OAN Staff Brooke Mallory
6:40pm – Thursday, January 9, 2025
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is currently being disciplined by a Georgia court for repeatedly violating the Peach State's open records law, which has ordered her to pay a hefty fine.
advertisement
In response to open records requests, prosecutors requested documents showing communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating the January 6 incident, and members of a now-defunct House of Representatives Select Committee. I denied it.th Protest at US Capitol, Outlet law and crime Previously reported.
Late last year, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ordered the district attorney's office to provide requested documents and continue to be absent following a lawsuit filed by the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch. I ordered him to give an explanation. McBurney also left open the possibility of incurring attorney fees.
According to the court's latest ruling, dated January 3:rdbut just made public this week, the judge awarded the plaintiffs $21,578 in attorney fees and costs after hearing arguments from Willis and his staff.
“Fani Willis disregarded the law, and it is only right that the court censure her and require her to pay at least nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. stated in a press release. “But ultimately, Judicial Watch wants the full truth about what she was hiding: political collusion between Pelosi's Jan. 6 committee and her office to 'get Trump.' I’m here.”
Judicial Watch said in the original complaint that Willis had made statements that were “likely to be false” regarding the custody of the disputed documents.
Overall, the court sided with the plaintiffs, concluding that Willis violated the law on the merits by repeatedly lying about the existence of at least some of the requested documents and lost on procedural grounds by refusing to respond. .
The court's order for violations of Georgia's Open Records Act (ORA) committed by Willis and his subordinates is aggravating.
“Most fundamentally, by operation of law, defendants admitted that they violated the ORA when they defaulted,” McBurney wrote. “But the actual evidence proves the same: by her records custodian’s own admission, the District Attorney’s Office flatly ignored the plaintiff’s original ORA request, did not investigate, and They simply (and incorrectly) informed the county public records administrator that the corresponding records did not exist.”
Mr. Willis recently confirmed that documents do indeed exist that correspond to the January 6th incident.th committee. However, her office also still maintains there was no interaction with the special counsel's office. Willis initially claimed that no such records could be found for at least a year.
“We now know that is simply false. After being forced by a court order, the defendants managed to identify records that were actionable, but classified them as exempt.” McBurney he said. “Even if the records turn out to be exactly that (exempted from disclosure for sound public policy reasons), this recent revelation is a violation of ORA's patent. And none of these There was no justification, substantive or otherwise. No one investigated until prompted by the civil suit.”
In fact, the court noted that Mr. Willis' office had at least one non-exempt answering document. It was a letter written to the chairman on January 6th.th. Notably, the letter was the subject of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog that obtained the document after Willis denied its existence.
Willis ultimately filed the letter immediately after defaulting and enclosed it in a memorandum filed in response to a court order to do so.
The judge clearly recalled this turn of events:
“In this memo, Defendants state that while no record exists yet of compliance with Plaintiff's set of requests (communications with former Special Counsel Jack Smith), Plaintiffs' second request (Communications with the U.S. House of Representatives) (Jan. 6 Committee)—but they were excluded from disclosure. Despite these reservations, Defendant provided a copy of the letter he wrote to the House Committee Chair stating that (1) it does not appear to fall under any of the exemptions listed in the memo, and (2) it has already It has been identified by the plaintiff as a correspondence record that was wrongfully withheld. ”
“Somehow something changed,” the judge continued. “Despite previously informing the plaintiff on four separate occasions that her team had searched carefully and found no corresponding records, this sudden finding was not subject to disclosure under the ORA. It wasn't.”
The District Attorney's Office has revealed some important information regarding the events leading up to this.
“Plaintiff's deposition of defendant's records custodian shed some light on this mystery. Plaintiff admitted that no search of records dating back to August 2023 had been conducted,” the court said. The command continues. “Just, 'No, please leave.'” He added that even when the plaintiffs did not leave and filed suit, there was still no systematic and comprehensive review of the district attorney's office records. revealed that. ”
In a footnote, McBurney continued to criticize the prosecutor's office's efforts to comply with the law.
“Even after litigation began, defendant records managers initially simply asked certain employees whether they thought they had records that could be acted upon. There was no rigorous review of emails or case files. did.”
Willis defaulted on his debt last April after being sued in March 2024. Since then, the legal process has moved slowly. A formal default judgment was issued in December.
Judicial Watch filed a follow-up application asking the court to appoint a special director to investigate the agency's files after the prosecutor was found to be in default.
Willis has until January 16 to respond to the motion.th. The money her office has to pay is due to be paid on January 17thth.
“The ORA is not a legal thing; it is a mandate,” McBurney concluded. “Failure to comply has consequences, one of which may be liability for the claimant's attorney fees and litigation costs.”
Stay informed. Receive breaking news directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here. https://www.oann.com/alerts
Advertisement below
Please share this post!
