Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.
M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2025
FL / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 820 (1st Cir. 1984) for a proposition the case does not hold; the Court found the case does not discuss the asserted point. Outcome: Filings stricken; Show Cause Order.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Filings stricken; Show Cause Order; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Filings stricken; Show Cause Order in M.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 820 (1st Cir. 1984) for a proposition the case does not hold; the Court found the case does not discuss the asserted point. Outcome: Filings stricken; Show Cause Order.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Filings stricken; Show Cause Order in M.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtM.D. Florida
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateOct 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeFilings stricken; Show Cause Order
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
Filings stricken; Show Cause Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 820 (1st Cir. 1984) for a proposition the case does not hold; the Court found the case does not discuss the asserted point.
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) to state the old 'no set of facts' pleading standard, but the Court noted that the standard was retired by Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Phillips v. Phillips, 685 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but the Southern Second citation corresponds to Lowe Inv. Corp. v. Clemente, 685 So. 2d 84; the named Phillips opinion did not exist at that citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brydger v. Brydger, 910 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), but the Southern Second citation corresponds to Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 910 So. 2d 381; the named Brydger citation was incorrect.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quoted phrase to U.S. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 266 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2001), but the Court found no such quote in that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case captioned Ashley v. Bank of Am., 538 F. App'x 874; the cited Federal Appendix citation did not correspond to that caption.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an advisory opinion captioned In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Dual Representation of State Officers, 630 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1994) and attributed holdings about the Attorney General that the opinion does not contain; the citation and summary were misleading.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 820 (1st Cir. 1984) for a proposition the case does not hold; the Court found the case does not discuss the asserted point. Outcome: Filings stricken; Show Cause Order.
- Why does Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Filings stricken; Show Cause Order in M.D. Florida, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., 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 Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., 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.