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