HomeCasesClarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

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

Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)

Queensland IRC · Nov 5, 2025

AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesemployment

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Submissions referred to a non-existent statutory subsection 's 139(6)'; court noted s 139 only has three subsections.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Queensland IRC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Queensland IRC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

CourtQueensland IRC

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 5, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Submissions referred to a non-existent statutory subsection 's 139(6)'; court noted s 139 only has three subsections.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.
Why does Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Queensland IRC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)?: 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 Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) 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.

Goodchild v State of QueenslandQueensland IRC · Feb 13, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Kisha Peters v. Banner HealthS.D. Texas · Jan 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Muhammad v. Gap Inc.S.D. Ohio · Jul 3, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Ellul v State of QueenslandQueensland IRC · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + employment Pakuza v Workers' Compensation RegulatorQueensland IRC · Dec 16, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Carrington v TAFE QueenslandQueensland IRC · Dec 5, 2025same court · fake citations + employment

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

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Queensland IRC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Submissions referred to a non-existent statutory subsection 's 139(6)'; court noted s 139 only has three subsections.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)?

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited three Commission decisions and quoted passages that could not be located; the court found the authorities were AI-generated and unavailable.

Why does Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Queensland IRC, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education)?

Which source supports this Clarke v State of Queensland (Department of Education) 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.