Defense AI Disclosure Motion: Pre-AI Case History Disproves Competence Suspicion

Document Details

Executive Summary

AI Bogeyman Motion (Act I) Exposed

SAC 181 LLC's November 10 motion speculated wildly about pro se plaintiffs using AI for filings, wildly misinterpreted SC Judicial Department's AI notice as mandating strict controls, and demanded unreasonably burdensome policies like notarized affidavits per filing – all without citing any specific errors or evidence.. Plaintiffs' November 13 response exposes this as baseless lawfare distraction from real issues like falsified evidence and privacy violations

Key Objective Flaws in SAC 181's Motion

• Speculation, No Evidence: Accuses AI use based on "suspicion" from pro se sophistication; cites zero examples of errors, hallucinations, or fakes.

• Misreads SC Guidance: Twists voluntary SC Judicial AI notice (advisory best practices) into binding "requirements"; ignores its explicit non-mandatory language.

• Overly Burdensome Demands: Seeks affidavits/logbooks/expert review per filing – unprecedented hurdles turning routine practice into pro se nightmare.

• Ignores Plaintiffs' Record: Dismisses pre-AI pro se history (e.g., 2021 complex litigation win) as irrelevant.

What This Reveals: A playbook exploiting AI hype to bluff discrediting a competent pro se; prioritizes procedural traps over addressing falsified postmarks/privacy breaches/deposit failures. Signals deeper bias: competent tenants threaten the "pro se = amateur" assumption.

SAC 181 LLC's November 10 motion speculated wildly about pro se plaintiffs using AI for filings, misinterpreting SC Judicial guidance and demanding unprecedented hurdles without citing a single error [file:2b659b3e-13cd-4d85-9a34-421a9e090905]. Plaintiffs' response exposes this as lawfare: a distraction from real issues like falsified evidence and privacy breaches.

Crucially, this tactic ignores the plaintiffs' pre-AI track record. In 2021—long before ChatGPT—plaintiffs successfully opposed a similarly overbroad protective order in complex litigation against major corporate entities. That filing, like today's, used Strategic Thought Leadership: framing legal arguments through systems-level values (transparency, public interest) rather than just procedural technicalities. The similarity proves that the plaintiffs' "sophisticated" voice comes from human expertise and systems thinking, not an algorithm.

Note: While that prior case concluded with a confidential resolution, the public record of the opposition filing stands as proof of competence that defense counsel now tries to dismiss as "AI."

Next 20 donors of $100+ receive a hand-built "AIbraham, the All Bogeyman!" – action figure. If AI is scary, don't be sad. AIbraham is programmed to put you at ease with his easy, calm demeanor. Proceeds support RocketsFight.org and the relaunch of Strategic Thought Leadership for housing justice.

The Strategic Thought Leadership "Fingerprint" (Pre-AI)

September 30, 2021 Opposition Demonstrates Core Competencies

This public court filing reveals McNeil's distinctive approach 13 months before ChatGPT launched:

1. Higher Values Alignment

• Public interest over case expediency: "It is not about the ease of discovery for the Plaintiff, it is about the public interest in knowing the safety hazards"
• Systemic accountability: Quoting Bailey: "Secrecy allows wrongdoing to continue, prevents victims from knowing they may have a viable legal claim, and undermines trust in the justice system"
• Prevention over punishment: Arguments framed around preventing future harm to others

2. Language Patterns of Persuasion

• Reframing through perspective shift: "Backing up and seeing the bigger picture reveals that the court systems' role in corporate accountability requires a degree of transparency"

• Pacing and leading: "It is not about X, it is about Y" structure that acknowledges defendants' position before elevating to systemic frame

• Systems thinking vocabulary: "economy and effectiveness of the court system in general," "deterring corporate irresponsibility"

3. Systemic Focus

The conclusion doesn't just argue against the motion—it reframes the purpose of litigation itself:

"In a case like this, where there is a public interest in knowing the practices of large corporations that can cause injury as happened to the Plaintiff, it is not about the economy of this particular case in avoiding the need to file individual motions, it is about the economy and effectiveness of the court system in general in deterring corporate irresponsibility thus avoiding altogether cases that can be prevented because things are safer due to enhanced accountability."

The Pre-AI Evidence of Competence

Defense counsel questioned McNeil's competence on November 10, 2025, suggesting sophisticated legal work required investigation. A basic docket search of their own client's litigation history would have revealed:

Case No. 2021-CP-10-02237 (Public Record)

• Filed: 2020-2021
• Defendants: SAC 181, LLC (current client), Comcast, Dominion Energy, Roadstead Management
• Pro Se Plaintiff: James Christopher McNeil
• Concluded: November 2021
• ChatGPT Launch: November 30, 2022 (13 months later)

The Opposition That Reveals the Pattern

McNeil's September 30, 2021 Opposition to Motion for Protective Order demonstrates the same strategic thought leadership approach visible in 2025:

Values-Based Reframing:

"Backing up and seeing the bigger picture reveals that the court systems' role in corporate accountability requires a degree of transparency."

Systemic Over Individual:

"It is not about the economy of this particular case... it is about the economy and effectiveness of the court system in general in deterring corporate irresponsibility thus avoiding altogether cases that can be prevented because things are safer due to enhanced accountability."

Media Inquiries

Chris McNeil, Pro Se Plaintiff
Email: Click here to email with web form
Case: 2025-CP-10-05095, Charleston County Court of Common Pleas

Document Access

Defendant SAC 181 LLC's Motion for a Case Management Order Regarding the Use of AI and Exhibit A

Plaintiffs' Amended Response in Opposition to Defendant SAC 181 LLC's Motion for a Case Management Order Regarding the Use of "AI" and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

Related Resources

Systems View: Speculative AI Fearmongering as Pro Se Suppression

Iceberg Level	In This "AI Paranoia Act I" Motion	What It Reveals	Intervention Leverage
Events	Speculative AI accusations sans evidence; misreads SC AI notice as policy mandate; pushes affidavits, logs, and expert verification per filing.	Delays justice by imposing pro se hurdles unrelated to case merits.	Motion denial; costs awarded for overreach.
Patterns	Preemptive smears on pro se sophistication; reinterprets routine guidance as "gotcha" rules.	Pattern of inventing threats to delegitimize competent self-representation.	Docket scrutiny for gimmick filings.
Structures	No penalty for speculative motions; AI hype exploited for procedural advantage; uneven pro se burdens.	Rewards volume over substance against unresourced parties.	Uniform AI guidelines; pro se safeguards.
Mental Models	Old: "Pro se must be handicapped; any competence is suspect." New: "Pro se vigilance signals system flaws for collective reform."	From suppression to partnership in truth-seeking.	Expose via responses; public STL reframing.

Donor Gift: AIbraham, the AI Bogeyman Action Figure

Next 20 donors of $100+ receive this hand-built "AIbraham, the All Bogeyman!" – caped robot celebrating creative defense Motion writing. Supports RocketsFight.org campaigns.

• Go to GoFundMe