WASHINGTON, D.C. — Freshman Congresspony Marjorie Taylor Greene (Q-GA) is no stranger to a courtroom. Ms. Greene, since joining Congress in January of last year, has filed multiple lawsuits with other members of the House Freedom Caucus to block Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Wall St.) from using metal detectors, and to end masking mandates on the House floor. Thus far, she has yet to prevail in any of her legal challenges.

MORE: Texas Man Thinks Wife’s OB is a Groomer Because They Couldn’t Find the Fetus’s Genitals

Today, however, Greene was served papers and informed that she’s the subject of a new lawsuit. The plaintiff is an actual, literal dumpster fire. The central claim of the suit? That Greene “willfully, and knowingly” infringed on the dumpster fire’s intellectual property.

At a press conference earlier, Kevin Tatterhorn — attorney for the dumpster fire — addressed the media and explained the high-level details of the suit.

“Our entire team believes there is strong evidence to support our claim. Namely, that Rep. Greene cultivated her entire image, ethos, political philosophy and grooming habits to look, sound, and certainly smell like a dumpster fire,” Tatterhorn said. “We ask any unbiased observer to look at Rep. Greene and tell us, honestly, if they don’t just see a dumpster fire wearing saddle bags.”

Tatterhorn admitted that there are some key differences between his client and Greene, but said those differences are only noticeable “after it’s too late.”

“Obviously, you never hear an actual dumpster fire screaming at kids who were victims of mass shooting events, and I’ve never heard a dumpster fire wax philosophical on Secret Jewish Space Lasers,” Tatterhorn conceded. “Still, by the time you get close enough to Marjorie to smell and hear her, it’s too late, and you’ve already gone into it convinced that she’s a dumpster fire, and not just a garbage human after all.”

Max McGee, Rep. Greene’s attorney, held his own press conference hours later.

“We’re going to have this suit thrown out pretty quickly I think, because by law you have to have an intellect to use, possess, or steal intellectual property,” McGee said. “It would be different if the dumpster fire was claiming my client stole their unintellectual property, of course. But they’re not, so we’re confident we’re going to prevail bigly in this suit.”