BREAKING: Judge Starr's Legal Error Exposed - Fifth Circuit Precedent Demands Recusal - by Lisa W Richards and Artificial Intelligence

 

The Undeniable Proof: Judge Inverts Federal Law on Recusal

Tommy Richards' third mandamus petition to the Fifth Circuit reveals a devastating legal error by Judge Starr that if the Fifth Circuit rules fairly, would force immediate recusal. The judge didn't just ignore the law - he got it exactly backwards.

What Judge Starr Claimed vs. What the Law Actually Says

Judge Starr's Statement: "The bar for recusal under § 455 is a high one"

Fifth Circuit Precedent in Chevron: "If the question of whether § 455(a) requires disqualification is a close one, the balance tips in favor of recusal."

Judge Starr inverted the legal standard. The Fifth Circuit requires judges to err on the side of recusal, not the opposite.

The Southwest Airlines -- Undeniable Example

Here's where it gets interesting. Judge Starr showed zero hesitation protecting Christian religious expression when it didn't involve Trump allies:

Southwest Airlines Case:

• Declared the Bible to be "historical" truth
• Ordered unprecedented religious liberty training
• Risked appellate reversal to protect religious speech

Tommy Richards Case (Biblical Religious Expression):

• Systematic obstruction for months
• Refuses to address First Amendment violations
• Creates endless procedural barriers

Same judge. Same legal principles. Only difference? Southwest Airlines had no Trump connections. Tommy's case challenges Trump personally and his major supporter Elon Musk.

The "Whack-a-Mole" Pattern of Obstruction

The mandamus petition documents systematic avoidance through five rounds of procedural warfare:

1. False venue claims (required first mandamus)
2. Service manipulation (24 hours vs 90 days based on who benefits)
3. Local counsel deception (required second mandamus)
4. Constitutional evasion (three emergency motions ignored)
5. Coordinated transfer (judges transferred to maintain obstruction)

Why This Matters: The Appearance Standard

Federal law doesn't require actual bias for recusal - just the appearance of bias. The Chevron precedent in the Fifth Circuit asks: Would "a reasonable and objective person, knowing all the facts, harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality?"

The facts a reasonable observer knows:

• Trump appointed Judge Starr
• Case challenges Trump personally
• Case challenges Trump's largest supporter ($300M campaign contribution)
• Musk has $15.4 billion in federal contracts
• Judge protects religious speech for others but not Tommy Richards
• Two mandamus petitions already required due to systematic obstruction

The Constitutional Crisis Deepens

Tommy Richards has filed three separate emergency TRO motions seeking constitutional protection. Judge Starr's response? Complete avoidance through "without prejudice" dismissals that prevent appeals.

This isn't judicial consideration - it's constitutional obstruction disguised as legal process.

What Happens Next

The Fifth Circuit now faces a judge who:

1. Misapplied governing precedent by 180 degrees
2. Created systematic procedural obstruction requiring three mandamus petitions
3. Applied different standards based on political alignment
4. Refuses to address constitutional violations in precedent-setting litigation

The Chevron precedent gives the Fifth Circuit clear authority: "A petition for writ of mandamus is an appropriate legal vehicle for challenging the denial of a disqualification motion."

Bottom Line: When constitutional obstruction meets documented legal error, federal precedent demands corrective action.