“It is undisputed”: Fani Willis harshly rebuked by judge for breaking open records laws in a lawsuit seeking her communications with Jack Smith and the Jan. 6 committee

This Monday, a Georgia court found that Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, had once again broken the state’s open records laws.

This infringement occurred in connection with a lawsuit seeking information regarding the Democratic Party prosecutor’s correspondence with members of the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack and special counsel Jack Smith.

Judge Robert McBurney of Fulton County Superior Court granted the plaintiff’s move for default judgment in a 6-page ruling, directing the district attorney’s office to furnish the sought papers while allowing the state to be held liable for paying legal fees.

Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, accused Willis and Fulton County as a whole in the underlying complaint of making what were likely misleading claims regarding the keeping of such papers.

In a March press release announcing the complaint, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated that Fani Willis and Fulton County appeared to have misrepresented that they had no correspondence with Jack Smith and the Pelosi January 6 committee.

The watchdog group requested all correspondence and materials addressed to, received from, or pertaining to Smith, any staff members in his office, and the House committee looking into the pro-Donald Trump rioting on August 22, 2023.

According to the lawsuit, Fulton County said they did not have the appropriate records in response to the request.

Claiming that later-in-time information indicates that such data are, at least in part, in the government’s custody, the accountability group filed the complaint in Fulton County Superior Court on March 5. Fulton County was ultimately dismissed from the lawsuit, leaving Willis.

But, at least in regards to Willis, her office, and her subordinates’ involvement in the case, not much has changed since then.

The district attorney had been in default since April 11 but finally sought to appear in the lawsuit on May 15, according to the judge’s ruling. Willis resisted the plaintiff’s April 30 request for a default judgment.

The order makes assumptions about the prosecutor’s tardiness in answering Judicial Watch.

The defendant was given adequate and appropriate service, according to the order. Two days later, the plaintiff sent a return of service. The return was filed and processed, but for reasons the Court does not know, it did not show up in the Court’s electronic docket.

Because the Court believed the Defendant had not yet been served, it issued an order on [April 15] instructing Plaintiff to serve the Defendant. The Plaintiff confirmed the Defendant’s service on [March 11] by re-filing the return that same day in response to the Court’s order.

In essence, Willis contended that she and her administration were confused by the mysterious court order.

Willis objected, citing the April 15 order, arguing that she was not obliged to reply by the customary timeframes and that she thought the misunderstanding meant that service had not been accomplished. She also requested that Judicial Watch serve her again.

The judge showed some, but not much, sympathy for that argument.

This is due to the fact that Willis and her team’s delay was followed by incomplete filings and apathy.

A number of Georgia legislation provide a party who has been found in violation of a lawsuit for failing to reply to it to open default, or defend the case on its merits. As long as they adhere to the guidelines set forth by the state supreme court, a party may occasionally open default even after being found in default.

The court explicitly states that Willis did not utilize any of the defendants’ procedural protections.

According to McBurney’s finding, the defendant did not do any of that: she never paid costs, she never presented a meritorious defense, and she never moved to open default on any grounds (not even at the time when she could have done so as a matter of right).

In the end, Judicial Watch was able to substantiate all of its allegations, including the one that Willis had broken the law.

According to the judge’s order, the plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment by default as though each item and paragraph of the complaint had been backed up by appropriate and adequate proof.

This indicates that Plaintiff has proven Defendant’s failure to provide responsive records or to inform Plaintiff of her intention to withhold any or all of them constituted a violation of the ORA.

Willis is required to provide the responsive records, excluding those that are legally excluded or excused from disclosure, within five business days. Willis is required to adhere to certain legal processes if such records are exempt.

According to McBurney, he thinks Willis possesses at least a few documents pertaining to the initial request.

The ruling states that the Court anticipates that the correspondence mentioned by the Plaintiff in its complaint would be included in this production. If not, the defendant is further required to explain why the correspondence is being withheld or why it is not in the defendant’s records.

In a news release, the right-wing group praised the ruling.

Fani Willis is a unique individual. “In our 30 years of experience, this is the first time we’ve found a government official in default for failing to appear in court to answer an open records lawsuit,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, in a statement.

Any records pertaining to coordination with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress regarding her unprecedented and compromised get-Trump prosecution are eagerly awaited by Judicial Watch from the Fani Willis operation.

Additionally, Judicial Watch has asked for solicitors’ fees. Considering the default judgment, this is an issue that warrants discussion. A hearing about the fee problem has been set for the morning of December 20.

RESOURCE

Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!