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)