HomeCasesChan v. Khermani LLC

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

Chan v. Khermani LLC

Wyoming Ch. · Nov 14, 2024

WY / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotestort

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated. 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 Wyoming Ch., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

WyomingSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtWyoming Ch.

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 14, 2024

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Sullivan v. Johnson, 2006 WY 116, 142 P.3d 369' with a summary; court could not find the opinion and concluded it was fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Smith v. Clark, 2018 WY 17, 410 P.3d 125' and summarized its holding; court was unable to locate the decision and treated it as a fictitious citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Wyoming Trust Company v. First Bank of Wyoming, 2010 WY 61, 231 P.3d 257' claiming the Wyoming Supreme Court recognized the Chancery Court's unique role; court found the citation fictitious and noted the cited opinion could not have said this (chancery court did not exist at that time).
Fabricated: Case Law | Footnote example of a fabricated authority: 'Smith v. ABC Corporation, 321 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. 2010)' and an attributed quote do not exist, illustrating a fake opinion and false quotation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Chan v. Khermani LLC?: Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Chan v. Khermani LLC matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Wyoming Ch., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Chan v. Khermani LLC?: 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 Chan v. Khermani LLC 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.

Angela and Theodore Chagnon v. Holly NelsonWyoming Ch. · Jul 2, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Blackburn v. United StatesW.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)James Jordan v. USA, Clinicas Del Camino Real, Inc., et al.C.D. California · Apr 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivicW.D. Oklahoma · Mar 6, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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 | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

WyomingSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtWyoming Ch.

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 14, 2024

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Sullivan v. Johnson, 2006 WY 116, 142 P.3d 369' with a summary; court could not find the opinion and concluded it was fabricated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Smith v. Clark, 2018 WY 17, 410 P.3d 125' and summarized its holding; court was unable to locate the decision and treated it as a fictitious citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Wyoming Trust Company v. First Bank of Wyoming, 2010 WY 61, 231 P.3d 257' claiming the Wyoming Supreme Court recognized the Chancery Court's unique role; court found the citation fictitious and noted the cited opinion could not have said this (chancery court did not exist at that time).

Fabricated: Case Law | Footnote example of a fabricated authority: 'Smith v. ABC Corporation, 321 S.W.3d 123 (Mo. App. 2010)' and an attributed quote do not exist, illustrating a fake opinion and false quotation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Chan v. Khermani LLC?

Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se letter cited 'Meyer v. Campbell, 2015 WY 66, 351 P.3d 930' with a brief holding; court unable to locate the case and deemed it fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Chan v. Khermani LLC matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Chan v. Khermani LLC?

Which source supports this Chan v. Khermani LLC 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.