Sanctuary Policy Lawlessness!



[INSIDE JW]

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

[[link removed]]

The Superior Court in Fulton County, GA, issued an order
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]]
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 _
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
(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
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]],
Willis
finally admitted to having records showing communications with the
January 6 Committee but refused to release
[[link removed]]
all but one
document in response to the court order
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
asking
the court to appoint a special master
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]],
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
>
[[link removed]]]
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
[[link removed]]
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
[[link removed]].

> 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
>
[[link removed]]
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
>
[[link removed]]
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
>
[[link removed]].
> 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 Al
>
[[link removed]
>
[[link removed]],
> 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
>
[[link removed]]
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,





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


[advertisement]
[[link removed]]


[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2025, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]