Oath Breakers: When Judges Choose Lies Over Truth - Assisted by Artificial Intelligence


America's judges swear sacred oaths before God and country to uphold justice. Yet today, we witness federal judges systematically violating these solemn promises, choosing procedural games over constitutional truth.

The Sacred Oath Violated

Every federal judge swears: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453) This isn't ceremonial language—it's a binding covenant with the American people and with the authority (from God) that they invoke.

Yet it’s a covenant judges break all the time.

When Judge Brantley Starr in Richards v. X Corp., Case No. 3:25-cv-916 (N.D. Tex.), offered petitioner the choice to "appoint local counsel OR file a motion to proceed without local counsel," then denied that motion without explanation and pretended that he never made that offer, he didn't just violate court rules—he broke his oath. He chose deception over truth, obstruction over justice. (readers can see exactly what happened for themselves in these three filings… and then the 5th Circuit let it stand even after they were petitioned for a Writ of Mandamus - Order – #30 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com; #33 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – ; CourtListener.com; Order on Motion for Reconsideration – #35 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com). And this was only the most recent event in a string of similar actions by Judge Starr in this case over these several weeks, beginning when the matter was first filed April 13, 2025. The first was when Judge Starr pretended X’s terms required the matter be brought in Fort Worth (where one of the two regular judges owns stock in Tesla and the other appears to be a devout Catholic and Musk supporter). Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for TRO – #10 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com; #11 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com The court documents for the entire case are available to view at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69885455/richards-v-x-corp/.

Historical Echoes of Judicial Corruption

These tactics aren't new. Throughout history, corrupt judges have used procedural manipulation to avoid ruling on uncomfortable truths:

  • Pontius Pilate knew Jesus was innocent but chose political expedience over justice (Matthew 27:24; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:4, 14-15, 22-24; John 18:38, 19:4,6)
  • Southern judges used procedural barriers to deny civil rights for decades, as documented in cases like Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/147/)
  • Judge William Harold Cox of Mississippi systematically obstructed civil rights cases through procedural manipulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Harold_Cox)
  • Federal judges today use the same tactics to avoid ruling on constitutional violations by powerful tech companies, among other powerful defendants

The pattern is identical: When judges don't want to rule on the merits, they create procedural mazes designed to exhaust plaintiffs and avoid difficult decisions, all violating their promise to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and [to] l faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them]” https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453

The Hypocrisy of "Christian" Judges

Many federal judges claim to follow Christian principles while systematically violating biblical commands about justice.:

  • Scripture commands: "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed" (Psalm 82:3)
  • But these judges protect corporate interests over individual constitutional rights
  • The Bible demands: "Follow justice and justice alone" (Deuteronomy 16:20)
  • But these judges follow procedural games and political expedience
  • Starr even called the Bible "historical" in his 2023 Southwest Airlines case and purports to be a Protestant.[1] But if he truly believed the Bible was God's word, he would not be systematically silencing Thomas Richards (tlthe5th)—a biblical truth-seeker whose #OvertPsyops and SpirituallySmart.com posts have been exposing the psychological operations and deceptions plaguing our society through a biblical lens for 25 years. Tlthe5th uses scripture as his framework to reveal uncomfortable truths about power, corruption, and spiritual warfare that most refuse to acknowledge. Yet this voice calling out deception from a biblical worldview has been censored and shadowbanned across the internet—and now Judge Starr adds judicial suppression to the persecution. A judge who genuinely feared God would recognize he's silencing someone speaking biblical truth to power. Instead, Starr's actions reveal him as the very type of hypocrite, phony, and false authority that biblical prophets warned against.

When Judge Starr mischaracterized legal arguments to justify harsher treatment in Case No. 3:25-cv-916, he lied. When he offered false choices to obstruct constitutional claims, he chose the path of the Pharisees—using legalistic manipulation to avoid doing what's right. And this is just one example. This seems to be the norm in today’s courts.

The Pattern of Intentional Obstruction

This isn't incompetence—it's deliberate. The documented pattern in Richards v. X Corp. reveals judges who:

  • Offer false procedural choices (5th Circuit Case No. 25-10643 documents this pattern)
  • “Misread” clear contract language to justify improper transfers
  • Mischaracterize legal arguments to justify predetermined outcomes
  • Lie about what procedural offers he has made to litigants
  • Refuse to address constitutional merits despite emergency circumstances

The historical precedent is clear. In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court recognized that government officials who systematically violate constitutional rights lose their immunity and can be sued in their individual capacity  (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/). Yet federal judges continue the same pattern of obstruction that Young was designed to prevent.

When Judges Become Enemies of Truth

A judge who intentionally mischaracterizes arguments isn't “making legal errors”—he's lying. A judge who offers false choices isn't confused about procedure—he's deceiving litigants. These aren't mistakes; they're calculated betrayals of judicial oaths.

The Founders understood this danger. Thomas Jefferson warned in his September 1820 letter to Thomas Ritchie that the judiciary could become "the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution" (https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/), and in his November 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane that the Constitution was "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary" (https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/). In his letter to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820, Jefferson further warned: "The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots" (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234). The Anti-Federalists, particularly Brutus in his essays during the ratification debates, foresaw that judges could "enlarge the exercise of their powers" and make the judiciary "superior" to the other branches of government (https://lawliberty.org/anti-federalists-and-the-roots-of-judicial-oligarchy/). They gave us mandamus relief as an ancient common law remedy that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice's Justice Manual Section 215, can be used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power" (https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-215-mandamus), precisely because they knew judges could exceed their constitutional authority.

The Biblical Standard They Reject

Scripture establishes clear standards for those in authority:

  • "Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute" (Psalm 82:3)
  • "Learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow" (Isaiah 1:17)
  • " He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to be prepared to go with your God?” (Micah 6:8)

Judges who claim Christian faith while systematically obstructing constitutional rights for individual Americans aren't following Christ—they're following the Pharisees who "tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others" (Matthew 23:4). And Jesus made it plain that the father of the Pharisees was Satan, not God. (John 8:44)

Historical Examples of Judicial Oath-Breaking

Here are a few admitted examples of judges who broke their oaths (certainly the tip of the iceberg):

  • Judge Robert Archbald (1913) was impeached and removed for improper business relationships with litigants, including coercing railroads into giving him favorable deals on coal land while they had cases pending in his court (https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges).
  • Judge G. Thomas Porteous (2010) was impeached unanimously by the House and removed by the Senate for accepting bribes from lawyers and bail bondsmen, lying under oath in bankruptcy proceedings, and making false statements during his confirmation process. He accepted $2,000 cash bribes from lawyers before ruling in their favor (https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/impeachments-federal-judges).

Certainly there are many more examples of corrupt judges, and most of the time, it seems they get away with it. The pattern repeats: Judges who choose political expedience over constitutional duty, who use procedural manipulation to avoid difficult rulings, who break their sacred oaths for personal or political gain.

The Cost of Judicial Corruption

When judges break their oaths, Americans properly lose faith in the entire system. Gallup polling shows public confidence in the judiciary at historic lows (https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-institutions-down-average-new-low.aspx). When they use procedural manipulation to avoid ruling on constitutional violations, everyone realizes that “justice” is a game for the powerful.

When judges legislate from the bench through corrupt rulings, they accumulate powers never granted to them. As Madison warned in Federalist 47, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp).

The Choice that Remains

Yet even now, these patterns can stop. Any judge—including Judge Starr—can choose to end the procedural games and do what is right and what their oath requires: provide fair and impartial justice. We document these problems to demand better. The choice remains: Continue the obstruction or stand up for truth.

The Call for Accountability

Every American should demand that judges uphold their oaths. When they don't, we must use every constitutional tool available—mandamus petitions (like 5th Circuit Cases No. 25-10522 and 25-10643), appeals, public exposure—to hold them accountable.

The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), established that mandamus relief exists precisely to check judicial abuse (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/). Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws."

The Truth Will Prevail

Justice isn't just a legal principle—it's a mandate from God. When judges reject that mandate, they reject both their constitutional duty and their accountability to the God whose help they invoked when taking their oath.

As Scripture promises: "For nothing is hidden that will not be disclosed, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light" (Luke 8:17).

The choice is clear: Stand for truth and constitutional justice, or accept a system where judges lie, obstruct, and break their sacred promises to the American people.

We choose truth.


Note: Case documents for Richards v. X Corp., Case No. 3:25-cv-916 (N.D. Tex.) and related 5th Circuit mandamus proceedings (Cases No. 25-10522 and 25-10643) are available on CourtListener for public review.

 



[1] Starr wrote- “It’s hard to see how Southwest could have violated the notice requirement more. Take these modified historical and movie anecdotes. After God told Adam, “[Y]ou must not eat from the tree [in the middle of the garden],” imagine Adam telling God, “I do not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden” — while an apple core rests at his feet. Or where Gandalf bellows, “You shall not pass,” the Balrog muses, “I do not pass,” while strolling past Gandalf on the Bridge of Khazad-dûm.” Memorandum Opinion and Order – #467 in Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556 (N.D. Tex., 3:17-cv-02278) – CourtListener.com  see bottom of page 2 for the quote. Also, for some context, one can read: Judge orders 'religious freedom' course to Southwest lawyers

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

Breaking: Major Constitutional Challenge Filed Against X Corp and Trump Right Before CEO Linda Yaccarino Announces Sudden Departure - by Lisa Weingarten Richards and Artificial Intelligence

Breaking: Major Constitutional Challenge Filed Against X Corp and Trump as CEO Linda Yaccarino Announces Sudden Departure In yet another st...