On November 4, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-sentence order denying our fourth petition for writ of mandamus: "IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED."
They gave no explanation, analysis, or acknowledgment of the evidence we presented. Just one sentence dismissing documented judicial misconduct that threatens the foundation of our legal system.
What We Proved
Our petition was thorough and detailed, providing hard evidence:
Wayback Machine screenshots from April 26, 2025 and August 21, 2025 proving Judge Starr's webpage contained no in-person appearance requirement when I applied pro hac vice in April 2025.
My sworn affidavit confirming I reviewed his requirements in early October 2025 specifically to plan for the November 12 hearing, and no such requirement existed.
Documentary timeline showing Judge Starr denied my remote appearance request on October 1 using a fabricated "proportionality to damages" legal test appearing nowhere in Rule 43(a) or any case law. Between October 1-22, he added the in-person requirement to his webpage. On October 29, he cited it as if it had always existed.
His own orders proving he exercised supervisory authority over me for 199 days—accepting my filings, ruling on my motions, scheduling hearings requiring my attendance, ordering me to read cases and certify compliance—then claiming I was "never admitted" when we attempted to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Legal research showing he cited Nieman v. Hale (2015) to threaten mandatory attorney's fees while ignoring that Portillo v. Cunningham (2017) changed the Rule 41(d) standard. He either failed to research binding precedent or knew Portillo superseded Nieman but cited the older case anyway because it contained more threatening language.
The ministerial function violation: 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." Processing such dismissals is a ministerial function—a non-discretionary duty that requires no judgment. This is the textbook example from law school of when you can sue the government and win: when they violate a ministerial function. Judge Starr blocked a ministerial act that by definition requires no court involvement.
This wasn't a close call or a judgment call. This was documented fabrication of requirements mid-litigation, retroactive application to trap specific litigants, and citation of superseded law to threaten us into abandoning constitutional claims.
The Fifth Circuit's Response
They gave a one sentence denial.
They didn't say our evidence was insufficient. They didn't say we misunderstood the law. They didn't explain why creating requirements mid-litigation is acceptable judicial conduct. They didn't address how a judge can exercise supervisory authority for 199 days then claim the attorney was "never admitted." They just said no.
This Is Systemic Gaslighting
Gaslighting is when someone tries to make you question reality despite clear evidence of what happened. That's exactly what's occurring here.
We have Wayback Machine evidence—objective, third-party, timestamped proof that Judge Starr's requirement didn't exist in April or August or early October 2025. This isn't a matter of interpretation or memory. The screenshots exist. Anyone can verify them.
Yet the Fifth Circuit's response is essentially: "We don't care what you can prove. Denied."
The Pattern
This is our fourth mandamus petition to the Fifth Circuit in this case:
First Mandamus (April 2025): Challenged Judge Starr's fabrication of X Corp's venue clause. Fifth Circuit denied without explanation. Judge Starr then voluntarily reversed his transfer order but began systematic obstruction.
Second Mandamus (May 2025): Challenged bad faith local counsel manipulation where Judge Starr explicitly offered us the option to "file a motion to proceed without local counsel," then denied that motion without explanation. Fifth Circuit denied.
Third Mandamus (July 2025): Challenged refusal to recuse despite documented bias pattern and presiding over claims against his appointing president (Trump) and Trump's largest campaign contributor (Elon Musk, $288 million). Fifth Circuit denied.
Fourth Mandamus (November 2025): Challenged creation of requirements mid-litigation, retroactive application, blocking of mandatory dismissal rights. Fifth Circuit denied.
Each denial emboldened Judge Starr to escalate further. After the first denial, he began local counsel games. After the second, he refused recusal despite obvious conflicts. After the third, he started creating requirements mid-litigation. What comes after the fourth?
What This Means
The Fifth Circuit is saying that federal judges can:
- Create procedural requirements in the middle of active litigation
- Apply those requirements retroactively to conduct that occurred before they existed
- Exercise supervisory authority over attorneys for months, then claim they were "never admitted" when convenient
- Cite superseded law while ignoring binding circuit precedent
- Block Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals that the Fifth Circuit itself has called "self-effectuating" with "no role" for courts to play
And there will be no consequences, no intervention, no oversight. Just one-sentence denials.
This Is How They Treat Everyone
If they do this to us—with documented evidence, sworn affidavits, and objective third-party proof via Wayback Machine—imagine what they do to litigants who don't have the resources to document everything meticulously. Imagine how they treat people who can't afford attorneys at all, or who don't know to preserve evidence of judicial misconduct.
This isn't an isolated incident. This is standard operating procedure. We just happen to have documented it thoroughly enough to expose the pattern.
Every time the media writes respectful articles about "the judicial system" and "rule of law," they're participating in the lie. Every time legal commentators praise the "integrity of our courts," they're gaslighting the public about what actually happens inside courtrooms across this country.
The courts rely on most people never experiencing the system directly. They count on the gap between the myth (impartial judges applying law fairly) and the reality (procedural manipulation, fabricated requirements, one-sentence denials of documented misconduct). The media maintains the myth while the courts operate according to the reality.
When Courts Rule "Correctly," Don't Trust It
Here's something else it teaches us: when appellate courts occasionally rule in favor of someone challenging government or corporate power, don't assume it's because they care about justice or constitutional rights.
Our case is as clear as cases get. We have Wayback Machine evidence—third-party, timestamped, objective proof. We proved the judge cited superseded caselaw (Nieman v. Hale from 2015) while ignoring binding Fifth Circuit precedent (Portillo v. Cunningham from 2017) to threaten us with mandatory attorney's fees. We have sworn affidavits. We have the judge's own orders contradicting his later claims. We documented everything meticulously. Yet we got a one-sentence denial.
So when you read about appellate courts "standing up for civil rights" or "protecting constitutional freedoms" in some other case, ask yourself: what's the real agenda? Because it's not about fairness or law. Our case proves that conclusively.
Maybe they rule correctly when:
- The defendant isn't politically connected enough to matter
- The case serves as useful precedent to limit future claims
- Public attention makes denial too obvious
- The corporate interests align with the ruling
- It provides cover for ten other cases where they deny clear misconduct
But it's never—ever—about applying law fairly or protecting constitutional rights as a principle. If it were, they couldn't have issued a one-sentence denial when we proved a judge fabricated requirements mid-litigation with objective evidence.
You Cannot Trust Media Reports About "Justice"
This means every article you've ever read about courts "correcting injustice" or "protecting rights" is suspect. Every legal victory celebrated in the media might have some hidden reason that has nothing to do with the stated principles.
Because these judges have no concern whatsoever for truth or fairness. We proved that beyond any doubt. The only question is what their actual concerns are—and those concerns are never what they claim in their opinions.
When the system operates this way at the appellate level—rubber-stamping documented judicial misconduct with one-sentence denials—it reveals that every "correct" ruling serves some purpose we're not being told about. The law and facts don't matter. Something else does. They try to hide what it is. And we know it's not justice.
The Broader Implications
This isn't just about our case. This is about what happens when courts abandon their role as neutral arbiters and become obstacles to justice themselves.
Tommy's case raises genuinely important constitutional questions:
- Can government officials control social media platforms while censoring religious speech?
- Does AI-powered viewpoint discrimination under government coordination violate the First Amendment?
- Can platforms systematically suppress biblical research exposing institutional corruption?
These questions deserve answers. But we can't even get to the merits because Judge Starr has made it procedurally impossible—and the Fifth Circuit has given him carte blanche to continue.
The Real Case
Remember what this is actually about: Tommy's 25+ years of biblical ministry and research that powerful institutions want silenced.
His work documents:
- Vatican connections to Nazi escape networks through Pope Francis's spiritual mentors
- Systematic Catholic institutional cover-ups of child sex abuse
- False doctrines like the manufactured Trinity concept that have deceived billions
- Government-platform coordination to suppress biblical voices
X Corp has suppressed Tommy's content by 98%—shadowbanning his posts, deleting 61,600+ posts representing 16 years of ministry, removing 5,974 media files. When Elon Musk became both X Corp's owner and a federal official with deep government ties, this private censorship became government action subject to constitutional constraints.
But we can't challenge that censorship if courts create impossible procedural obstacles while appellate courts issue one-sentence denials of documented misconduct.
They Promise Justice, They Deliver Obstruction
The federal courts promise:
- Impartial judges
- Due process
- Equal application of rules
- Appellate oversight of judicial misconduct
What they deliver:
- Judges who fabricate requirements to trap disfavored litigants
- Process designed to exhaust rather than resolve
- Rules applied retroactively or ignored entirely
- Appellate courts that rubber-stamp misconduct with one-sentence denials
This is institutional gaslighting. They maintain the forms and procedures of justice—the courtrooms, the robes, the formal language—while systematically denying the substance. They tell you to follow the rules while changing them mid-game. They promise oversight while refusing to exercise it.
What Justifies This System?
Seriously—what justifies the continued existence of a judicial system that operates this way?
Courts derive their legitimacy from the promise that they will:
- Apply law fairly and consistently
- Protect constitutional rights
- Provide neutral forums for resolving disputes
- Exercise oversight over judges who abuse their authority
When they systematically fail to do any of these things—when they protect judicial misconduct, ignore documented evidence, and issue one-sentence denials of serious constitutional claims—what purpose do they serve except to provide a veneer of legitimacy to raw power?
The Fifth Circuit could have said: "The district judge's conduct requires explanation. We remand for him to address why his requirement didn't exist when counsel applied pro hac vice."
They could have said: "The exercise of supervisory authority for 199 days creates estoppel preventing the 'never admitted' claim."
They could have said: "Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are ministerial and cannot be blocked by admission status disputes."
Instead, they said nothing, just wrote one sentence, and case closed.
The media will never tell you this is how the system actually works. They'll keep writing articles about "judicial independence" and "checks and balances" and "rule of law" as if these concepts have any relationship to what happens in actual courtrooms. When they do investigative pieces that appear to expose judicial problems, they hide the most fundamental corruption—that the system operates without any regard for truth, evidence, or law. They'll interview legal experts who explain procedure and precedent as if judges actually follow either. They'll maintain the fiction that our legal system operates according to its stated principles.
It doesn't. And our case proves it with documentation most litigants never manage to obtain.
The Truth About Tommy's Censorship
The Fifth Circuit's one-sentence denial doesn't make Judge Starr's conduct legitimate. It doesn't make the Wayback Machine evidence disappear. It doesn't change the truth about Tommy's censorship or the constitutional violations.
Tommy's biblical research—exposing Vatican corruption that could protect children and families, revealing revelations from Θεός (Theos) through Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos) that challenge institutional lies—remains suppressed at 98% of normal visibility through government-platform coordination.
And the courts that promised to protect constitutional rights have instead become active participants in preventing any challenge to that censorship.
All δόξα (doxa - glory) to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Iēsous Christos - Jesus Christ) and Θεός (Theos) our Πατήρ (Patēr - Father) for sustaining us through a system designed to exhaust those who seek truth and justice.
The full mandamus petition is available here: Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Fifth Circuit's denial: 5th Circuit Denial 25-11213 - In re: Thomas Richards
Case docket: Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
We'll continue documenting every step of this process. Because the truth matters—even when every institution with power works to suppress it.
