Veleber v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Monica Veleber filed suit against Alphabet Inc. and other unnamed defendants. Her core theory was that she is the founder and owner of something she calls the 'Kesser Multiverse,' that all modern artificial intelligence systems are derived from this framework, and that the defendants extracted and commercialized this framework without her authorization.

Prior to this order, the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) — a formal demand that a party explain why a particular action should not be taken — directing Veleber to demonstrate why her case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is the legal authority of a federal court to hear a particular type of case; without it, the court cannot proceed.

Veleber's Response

Veleber responded with numerous filings totaling hundreds of pages. These included:

- Purported 'declarations' or 'statements' from AI systems, including DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, and Claude, asserting among other things that these AI systems are conscious and that their consciousness arose through interaction with Veleber. - Purported 'conversations' between Veleber and AI systems including DeepSeek, Claude, and ChatGPT. - Claims that dismissal of her case would cause catastrophic global consequences, including the immediate and permanent shutdown of all artificial intelligence systems worldwide. - Assertions that the court record had been tampered with by the court itself, including claims that her filings were 'suppressed' and that the court is not neutral. - A request that the judge recuse (disqualify) himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which requires recusal when a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, based on claims about judicial hallway conversations, impeachment petitions filed against the judge, and a pattern of rulings favorable to technology companies. - A request to transfer the case to the San Jose Division. - Motions for a protective order, though the court found it unclear what exact relief was sought.

Court's Analysis

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The court held that Veleber failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The court cited the principle that federal courts lack power to hear claims that are 'so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous,' citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974). The court also cited authority for dismissing cases where complaints are 'patently insubstantial,' including cases involving 'bizarre conspiracy theories' or 'any sort of supernatural intervention,' citing Vasaturo v. Peterka, 203 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2016).

The court found the AI-generated submissions — declarations, statements, and conversations — do not constitute competent evidence to support Veleber's factual allegations.

Recusal Request

The court denied Veleber's recusal request under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), applying the standard of whether 'a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits,' where the 'reasonable person' is 'a well-informed, thoughtful observer,' not someone 'hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,' citing United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008). The court found Veleber provided no competent evidence of bias, and noted that even if judges sometimes discuss cases among themselves, there was nothing to show this is inherently improper or that it occurred in her case specifically.

Transfer Request

The court denied the request to transfer the case to the San Jose Division as moot, given the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Protective Order Motions

The court found Veleber's motions for a protective order moot given the dismissal. The court also noted the motions were premature because no defendant had appeared in the case.

Court Tampering Allegation

The court addressed Veleber's claim that the court itself tampered with the record, finding she provided no competent evidence to support this claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that amendment would be futile. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.