Court Asked To Rule Against Trump Prosecutor Who Failed To Respond To Record Lawsuit
A high profile conservative law firm is asking a Georgia court to enter a default judgment against anti-Trump prosecutor and liberal Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, after Willis failed to respond to a lawsuit demanding documents detailing her coordination with Washington liberals in Trump’s case.
The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch announced it “has asked the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, to declare a default judgment against District Attorney Fani Willis in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking records of communications Willis had with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee.”
The motion was filed after Willis simply refused to respond to Judicial Watch’s suit seeking what are supposed to be publicly-available records.
“I think this is the first time in Judicial Watch’s thirty years that a government official failed to answer an open records lawsuit in court,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “This further shows Ms. Willis has something to hide about her collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress on her unprecedented and compromised ‘get-Trump’ prosecution.”
“The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, GA, after Willis and the county denied having any records responsive to an August 2023 Georgia Open Records Act request for communications with the Special Counsel’s office and/or the January 6 Committee (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)). (Judicial Watch dismissed Fulton County from the lawsuit.),” Judicial Watch notes.
Judicial Watch notes Willis “was served with the lawsuit on March 11, 2024, but that she has not yet answered it,” writing in its motion:
Defendant has not filed an answer and no answer has been served upon [Judicial Watch].… Defendant’s answer was due 30 days after service, or on April 10, 2024. Pursuant to [Georgia law] the case automatically became in default when an answer was not filed by the due date. Further pursuant to that Code section, Defendant was permitted as a matter of right to open the default within 15 days of the day of default, or by April 25, 2024.
Judicial Watch asserts it “is now entitled to a verdict and judgment by default.”
By all accounts, Willis coordinated her case with some liberals in Washington, and has records that Judicial Watch and the public are legally entitled to see.
In its lawsuit Judicial Watch states that Willis’ “representation about not having records responsive to the request is likely false.”
Judicial Watch points to “a December 5, 2023, letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to Willis that cites a December 2021, letter from Willis to then-House January 6 Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson. In that letter Willis requested assistance from the committee and offered to travel to DC.”
Judicial Watch also cited “news reports and other records which ‘indicate that representatives of Willis’s office traveled to Washington, DC, and met with January 6 Select Committee staffers in April, May, and November 2022, as Willis proposed in her December 17, 2021 letter …’”
Judicial Watch is assisted in the case by John Monroe of John Monroe Law in Georgia.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
Trump’s Voter Citizenship Requirement Blocked By Federal Judge
In a controversial decision that critics say undermines basic electoral integrity, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of its election reform order — including a requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
The Trump administration’s order, signed in March, sought to address the widespread public concern over election security by aligning U.S. registration standards with those used by many developed nations — where proof of citizenship is a basic requirement to cast a vote. Yet, in her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly sided with Democratic operatives and partisan groups, granting their request to halt implementation of what should be a commonsense safeguard.
It’s already a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. So why oppose a mechanism to verify that voters are, in fact, eligible citizens? The administration’s proposed policy simply sought to enforce existing law, not change it. But for activists and partisan lawyers, that’s apparently too much.
Critics of the ruling argue that it demonstrates a disturbing disconnect between legal theory and electoral reality. While the plaintiffs claimed the executive order infringes on the “Elections Clause” of the Constitution — which delegates much of the authority over elections to the states — the Trump order targeted the federal voter registration form, which is a product of federal law and administered by a federal agency.
Among the more absurd arguments presented during the case was the suggestion that requiring proof of citizenship would complicate voter registration drives at grocery stores and public venues. In other words, ensuring that only citizens vote is too inconvenient for activists looking to register voters en masse.
But this framing reveals the central issue: voter registration is being treated like a political campaign tactic, not a civic responsibility. If accuracy and integrity are seen as barriers to convenience, something is deeply wrong with the system.
If the courts won’t even allow the federal form to be updated to reflect current law, critics argue, how can Americans have confidence that elections are fair and secure?
Ironically, while liberal groups celebrate the decision as a “victory for voters,” many Americans see it as a victory for loopholes and ambiguity. The same people who insist elections are sacred and democracy is under threat are now openly opposing the most basic eligibility checks used around the world.
Meanwhile, Trump’s other proposed reforms — including tighter mail ballot deadlines and review of voter rolls against immigration databases — were allowed to stand. But with the citizenship requirement blocked, many worry that the core vulnerability in the system remains unaddressed.
When noncitizens can easily register to vote — intentionally or accidentally — and the federal government is barred from checking, who exactly benefits?
This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. It is republished with permission.
READ NEXT: President Trump Signs Executive Order Requiring Proof Of Citizenship To Vote In Federal Elections