JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: Court Awards Judicial Watch $21,578 in Fees and Costs in Fani Willis Lawsuit
OUTRAGE: Minnesota Supreme Court’s Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Woke Racist Minneapolis Teachers’ Contract
Even in Sanctuary States, Illegals Commit Fraud to Get a Driver’s License

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: Court Awards Judicial Watch $21,578 in Fees and Costs in Fani Willis Lawsuit

The Superior Court in Fulton County, GA, issued an order granting $21,578 “attorney’s fees and costs” in our open records lawsuit for communications Willis had with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee. The order followed a previous order finding that Willis was in default in the lawsuit.

We filed this lawsuit in March 2024 after Willis falsely denied having any records responsive to our earlier Georgia Open Records Act (ORA) request for communications with Special Counsel Jack Smiths office and/or the January 6 Committee (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)).

After finding Willis in default, the court ordered a hearing on December 20, which resulted in the latest order finding Willis liable for fees and expenses that “shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order.” The order recounts the timeline of events after we filed our records request:

Plaintiff [Judicial Watch] submitted an Open Records Act (ORA) request to Defendant on 22 August 2023 by way of Fulton County’s ORA on-line “portal”. That same day, Plaintiff received confirmation that its request had been delivered and would be channeled to the “appropriate department” (presumably the District Attorney’s Office). The following day, the County’s Open Records Custodian sent Plaintiff [Judicial Watch] an email confirming that the District Attorney’s Office had received the inquiry and asking Plaintiff to “simplify” its ORA [Open Records Act] request…. Literally five minutes later, before any simplification had occurred, Plaintiff received a second e-mail from the Records Custodian: “After carefully reviewing your request. (sic) We do not have the responsive records.”

This response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to Plaintiff, given that Plaintiff subsequently uncovered through own effort at least one document that should have been in the District Attorney’s Office’s possession that was patently responsive to the request.

***

Defendant [Willis] ultimately defaulted and this Court entered an Order on 2 December 2024 directing Defendant “to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials” and to provide any responsive records that were not legally exempted from disclosure….

Defendant’s compliance with the Court’s 2 December Order consisted of an undated, unsigned two-page memo to Plaintiff from Defendant’s “Open Records Department.” … In this memo, Defendant announced that there still were no records responsive to one set of Plaintiff’s requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith) but that there were in fact records responsive to Plaintiff’s second set of requests (communications with the United States House January 6th Committee) – but those were exempt from disclosure….

Despite having previously informed Plaintiff four separate times that her team had carefully searched but found no responsive records, now there suddenly were – but they were not subject to disclosure under the ORA….

The ORA is not hortatory; it is mandatory. Non-compliance has consequences. One of them can be liability for the requesting party’s attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

The court concludes its criticism of Willis’ actions, stating:

Most basically, by operation of law Defendant acknowledged violating the ORA when she defaulted. But actual evidence proves the same: per her Records Custodian’s own admission, the District Attorney’s Office flatly ignored Plaintiff’s original ORA request, conducting no search and simply (and falsely) informing the County’s Open Records Custodian that no responsive records existed. We know now that that is simply incorrect: once pressed by a Court order, Defendant managed to identify responsive records, but has categorized them as exempt. Even if the records prove to be just that – exempt from disclosure for sound public policy reasons – this late revelation is a patent violation of the ORA. And for none of this is there any justification, substantial or otherwise: no one searched until prodded by civil litigation.

Given this, the Court finds that relevant and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are properly awardable to Plaintiff … Defendant is thus liable to Plaintiff for $21,578 pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-73(b). That amount shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this Order.

In early December, Willis finally admitted to having records showing communications with the January 6 Committee but refused to release all but one document in response to the court order that found her in default. She cited a series of legal exemptions to justify the withholding of communications with the January 6 Committee. The only document she did release is one already public letter to January 6 Committee Chairman Benny Thompson (D-MS).

We subsequently filed a motion asking the court to appoint a special master to oversee her search for records in our lawsuit and that the court conduct an in camera (private) inspection of any records found.

We stated in our motion that Willis’ response to the order “makes no showing that the search was diligent. Based on her previous searches in this matter, it probably was not diligent. Likewise, she provided no list or even a general description regarding any responsive records she has elected to withhold. Without a list or description, it is impossible to evaluate what, if any, exemptions or exceptions are applicable, as she now contends.”

Regarding the appointment of a special master, we state:

Willis by her own admission conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive records not already supplied by [Judicial Watch]. She did not even bother to conduct a search until the Complaint was filed. Her records custodian says he does not know the Cellebrite [digital investigations] equipment he apparently had a hand in ordering can be used to search cell phone texts and other data…. Moreover, the custodian had no standard practice for conducting searches and keeps no records of the methods used in a given search.

The foregoing gives rise to grave suspicion that all responsive records have not been found. The Court should appoint a special master to supervise and monitor the record searches. The special master should have authority to audit searches and conduct searches herself. She also should have authority to hire such consultants and experts as may be needed to execute her commission. The special master should make a recommendation to the Court as to how her fees and expenses should be allocated among the parties, taking into consideration whether she finds responsive records that Willis should have found but did not.

Fani Willis’s response to our request for a special master is due January 16, 2025.

Fani Willis flouted the law, and the court is right to slam her and require, at a minimum, the payment of nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch. But in the end we want the full truth on what she was hiding – her office’s political collusion with the Pelosi January 6 committee to ‘get Trump.’”

OUTRAGE: Minnesota Supreme Court’s Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Woke Racist Minneapolis Teachers’ Contract

In August 2022, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities. We alleged that the contract violated the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.

The school district, supported by the teachers and other public employee unions, asserted that Minnesota taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the illegal spending of taxpayer money by government officials.

A court of appeals upheld our victory in that suit.

However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has now rejected our lawsuit.

This is beyond the pale. Minneapolis Public Schools is unabashedly discriminating against teachers based on their race, and the school district is using taxpayer dollars to do so.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s disgraceful decision not only threatens teachers’ jobs but also prevents Minnesota taxpayers (present and future) from holding their government to account. This woke, racially discriminatory contract cannot stand.

We will ask the Trump administration to investigate this blatant civil rights violation and take all necessary steps to ensure teachers do not lose their jobs because of their race.

Even in Sanctuary States, Illegals Commit Fraud to Get a Driver’s License

The lawlessness around the Biden border invasion and sanctuary policies across the land is epic, as our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

As if it were not bad enough that over a dozen states grant illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a criminal ring has for years exploited the security vulnerabilities of the leftist policies to obtain licenses for undocumented migrants who live in jurisdictions that do not offer the benefit. For about $1,400, illegal aliens living in states that prohibit them from obtaining the cards, fraudulently secured them in New York and Massachusetts—both sanctuary states—with the help of five individuals. Federal authorities recently charged them with several crimes, including conspiracy to unlawfully produce and possess with intent to transfer identification documents and possession with intent to use or transfer unlawfully obtained identification. One of the suspects was also charged with furnishing a false passport.

The scheme operated for four years before authorities finally busted it and the criminals conspired to fraudulently apply for licenses for over 1,000 illegal immigrants. They obtained driver’s licenses for more than 600 migrants and collected at least hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a federal indictment that says the defendants fabricated and falsified bank statements and bills to make it appear to the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that illegal aliens resided in the state and to falsely make it appear to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) that undocumented aliens lived at various addresses in that state. They also created fake driving education certificates of completion and forged the signatures of driving school staff to make it appear that migrants completed the required curriculum.

The operation was well organized and complex, according to federal authorities, because obtaining a driver’s license in either state requires residents to first earn a learner’s permit that consists of a written test. Applicants can take the test online if they provide a photo of themselves completing it and once the learner’s permit has been issued applicants have to finish a driving course before taking the actual test required to get a license. The defendants took the written test online and used photos of the migrant applicants to appear as if they were taking it. Then they provided fake certificates of completion and other false documents to New York DMV and Massachusetts RMV employees that believed the illegal immigrants lived in those states. The defendants would drive the migrants to apply for the license and have the cards mailed to local addresses where they would retrieve the licenses mailed by the state agencies. Though the ring has been disrupted, “the investigation remains ongoing,” according to a statement issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the District of Massachusetts.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses if they provide documentation such as a foreign birth certificate, foreign passport or consular card and evidence of residency in that state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. In late 2023 Minnesota’s measure, known as Driver’s Licenses for All, became the latest to go into effect. At the time officials estimated that about 80,000 illegal immigrants who were previously disqualified from obtaining the cards in the North Star state would be allowed to get them. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ running mate, said ensuring that drivers are licensed and carry insurance makes the roads more secure for all Minnesotans. “As a longtime supporter of this bill, I am proud to finally sign it into law, making our roads safer and moving us toward our goal of making Minnesota the best state to raise a family for everyone,” the Democrat lawmaker said when he proudly signed the measure.

As this federal case illustrates, policies enacted by local sanctuary governments to benefit illegal aliens can be easily exploited and go against federal laws meant to protect the nation’s citizens and legal residents. Furthermore, there is no evidence that giving undocumented migrants driver’s licenses makes “roads safer” as Walz claims.

Until next week,

The post Victory Against Fani Willis! appeared first on Judicial Watch.