➡ Judicial Watch is taking legal action against Fannie Willis for withholding documents related to her communications with the January 6th Committee. Despite being ordered by the court to provide these documents, Willis has failed to comply. Judicial Watch has requested further court intervention and the appointment of a special master to oversee a thorough search for these records. The case is ongoing, with Judicial Watch also seeking attorney’s fees.
➡ Judicial Watch, represented by lawyer John Monroe, is in a legal dispute with Fannie Willis’ office over access to certain documents. The office initially claimed they had no records, but later admitted they hadn’t searched. Despite further searches, they still claimed to have no records. Judicial Watch is now requesting a special master and in-camera inspection to ensure a thorough search is conducted. They are also seeking attorney’s fees of around $22,000. The case is currently on hold due to the holiday season.
➡ The court case involving Fannie Willis, who allegedly misused her position to benefit her boyfriend, Nathan Wade, has raised concerns about the integrity of the prosecution process. Despite evidence of dishonesty, Willis was allowed to continue the case, leading to an appeal by Trump and his co-defendants. The court ruled that Willis and her office were disqualified from the case, but did not dismiss the case entirely. The future of the case is uncertain, with Willis appealing the decision and the potential for another prosecutor to take over.

Judicial Watch will continue to hold Fannie Willis accountable under the law and everyone else who was involved in lawfare against Trump. So one thing that’s not in the book. Well, maybe it is in the book. Yeah. I think we talked about Fannie Willis in the book. I know we talked about Fannie Willis in the book, but the development since the book was published is what I want to talk to you about now. Now, if you’ve been following us in the last few weeks, you know that Fanny Willis was found in default in our open records lawsuit on records about her communications with the January 6th Committee, the Pelosi operation, Jack Smith, Biden Justice Department.

And she was found in default by the court, found in violation of the law, ordered to search for and give us documents that she had said she previously didn’t have. Lo and behold, she does have documents and now she’s withholding them from us. So we’ve asked for more relief from the court. And I described what we were doing in this video earlier this week. Well, everyone, we’re back in court again against Fannie Willis. Judicial Watch just filed a brief today in our case for records about her collusion with the Pelosi January 6th operation, the Biden DOJ operation, specifically Jack Smith.

Now, you may recall she was found in default in this lawsuit. She didn’t show up in court to answer our lawsuit, and the court ordered her to search for records she says I don’t have. Well, it turns out she does have records, and she confessed to having records of her communications, her office’s communications with the Pelosi January 6th operation. But she doesn’t want to turn the records over to us now. So first she tells us she has no records. She doesn’t bother to answer our lawsuit. Court orders her to be in default, violation of the law.

And then she searches for records, and now she doesn’t want to turn them over. We just filed a brief asking the court to review the record she’s hiding from the American people. Plus, we’ve asked for a special master to oversee a full search for records about her collusion. For instance, it looks like they didn’t search cell phone, text messages and other records they were supposed to look for. So this is a major scandal because what happened to Trump is the worst corruption in American history. The collusive, political, corrupt prosecutions of him and the conspiracy, it looks like, between Fannie Willis, the Biden operation, and the Pelosi operation and who knows who else.

Yeah. And so we filed this motion in court, and the motion essentially asks the court to review the documents in camera, which means the court gets to look at them directly, you know, outside the public, outside of the sight of the public, and decide on his own whether the material is being withheld properly. And secondly, we have this issue about the scope of the search and whether the search was diligent or not, and we don’t think it was. And this is what we say in the brief and this is why we’re asking for a special master, which is a court appointed official that could oversee a diligent search.

Willis, by her own admission, conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive documents not already supplied by judicial ones 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, which is a digital investigations program or 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 a 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 should also have authority to hire such consultants and experts as may be needed to execute her commission. Special master should also make a recommendation in a 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. So as we note, Fannie Willis can’t be trusted, which is why Judicial Watch is asking the court to review her secret anti Trump collusion records for a special master and to review her special.

Excuse me. To review her secret anti collusion records and why we request the special master to handle the search for more records. The court should put an end to Willis’s shell games to hide her conspiracy with Pelosi’s January 6th committee and who knows who else to get Trump. So one of the things the court also found in finding her in default because she didn’t show up to answer was that we would get attorneys fees or we could get attorneys fees. So we filed the necessary forms and the court had a hearing about this and the other issues today.

And so let’s go to video of that hearing. We were represented by John Monroe. I think I’m getting his name. I don’t want to misstate his name, but he’s our local counsel in Fulton County. There Excellent lawyer. Very. He’s been practicing for over 30 years. So Mr. Monroe was representing us. And you’ll see next to Mr. Monroe, our judicial Watch attorney who works for us directly, who’s been handling it for us. Russ Nobel, a senior lawyer for Judicial Watch. And the judge ably summarizes the issue here. Let’s listen to how the judge talked about the case here.

Let’s bring that up. Judicial Watch filed an Open Records act request with the attorney attorney’s office. They were informed there were no responsive records. The request was in general. I’m not going to get it exactly right. Please share all communications with Jack Smith in connection with his work on the January 6 investigation and any of his employees, as well as any communications between the District Attorney’s office and the committee or commission that was investigating the January 6th situation. That was more or less the request, but the response was, we don’t have anything. Mr. Monroe and perhaps Mr.

Nobile were surprised by that answer. Ultimately, they brought the lawsuit that is before me, seeking to compel compliance with the Open Records act and for the disgorgement of responsive records. The current posture is that the district attorney is in default. The default order gave the District Attorney’s office a pretty tight timeframe in which to do what it had been asked to do by Judicial Watch originally through the Open Records act request, which was to produce these documents. And one document was produced, I believe it was something that actually Mr. Monroe had provided the District Attorney’s office saying, here’s a reason why we think there might be some things.

And that was handed back. Congress had released the letter as well. There was a response that said, well, these aren’t the exact words, but either we looked for the first time or we looked again. And there are some things, but you can’t have them because they are privileged or for whatever reason they are not, under the terms of the ORA, properly disclosable. And so here we are. Mr. Monroe is seeking on behalf of Judicial, Judicial Watch two things only one is ripe for discussion, and that’s the attorney’s fees. There is also a pending motion to have a special master appointed to clear up some of the mystery around.

How could the first answer be we have nothing, and then the second answer is, we have something, but you can’t have it? Well, there you have the judge kind of signal where he might be going, because we don’t know that, because the other side hasn’t responded to our brief yet. They have some time to do that. And at the hearing, the lawyer for Fannie Willis office. It’s interesting. So in Washington, when we do a FOIA lawsuit, you, let’s say ICE or Judicial Watch sues the CIA. Now, the CIA, their lawyers kind of are involved, but they’re represented essentially as an agency by the Justice Department.

So the Justice Department represents the agencies in the FOIA lawsuits. That’s why I’m so upset about the way the Justice Department behaves because they’re the, they defend all of this secrecy when we get the runaround under the foia. So down in Fulton county, there’s kind of a similar issue with the county, I guess the county district attorney and or the county attorneys and the district attorney’s office. So you have essentially the equivalent of another officer office full of lawyers representing this agency, the district attorney in this FOIA lawsuit. So the lawyer there doesn’t necessarily work in Fannie Willis office.

She’s representing Fannie Willis office, and she’s a county attorney. And she said during the hearing, because typically settlement discussions are, you know, if we hear the government wants to settle, we typically don’t talk about it. You just don’t talk about settlement negotiations in public until otherwise, no one’s ever going to settle. But here she disclosed that she was interested in a global settlement with Judicial Watch. Well, we’ll see if we get there. And our lawyer, John Monroe, again our local counsel for Judicial Watch, talked about the issues and you’ll see the arguments summarized or highlighted in this next video as John represents you Judicial Watch supporter before the judge against Fannie Willis office.

The problem we have is we don’t know what we don’t know. You know, they’ve said we’ve got some stuff, but you can’t see it, you know. So I guess all we know to do, the only, the only tool in our toolbox is, like I said, it’s two pronged. One, the in camera inspection and the special master. Sure, we know that. Like for example, Mr. Bond said in his deposition that when they, their first response, we don’t have any records. He admitted in his deposition, we didn’t. We never searched. Right. And then the second time after the case was filed, they said we don’t have any records, not even privileged records.

And, and now they’re saying, well, we do have some records about the privilege, so we don’t have a lot of confidence in what, whatever it is they’re doing when they say they’re searching. And so since we don’t know what’s there, it’s hard for us to come up with a, you know, any kind of proposal short of what we’ve asked the court to do, to do in terms of trying to remedy this. Right. And I don’t know, for example, that we could even come up with an agreement on attorney’s fees, because we don’t know what’s going to happen going forward.

You know, for example, if the court, you know, appointed a special master, you know, there might be meetings with special master, there might be more hearings. You know, there could be a lot more work involved. So at this point, it’s hard for us to say we’d settle for this, because as you point out, it’s not a bus accident. We can’t just say this is how much money we need and we’ll be happy and we’ll go away. Right. Originally, there was just an acknowledgement receiving the request. And then the next day there was a can you please clarify it? And then five minutes later, before there was an opportunity to do any clarification, it was, we don’t have any responsive records.

I’m not sure Judicial Watch even had seen the request for clarification before the we don’t have any records came. Okay, so you receive an acknowledgment. Thank you for making a request. Next day, could you clarify or narrow it? And before really, someone could take a breath, then we don’t have. That’s right. And then Mr. Bond admitted, confessed whatever during his deposition, that, in fact, no search was done before that response of we don’t have any records was created. That’s in his deposition Transcript on page 76, line 7, because we had the one letter that we attached to the complaint.

Then we. We knew that that can’t be correct. There must be some responsive records. So we filed the complaint. And then after the complaint was filed, Mr. Bond said that he. He searched again. And he said in his deposition that that was largely by asking people if the office had any records. That’s in his deposition, page 53, line 15. And then during his deposition, despite repeated questions, trying to get at it from many different angles, Mr. Bond was not able to give a comprehensive description of what search was done and how it was done or anything like that.

And then even after the court’s order, the response that came in, which. Which we filed into the record, it was undated, it was unsigned. It was just on DA letterhead. There was no privilege log, as you pointed out. And there’s not actually even an affirmative response saying, we have some stuff, but you can’t have it. It just said that stuff would be privileged. So we’re not. We still aren’t sure if they actually did a search and have, you know, identified any records that are responsive. Because what they said was, oh, well, that would be privileged. They started by not doing a search at all, even though they said they did.

And then they apparently didn’t really conduct a meaningful search. And then at least their third opportunity, they gave us an undated, unsigned, unprivileged log thing, saying that if they had records, they’d be privileged. That certainly lacks substantial justification. Your Honor, that’s not how open records requests are supposed to be dealt with by a government agency. They said they searched and didn’t. I mean, they admitted they didn’t search. And where they conducted another. Actually, the way they worried it, they conducted two more searches and still found no records. When. When in fact, that was after we had filed the complaint and attached a letter that they should have recognized was responsive.

They still said they didn’t have anything responsive. It was a letter. Fanny Willis. I mean, they lack substantial justification, at least for most of the time. I think it’s premature for us to know what they did the third time around, and that’s why we’re asking for the special master and the in camera inspection. But it’s patently obvious that they lack substantial justification in saying we did a search when in fact, they didn’t do a search. And then when they did a search and didn’t even find what we had already said, hey, here’s a responsive record. They didn’t even find that.

I think that’s it. So our lawyer went on to describe the fees we spent, at least as of the date we filed our request for fees or documented the fees. And it’s about the attorney’s fees, and costs are about $22,000. And as our lawyer notes, that’s before we get into the further litigation, potentially. So we’ll see. You know, we want the documents in the end, right? It’syou know, if the court awards us fees, so be it. But in the end, we really want the documents. And what I liked about this hearing, I’m glad it was public, because it gives you an opportunity to see what we have to put up with and what we have to do.

It’s like everything is a fight. I keep on saying we’ve got to sue to get the time of day. And in the case of Fannie Willis, she had literally written a letter to the head of the January 6th committee. We asked forwe asked for records that obviously would have covered the production of that letter. Communications with the January 6th Committee, and they said it didn’t have anything. And the letter finally gets released by the Republicans in Congress saying what about this? And that’s why we’re in court now. And that’s why they’ve been the court seemingly is skeptical about how they’ve handled the case, and rightly so.

So, well, things are going to be on hold for a little bit, obviously, because we’re coming up on Christmas and a New Year’s holiday. We’re not all monsters here. I’m not going to make our lawyers work on Christmas over a fee dispute with the government, with the Fulton County. But and the court noted, you know, they have 30 days to respond, so there’s not much we can do anyway. So we’ll see if we can get them to give us documents or more information about their secret documents and maybe just get the documents. I mean, that’s what we want in the end are the documents.

And I think we have a stronger case to get these documents since now this case is a dead letter as far as this prosecutor is concerned because an appellate court in Georgia also last week found that Fanny Willis is disqualified as a result of an appearance of a conflict or impropriety in her handling of the case against Donald Trump and others. And this is the video I did want to play for you on that topic. Big news out of Georgia, everyone. Fannie Willis and her office have been disqualified from the prosecution of President Trump. The prosecution, at least for now, is dead.

It’s going to have to be picked up by another prosecutor in Georgia. And I don’t think they’re going to be able to find anyone who is as corrupt as Fanny and will pursue President Trump on sham charges. Now, of course, she’s been disqualified over her corruption, hiring her boyfriend, helping line her own pockets and funding her relationship through the prosecution and abuse of President Trump. A terrible miscarriage of justice down there. This comes on top of the Judicial Watch lawsuit for which she was found in default for not responding to the lawsuit for our request for documents about her communications with the Pelosi gang and Jack Smith in the Biden Justice Department.

She’s hiding documents now. Turns out she had documents she said she didn’t have. And we’ve got a court hearing tomorrow on it. So Fannie Willis is finally being held accountable, not only by the courts, but by Judicial Watch. And it’s the first in what should be many steps of accountability and justice over the outrageous lawfare targeting President Trump. So big victory for President Trump and other victims of Fannie Willis, outrageous prosecution as you know, or should know, if you’ve been following Judicial Watch at all, she has been caught red handed, basically misusing this prosecution process to employ her boyfriend at the time, Nathan Wade.

Which raises questions about the whole basis for the prosecution. A you had the political content of it, which makes it, in my view, illicit. But also you have the, the likelihood and the evidence that it was initiated and pursued to provide funds for her and her friend’s romantic relationship and to advance it. And it looks like they lied repeatedly to the courts about it and to the public. The lower court, in finding her or requiring her to fire or keep Nathan Wade out of the case, while leaving her in, even acknowledged that there was an odor of mendacity about how this issue was handled by her.

Yet despite that, she was allowed to remain on the case and prosecuted. And that’s why Trump and his fellow co defendants appealed it and the court agreed with Trump. After carefully considering the trial court’s finding in its after carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, this is on page 17, we conclude that it erred by failing the disqualified DA Willis in her office. The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety, meaning having Nathan Wade be thrown off the case, did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pre trial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.

While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial and we conclude that the elected district attorney is wholly disqualified from this case. The assistant district attorneys whose only power to prosecute a case is derived from the constitutional authority of the district attorney who appointed them, have no authority to proceed. Now, what the appellate court did not do is dismiss the case in its entirety, dismissed the indictment in its entirety, which I think the court should have done, and it may eventually happen.

So what happens next? Well, first of all, there’s no case. So what are the privileges to withhold documents? Right. So to me, this is another indication that the documents should be released to Judicial Watch about her collusion to get Trump. But secondly, what’s going to happen to the case against Trump which is still being used by the Democrats? They’re holding this case and the sham case up in New York like a sword of Damocles over President Trump during his entire presidency, or at least that’s the goal. And it goes to a state official in Georgia who can decide to give it to another prosecutor.

And that other prosecutor has independent authority whether to appeal it or he can. Well, you can’t see my foot smashing. He can squelch it. He can say there’s no basis for a prosecution here and, and just kill the case outright at the state level. Which I think should be the, should be the outcome. Now, Fannie Willis is appealing this decision to disqualify her to the state Supreme Court. I don’t know if it will succeed or not, but it will delay the outcome somewhat. And I don’t know if the appeal is enough to if her appealing it to the Supreme Court.

Does it delay the state officials opportunity to move the case or handle the case or shut the case down? I don’t know. But I do know that Judicial Watch will continue to hold Fannie Willis accountable under the law and everyone else who is involved in lawfare against Trump. And I don’t know what the Justice Department’s going to do, what President Trump personally is going to do. As I’ve suggested to you, I think he should directly appoint a special counsel out of the White House. Justice Department can’t be trusted to investigate the Justice Department. The FBI can’t be trusted to investigate the FBI.

So how can we expect them to run those investigations into themselves? I can’t. Nor should you expect them to do that and nor should the president. And that’s why he should appoint an outside special prosecutor as his, which is his authority, which he has the authority to do under the Constitution. But in the meantime, we’ve got this case against Fanny Willis which will continue and hopefully we’ll get more documents on this, the worst corruption scandal in American history, the Democratic Party left wing effort enabled by the media and politicians across the country who wanted to get Trump and use the awesome power of prosecutorial authority to jail Trump and worse to keep him out of office and interfere with our elections.

So Judicial Watch will continue the heavy lifting in that regard. 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.