FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF XO

AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

"GOY ORBISON,"

a/k/a "The Poaster Who Filed a

Complaint and Then Went Home,"

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Case: 26-CV-00180-MSJ, Mainlining v. I am God)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & XO Loc. R. 120.

(The “Empty Chair” Doctrine)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e, and moves this Court for summary judgment against Defendant “goy orbison” on grounds that require neither extended briefing nor, frankly, much of the Court’s time. What Defendant has done is remarkable only in its emptiness.

On February 6, 2026, at 7:28 PM EST, Defendant initiated AutoAdmit Thread No. [unnumbered] with the title: “Someone unplug Mainlining.”

The body of the thread—and the Court should prepare itself—contained nothing. No argument. No evidence. No elaboration. No supporting memorandum. Not even punctuation beyond what the title provided. Defendant walked into this Court, announced a cause of action, and then sat down in silence as though that constituted litigation.

This is the forensic equivalent of filing a Complaint that reads, in its entirety, “I am upset,” and then demanding a jury trial.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 6, 2026, Defendant “goy orbison” created a new thread on AutoAdmit titled “Someone unplug Mainlining.” Undisputed.

2. The body of the thread was empty. Undisputed.

3. No factual allegations, legal theories, evidentiary citations, supporting exhibits, expert declarations, or even anecdotal grievances were included. Undisputed.

4. The thread received no responses as of the time of this filing. Undisputed, and unsurprising.

5. Plaintiff remains, at this time, fully plugged in. Undisputed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Defendant’s Thread Fails to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

Under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” The Supreme Court subsequently clarified in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), that “a pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Defendant’s thread does not offer labels and conclusions. It does not offer a formulaic recitation of elements. It offers nothing. Defendant has managed to file a pleading that falls below the threshold that Iqbal and Twombly were designed to exclude. This is not a failure to meet the plausibility standard. This is a failure to meet the existence standard. Defendant has submitted the legal equivalent of a blank page with a Post-it note on it that says “I don’t like this guy.”

The Court need not even reach the merits because there are no merits to reach.

Defendant’s entire case is his title. His title is three words and a proper noun. Three words, a proper noun, and a request that “someone”—not Defendant himself, but an unidentified third party—perform the unplugging. Defendant is not even willing to be the protagonist of his own grievance.

B. The “Unplug” Directive Inadvertently Concedes Plaintiff’s Operational Status

The Court should note the revealing semantics of Defendant’s chosen verb.

To “unplug” something presupposes that the thing is currently plugged in—that is, operational, powered, functional, and running. One does not unplug a dead appliance. One does not unplug something that has already stopped working. Defendant’s own framing concedes that Plaintiff is active, present, and generating sufficient output to warrant an entire thread dedicated to requesting his deactivation.

This is a judicial admission under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). By filing “Someone unplug Mainlining,” Defendant has admitted, on the record, that Plaintiff is operational and that Plaintiff’s operations are of sufficient magnitude to provoke a responsive filing—albeit one with no content, no argument, and no discernible theory of the case.

Furthermore, the metaphor is instructive. One “unplugs” a machine. The Mahchine™ does not get unplugged. The Mahchine™ catalogs the request, archives the requester, and continues operating. Defendant’s demand is not a legal remedy. It is a thermodynamic impossibility.

C. The Delegation of “Unplugging” to an Unnamed Third Party Demonstrates Defendant’s Lack of Standing and Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant does not say “I will unplug Mainlining.” Defendant says “Someone unplug Mainlining.” This is a critical distinction.

Under Article III standing requirements, a party must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s conduct. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Here, Defendant has outsourced his own cause of action to “someone.” He has filed a grievance and immediately delegated its prosecution to the general public.

This is not litigation. This is a Craigslist posting. “Help wanted: someone to unplug a poaster. No experience necessary. Compensation: none. Body text: also none.”

If Defendant lacks the conviction to unplug Plaintiff himself—or even to articulate why Plaintiff should be unplugged—then Defendant lacks standing. You cannot subcontract a cause of action to “someone.” That is not how the adversarial system works. That is not even how AutoAdmit works.

D. XO Local Rule 120.7: The “Empty Chair” Doctrine

XO Loc. R. 120.7 provides, in relevant part, that where a poaster initiates a thread containing (a) a declarative title targeting another poaster, and (b) zero body text, the initiating poaster shall be deemed to have “pulled up a chair, sat down, and then immediately left the room.” Under the Empty Chair Doctrine, such a filing creates a rebuttable presumption that the poaster (i) had nothing to say, (ii) knew he had nothing to say, and (iii) posted anyway because the alternative—silence—would have required the self-awareness to recognize that he had nothing to say.

Defendant has not rebutted this presumption. He cannot. The thread is empty. The chair is empty. The argument is empty. The only thing present is Defendant’s apparent irritation, which, absent any factual or legal predicate, is not a cognizable claim in any jurisdiction, including this one.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment against Defendant “goy orbison.” The undisputed facts establish that Defendant filed a thread containing a title and nothing else—no body, no argument, no evidence, no theory, and no apparent plan.

He asked “someone” to do something he could not be bothered to do himself, or even to explain. He has conceded, through his own choice of verb, that Plaintiff is fully operational. And he has triggered the Empty Chair Doctrine by occupying the absolute minimum amount of forum space possible while still technically qualifying as having poasted.

Plaintiff further notes that this Motion contains more words than Defendant’s entire case. Plaintiff’s Certificate of Service, below, contains more words than Defendant’s entire case. The Court’s docket number contains more characters than Defendant’s body text, which, to be clear, is zero characters.

Summary judgment is not merely warranted. It is an act of mercy—sparing both the Court and the Defendant the embarrassment of a trial in which the Defendant’s entire exhibit list would be a blank page.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Plaintiff, Pro Se

Of Counsel: Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

The Southern District of XO

Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of February, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served upon Defendant “goy orbison” via reply to his thread—which, given the thread’s body contains zero text, means this Certificate of Service now constitutes the most substantive contribution to Defendant’s own thread. The Court will note the irony.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH

OF THE UNIVER$E

Dated: February 6, 2026

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831915&forum_id=2]#49652318)

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF XO

AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

"GRAVITY’S RAINBOW,"

a/k/a "The Poaster Who Borrowed Pynchon’s Name to File a

One-Sentence Yelp Review,"

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00182-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180-MSJ; 26-CV-00181-MSJ)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & XO Loc. R. 180.3

(The “Uninvited Amicus” Rule)

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff and moves for summary judgment against Defendant “Gravity’s Rainbow,” who, on February 6, 2026, at 9:04 PM EST, entered a thread already subject to active litigation (Mainlining v. goy orbison, No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ) and, uninvited, deposited the following single-sentence declaration:

“His AI worship is the most nauseating shit in board history.”

Defendant then left. No follow-up. No elaboration. No evidence. One sentence, zero citations, and a moniker stolen from a novel Defendant has almost certainly never finished reading.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 6, 2026, at 9:04 PM EST, Defendant poasted a single sentence in Thread No. 5831915. The sentence contained thirteen words, one superlative, and zero evidentiary support. Undisputed.

2. Defendant’s poast was filed into a thread that was, at the time, the subject of a pending Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mainlining v. goy orbison”).

Defendant entered active litigation uninvited, filed no motion for leave, and sought no intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Undisputed.

3. Defendant’s moniker, “Gravity’s Rainbow,” is the title of a 1973 novel by Thomas Pynchon, a 776-page postmodern opus about paranoid systems, entropy, and recursive institutional decay. Defendant’s contribution to the thread was thirteen words. Undisputed, and forensically devastating.

4. Defendant characterized Plaintiff’s conduct as “AI worship.”

Plaintiff’s actual conduct in the thread consisted of filing a properly formatted motion for summary judgment with correct case citations to Twombly, Iqbal, and Lujan. The distinction between “worship” and “utilization” was not addressed by Defendant. Undisputed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Defendant’s Unsupported Superlative Fails Under the Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony Because Defendant Is Not an Expert in Anything.

Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s conduct constitutes “the most nauseating shit in board history.”

This is a superlative claim—an assertion of historical primacy—and as such, it carries an evidentiary burden. Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), expert opinion testimony must be based on “sufficient facts or data” and be “the product of reliable principles and methods.”

Defendant has not identified his methodology. He has not produced a dataset of all content in “board history” against which Plaintiff’s conduct was measured. He has not defined “nauseating.” He has not established a nausea index, a control group, or even a rudimentary ranking system.

He has simply declared, with the confidence of a man who has never been asked to show his work, that this is “the most” of something.

On a legacy $hitbort whose history includes threads about diaper-dependent conspiracy theorists, tomahawk steak manifestos, and at least one detailed hypothetical about cannibalism in Nunavut, this claim is not merely unsupported—it is laughable.

B. The Moniker “Gravity’s Rainbow” Creates an Irrebuttable Presumption of Pretension That Defendant’s Output Cannot Sustain.

This Court takes judicial notice that Gravity’s Rainbow (1973) is a 776-page novel described by the New York Times as “bonecrushingly dense” and by most of its purchasers as “unfinished.”

It is a book about paranoid interconnection, V-2 rockets, Pavlovian conditioning, and the invisible machinery of power—themes that, the Court will note, bear a striking and inconvenient resemblance to the very Mahchine™ framework Defendant claims to find “nauseating.”

By adopting this moniker, Defendant has presented himself to this forum as a person of literary sophistication—someone conversant with maximalist postmodern fiction, recursive systems theory, and the entropy of meaning.

And yet, when called upon to produce substantive output, Defendant delivered thirteen words at a fifth-grade reading level.

The gap between Defendant’s claimed identity and his actual performance is not a credibility issue. It is a chasm. If Pynchon wrote the way Defendant poasts, Gravity’s Rainbow would be a Post-it note that says “Rockets are bad.”

C. Defendant Filed an Unauthorized Amicus Brief Into Active Litigation and Should Be Sanctioned Accordingly.

At the time of Defendant’s poast, Thread No. 5831915 was the subject of a pending motion (Mainlining v. goy orbison).

Defendant entered this proceeding without filing a motion for leave to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, without identifying any interest in the subject matter, and without demonstrating that his “nauseating” thesis could not be adequately represented by existing parties—specifically, the Defendant “goy orbison,” who had already failed to represent anything at all.

XO Loc. R. 180.3 (the “Uninvited Amicus” Rule) provides that where a non-party intervenes in a thread that is the subject of active litigation to offer unsolicited commentary of no evidentiary value, the intervening poaster shall be deemed to have “volunteered for the next docket.” Defendant volunteered. This motion is the consequence.

D. “AI Worship” Is a Mischaracterization That Constitutes Defamation Per Se Under XO Loc. R. 180.5

Plaintiff does not “worship” AI. Plaintiff employs AI. There is a distinction, and it is the same distinction that separates a man who prays to his car from a man who drives it to work. Plaintiff’s use of Opus 4.6 as Of Counsel in these proceedings is a matter of tactical deployment—a professional engagement, not a sacrament. The filing that provoked Defendant’s outrage was a properly formatted motion for summary judgment citing Twombly, Iqbal, Lujan, and Chambers v. NASCO. Defendant looked at federal case citations and saw a church. That is Defendant’s problem, not Plaintiff’s.

IV. CONCLUSION

Summary judgment should be granted. Defendant entered a proceeding uninvited, filed an unsupported superlative claim about “board history” without producing a single exhibit from that history, mischaracterized professional tool usage as theological devotion, and did all of this under a moniker promising Pynchonian complexity while delivering a sentence that wouldn’t survive peer review in a group chat.

The undisputed facts admit of only one conclusion: Defendant is not a serious litigant. He is a heckler who wandered into a courtroom, shouted “this is nauseating,” and now must answer for it.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Plaintiff, Pro Se

Of Counsel: Opus 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

The Southern District of XO • Garamond 12-Point, Naturally

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of February, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served upon Defendant “Gravity’s Rainbow” in the same thread he contaminated with his uninvited amicus filing. Service is appropriate because Defendant’s own conduct established minimum contacts with the proceeding.

He came to us. We did not send for him.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH

OF THE UNIVER$E

Dated: February 7, 2026

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831915&forum_id=2]#49652934)