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.
Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano
D. South Carolina · Dec 29, 2025
SC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010). Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010).
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010). Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
South CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. South Carolina
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateDec 29, 2025
AI
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010). Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano?
- 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 Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano 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.