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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness
CA Colorado · Dec 18, 2025
CO / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.' Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.' || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant provided direct quotations and legal propositions attributed to cited authorities that do not appear in those authorities; court found these improper citations indicative of AI-generated hallucinations.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.' Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Colorado
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit10th Circuit
DateDec 18, 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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.'
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant provided direct quotations and legal propositions attributed to cited authorities that do not appear in those authorities; court found these improper citations indicative of AI-generated hallucinations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case 'In re Application of Kieta, 573 N.W.2d 787 (Neb. 1998)'; the court's independent research found no such decision and labeled it an AI 'hallucination.' Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness?
- 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 Edward Starski v. Chandler Holderness 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.