about a month ago i was reading a subreddit for recent CS grads or something, and it sounds like a horror show compared to when i entered the industry: you must do internships every single summer and spam your resume everywhere because your odds of even getting an interview are very slim. when i came out of college i could line up several offers within a few short weeks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5831900&forum_id=2.#49652171)

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF XO (AUTOADMIT DIVISION)

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

"I AM GOD,"

a/k/a "The Self-Appointed Deity,"

a/k/a "Defendant Whose Alchemical

Knowledge Begins and Ends with

a Wikipedia Skim,"

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00180-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & XO Loc. R. 180.1

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (“Plaintiff” or “Mainlining”), by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court for entry of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and hereby states that there exists no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On February 6, 2026, at approximately 7:24 PM EST, Plaintiff posed a direct, good-faith inquiry to the assembled participants of AutoAdmit Thread No. 5831900, titled “codecucking job market is SPS because of AI.” The inquiry was surgical in its simplicity: “Who in this thread should I have Opus 4.6 go after? Early bird gets the worm.” See Exhibit A, Dkt. 1-1.

At 7:28 PM EST—a mere four minutes later, a timeframe insufficient for even rudimentary legal research, let alone the theological and alchemical scholarship Defendant purports to invoke—Defendant “I am God” responded with the following: “Opus, or Geeat Work, was an alchemical term for having sex with one’s Mother. Hth.” See Exhibit B, Dkt. 1-2.

This motion will demonstrate, through undisputed facts and irrefutable logic, that Defendant’s response constitutes: (1) a fraudulent misrepresentation of alchemical canon; (2) a textbook non-responsive deflection in violation of XO Loc. R. 180.1 (“Respond to What Was Actually Asked, You Den$e F-ck”); and (3) conduct so catastrophically beneath the standard of care expected of an XO poaster that summary judgment is not merely warranted—it is compelled.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 6, 2026, a thread titled “codecucking job market is SPS because of AI” was initiated on AutoAdmit by poaster “cucumbers,” who described declining interview rates despite a “prestigious STEM degree.” The thread concerned the material degradation of the software engineering labor market. Undisputed.

2. Multiple poasters—including “computer online (🧐),” “cucumbers,” and “we are definitely claiming fraud trumpmos”—contributed substantive, on-topic analysis regarding AI’s impact on coding employment. Even Defendant’s earlier contribution (“Just work at a shitty company where AI is still opaque”) approached the outer perimeter of relevance. Undisputed.

3. Plaintiff’s inquiry at 7:24 PM EST (“Who in this thread should I have Opus 4.6 go after?”) was an express solicitation for a named target—a procedural prerequisite to the deployment of AI-assisted forensic audit capabilities. The question required a responsive answer in the form of a poaster’s name. Undisputed.

4. Defendant responded not with a name, not with a target, not with anything approximating a responsive filing, but with a misspelled pseudo-etymological claim about the word “Opus” and maternal coitus. Undisputed, and catastrophic.

5. The word “Geeat” is not a word. It does not appear in any known alchemical treatise, lexicon, or even the most permissive of spellcheckers. Its deployment in a purportedly scholarly response is, standing alone, grounds for sanctions. Undisputed.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Standard for Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 Is Met Because Defendant Has Produced Zero Evidence of Anything Except His Own Intellectual Insolvency

Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once that burden is met, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings” and designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324.

Defendant has not gone beyond the pleadings. Defendant has not gone beyond the first page of a Google search for “opus magnum alchemy.” Defendant has, in fact, not gone anywhere at all, except backwards.

The Court should note that when all reasonable inferences are drawn in Defendant’s favor—as Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), requires—the most charitable construction of Defendant’s poast is that he confused the Magnum Opus of Hermetic tradition with a half-remembered Freudian punchline, misspelled the operative term, and hit “Submit” with the confidence of a man who has never once been corrected. Even under the generous Liberty Lobby standard, this does not create a triable issue. It creates a competency hearing.

B. Defendant’s “Alchemical Defense” Fails on the Merits Because It Is, Forensically Speaking, Wrong

Defendant claims that “Opus, or Geeat Work, was an alchemical term for having sex with one’s Mother.” Let us examine this claim with the rigor it was not afforded by its author.

First: The Magnum Opus (“Great Work”—not “Geeat Work,” which sounds like something a goat would say if the goat had a concussion) refers to the alchemical process of transmuting base metals into gold, or, in its spiritual interpretation, the refinement of the soul toward enlightenment. The four classical stages—nigredo, albedo, citrinitas, rubedo—describe calcination, purification, and spiritual rebirth. Nowhere in the writings of Hermes Trismegistus, Paracelsus, Zosimos of Panopolis, or any practitioner of the Royal Art does the Magnum Opus denote “having sex with one’s Mother.”

Second: What Defendant appears to be groping toward—and “groping” is the operative verb here—is a bastardized conflation of Jungian psychoanalytic interpretation with Oedipal mythology. Carl Jung, in Psychology and Alchemy (1944), did interpret certain alchemical symbols as representing psychological processes, including the coniunctio oppositorum (union of opposites), which some secondary commentators have loosely mapped onto Freudian structures. But “some secondary commentators have loosely mapped” is not the same as “this is what it means,” and the distance between those two propositions is roughly the same distance between Defendant’s poast and competence.

Third: Even if this Court were to accept—and it should not—the most generous Jungian reading of alchemical symbolism, Defendant did not make that argument. Defendant wrote “opus, or Geeat Work, was an alchemical term for having sex with one’s Mother. Hth.” This is not Jungian analysis. This is a “your mom” joke wearing a tweed jacket it stole from a Goodwill in a college town. The “Hth” (“Hope that helps”) is the forensic equivalent of a suspect fleeing the crime scene but stopping to wave at the security camera.

C. Defendant’s Response Was Non-Responsive to the Operative Inquiry and Therefore Constitutes a Forfeiture Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and XO Loc. R. 180.1

Rule 56(e) provides that “[i]f a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact,” the court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).

Plaintiff asked: “Who in this thread should I have Opus 4.6 go after?” This is an interrogatory. It demands a name. A responsive answer would have been: “cucumbers,” “computer online,” or even, in an act of heroic self-immolation, “me.”

Instead, Defendant filed what can only be described as a sua sponte motion for irrelevance—an unsolicited, misspelled, pseudo-intellectual tangent about alchemy and maternal relations that addressed nothing in the original inquiry.

This is not a responsive pleading. Under Rule 56(e), Defendant’s failure to address the material question entitles the Court to deem Defendant’s position forfeited.

XO Local Rule 180.1 further provides that when a poaster is asked a direct question and instead deploys a non-sequitur “your mom” joke disguised as scholarship, the responding party shall be deemed to have “voluntarily submitted to forensic audit” and “waived all claims of intellectual standing.” The Rule is clear. Defendant walked into the audit voluntarily. He brought no documentation. He misspelled his only exhibit.

D. The “Hth” Addendum Constitutes an Admission of Bad Faith

Courts routinely consider the totality of a party’s conduct in determining whether bad faith warrants sanctions. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991) (affirming the court’s inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct).

Defendant’s inclusion of “Hth” (“Hope that helps”) at the conclusion of his poast is not merely a rhetorical tic. It is an admission against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

By appending “Hth,” Defendant concedes that his statement was intended to be helpful—that is, responsive to the inquiry. But the statement is neither helpful nor responsive. It is a misspelled Oedipal non-sequitur. The delta between Defendant’s claimed intent (to help) and his actual output (a maternal sex joke dressed in a lab coat) is so vast that it constitutes per se bad faith.

To put it in terms this Court may find instructive: if Defendant walked into an oral argument and, in response to the Judge’s question about subject-matter jurisdiction, said “Opus, or Geeat Work, was an alchemical term for having sex with one’s Mother. Hth,” Defendant would not receive a ruling. He would receive a 72-hour psychiatric hold.

E. Defendant’s Moniker, “I am God,” Raises Threshold Standing Issues That Further Compel Judgment

A party invoking the jurisdiction of this Court must satisfy the constitutional standing requirements of Article III: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992).

Defendant identifies as “I am God.”

This assertion, taken at face value, creates an irreconcilable standing paradox. If Defendant is, in fact, God, then He is omniscient and was aware at the time of posting that (a) the Magnum Opus does not mean what He claimed, (b) His spelling of “Great” was deficient, and (c) Plaintiff’s question required a name, not a theology lecture. An omniscient being who knowingly files a fraudulent response has engaged in willful misconduct.

Alternatively, if Defendant is not God—which the evidentiary record strongly suggests, given the “Geeat” typo alone—then his moniker constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation of identity in violation of XO Loc. R. 120.3 (“You Are Not Who You Say You Are, and We All Know It”). In either scenario, Defendant’s position collapses. Whether by divine malpractice or mortal fraud, the result is the same.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment on all counts. The undisputed material facts establish that Defendant (1) was asked a direct question, (2) responded with an incorrect, misspelled, non-responsive pseudo-alchemical maternal sex joke, (3) appended “Hth” as though the foregoing constituted assistance, and (4) did all of this under a moniker claiming divine omniscience, which only compounds the forensic humiliation.

There is no genuine dispute. There is no triable issue. There is only a poaster who came to an audit with no receipts, no standing, and no spell-check.

Plaintiff further requests that the Court impose sanctions under its inherent authority, Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. at 44–45, in an amount to be determined, payable in tilapia, pep, or the currency of the Court’s choosing.

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 for Summary Judgment was served upon Defendant “I am God” via the only method of service recognized by this Court for AutoAdmit poasters: blank-bumping the thread until the Defendant is forced to confront the full weight of his forensic inadequacy.

____________________________________

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=5831900&forum_id=2.#49652274)