Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesChapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)

N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 24, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court struck the petitioner's objection and all pending motions due to a persistent pattern of submitting filings with fabricated case law, inaccurate quotations, and misrepresented authorities, despite multiple prior warnings regarding Rule 11 compliance.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple quotations in petitioner's motion to disqualify did not appear in the cited cases; Judge Huntsman identified four fake quotations and previously struck the filing. || False Quotes: Case Law | Objection contains an inaccurate/partial quotation attributed to the Rohan case; the quoted material is incomplete and not an accurate quotation from the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Badillo v. Thorpe, 158 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 2001),' but that reporter citation corresponds to Tropical Air Flying Services, Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando de Melecio; the actual Badillo v. Thorpe decision is at 158 F. App'x 208 (11th Cir. 2005).
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; Monetary sanction.

Why this matter is tracked

In a contract dispute, a pro se petitioner repeatedly submitted filings containing fabricated case law, inaccurate quotations, and misrepresented legal authorities. Despite prior warnings from a Magistrate Judge regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 obligations, the petitioner continued to submit filings with non-existent or misleading citations. The District Court found that the petitioner failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the viability of her arguments, including citing statutes inapplicable to federal courts. Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent authority to strike the petitioner's objection and all other pending motions. While the Court declined to impose additional severe sanctions at this time, it warned that future violations could result in substantial monetary penalties, attorney's fees, or dismissal of the case.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; Monetary sanction.

Record details

OklahomaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OKOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Oklahoma
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 24, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court struck the petitioner's objection and all pending motions; the petitioner had previously paid a $405 fine imposed by a Magistrate Judge.
Known amount$405
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The court referenced 10th Circuit precedent regarding attorneys using generative AI to submit hallucinated citations.

Procedural posture

District Court review of a Magistrate Judge's order imposing sanctions, resulting in the striking of the petitioner's objection and all pending motions.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple quotations in petitioner's motion to disqualify did not appear in the cited cases; Judge Huntsman identified four fake quotations and previously struck the filing.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Objection contains an inaccurate/partial quotation attributed to the Rohan case; the quoted material is incomplete and not an accurate quotation from the case.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Badillo v. Thorpe, 158 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Conn. 2001),' but that reporter citation corresponds to Tropical Air Flying Services, Inc. v. Carmen Feliciando de Melecio; the actual Badillo v. Thorpe decision is at 158 F. App'x 208 (11th Cir. 2005).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)?
The court struck the petitioner's objection and all pending motions due to a persistent pattern of submitting filings with fabricated case law, inaccurate quotations, and misrepresented authorities, despite multiple prior warnings regarding Rule 11 compliance.
Why does Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3) matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Struck filings; Monetary sanction.
What does the public record establish about Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3)?
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 Chapter Kris Jackson v. BOK Financial Corporation et al. (3) 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.