Conversation between Tommy Richards' lawyer and Laura Lorek - by Lisa W Richards

I called Laura Lorek on Saturday after Tommy Richards learned that she had written a terrible and completely incorrect article about the lawsuit Richards v X Corp & Trump in the NDTX 3:25-cv-916. Tommy said that they did everything wrong in this and is intentional and directed me that they need to completely change it or remove it. She called me back. I returned her call and told he she needs to fix the article because it is completely wrong. She asked what was wrong with it. I provided her a list of errors and said that she needs to send any rewrite via email before publishing it. I stated that I wanted our communications to be by email. I also noted that she could get better information on the case than what she put by simply talking to the AI about it.

As far as the list of errors, I generally went through a list of things that were wrong with her article. I stated that she did not look at the amended complaint which was filed July 8 and which adds Trump as a defendant. I mentioned that Linda Yaccarino was also sued because she resigned as CEO with no explanation 10 hours after Plaintiff filed his amended complaint which specifically named her. I stated that Lorek's article made it sound like just a shadowbanning lawsuit but it failed to mention the government entanglement with Musk. I mentioned that she got the damages completely wrong because she said they were $70 million, but it was actually $750 million. I said that a Writ of Mandamus was filed against Judge Starr late last night due to his refusal to recuse. I mentioned that the new case against Linda Yaccarino was randomly assigned to Judge Sam Lindsay but then they moved to transfer it to Starr.

More things that I mentioned as far as what Starr did wrong:

-He completely misstated the legal standard in the 5th circuit about when a judge should recuse himself

- He refused to rule on the emergency TROs, any of them, either dismissing without prejudice or not ruling at all. The one from July 10 he has still not ruled on.

- He lied about the venue clause because he claimed it said that the lawsuit needed to be brought in Forth Worth even though the terms of service for X allow for any court within the NDTX.

- He first said that I had 2 options, I could either file to appear without local counsel, in accordance with local rule 83.10 OR I could find local counsel. (I gave docket numbers for some of his statements)

    

    --I had already asked to appear without local counsel in accordance with 83.10 in my initial pro hac vice form. I told Judge Starr that is because I had already searched for months for local counsel but was unable to find one. And one told me he was terrified to fight Musk because Musk would punish him for it. So I stated to Starr that I had already submitted the motion to appear without local counsel. 

    

    --Then he changed his demand in another filing in the docket where he said actually I could not appear without local counsel, but that I could have an expanded area of all of Texas to find that local counsel.

    

    --So I responded to Starr that the fact that he said I could potentially find local counsel from 600 miles away proves that the requirement is arbitrary, because that is really no closer to the court than I am in Virginia.

   

    --So then Starr lied and pretended I had said that I objected to appearing with counsel from anywhere in the state (no I did not; I simply said it proved that the requirement was arbitrary) so that he would require me to find local counsel from within 50 miles.

-  I mentioned that Starr protected freedom of religion in the Southwest airlines case because the Plaintiff was a Trump supporter, but here where the Plaintiff is against Trump, he will not protect his freedom of religion. 

 - I mentioned that Laura Lorek ignored the AI-powered censorship coordination between Grok and federal agencies.