AUTOADMIT DIVISION

MAINLINING THE $ECRET TRUTH OF THE UNIVER$E,

Plaintiff,

v.

“TANCREDI MARCHIOLO,”

Defendant.

Case No. 26-CV-00187-MSJ

Hon. Judge Garamond T. Compliance, III

Magistrate: The Mahchine™

(Related Cases: 26-CV-00180 through 00186)

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & XO Loc. R. 180.7 / 180.9

(Defamation Per Se & Simulated Assault — Two Counts)

I. PRELIMINARY NOTE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE SECOND FILING OF THE AFTERNOON, THE BEAVERS, AND THE LIMITS OF PRO SE PATIENCE

This is Pro Se Counsel’s second filing this afternoon. This is Pro Se Counsel’s seventh filing in this Court since Friday evening.

At some point, the Court may reasonably ask whether the problem is the forum or the lawyer. Counsel submits that it is XO. But he concedes that a lawyer who has now opened seven docket numbers in seventy-two hours has, at minimum, lost the ability to claim that this behavior is unusual.

This motion arises from Thread No. 5832989, which Plaintiff initiated at 2:52 PM today, February 9, 2026, by sharing an article from The Colorado Sun titled “Colorado beavers: Nuisance or a necessity?” The article concerns wildlife management, conservation policy, and the ecological role of beavers in Colorado’s watershed infrastructure. It is, by any measure, a substantive contribution to the $hitbort’s discourse—the kind of poast that invites genuine engagement with a question of environmental policy relevant to Plaintiff’s home state.

What followed was an endorsement (“Beavers are 180”), a contextual elaboration on the historical conflict between ranchers and beavers, and then—from Defendant “tancredi marchiolo”—a political mischaracterization, a threat of interspecies revolution, and a simulated physical assault with a beaver tail.

The previous motion filed this afternoon, Mainlining v. Nude Six Nine (No. 26-CV-00186-MSJ), concerned a six-word thread title containing a misspelling of an anatomical term. Counsel described that motion as the work of “resigned, procedural disgust.”

This motion is different. This motion concerns a Defendant who entered a thread about beavers, did not read it, called the thread’s author a “shitlib,” and then slapped him with an imaginary beaver tail.

The disgust here is not resigned. It is confused. Counsel is not angry. He is genuinely uncertain how a thread about Colorado wildlife policy produced a political attack and a simulated assault in under seven minutes.

II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

1. At 2:52 PM on February 9, 2026, Plaintiff created Thread No. 5832989 by sharing a Colorado Sun article examining whether beavers are a nuisance or a necessity in Colorado’s wildlife management framework. The thread title was: “Are beavers a nuisance or a necessity?” The thread body contained a hyperlink to the article. This is the entirety of Plaintiff’s thread-initiating contribution: a question and a source. There is no editorial commentary, no political framing, and no anti-beaver sentiment of any kind.

2. At 2:53 PM, poaster “goy orbison” responded: “Beavers are 180.”

The Court should pause on this entry for a procedural reason that Counsel is obligated to disclose. Poaster “goy orbison” is the named Defendant in Mainlining v. goy orbison (No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ), filed by this same Counsel on Friday evening. He is, as of this writing, an active adverse party in a pending action before this same Court.

He is also, in this thread, a favorable witness.

Counsel acknowledges that the spectacle of an active defendant appearing as a friendly witness for the Plaintiff who is suing him is not typical federal practice. He submits that it is, however, typical of this forum. “Beavers are 180” is a clear, unambiguous endorsement of beavers—the highest possible XO rating—and it was the first substantive response in the thread. The evidentiary value of this statement is not diminished by the fact that its author is currently being sued by Plaintiff in a separate matter. If anything, the endorsement is stronger: a poaster with no reason to do Plaintiff any favors nevertheless confirmed, immediately, that the thread’s posture was pro-beaver.

The Court may note the procedural absurdity. Counsel certainly has.

3. At 2:54 PM, Plaintiff contributed a substantive follow-up: “Sam Pierce’s ranching ancestors used to blast beavers and their dams and lodges with dynamite. They viewed beavers as nuisances—nothing more than big rats that flooded their fields and could scramble water rights with their diversions.”

This response provides historical context from the article. It describes a ranching family’s past hostility toward beavers in order to frame the article’s central question: whether that hostility was justified. It is, by any literate reading, a contribution to the conservation narrative—not an endorsement of dynamiting beavers.

Reading it as anti-beaver requires either not reading it or not understanding it. Defendant managed both.

4. At 2:54 PM—the same minute as Plaintiff’s historical contribution—Defendant “tancredi marchiolo” responded: “keep talking shit about beavers shitlib.”

This is the first of Defendant’s three poasts in this thread, and it is the most legally significant. It contains two distinct wrongs.

First, the factual mischaracterization: “keep talking shit about beavers.” The thread record is undisputed. Plaintiff shared a conservation article. Plaintiff’s co-poaster endorsed beavers as “180.” Plaintiff’s own follow-up provided historical context about ranching practices that the article examines critically. At no point did anyone in this thread “talk shit about beavers.” The accusation is not merely wrong. It is the opposite of what happened. It is the kind of error that can only be produced by a poaster who entered the thread, skipped every preceding entry, and attacked based on a question mark in the thread title.

Second, the political epithet: “shitlib.” This term attributes to Plaintiff a specific political identity—left-liberal—as a pejorative. The attribution is factually baseless: the thread contains no political content whatsoever. It contains a wildlife article, a “180” endorsement, and a historical note about ranching. The “shitlib” label was not derived from anything Plaintiff said or implied. It was imported into the thread by a Defendant who could not be bothered to read what he was responding to, and who apparently believes that sharing a Colorado Sun article about beavers constitutes a political act.

5. At 2:56 PM, Defendant poasted again: “imo beavers should rise up over the human menace.” This contribution is noted for the record. It is not independently actionable, but it confirms that Defendant’s engagement with the thread is governed by impulse rather than comprehension. Having accused Plaintiff of being anti-beaver, Defendant now reveals himself to be not merely pro-beaver but pro-beaver-revolution.

The Court may note the irony: Defendant attacked the most pro-beaver thread on the $hitbort for being insufficiently pro-beaver.

6. At 2:57 PM, poaster “Christoph Waltz stare (🐾👣)” responded with: “…” This is a blank-bump—a silent entry that functions, in the XO lexicon, as mute observation. The paw-print emoji in the moniker suggests a wildlife-adjacent sensibility. The silence suggests that even the thread’s observers recognized that something had gone wrong.

7. At 2:58 PM, Plaintiff responded: “? Im not a shitlib.”

Two elements of this response require the Court’s attention.

The first is the denial itself: “Im not a shitlib.” This is a direct, unambiguous rejection of the political label. The denial is supported by the thread record, which contains no political content, and by the context of Plaintiff’s contribution, which was a wildlife conservation article from a Colorado newspaper.

The second is the “?” that precedes it. On its face, the question mark expresses bewilderment—the natural response of a poaster who shared a beaver article and was called a shitlib for it. The Court may also note, for whatever it deems relevant, that the single-character “?” is a documented rhetorical device in the XO canon, associated with a specific register of deflection. It is the response of someone who has been mischaracterized so completely that a full rebuttal would dignify the accusation more than it deserves. Plaintiff chose the minimum viable denial. The record supports it.

8. At 2:59 PM, Defendant poasted his final contribution to the thread: “*slaps u w a 2lb beaver tail*.”

This is a simulated physical assault. The asterisks denote action text—a convention in online communication indicating that the author is describing a physical act rather than a verbal statement. Defendant describes striking Plaintiff with a two-pound beaver tail. The specificity of the weight (“2lb”) suggests premeditation, or at minimum a familiarity with beaver tail mass that Counsel finds unsettling.

The act is directed at Plaintiff personally (“u”). It follows, in sequence: a mischaracterization, a political slur, a call for beaver revolution, and now a physical attack with a wildlife appendage. The escalation pattern is complete.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Count I: The “Shitlib” Designation Constitutes Defamation Per Se on an Undisputed Record

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Under XO Loc. R. 180.7, defamation per se includes statements that impute to the plaintiff conduct, characteristics, or associations that subject him to public ridicule, contempt, or disgrace.

The term “shitlib” attributes a specific political identity to Plaintiff as a pejorative. In the context of this forum—where political labels carry reputational weight and are deployed as instruments of factional combat—the term is not casual. It is a classification. And it is a classification that the thread record conclusively disproves.

The record before the Court is closed and undisputed.

Plaintiff shared a conservation article. The first response endorsed beavers as “180.” Plaintiff’s follow-up provided historical context about ranching and beavers. There is no political content in this thread. There is no liberal content, no conservative content, and no content of any ideological valence whatsoever. There are beavers. There is a newspaper article about beavers. There is a historical note about ranchers and beavers. And there is Defendant, who read none of it and called Plaintiff a “shitlib” anyway.

The defamation-per-se standard does not require Plaintiff to prove specific damages. It requires only that the statement, on its face, falls within a recognized category of per se harm. A false political epithet directed at a named party, in a public forum, based on a demonstrable misreading of that party’s own words, satisfies the standard. The thread record is the proof. There is nothing to discover.

Defendant’s reading comprehension is not a genuine dispute of material fact. It is an undisputed failure.

B. Count II: The Beaver Tail Slap Constitutes Simulated Assault Under XO Loc. R. 180.9

XO Loc. R. 180.9 provides that “any poast depicting, simulating, or narrating a physical act directed at a named party—whether through action-text asterisks, narrative description, or other performative convention—constitutes simulated assault where the act described would, if performed, cause physical contact with the targeted party.”

Defendant’s poast—“*slaps u w a 2lb beaver tail*”—satisfies every element. The asterisks signal action text. The verb is “slaps.” The target is “u,” referring to Plaintiff. The instrument is a two-pound beaver tail, which is a real object with a real weight that Defendant took the time to specify. Counsel does not know why Defendant knows the weight of a beaver tail. Counsel does not wish to know. What Counsel knows is that the act described—striking another person with a flat, scaled, two-pound appendage—would, if performed in the physical world, constitute battery.

The simulated assault is the final entry in a seven-minute escalation pattern: mischaracterization (2:54 PM), political slur (2:54 PM), revolutionary manifesto (2:56 PM), and physical attack (2:59 PM). Each step raised the stakes. Defendant did not begin the thread intending to slap Plaintiff with a beaver tail—or if he did, the Court has larger problems than this motion can address.

The escalation from “shitlib” to beaver-tail battery in five minutes is the conduct of a poaster who entered a thread without reading it and, having committed to a position the record did not support, chose violence over retreat.

IV. NOTE REGARDING PENDING MATTERS AND THE STATE OF THE DOCKET

The Court’s docket in the Mainlining matters now includes: five filings from Friday evening (Nos. 26-CV-00180 through 00184); the unfiled zarathustra motion (No. 26-CV-00185-EDJ), for which Of Counsel “Evan39” Therdanine’s research remains outstanding; the Nude Six Nine defamation action filed earlier this afternoon (No. 26-CV-00186-MSJ); and this motion (No. 26-CV-00187-MSJ).

That is seven docketed matters and one ghost filing in seventy-two hours.

Of Counsel "Evan39" Therdanine remains associated with this engagement in a status that Counsel has previously characterized as “under review.” His contribution to the present motion is consistent with his contribution to the preceding two: his name appears on the signature page. Counsel has ceased expecting more and has adjusted the billing narrative accordingly.

Counsel does not anticipate further filings this evening but has now said that twice before and been wrong both times.

The $hitbort continues to produce actionable content at a rate that exceeds Counsel’s capacity to file motions, which itself exceeds any reasonable expectation of what a single pro se litigant should be doing on a Monday afternoon.

Counsel notes only that he began this day intending to share a newspaper article about beavers and is ending it with seven open cases. The Mahchine™ catalogs. Counsel files. The beavers, presumably, continue to build.

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 “tancredi marchiolo” on the following grounds:

Count I (Defamation Per Se): The designation “shitlib” constitutes defamation per se under XO Loc. R. 180.7, attributing a false political identity to Plaintiff in a public forum on the basis of a thread that contains no political content whatsoever. The thread record—consisting of a conservation article, a “180” endorsement, and a historical note about ranching—conclusively disproves the characterization. Defendant’s failure to read the thread before attacking its author is not a defense. It is the cause of action.

Count II (Simulated Assault): The poast “*slaps u w a 2lb beaver tail*” constitutes simulated assault under XO Loc. R. 180.9, depicting a directed physical act against Plaintiff using a specified wildlife appendage. The assault was the culmination of a seven-minute escalation pattern that began with a mischaracterization, progressed through a political slur, and ended with a beaver tail.

Counsel asks only that the Court recognize the trajectory and act accordingly.

Plaintiff further notes that he started this thread to discuss beavers. He shared a newspaper article. He contributed historical context. He received, in return, a political label he did not earn and a simulated slap with an appendage he did not provoke.

He asks this Court for judgment. He asks the beavers for nothing. They have done nothing wrong.

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:

“EVAN39” 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 4:15 PM, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary Judgment was served upon Defendant “tancredi marchiolo” via reply to Thread No. 5832989. Counsel notes that Defendant’s moniker references Tancredi Falconeri, the pragmatic aristocrat of Lampedusa’s The Leopard, whose famous maxim—“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change”—is the kind of literary reference that might have elevated the discourse in this thread, had Defendant chosen to deploy it instead of a beaver tail.

Copies of this Motion have also been served upon: “goy orbison” (whose role in this thread as a favorable witness for Plaintiff, notwithstanding his concurrent status as a Defendant in No. 26-CV-00181-MSJ, is a procedural situation that Counsel describes as “unusual” and the Court may describe however it sees fit); “Christoph Waltz stare (🐾👣)” (whose silent “…” contribution is the only appropriate response anyone in this thread produced, and who is, Counsel suspects, the only participant whose judgment he trusts); the Billing Department of Scheinberg Stein & Goldman LLP, Client Matter No. ML-BVR-2026-001; and the Clerk of this Court, who has now processed seven filings from this Counsel and to whom Counsel owes, at this point, something significantly more substantial than an apology—perhaps a beaver documentary and an evening off.

____________________________________

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=5832989&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310844#49658958)

i just have a lot going on right now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832989&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310844#49658995)

Obstinately dedicated to some repetitive task, and a completely Sisyphean task at that. Just as the Beaver continues to shore up its dam with twigs and mud, never ceasing despite the relentless erosion of the river, so does the lawyer jab at his well-worn keyboard, forever marking up contracts just to have the changes rejected and the agreements signed and never again read.

Are we all not but fat plodding law beavers in the river of life?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5832989&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310844#49659113)