Breaking news today on Sekulow as Fannie Willis is disqualified from the Trump prosecution. Keeping you informed and engaged, now more than ever, this is Sekulow. We want to hear from you.
Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host, Jordan Sekulow. Alright folks, those of you who have called in for years and think that injustice never gets fixed in our system, today is a day to remind you that when you fight back against injustice and those violating your constitutional rights, you are eventually vindicated in the United States of America and you can be successful even when it feels like at first they're using all of their money, all of their resources to prosecute you and to prosecute anyone else they can. And of course we're talking about here, Fannie Willis. Fannie Willis, the DA for Fulton County, who brought charges against over 30 people on this electors issue and the phone call issue, putting that all aside right now because her entire DA's office has been disqualified from the case involving President Trump and the other defendants. So because of the fact that she brought Nathan Wade in as a special counsel who had no special or unique knowledge of a RICO case, nearly a million dollars that they used and it looks like they lied about how they were utilizing the funds together. I think it was $768,000 that his firm was paid to be the special counsel that he didn't have a specialty in.
And they used it for trips. Remember they tried to hide all of that. They tried to hide their relationship. The lower court, the trial court, basically said there was the appearance of impropriety, but this needs to likely be seen by potentially an appeals court. This was of course appealed. And the Georgia Court of Appeals in a two to one decision said Fannie Willis out.
But it's not just Fannie Willis who's out. It's the entire prosecutor's office. So Fulton County DA's office cannot be involved in any more of this prosecution. Now what happens next in Georgia? Briefly for you, it goes to what's called the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia.
They have a membership. I think it's nine different counties. Nine from across the state. County DA's. They can decide to dismiss charges or they can appoint someone who is a prosecutor from another county to decide what to do.
My dad is going to join us in the next segment of the broadcast to talk through this. Because remember, for President Trump, I think this is over. Because again, he hadn't gotten to the level where there were other people who made plea deals and issues like that who were going to want somebody to work with. So this counsel, I would imagine, while they may be able to dismiss the charges, will likely have to appoint someone who can handle all of these different people who might be appealing deals that were made.
Or fines that they're supposed to be paying because of those deals. I mean, there's a lot more people that were involved here other than President Trump. But what we know is that when you take a deep dive at these individuals, I mean, look how different these prosecutions are post-election. And remember, it was not President Trump winning that brought down this case.
It was the workings of Fannie Willis and her team who have been doing this for years. In fact, in 2022, they were kicked off another case because she was doing a fundraiser for the opponent of someone she had her office investigating. And so they got kicked off that case.
I don't know where this ends up for Fannie Willis, and that's something we can follow. But what we are seeing across the country, and I think we can be excited for this, and the ACLJ filed in this case, which is something unique for us to file this strongly against a DA to say they should be removed. But we did. And we will continue to file. If they appeal this to the Supreme Court of Georgia, we'll file again because this was wrongdoing. It should have never happened this way.
It should have never been brought, this case. But justice can be done. You just have to fight. And that's what groups like the ACLJ do.
And you don't take breaks. You continue your fight. We need your support today with our matching challenge, our faith and freedom drive.
Again, this is the most important year for us, one of the most important weeks for us. Donate today. Double the impact of your donation. This is why. So that justice is done. Donate at ACLJ.org. We'll be right back with more information. All right.
So just briefly for everyone who might be just joining us. The Georgia Court of Appeals in the case the ACLJ filed in and unique for us to file in a case to have a district attorney's office removed from a case. She could still appeal this to the Georgia Supreme Court, though, when you look back in history, likely would not have much success there.
But again, you don't want to predict 100 percent, though, likely what we've seen today and you'll see in the headlines. But I want to make sure you understand what the headline is actually saying is that Fannie Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, has been removed from the Trump case that was brought in Georgia. And that was brought against, I think, 30 additional individuals. There might have been 16 remaining by the time this got to the Georgia appeals court because other people made plea deals or were taken out.
They were not prosecuted. But it is not just Fannie Willis who is removed. It is her entire office. So anyone involved with the Fulton County D.A. office is taken off this case. And it goes to a Georgia prosecuting attorney's counsel that can decide to dismiss this, which they did two years ago in a similar case that she was booted from. And it got her whole office booted from because she was doing fundraisers for someone who was an opponent of someone they were launching an investigation against. But I want to go right now to Jay Sekula, our chief counsel, my dad. Dad, right away, this is doesn't happen often, but so it is a big decision for President Trump and everybody who was brought up on these criminal charges from this grand jury. And the work that was done by D.A.
Willis's office. Well, you're right. And the victory here is huge because the court of appeals correctly not only took her off the case, but also her entire office. So as you said, it goes to the district attorney's counsel. I do not see any way in which they bring a charge based on the same charges she brought in the RICO case from a new D.A.
I just don't see it. Now, another thing that's important in the opinion, and I think this goes to the heart of what we argued in the case, was that remember, the trial court judge said there was an odor of modacity surrounding this, but he didn't think it rose to the level of disqualification, obviously, the Georgia Court of Appeals. And that's what we wrote in our brief. I thought it was an upper disqualification. The disqualification here is also significant because it goes back to the pre indictment investigation. In other words, what the Georgia Court of Appeals was saying is her office should not have been involved even in the pre indictment issues. So it puts into question the entire process. But I think the good news for the President elect, as well as the incoming team, it takes this case off the plate. And there is no way that anything is going to happen anyway.
But this certainly does it. And for the other defendants, this is really good news. There were some really good friends of mine that were in this, including a very well-known trial lawyer in Georgia. In fact, I was talking with him this morning.
He called and would text her, rather. And he was brought up in this, which was ridiculous. He's one of the most respected trial lawyers in the state. And of course, he's a supporter of the ACLJ, I should add, and he's out of it now as well.
So I think this is nothing but a resounding victory and a great job. I know that people obviously they're focusing on President Trump, but I think you rightfully brought up that there were a lot of other people here. I mean, I think at one time there were 30.
I think it got down to somewhere under 20. But that was because of plea deals and things like that. I mean, here, is there any way for those individuals, once this is finalized by that counsel, if they decide to not bring any charges, do you think they have to appoint somebody to deal with the ramifications of this because of people who might have paid financial penalties and made other deals?
Because of the way the opinion is written, where they have that specific discussion in the opinion about activity pretrial, so they're talking about the indictment process, the investigation process, I think that when the DA counsel looks at this and decides not to proceed, if I was representing one of these defendants, I would go in and try to get those pleas now removed. Because you're talking about constitutional rights being violated. In the first place, right. What we've talked about is it's usually difficult to sue the government, even state governments, for financial penalties. But if you violate constitutional rights, there is a provision where they usually waive that. And in this kind of case, where people's lives have been almost ruined or at least put on hold for years, while this has been going through the process, even though it looked absurd from the outside when we found out all this information, that those individuals, too, can see some justice in this.
I mean, President Trump, obviously, this is not going anywhere. And like you said, I can't imagine any other DA's office, they would have to start over. There's no way to just clean this up because, as you said, it goes back to pre-indictment. So, I mean, you'd have to start at point one, and I'm not even sure if you can do that without violating the court's order. It's interesting, the dissent in this case, too, is two to one.
But I want to make sure that the audience knows. The dissent just said, we shouldn't have to be the court doing this, the trial court should have done this on their own. The trial court should have done it. So that was just a disagreement over which court should be the one that issues that decision. They did not disagree that she should be removed.
So, I mean, it was unanimous to that idea that this DA's office, again, the entire office needed to be removed. And, of course, I think it's a huge victory for President Trump. And what a turnaround we've seen in just the last few months of these cases, whether it's Jack Smith in the federal side, or you see it now in Georgia, and we await what will finally happen in some of these New York cases.
No, you're right. I mean, the scope and nature and breadth and the movement in the cases against the President as they collapsed totally. I mean, the only thing that's really left is New York at this point, and that whole case is ridiculous. So and I think that Judge Marshawn and his order the other day is going to get reversed by the appellate division of the courts there, if not the Court of Appeals will.
So I think, look, for the President, this is very good. For the other defendants, this is very good. The case never should have been brought. This was a RICO case, which is absurd.
Think about that racketeering influence and corrupt organizations. And this whole idea of the prosecution here was ridiculous. It was far-fetched and now is rightly thrown off the case, as is their entire office. When you look at this decision from the court and then I know when we read the comments that we've seen for years, because of the amount of lawfare that we've seen in this country over the past eight years, I'd even argue between the deep state and the Biden administration and those around the country that just want to target conservatives. You read this decision and it gives you hope. But it also points out why we at the ACLJ have to keep fighting every day. You know more than anyone that the wheels of justice sometimes take a long time to get to the good outcomes. But should this be giving our audience hope that when the ACLJ fights and when those of us that fight for the rule of law, that justice will be served?
Well, let me just bring everybody a quick rewind. Remember, all of this was going on at the same time we were at the Supreme Court of the United States representing the Colorado GOP as they were trying to get President Trump taken off the ballot. And the trial court, remember in that case, ruled one way and then their Supreme Court ruled another. And then we went to the U.S. Supreme Court and of course we won 9-0. I think that was the beginning, by the way, of the end. That was the beginning of the end of these cases.
The theories were so outrageous that you had liberal members of the court agreeing with the conservatives that you can't do this. And I think this bodes well. But it does mean we have to fight. And your support of the ACLJ, especially in these next 11 days here, are critical. This is our most important 11 days of the year financially for the American Center for Law and Justice.
And your support in this faith and freedom drive will be really appreciated. Yeah, I mean, we've seen, again, what if you fight back and, Dad, as I said, you know, it's not necessarily the normal ACLJ filing to file to have district attorneys removed. But when people's constitutional rights are being violated, whether it's the President's or there were other people involved here that were being prosecuted or investigated and their constitutional rights were being violated, the ACLJ is going to stand up. And as you said, whether it's at the U.S. Supreme Court or the Georgia Court of Appeals, we were there and we've been victorious. And that has shown, I think, also it's kind of vindicated President Trump and all those individuals that these prosecutions were so motivated only by politics.
It's kind of the worst of the legal system, but a good news in the sense that they are coming to a close and that hopefully with a new attorney general and a new FBI director and a new administration at the helm, that we can get back to the respect for these agencies, whether they're the federal agencies or the state agencies. Well, that's right. And here the theories of law that have been put forward here have been outrageous.
They have been reversed. We have won. We're going to continue to fight. And again, the support of everybody that's listening to this broadcast right now to the ACLJ is critical. If we continue to fight this one, if it's appealed, we're going to continue to fight it, folks. And that's why you go to ACLJ.org right now. Double the impact of your donation.
This is one that can be moved, has to move, could move very quickly. So we'll have our team on it right through the holidays. ACLJ.org is where you donate. We've got our Faith and Freedom Year in Drive.
As my dad said, our most important 11 days. And our team continues to work, as we've said, to ensure that your constitutional rights are protected, whether it is someone who is living in an adult's living home, which we'll talk about later on. Another case there.
Or a President of the United States. ACLJ.org. Donate. All right. Welcome back to Sekulow. I do want to take some of the calls. And if you have questions about this, of course, give us a call. 1-800-684-3110.
That's 1-800-684-3110. If you're just joining us, Fannie Willis, taking off the case. The entire DA's office taking off the case from Fulton County, involving President Trump in this RICO charge. This, again, coming from the Georgia Court of Appeals, saying the idea here and the attempt to conceal the relationship between Willis and Nathan Wade. The $650,000 that he was paid as special prosecutor that appears to have benefited both of them personally and these vacations and their relationship.
All of that created, again, a situation where her office entirely, not just her, but her office entirely needs to be removed from the case. I do want to go to the phones, though, and answer questions about it, because it's unique to get a decision like this. We'll go to John in Missouri on Line 1. Hey, John. Hello.
Thanks for my call. My question is, can Fannie Willis refile? No.
No. Her office is barred. Now, she could try to, they could appeal this case to the Georgia Supreme Court. But she has been down this road before. I say it doesn't happen that often, but for Fannie Willis, this isn't new.
This happened to her in 2022. And again, she had her office investigating at the time, I think it was the lieutenant governor, who was up for reelection. And she was doing fundraisers for the opponent of that lieutenant governor, while at the same time investigating the lieutenant governor, who was the target of one of her investigations. And she was, again, the entire Fulton County DA's office was taken off the case.
So this is unusual in one sense, but is not so much in the world of Fannie Willis. I mean, I think the question here is, for people who live in Fulton County, is this who you want to be a prosecutor or not? Because they've now got a record of whether, regardless of what side you're on, you think these charges are wrong, right?
That this is someone who is not making smart decisions about how to move forward if you're going to try to move forward with all these political cases that involve elected officials or former elected officials who are now incoming elected officials. So they could try to appeal. There's, of course, it's a Georgia court of appeals. But I think what will ultimately happen here, this case is done. And what I hope is set up is something for those who may have made agreements, as my dad said, this goes to the pre-indictment level. So this goes to even before your indictment, all the money that they had to spend, some of these people who have had to take out loans from family and friends to pay legal bills, that they will be made whole again eventually because of this decision by the court.
And I'm going to read from this decision by the court because I think even the language you hear is very important when you're understanding this. It says, after carefully considering the trial court's findings in its order. So the information they're using is what Judge McAfee had put forward. They didn't go out and do their own fact finding, their own court briefings other than what we filed and things of that nature.
And they didn't even get to oral argument, remember. So they're relying on the briefings and what the lower court had decided. And it says, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify D.A.
Willis in her office. The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when D.A. Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring. While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety is generally 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 those proceedings. So when you hear that, Jordan, they're talking about the pretrial issues, the appearance of impropriety, and they're saying that no other thing can happen to address this other than disqualification of her in her office. That goes to our caller's question of, can she refile?
I feel like the answer is right there because the appearance of impropriety, even at the pretrial discretion, so before charges and everything was brought, all that work has an appearance of impropriety. No, she can't bring this case again. She is done. And they have disqualified her from this. No, I think that people have just got to understand, this is why we fight in systems where you may say, oh, is it, you know, it's so difficult, you know, to get a, this happened to a D.A., and listen, it's not the norm, nor should it be. But when it came to Fannie Willis, she had a history of this, and so you fight back if you believe there was wrongdoing, and here, remember how bizarre it was?
Remember she stormed into the courtroom that one time to testify on her own? That was probably the beginning of the end of this whole thing, and unfortunately, it's just dragged on for so long, and it's not just affected President Trump, but all these other individuals. And I think this is important for all these prosecutors around the country to know is that, listen, you try to bring these politically charged cases against politicians or former politicians and their allies just because you don't like their politics, that is not going to work out, and it's not going to end well for you when you try to make up new laws or try to make up new ways to prosecute people. So what we have to do at the ACLJ is continue to file, continue to fight, and make sure you fight it out until this is over, done with, 100 percent. Now, how we make that easy for you is, listen, we will update you throughout as necessary, like today, and with the nitty-gritty that comes through with what happens next in this, we'll continue to update you. But the big news here is that everything would have to start over for anyone who wanted to take this again, and you couldn't even start because the President-elect is about to become the President of the United States, so that would be on hold as well.
This, again, is the second time it's happened to Fannie Willis. It is a case, I think, when you look at it, there were so many people involved, so much injustice, and finally, these courts have said, listen, there's nothing else we can do other than say this entire office, including the DA, has to be taken off this case. It goes to this counsel now.
The counsel could decide to dismiss all of the charges. I think then what you have to figure out is what happens for some of those individuals who, listen, they were worried, so they may have made plea deals and things like that just to be done with this so they could move on with their lives, but even in their case, their constitutional rights were violated because this goes back to even pre-indictment, so before they were threatened with indictment, they were, and so they made those deals. This goes to, again, injustice there and constitutional wrongdoing, and when you have unconstitutional behavior, you don't just write that by saying, well, it was unconstitutional. It goes broader than that. It will be broader than that, and again, we have to see how it all plays out there with the committee and counsel that exists in Georgia, but I want you to know is that the ACLJ filed here, the ACLJ will continue to file on the side of what is right in this case. We need your support financially. As my dad mentioned, I want to just underscore it again, these 11 days for the ACLJ are the most important for us financially of the entire year, so it allows us not to just continue the work strong through 2024, but also how we kick off 2025.
There's going to be a lot of changes. We're going to have to fight for some of those changes and confirmations, and we know that at the federal level, but we also have to continue to fight the state level. We've got two ACLJ cases to update you on today that we haven't even gotten to yet on the show that we have just started working on, so we will get that to you as well.
Stay with us on the broadcast to talk to us on the air. It's 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110, but a big victory here that you were involved in if you support the work of the ACLJ. Fannie Willis and the DA's office kicked off the case against President Trump and those others who, again, they tried to indict and twist and scare with jail time, prison time, financial penalties. Support the work of the ACLJ. We'll keep filing if we have to.
Donate today. ACLJ.org. To Sekulow, we are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. Just to remind people again, because people join throughout if you're watching, if you're listening, Fannie Willis and her entire office, so the entire Fulton County DA's office in Georgia, has been disqualified from prosecuting President Trump in that case and all the other people who were defendants in that case. That they were attempting to bring these charges against. So that case is thrown out. Now it goes to a counsel in Georgia. That counsel is made up of prosecutors from different counties and they can dismiss this entirely. And that might happen here.
I can't predict exactly what they'll do. They can also appoint someone, a DA, to kind of handle this and they could decide to dismiss this entirely, but also there's other defendants here who were further along in the process than President Trump. And some of them took plea deals, others were working on deals like that, immunity deals. So I think that there will have to be someone there for the county level to replace her and her team to handle the fallout from this case at the Georgia Court of Appeals level. Could she appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court?
Yes. If you look at the makeup currently of the Georgia Supreme Court, it would be shocking that the court would come to a very different conclusion than the Georgia Court of Appeals. So I think very big win here today for President Trump and those who she tried to indict alongside President Trump as this is now her office completely taken off the case. Though the case isn't closed out yet, the committee of these DAs can do that as that's how it works in Georgia. Or they can appoint a DA that can also eventually do that.
They may have to figure out the other people who are involved here to make sure their rights are also vindicated because, as I said, somewhere further along in the process. Let's go to the phones. Mary in Maryland online too. Mary, welcome to Sekulow. You're on the air. Thanks so much. I just love you guys and I pray for you all the time.
And at 90 I would triple or double, triple what I give because I'm a patriot, but I just have my limits. Anyway, I was wondering this crazy Fannie Willis, with her history of all the false charges that she seems to be doing on a regular basis, could she be charged somehow legally and have her and be disbarred from practicing? So I don't know if because the appearance of impropriety, if you're going to get a disbarment.
This was unique. Usually the court said it would take more than the appearance that even having Nathan Wade and getting rid of Nathan Wade might not be enough in normal cases to be disqualifying. But in this case, it was such a huge part of the case because he was supposed to be the special counsel that put together the RICO charges that led the RICO case here because doing that is a specialty in the law to put together or to defend a RICO case. And the reason this became scandalous was twofold. One, he had never done a RICO case before and got paid $680,000 from the county to do so.
And then two, it looks like that they were co-mingling and utilizing those funds for vacations together. And that they had a relationship that they were trying not to disclose to the courts that was disclosed. And obviously Nathan Wade was removed from the case. But then the Georgia Court of Appeals said that's not enough. This goes all the way back to even the pre-indictment.
Again, the appearance here met the standard for the whole entire office to be removed. If you talk about disbarment and all these other issues, that's up to the Georgia bar and up to Georgia attorneys who can bring those kind of challenges. That's totally separate from the criminal process here and the court process we are in.
That's the second time for her. So I think also voters have to decide, you know, are they going to keep electing these political DAs who may be able to bring, you know, scary looking charges and be like, even Jack Smith at the federal level with these, is a special counsel even OK under the Constitution? How can he have the authority that a U.S. attorney that has to be confirmed does not? But again, I think they have to think twice now before they bring these politically charged prosecutions that look and appear to the public as just that. Politically motivated and wrong.
And when you're politically motivated and wrong, it's unconstitutional. We're going to continue to take your calls, 1-800-684-3110. Let me remind you, this is why you support the work of the ACLJ, because these issues, when they come up, do you think that we shy away from them or we just talk about them to sound tough on this broadcast?
Whether you watch or listen to the broadcast. No, we file in these cases. We put our names to this. And we did in this case to remove Fannie Willis at the court of appeals level. And that's what the Georgia Court of Appeals has done. They've instructed that Fannie Willis and the entire DA's office from Fulton County be removed from the case involving President Trump. What does this really mean? This case is done.
What does I mean? There's just no other way to look at it. But there is more work to be done here for some of the other individuals. And it hasn't been totally thrown out yet. And that's, again, you don't stop working until that is done.
But this is truly huge. Again, the second time this has happened to Fannie Willis when she's tried to play politics with prosecuting, which is, again, the worst of the worst that we see in our legal system. There's nothing worse than people being prosecuted because of their views. Again, it's not just viewpoint discrimination that is a constitutional issue. This is, I mean, viewpoint prosecution.
Because your political views and you're somehow involved in this grand conspiracy because of who you support for President of the United States. Or ideas that you may propose to the President about what happens after a campaign or during a campaign or policy proposals or legal proposals that you say you can, listen, fight out in court. But she has been completely removed. Can she appeal? There is an appeal here potentially to the Georgia Supreme Court. But this is totally devastating to Fannie Willis for the second time when she's tried to go after current or former politicians. This case was already likely not moving very fast because President Trump about to go into office. I think we're going to see something similar out of New York. It may not be with Judge Marshawn.
It may be an appeals level. But we will, again, continue fighting there as well. Harry Hutchinson is joining us right now. And, Harry, we've got calls coming in.
Let me take one of them right now. Let's go to John in Washington State on Line 1. Hey, John.
Hey. I think that everything's going to happen correctly and she's going to, the case is going to drop. My fear is that she's going to appeal it and that it's going to drag out past January 20th and all the pundits and the people, the late night people that don't listen to this program and don't understand and don't invest the time to understand the case are going to just blow it off as the case got dismissed because Trump is now the President slash dictator.
But this has nothing to do with it. This is state. These are state courts. So he can't order state courts to do things.
Of course, I'll go to Harry Hutchinson on this. There was going to be a pause. There was no way they were going to be able to continue a case against him while he was President of the United States, Harry. But at the same time, that was it.
They could have stayed it until then. I mean, they are, your power as President is more limited when you're talking about these state entities like these DA's offices. We believe it argued that while you're President and even while you are, even the fact that trying to hang these cases over them as coming back, like in New York is one of the proposals that was put forward by Alvin Bragg to Judge Rashad, that even that is impacting the presidency and thus cannot stand because these cases should not have any impact at all on the President of the United States. And even the idea that this case is going to come back as soon as I'm done with being President, that is impacting the President and the President's decision making and shouldn't stand.
I think your analysis is spot on. And I would say that this particular decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals suggests that the road to legal Armageddon is already at its end point. This means that the era of lawfare, both at the state and federal level, is virtually over. Secondly, I would agree with your earlier point that President Trump, President-Elect Trump, cannot order the end of this litigation. However, he has several federal claims outstanding, for instance, with respect to immunity. But the real issue here is that Fannie Willis brought a flawed case in the first place. And so she's engaged, if you will, in a pattern and practice of conflict of interest prosecutions.
And this commenced well before bringing the charges against Donald Trump. So if you go back to 2022, she brought a case against an individual who was running for lieutenant governor. And she appeared in support of a fundraiser for that individual, but then worked with a grand jury to prosecute that individual. That is a clear and unmistakable conflict of interest. And here we also have evidence of a conflict of interest. She hired her ex-lover to bring charges against Donald Trump.
Then she went to Miami with the ex-lover to Belize and to other trips, Napa Valley. And so she profited from this transaction brought against Donald Trump. So I think at the end of the day, she was a flawed individual. And I would argue that many of these individuals who bring these cases, including Alvin Bragg in New York, Jack Smith at the federal level, they suffer from the Trump derangement syndrome.
And they therefore misunderstand basic rules of law. And so I'm glad to see the Court of Appeals in Georgia reach the right result. Of course, she can appeal it to the Supreme Court in Georgia, but I'm quite confident that they will deny her appeal.
Yeah, I think if you look at the makeup of that court, again, and because of who appoints that court and how they get there, elected and then first chosen by the governor, a lot of Republican governors in the past. So this is not going to be a court that you would think would have a very different opinion than the Georgia Court of Appeals, if not even stronger. And the only thing stronger would be the court ordering it dismissed outright. But here, the court's really done that. I mean, they've said, listen, this goes to this counsel. That counsel of district attorneys can dismiss this outright. They don't have to wait and just give another D.A. this. Now, they have in the past, though, taken some considerable time to do that.
So on this case, I do believe there's going to be some impetus to move quicker and to put this behind them so that those who might have legal issues with what happened so that they can actually bring them forward. Let me go to Ronald in South Carolina on Line 4. He's watching on Rumble. Folks, if you want to talk to us on the air, the number you call is 1-800-684-3110. That's 1-800-684-3110. Ronald, you were on the air with us. Yes.
Thanks for taking my call. When can we officially name this conspiracy with the lawfare that has been taken against President-Elect Trump and his associates and everything? When can we finally just put it out there and say this has been a national conspiracy against this one person and his persons that were with him? That's why we brought up the case that my dad did earlier in the broadcast with Colorado trying to remove him from the primary ballot based off this, based off these kind of cases. Saying that because he's facing these challenges and because of what happened in New York at the state court level, that he can't be on the ballot as President.
Of course, we won that 9-0 at the U.S. Supreme Court representing the Colorado Republican Party. But this issue too, Harry, is I think you could say at this point, listen, there obviously was a legal conspiracy amongst the left to try and bring down President Trump through the legal system, both federal and state. Whether or not that's something you could actually prosecute as a legal, illegal conspiracy, I think here the court stepped in before we got to that point.
This is about removal. And I think, again, we'll have to see what happens when other defendants start to bring their cases. I think they said, you know, I said 16. I think it directly involved President Trump and six other defendants directly. So you're talking about seven people who might have claims depending on where they were in their case. And listen, I think there were more people, if you add on those, who may have already started to pay financial penalties as part of a settlement.
I think you're precisely correct. And there is adducible evidence showing that Bonnie Willis worked with members of the White House slash Justice Department in bringing these charges against Donald Trump. There's also evidence that a White House, I'm sorry, a DOJ prosecutor stepped down to work with Alvin Bragg in the New York case. So I think the caller's analysis is spot on that there was indeed a conspiracy and it was a national conspiracy.
All right, 1-800-684-3110, if you want to talk to us on air. Your ACLJ taking on literally hundreds of cases every year, handled 142 religious liberty matters this year alone. That's 142 clients, briefs, demand letters, all fighting back against the war on your faith. But other cases like this case, we talk about the hundreds of other cases. This falls into that the 126 legal actions battling the federal deep state, the 142 religious liberty matters, 197 free speech matters, the 175 pro-life legal matters.
I said 142 on fighting back against the war on your faith with religious liberty. And in these cases as well that we talk about, we do all of that because of your support of the ACLJ. That was all of those cases just in 2024, and we've got to be able to start off 2025 and this interim period just as strong.
But these are 11 very important dates to ACLJ financially. If you can donate, we need you to donate right now. Have your gift doubled during our faith and freedom year in drive. Donate at ACLJ.org today.
Donate right now. All right, welcome back to Sec Hill. We are going to get back to Fannie Willis. I do want to update you on two other ACLJ matters and cases that we are working on right now.
And Will, let's go first to the cases involving religious liberty out in Washington state. That's right. So there is an apartment complex that is a 55 and up community, a senior apartment complex where our... Adults, adult living. Right, exactly.
Yes. Where one of our, our client now was handing out a newsletter. This wasn't an official newsletter of the center personal, but talking about upcoming activities, things to be aware of in the community as we approach the holiday season. And at the top of it, it said Merry Christmas, but she also wanted to make sure that she was not just saying Merry Christmas. She also said Happy Hanukkah and Happy Kwanzaa. So it wasn't even just directly a Christmas message. But on this, she was informed by the authorities or the management of this senior living apartment complex that you can't say Merry Christmas. It's too religious to mention the holidays on this newsletter. And so she was being prohibited from expressing this. And there is also other things like can't list on the calendar, Bible studies and things of that nature.
The normal stuff we see, I know we like to talk about, you know, we can say Merry Christmas again, President Trump is back. But the reality is when the left makes fun of people saying, oh, no one said you can't say Merry Christmas. They're doing it all the time in this country. And it's misinformed management companies many times that are putting in place policies saying that you can't say this.
Federal housing regulations prohibit this when actually the law is completely opposite of that. So we've got a demand letter off to this housing facility saying you got to change course. Don't violate our client's rights.
And we are going to fight to make sure that she can express herself over this holiday season. Remember, if those demand letters are not answered in the appropriate way and they aren't ready to talk through the remedies, we go to court. So you give them, in this case, an opportunity, hopefully, to make things right before the holiday season is over. That's one reason you wouldn't want to just file the court case because you're trying to see if you can get to that company and make them realize that they have done the wrong thing, that they have got to correct the wrong and make it right and make it right by allowing this resident to pass this out.
Somebody who was trying to go above and beyond to not be exclusive or exclusionary to anyone who was receiving their personal update that they decided to hand out to others who lived in this housing center. And again, Will is right. When they say, oh, these cases don't happen, yes, they do. And they happen right in the holiday season, hoping that there's no one to fight back.
But there is here. So at the ACLJ, again, the demand letters out, and if that is not responded to adequately and we're not able to get to the right place there, we will file a lawsuit. Other Connects case, Will.
That's right. There's a pro-life matter that's coming up. You know that we're fighting in Massachusetts with our ad campaign as well as going against the state in that organization that we're filing, putting out ads, going against pregnancy resource centers.
But this is a case we've been following for a while and have filed in already. This comes out of South Carolina, where the governor had issued an executive order directing the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to deem abortion clinics unqualified to receive Medicaid funding. Planned Parenthood fought back and it actually lost at the appeals court level the side that we're on, which would be the governor wanting to end funding to abortion clinics.
Lost there. They filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court. ACLJ filed a amicus asking the court to grant cert in this case or to take up the case. And yesterday we found out that the Supreme Court will be hearing this case on whether or not states can individually defund Planned Parenthood. So we talk a lot of times about federally defunding. This would be the use of states' Medicaid dollars and how they spend it and whether or not they are forced to spend them on abortion clinics. We will be filing in this now that it has been granted by the Supreme Court and we look forward to fighting for pro-life policies and the ability to end taxpayer funding to abortion clinics. Yeah, it's very important that you can look at this. Of course, Doge has looked at this from the federal level.
We saw that from what Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy put out through the Government Accountability Office. But the idea here is that states have been at the forefront of this issue and what has been preventing them is that courts have said, well, there's Medicaid and there's these other federal programs. And so then there'd be issues that we'd have to dispute there between the supremacy clause and the federal dollars that you're taking in and the state dollars that you're taking in so that you can't do that. And I really do believe the Supreme Court is taking this case because we are in a different situation when you look at those federal laws without Roe vs. Wade. So when you've overturned Roe vs. Wade, you've taken out this idea that abortion without restriction has some, or almost no restriction, has some special federal constitutional protection.
It's a very different case when that no longer exists. And so this case is in a sense, though it has been brought before the court before, it is entirely new because of what has happened with these other abortion cases. Now that at a federal level, it is not receiving these unique constitutional protections that we believe were wrongly given to abortion since the decision in Roe vs. Wade that has been overturned now. And that these states like South Carolina can defund the organizations like Planned Parenthood without violating federal law. So it's always good when if you've lost at the trial level and at the court of appeals level if the Supreme Court decides to take your case. It's better that they take your case and they also just agree with the lower courts that likely you can't win.
It doesn't mean you're automatically going to win, but it's a better position to be in. And this could open the doors for states who have tried to do this for more than a decade to be able to defund Planned Parenthood at the state level. Not just the federal level, which would take congressional acts signed by the President, but at the state level where in some states you've got even more pro-life state legislatures and governors out there who are ready to do this. In this case, it was a governor's executive order to do this and it wasn't about do they have the authority to do that. It's whether or not the federal laws that come into play and the funding that come into play that the state accepts through Medicaid.
Does that stop them? And the court is going to look at that. Of course, we have filed in that case as well at the American Reserve for Law and Justice. We filed at the cert stage of encouraging the court to take the case.
They have said, yes, we will. Now we'll be filing on the merit stage with Amicus as well. So doing that at the American Center for Law and Justice. So you were just hearing in the final days before Christmas brand new work the ACLJ is taking on to defend religious liberty and life of the unborn. So what a time for you to be able to support the work of the ACLJ during the most important days of the year for us financially to fundraise.
I mean, it's direct. We've been telling you this all month that this is the most important month of the year. We raise close to about a quarter of everything the ACLJ takes in just in the month of December. Because of your financial support, we continue to expand the work that we do in all of those different areas of the law, whether it's pro-life legal matters, free speech matters, religious liberty, the deep state, hundreds of other matters involving, for instance, Fannie Willis and these prosecutions, all because of your financial contributions to the American Center for Law and Justice. Your gifts can be doubled today at ACLJ.org. So I encourage you to donate today at ACLJ.org to be part of the faith and freedom here in drive. You know, it's the most important time of the year for us financially. So if you're in a position to donate, whether it's ten dollars, twenty dollars or two thousand dollars or more, donate today. It will be doubled ACLJ.org.
