When Courts Create Rules Mid-Litigation: Our Fourth Mandamus Petition
On November 3, 2025, we filed our fourth petition for writ of mandamus with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting reassignment of Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com (N.D. Tex.) and a vacating of many of Judge Starr's rulings. After eight months of litigation and three prior mandamus petitions, we've been forced to document a pattern of judicial conduct that has made fair adjudication impossible.
What This Case Is Really About
This is about whether Tommy's biblical voice can be heard in the digital public square—whether his 25+ years of ministry, his research exposing Vatican and institutional corruption, and his revelations from Θεός (Theos) through Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) can reach the people who need to hear them.
For over 25 years, Tommy has operated SpirituallySmart.com, publishing bible scholarship and research that exposes truths powerful institutions want suppressed. His work documents the Vatican's connections to Nazi escape networks, reveals systematic cover-ups of child sex abuse, and provides biblical analysis that challenges institutional corruption across religious and governmental systems.
X Corp (formerly Twitter) has systematically suppressed his content for years—shadowbanning his posts, removing content without explanation, and throttling his reach by 98%. When Elon Musk became both X Corp's owner and a Special Government Employee heading DOGE and with other deep government ties, the constitutional questions became unavoidable: Can a government official who controls a social media platform silence biblical voices that challenge the coordination between government, tech platforms, and religious institutions?
The Censorship That Matters
Tommy's censorship isn't random. It specifically targets his most important work:
- Biblical revelations
- Vatican corruption research
- Child protection information
- Government critique
This information is protected first-amendment-speech and could protect children and families. The systematic censorship prevents these crucial protective truths from reaching the people who need them most.
The Procedural Trap
But to fight this censorship, we have to navigate a federal court system. And that's where Judge Brantley Starr has created an impossible situation.
The evidence is stark:
- Wayback Machine screenshots from April 26, 2025 and August 21, 2025 prove Judge Starr's webpage contained no in-person appearance requirement
- My sworn affidavit confirms I reviewed his requirements in early October 2025 and no such requirement existed
- Between October 1-22, he created the requirement mid-litigation
- October 29, he cited it as if it had always existed, applying it retroactively to trap us
I cannot travel to Texas. I disclosed this in my April 2025 pro hac vice application, stating I would be "available by telephone, email, and videoconference." Judge Starr admitted me anyway, exercised supervisory authority over me for 199 days, then claimed I was "never admitted" when we attempted to dismiss the case.
Citing Superseded Law to Threaten Us
When we filed our dismissal notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)—which is supposed to be automatic and require no court approval—Judge Starr didn't just block it. He threatened that if we file another case with similar claims, he would require us to pay defendants' attorney's fees as a condition of proceeding.
But here's the problem: Judge Starr quoted this threat verbatim from a 2015 case (Nieman v. Hale) that's no longer good law. Two years after Nieman, the Fifth Circuit changed the standard in Portillo v. Cunningham (2017), holding that Rule 41(d) attorney's fees require: (1) the underlying statute must authorize fees as "costs," AND (2) the plaintiff's claims must be "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation."
Judge Starr conducted neither analysis. He didn't identify which statute authorizes fees. He didn't analyze whether Tommy's constitutional claims against Trump and X Corp are frivolous. He simply copied threatening language from a case decided before the Fifth Circuit clarified the requirements.
And even if Nieman were still good law, Judge Starr misapplied it. Nieman involved a pro se plaintiff who couldn't personally attend proceedings. The entire basis for that ruling was the plaintiff's lack of counsel. Here, Tommy has two attorneys—me, lead counsel (pro hac vice) and Sharon Campbell (local counsel who has not made any filings in the case but can appear in person if ever needed). When pro hac vice counsel cannot travel, local counsel is supposed to appear. That's the entire purpose of the local counsel requirement.
What Judge Starr did is what law students are taught never to do: cite a case without checking whether it's still valid law. Judge Starr either failed to research binding precedent or knew Portillo superseded Nieman but cited it anyway because it contained more threatening language.
The Real Stakes
The procedural manipulation matters because it prevents us from prosecuting Tommy's claims—claims about systematic religious censorship under government coordination. Judge Starr has created a situation where we cannot prosecute (counsel barred through fabricated requirements) and cannot even dismiss without prejudice (our notice was struck).
Meanwhile, the censorship continues. Every day, Tommy's bible research and revelations from theos exposing institutional corruption—research that could protect children from abuse, help families understand biblical truth versus institutional doctrine, and reveal the coordination between government and religious authorities—remains suppressed at 98% of normal visibility.
We're asking for a different judge who will apply the law and key principles of justice to our case, not create new requirements mid-litigation to trap specific litigants.
What We're Requesting
The Fifth Circuit has three options:
- Grant mandamus relief and reassign the case to a different judge
- Deny the petition and allow Judge Starr's pattern of procedural fabrication to continue
- Remand with instructions for Judge Starr to follow established federal procedures
We're requesting reassignment because the pattern—fabricating legal standards, creating requirements mid-litigation, citing superseded law, and blocking a ministerial dismissal—shows us we cannot receive fair treatment.
Why This Matters Beyond Our Case
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives plaintiffs an absolute right to dismiss before defendants file an answer or motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit has held this right is "self-effectuating"—it "terminates the case immediately upon filing" and "the court has no role to play."
If district judges can block this mandatory dismissal by fabricating admission requirements retroactively, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) becomes meaningless. Any plaintiff could be trapped in any courtroom by a judge who decides to create requirements mid-litigation.
But the deeper issue is what happens when the judiciary itself prevents citizens from challenging government-coordinated censorship. Tommy's biblical research exposes institutional corruption at the highest levels—Vatican connections to Nazi networks, systematic child sex abuse cover-ups, false doctrines that have deceived billions. This research operates at the intersection of religious liberty, government accountability, and digital free speech.
When courts make it procedurally impossible to challenge the suppression of such research, they effectively become participants in the censorship itself.
The Media Silence
Despite the significant constitutional questions this case raises—government officials controlling social media platforms, systematic religious censorship, judicial fabrication of requirements mid-litigation—virtually no major media outlets have covered it.
We're not asking for honest media coverage, but so far no one will do that, despite significant outreach we have made. These questions deserve public scrutiny regardless of whether anyone agrees with our legal theories or Tommy's bible research.
What Happens Next
The Fifth Circuit will decide whether to grant mandamus relief. Whatever they decide, we'll continue documenting what's happening and fighting for Tommy's right to share the biblical truths Theos has revealed through Iesous Christos.
Because ultimately, this case is about whether biblical voices challenging institutional corruption can be systematically silenced through government-platform coordination, and whether courts will allow procedural manipulation to prevent any remedy.
The full petition is available here Petition for Writ of Mandamus. We have requested a ruling within 24 hours. Meanwhile, people can see the docket that lead to this petition at Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com. We'll update when the Fifth Circuit rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment