LOS ANGELES—Mark "Chris" Sevier is at it again. Last time we visited him, in mid-2013, the non-practicing lawyer with a Model Mayhem page was suing Apple for not blocking porn on his iPhone, thus enabling his addiction. That lark got him some headlines but of course went nowhere legally.
Then, in December, now claiming to be both a rocker and a member of hirsute Phil Robertson's church, he sued A&E for being mean to the controversial star of Duck Dynasty. That lawsuit also got him some pubs but that's about it.
This time, his stunt hit the skids ever faster. Trying to mine publicity by latching onto a lawsuit challenging Florida's anti-gay marriage stance, Sevier, according to Broward/Palm Beach New Times, "filed a motion to intervene ... on behalf of "other minority sexual orientation groups."
Sevier then goes on to argue in his 24-page motion that if same-sex couples "have the right to marry their object of sexual desire, even if they lack corresponding sexual parts, then I should have the right to marry my preferred sexual object."
By which he means his Apple computer. That's right, Sevier is still obsessed with Apple, and even incorporates into his current motion his old complaint about Apple devices.
"Recently," he wrote, "I purchased an Apple computer. The computer was sold to me without filters to block out pornography. I was not provided with any warning by Apple that pornography was highly addictive and could alter my reward cycle by the manufacturer. Over time, I began preferring sex with my computer over sex with real women. Naturally, I 'fell in love' with my computer and preferred having sex with it over all other persons or things, as a result of classic conditioning upon orgasm."
Shades of Her, or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
Despite his perhaps earnest intent to intervene in the case—Brenner et al. v. Scott—the presiding judge was in no mood to entertain Sevier, writing in his April 24 ruling denying the motion, "Chris Sevier has moved to intervene, apparently asserting he wishes to marry his computer. Perhaps the motion is satirical. Or perhaps it is only removed from reality. Either way, the motion has no place in this lawsuit."
Maybe next time.
