Trump's DOJ Files Motion to Dismiss Just 48 Hours Before Federal Courts Run Out of Money—After Claiming They Were "Never Served" – By Lisa Weingarten Richards – Assisted by Artificial Intelligence

                                                                         Artwork by Tommy Richards

October 15, 2025

Something remarkable happened today in Thomas Richards’ First Amendment lawsuit against Donald Trump and X Corp (Twitter) Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com. After months of claiming they were never properly served with our lawsuit, Trump's Department of Justice attorneys suddenly filed a 32-page Motion to Dismiss—exactly two days before federal courts are set to exhaust their funding and shift to severely reduced operations.

The timing raises serious questions about whether this represents coordinated strategy to exploit the government shutdown.

The Timeline Tells the Story

Let's look at the undisputed facts:

July 11, 2025: We served Trump at Mar-a-Lago with our Amended Complaint adding him as a defendant in his individual capacity for his coordination with Elon Musk to suppress religious speech criticizing the government.

July 29, 2025: Instead of private counsel, DOJ attorneys stepped in and filed a 22-page substantive response to our TRO motion, proving they had actual notice of the case and our allegations.

August 1, 2025: Trump's individual capacity response deadline passes. No answer filed to the lawsuit. No private counsel appears.

September 15, 2025: After 74 days of silence, we file a Motion for Entry of Default. And all of a sudden, after months of silence, DOJ tries to fight the default entry.

October 15, 2025: Trump suddenly files a detailed Motion to Dismiss through DOJ attorneys—the same attorneys who have been claiming for months that Trump was never properly served.

October 17, 2025: Federal courts are set to exhaust reserve funding and shift to "essential functions only" operations where cases involving government parties will be deprioritized.

How Do You Write 32 Pages About a Lawsuit You Were "Never Served" With?

Here's what makes this particularly interesting: Trump's Motion to Dismiss isn't a simple "we were never served" filing. It's a comprehensive 32-page brief that:

• Quotes specific paragraphs from our Amended Complaint
• Analyzes our factual allegations in detail
• Addresses each of our claims with tailored legal arguments
• Cites case law responding to our specific theories
• Discusses our allegations about Vatican coordination, the Musk connections, and the staged June 5th "feud"

You cannot write this kind of detailed response without having the complaint, reading it thoroughly, analyzing it with legal counsel, conducting legal research, and developing a strategic response. All of which takes time—time Trump apparently had during the 74 days between his August 1 deadline and today's filing.

The DOJ's "never served" claim rings hollow when their own Motion to Dismiss proves they've had the complaint all along.

The Shutdown Timing Is Suspect

Federal courts have been operating on reserve funds since the government shutdown began October 1. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, those reserves will be exhausted this Friday, October 17.

After that date, courts shift to "essential functions only"—prioritizing criminal cases and urgent constitutional matters. Cases involving government defendants will be among the most deprioritized, with government attorneys likely seeking delays and courts granting them.

Trump filed his Motion to Dismiss today—October 15—giving himself exactly 48 hours of cushion before this shift occurs.

A Strategy to Avoid Default?

The pattern suggests coordination:

1. DOJ participates just enough to maintain awareness (July 29 TRO response)
2. They go completely silent while deadlines pass (August 1, September 9)
3. When we file for default (September 17), they manufacture service objections
4. They wait until the last possible moment before shutdown affects government cases
5. They file a belated motion that makes the case look "active" rather than in default
6. The shutdown then ensures the case sits indefinitely because it involves "government parties"

This allows Trump to benefit from his 74-day procedural violation through fortuitous (or calculated?) shutdown timing.

We Asked the Court to Rule Before Friday

Today we filed an Emergency Notice asking Judge Starr to rule on our pending default motion before October 17—before the shutdown creates this prejudicial limbo.

The default question is straightforward:

Did Trump respond by his August 1 deadline? No.

Does Federal Rule 55(a) mandate entry of default? Yes.

Does filing a motion 74 days late cure a completed default? No.

The proper procedure would be for Trump to first move to set aside the default under Rule 55(c), showing good cause for his 74-day delay. He hasn't done that. Instead, he's filed a Motion to Dismiss as if the deadline never existed and the default never occurred.

The Bigger Picture: Suppression of Government Criticism

This procedural maneuvering occurs in a case about something far more important: whether the President of the United States can coordinate with a social media platform owner to suppress religious speech that criticizes the government.

Our complaint asserts that Trump's $300 million financial arrangement with Elon Musk created a quid pro quo where Musk uses X's platform to systematically suppress biblical criticism of their coordination—including my husband Thomas Richards' 16 years of religious content that suddenly faced wholesale deletion and suppression after he began documenting this arrangement.

The evidence includes:

• Trump creating the "Department of Government Efficiency" specifically for Musk (using Musk's cryptocurrency "DOGE" as the acronym)
• Musk's $300 million contribution to Trump's presidential campaign
• Systematic platform suppression targeting religious speech critical of this arrangement
• A suspiciously-timed June 5, 2025 "feud" occurring on the exact date specified in our attorney-client communications about adding Trump as defendant which appear to have been intercepted
• Trump's religious liberty initiatives prominently featuring Catholic officials while biblical criticism of Catholic institutions faces platform suppression

Government Lawyers Representing Individual Misconduct?

There's another issue: DOJ claims authority to represent Trump despite 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2)(A) explicitly prohibiting DOJ representation for constitutional violations. Our entire case argues there are constitutional violations.

We argue DOJ has no statutory authority to represent Trump at all for these claims, meaning Trump should have obtained private counsel months ago. Instead, government lawyers are defending what we state is Trump's personal corruption—his $300 million quid pro quo arrangement with Musk for platform control.

This creates the current bizarre status: Trump is potentially not even a "government defendant" entitled to shutdown-related delays, yet he's being represented by government attorneys who will likely seek exactly those delays after Friday.

What Happens Next?

We'll know by Friday whether Judge Starr rules on our default motion before the shutdown complications take effect.

If he rules in our favor, Trump is in default and will need to move to set it aside—showing good cause for his 74-day delay, which seems difficult given DOJ's July 29 participation proving actual notice.

If the motion sits past Friday, we've created a strong record that we sought timely resolution and that any delay prejudices us, not Trump—the party who violated procedural rules.

Either way, the October 15 timing of Trump's Motion to Dismiss—exactly 48 hours before courts shift to reduced operations affecting government cases—will be part of the record. Whether it represents mere coincidence or calculated strategy, reasonable minds can assess.

The Stakes

This isn't just about procedural deadlines. It's about whether citizens can challenge their government's coordination with private platforms to suppress religious speech criticizing that very coordination.

It's about whether $300 million can buy not just a presidency, but control over the digital public square where Americans discuss their government.

And it's about whether defendants—even presidents—must follow the same rules as everyone else, or whether they can exploit government shutdowns and invoke government representation to avoid accountability for the personal corruption.

We'll find out the outcome by Friday.

---

Lisa Weingarten Richards is lead counsel in Richards v. X Corp., Case No. 3:25-cv-916, pending in the Northern District of Texas. Today’s filing is available at #104 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com