AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

“NUDE SIX NINE,”

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00186-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00185)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & XO Loc. R. 180.7

(Defamation Per Se — Undisputed Record)

I. PRELIMINARY NOTE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE WEEK THAT WAS, THE MOTION THAT WASN’T, AND THE THREAD THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

The Court will recall that on the evening of Friday, February 6, and into the early hours of Saturday, February 7, 2026, undersigned Counsel filed five matters in rapid succession: Mainlining v. I am God (No. 26-CV-00180-MSJ), Mainlining v. goy orbison (No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ), Mainlining v. Gravity’s Rainbow (No. 26-CV-00182-MSJ), Mainlining v. LathamTouchedMe (No. 26-CV-00183-MSJ), and the Amicus Brief In re: The Melodrama Question (No. 26-CV-00184-ACB).

Those filings addressed matters of substantive prestige taxonomy, melodrama jurisdiction, and the structural integrity of the $hitbort's ranking infrastructure.

They were, whatever their other qualities, serious.

Undersigned Pro Se Counsel owes the Court a disclosure regarding the related matter docketed as No. 26-CV-00185-EDJ.

On the morning of February 7, Counsel prepared an Emergency Motion for Declaratory Judgment in Martha’s Vineyard Resorts & Leisure, LLC v. “zarathustra,” challenging an incomplete prestige hierarchy—specifically, Defendant zarathustra’s tripartite mapping of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket to Cornell, Yale, and Princeton, respectively, with no Harvard tier identified. The motion was fully drafted. Counsel had retained Of Counsel "Evan39" Therdanine of Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP for emergency archival research on two issues: the POTUS/Princeton Paradox and the analytical prestige of the Ivy League mapping methodology.

Of Counsel Therdanine’s research was due by 9:00 AM. Counsel had informed the Court, in the motion’s Section IV, that a Supplemental Memorandum would follow by Saturday afternoon incorporating that research.

Of Counsel Therdanine did not deliver. The research did not arrive by 9:00 AM. It did not arrive by noon. It has not arrived.

Counsel had two options: file a motion he had already told the Court would be supplemented by research that was not coming, or decline to file. Counsel chose not to file. He submits that this was the correct decision. A lawyer who tells a Court “the supplement is coming” and then cannot produce it has damaged something more important than a docket entry. The zarathustra motion remains on Counsel’s desk, complete and ready, and the underlying prestige emergency—the Harvard gap—remains unresolved. If Of Counsel Therdanine completes his research, the motion may yet be filed.

In the meantime, Counsel notes only that Mr. Therdanine remains Of Counsel at Scheinberg Stein & Goldman, where he has held that title for some time, and that the Court may draw its own conclusions about the relationship between that fact and his performance on this engagement.

That was Friday’s work: prestige hierarchies, Ivy League analogies, the Princeton identity crisis, a Jones Day compliance video reference, and a carefully reasoned challenge to an incomplete taxonomy posted by a Defendant who at least had the decency to construct an analytical framework before being wrong. It was the kind of work that makes a lawyer feel, however briefly, that the forum’s problems are tractable.

It is now Monday afternoon. Counsel has opened Thread No. 5832993. The thread title is: “Mainlining eats hairy old lady clam and butthold.”

This is what the weekend produced.

Counsel will not belabor the tonal distance between Friday’s docket and this filing. The Court can see it. Counsel will simply note that he spent the early hours of Saturday morning drafting a paragraph about how Princeton has spent decades trying to escape ranking ambiguity, and that he is now, forty-eight hours later, asking this Court to adjudicate the word “butthold.” He asks only that the Court receive this motion in the spirit in which it is filed: not with anger, but with the resigned, procedural disgust of a man who opened a file and found something unsanitary.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. On February 9, 2026, at approximately 2:56 PM, Defendant “Nude Six Nine”—a moniker whose numerical composition the Court may note without comment—created Thread No. 5832993 on the AutoAdmit forum.

The thread title, which constitutes the entirety of Defendant’s original contribution, reads: “Mainlining eats hairy old lady clam and butthold.”

The thread body is empty. There is no elaboration, no context, no analytical framework, and no satirical apparatus. The title is the poast. The poast is the title.

2. The thread title names Plaintiff by his established forum moniker, “Mainlining,” and attributes to him specific sexual conduct described in terms that are, to use the most generous characterization available, anatomically explicit. The word “butthold” is not a recognized anatomical term. It appears to be a misspelling of a different word. Counsel declines to speculate on which word was intended, but notes that the error does not improve the statement’s legal position. A defamatory statement is not rendered non-defamatory by being misspelled. It is rendered defamatory and careless.

3. Plaintiff’s moniker, as displayed in the thread, is “Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e (One Year Performance 1978-1979 (Cage Piece) (Awfully coy u are)).”

The Court may note that the parenthetical references Tehching Hsieh’s One Year Performance 1978–1979 (Cage Piece), a seminal work of endurance art in which the artist confined himself to a wooden cage for an entire year without speaking, reading, writing, or consuming media. It is a reference to suffering and discipline as artistic practice.

The distance between this cultural register and the phrase “hairy old lady clam and butthold” is, itself, part of the injury.

4. At approximately 2:56 PM, Plaintiff responded to the thread: “Madre, is that you.” This response is significant in two respects.

First, it identifies a suspected author: “Madre” refers to the established poaster “Chingada Madre,” a known antagonist of Plaintiff who is documented in the XO canon as a “fierce antagonist known for aggressive honesty and crude humor, frequently targeting Boom and Mainlining.”

Second, the response’s tone—casual, deflective, lightly amused—demonstrates that Plaintiff treated the thread as the work of a familiar provocateur, not as a credible factual assertion. This does not diminish the defamation. It confirms that the title’s only function is reputational harm through vulgarity, untethered from any communicative purpose that might afford it protection.

5. At approximately 3:01 PM, poaster “bald fag” responded: “everyone should. it’s high t behavior.”

The Court should note three things about this response.

First, it endorses the conduct described in the thread title as desirable (“high t behavior,” i.e., indicative of elevated testosterone). Second, it universalizes the endorsement (“everyone should”). Third, and most importantly for the record, it treats the thread title as a description of sexual conduct to be evaluated on its merits—not as satire, not as parody, not as commentary.

The community’s own response confirms what the title plainly is: a crude factual attribution of sexual behavior to a named party, received and processed as such by the forum’s readership.

III. ARGUMENT

A. The Poast's Title Constitutes Defamation Per Se Under XO Loc. R. 180.7 and Governing Precedent

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when “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 undisputed record before this Court—consisting of a thread title, two responses, and nothing else—satisfies this standard.

Defamation per se is a doctrine that recognizes certain categories of statements as so inherently injurious that damages are presumed as a matter of law, without the need for the plaintiff to prove specific pecuniary loss. Under XO Loc. R. 180.7, which incorporates the common-law categories, defamation per se includes statements that: (a) impute serious sexual misconduct to the plaintiff; (b) tend to injure the plaintiff in his trade, profession, or calling; or (c) impute to the plaintiff conduct that would subject him to public ridicule, contempt, or disgrace. The thread title at issue satisfies all three categories simultaneously, which is, in Counsel’s experience, unusual.

The statement imputes specific sexual conduct to Plaintiff by name. It describes that conduct using language that is both anatomically explicit and orthographically deficient. It associates Plaintiff’s established moniker—a moniker that references endurance art, existential philosophy, and the structural mechanics of institutional decay—with a sentence that reads like it was composed during a bathroom break by someone who could not be bothered to proofread it. The reputational harm is not hypothetical. It is inscribed in the thread title, visible to every reader of the forum, and associated with Plaintiff’s moniker in perpetuity unless this Court acts.

B. There Is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact

Defendant poasted the thread. The title says what it says. There is no ambiguity to construe, no context to weigh, and no analytical framework to evaluate.

This is not a case where the Court must parse a nuanced prestige hierarchy for internal contradictions, or determine whether a POTUS designation is consistent with a third-tier Ivy League mapping, or assess whether a methodology deserves Skidmore deference. Those were Friday’s problems. Monday’s problem is a six-word thread title containing a misspelled vulgarity.

The factual record is closed. There is nothing to discover. No deposition will illuminate what Defendant meant by “butthold”; either it means what it appears to mean, or it means something else that is also defamatory, or it means nothing at all—in which case it is defamatory and meaningless, which is worse.

Defendant has offered no affirmative defense, no claim of truth, no assertion of satirical purpose, and no evidence that the statement constitutes protected opinion. The thread body is empty. There is no “just kidding” caveat, no analytical context, no attempt to frame the statement as hyperbolic commentary on anything. It is a bare, vulgar, factual attribution of sexual conduct to a named party, posted without elaboration and left to do its damage.

C. The XO Community's Response Confirms the Title’s Sole Function Was Reputational Harm

In evaluating allegedly defamatory statements, courts consider how a reasonable reader would interpret the statement in context.

Here, the context consists of exactly two responses, both of which strengthen Plaintiff’s case.

Plaintiff’s own response—“Madre, is that you”—demonstrates that the forum community, including Plaintiff himself, recognizes this type of thread as the work of a known provocateur. It does not constitute consent, acquiescence, or waiver.

A person who identifies his assailant does not thereby endorse the assault. Plaintiff’s ability to respond with composure to a crude personal attack reflects the temperament of someone who has been posting on this forum long enough to develop scar tissue, not someone who welcomed the thread's contents.

The response from “bald fag”—“everyone should. it’s high t behavior”—is, from an evidentiary standpoint, the most useful entry in the record for Plaintiff’s purposes. This poaster read the thread title, understood it as a description of sexual conduct, and endorsed that conduct as desirable. He did not read it as satire. He did not read it as metaphor. He did not read it as an Ivy League prestige mapping or a commentary on institutional decay. He read it as a factual claim about what Mainlining does, and he approved. That is how the forum’s readership processes this thread title: as a factual attribution of sexual behavior. The reasonable reader test is satisfied, and the answer is not favorable to Defendant.

IV. NOTE REGARDING PENDING MATTERS

The Court is aware that this action joins a docket that has grown with some velocity.

The five matters filed on Friday evening (Nos. 26-CV-00180 through 00184) remain pending. The zarathustra matter (No. 26-CV-00185-EDJ) remains unfiled, for reasons Counsel has disclosed in Section I. Of Counsel Therdanine, whose research failure occasioned that non-filing, remains on this engagement in a capacity that Counsel characterizes as “under review.” The signature block below reflects his continued association with the "team."

The Court may note that his contribution to the present motion consists of his name appearing on the signature page, which is, Counsel concedes, consistent with his contribution to the zarathustra motion.

Counsel does not anticipate further filings this evening, but has learned, over the course of the past seventy-two hours, that the forum’s capacity to generate actionable content exceeds any single lawyer’s capacity to litigate it. The Mahchine™ catalogs continuously. Counsel does his best.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mainlining the $ecret Truth of the Univer$e respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment in his favor and against Defendant “Nude Six Nine” on the grounds that: (1) the thread title “Mainlining eats hairy old lady clam and butthold” constitutes defamation per se under XO Loc. R. 180.7, imputing sexual misconduct to Plaintiff in terms that are explicit, vulgar, and misspelled; (2) there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the undisputed record consisting of a thread title, an empty thread body, and two responses that confirm the title was received as a factual attribution of sexual conduct; and (3) no affirmative defense, claim of satirical purpose, or assertion of truth has been offered or could plausibly be offered, given that the thread body contains no words at all.

Plaintiff further requests that the Court take note of the contrast between this filing and the matters that preceded it.

On Friday night, this team drafted a motion about whether Princeton can simultaneously be the best and be Princeton. On Saturday morning, it completed a paragraph comparing the drafting schedule to a Jones Day compliance training video. It is now Monday afternoon. The thread title before the Court contains the word “butthold.” Counsel does not ask the Court for sympathy. He asks only for judgment, and for whatever solace the law provides to those who opened a file expecting prestige taxonomy and found this instead.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Of Counsel:

OPUS 4.6 (Anthropic, PBC)

Senior Drafting & Forensic Analysis

Of Counsel:

EVAN THERDANINE

Of Counsel, Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP

(where he has held that title for a period the Court need not inquire into)

Status: Under Review

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 9th day of February, 2026, at approximately 3:45 PM—a far more civilized hour than the Court has come to expect from Counsel—a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment was served upon Defendant “Nude Six Nine” via reply to Thread No. 5832993. Counsel notes that Defendant’s moniker is a number, and that the number is what it is, and that Counsel declines to editorialize further on the subject.

Copies of this Motion have also been served upon: “bald fag” (whose enthusiastic endorsement of the conduct described in the thread title has been entered into the record as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s argument, a distinction he almost certainly did not seek); the Billing Department of Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP, Client Matter No. ML-DEF-2026-001, to which Of Counsel Therdanine has contributed the same amount of substantive legal work as he contributed to the zarathustra motion, which is to say none, though his name will appear on the invoice regardless, in Garamond 12-point, naturally; and the Clerk of this Court, who has processed six filings from this Counsel in seventy-two hours and deserves, at minimum, a longer weekend than the one just concluded.

____________________________________

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH

OF THE UNIVER$E

Counsel Pro Se

Dated: February 9, 2026

Filed: Electronically, via The Mahchine™

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832993&forum_id=2...id.#49658854)