Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0IAIN1IGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)

D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025 · Vernon D. Oliver

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
D. Connecticut
Record ID
braica-v-frankowski-anthony-braica-v-tom-frankowski-2025-12-15
Observed outcome
The court admonished the plaintiff and struck the response and sur-reply briefs from the record.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court admonished the pro se plaintiff and struck his response and sur-reply briefs from the record. The court further warned that any future submission of AI-generated hallucinations would likely result in more severe sanctions, including the potential dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Why the decision-maker cared

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a wholly fabricated quotation to this real case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Case cited to support Eighth Amendment application to probationers though Solem concerned incarceration and is not relevant here. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited to support Eighth Amendment argument despite Graham involving incarceration rather than probation. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff misattributed a quotation to Moore and cited it in support of an Eighth Amendment argument though Moore addresses a Fourth Amendment apartment-search context. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Rochin to support an Eighth Amendment 'shocks the conscience' argument though Rochin concerns due process (Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) and is not on point. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Steffel but that case addresses First and Fourteenth Amendment issues, not the Eighth. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misstated the holding; Jones concerns GPS attachment to a vehicle, not to a person as plaintiff asserted. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Hamilton for a sovereign-immunity point but failed to note Hamilton dismissed negligence claims as barred by sovereign immunity. || Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated case; plaintiff supplied a citation string that corresponds to different cases with different names. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Fuller to suggest probationers have Eighth Amendment protections relevant here, but the case concerns prison housing classification and is not on point. || Fabricated: Case Law | Entirely fabricated case; the plaintiff cited 'State v. Kelleher' with citations that lead to unrelated real cases. || Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Cited Quon without disclosing that the Ninth Circuit decision was explicitly reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court.

Why it matters now

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Briefs struck; warning.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Civil Rights
  • Trial
AI attribution
Implied
Recorded tool
unspecified
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
The court issued an order to show cause regarding Rule 11 sanctions following the plaintiff's submission of briefs containing AI-generated hallucinations, subsequently striking the briefs and issuing an admonition.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court notes the plaintiff used publicly available websites but did not specify the AI tool.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.