HomeCasesAbybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)

D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2026

MD / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Eichholz v. Camp, 36 F.4th 908, 917 (4th Cir. 2022)"; Court noted the reporter information more closely matches an unrelated Ninth Circuit opinion and the citation is inaccurate. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Eichholz v. Camp, 36 F.4th 908, 917 (4th Cir. 2022)"; Court noted the reporter information more closely matches an unrelated Ninth Circuit opinion and the citation is inaccurate. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Holloway v. State, 232 Md. App. 272, 290 (2017) with a pinpoint page that does not exist (opinion ends at p.285) and relied on it for an unrelated proposition; Court noted the page and proposition are incorrect. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent decision as "Bush v. Lucas, 598 F. Supp. 3d 303, 316 (D. Md. 2022)"; Court found no such case at that citation and noted the closest match is a different 5th Circuit opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel quoted language attributed to Okwa v. Harper that does not appear in that opinion; Court observed the quoted language is absent from Okwa. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel mis-summarized or misquoted multiple Fourth Circuit cases (e.g., misquoting Colleton Preparatory Acad. and United States v. Moradi); Court flagged these misquotes in its opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel cited Haines v. Vogel as supporting that non-consensual sexualized photography during arrest is "outrageous," but Court found Haines did not involve an arrest or sexualized photography and dismissed the asserted support. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Md. Comm'n on Hum. Rels. v. Balt. Cty., 439 A.2d 1121 (Md. 1982)" for a proposition; Court identified the reporter information corresponds to Fields v. State, 439 A.2d 1121 (1982), not the named case.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. Maryland, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. Maryland, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Maryland

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJan 28, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeOrder to Show Cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Order to Show Cause

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Eichholz v. Camp, 36 F.4th 908, 917 (4th Cir. 2022)"; Court noted the reporter information more closely matches an unrelated Ninth Circuit opinion and the citation is inaccurate.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Holloway v. State, 232 Md. App. 272, 290 (2017) with a pinpoint page that does not exist (opinion ends at p.285) and relied on it for an unrelated proposition; Court noted the page and proposition are incorrect.
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent decision as "Bush v. Lucas, 598 F. Supp. 3d 303, 316 (D. Md. 2022)"; Court found no such case at that citation and noted the closest match is a different 5th Circuit opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel quoted language attributed to Okwa v. Harper that does not appear in that opinion; Court observed the quoted language is absent from Okwa.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel mis-summarized or misquoted multiple Fourth Circuit cases (e.g., misquoting Colleton Preparatory Acad. and United States v. Moradi); Court flagged these misquotes in its opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel cited Haines v. Vogel as supporting that non-consensual sexualized photography during arrest is "outrageous," but Court found Haines did not involve an arrest or sexualized photography and dismissed the asserted support.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Md. Comm'n on Hum. Rels. v. Balt. Cty., 439 A.2d 1121 (Md. 1982)" for a proposition; Court identified the reporter information corresponds to Fields v. State, 439 A.2d 1121 (1982), not the named case.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Eichholz v. Camp, 36 F.4th 908, 917 (4th Cir. 2022)"; Court noted the reporter information more closely matches an unrelated Ninth Circuit opinion and the citation is inaccurate. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Why does Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. Maryland, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.
What does the public record establish about Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1) summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Neal v. FrayerD. Maryland · Nov 17, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Taylor v. Prince George’s County, MarylandD. Maryland · Dec 16, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (2)D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rights Devin A. Robinson v. Velosio, LLCD. Maryland · May 4, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Yasmani Gurri Rubio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.D. Maryland · May 1, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Future Field Solutions v. NordstrandD. Maryland · Jan 23, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. Maryland, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Record details

MarylandSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Maryland

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateJan 28, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeOrder to Show Cause

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited Holloway v. State, 232 Md. App. 272, 290 (2017) with a pinpoint page that does not exist (opinion ends at p.285) and relied on it for an unrelated proposition; Court noted the page and proposition are incorrect.

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a non-existent decision as "Bush v. Lucas, 598 F. Supp. 3d 303, 316 (D. Md. 2022)"; Court found no such case at that citation and noted the closest match is a different 5th Circuit opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel quoted language attributed to Okwa v. Harper that does not appear in that opinion; Court observed the quoted language is absent from Okwa.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel mis-summarized or misquoted multiple Fourth Circuit cases (e.g., misquoting Colleton Preparatory Acad. and United States v. Moradi); Court flagged these misquotes in its opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel cited Haines v. Vogel as supporting that non-consensual sexualized photography during arrest is "outrageous," but Court found Haines did not involve an arrest or sexualized photography and dismissed the asserted support.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited "Md. Comm'n on Hum. Rels. v. Balt. Cty., 439 A.2d 1121 (Md. 1982)" for a proposition; Court identified the reporter information corresponds to Fields v. State, 439 A.2d 1121 (1982), not the named case.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)?

Why does Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1) matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. Maryland, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

What does the public record establish about Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1)?

Which source supports this Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (1) summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.