So, you would decline work from Disney even if it offered your company months of work for you?

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?

RCES is in Lake Buena Vista.

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.

That judge it TAINTED Robert. TAINTED I say!

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;

....

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.



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.



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.


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.”).



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🇮🇷 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 🇮🇳 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, “🅰 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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.”

Why don't you want a neutral, impartial, judge who follows the law, and who won't rule based upon his/her personal views?

If you believe the new judge's personal views will have any impact on the outcome, you better hope he is not a Trumpster.

This case will settle because even if Desantis wins in court at the local federal trial level, he will still "lose." The case will drag on for 2-7 years (and possibly go all the way up to SCOTUS) because of the constitutional issues, the costs vs. risk of losing for both parties, exorbitant legal fees for the state, and the popular sentiment against what he is trying to do.

Look for a mediated "settlement" down the road where both sides can claim they won some and lost some, and that they are both glad to have resolved most of their differences.

Then Disney will resume it's big, in-state political donations to the Rs...

Kumbaya.

Um...I KNOW yoou weren't paying attention. Trump's pick were ALL done in advance. He knew Lefty would swarm and attack like they do anyone not politically lockstep with them with the toadie presstitutes doing their foot work. The picks were, get ready for it Robert...Constitutionalists. Meaning they know and understand the documents.

Jeez, give it a break already. Admit that America was better off with him than the $hitshow YOU voted in.

In reality, there is no such thing as a neutral, impartial, judge, but isn't it better to have a judge that is biased toward the words as they were originally understood to mean in the Constitution than a judge that believes in a living constitution where the words can be interpreted anytime to mean anything they want from a presentist point of view or based on bad precidents by past courts?

I admit that I didn't liking voting for Biden, but he is better than Trump overall and all his BS 24/7/365. You can carry his baggage. Not me.

Florida taxpayers pick up bill for Ron DeSantis’s culture war lawsuits

Governor’s Disney battle and extremist policies are met with costly lawsuits covered by ‘blank check’ from Republican legislature


Guardian
Since Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, took office in 2019 and embarked on his culture wars, lawsuits from various communities whose rights have been violated have been stacking up against the far-right Republican.

As DeSantis fights the lawsuits with what critics have described as a blank check from the state’s supermajority Republican legislature.

In recent years, DeSantis’s ultra-conservative legislative agenda has drawn ire from a slew of marginalized communities as well as major corporations including Disney. The so-called “don’t say gay” bill, abortion bans and prohibition of African American studies are just a few of DeSantis’s many extremist policies that have been met with costly lawsuits in a state where residents are already struggling with costs of living.

“The list of legal challenges precipitating from DeSantis’s unconstitutional laws is endless,” the Democratic state senator Lori Berman said.

“We’ve seen Floridians rightly sue many if not all of the governor’s legislative priorities, including laws that restrict drag shows for kids, prohibit Chinese citizens from owning homes and land in Florida, suppress young and Black and brown voters, ban gender-affirming care and threaten supportive parents with state custody of their children, and of course, all the retaliatory legislation waged against Disney for coming out in support of the LGBTQ+ community,” she said.

As a result of the mounting lawsuits against DeSantis, the governor’s legal costs, which the Miami Herald reported last December amounted to at least $16.7m, have been soaring.

In DeSantis’s legal fight against Disney following the corporation’s condemnation of his anti-LGBTQ+ laws, it is going to cost the governor and his handpicked board nearly $1,300 per hour in legal fees as they look into how the corporation discovered a loophole in DeSantis’s plan to acquire governing rights over Disney World, Insider reports.

“Disney is a perfect example. It doesn’t hurt any Floridians. There is nothing. It’s creating a legal issue out of nowhere and now Disney sued so they have to respond and that is going to cost taxpayers’ money. The whole Disney case is just because of DeSantis’s ego and his hurt feelings,” the Democratic state senator Tina Polsky said.

“Taxpayers are paying to foot the bills to pass unconstitutional bills and to keep up with his petty vengeance,” she said, adding: “I don’t think they’re aware at all … They’re too brainwashed at this point that they wouldn’t even care.”

Meanwhile, in another case covered by the Orlando Sentinel, DeSantis’s administration has turned to the elite conservative Washington DC-based law firm Cooper & Kirk to defend the governor against his slew of “anti-woke” laws. The firm’s lawyers charge $725 hourly, according to contracts reviewed by Orlando Sentinel. As of June 2022, the state authorized nearly $2.8m for legal services from just Cooper & Kirk alone, the outlet reports.

With mounting taxpayer-funded legal costs against DeSantis’s legislative agenda, critics ranging from civil rights organizations to the state’s Democratic lawmakers have lambasted DeSantis’s policies as unconstitutional and mere political stunts designed to propel him to the frontlines of the GOP primary.

“DeSantis went to Harvard for his [law degree]. This is someone who should understand the constraints placed on him and the state by the United States constitution and the Florida constitution. He knows those constraints, but he doesn’t care. His goal is to intentionally pass unconstitutional laws and set up legal challenges in order for the conservative supreme court to overturn long-held protections,” Berman said.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, echoed similar sentiments, comparing DeSantis to his main competition and current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, both of whom he said are cut “from the same cloth”.

“Ron DeSantis is a Harvard law school graduate. He is a lawyer. Whereas Donald Trump at least could make the argument, ‘I’m just the layperson, I don’t know’ if … something is deemed illegal or unconstitutional … DeSantis does not have that defense,” Jarvis said.

Nevertheless, DeSantis appears unfazed.

“DeSantis knows very well that … what he is doing is unconstitutional and illegal … Lawyers by training are very cautious so this is quite remarkable to have a lawyer-politician who not only knows better, but does not care,” said Jarvis.

To DeSantis, it does not matter whether he wins or loses the legal battles as he knows he “ultimately controls the Florida supreme court”, according to Jarvis.

“He is playing a ‘heads, I win, tails, you lose’ game. If he gets one of these crazy policies passed and they’re challenged and the court upholds him … he can say to the press and to the public, ‘I was right and the proof is in the pudding because the courts agreed with me,’” he explained.

“But even better for DeSantis when they rule against him … DeSantis is able to stand up and say, ‘These crazy judges want our children to watch drag shows, they want our children to be taught to be gay, they want Disney to be this terrible company. That’s why you need a strong governor and why you will benefit from having me as president because I will make sure to get rid of these judges and replace them with judges that have traditional American morals,’” Jarvis added.

As DeSantis continues to fight his costly legal battles, the state’s supermajority Republican legislature appears to encourage him wholly.

“We’re in a litigious society,” the state senate president, Kathleen Passidomo, told the Tallahassee Democrat while the senate budget chair, Doug Broxson, told the outlet: “We want the governor to be in a comfortable position to speak his mind.”

With Republicans rushing to DeSantis’s defense, perhaps the most glaring example of the legislature’s endorsement of his legal wars is the $16m incorporated into the state’s $117bn budget to be used exclusively for his litigation expenses.

Speaking to the Guardian, the state’s Democratic house leader, Fentrice Driskell, called the budget a “carte blanche” from Republicans and the result of zero accountability.

“The legislature is supposed to be a check on executive power. By giving him a carte blanche to go and fight these wars in court, it’s basically just saying that there are no checks and balances when it comes to the state government in Florida,” said Driskell.

“It’s a waste … They are just allowing this single person to impose his will on the state of Florida and they’re willing to waste taxpayer dollars to do it,” she said, adding: “Most Floridians can’t afford their rent and property insurance rates are through the roof. We could have redirected that money towards affordable housing.”

Driskell went on to describe Medicaid iBudget Florida, a waiver that provides disabled Floridians with access to certain services and which currently has a waitlist of more than 22,000 residents.
“It’s very difficult for them to get off that waitlist because the Republicans underfund Medicaid. We could put that money towards funding the waitlist and getting people off of it. I think there’s only $2m that was put in the budget for that this year. If we added the $16m that was added for these culture wars, my goodness, that’s $18m. Presumably we could help get nine times more people off of the waitlist,” said Driskell.

As DeSantis remains embroiled in his legal woes at the expense of Florida taxpayers, there is perhaps a single group of people that have benefited the most out of all the legal drama, Jarvis told the Guardian.

“The lawyers who got that $16.7m, that’s money from heaven. That’s money that fell into their laps … Anytime there’s a loser, and the loser here is the Florida taxpayer, there is a winner. The winners here are the lawyers who are collecting those enormous fees. The more that plaintiffs file lawsuits and the more they fight these crazy policies, you know that’s just money in the bank for these lawyers,” Jarvis said.

“DeSantis has been God’s gift to lawyers,” he added.

“The so-called “don’t say gay” bill, abortion bans and prohibition of African American studies are just a few of DeSantis’s many extremist policies that have been met with costly lawsuits in a state where residents are already struggling with costs of living.“


That sentence nullifies the rest of the article.

Agreed, I think the taxpayers are the victims of predatory lawyers.and their never ending frivolously expensive litigation.

But he as to do SOMETHNG to get the knuckle draggers to love him...

CHERRY PICK?
If you read the whole article, please tell me why...

DeSantis will be a footnote of the 2024 election. The mouse Trumped him.