They Tried to Stop the TRUTH
- Samantha Hudson
- Jan 12
- 2 min read
Updated: Jan 12
**The Court Said No. And the Motions Prove It.**
Fairburn,
Some city officials believed that blocking records, filing retaliatory claims, and installing an unlawful appointment would end accountability. They assumed removing a seat would remove the truth.
They were wrong.
The work didn’t stop. It went straight into the court record—where facts don’t bend.
What the Court Has Already Rejected
In late 2025, the Fulton County Superior Court issued a written order denying the City’s attempt to shut this case down.
The Court made clear that:
The City cannot hide behind sovereign immunity to avoid transparency.
Providing records to a councilmember is a legal duty, not a favor.
The City’s Motion to Dismiss failed.
The City’s attempt to halt discovery was denied.
The City’s request for attorney’s fees was denied.
The case moves forward under court oversight.
That order confirms there is a real controversy over withheld public records and that continued denial causes harm.
Translation: the obstruction didn’t hold up in court.
What the Retaliation Motion Exposes
Instead of complying, certain officials escalated—by filing counterclaims aimed at silencing scrutiny.
Those counterclaims were met with a Motion to Dismiss that lays out, plainly and forcefully, what they actually are:
Attempts to weaponize defamation law against an elected official,
Attacks on protected political speech,
Claims barred by legislative immunity,
And conduct squarely covered by Georgia’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which exists to stop lawsuits meant to intimidate critics.
The motion shows that the counterclaims are legally deficient, unsupported by facts, and designed to chill transparency—not correct falsehoods.
That’s not governance.That’s exposure.
What This Makes Clear
The filings and orders now document a pattern:
Records were requested.
Access was denied.
Accountability was met with retaliation.
The courts rejected the obstruction.
This isn’t rhetoric. It’s written. Filed. And public.
And critically, my name remains the elected official of record in this matter. An illegal appointment does not replace an election, and it does not replace what the court record reflects.
Why This Matters
This is bigger than one dispute.
It’s about whether:
Public records can be hidden,
Accountability can be punished,
And voters can be overridden without consequence.
The court has already answered part of that question—and it didn’t answer in their favor.
Final Word to the Community
If you want the truth, don’t listen to spin—read the motions below.If you want credibility, read the orders.
The record speaks for itself.
And right now, the record doesn’t look good for those who tried to hide from it.
Stay tuned....
Dr. Samantha L. Hudson, DPA, MSW
Comments