➡ Judicial Watch, a legal organization, has successfully removed over 5 million invalid names from voter lists across the U.S. through lawsuits and legal action. This is a significant increase from the previous 4 million names. The removal of these names, which include people who have moved, died, or become ineligible, helps to prevent voter fraud and ensures cleaner elections. The organization continues to work on cleaning up voter rolls in several states.
➡ The article discusses the controversy around counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. It mentions lawsuits in Illinois and California where ballots are counted up to 14 days and 7 days after Election Day respectively, which some believe resulted in Republicans losing seats. The article also highlights President Trump’s executive order to enforce laws against counting late ballots and to prevent noncitizens from voting. Lastly, it mentions a Supreme Court case brought by Judicial Watch challenging Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day.
➡ A lawsuit has been filed to stop the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day, arguing that it undermines election integrity and invites fraud. The case, filed on behalf of a Republican congressman, is currently on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether candidates have the right to challenge such practices. The lawsuit also highlights the need for election laws to be strictly adhered to, and for the rights of voters and candidates to be protected. The case is part of broader efforts to ensure clean and lawful elections, including cleaning up voter rolls.
➡ Judicial Watch, a private group, has been working to ensure election integrity by cleaning up voter rolls across various states, including those run by both Democrats and Republicans. They have successfully removed millions of names, contributing to cleaner and fairer elections. Now, they are before the Supreme Court, arguing for the right of candidates to challenge election rules, specifically in Illinois where ballots received up to 14 days after the election are counted. The outcome of this case could significantly impact future elections.
➡ The article discusses a legal case where Judicial Watch, a conservative activist group, is challenging the legality of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. They argue that this practice undermines confidence in elections and violates federal law, which sets a specific Election Day, not an election week or month. The case could potentially reach the Supreme Court, and if successful, it could significantly impact election law. The article also mentions a separate case where Judicial Watch secured a nearly $5 million settlement for the family of Ashley Babbitt, a woman killed during the January 6th Capitol riot.
➡ A lawsuit was filed in 2024 over the death of Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer during a protest. The lawsuit, which initially demanded $30 million, was settled for $4.975 million. Despite the settlement, the government did not admit any fault. The case has raised questions about law enforcement actions and the need for further investigation into Babbitt’s death.
➡ A local court in Georgia has ordered Fannie Willis, who is accused of abusing President Trump and others’ First Amendment rights, to pay nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch due to her failure to respond to an open records lawsuit. Despite being ordered to search for and provide any responsive records, Willis continued to deny their existence. However, Judicial Watch discovered a document that should have been in Willis’ possession, leading to the current litigation. The court found that Willis violated the Open Records Act and lacked justification for these violations, resulting in the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Judicial Watch.
➡ Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, has been investigating a scandal involving Fannie Willis and the Pelosi January 6th committee. They claim that Willis was colluding with the committee to target Trump and others, and that this was confirmed through records obtained by Judicial Watch. The group is still fighting for more records and needs continued support to carry on their work. They believe their efforts have helped uphold the rule of law and protect against abuses of power.

Hey everyone. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton here. Breaking news. We now can confirm that over 5 million dirty names have been removed from the voter rolls across the country in several states as a result of Judicial Watches litigation, our lawsuits and our legal action. The new numbers are an uptick, a significant uptick from the prior number of 4 million names. We have reports in from Kentucky. New York City has now removed up to 1 million names from the rolls thanks to your Judicial Watch heavy lifting in court, specifically a settlement of a federal lawsuit we filed.

We issued this news this week because we received two new reports from Kentucky and New York City. Places we had sued in Kentucky, we had a consent decree that required them to clean up the rolls because they weren’t cleaning up the rolls as federal law requires. New York City, I don’t think they had cleaned up the rolls at all for a period of time until we sued and they came back and said we’re going to clean them up. And, and over the course of the last few years or so, and most recently they added another half million names to the mix, bringing the total to well over a million.

Practically speaking, the new numbers come in as a result of Judicial Watch’s litigation under a law called the National Voter Registration act. And that law has typically been known as the Motor Voter Bill. And, but it also which requires states to make registration available to people at places where public benefits are given, generally speaking. And Republicans didn’t like the idea of that and many conservatives, because what would happen is that it would lead potentially to multiple registrations for an individual and double registrations all across the land. And one of the provisions of the law was as a result, supposedly to take care of that issue was to require the states to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls.

Well, you can guess how that worked out. The left came in and just wanted to register everybody and their mother and sued everyone to make sure that was happening. Zero interest, practically speaking, in making sure the states were cleaning up the rolls until Judicial Watch came around, came to town and started enforcing it through rights federal lawsuits representing ourselves and others. We had litigation in Ohio and Indiana to begin back in. It’s now at least, let’s see, 13, 14 years ago. And it’s been litigation, lawsuit after lawsuit across the country to clean up the rolls. And it’s been successful.

Sometimes even sending a warning letter is enough to get a jurisdiction or a state to clean up the rolls. For instance, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, we had been investigating Pennsylvania for some time and have had success in cleaning the rolls up there. Allegheny came back to us and said, oh, well, thanks for your letter. We removed 69,000 names from the rolls. So all of Those numbers totaled 4 million or so as of essentially just a few months ago, and included 1.2 million names being removed from the rolls in LA County. After we sued and settled out there, we subsequently had to file another lawsuit, which is ongoing.

Because of the rest of the state, it continues to be a mess. So there are millions of names that still need to be removed. But it’s a remarkable achievement for Judicial Watch and for you, dear Voter and Dear Citizen, because having more accurate lists means that you have less opportunities for voter fraud. Cleaner elections will result from having cleaner voting rolls, dirty voting rolls make it more likely that the elections will be dirtier because it just necessarily allows, again, gives you more opportunities for voter fraud because you have names on the list who aren’t supposed to be there.

And obviously that’s a temptation for someone to vote in their place. I mean, that’s why the law is in place, you know, Otherwise, why have voter roll cleanups at all if it was just a maintenance issue? It’s a voter fraud issue. It’s a reassurance for the American people that the rolls are clean and you don’t have ghost names on the rolls or zombie names on the rolls of people who died or moved away or otherwise become ineligible. So in the latest group of numbers, we got reports that, in sum, Kentucky, under this consent decree, has reported that they’ve removed 735,000 ineligible voter registrations since 2019.

As part of this consent decree, they entered into with Judicial Watch. And as part of a 2022 settlement with Judicial Watch, New York City alone has removed 918,139, basically a million, because it’s got to be a million for a variety of reasons. But, you know, the actual number that I’ll go with for the purposes of the release is 918,000. So they removed 918,000 ineligible names from its rolls they had removed just in between March 2023 and 2025, 477,000. And that’s in addition to, prior to that, because of the initial settlement, 441,000 names. So the total is well over 900,000.

So 1 million names, practically speaking. And so we’re well north of 5 million names. When you add up all the states that we’ve sued and settled with or states that we’ve warned and they’ve gone and done voter roll cleanups as a result, it’s really tremendous. And this comes on top of Judicial Watches. It’s not like we’re giving up. So we’ve got ongoing litigation to clean up the rolls in Illinois, which are a mess. Oregon, which I think are some of the worst voting rolls in the country, as best I recall, and in California. And then there’s going to be a new raft of numbers that come out later this year.

And so we’ll be looking at those very carefully to see if there are other opportunities or other needs to clean up the rolls in other states. You know, the last big study as it relates to voter rolls, and it goes back several years, so the numbers may be outdated, but it was well over 20 million plus extra names on the rolls that shouldn’t be there. So there’s a lot more work to be done. And thankfully, the Trump administration has expressed interest through the president’s executive order to clean up the rolls and take steps to clean up the rolls.

As I said, it’s been Judicial Watch who’s been in court suing at the federal level. There have been another. There have been some other groups, and I think the RNC filed a few lawsuits following Judicial Watch’s lead recently. But what a remarkable number. Just 5 million names. And isn’t it outrageous? Isn’t it outrageous those names would still be there but for Judicial Watch, where’s the government? Where are the state election officials? That the only way these names get cleaned up, when we literally go to federal court or do our own independent analysis, and we know it’s not like we making up numbers, we’re relying on their data to say, hey, you’re not cleaning up the rolls.

You know what they, you know, all they have to do, this is all they have to do under the current application of the law as interpreted and applied by the courts and specifically the Supreme Court. So if you don’t show up, let’s say you didn’t vote in 2024, the state or the locality is supposed to send you a postcard, hey, you didn’t vote. Are you still there? Are you still at this address? Are you still eligible? And if you don’t respond to that postcard or otherwise vote in the next two general elections at the federal level.

So let’s say it’s 2024, and if you don’t vote in 2024, you get the postcard, you ignore the postcard, and then you don’t vote in 2026 at the congressional level, you know, the congressional elections, and then you don’t vote in 2028 again at the next presidential Congressional election, federal cycle, they’re supposed to remove your names from the rolls. And the fact they’re not doing that, I mean, so it’s like five years plus, practically speaking, sometimes before your names get removed. And they don’t even want to do that basic work. And the fact that we have to go to court to get it done is just another indication of, frankly, the importance of Judicial Watch.

Because if we wouldn’t do, if we didn’t do it, it’d be a mess. And I’m convinced that the millions of names that have been removed and our efforts to kind of police the issue, not only on this, but other issues related to election integrity helped stop the steal in 2024, and it’s going to help stop potential steals in the future. And it’s because we’re not sitting on our laurels. We continue to do the heavy lifting in court, as I said, with new lawsuits, new investigations. And of course, we’re monitoring what the states are doing in places where we’ve already been, like in Colorado, North Carolina, as I said, Pennsylvania, et cetera.

And of course, you as a citizen can ask questions about what your local election and state election officials are doing to clean up the rolls. You literally can ask the questions under Federal Law, Section 8i, you can go look it up. And this is on top of Judicial Watch’s other work in support of voter id, in support of ensuring that the federal requirement that there’s an Election Day be upheld. As I said before, we have an Election Day, not an Election Week. And we obtained a massive series of rulings in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is unlawful.

That’s what the Circuit Court ruled. We’ve got lawsuits on Illinois where they count ballots for up to 14 days after election Day. And we got lawsuits in California or a lawsuit in California where they count ballots for up to seven days after Election Day. And that post Election Day counting of illicit ballots, in my view, or as we allege, resulted in Republicans losing two seats in the Congress. They were winning on Election Day, and those seats were lost to Democrats as a result of post Election Day counting of ballots that arrived after Election Day. I mean, it’s not like the ballots were sitting in the corner and they missed them and they got in there by election.

No, no, no. That’d be suspicious. But that wasn’t happening. These are ballots that are arriving after Election Day. And President Trump issued this executive order last week, as I highlighted for you in last week’s update, where he affirmed that the Justice Department’s going to enforce this law because you have 18, 19 states that count ballots that arrive after Election Day. And what has happened since then, because he had not only in that executive order, an affirmation of that, an effort to help clean up the rolls and an affirmation of that law, but also taking key steps to ensure that noncitizens aren’t registering the vote and voting.

And what did the left do? The Democratic Party and their fronts sued to stop Trump from trying to secure our elections from noncitizen voting. Because right now, there’s no enforcement mechanism, no check on someone who says they’re a citizen when they register to vote. Certainly at the federal level, that’s. There’s no check in place. All you have to do is attest that you’re not a. That you’re a citizen and are eligible, and there’s no check on that. And Americans want that check in place. They support voter ID. Well, north of 80% of Americans support voter ID.

Well, north Of 80% of American support ensuring and taking steps that citizens or noncitizens or voters have to prove their citizenship or show evidence of citizenship in order to register to vote and vote. In my view, your. Any opposition to voter id, any opposition to cleaning up the rolls, any opposition to the absurdity of counting ballots that show up after Election Day? I mean, that’s. That’s. People who support that, generally speaking, for political purpose, they want to be able to steal elections when necessary. And those techniques make it easier to steal elections. Heck, you know, in these cases where I’m talking about, where we’re suing In Mississippi, the 5th Circuit and Illinois on cleaning up or stopping the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day.

The Biden administration filed statements to the court saying Judicial Watch should lose, that anyone should be able to count ballots seemingly forever after Election Day, as long as they get there under the logic, what would be the deadline other than Election Day? Big news this week. We just heard from the Supreme Court that they will take up a Judicial Watch case related to the counting of ballots that arrive at after Election Day. We had a major lawsuit in Illinois over the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. We were representing and are representing Congressman Mike Bost, b o s t from Illinois, two presidential electors.

And in Illinois, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election Day. And rather than address the merits, the lower courts found that Congressman Boss and our clients did not have standing, meaning the ability to go to court and essentially challenge this lawlessness. By Illinois, which is contraventing, which is contravening federal law that requires the counting of ballots that arrive before election day, not after election day, because federal law sets an election day, not an election week or month. And we asked the Supreme Court to take up this issue. Do candidates have the right to try to stop unlawful counting of ballots contrary to federal law? Well, the Supreme Court said, well, we’re going to consider the issue.

And so it was a big announcement this week. I talked about that issue in a video announcing the big news earlier this week. Everyone. The Supreme Court just announced today would take up an election law related challenge filed by Judicial Watch in Illinois on behalf of a congressman and electors in Illinois concerned about the counting of ballots that arrive after election day, which they do for two weeks after election Day. Illinois, that means ballots arrive up to two weeks past election day and they still get counted, which is contrary to federal law, which states an election day, not an election week.

Now, the congressman, federal candidate obviously has standing that challenges the law, but the two lower courts decided, no, he doesn’t have standing. They were divided, but the Supreme Court wants to settle this issue and they decided to take up this massive Judicial Watch case. It’s historically important that the rule of law be vindicated on election integrity. So this is a big step and the court will hear our case next term. So the hearing of the case could occur as soon as October of this year. They haven’t set a hearing date yet, but we expect it will be before the end of the year because the term ends the end of this month.

I think it ends July 1st, more or less. And then they start up hearing cases again absent extraordinary circumstances, in October, the first Monday in October. Right. So major victory for Judicial Watch in terms of bringing a case before the highest court in the land on a core issue related to election integrity. And it’s currently, we don’t know what the court’s going to consider, if they’re going to get to the merits, if the court, the justices want to talk about the underlying issue. But in the lease, the issue of standing is a key one. And we did an explainer video a little bit which kind of summarizes this issue pretty succinctly for you.

And I encourage you and we’ll provide a link to it separately. But I’ll play it for you here so you know to go find it later and share it with your friends and colleagues. Judicial Watch is taking its election integrity fight to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear Judicial Watch’s appeal for A case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors challenging an Illinois law extending election day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. The lower courts had previously denied that Congressman Bost and the electors had standing to challenge Illinois’s practice of of counting ballots received for up to two weeks after Election Day.

In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch argues despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national Election Day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton had this to say about the upcoming Supreme Court action. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a critical opportunity to uphold federal law, protect voter rights and ensure election integrity. Illinois’s 14 day extension of Election Day thwarts federal law, violates the civil rights of voters and invites fraud. Last year, the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judicial Watch that it was unlawful for Mississippi to count ballots that arrived after election day.

Visit judicialwatch.org to learn more. Yeah, so this is not the only case we have over the counting of ballots after Election Day or ballots that are received after Election Day. As President Trump noted in his executive order supporting essentially our theory of the law that federal law sets an Election Day, which means in the lease the ballots have to be received in order to be counted as valid. He said it’s like someone showing up three days after the polls close in person and demanding to have their vote counted. It’s too late. And in Mississippi, they were counting ballots that arrived for up to five days after Election Day.

And as we noted in that video, the fifth Circuit found that that’s unlawful federal law is what it says on Election Day. You know, it’s nonsense in my view to say there is no provision requiring ballots get there by Election Day because what is the, what’s the. What flows from that? What flows from that is there’s no deadline at all, which can’t be. So if there’s no deadline under federal law, that means states could have a deadline that extend years after Election Day potentially. And that’s why in my view, the fifth Circuit threw out essentially the Mississippi law, overturned it, essentially found it to conflict with federal law.

Now, Mississippi just certified their appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court today. They filed a cert petition. So the Supreme Court may have more than one Judicial Watch case before it before too long, depending on how that turns out. Now, separately, we have this lawsuit in California that’s like the Illinois case, that’s like the Mississippi case. In California, they Count ballots that arrive for up to seven days after Election Day. And notoriously, in California, there were seats in Congress that switched from Republican to Democrat, two seats at least as a result of ballots that arrived after Election Day.

And for whatever reason, Congress or the House doesn’t want to deal with that because the House is the judge of its own elections and they can find an election wanting and make a change in the least. They should be investigating the issue, don’t you think? If Democrats were running the House, do you think they would? If there was an arguable case that the law was violated and changing seats from Democrat to Republican, do you think they would just sit idly by? I don’t think they would, nor do I think they ought to necessarily. And I think the House should try to vindicate the rule of law and at least investigate this issue.

But in the meantime, we have a lawsuit to try to stop the unlawful counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. We filed it on behalf of Darrell Issa, the Republican congressman from California. And now the state doesn’t believe that ISA has standing. Right, just like Illinois said. So that case may be put on hold for a bit until the Supreme Court gets to the issue as to whether candidates have standing. And here’s the brief. This is the cert brief we filed. That’s what the lawyers call it. Writ assertiari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, then the Supreme Court of the United States.

Petition for REDISHEARI the question presented, as we say in the material here, the question presented, you would think, several pages later. Excuse me. Well, you would think the question presented would be easily found, but now I can’t see it. Well, the question presented is whether candidates have the standing to challenge the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day. Not every state allows this to happen. Only 1819 states, I think, in the District of Columbia allow it to happen. And it’s got to stop. It’s got to stop. It undermines election integrity. It invites fraud. Besides being contrary to federal law.

And as we say in the lawsuit. Excuse me, say in the. In the petition that I just read to you or showed you, it’s pretty clear that candidates have. If candidates can’t try to vindicate the rule of law on elections, who can? For over 130 years, this court, the Supreme Court, has heard claims brought by federal candidates challenging state, time, place or manner regulations affecting their federal elections. Until recently, it was axiomatic that candidates had standing to challenge these regulations. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine anyone who has more, who has a more particularized injury than the candidate has.

That is because a candidate who, quote, pours money and sweat into a campaign, who spends time away from her job and family to traverse the campaign trail and puts her name on a ballot, has an undeniable different. Has an undeniably different and more particularized interest in the lawfulness of the election than some random voter petitioners are sitting multi term congressman, Congressman Bost and two federal electors. They challenged an Illinois law that allows absentee ballots to be received and counted after the day specified in federal statutes for holding federal elections. They contend the Illinois receipt deadline is preempted by the federal Election day statutes.

The petition presents an opportunity for this court to provide lower courts and litigants much needed guidance on candidates standing outside of the high stakes emergency post election litigation where these issues commonly arise. So we shouldn’t have to wait for an election Day related crisis to get some justice here. There’s plenty of time to do it, arguably before the 2026 elections to help settle the law in this regard. And the Supreme Court took up our offer. So it’s an incredibly positive development. Now the left has been opposing our efforts to stop the counting of ballots that arrive after Election Day in California.

The judge there left us into our case as literally defendants to try to oppose us. So we’re not just taking on the states in these various cases, but we’re taking on these left wing advocacy groups, well funded, well organized, who come in to try to thwart our efforts to clean up election integrity. And you can be sure, as our battle escalates to the Supreme Court, that these leftist groups will not only jointly and rise against us further in the Supreme Court by filing briefs and such, but they’ll come after us directly because we’re terrible people for wanting to be sure, for wanting to make sure that elections are being run according to the law.

Do I have to explain to you why it’s important that Election Day means something? That if there are no rules, it means that there is an open invitation to fraud and loss of confidence in the outcome of any election result. As I said, it would be an injustice that the courts would deny a federal candidate the ability to challenge an election provision that could lead to illegal voters, illegal votes being cast and counted for two weeks after election day. So it’s critical the Supreme Court take up this case because it’s not only the rights of voters, the rights of candidates here and electors, presidential electors, but they’re acting in the place in many respects, in most respects in the place of the citizens who support them, the voters who support them.

And the American people have a right to have their elections run according to the law, not according to the whatever the left can get away with. Federal law defines Election Day. In case you don’t know what the federal law says. It’s interesting as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year, despite Congressman’s clear, despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election Day. Illinois, Mississippi, California, here in Washington, D.C. for example, they’ve expanded Election Day for days and weeks past the deadline set by federal law. And as I said in California, it’s led to different election outcomes than otherwise arguably would have happened if the law had been followed in California.

This is why the House should take a look at it, because they’ve got two members who got in there as a result of what can be plausibly argued was the counting of votes that were invalid. So this is a major issue for the Supreme Court coming up. It’s the most important election law related issue because it’s the question of who can challenge and dispute the way an election is run. The left wants to restrict that in such a way so that only their buddies and allies can and that anyone who has serious concerns, the way Judicial Watch or clients do, about the law being specifically adhered to, strictly adhered to, they shouldn’t have the right to challenge it.

And so it’s not just about the challenging of vote counting that occurs of the challenging of the counting of votes received after Election Day. It’s other election battles. Who has the right to vindicate the rule of law in that regard? Who can go to court to stop an election from being stolen? The state of Illinois, the state of California. The left say, not a candidate, not a candidate. And that to me is absurd on its face. And clearly the Supreme Court has enough of a concern about what’s going on that they want to consider the issue fully and decide for itself.

So great victory for the rule law. And this, of course, comes on top of all of Judicial Watch’s other legal work related to election integrity. I’ve got to give credit to our legal team, Bob Popper, Russon o’, Beal, Eric Lee, who have been litigating these cases. We’ve cleaned up 5 million names from the rolls through our other litigation, legal action against states across the nation. 5 million dirty names clean from the rolls. Because there’s another federal law that requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up the name, clean up the rolls. And it’s pretty easy to figure out when they’re not taking reasonable steps to clean up the rolls, because people don’t vote for years and their names are kept on the rolls nevertheless.

So they could die, potentially move away. And obviously, dirty voting lists can mean dirty elections. That’s why the law requires they be cleaned up. And it was Judicial Watch who really broke the mold and filed the first private lawsuits to force states to try to clean up the rolls as the law requires. And as a result of those lawsuits, and as a result of even sending warning letters to some of these states and localities, we’ve had 5 million names clean up the rolls, cleaned from the rolls in just the last few years. But we still have cases pending.

We’re out in California, we’re out in Oregon. Illinois has a filthy list as well. We have another lawsuit there. There are tens of millions of names, arguably, that should be removed from the rolls nationwide. So $5 million is a pretty good start. Pretty outrageous when you think about it, that it was Judicial Watch who had to step into court, a private group to do this basic heavy lifting on election integrity. And it wasn’t just Democrats, it wasn’t just liberals. It was states run by conservatives and Republicans who also weren’t doing what they were supposed to do to ensure the roles were being cleaned.

I mean, we were in North Carolina, we were in Pennsylvania, we were in Kentucky, California, California cleaned up 1.2 million names alone. In LA County, New York City cleaned up nearly a million names. Dc like, 20% of their list, they cleaned up. I think one county in Pennsylvania we sent a warning letter to, I think within, like, minutes, not literally minutes, but practically minutes, metaphorically minutes. They said, hey, thanks for the. Thanks for your letter. We just cleaned up 69,000 names from the rolls. So we are relentless for cleaner, fairer, more honest, more reliable elections. And so what it means cleaning up the rolls or ensuring only ballots that are valid are counted? It’s essential work that your Judicial Watch has been able to do, thanks to the support of all of you out there.

If you’re supporting Judicial Watch, you should know that the reason our elections are cleaner, I would argue the reasons we had, I think, at least at the presidential level, a more honest election. We stopped the steal in 2024 in large measure, I would submit, thanks to Judicial Watch’s efforts for cleaner and fairer elections. And now we are going to be before the Supreme Court on a core issue of who has the right to go into court and try to vindicate their. Their rights under the law. To ensure that elections are being followed according to law. You know, it’s one thing to stop the steel through making sure the rolls are clean, but to be told you can’t even go to court to try to ensure election integrity as the law already requires.

That would be bad if that happened, right? So this is a big, big case. So just great news. Hey, everyone. Judicial Watch just got out of the Supreme Court. We are arguing for our client, Congressman Boss. Candidates have a right to to challenge election rules. Like in Illinois, where they count ballots that are received for up to 14 days after the election. The Supreme Court seems trying to rule in our favor. We won’t know until the opinion is issued, but there are many concerns about denying candidates the right to challenge elections of the law. I want to bring you up to speed on what could be the most significant election law case in recent history.

That is Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in Illinois on behalf of presidential electors and Congressman Mike Bost, who is who are suing Illinois because in that state, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election. And rather than just adjudicate the case, as has been brought by Judicial Watch’s attorneys, the court there said that the candidate has no right, no standing, to pursue his claim in court. So we appealed. We lost the appeal, although one of the appellate judges agreed. Of course the person has standing. And then we appealed that to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court a few weeks ago held an oral argument in which Judicial Watch’s legal team presented important arguments on the issue of standing for candidates on this key election law matter.

We compiled a nice video to describe the issue legally for you in a way that I think I suspect you’ll be able to understand it. Let’s play the video. The Supreme Court of the United States is about to hear a landmark case that could reshape how elections are run nationwide. Judicial Watch is challenging an Illinois law that allows the counting of mail in ballots that arrive up to 14 days after election day. That’s two weeks beyond the date set by federal law. Even ballots that arrive without a postmark can be counted. Federal law says the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year is election day for federal elections.

Extending the counting of ballots doesn’t just run counter to federal law. It invites voter fraud and undermines voter confidence. Judicial Watch argues that Illinois’s law violates federal law and threatens election integrity. In addition, we argue candidates running for office should be able to challenge these sorts of laws in court. Until recently, it was self evident that Candidates could sue to challenge election regulations. However, two lower courts ruled that our clients candidates for federal office lacked the basis to challenge Illinois’s practice of counting ballots received after election Day. Standing is the legal term for this legal right to pursue a lawsuit in court.

Judicial Watch lawyers responded that candidates have an obvious interest in the lawfulness and fairness of the rules that govern the elections into which they pour their time and resources. They also have an obvious interest in ensuring that the final vote tally accurately reflects the legally valid votes cast. If a candidate can’t challenge the illicit counting of ballots contrary to federal law, who can? This is the exact issue now before the Supreme Court. No other legal organization has matched Judicial Watch’s record in ensuring free and fair elections. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could impact how elections are run for years to come.

And you can be sure Judicial Watch will continue to fight for election integrity because no one is above the law. So you can see it’s a pretty straightforward issue whether candidates have the right to challenge whether an election is being stolen or not by saying the law is being violated here. Votes in this case are being counted that shouldn’t be counted. And I don’t understand. Well, I do understand why the courts in these circumstances refused to protect that right and vindicate that right by Congressman Boss and the electors we represent. And I think it’s because in 2020 you had all these courts get nervous because Trump and supporters of Trump were concerned about the way elections will run and sought to intervene and try to fix the elections and make sure they were run appropriately.

And there were all sorts of standing issues that were thrown out the door that had been solid law for since the time of the founding. So it was disturbing to see that and I’m hoping the court fixes it. We were ably represented by Paul Clement, esteemed election, esteemed Supreme Court litigator, former Solicitor General for the United States. Solicitor General is the top lawyer in the Justice Department who represents the interests of the government to the Supreme Court. And he’s been before the court well over 100 times, so he knows what he’s doing. Here’s some clips from his opening and closing statements to the court that day.

Illinois counts mail in ballots received up to two weeks after election petitioners contend that under controlling federal law, that is two weeks too long. As a result, if the petitioner’s merits theory is credited, which it must be for evaluating standing, then Illinois is counting unlawful ballots. Those unlawful ballots could cost Congressman Boss the election or at least reduce his margin of victory. And he has to pay his campaign staff for two extra weeks. All of that means that Congressman Bost has standing three times over. The court below lost sight of that straightforward conclusion only by misreading this court’s precedents and misperceiving candidates who pour untold time and treasure into the election and are the ones whose names are actually on the ballot as mere bystanders with a generalized grievance.

That decision is not only wrong, but dangerous. It needlessly injects federal courts into the role of political prognosticators. It risks denying judicial access to minor party candidates, and it shuffles election disputes into the closest races and the worst possible context, election disputes. After the election, where federal courts are in the uncomfortable position of having to pick the political winners, there is a better way. And it simply requires acknowledging that candidates have a unique, concrete and particularized interest in the rules of the electoral road, especially those that address which ballots are going to be counted and when, at a bare minimum, a longer campaign is a more expensive campaign, and that classic pocketbook injury is sufficient to give Congressman Bost standing.

There is no need to make the standing inquiry here any more complicated than that. A candidate is not a bystander in his or her own election. Their name’s on the ballot. They put their lives on hold, so they have a special interest in what’s on the ballot. Yeah, this is a pretty straightforward issue. And I talked about the way the law has been distorted, not only in our case initially, but but in other election law cases outside the Supreme Court. After the oral argument. Let’s go to that. I think a lot of the questions from the court suggested they’re concerned about a mess in the lower courts.

And, you know, in 2020, the argument was, you can’t sue, it’s too soon, you can’t sue, it’s too close, even after the election or it’s too late. And I don’t think the court wants to do that anymore. And I think we’re seeing a direction where the court’s going to say, look, you know, the sun rises, candidates have standing, and let’s just move from there. So I was privileged to sit and watch Paul and our election law team, Russ Nobel, who you may have seen on Judicial Watch presentations before, he’s one of our leading election law lawyers.

He was sitting up there with Paul Clement, really negotiate with the Supreme Court as to what the standing requirement should be and how expansive it should be. And it looked to me sitting there, I had a good view. I was literally front and center. And it looks like there could be seven votes, as many as seven votes in our favor, including potentially, Justice Kagan. And I’m not even sure if Justice Sotomayor may not support this standing because you have groups like the ACLU and the League of Women’s Voters come in and support our standing analysis as well.

So we could get a sort of ideological majority, a supermajority that upholds the right of candidates to go in and sue to prevent an election from being stolen or from being illegally run in a way that undermines confidence in elections and obviously puts the candidate in a position where they have to spend extra money and be hassled in terms of dealing with illegalities as alleged. And it’s not the only case we’re pursuing in this regard. We have a case in California where we’re representing Congressman Darrell Issa challenging California’s counting of ballots that arrive for up to seven days after Election Day.

Seven days after Election Day. You want to know why California takes so long to get its act together in terms of reporting results? One of the reasons is they count ballots. They allow ballots to arrive for up to seven days after Election Day. In Illinois, by the way, they don’t even need to be postmarked to be counted. It’s that outrageous. The good news is in Mississippi, another case that we had pursued, and by the way, we’re the ones who initiated this litigation in such a successful and dramatic way nationally to challenge the 20 states, or the practice in 20 states generally, specifically in three that allowed accounting ballots to arrive after election day.

They do it here in D.C. you know, you can look up the rules in your own state. It’s almost half the country. In Mississippi, they count ballots that arrive for up to five days after Election Day. We initiated litigation there that resulted in a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision finding that to be unlawful. The first appellate decision finding counting ballots that arrive after election Day to be unlawful. And why is it unlawful? Because federal law sets election days. It doesn’t set election weeks or election months. And the idea that your ballot comes in after election day and gets counted is contrary to any sensible interpretation of federal law that sets an election day.

As President Trump, whose legal position is largely concurrent with Judicial Watches or in sync with Judicial Watches, in fact, the Justice Department’s team argued in favor of our position, or at least most of our position. Unfortunately, they were a little weak, but I’ll leave that aside. They agree with us generally. They. I mean, Trump, when he was talking about this issue in an executive order, he made the point that it’s like someone showing up three days after Election Day and going to the polls and saying they want to have their vote counted too late. So you need to be sure your ballots get if you’re going to mail your ballots and we can argue about whether there should be mail in ballots.

I don’t think generally speaking, there shouldn’t be. You’ve got to make sure they get in there by Election Day because in my view, federal law requires it. And states that count ballots that arrive late are acting contrary to federal law. So I talked about that 5th Circuit success. Now Mississippi is appealing it to the Supreme Court. So it could be we’re in the Supreme Court not only on the standing to challenge that lawlessness, but the actual lawlessness itself. Will the Supreme Court take up Mississippi’s case and decide whether Judicial Watch is correct in its application of federal election law and that counting ballots that arrive after Election Day is unlawful? Now, when will we find out about the Supreme Court’s decision? Maybe as soon as next week.

They could have decided it last week, but they what they call the lawyers call it, they relisted it for a conference on November 7, which is a Friday, and they typically announce the results of that conference where they talk about cases they want to take up or not take up and make decisions along those lines on November 10th. Now, is it guaranteed they’ll talk about it on November 7th and they don’t delay it a little bit longer? No, but it could come as soon as I say November 10th based on a decision to make on November 7th.

So we could have your Judicial Watch Team two cases before the United States Supreme Court on this essential matter. The issue is standing and the right of candidates to challenge elections, go to court and challenge and try to stop an election from being stolen. I mean, this could be the most important case in a generation in terms of election law. And I think the left doesn’t know what to do because they at least, as I point out, the aclu, which opposes us in most other every other election law case, is on our side in terms of standing.

And I’m convinced that the Supreme Court is going to look very skeptically at, at courts or at states who want to count ballots that arrive after election day. Because think about it, what is the standard? How long can they wait? Can they count ballots until the next election? If not, why would there be a prohibition? How do you decide how long they can count ballots for? So that’s the big issue. And Judicial Watch once again, is front and center on this core effort to Ensure that elections are fair and free and run according to law in a way that guards against voter fraud and instills voter confidence.

More great news. Today we can announce that the wrongful death lawsuit that Judicial Watch filed for Ashley Babbitt’s family has been settled with the federal government, the United states government, for $4.975 million. $4,975,000. And it’s a great victory for Ashley and her family. It is necessary. It’s a fair settlement. And we had filed this lawsuit for her family back in, I think it was 2022. And we’ve been battling in court for years, investigating, litigating, exposing what went on with her. What I would. Well, it’s not what I would call her literal homicide. And thanks, frankly, to the Trump administration being in power, they settled this case with us.

And what a day for justice. As a result, as our press release sets out, This fair settlement is a historic and necessary step for justice for Ashley Babbitt’s family. Ashley should never have been killed. And this settlement destroys the evil partisan narrative that justified her outrageous killing and protected her killer. Judicial Watch’s team spent years investigating, litigating, exposing the truth about Ashley’s homicide. And credit goes to the hundreds of thousands of Judicial Watch supporters who fought for this cause. President Trump was an absolute rock in supporting Ashley’s family and advocating for justice. So what a wonderful team effort by Judicial Watch’s team with the support of Americans.

And, of course, Ashley’s with her husband, Aaron Babbitt, who we filed the lawsuit for. And of course, we’ve been helping and praying and supporting. Also Ashley’s mother, Mickey, and I can tell you they’re thrilled about this settlement. And you can be sure the left, because there’s been stories previous to this, because I couldn’t talk about the amount or the settlement. I mean, it just happened, literally. Today. The government signed the settlement papers today. Here, I’ve got the settlement here. This is what it looks like. And the lawyer for the Justice Department signed, it doesn’t look like they used an auto pen today on June 6th.

And. But it had been previously reported someone had leaked it, that the settlement was out there. And of course, we had a court battle earlier on that required us to disclose that we had settled in principle. And the left went crazy. They started smearing and defaming Ashley and her memory, attacking her family, attacking Trump, attacking January 6th. It’s all about this. And this settlement blows out of the water. The lies about January 6th, you know, their whole narrative depended on only police officers being hurt that day. And there were police officers that were hurt that day.

But what got in the way of that narrative about how terrible January Sixers were? Poor Ashley was killed for no good reason by Lieutenant Byrd. Let’s play the video of Ashley being killed again. Oh. Oh, I can’t believe he shot her. To this day, I can’t believe he shot her like that. I think she was crawling through that window. I think, you know, looking at the videos for safety. And we published online the last 19 minutes of Ashley’s life. And it looked to me watching what went on, they could have saved her life if they had moved more quickly to save her life and provide her medical support.

So we filed the lawsuit in 2024, not 2022, as I misremembered. And we filed today. I don’t think we filed this actual document with the court, but the document, it reads, it’s called a stipulation for compromise, settlement and release. Now, of course, the lawsuit initially was filed for $30 million, but the settlement now is for 4.975 million. And it’s a settlement, Right? It’s a compromise. And this is how it describes. This is how the settlement is described legally in the document. To settle and compromise each and every claim of any kind, whether known or unknown, including claims for wrongful death arising directly or indirectly from the acts of.

Or, excuse me, from the acts or omissions that gave rise to the above captioned action under the terms and conditions set forth in the stipulation. The stipulation is not and should not be construed as an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants, or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to plaintiffs. The settlement is entered into all by parties. Excuse me. The settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims act. And that was the law under which we sued for Ashley’s family and avoiding the expenses and risk of further litigation.

So in consideration for the plaintiff’s agreement to accept the terms and conditions of this settlement, the United States agrees to pay plaintiffs the amount of $4,975,000. There you have it. That’s how settlements are reached. It’s relatively standard language. So the government is admitting liability, but, you know, my view is you can draw your own conclusion from the number $4.975 million that they gave to settle the case. It’s a compromise number. They admit nothing, but they were prepared to go to trial on this case before the Trump people came in. We’re going to be in trial in 2026.

The lawsuit included claims against the government for wrongful death, assault and battery and various negligence claims. And the lawsuit was very useful and still is useful potentially for anyone who wants to actually pursue further law enforcement action against Ashley Babbitt’s killer, who should never, in my view, been anywhere near that scene, let alone even having a gun. He left his gun in the bathroom in the middle of the Capitol Visitor center, which is where all the tourists walked through to visit the Capitol. He was involved with an improper shooting near his home. He couldn’t even get a shotgun from civilian authorities because of his record and it had to be lent to him by the U.S.

capitol Police. We also exposed how during the shooting he put out a radio. Shots fired, shots fired. He was the only person who fired a shot and they covered his name up for months. They hid him from the American people. Judicial Watch exposed how he was given special accommodations. He was allowed to stay rent free at Joint Base Andrews, a United States base, a military base. The Defense Department was involved in the COVID up of who he was. For months, This shooting was treated like no other police involved shooting in recent memory. And I don’t think there was ever a serious criminal investigation of that shooting death of Ashley Babbitt, the only official homicide victim that day.

Let’s put up another Picture of Ashley, 14 year veteran of the United States Air Force. And she came to D.C. by herself because she loved Trump, supported Trump, and she ended up in this situation where she got shot by this out of control police officer. So yeah, the government was right to settle the case for $4.975 million with Ashley’s family over what happened. Does it mean this issue is over? Of course not. We’ve got litigation for records about Ashley and I know you know people who were there. The shooting occurred at. Let me tell you what the people said who were there.

The shooting occurred at the east entrance to the Speaker’s lobby after demonstrators filled the hallway outside the lobby. This is from our lawsuit. Two individuals in the crowded, tightly packed hallway struck and dislodged the glass panels in the lobby doors and the right door sidelight. Lt. Byrd, who is United States Capitol police officer, police commander, and was the incident commander for the house on January 6, 2021, shot Ashley on sight as she raised herself up into the opening of the right door side light. Byrd later confessed that he shot Ashley before seeing her hands or assessing her intentions or even identifying her as A female.

Ashley was unarmed. Her hands were up in the air, empty and in plain view of Byrd and other officers in the lobby. The facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashley’s homicide. He’s still up there. You know what they did? They made him a captain. Despite his record, despite this unlawful, awful shooting, they made him a captain. Basically an endorsement of the killing of an innocent woman by the leadership of Congress and the police administration, the U.S.

capitol Police. It was an ambush as far as I’m concerned. So the major lawsuit over Ashley’s Death is over $4.975 million settlement for her family. The litigation for records about Ashley continues by Judicial Watch. And the question is, is there going to be law enforcement action? Is there going to be a reopening of the investigation, a criminal investigation into the death of Ashley Babbitt? And again, I want to thank our team for doing this. The lawyer who is running this case, Robert Patrick Sticht, spent thousands of hours investigating this, Aaron Babbitt. Great, great guy, Mickey, who’s been not only advocating for justice for Ashley, but her mom, Ashley’s mom.

Mickey has been. No matter what’s happening in D.C. you can be sure Mickey will be there advocating for Ashley. And she’s been a trooper in terms of advocating for the rights of the January 6th defendants, who then, thankfully, have been pardoned by President Trump. So just a great. And of course, you, dear Judicial Watch supporter, we’re only able to do this because of the support of our members. So if you’re giving donations to Judicial Watch, this is the type of work it supports justice for Ashley Babbitt. And, you know, one of my fondest memories, at least as it relates to this case, is talking about this issue before a crowded cpac.

I think it was last year, and I simply was kind of. It’s hard to tell from the video, but I was kind of overwhelmed by the powerful response. Let’s play that speech excerpt. I got very upset again recently about January 6th. I was rewatching the video of the needless killing of Ashley Babbitt, the Air Force veteran, shot for no good reason by Lieutenant Michael Byrd of the US Capitol Police. Now, I’ve watched those videos. I can’t believe he just shot her dead like that. I just can’t believe it. And few in this corrupt city give a rat’s tale about that awful shooting.

But millions of Americans care, And her family cares I think her mom, Mickey, is still here at cpac. Is Mickey here? Well, give her a round of applause anyway, God bless her. It. And that’s why I’m so pleased. Judicial Watch just filed a $30 million wrongful death lawsuit against the US government. On behalf of the family of Ashley Babbitt. As our lawsuit states, the facts speak truth. Ashley was ambushed when she was shot by Lieutenant Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, you just murdered her. Judicial Watch is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. I tell you what, if it takes 30 more years to get justice for Ashley, that will be time well spent.

So we did get justice for Ashley. And is it sufficient? It’s never going to be sufficient. She’s still bad. She’s the victim of a homicide. But this settlement certainly is a wonderful way of vindicating her. A veteran, wife, daughter. And there are a few more important things that Judicial Watch has done over the decades I’ve been here at least than to try to get justice for her. So this settlement, again, thank you, Aaron. Thank you, Mickey. Thank you, Robert. Thank you, Judicial Watch supporters. Thank you, President Trump. Thank you to Trump Justice Department, and thank you everyone else who is a citizen who’s been praying for justice for Ashley, because we got a good piece of justice for her just today.

So God bless Ashley and God bless America. So if you’ve been following Judicial Watch and me on social media recently, you’ve been tracking, and of course, our weekly updates, our lawsuit against Fanny Willis for records about her collusion targeton the targeting of Trump with the Biden gang, specifically Jack Smith and the Pelosi January 6th Committee. We asked her repeatedly for records. They denied having any such records. Turns out they had at least one. They kind of had to admit to it. They still refused to produce records, pretended they didn’t have anything. They didn’t even bother to show up in court and respond to our lawsuit.

She was found in default by a local court in Georgia. And as a result of that, I can announce to you that she was ordered by a court just the other day to pay within two weeks her office nearly $22,000 to Judicial Watch. And here’s our press release. Court awards Judicial Watch 21,578 in fees and costs in open records lawsuit against Fannie Willis. And this is the ruling order granting attorneys fees and costs. I’m going to read a good part of it to you because again, Fannie Willis is a chief abuse, one of the top abusers of President Trump and many other innocent Americans down there in Fulton County.

Has she and her colleagues there, as I say, in league with. Because it’s been confirmed, by the way, she does have documents showing collusion with Nancy PELOSI, Nancy Pelosi’s January 6th committee to get Trump and who knows who else. It’s been confirmed as a result of our lawsuit. So she’s one of the top abusers of the First Amendment in that regard, because it’s a retaliation for exercising your First Amendment and other civil rights. So Judge McBurney, who is in the Superior Court of Fulton county, issued the ruling dated January 3rd. So it was last Friday, late Friday.

Plaintiffs submitted an Open Records act request to A defendant on August 22, 2023, by way of Fulton County’s ORA online portal, ORA, short for Open Records Act. 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 Judicial Watch to simplify its request, literally five minutes later, before any simplification had occurred. So we didn’t have a chance to respond.

The plaintiff received a second email from the records custodian after carefully reviewing your request. We do not have the responsive records. The response was perplexing and eventually suspicious to plaintiff Judicial Watch, given that Judicial Watch subsequently uncovered through own, through its own effort, at least one document that should have been in the District Attorney’s office possession that was patently responsive to the request. And this was a letter signed by Fanny Willis herself to Betty Thompson, the then chairman of the January 6th rump committee. The discovery prompted the current litigation filed in March of 2024, seeking an order directing Defendant to comply with the Open Records act and provide all responsive records.

During the pendency of the litigation, Defendant thrice more, three more times, denied the existence of any responsive records, once in a request for admission and twice via answers and interrogatories. So that was under oath. Every time we have searched, and there is nothing that wasn’t true. Defendant ultimately defaulted, and this court entered an order on December 2, 2024, directing defendant to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials and to provide any responsive records that are not legally exempted from disclosure. If Defendant. Excuse me, my cough is coming back. If Defendant elected to withhold all or part of any responsive records, she was further directed to comply with the OCGA section by identifying the Bases for the withholding.

Defendant’s compliance with the court’s order consisted of an undated unsigned two page memo to plaintiff from Defendant’s quote, open records department really not sufficient, not sufficient at all. In this memo, defendant announced that there were still no records responsive to one set of plaintiffs requests communications with former special counsel Jack Smith. We don’t believe it, but there were in fact records responses to plaintiff’s second set of requests communications with the United States House January 6th committee. But those were exempt from disclosure. Defendant, despite these reservations, did gamely attach to her memo a copy of the letter she wrote to the chairman of the House Committee that one does not appear to be covered by any of the exemptions identified in the memo and two, had already been identified by Plaintiff Judicial Watch as a responsive record that was wrongly withheld.

So that’s the letter we were talking about earlier that Fanny Willis had signed to the head of the January 6th Committee, Bennie Thompson. Something, something. Excuse me. Somehow something had changed. Despite having previously informed plaintiff four separate times, and the court emphasizes four, by the way, that her team had carefully searched but found no responsive records. Now they were. Now there suddenly were, but they were not subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act. Plaintiff’s deposition of defendant’s record custodian shed some light on the mystery. So our lawyers recently deposed an official in Fanny Willis office about the search for records and the response to our request.

He admitted there was no search for records back in August of 2023. So they told us they had nothing without looking. Or that’s what he testified to. Just a no go away quote. He further clarified that when plaintiff did not go away but instead sued, there still was no organized comprehensive examination of the district attorney’s office, of the district attorney’s office’s records that would await the court’s December 2, 2024 ruling. That’s the one in which she was found in default. And Fanny Willis was ordered again to search for the records and give any that were releasable to Judicial Watch.

The Open Records act is not oratory. It is mandatory. Non compliance has consequences. One of them can be liability for the requesting parties, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. To recover its relevant and reasonable fees and costs under the Open Records act, plaintiff must do two things. First, it must show that the defendant violated the Open Records Act. Second, plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant lacked substantial justification for the violations. Here, Plaintiff Judicial Watch have done both. Has done both. Most basically by operation of law, Defendants acknowledge violating the Open Records act when she defaulted, but actual evidence proves the same.

Per her record Custodian’s own admission, the District Attorney’s office flatly ignored Plaintiff’s original Open Records act request, conducting no search and simply and falsely informing the county’s Open Records custodian that no responsive records existed. We now know that it 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 Open Records act. And none of this and for none of this is there any justification, substantial or otherwise.

No one searched until prodded by civil litigation Judicial Watch Given this, the court finds that relevant and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation are properly awardable to Plaintiff pursuant to the law. The evidence from the court’s the December 24 hearing there was a hearing that we showed part of to you a few weeks ago, just shortly before Christmas, where we had a hearing on our attorneys fees and costs. The hearing on attorney’s fees show that the plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rate is reasonable and that the items for which he billed for the most part relevant to the defendant’s Open Records act violation.

From the record made at the 20 December 24 hearing, the court finds that the plaintiff incurred $19,360 in attorney’s fees related to Plaintiff’s efforts to enforce compliance with the ORA. Related litigation expenses are $2,218. Defendant is thus liable to plaintiff for $21,578 pursuant to and he cites the law, that amount shall be paid within two weeks of the entry of this order. So ordered this third day of January 2025. Judge Robert C.I. mcBurney, Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta Judicial District so this this order lays out corruption by Fannie Willis, secrets and lies. The hide records about her collusion with the Pelosi January 6th Committee records, which she continues to hide to this day.

So she has to give us this money within two weeks. And obviously, you know, we don’t gladly take the taxpayer money at issue here. I think there should be an investigation of what went on in this records case as part of the investigation of her illicit, in my view, targeting of Trump that I’ve been talking about in terms of that should be subject to federal and state criminal investigation potentially for the violations of civil rights under color of law. And then of course, we still, despite getting this $22,000 nearly from the court or through this court order, we still want the documents they’re withholding.

And we’ve asked the court for a special master, which would be a special court, someone with authority under the court to monitor and basically manage the search for records. We’ve asked the court to look at the documents that have been withheld as well, to see if the withholdings they’re citing or the exemptions they’re citing as justification for withholding the records are sufficient and warranted and whether we should get the records or not. I mean, our goal, in the end, this isn’t about the money. This is about getting the records. Now, we still don’t have the details, but we do have confirmation from Fannie Willis office, as described in this court record, this court order, that she had communications.

She was, quote, colluding, as I call it, unquotewith the Pelosi January 6th committee in her get Trump efforts. Remember, she tried to, you know, now the case against Trump is dead, practically speaking down there, but the case against others continues. She’s been removed from the case for other misconduct related to the hiring of her boyfriend to pursue Trump. And on top of that, you’ve got this record scandal. And this shows you the importance. I know sometimes FOIA and open records laws and things kind of like, ah, you know, you’re getting records, who cares? Well, in this case, it exposes a scandal.

The records expose a scandal and confirm a scandal. They lie to us. Looks to me like they were lying to the court. The court’s kind of being nice here. And not only is this going to uncover these records, confirmed corruption by Fannie Willis. Where else do they confirm corruption by the Pelosi Congress? The January 6th operation that corruptly targeted Trump and smeared him and abused the powers of Congress to interfere in the election and target enemies of Joe Biden and the Pelosi regime. And this, this collusion, which everyone suspected was confirmed not by Congress, not by the media, not by a law enforcement officer, but by Judicial Watch.

And again, I thank you, Judicial Watch donors, those of you who are supporting Judicial Watch for allowing us to do this work. Because, you know, I keep on saying that, you know, we’ve got to be in court in order to get this work done, and we can only do it with your support. So if you’re not supporting Judicial Watch, I encourage you to do so. And, you know, our persistence, our willingness to go to court and stick with it, I mean, this began nearly two years ago, and we’re still fighting for the records. I mean, we just got an acknowledgement the records existed.

It was like pulling teeth, obviously. I mean, we were facing lies by government officials to prove the existence of these records. But Judicial Watch’s heavy lifting once again got results on behalf of the rule of law. So I’ll keep you updated. Her response to our request for a special master Fannie Willis response is due soon. I think it’s almost due. I think it’s probably due now, more or less. And then the court has to decide how he’s going to handle the dispute about, A, the documents and B, whether they did a real search, because it looks like they didn’t search cell phones or text messages or anything.

So this case, we’re not at the end of this case. I’d say we’re to the early part, middle of the case. And so we need your continued support. And if you don’t support us financially, you can pray for wisdom and discernment for those involved. And also you can share the information I’m sharing with you now to your friends on social media and elsewhere, and educate them about the importance of uncovering the abuse of Trump that took place in Fulton County, Georgia, in a way designed to upend, as I’ve noted, our constitutional republic. I want to wish you a Merry Christmas on behalf of all of my colleagues here at Judicial Watch.

We are grateful for your support throughout the year. And Christmas is always a time for charities. And Judicial Watch is a charity to make the pitch. It’s the seizing of giving. And I encourage you, if you aren’t supporting Judicial Watch, to support us, I’ll tell you, just this last year or two, we’ve cleaned up 4 million names from the voting rolls. I’m convinced that the election would not have been as clean and fair as it was, although it needed work certainly at certainplaces like California and such. But the presidential level, if but for Judicial Watch’s activities, frankly, I think President Trump would have been put in jail but for Judicial Watch standing up against the abuses of power targeting him.

Certainly we contributed to protecting him from that lawfare and protecting the rule of law in the U.S. constitution as a result of, and you name it, whether it be elections, immigration, censorship, The COVID issue, the FBI, abuses of American citizens, holding members of Congress accountable, stopping and trying to sue the racial, excuse me, the woke racism behind reparations and other abuses like that in our military academies, with the WOKE training that our military academies have been put through, all of that exposed by Judicial Watch just recently and pursued by Judicial Watch just in the last year or two.

So there’s few doing more than Judicial Watch to uphold the rule of law. And I don’t know where America would be without Judicial Watch. So as you consider who to give to at the end of the year as part of your Christmas giving, I encourage you to support Judicial Watch because I think we have earned your support as we try to defend the Republican. As you know, there’s always more heavy lifting to do. And during the Trump administration, I think our work will actually increase because there’ll be more opportunities, hopefully, under the Trump administration, to get the truth.

And we’ve got to be there to ask for it and pursue it. And we’ll be there, I hope, with your support. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.