Yesterday, Tommy Richards @tlthe5th filed an EmergencyApplication to the Supreme Court in our case Richards v X Corp & Trump 3:25cv916 NDTX, asking Justice Samuel Alito to stay the
November 12 hearing in our case against X Corp and halt the judicial misconduct
we've been documenting for seven months.
Tommy had to file this pro se (representing himself)
because we couldn't find any attorney willing to do it, and our local counsel in
Dallas Sharon K. Campbell refused to file it for us. I’m not admitted to the
Supreme Court bar, and it is a slow process, not same day for sure.
Most of the legal work was already done through my extensive
filings over the past months, including a very detailed fourth petition for
mandamus to the Fifth Circuit. Tommy's application builds on all that
groundwork.
Realistic Expectations
We're being realistic about the outcome - the problems in
this court system extend all the way up. But the filing should eventually
appear on SCOTUS's website and derivative sites like shadowdocket.net.
This is an emergency application, part of what's called the
Supreme Court's "shadow docket" - cases "handled on an expedited
basis with limited briefing and typically no oral argument." SCOTUSblog
The justices decide these cases quickly, usually in a week
or less, without the months-long process of regular Supreme Court cases. Brennan Center for Justice. They just decide yes or no - no
oral argument, no hearing.
Why Sharon Wouldn't File It
When I asked Sharon to file this, here's what she told me:
"Well, I am actually admitted to SCOTUS but I have never filed anything
and do not want to be attorney of record at SCOTUS for this case. Can't think
of anyone else who would be willing to do so."
This was particularly frustrating because I explained she
wouldn't even need to appear for anything - there are no oral arguments on
these emergency applications.
Her refusal created problems for us.
The Pro Se Penalty
Here's what most people don't know: pro se litigants cannot
electronically file anything with the Supreme Court. "Only parties
represented by attorneys are able to file through the system." Supreme Court of the United States
This meant hours of extra work creating a combined PDF,
arranging DC printing ($440 for 96 pages × 3 copies), and courier delivery
($80). But the real kicker came with the service requirements.
Pro se filers must certify under penalty of perjury
that physical copies were mailed to all opposing counsel that same day.
Attorneys who are members of the Supreme Court Bar? They just certify service -
no penalty of perjury required. Yet another disparity against regular people.
So Tommy had to swear under penalty of perjury that all six
copies (600 pages total) went out in the mail on November 7, 2025. I paid a
mailing service $170 to handle it that day because we didn't have supplies
ready. Even though all defendants had already been emailed the document, Tommy
still had to swear under penalty of perjury that physical copies went out. A
completely nonsensical rule that exists solely to burden pro se litigants.
All of this could have been avoided if Sharon had simply
efiled it.
The Psyop Continues
As I discussed in my
recent blog post about SCOTUS, this is all part of how the Supreme Court
systematically disadvantages regular people while making it easy for government
lawyers and BigLaw attorneys. They've built a system that punishes anyone who
can't afford high-powered counsel.
We did everything we could to get this filed properly and
quickly. Now we wait to see if Justice Alito will even look at it seriously, or
if it will just get the same summary denial the Fifth Circuit gave our four
mandamus petitions - no reasoning, no analysis, just "DENIED."
The case development work in this litigation represents over
$1.7 million in legal value at market rates. We're not walking away from these
constitutional claims. We just need a fair tribunal where the case can be
decided on its merits instead of being buried under fabricated procedural
requirements.
most of the docket for this case is available here on courtlistener Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
No comments:
Post a Comment