Beason v. Wheeler
DC Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- DC Oklahoma
- Record ID
- beason-v-wheeler-2025-11-19
- Observed outcome
- Judge acknowledged mistake
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | The trial-court order allegedly cited Cummings v. Cimarron Elevator Co., 1998 OK CIV APP 44, 958 P.2d 594, as an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals decision adopting Schlagenhauf standards for examinations under 12 O.S. § 3235. The petitioner states that 1998 OK CIV APP 44 is actually Robbins v. Robbins, which concerns alleged ex parte communications in a custody matter, and that 958 P.2d 594 is an Idaho case, Harpole v. State, unrelated to § 3235. Outcome: Judge acknowledged mistake. Allegations first made by Counsel in underlying case (see here). Judge later acknowledged the lapse (see here), and is now under investigation.
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Judge acknowledged mistake. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Judge acknowledged mistake in DC Oklahoma. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Judge acknowledged mistake
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.