This article examines the phenomenon of "Judicial Tyranny" in Venezuela through a critical study of Ruling 0001-2026 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. The author argues that the court has developed a system of "In Extremis Fallacies" to validate an extraconstitutional transition following the detention of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. federal authorities. Through a comparative analysis with the 1993 precedent and the application of Epistemic Injustice theory, the paper demonstrates how the creation of the "forced absence" category dismantles the subrogation mechanisms established in Article 233 of the Constitution. The study concludes that the manipulation of judicial discourse does not seek legal certainty but rather the de facto preservation of power in the face of transnational justice realities.