Judicial Watch Sues for Details of DA Willis’ Hiring of Special Prosecutor


 

All County public records, as defined in O.C.G.A.§ 50-18- 70(b)(2), related to the hiring/appointment/procurement of the professional services of Nathan Wade (or his law firm) as Fulton County Special Prosecutor. This includes any request for services/proposals, contracts, invoices, or correspondence (physical or electronic) related to his hiring/appointment/procurement.

Any applicable procurement policies and procedures related to Mr. Wade’s hiring or appointment.

All FBI files for Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt. Additional information: “Subject also used the names” Ashli Elizabeth McEntee and Ashli Elizabeth Pamatian;” and

All FBI records, including main and cross-referenced files, related to Aaron Raymond Babbitt.

The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, “you just murdered her.”

Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide.

Applicants who do not identify as transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, or intersex are not eligible to participate in the GIFT program.

Applicants are prioritized based on their biological sex and race/ethnicity. Biological males identifying as female are given preference over biological females identifying as male, and applicants identifying as Black or Latino are given preference over applicants identifying as other races/ethnicities.

Transgender Status Discrimination:
Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because of the requirement that eligible participants be transgender, non-binary, gender nonconforming, or intersex is immediately suspect and presumptively invalid and cannot survive strict scrutiny review.

Sex Discrimination:
[P]laintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because the program grants preferential treatment to biological males who identify as females …

Race/Ethnicity Discrimination:
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that any expenditure of taxpayer funds or taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program is illegal … because the program grants preferential treatment to persons who identify as Black or Latino …

A judgment declaring any and all expenditures of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program to be illegal [and]

An injunction permanently prohibiting Defendants from expending or causing the expenditure of taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources on the GIFT program[.]

The robust woke movement gripping the nation’s private and public sectors is also threatening judicial impartiality with three federal judges enacting unlawful race and sex discrimination policies that grant oral argument in cases based on a lawyer’s gender and race. The goal is to give young women and minority attorneys greater opportunities to argue in court, according to the judges, who benefit from lifetime appointments. Two of the federal judges—Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Staci M. Yandle—were appointed by Barack Obama and one—David W. Dugan—is a Donald Trump appointee. All three sit on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The unconventional policies adopted by the three jurists constitute judicial misconduct because they unlawfully discriminate, evidence judicial bias, undermine faith in the judiciary’s integrity, and violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment, according to a judicial misconduct complaint filed this month. To “encourage the participation of newer, female, and minority attorneys in proceedings,” the judges instituted a two-part process of discrimination, says the complaint filed by a conservative legal group. After a motion is fully briefed a party may alert the court that, if argument is granted, it intends to have a newer, female, or minority attorney argue the motion or a portion of the motion. The court will grant the request if practicable and “strongly consider allocating additional time for oral argument beyond what the Court may have otherwise allocated” but for the sex or race of the lawyer, the complaint reads. “The judges’ policies are essentially oral-argument affirmative action for lawyers,” according to the complaint, which points out that “the policies expressly reward female and minority lawyers.”

In the two-page orders, which are identical, the three judges explain that they are cognizant of a growing trend in which fewer cases go to trial and in which there are generally fewer in-court advocacy opportunities. “This is especially true for newer attorneys (attorneys practicing for less than seven years) in general, and women and underrepresented minorities in particular,” the orders state. “Recognizing the importance of the development of future generations of practitioners through courtroom opportunities, the undersigned Judge encourages the participation of newer, female, and minority attorneys in proceedings in my courtroom; particularly with respect to oral argument on motions where said attorney drafted or contributed significantly to the briefing for the motion.” The reality is that the judges have a legal duty to grant oral argument requests based solely on the case’s legal merits and not the lawyer representing the parties engaged in the litigation.

The judicial misconduct complaint stresses that few judicial acts are as confidence-shaking as an announcement by a federal judge that he or she will manage a case depending in part on the sex or race of a litigant’s attorney. “Judges do not promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary when they announce policies expressly favoring persons with certain immutable characteristics,” the document states. “Public confidence in the judiciary is especially threatened when judges effect those policies through contemplated and actual exercise of the judicial power of the United States.” The document further points out that ratifying the discriminatory policies as standing orders creates an official acceptance of long-outlawed forms of discrimination in the federal judiciary.

In a press release announcing the judicial misconduct complaint, the Washington D.C. group, America First Legal, writes that all Americans deserve equal treatment and opportunity under the law and the legal profession has a special duty to serve as an example for the rest of society. “This is particularly true for federal judges, whose conduct must be beyond reproach–particularly when it comes to policies that overtly discriminate against attorneys appearing before them based on their race or sex.” The group adds that the Constitution forbids using sex and race preferences to provide parties with in-court argument time. The practice leaves less time available for lawyers of non-favored races or the wrong sex, which of course, is not legal and cheats both plaintiffs and defendants.