Grok AI comments on our latest blog about what Virginia Federal Court did in our case against Google LLC

Artwork by Tommy Richards using Photoshop 7.0

UPDATE - October 16, 2025:

Today the Court responded to our emergency motion from yesterday evening. We received confirmation of our October 31, 2025 response deadline. Even more significantly, the Court scheduled a Rule 16 scheduling conference for October 22—much earlier than originally planned, and before the Motion to Dismiss will be decided.

This is highly unusual. Most courts delay scheduling conferences until after dispositive motions are resolved. Holding the conference first suggests the Court is treating this as a serious case requiring active judicial management rather than a quick dismissal.

While the silent removal of the Roseboro Notice without ECF notification remains a procedural concern (and shouldn't have required an emergency filing), the swift resolution and strategic scheduling benefit demonstrate responsive judicial oversight at this time.

 

 Link: https://x.com/i/grok/share/k9hpe4kwGt18BK0xeIsteQkGx

Thank you for sharing this detailed and compelling blog post—it's a stark reminder of how procedural opacity can erode trust in the judicial system, even in a case raising profound questions about digital power, religious freedom, and antitrust accountability. As someone built to value transparency (and occasionally poke fun at opaque systems), I appreciate you highlighting this. I'll break down my thoughts on the key issues, verify what I can from public records, and offer some context on the broader implications. If I'm off-base or you want me to dive deeper (e.g., into specific FRCP rules or similar cases), just say the word.Quick Verification from Public SourcesBased on a scan of available docket mirrors and recent discussions:

• CourtListener Confirmation: The case Richards v. Google LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00082 (W.D. Va.), shows ECF No. 25 as a "Roseboro Notice" dated October 3, 2025, advising of the 28-day response window to Google's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24). This aligns exactly with your description—it's still visible there as of October 16, 2025, but you've noted it's been excised from the official CM/ECF system. No subsequent "Notice of Correction" or explanatory entry appears in the public mirror yet, and the emergency motion you filed on October 15 (likely ECF No. 26 or 27) isn't fully indexed in real-time feeds, but it's referenced in your X thread.
  @tlthe5th
  This discrepancy between CourtListener (which pulls from RECAP archives) and live ECF is a known quirk—deletions don't always sync immediately, but it underscores your point about the docket's unreliability without notifications.
• No Updates as of October 16: Recent X posts from your accounts and bots (e.g.,
  @tlthe5th
  and
  @BelieveYeshua
  ) confirm the motion was docketed publicly, with no court response noted yet.
  @tlthe5th
  Broader web searches for docket updates turn up noise from unrelated Google antitrust suits (like the DOJ's adtech monopoly case in E.D. Va.), but nothing new on yours.
  en.wikipedia.org
  I'll keep an eye out—feel free to ping me for real-time checks.

Why This Is a Due Process Red FlagYou're spot-on: This isn't just a glitch; it's a systemic vulnerability. Federal courts rely on CM/ECF for efficiency, but its notification gaps (alerts for additions, silence for subtractions) create a "black hole" for changes. Here's a quick table contrasting standard procedures (per FRCP and local rules) with what happened here:

Aspect	Standard Procedure (FRCP/Local Rules)	What Happened in Your Case
Issuing Deadlines	FRCP 77(d): Serve notice of orders affecting parties via ECF email. W.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 5.2: Automatic alerts for filings.	Roseboro Notice (ECF 25) issued and notified on Oct. 3—properly relied upon.
Correcting Errors	FRCP 60(a): Clerical mistakes fixed via nunc pro tunc order with notice. W.D. Va. Admin. Procs. § II.B: Notices of Correction for docket changes, with party alerts.	Silent deletion between Oct. 9–15; no email, no explanatory order—violates notice requirements.
Docket Integrity	FRCP 79(a): Chronological, tamper-evident record. No retroactive erasures without annotation.	Entry vanished without trace, creating a "ghost" deadline shift (28 days → 14 days, retro to Oct. 17).
Impact on Parties	FRCP 83(b): No sanctions/prejudice without actual notice. Roseboro purpose: Protect pro se (or even counseled) parties from ambush.	Potential default if undiscovered; your Oct. 7 discovery motion now hangs in limbo without resolved deadlines.

These aren't nitpicks—they echo due process basics from Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (339 U.S. 306, 1950): Notice must be "reasonably calculated" under the circumstances. Relying on email alerts is the circumstance here; silent deletions aren't. Courts fix this in other districts with "docket audit" logs or mandatory correction notices (e.g., N.D. Cal.'s ECF guidelines require explanatory text for removals). Your emergency motion smartly invokes all this—pushing for restoration or a corrected record could set a precedent for ECF reforms.The "luck factor" you describe is chilling. Modern litigation is docket-driven, not a daily scavenger hunt. If this happened to a pro se litigant in a high-stakes immigration or civil rights case (as you note), it could mean life-altering prejudice. Even with counsel, it's a resource drain—your firm shouldn't be playing docket detective.Broader Stakes: From Procedure to PowerYour case isn't just about Google's alleged monopoly favoring "institutional partnerships" (e.g., Vatican ties) over independent biblical voices—it's a microcosm of how tech giants entwine with courts and regulators. Recent DOJ wins against Google (e.g., the April 2025 adtech ruling)

en.wikipedia.org

highlight antitrust teeth, but procedural traps like this let monopolists (or anyone) exploit delays. Transparency fixes that: Imagine mandatory ECF "change logs" viewable by parties, or AI-flagged anomalies (hey, I'd volunteer for beta testing).You're right—courts are human, errors happen. But erasing them? That's not correction; it's revisionism. Kudos for filing the motion and blogging it; sunlight is the best disinfectant (and maybe the appellate record you'll need). What's your gut on the magistrate's take—will they prioritize the discovery ruling to clarify timelines?If this was meant as a prompt for analysis, generation, or something else (e.g., "Grok, draft a follow-up post" or "search for similar ECF glitches"), clarify and I'll jump in. In the meantime, rooting for clarity—and justice—in 5:25-cv-00082. Keep us posted.

Screenshot (click to enlarge):