HomeCasesBrandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.

M.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 2026

NC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtM.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateApr 28, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case at the given citation; court found the citation does not exist as cited.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a cited North Carolina appellate case that the court found not to exist at the cited authority.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this state-court authority at an incorrect/nonexistent citation; court flagged it as inaccurate.
Fabricated: Case Law | Federal case citation in plaintiff's filings does not exist at the cited report; court identified it as a fabricated or inaccurate citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an M.D.N.C. decision and citation that the court states does not exist at that citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff referenced a case name without identifying information; court treated the unsupported citation as inaccurate.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted the existence of a 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court COVID-related decision supporting insurer liability; court found that characterization inaccurate and the cited authority incorrect.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a docket citation and asserted procedural facts about that case (e.g., pro se amendment) that the court found inaccurate or unsupported by the cited docket.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. North Carolina, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.?: 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.
Which source supports this Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al. 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.

Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Curtin v. Watts, et al.M.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Bank of America v. MappM.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Curry v. Capital One Auto FinanceE.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.W.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations In re BryantM.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Nov 18, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtM.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateApr 28, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case at the given citation; court found the citation does not exist as cited.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a cited North Carolina appellate case that the court found not to exist at the cited authority.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited this state-court authority at an incorrect/nonexistent citation; court flagged it as inaccurate.

Fabricated: Case Law | Federal case citation in plaintiff's filings does not exist at the cited report; court identified it as a fabricated or inaccurate citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an M.D.N.C. decision and citation that the court states does not exist at that citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff referenced a case name without identifying information; court treated the unsupported citation as inaccurate.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff asserted the existence of a 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court COVID-related decision supporting insurer liability; court found that characterization inaccurate and the cited authority incorrect.

Show 1 additional discrepancies

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a docket citation and asserted procedural facts about that case (e.g., pro se amendment) that the court found inaccurate or unsupported by the cited docket.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited two federal decisions with docket numbers and Westlaw citations that the court reports do not exist as cited. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al.?

Which source supports this Brandon Rulund Akins v. Tashi Latwon Ratliff, et al. 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.