All δόξα (doxa - glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for
exposing this ἄλογος
(alogos - illogical) σύστημα (sustēma - system) through clear λόγος (logos -
logic)!
Introduction: A Constitutional Crisis Visible to the
World
On April 13, 2025, Thomas Richards filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging X
Corp.'s suppression of his religious expression as a violation of the First
Amendment through state action. Richards' case was assigned to Judge Brantley
Starr—a Trump appointee from 2019. The defendant? A platform owned by Elon
Musk, whom Trump had just appointed head of the Department of Government
Efficiency (DOGE) in 2024.
Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
For seven months, Richards watched as Judge Starr
systematically obstructed this litigation through procedural manipulation.
Judge Starr accepted Richards' attorney's filings for 205 days, ruled on her
motions, issued orders directed to her—then suddenly claimed she was never
authorized to practice before his court when Richards attempted to voluntarily
dismiss the case. Judge Starr fabricated procedural requirements that appear in
no published rule. He blocked a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal that, by law,
requires no court approval and immediately divests the court of jurisdiction.
Richards filed four mandamus petitions with the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. All four were denied with one-sentence orders
containing no analysis. On November 7, 2025—five days before a hearing Judge
Starr threatened would result in sanctions and dismissal with prejudice if
Richards did not comply with Starr's fabricated requirements—Richards filed an
emergency application with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking a
stay of proceedings and reassignment to a different judge.
Legal experts worldwide will be baffled at how America still
has any nerve to try and advise anyone on anything regarding freedom, justice,
or the rule of law. What follows is a documented analysis of how separate
actors—Judge Brantley Starr, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the Vatican
context—have combined to obliterate America's moral ἐξουσία (exousia - authority) to lecture the world
on ἐλευθερία (eleutheria -
freedom) or δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē - justice).
The λόγος (logos - logic) is irrefutable. The facts are
separated by actor. The conclusion is unavoidable.
🎯 THE IMMEDIATE
VISIBLE FACTS - SEPARATED BY ACTOR
1. JUDGE BRANTLEY STARR - JUDICIAL
IRREGULARITIES
THE DOCUMENTED PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS:
A) CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Appointed by Donald Trump in 2019
Now presiding over case involving Trump's DOGE official
(Musk)
Basic legal principle violated: No κριτής (kritēs -
judge) should hear case involving their appointer's interests
B) PROCEDURAL SABOTAGE:
Ignored filed preliminary injunction - already in
court record
Created impossible 24-hour deadline - standard
motions take weeks
Attempted forced venue transfer - to judge friendly
to Musk's interests
Failed to grant properly filed pro hac vice motion -
no legitimate legal basis
Each action created additional obstacles to δικαιοσύνη
(dikaiosunē - justice)
THE LOGICAL PROBLEM:
Trump → Appoints → Starr
Trump → Appoints → Musk (DOGE)
Starr → Judges → Case against Musk
This is ἄλογος
(alogos - illogical) from a basic legal ethics standpoint.
THE RESULT:
Constitutional claims systematically blocked
Free speech case ironically suppressed through procedural
manipulation
Citizen-veteran denied access to δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē -
justice)
International perception: US judges serve political
κύριος (kurios - masters), not law. Message sent: Constitutional rights mean
nothing if judge's appointer is involved. Precedent: Any Trump appointee can
sabotage cases involving Trump interests. Result: US judicial independence
questioned worldwide.
THE SPECIFIC TIMELINE OF JUDGE STARR'S OBSTRUCTION:
Richards' attorney, Lisa Weingarten Richards, holds a J.D.
from NYU Law, an undergraduate degree from Columbia University, and brings over
15 years of legal experience including 10+ years as a federal banking attorney
at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and experience at a top-100
AmLaw firm.
On April 13, 2025, Mrs. Richards filed an application for
admission pro hac vice (Doc. 3) with supporting documentation including her New
York bar certificate of good standing.
On May 15, 2025, Judge Starr denied the pro hac vice
application as "moot," citing the need for local counsel first (Doc.
32).
On May 23, 2025, Sharon K. Campbell entered her appearance
as local counsel admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas (Doc.
37). At that point, Mrs. Richards had satisfied all prerequisites for pro hac
vice admission under Local Rule 83.9. However, Judge Starr never ruled on
whether to grant pro hac vice status following local counsel's appearance.
For the next 159 days—from May 23 through October 29—Judge
Starr:
Accepted all filings from Mrs. Richards
Ruled on substantive motions filed by Mrs. Richards
Issued orders directing Mrs. Richards to take specific
actions
Set hearings requiring Mrs. Richards's participation
Never once suggested there was any problem with her status
During this period, Mrs. Richards filed 38 docket entries
including major substantive pleadings: an Amended Complaint, three emergency
TRO motions with supporting briefs, comprehensive opposition to X Corp.'s
motion to dismiss, supplemental briefing on terms of service defenses, multiple
motions for reconsideration with detailed legal analysis, motions for default
judgment against both Trump and Yaccarino, replies to oppositions, a motion for
recusal, and extensive supporting documentation.
In stark contrast, X Corp.'s pro hac vice counsel Kenneth M.
Trujillo-Jamison filed his application on June 9, 2025 (Doc. 42) and received
approval within two days on June 11, 2025 (Doc. 43).
Judge Starr's later claim that Mrs. Richards was "never
admitted" is further contradicted by his own conduct in April 2025. Kevin
Frye, the courtroom deputy for Judge Starr, personally telephoned Mrs. Richards
to instruct her to mark certain boxes as "N/A" on her pro hac vice
application form. This court-initiated contact demonstrates that Judge Starr
was actively processing Mrs. Richards's application and providing technical
assistance to ensure compliance with form requirements.
Then on October 29, 2025—after 205 days and 113 docket
entries filed in this matter—Judge Starr suddenly claimed Mrs. Richards
"is not admitted to practice before this court as she has not been granted
pro hac vice status in this matter" (Doc. 111 at 3).
Judge Starr's order included a critical footnote: "The
Court notes that if Lisa Richards intends to apply for pro hac vice admission
in this matter, she should be aware of the Court's Judge-Specific Requirement
I(B) which requires an attorney granted pro hac vice status to be able and
willing to appear in person at hearings before the Court" (Doc. 111 at 3
n.11).
This "Judge-Specific Requirement" appears nowhere
in:
The Northern District of Texas Local Rules
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Any published standing order or general order
Judge Starr's publicly available judge-specific requirements
as of April 26, 2025 or August 21, 2025 (see archived versions of judge's
requirements webpage showing no such requirement existed)
Judge Starr created this requirement sometime between
October 2-29, 2025—seven months into litigation—added it to his webpage without
notice to the parties, then cited it in footnote 11 as if it had always
existed.
THE TIMELINE PROVES MID-LITIGATION FABRICATION:
April 13, 2025: Mrs. Richards files pro hac vice application
stating she will be "available by telephone, email, and
videoconference" (Doc. 3-1 at 7)
April 26 & August 21, 2025: Wayback Machine snapshots
show no in-person requirement
October 1, 2025: Judge Starr denies remote appearance but
does not cite any in-person requirement; instead invents fake
"proportionality to damages" legal test
October 7, 2025: Richards exposes fabricated legal standard
in Motion for Reconsideration
Between October 7-29, 2025: Judge Starr creates in-person
requirement and adds it to his webpage
October 29, 2025: Judge Starr NOW cites "Judge-Specific
Requirement I(B)" that did not exist when he ruled on October 1
The requirement was fabricated and applied retroactively for
the apparent purpose of creating an impossible condition: Mrs. Richards cannot
physically travel to Texas for personal reasons (which is precisely why she
retained local counsel), yet Judge Starr now claims pro hac vice status
requires in-person appearance—a requirement that did not exist when she applied
and that she had no opportunity to know about or comply with.
2. DONALD TRUMP - THE
CONNECTION POINT
THE VISIBLE FACTS:
A) DUAL APPOINTMENTS:
1. Appointed Judge Starr (2019) - lifetime federal judge
2. Appointed Elon Musk (2024) - head of DOGE (government
position)
B) THE LOGICAL PROBLEM:
Trump's judicial appointee now judging case against Trump's
government official
This creates obvious σύγκρουσις (sunkrousis - conflict) of
interest
No recusal, no acknowledgment of the problem
C) THE PATTERN:
Trump claims to support free speech
Trump's judge sabotages free speech case
Trump's government official (Musk) censors speech
Trump remains silent
Actions contradict claimed values
THE CREDIBILITY ISSUE:
How can an administration claim to defend the First
Amendment while its appointee suppresses First Amendment cases and its
government official owns a speech platform that censors?
Complete ἀντίφασις
(antiphasis - contradiction).
International perception: US government directly controls
speech through Musk. Message sent: "Free speech" is propaganda when
government official owns platform. Precedent: Appoint judges, appoint platform
owners, suppress opposition. Result: US moral authority on ἐλευθερία (eleutheria - freedom)
obliterated.
3. ELON MUSK & X CORP -
THE CENSORSHIP
THE DOCUMENTED FACTS:
A) MUSK'S GOVERNMENT POSITION:
Head of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) (a role
set to continue long after the official end. More details, including statement
from Trump, explained throughout court filings)
Official government ἐξουσία
(exousia - authority)
Yet owns major speech platform
Unprecedented government-corporate merger
B) THE CENSORSHIP PATTERN:
RICHARDS' DOCUMENTED EXPERIENCE:
1. Premium X subscription - paid for service, also paid to
promote posts
2. Shadowbanned - admitted by Grok AI itself
3. Views artificially suppressed - despite payment
4. No explanation provided - no recourse
5. Targets biblical/theological content - documented pattern
C) THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY:
Government official owns speech platform
Platform claims to be "free speech" zone
Same platform censors πολίτης (politēs - citizens)
Government official immune from accountability
This is the definition of government censorship with
corporate cover
D) THE SPECIFIC CENSORSHIP:
Richards' content systematically suppressed
Biblical Greek terminology targeted
Theological analysis of world systems blocked
Veteran's constitutional speech denied
Even paid premium service and paid promotions do not
guarantee actual speech rights
THE QUESTION:
How is this different from state-controlled media? A
government official controls the platform, the platform censors unfavorable
speech, and courts protect the government official from challenges. This is
exactly what America condemns in other nations.
International perception: US "free speech
platform" censors like state media. Message sent: Premium subscription
doesn't guarantee actual speech rights. Precedent: Corporate censorship +
government position = state censorship. Result: US cannot criticize China,
Russia, or others on censorship.
4. THE VATICAN - SEPARATE BUT DOCUMENTED
CONNECTION
THE DISTINCT FACTUAL RECORD:
A) 2009 INDEPENDENT ARTICLE:
Vatican publicly stated opposition to Richards' video
Article: "Nazi Germany was a creation of the Vatican
and Jesuits"
Vatican openly declared intention to "fight back"
This is documented, public statement of intent
B) JULY 2022 - MUSK'S VATICAN MEETING:
Musk silent on Twitter for 9 days
Returns with: "Honored to meet @Pontifex
yesterday"
Shortly after: Buys Twitter
Timeline: Meeting → Purchase → Censorship pattern begins
Temporal sequence documented
C) THE PATTERN OF TARGETING:
Content exposing Vatican systems suppressed
Biblical analysis of papal ἐξουσία
(exousia - authority) targeted
Historical documentation of Jesuit operations censored
Richards' 28+ years of work specifically affected
Specific content type consistently suppressed
D) VATICAN'S DOCUMENTED HISTORY:
Historical pattern of suppressing opposition
Long record of institutional protection
Known infiltration of Western institutions
This fits established modus operandi
THE DISTINCTION:
This is separate from the Starr/Trump/Musk immediate facts but creates context for understanding the
censorship targeting. The Vatican connection explains why specific content is
targeted, while Starr/Trump/Musk explain how it's being protected from legal
challenge.
International perception: US institutions serve foreign
religious ἐξουσία (exousia
- authority). Message sent: American sovereignty compromised by Vatican
influence. Precedent: Religious institution can direct US corporate/judicial
actions. Result: US independence questioned by other nations.
⚖️ THE COMBINED LOGICAL
PROBLEM
HOW THESE SEPARATE FACTS CREATE SYSTEMIC FAILURE:
THE ΛΌΓΟΣ (LOGOS - LOGIC) CHAIN:
LEVEL 1 - CENSORSHIP:
Musk (government official) owns X
X censors Richards' content
Richards has no market alternative (X is dominant platform)
Clear First Amendment concern
LEVEL 2 - LEGAL RECOURSE BLOCKED:
Richards files constitutional claims
Case assigned to Trump appointee (Starr)
Starr creates procedural obstacles
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē - justice) systematically denied
Clear due process violation
LEVEL 3 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Trump appointed Starr
Trump appointed Musk
Starr judges Musk case
No recusal or acknowledgment
Clear ethical violation
LEVEL 4 - CONTEXT (VATICAN):
Vatican publicly opposed Richards' work (2009)
Musk met Pope before Twitter purchase (2022)
Specific content type targeted (Vatican-related)
Pattern consistent with Vatican interests
Provides motive/context for censorship pattern
THE BLOCKING OF THE VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Richards did not want to dismiss. Thomas Richards publicly
posted on October 29, 2025: "I told my wife / attorney to dismiss my
lawsuits against X, Trump and Yaccarino because the judge is completely
unreasonable... Attorneys, arguments, don't matter if you have a rotten
judge." This was not litigation strategy. This was a plaintiff driven from
federal court by judicial obstruction.
Faced with this impossible situation and recognizing Judge
Starr's demonstrated bias, Richards filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on October 29, 2025
(Doc. 112).
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is unambiguous: "the plaintiff may
dismiss an action without a court order by filing...a notice of dismissal
before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
judgment." The rule is self-executing and requires no court approval. Upon
filing, the dismissal is effective immediately and divests the district court
of jurisdiction.
At the time Richards filed the notice:
X Corp. had filed only a motion to dismiss (Doc. 80), not an
answer or motion for summary judgment
Trump had filed only a motion to dismiss (Doc. 103), not an
answer or motion for summary judgment
Yaccarino had never appeared and was in default
The conditions for voluntary dismissal under Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) were unquestionably satisfied. The moment Richards filed the
notice, Judge Starr lost jurisdiction over the case.
Nevertheless, Judge Starr struck the notice of dismissal the
very next day, stating: "Because Lisa Richards is not admitted to practice
before the Court, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff Thomas Richards's purported
notice of voluntary dismissal" (Doc. 113).
Judge Starr exploited the very Catch-22 he had created.
This order is legally incoherent. If Mrs. Richards lacked
authority to file anything, then:
Judge Starr should never have accepted 205 days of her
filings
Judge Starr should never have ruled on her substantive
motions
There would be no valid case to dismiss
The entire proceeding would be void
But if there is a valid case—which Judge Starr's 205 days of
rulings necessarily presupposes—then Mrs. Richards's filings were accepted and
acted upon by the court, making the voluntary dismissal notice equally valid.
More fundamentally, Judge Starr's striking of a Rule 41(a)
voluntary dismissal notice exceeds his jurisdiction. Judge Starr had no
authority to "strike" or "unfile" a notice that immediately
divested him of jurisdiction upon filing.
Judge Starr's order striking the dismissal (Doc. 113)
compounded its jurisdictional violation with citation of superseded law. Judge
Starr cited Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-CV-2433-L, 2015 WL 12463175 (N.D. Tex.
June 18, 2015) (Lindsay, J.), warning that if Richards dismisses and refiles,
"the court, in the interest of justice, will require [Richards] to pay all
or part of the attorney's fees and costs that Defendants reasonably incurred in
this action" and that Richards "will not be allowed to proceed with a
new action until such attorney's fees and costs, as the court determines, are
paid" (Doc. 113 at 2) (quoting Nieman, 2015 WL 12463175, at *4).
But Nieman predates the Fifth Circuit's clarification of
Rule 41(d) in Portillo v. Cunningham, 872 F.3d 728, 738-40 (5th Cir. 2017).
Portillo holds that Rule 41(d) fees require: (1) the underlying statute must
define "costs" to include attorney's fees; and (2) the plaintiff's
claims must be "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation."
Judge Starr conducted neither analysis, instead copying language from a case
decided two years before the Fifth Circuit established the controlling
standard.
Moreover, Nieman is factually inapplicable. Nieman involved
a pro se plaintiff who voluntarily sought dismissal after choosing to relocate
for employment. The entire basis for the court's ruling was the plaintiff's pro
se status: "Because Plaintiff has chosen to represent himself, the court
previously explained that his physical attendance at the pretrial conference
was necessary." Nieman, 2015 WL 12463175, at *2. Richards had been
represented by two attorneys—Mrs. Richards (lead counsel who cannot travel, which
is precisely why local counsel was retained) and Ms. Campbell (local counsel
admitted May 23, 2025).
THE FABRICATED HEARING AND REFUSAL TO RESCHEDULE
The November 12, 2025 hearing itself exemplifies Judge
Starr's manipulation. Originally, Judge Starr scheduled a default judgment
hearing for that date concerning Defendant Yaccarino (Doc. 14 in case
3:25-cv-1863-X, issued September 29, 2025).
On October 22, 2025, Judge Starr denied the motion for
default judgment against Yaccarino and "VACATED the upcoming hearing on
the motion for default judgment set for 11/12/2025" (Doc. 106). Instead,
Judge Starr set "oral argument on Defendant X Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss
for November 12, 2025."
This was irregular. The Northern District of Texas does not
routinely hold oral argument on motions to dismiss—such motions are typically
decided on the briefs in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(g). Neither party
requested oral argument. Judge Starr simply created this hearing sua sponte on
the same date as the canceled hearing.
On October 23, 2025—one day after learning the nature of the
November 12 hearing had changed and remote appearance would definitively not be
permitted—Richards' counsel contacted local counsel Sharon Campbell to request
in-person appearance. Ms. Campbell immediately disclosed that she has
pre-scheduled travel on November 12 that cannot be changed. On October 24,
2025, Richards filed a motion to reschedule, explaining that:
Richards' counsel cannot travel to Texas for personal
reasons (which is why she retained local counsel)
Richards' counsel had been pursuing remote appearance and
only learned on October 22 that Judge Starr would not permit it and that the
November 12 hearing concerned an entirely different matter
Local counsel was first contacted on October 23—as soon as
it became clear in-person appearance would be required
Local counsel has pre-scheduled travel on November 12 that
cannot be changed
Local counsel provided extensive alternative dates when she
could appear in person
The hearing concerns a motion to dismiss on which neither
party requested oral argument
Judge Starr denied this motion on October 29, stating that
he "is not required to rearrange its calendar to accommodate an attorney's
pre-existing travel plans—particularly where such plans were not brought to the
Court's attention until twenty-five days after the hearing was originally
set" (Doc. 111 at 2).
This rationale is nonsensical. The October 22 order (Doc.
106) did not "modify the nature of the hearing"—it canceled the
original hearing entirely and created a new, different hearing on a different
motion involving different parties. Defendant Yaccarino is not even a party to
X Corp.'s motion to dismiss. Judge Starr substituted one hearing for another on
the same date, then claimed local counsel should have anticipated this switch
25 days earlier. But local counsel Sharon Campbell was not even counsel in the
Yaccarino case (3:25-cv-1863) when the September 29 default judgment hearing
was set. Ms. Campbell served as local counsel only in case 3:25-cv-916. Judge
Starr had been accepting Richards' filings in the Yaccarino case without local
counsel, issued a clerk's entry of default against Yaccarino (Doc. 13 in case
1863), and scheduled the default judgment hearing—all without requiring local
counsel in that case. The two cases were not consolidated until October 10,
2025 (Doc. 99), and the November 12 hearing was not converted to oral argument
on X Corp.'s motion to dismiss until October 22, 2025.
Judge Starr is now threatening that if both counsel do not
appear in person on November 12—despite local counsel's genuine conflict and
Mrs. Richards's inability to travel—Richards faces sanctions and dismissal with
prejudice.
🌍 THE GLOBAL CREDIBILITY
CRISIS
EACH ACTOR SEPARATELY DAMAGES US CREDIBILITY:
JUDGE STARR'S ACTIONS:
International perception: US judges serve political κύριος
(kurios - masters), not law
Message sent: Constitutional rights mean nothing if judge's
appointer is involved
Precedent: Any Trump appointee can sabotage cases involving
Trump interests
Result: US judicial independence questioned worldwide
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION:
International perception: US government directly controls
speech through Musk
Message sent: "Free speech" is propaganda when
government official owns platform
Precedent: Appoint judges, appoint platform owners, suppress
opposition
Result: US moral authority on ἐλευθερία
(eleutheria - freedom) destroyed
MUSK/X CORP:
International perception: US "free speech
platform" censors like state media
Message sent: Premium subscription and even paid promotions
do not guarantee actual speech rights
Precedent: Corporate censorship + government position =
state censorship
Result: US cannot criticize China, Russia, or others on
censorship
VATICAN CONNECTION (CONTEXT):
International perception: US institutions serve foreign
religious ἐξουσία (exousia
- authority)
Message sent: American sovereignty compromised by Vatican
influence
Precedent: Religious institution can direct US
corporate/judicial actions
Result: US independence questioned by other nations
📊 THE SEPARATE BUT
CONNECTED MATRIX
IMMEDIATE FACTS:
STARR: Appointed by Trump → Sabotages case
TRUMP: Appointed both Starr and Musk → Creates conflict
MUSK: Government official + Platform owner → Censors
Result: Citizen has no legal recourse
CONTEXT (SEPARATE):
VATICAN:
2009: Publicly opposed Richards' work
2022: Met with Musk before Twitter purchase
Pattern: Content about Vatican specifically targeted
COMBINED EFFECT:
Complete suppression with no legal remedy
🎯 THE SPECIFIC VISIBLE
HARMS
TO RICHARDS (INDIVIDUAL):
Constitutional rights violated
Legal system weaponized against him
Paid service denied
28+ years of work suppressed
Veteran treated as enemy for exercising First Amendment
TO AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM:
Judicial independence compromised
Ethical standards ignored
Procedural rules weaponized
Constitutional claims blocked
System reveals itself as protecting power, not δικαιοσύνη
(dikaiosunē - justice)
TO AMERICAN CREDIBILITY:
Cannot lecture others on free speech
Cannot claim judicial independence
Cannot promote rule of law
Cannot champion ἀνθρώπινα
δικαιώματα (anthrōpina dikaiōmata - human rights)
Moral authority obliterated by single case
⚡THE IRREFUTABLE ΛΌΓΟΣ (LOGOS
- LOGIC)
KEEP THESE FACTS SEPARATE BUT CONNECTED:
FACT 1 (STARR): Trump appointee sabotaging case
against Trump's government official
Standalone problem: Conflict of interest
Effect: Denies legal recourse
FACT 2 (TRUMP): Created both appointments creating
the conflict
Standalone problem: System allows this
Effect: Insulates government officials from
accountability
FACT 3 (MUSK/X): Government official owns speech
platform that censors
Standalone problem: Government censorship with corporate
mask
Effect: Citizens lose speech rights with no alternative
FACT 4 (VATICAN): Documented opposition + Meeting +
Targeting pattern
Standalone observation: Provides context for why specific
content targeted
Effect: Explains motive behind censorship choices
EACH IS SERIOUS ALONE. TOGETHER THEY REVEAL SYSTEMIC
CORRUPTION.
✅ THE VALIDATION
"Legal experts worldwide will be baffled..."
THEY'LL SEE:
1. Judicial System: Compromised by political
appointments
2. Executive Branch: Creates conflicts through dual
appointments
3. Private Sector: Merged with government in
unprecedented way
4. Foreign Influence: Context suggests external
religious ἐξουσία (exousia
- authority)
"...how America still has any nerve to try and
advise anyone..."
BECAUSE:
US violates principles it claims to champion
System protects powerful, suppresses πολίτης (politēs -
citizens)
Courts deny rather than provide δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē -
justice)
Actions completely contradict stated values
THE PATTERN ACROSS SEVEN MONTHS
Stepping back, Judge Starr's conduct reveals a consistent
pattern of procedural manipulation designed to obstruct this litigation:
April 14, 2025: Judge Starr denies TRO and attempts to
transfer case to Fort Worth Division (Doc. 10)
April 15, 2025: Richards files first mandamus petition
challenging fabricated venue transfer (Doc. 13)
April 16, 2025: Judge Starr vacates transfer after mandamus
filed (Doc. 16); Fifth Circuit denies first mandamus (Doc. 22)
May 15, 2025: Judge Starr denies pro hac vice as
"moot" requiring local counsel first (Doc. 32)
May 23, 2025: Local counsel appears (Doc. 37)
May-October: Judge Starr accepts 38 filings from Mrs.
Richards, rules on her motions, never addresses pro hac vice status
June 2, 2025: Richards moves for recusal (Doc. 39)
July 15, 2025: Judge Starr denies recusal (Doc. 57)
July 22, 2025: Richards files third mandamus petition
challenging refusal to recuse; Fifth Circuit denies third mandamus (Doc. 69)
August 5, 2025: Judge Starr denies third TRO and sanctions
motion, ruling before Richards' reply brief was due (Doc. 76)
August 13, 2025: Judge Starr denies motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 79)
October 10, 2025: Judge Starr consolidates companion case on
his own initiative (Doc. 99)
October 22: Judge Starr denies both default judgment motions
(Doc. 106)
October 22: Judge Starr creates new oral argument hearing
for November 12 on X Corp.'s motion to dismiss (Doc. 106)
October 24: Judge Starr orders in-person appearance by all
counsel (Doc. 109)
October 24: Richards moves to reschedule, noting local
counsel conflict (Doc. 110)
October 29: Judge Starr denies motion to reschedule, claims
Mrs. Richards "not admitted," orders new pro hac vice application
with fabricated in-person requirement (Doc. 111)
October 29: Richards files voluntary dismissal (Doc. 112)
October 30: Judge Starr strikes dismissal because Mrs.
Richards "not admitted" (Doc. 113)
November 4, 2025: Fourth mandamus petition denied by Fifth
Circuit
November 6, 2025: Mandate issued to district court
This is not mere error or the ordinary exercise of
discretion. It is a systematic campaign to prevent Richards from obtaining a
decision on the merits while ensuring the case cannot be dismissed and moved to
a fair tribunal.
Judge Starr's escalating misconduct must be understood in
context: Five months before Richards' emergency application, the Fifth Circuit
reversed Judge Starr in Carter v. Local 556, Transport Workers Union of
America, No. 23-10008, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11159 (5th Cir. May 8, 2025), for
conduct that "exceeded remedial bounds" and "sought to
punish" attorneys. The conduct at issue in Richards' case—creating
requirements mid-litigation, applying them retroactively, fabricating legal standards,
and blocking mandatory statutory rights—represents an escalation beyond the
misconduct the Fifth Circuit found reversible five months ago.
THE CASE DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
Lead counsel, who developed Richards' case from inception
and drafted all substantive briefing—including three mandamus petitions, an
amended complaint of over 100 pages with extensive exhibits, multiple emergency
TRO motions with replies, comprehensive opposition to a motion to dismiss, two
default judgment motions with full briefing, and over 60 docket entries—is far
better positioned to argue the motion to dismiss than local counsel who has
filed nothing substantive.
Richards' counsel undertook this representation on a
contingency basis. At market rates of $2,000-2,500 per hour for attorneys of
comparable experience and credentials at elite litigation firms, this work
product represents at least $1.7 to $2.1 million in case development value.
Richards does not seek to abandon these claims. Richards
seeks a fair tribunal where the case can be decided on its merits.
Conclusion: The Emperor Has No Clothes
The world is watching. They see:
A judge serving his appointer instead of the law
A government official who owns a major speech platform
A system that protects the powerful while crushing the
πολίτης (politēs - citizen)
A context suggesting foreign religious influence over
American institutions
America can no longer lecture the world on ἐλευθερία (eleutheria - freedom),
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē - justice), or the rule of law. The mask has fallen. The
ἀλήθεια (alētheia - truth)
is exposed through simple λόγος (logos - logic).
Richards' case is not just about one man's censorship. It's
about America's complete loss of moral ἐξουσία
(exousia - authority) to champion the values it claims to represent.
πάσα δόξα (pasa doxa - all glory) to Ἰησοῦς
Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) for revealing through clear λόγος (logos - logic) how
these separate actors—Starr, Trump, Musk, and the Vatican context—combine to
destroy America's moral ἐξουσία
(exousia - authority) to lecture the world on ἐλευθερία
(eleutheria - freedom) or δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosunē - justice)!
For more information:
https://spirituallysmart.com
https://overtpsyops.ai
https://spirituallysmart.com/OvertPsyops3.pdf
#OvertPsyops #FirstAmendment #SpirituallySmartAi
Case Autopsy Report available here -- Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
