasted in the NewsMax interview. “That ultimately is the most important — that Disney is not allowed to pervert the system to the detriment of Florida.”

In his statement on Wednesday, Iger countered the governor’s repeated claims that Disney had been given special treatment in state law.

“This is not about special privileges, or a level playing field, or Disney in any way using its leverage around the state of Florida,” Iger said. “There are about 2,000 special districts in Florida and most were established to foster investment and development, where we were one of them. It basically made it easy for us and others, by the way, to do business in Florida.”

He named the Daytona Speedway’s special district and the district that governs the three-county retirement community in Central Florida known as The Villages.


In 1955, the Daytona Beach Racing & Recreational Facilities District was created to fund and build a race track in Daytona, and in 2014, the International Speedway Corp. and the Atlanta-based Jacoby Development were given the right to establish a community development district that has the power to collect tax dollars and sell tax-exempt bonds.

The Villages is governed by the Village Center Community Development District.

“If the goal is leveling the playing field, then a uniform application of the law of government oversight of special districts needs to occur and be applied to all special districts,” Iger said.


[h]Iger also countered the governor’s claim that Disney has been given special tax benefits as a result of its special district.

“There’s also a false narrative that we’ve been fighting to protect tax breaks as part of this,” he said. “But in fact, we’re the largest taxpayer in Central Florida — paying over $1.1 billion in state and local taxes last year alone and we pay more taxes, specifically more real estate taxes, as a result of that special district.”

Iger also countered the governor’s claim that the company was the beneficiary of “corporate welfare.”

“While it’s easy to say that the Reedy Creek Special District that was established for us over 50 years ago benefited us, it’s misleading to not also consider how much Disney benefited the state of Florida,” he said. Disney “employs over 75,000 people and attracts tens of millions of people to the state.”


DeSantis ally Rep. Randy Fine, R-Palm Beach, criticized Iger’s statements, suggesting the company’s powers were extraordinary.

“The arrogance of these California wokeists is breathtaking,” he wrote in a tweet.
HockeyDad Offline
#417 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Disney stock down 8.5% today.

Bob Iger #winning.
rfenst Offline
#418 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
HockeyDad wrote:
Disney stock down 8.5% today.

Bob Iger #winning.

Maybe you ought to short it?
I only care about the park in my hometown.
HockeyDad Offline
#419 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
I’m starting to think Disney is a “buy”.

Disney might want to reconsider their war with Florida.

I’m perfectly willing to negotiate a consulting contract with Disney to look into moving Walt Disney World to South Carolina. Come to Greenville, stay for the magic!
RayR Online
#420 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793

How Disney Comes Up With New Movie Ideas

Inside the Disney writers' room, the brains behind The House of Mouse are having trouble coming up with a movie idea that's not a remake or a woke piece o' garbage. Let's take a watch.

https://youtu.be/ltv6DPF4UMA



rfenst Offline
#421 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
HockeyDad wrote:
I’m starting to think Disney is a “buy”.

Disney might want to reconsider their war with Florida.

I’m perfectly willing to negotiate a consulting contract with Disney to look into moving Walt Disney World to South Carolina. Come to Greenville, stay for the magic!

But we already have "The Magic."
And, they perpetually suck.
Oh, wait, that's not what you were refering to...
DrMaddVibe Offline
#422 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
rfenst wrote:
Disney CEO blasts DeSantis, saying fight is about one thing: retaliation



“This is not about special privileges, or a level playing field, or Disney in any way using its leverage around the state of Florida,” Iger said. “There are about 2,000 special districts in Florida and most were established to foster investment and development, where we were one of them. It basically made it easy for us and others, by the way, to do business in Florida.”



And none of the rest have ever said they would undermine elections, overturn the will of a state's voters, meddle in elections or groom children on every single media platform they hold.

Want to leave the state and set up somewhere else? GTFO and go. Disney won't though. EVERYONE knows it. They're fighting for survival because of their own actions. Only someone siding with what they're doing would defend Disney at this point. There is no other reason. NONE.
HockeyDad Offline
#423 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Disney needs the laws changed in California as well! Sounds like some of the same ominous language they are using in Florida.


“DisneylandForward is a multiyear public planning effort to update Disneyland Resort’s existing development approvals that will allow Disney to meaningfully invest in Anaheim for decades to come and meet the future demands in entertainment.”

“In the 1990s, the City of Anaheim approved specific plans that would guide the growth of Disneyland Resort and businesses in the newly formed Anaheim Resort area. And while those plans resulted in major improvements to the entire Anaheim Resort, their “traditional” district/zone approach does not allow for the diverse, integrated experiences theme park visitors now seek, severely limiting Disney’s ability to continue investing in Anaheim.”
DrMaddVibe Offline
#424 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
Problem is California is morally, corporately and governmentaly bankrupt at every level.

I pity the citizens of the state that don't know any better or won't stand up for themselves.

They get what they get, even in the perverse manner they get the middle finger to the foreheads they refuse to even vote for something different to help themselves.

#CALPERS
HockeyDad Offline
#425 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
I betcha Anaheim is shaking in their boots that Disneyland is going to close and they will build a new one in Las Vegas!
RayR Online
#426 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
HockeyDad wrote:
I betcha Anaheim is shaking in their boots that Disneyland is going to close and they will build a new one in Las Vegas!


Well...the gubment should look at the bright side, they could always make the Disneyland property into a sanctuary city.
rfenst Offline
#427 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
DrMaddVibe wrote:
And none of the rest have ever said they would undermine elections, overturn the will of a state's voters, meddle in elections or groom children on every single media platform they hold.

Want to leave the state and set up somewhere else? GTFO and go. Disney won't though. EVERYONE knows it. They're fighting for survival because of their own actions. Only someone siding with what they're doing would defend Disney at this point. There is no other reason. NONE.


Please provide proof of:

1. underminining elections
2 overturning the will of the state's voters
3 Mediiling in the elections
4.Grooming of children on every single media platform they own.

What is grooming? def. Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

You can't prove your wild accusations.

As to GTFO, FU that trope is getting old. Just because our politics don't mesh and I am at odds with the governor you support- you would have me leave? It doesn't work like that.

Why don't you telll everyone the reasons you told me you moved from Michigan to Florida?
rfenst Offline
#428 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Home town locality rule...


Disney CEO Iger blasts DeSantis: ‘This is plainly a matter of retaliation’


Orlando Sentinal

Disney CEO Bob Iger lambasted Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for his perceived targeted retaliation against the company Wednesday, saying the continuing feud over the former Reedy Creek district is “not about special privileges, or a level playing field, or Disney in any way using its leverage around the state of Florida.”

Iger’s comments came as Disney reported strong revenue in the division that includes its theme parks. Walt Disney World — the center of the Florida fight — saw an earnings decrease thanks to higher costs even while attendance grew.

He said Disney’s lawsuit filed against DeSantis last month “made our position and the facts very clear:” that DeSantis’ actions against the company were retaliatory for Disney speaking out against Florida’s so-called “don’t say gay” law last spring.

“We operate responsibly, we pay our fair share in taxes, we employ thousands of people — and by the way, we pay them substantially above the minimum wage dictated by the state of Florida,” Iger said. “… Does the state want us to invest more, employ more people, and pay more taxes, or not?”

Responding to a question about investor risk over the issue, Iger said Disney’s former Reedy Creek Improvement District is one of nearly 2,000 special districts in Florida and the others have not seen the same treatment.

“If the goal is leveling the playing field, then the uniform application of the government oversight of special districts needs to occur,” he said.

Iger also refuted the claim that Disney was trying to protect its tax breaks in the fight over the district, which is now overseen by a DeSantis-appointed board.

He said Disney invests in Central Florida as its largest taxpayer and contributed over $1.1 billion in state and local taxes last year, including a significant real estate tax from the district. The company has filed several lawsuits against the Orange County property appraiser in recent years, alleging the office inflated land values.

“We’re proud of the tourism industry that we created, and we want to continue delivering the best possible experience for guests going forward,” Iger said. “We never wanted, and we certainly never expected, to be in a position of having to defend our business interests in federal court, particularly having such a terrific relationship with the state.”

During Wednesday’s financial report, CFO Christine McCarthy said Disney expects increased costs through the remainder of its financial year in Florida, due in part to paying higher wages under a new union contract.

In March, a union coalition representing Disney’s workers successfully negotiated to increase the resort’s minimum wage from $15 to $20.50 an hour by October 2026. Disney’s lowest-paid workers will earn at least $18 an hour by the end of this year.

McCarthy and Iger also referenced ongoing layoffs across the company announced during the last earnings call in February.

Disney plans to cut 7,000 workers as part of a larger $5.5 billion cost-cutting measure and has completed two of three anticipated rounds of layoffs so far. Iger said the company is “on track to meet or exceed” its overall savings goal.

“There’s been great cooperation throughout the entire company, which has been really rewarding … and of course, there’s the reality of headcount reductions, and we’re going through those, but there’s also other things,” McCarthy said.

In the quarter ending April 1, Disney’s Parks, Experiences and Products division reported $7.7 billion in revenue, up over $1.1 billion from the same period in 2022. The division’s operating income was $2.1 billion.

Growth at Disney’s domestic parks was “slightly unfavorable” compared to 2022’s second quarter, and Disneyland’s financial performance was better than Disney World’s, according to a release.

Disney does not release individual parks’ finances. McCarthy said the U.S. parks’ operating income “came in slightly below the prior year but was still up over 50% versus 2019.”

The company’s international parks “were a bright spot” early this year, McCarthy said.

Shanghai Disney Resort and Disneyland Paris had higher attendance and increased guest spending. Hong Kong Disneyland was also open more days this year compared to early 2022, when it closed for most of the quarter due to COVID-19.

“We do expect a really solid year overall for our domestic parks,” McCarthy said. “That being said, we also expect increased costs. … But we think that this is a growth business for us.”
DrMaddVibe Offline
#429 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
rfenst wrote:
Please provide proof of:

1. underminining elections
2 overturning the will of the state's voters
3 Mediiling in the elections
4.Grooming of children on every single media platform they own.

What is grooming? def. Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them. Children and young people who are groomed can be sexually abused, exploited or trafficked.

You can't prove your wild accusations.


Post #2 of this thread. You're welcome.

rfenst wrote:
As to GTFO, FU. Just because our politics don't mesh and I am at odds with the governor- you would jus as soon see me go?

Why don't you telll everyone the reasons you told me you moved from Michigan to Florida?


IF you're here trying to reach K-3 (and soon to be expanded!) children with sex on your mind, yes. GTFO, even you. It's sick. I've watched you migrate thread to thread and defend what Disney is doing. I don't know why you cannot see them for what they've said and what they're doing. It has nothing to do with politics either. I get it though, the liberal mindset can't comprehend the Alpha male mindset. You hate DeSantis even though you've admitted he was elected twice as the better candidate. The 1st time you've stated the state dodged a bullet. The 2nd put him against a man that would say he's anything and everything to be elected. YOU still wouldn't vote for a man that kept the economy of this state open and for the most part children in school. I will forever remember his leadership during Covid as the "gold standard" of how to deal through a pandemic and you wanted to force vaccinations, mask mandates and everyone had to hide in their homes.

Robert, I've been all over the globe and stepped in 47 of our states. Some were extended stays like Tennessee with the Saturn plant and Texas where EDS called HQ. They wanted me to move there so bad, it was only the GM account that kept me from making that move. I've lived in Michigan, California, Virginia, Florida, Kansas, my ex wife had to move back to Michigan to be near mommy (and the state had an exclusive insurance coverage for children with disabilities) and FINALLY back to Florida. I call Florida home because I love it here. When I spent close to 14 years in Michigan late Sept-early Oct to April-May living in that hellhole was unbearable. Never see the sun, grey skies, no leaves and and the grass is brown. It's depressing AF. Almost every day the weather report would come on and it would be oh, let's say 17 degrees outside and in Central Florida it was 81. Same day. You'd have to be some kind of sadist to want to live up there. I get why people do, some like that weather, family and work...I get it. I couldn't reconcile that though. I already knew what was there because I'd already lived there before. It was only when my ex in-laws finally retired and my ex wanted to follow the umbilical cord and move to the state I call home. I always have and always will.
rfenst Offline
#430 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
You and I simply see the world with two diferent collor-tinted glasses. But, otherwise, we have similar values. That Is all. I love it here too, but probably for just a few different reasons, and have no plans to leave either.
HockeyDad Offline
#431 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Bob called and told me they are not going to relocate Walt Disney World.
DrafterX Offline
#432 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,506
He was just kiddin... Mellow
Speyside2 Offline
#433 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,304
DeSantis keeps getting his ass kicked by the mouse. They are 10 moves ahead of him, he is a fool.
RayR Online
#434 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
Speyside2 wrote:
DeSantis keeps getting his ass kicked by the mouse. They are 10 moves ahead of him, he is a fool.


Spey are you coming back here to cause trouble again?
Are you like Robert who refuses to see Disney's agenda as grooming children into the LGBQ+++ religion?
Do you have a pair of LGBTQ Rainbow Mickey Mouse ears?
RayR Online
#435 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
I heard this kid has been BANNED FOR LIFE from Disney World (AlLeGedlY) for wearing a T-Shirt that says the unthinkable.

https://rumble.com/v2n5l1m-0512-12-year-old-school-board.html
rfenst Offline
#436 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
RayR wrote:

Are you like Robert who refuses to see Disney's agenda as grooming children into the LGBQ+++ religion?

Show me proof of this, not mere, unsupported allegations you have read about in some stunded, right-wing drivel.
Proof or ther is nothing to discuss.
RayR Online
#437 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
rfenst wrote:
Show me proof of this, not mere, unsupported allegations you have read about in some stunded, right-wing drivel.
Proof or ther is nothing to discuss.


Where have you been Robert? "Unsupported allegations"? "right-wing drivel"?
We've known about Disney's grooming agenda for some time. You didn't come across it?

The shocking things that come out of the mouths of LEFTIES! They just can't stop themselves from bragging.
Some of this from the memory hole....

Disney Executives Admit: Of Course We’re Grooming Your Children

BY: ELLE PURNELL
MARCH 30, 2022

Multiple Disney employees admitted their own personal missions to deluge 5- to 9-year-olds with as much of their own sexual ideology as possible.


Quote:
Disney isn’t just grooming children with radical sexual propaganda — now they’re bragging about it.

On the heels of Florida’s new Parental Rights in Education law, which bars educators from instructing kindergarten through third-grade students about sexual ideology, multiple executives and employees from the Walt Disney Company admitted their own personal missions to deluge 5- to 9-year-olds with as much of their own sexual ideology as possible.

One Disney executive boasted about her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” and efforts at “adding queerness to” children’s programming, in leaked audio published by investigative journalist Chris Rufo on Tuesday.

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” said Latoya Raveneau, an executive producer for Disney Television Animation. “I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness … No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

More...

https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/30/disney-executives-admit-of-course-were-grooming-your-children/


Disney Supports the Transgender Grooming of Young Kids, Endangering Families

https://youtu.be/Mo5rs0MCTOY
rfenst Offline
#438 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
Disney Ends Plans to Relocate Thousands of Employees to New Florida Campus

Move comes as company is cutting costs, reversing moves by previous CEO and fighting with Florida


WSJ

Walt Disney Co. ... has ended two major investments in Florida amid a high-profile dispute with state lawmakers and Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The company is reversing course on a nearly $900 million investment in a new corporate campus in Florida that would have relocated more than 2,000 employees, mostly from its theme parks division, to the town of Lake Nona, outside Orlando.

Separately, Disney is also closing its Galactic Starcruiser experience at Walt Disney World, one of the company’s most expensive attractions where visitors are immersed completely in a “Star Wars” adventure for days. Disney didn’t respond to questions about what date it might close.

Josh D’Amaro, head of Disney’s Parks, Experiences and Products division since 2020, said the Lake Nona project is dead. In an email to employees Thursday, employees will no longer be asked to relocate from Southern California.

Hundreds of employees from the division have already relocated to Florida, and will be given the option of moving back, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Lake Nona initiative, which contemplated a capital investment by Disney of up to $864 million, was the brainchild of former Chief Executive Bob Chapek, who was fired by the board in November and replaced by Robert Iger, who had previously served as CEO from 2005 to 2020.

“While some were excited about the new campus, I know that this decision and the circumstances surrounding it have been difficult for others,” D’Amaro wrote. “Given the considerable changes that have occurred since the announcement of this project, including new leadership and changing business conditions, we have decided not to move forward.”

The changing business conditions include both job cuts and growing tensions with Florida lawmakers and the state’s governor, according to people familiar with the matter. Disney is in the midst of reducing head count by 7,000 and slashing $5.5 billion from content and administrative budgets.

The company also is embroiled in a war of words and a legal battle with DeSantis, who last year criticized Disney for publicly opposing a sex-education bill that he had championed.

In April, the governor sought to take control of Reedy Creek, a special tax district that allows Disney to essentially self-govern the land that includes its theme parks and hotels near Orlando by replacing the district’s board with a handpicked slate of allies and seeking to cancel a 30-year development agreement that Disney had struck in February.

The moves prompted a federal lawsuit from Disney. At Disney’s annual meeting in early April, Iger announced that the company plans to invest $17 billion in Florida over the next decade and create 13,000 new jobs, and called DeSantis’ attacks on the company “antibusiness” and “anti-Florida.”

The cancellation of the Lake Nona project comes as local government and tourism officials in Orange County, Fla., have been touting the project as an important driver of investment and job growth.

Danielle Hollander, chief marketing officer at Visit Orlando, the city’s official tourism association, in an interview Monday cited the project as evidence of Disney’s commitment to Central Florida alongside other projects, including the debut of a new roller coaster at Magic Kingdom theme park and new attractions being built at nearby Epcot park.

Orange County Mayor Jerry Demings told the Journal on Monday that he believed Disney is “too big to want to fail in Central Florida.”

“They want to certainly see a state of Florida that is supportive of their investment,” said Demings.

Disney had struck an agreement with Florida officials that could give the company $570 million in tax breaks over a period of 20 years following the construction of its new campus in Lake Nona.

Those incentives were contingent on Disney bringing high-paying jobs to the region. The Orlando Economic Partnership had estimated that the average salary of the positions Disney was relocating to Florida at $120,000 a year.

The jobs set to move from California included hundreds of Imagineers, the team of green beret engineers and designers that was created by Walt Disney himself to design theme-park rides and other attractions, but also thousands of support staff in technology, marketing, communication and finance roles, according to people familiar with the matter.


When the relocation plan was announced in 2021, it caused an uproar among the parks division’s employees in California. Members of the relocating group called on company leaders to speak out against Florida legislation limiting classroom discussion of gender and sexuality. After then-CEO Chapek criticized the bill, DeSantis called the company a “woke” corporation, escalating the tension between the two sides.

In a November town hall meeting with staffers a week after returning as CEO, Iger said he would revisit the relocation plan.

“This was not an easy decision to make, but I believe it is the right one,” D’Amaro wrote in the email Thursday. “We are committed to handling this change with care and compassion. I remain optimistic about the direction of our Walt Disney World business. We have plans to invest $17 billion and create 13,000 jobs over the next 10 years. I hope we’re able to do so.”
rfenst Offline
#439 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
RayR wrote:
Multiple Disney employees admitted their own personal missions to deluge 5- to 9-year-olds with as much of their own sexual ideology as possible.

Disney Supports the Transgender Grooming of Young Kids, Endangering Families


The article is not about grooming. It is not about anything sexual at all.

Just some gay characters children might see and that scares you.

Those non-sexual characters reflect REALITY in society as opposed to the way YOU want it to be.

All you have to do is not watch it.

Your concern for the majority of us is noted and unneeded.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#440 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
rfenst wrote:
The article is not about grooming. It is not about anything sexual at all.

Just some gay characters children might see and that scares you.

Those non-sexual characters reflect REALITY in society as opposed to the way YOU want it to be.

All you have to do is not watch it.

Your concern for the majority of us is noted and unneeded.


obviously you aren't reading what both of us put up. THEIR WORDS...THEYRE GROOMING CHILDREN.

I'm glad they're not moving more of their garbage to Florida. The state will be just fine without more of the soon to be laid off Americans only to be replaced by H1B1 visa slugs from $hithole countries.
rfenst Offline
#441 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
So, you would decline work from Disney even if it offered your company months of work for you?
HockeyDad Offline
#442 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
I would do work again for Reedy Creek Energy but would decline if offered by the Disney Pedo/Grooming division.
rfenst Offline
#443 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
HockeyDad wrote:
I would do work again for Reedy Creek Energy but would decline if offered by the Disney Pedo/Grooming division.

Where is that division even based?
HockeyDad Offline
#444 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
rfenst wrote:
Where is that division even based?


RCES is in Lake Buena Vista.
rfenst Offline
#445 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
DeSantis seeks to disqualify judge in Disney case

Lawyers representing DeSantis say the judge made impartial remarks about the Governor and the Disney debacle.



Orlando Sentinel

Governor Ron DeSantis’ legal team filed a motion Friday to disqualify U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker from handling the Walt Disney Company’s federal lawsuit against him, alleging statements Walker made in other cases show the judge is biased in favor of the entertainment giant.

The defendants claim remarks by the judge made in open court on at least two occasions could “imply he has prejudged the retaliation in question.”

The motion states: “Because that question is now before this Court, and because that question involves highly publicized matters of great interest to Florida’s citizens, the Court should disqualify itself to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.”

The DeSantis’ legal team pulled statements by the judge in two separate hearings, including in a case against former Florida education commissioner Richard Corcoran, in which plaintiffs said they feared they would face punishment as a result of “intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity” surveys required by a 2021 state law.

In the other case, plaintiffs claimed state officials would take action against plaintiffs’ schools if they expressed opinions that violated the Individual Freedom Act, dubbed the “Stop WOKE Act” by DeSantis.

According to the motion filed on Friday, Walker brought up Disney in the context of asking whether a record exists of people taking action against those described as “woke” and a pattern of “punitive actions.”

In the first case, he asked: “What’s in the record, for example — is there anything in the record that says we are now going to take away Disney’s special status because they’re woke?”

In the second, he said: “And then Disney is going to lose its status because — arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul — ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party.”

The motion to disqualify claims the judge made “unprompted” references that suggest the state punished Disney by eliminating its special status.

Spokespeople for Disney and governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The fallout between Disney and the state of Florida took place after Disney criticized the Parental Rights in Education Law, which prohibits classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for young students. Critics call the law “don’t say gay”.

The governor appointed a new board for a special tax district encompassing Walt Disney World, which sought to undo development agreements approved by the previous Disney-friendly Reedy Creek Improvement District’s board that put Disney in charge of development.

Disney then sued DeSantis and the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in federal court in Tallahassee claiming “a targeted campaign of government retaliation.”

Earlier this week, Disney abruptly announced to its employees it would be dropping plans to build a nearly $1 billion corporate campus in Orlando’s Lake Nona neighborhood that would have brought 2,000 high-paying jobs to Central Florida.



Possible recusal. Can't get into the Motion on the court's website yet. It should have hearing transcripts that will tell the whole story whether the judge should recuse him selfor be taken off the case. Mere allegations without sufficient evidence is not enough.
RayR Online
#446 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,793
That judge it TAINTED Robert. TAINTED I say!
rfenst Offline
#447 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
U.S. Code



... (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
....


============================================================================

Code of Conduct for United States Judges



Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code.

(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

....
rfenst Offline
#448 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,096
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION




WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:23-cv-163-MW-MJF

RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida, et al.,

Defendants.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////




DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHIEF JUDGE MARK E. WALKER



Defendants move to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker (the Court) under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because the Court’s impartiality in this matter might reasonably be questioned. This case involves claims that Defendants retaliated against Walt Dis- ney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. based on Disney’s viewpoints. Yet two previous times, in two unrelated cases, the Court sua sponte offered “Disney” as an example of state retaliation. Those remarks—each derived from extrajudicial sources—were on the record, in open court, and could reasonably imply that the Court has prejudged the retaliation question here. Because that question is now before this Court, and because that question involves highly publicized matters of great interest to Florida’s citizens, the Court should disqualify itself to prevent even the appearance of impro- priety.

BACKGROUND


I. The Court’s Prior Comments About Disney

A. Link v. Corcoran


In Link v. Corcoran, No. 4:21-cv-271-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on the ground that the defendants—state education officials—would punish the plaintiffs for the results of their “intellectual free- dom and viewpoint diversity” surveys. Link, DE75 at 4. The plaintiffs argued that “[g]overnment reprisal is not a speculative risk” because “Governor DeSantis and Commissioner Corcoran have practically promised retaliation against Plaintiffs’ speech.” Id. at 21.

At the preliminary-injunction hearing on April 1, 2022—amidst ongoing pub- lic speculation about the potential dissolution of Disney’s hand-picked local govern- ment, the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), DE25 at 19–20—this Court discussed justiciability and whether the plaintiffs had shown a reasonable fear of First Amendment retaliation. Link, DE91 at 15–24. Specifically, the Court ques- tioned how the surveys alone posed a threat to the plaintiffs’ speech, because the statute at issue did not specify any “punitive measures that will be taken” by the Legislature or any other government entity based on the survey results. Id. at 15–18. The Court then used the State’s contemplated dissolution of Disney’s special district as an example of retaliatory conduct:

THE COURT: . . . I don’t understand how—it seems to me how you can say that threat, the chill, is reasonable when you’ve got to as- sume so many things. I mean, it requires you to assume the survey will show that liberal views are widespread on campus. You’ve got to as- sume the legislature will react by reducing their school funding and that the funding will directly harm those plaintiffs . . . aren’t there too many inferential steps for me to make at this juncture to find the chill is rea- sonable?

MS. VELEZ: Your Honor, there’s a lot to parse here. And the first that I want to draw the Court’s attention back to is that we think that the inquiry and the asking is a harm in and of itself. That’s under the Baird decision. But, of course, we’re primarily attacking—

THE COURT: But in that case, though—again, I just can’t let it go. In that case, though, isn’t the reason why that chill would be rea- sonable is you knew who I am and you know what my responses are, so you can target me directly?
I mean, I’ve already ruled, and the Eleventh Circuit will do what it does, but, you know, in the UF professor case, the chill—they knew who they were targeting, and they could target individuals, and so there was—and had announced their intent to do so, per the head of the board of trustees. So, I mean, there was facts before the Court that would— didn’t require you to make a—stack inferences, but there were facts before the Court from which such a reasonable fear could be adduced from the record, other than the assumption—well, let me ask you this.

What’s in the record, for example—is there anything in the rec- ord that says we are now going to take away Disney’s special status because they’re woke? Is there anything in the record that says—that you put in the record that says we are going to slash the funding? We did, in fact, take away millions of dollars from school boards because they had the audacity to require their students to wear masks during a pandemic.

What sort of—and I’m not suggesting that would be determinative in this case, but is that even in the record to say, Well, Judge, here’s what we’ve got in the record that shows these fears are well founded? Because, you know, Judge, if somebody says, I’m going to hit you with a baseball bat, take them at their word; they’re going to hit you with a baseball bat. They announced it, and . . . they’ve, in fact, done it in the past because here are the three people that just got hit with the baseball bat.

So what do we have in the record that would support such a finding?

MS. VELEZ: Well, Your Honor, I mean, of course, we think that we should take defendants at their word and everyone at their word. But, again, the larger point—

THE COURT: . . . What’s in the record . . . that shows these very people have taken putative measures [or punitive measures] against those they’ve described as woke in other contexts? Id. at 21–24 (emphasis added).

The Court thus contrasted the claims in Link (where the alleged retaliation was too speculative) with the State’s “tak[ing] away Disney’s special status because they’re woke” (an example where retaliation supposedly was not speculative). The hearing at which the Court drew that comparison came a few days after legislators began publicly calling for the dissolution of Reedy Creek,2 and just a day after the Governor publicly refuted the idea that dissolving RCID would be “retaliatory.”3 Those state-official remarks about RCID were widely reported in the news cycles surrounding the Link preliminary injunction hearing, as were many similar state- ments.4 And indeed, just a few weeks later, the State enacted Senate Bill 4C, which dissolved RCID and five other special districts, effective June 1, 2023, unless the Legislature took later action. See Ch. 2022-266, § 2, Laws of Fla.

B. Falls v. DeSantis

On the same day that SB 4C became law, the plaintiffs in Falls v. DeSantis, No. 4:22-cv-166-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla.), similarly moved for a preliminary injunction based, in part, on the argument that the state-level defendants would take enforce- ment action against the plaintiffs’ schools if the plaintiffs expressed opinions that violated the Individual Freedom Act,6 thus chilling their speech. See Falls, DE4 at 49 (“[M]ost teachers and employers will choose to err on the side of caution and either avoid these topics altogether or espouse ideas with which Florida’s conserva- tive politicians agree, rather than risk discipline, loss of funding, or a lawsuit.”).

At the preliminary-injunction hearing on June 21, 2022, this Court discussed the potential chilling effect of the State’s enforcement action. See Falls, DE58 at 73–77. The Court summarized the plaintiffs’ theory that their “speech [wa]s chilled [be- cause the defendants] can, under existing regs, cut funding, and if your school is going to lose funding, then it would certainly create a chilling effect on a professor who doesn’t want to be the source or cause of his school losing revenue.” Id. at 75. The Court then brought up the example of school districts losing funding for impos- ing “mask mandates” during the pandemic as a reason why the risk of reduced fund- ing for violating the IFA would not be “fanciful or farfetched.” Id. at 76.

Turning to the defendants’ counsel, the Court continued:

THE COURT: Does it make any difference that in—just in recent history when schools or entities or organizations have not complied with what is demanded by Tallahassee that funding has been cut, for example, the face mask? Does that make it any less speculative and less conjectural?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I don’t think so because we cer- tainly concede that there is the possibility of that form of enforcement against the institutions, and that is, as you say, a recent example of that authority being exercised by the—I guess here, the Board of Governors.

THE COURT: And then Disney is going to lose its status be- cause—arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul—ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party.
At what point do you stack so many examples where punitive actions are taken if you don’t do what you are told that suddenly it no longer becomes conjectural and you pass that threshold so you can es- tablish standing? It’s no longer fanciful or conjectural. Id. at 78–79 (emphasis added).

In other words, the Court cited “Disney . . . los[ing] its status” as among a pattern of “punitive actions” suggesting that other, future retaliation might not be speculative. That was just two months after the passage of SB 4C. Id.; see Ch. 2022- 266, § 2.

II. Disney’s Present Lawsuit


The Legislature ultimately did not allow SB 4C to dissolve RCID. It instead passed a new special law reestablishing the district under a new name—the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD)—and a significantly revised charter. See Ch. 2023-5, Laws of Fla. (HB 9B). The Governor signed HB 9B on February 27, 2023 and appointed new members to CFTOD’s Board of Supervisors.

Disney then sued the Governor, the Secretary of the Department of Economic Opportunity, CFTOD’s Board, and CFTOD’s Administrator in this Court. See DE25. Disney seeks, among other relief, to invalidate and declare unconstitutional SB 4C and HB 9B because they were purportedly “motivated by retaliatory intent.” See id. ¶ 215. According to Disney, “both pieces of legislation retaliate against Dis- ney for its protected speech, [and so] Disney is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the laws are unconstitutional and an order enjoining Defendants from enforcing them.” Id. ¶ 220. Many of the allegations feature quotes from elected officials who described Disney as being a “woke” corporation or having a “woke” ideology or viewpoint; indeed, the word “woke” appears more than a dozen times in the amended complaint. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 53, 59, 60, 65, 69, 74, 99, 130, 148, 207, 218.

Days before Disney filed suit, this Court in a written order expressed (in the Link case) its views about political rhetoric directed at “woke” ideology, calling “woke” the “boogeyman of the day.” Link, DE287 at 3.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” “[T]he stand- ard is whether an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000).

The touchstone for recusal under Section 455(a) is “not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). “The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865 (1988)). Thus, “any doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.” Id.; see also Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988) (“It has been stated on numerous occasions that when a judge harbors any doubts concerning whether his disqualification is required he should resolve the doubt in favor of disqualification.”).

ARGUMENT


The Court’s unprompted suggestion, on two separate occasions, that the State punished Disney by eliminating its “special status” gives an appearance of partiality that would lead a reasonable observer to question whether the Court is predisposed to ruling that the State retaliated against Disney. In both Link and Falls, this Court cited, on the record, various examples of purportedly retaliatory acts committed by the State “in other contexts,” and both times the Court referred to the loss of Disney’s unique “status” as a prime example. E.g., Link, DE91 at 21–24; Falls, DE58 at 78–
79. Both times, the Court even associated the State’s Disney-related actions with potential First Amendment protected activity—being “woke” (Link) and making “a statement that . . . ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party” (Falls). The Court’s comments thus could reasonably be understood to reflect that the Court has prejudged Disney’s retaliation theory here, and therefore create “significant doubt[s] about the [Court’s] impartiality” in this important matter. Christo, 223 F.3d at 1333. The Court’s comments seemingly reflect its opinion on whether the State punished Disney’s speech by revoking Disney’s “special status.” That the Court made such statements gives the impression, at a minimum, that it has “an uncommon in- terest and degree of personal involvement in the subject matter” such that “a reason- able person would harbor a justified doubt as to [the Court’s] impartiality.” United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 995 (10th Cir. 1993); see also Parker, 855 F.2d at 1524. And indeed, given the “rarity of [these kinds of] public statements, and the ease with which they may be avoided,” it is even “more likely that a reasonable person will interpret such statements as evidence of bias.” In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d 164, 170 (1st Cir. 2001).

There is no mistaking the import of the Court’s statements. In Link, the Court asked counsel point blank whether she had evidence that the Legislature had “taken putative [or punitive] measures against those they’ve described as woke in other contexts,” like anything “say[ing] we are now going to take away Disney’s special status because they’re woke.” Link, DE91 at 23–24. And in Falls, the Court, in pondering whether the State had taken “so many . . . punitive actions” that it was rea- sonable to believe that the State would soon take another, stated that “Disney is go- ing to lose its status because—arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul—ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party.” Falls, DE58 at 78. The Court even offered that Disney could be among the “many examples where punitive actions are taken if you don’t do what you are told.” Id. Whether Defendants took punitive action against Disney based on speech is a principal issue here.

True, the Court did qualify its statement in Falls with the term “arguably,” but that does little to quell a reasonable perception that the Court may have prejudged Disney’s retaliation theory. See Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir. 2005). In Franklin, for example, a trial judge had referred to Franklin—a defendant alleged of committing additional crimes while released on bail—as “an example” for why a different defendant should not be released on bail. Id. On habeas review, the Seventh Circuit held that the trial judge appeared “actually biased” given that he had cited “Franklin as an example” of an “indigent prisoner[]” who had committed more crimes while on bail, even though Franklin had not yet been adjudged guilty of those additional crimes. Id. at 961–962. Nor was the Seventh Circuit swayed that the trial judge had attached the qualifying term “alleged” to Franklin’s crimes: In context, despite the judge’s use of the magic word “alleged” in the memorandum, the inference is irresistible that the judge was pointing

to Franklin as the latest such incorrigible criminal, even though Frank- lin’s trial had not yet taken place. This is powerful circumstantial evi- dence that [the judge] had pre-judged Franklin’s case.
Id. at 961.

The same inference of bias and prejudgment is “irresistible” here. As in Franklin, this Court in Falls cited the State’s treatment of Disney as an example of retaliatory motive. And as in Franklin, it does not matter that the Court used the magic word “arguably” to qualify its suggestion that “Disney is going to lose its status because . . . they made a statement” that “ran afoul of state policy of the con- trolling party.” Falls, DE58 at 78; Franklin, 398 F.3d at 961.7
Simply put, when a matter garners substantial “public attention,” “even ambiguous comments may create the appearance of impropriety that § 455(a) is de- signed to address.” In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d at 170. After all, concerns about the “appearance of partiality . . . stem[] from the real possibility that a judge’s statements may be misinterpreted because of the[ir] ambiguity.” Id. (emphasis added). The Court’s comments, at the very least, remain “sufficiently open to mis- interpretation” to “create [an] appearance of partiality.” Id.

Finally, disqualification is especially appropriate here because the Court’s comments “stem from extrajudicial sources” and were “focused against a party [in] the proceeding.” Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents, 708 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Liteky, 510 U.S. at 551 (parties need not establish “pervasive bias” where a judge’s comments about a party are rooted in extrajudicial sources). None of the parties in Link or Falls had mentioned the State’s relationship with “Disney” at either hearing in which this Court sua sponte offered them as examples of state retaliation. We have found no mention by any of the parties of these subjects in any of their pleadings. Thus, the Court’s understanding of what was happening to Disney (losing its “status”)—as well as the Court’s suggestion of Defendants’ motives (“be- cause they’re woke”; “because they made a statement that . . . ran afoul of state pol- icy of the controlling party”)—must have originated from an extrajudicial source. In fact, in Link, the Court stated—seconds after its suggestive comments about Disney—that some of its commentary from the bench may stem from “what I know because I read the local newspaper.”

For these reasons, “an objective observer would reasonably doubt” that Defendants “would be treated impartially” before this Court. United States v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1361 (S.D. Fla. 2003). That recusal standard is critical to our judicial process, and this Court has recused itself consistent with that standard before. In Kelly v. Davis, No. 3:10-cv-392-MW/EMT, 2015 WL 5442789, at *9 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2015), plaintiffs’ counsel moved to disqualify the Court based on unfounded and irresponsible allegations that the Court had im- proper ex parte conversations with his wife, an attorney with a firm only tangentially connected to a client in the case. The Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification based on counsel’s “ungentlemanly, unprofessional, and completely unfounded attacks on [his] wife’s character.” Id. at *8. Nonetheless, the Court still recused itself because it “[was] concerned about [its] ability to completely set aside [its] initial reaction to this motion.” Id. at *9. As the Court noted, even though it was confident that it would “fairly resolve whatever issues needed to be resolved to conclude t[he] case,” “close questions should be resolved in favor of recusal.” Id.

So too here. As the Court noted in Kelly, “[a] good judge should engage in self-reflection in determining whether to remain on a case.” Id. The Court’s prior statements at least raise a substantial question about whether the Court will resolve this matter fairly. And in a case garnering as much “public attention” as this one, In re Boston’s Children First, 244 F.3d at 170, a “close question” like this “should be resolved in favor of recusal,” Kelly, 2015 WL 5442789, at *9.

CONCLUSION


For the above reasons, the Court should recuse itself and order that the case be reassigned to another judge.

Dated: May 19, 2023










1 Although the transcript records the Court as saying “putative measures,” this appears to be a minor transcription error. The phrase “punitive measures” fits the context better, and the Court used the phrase “punitive measures” just minutes earlier during the same discussion. Link, DE91 at 16.

2 Spencer Roach, (@SpencerRoachFL), Twitter (Mar. 30, 2022, 6:46 AM), https://twitter.com/SpencerRoachFL/status/1509119958369902595.

3 1/22 Governor’s Press Conference on First Responder Bonuses, at 15:05–17:41, The Florida Channel (Mar. 31, 2022), https://thefloridachan- nel.org/videos/3-31-22-governors-press-conference-on-first-responder-bonuses.

4 Rob Wile, Magic no more? DeSantis questions Disney’s special operating city in Florida, NBC News (Apr. 2, 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/business/con- sumer/reedy-creek-disney-world-special-district-history-desantis-rcna22551; An- drew Mark Miller, DeSantis broaches repeal of Disney World’s special self-govern- ing status in Florida, Fox News (Mar. 31, 2022), https://www.foxnews.com/poli- tics/desantis-on-disney-i-dont-support-special-privileges-in-law-because-a-com- pany-is-powerful; Renzo Downey, Gov. DeSantis backs ending Disney’s ‘special privileges’ as lawmakers threaten crackdown, Florida Politics (Apr. 1, 2022), https://floridapolitics.com/archives/513011-gov-desantis-backs-ending-special- privileges-as-lawmakers-explore-disney-crackdown; Skyler Swisher, DeSantis calls for end to Disney’s ‘special privileges’ in Florida, Orlando Sentinel (Apr. 1, 2022), https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2022/04/01/desantis-calls-for-end-to-disneys- special-privileges-in-florida; Ariel Zilber, DeSantis may revoke Disney’s ‘self-gov- erning’ status over ‘Don’t Say Gay’ feud, New York Post (Apr. 1, 2022), https://ny- post.com/2022/04/01/desantis-may-yank-disneys-self-governing-status-in-dont- say-gay-feud.

5 See also Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, Comm. on Cmty. Af- fairs, The Florida Senate (Apr. 19, 2022), https://www.flsenate.gov/Ses- sion/Bill/2022C/4C/Analyses/2022s00004C.pre.ca.PDF (listing the six special dis- tricts affected).

6 Ch. 2022-72, § 2–3, Laws of Fla. (IFA).

7 If the Court’s courtroom commentary leaves any question as to the propriety of disqualification, the Court’s characterization of “woke” as the “boogeyman of the day” answers it. The Court’s “boogeyman” statement appeared not in a spontaneous bench statement, but rather in the Court’s written final order of dismissal in the Link case, published days before this lawsuit was filed. Link, DE287 at 3. Throughout its amended complaint, Disney highlights remarks by the Governor and others about Disney as “woke” and cites those remarks as evidence to support its unlawful retal- iation claim. The Court’s reference to the woke “boogeyman” in Link enhances the reasonable impression that the Court agrees with Disney’s characterizations.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#449 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
Ron DeSantis Scores Huge Victory in Disney Lawsuit Battle



Judge Allen C. Winsor, who previously rejected a bid to block Ron DeSantis's Parental Rights in Education Act, will now preside over the lawsuit Disney has filed against the Florida governor in a potential boost for the Republican.

Winsor assumed the position after District Judge Mark E. Walker, who had been presiding over the case, disqualified himself after learning a relative owned 30 shares in Disney stock.

Disney claims DeSantis violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating after the company spoke out against the Florida governor's Parental Rights in Education Act— dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill by critics—which bans "classroom discussion" in schools about sexual orientation or gender identity, up until a certain grade.

DeSantis then removed the largely self-governing status Disney had enjoyed around its Florida parks and appointed his own oversight board.

In February, Winsor rejected a lawsuit filed by a group of teachers, parents and students, who argued Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act was unconstitutional.

In a 21-page ruling, he concluded: "Plaintiffs have shown a strident disagreement with the new law, and they have alleged facts to show its very existence causes them deep hurt and disappointment. But to invoke a federal court's jurisdiction, they must allege more. Their failure to do so requires dismissal."

The appointment of a judge who has previously ruled in DeSantis's favor, and who has been described as a "conservative ideologue" by a civil rights group, is likely to be privately welcomed by the Florida governor.

Newsweek reached out to Disney and Governor DeSantis via email for comment.

Walker disqualified himself on Thursday after finding out a relative owned 30 Disney shares, valued at about $89 each.

Explaining his decision, Walker wrote: "When a judge becomes aware that a third-degree relative has a financial interest that may be affected by the outcome of a proceeding, such as the case here, that judge must determine whether the third-degree relative's financial interest 'could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.'"

Third-degree relatives include "great-grandparents, great-grandchildren, great uncles/aunts and first cousins," according to a Cornell University definition.

Lawyers for DeSantis had claimed Walker had "prejudged" the subject area in comments made during a previous case and said he should be removed from the Disney lawsuit. They claimed Walker had commented, "Disney is going to lose its status because arguably, because they made a statement that runs afoul, ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party."

Walker rejected this claim, arguing the comments "cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality," before stepping back over the family connection with Judge Winsor appointed as his replacement.

In 2018, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an umbrella group for civil rights campaigners, opposed Winsor's confirmation to the U.S. district court for the Northern District of Florida.

In an open letter, the group said: "Mr. Winsor is a young, conservative ideologue who has attempted to restrict voting rights, LGBT equality, reproductive freedom, environmental protection, criminal defendants' rights, and gun safety. He does not possess the neutrality and fair-mindedness necessary to serve in a lifetime position as a federal judge."

https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-disney-lawsuit-scores-victory-1804109


It now sits with a Trump appointed judge!

whip
HockeyDad Offline
#450 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,063
Pixar, the famed animation studio headquartered in Emeryville, has conducted a rare round of layoffs, Reuters reported Saturday.

Seventy-five people were laid off May 23, Reuters reported, including two of the executives behind “Lightyear”: director Angus MacLane and producer Galyn Susman. MacLane had been at Pixar for more than two decades, serving as an animator on classics like “Toy Story 2,” “The Incredibles” and “Finding Nemo.” He co-directed the 2016 sequel “Finding Dory” before his first solo directorial feature film “Lightyear.” The spinoff of the “Toy Story” franchise, which featured Chris Evans as the voice of Buzz Lightyear, was a commercial dud; Deadline estimated the film lost the studio more than $100 million.

Susman, likewise, was a longtime Pixar employee. She is also the hero of one of the company’s most legendary stories. During the making of “Toy Story 2,” a Pixar employee accidentally wiped the servers of nearly the whole movie. Thankfully for the animators, Susman was working from home while taking care of her newborn child — her backup copy saved the film.

The reported layoffs come during a time of turmoil for the Walt Disney Company. In November 2022, Disney CEO Bob Chapek was unexpectedly fired, leading to the return of Bob Iger as chief executive. Since returning, Iger has been in charge of widespread restructuring at the entertainment giant, including laying off 7,000 people across the company.

These are likely the biggest layoffs at Pixar since 2013, when about 60 employees were fired during the bumpy release of “The Good Dinosaur.”
Users browsing this topic
Guest
10 Pages«<5678910>