This directive comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch under the Open Records Act (ORA).
According to The Post Millennial, the court approved the default judgment motion proposed by Judicial Watch. The motion highlighted that Willis was served with the lawsuit in March 2024, but had not responded by May, when Judicial Watch requested the court to declare a default judgment. Willis was expected to file an answer "30 days after service," but she failed to do so.
The crux of the order revolves around the deadline for Willis's response. She was served on March 11, with a return of service filed two days later. However, this document did not appear on the court’s electronic docket. In April, the court, under the impression that Willis had not been served, issued an order directing Judicial Watch to serve the defendant. Judicial Watch then refiled the return, confirming that Willis had been served on March 11.
Willis defended her lack of response by stating that she was under the impression that service had not been perfected, based on the court’s April 15 order. She believed that the plaintiffs were required to serve her a second time, which they had not done, and hence she was not obligated to respond.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S EX-CELLMATE EXPOSES SOME MORE DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS!
December 05, 2024
The court order stated, "The Court finds Defendant is in default and has been since 11 April 2024. As already mentioned, it is undisputed that Defendant was served on 11 March 2024 and that Plaintiff filed the return of service on 13 March 2024." The court further clarified that the delay in the document's appearance on the electronic docket did not alter the fact that it had been filed and received by the Clerk on March 13. Therefore, Willis was required to answer within thirty days of service, which would have been April 10.
TRUMP'S FAMILY CIRCLE LOOKS DIFFERENT THIS TIME AROUND!
The court order also addressed potential concerns of unfairness towards Willis, who may not have been aware that the return of service had been filed on March 13 until April 15. The court pointed out that Willis could have opened her default as a matter of right on April 15 or shortly thereafter, as she was still within the fifteen-day grace period established by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a). Even if she had delayed and filed her motion to open default outside the fifteen-day statutory grace period, she would have had a compelling case for opening her default on any of the three statutory grounds.
GAVIN NEWSOM IS UP AGAINST A VERY BLOODY FIGHT!
However, the court noted that Willis did not take any of these actions. She did not move to open default on any basis, did not pay costs, and did not offer a meritorious defense. As a result, the court stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment "as if every item and paragraph of the complaint were supported by proper and sufficient evidence."
The court has now ordered Willis to conduct a diligent search of her records for responsive materials within five business days of the entry of this Order. Within the same period, Willis is required to provide Judicial Watch with copies of all responsive records that are not legally exempted or excepted from disclosure.
THIS BLUE CITY WANTS TO HELP TRUMP WITH MASS DEPORTATIONS
Following the order, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton commented, "Fani Willis is something else. We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit. Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fani Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress on her unprecedented and compromised ‘get-Trump’ prosecution."
EEK! ASSESSMENTS ROLL IN FOR KJP—AND MAN, SOME ARE BRUTAL!
The lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch suggested that Willis' claim of not having records responsive to the request is likely false. This assertion is based on a December 5, 2023 letter from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan to Willis, which referenced a December 2021 letter from Willis to Bennie Thompson, then head of the January 6 Committee. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in public office, and the role of the judiciary in ensuring these principles are upheld.
