HomeCasesFarrow v. John Does

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Farrow v. John Does

E.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesother

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a venue rule to In re Aggrenox that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted the case does not analyze venue. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Martinez v. Bloomberg held that a court on a venue challenge "assumes the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations," which the court said Martinez did not state. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Nat'l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis. for a venue principle the opinion did not analyze; the court observed the cited opinion contains no such venue analysis.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 3, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

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

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a venue rule to In re Aggrenox that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted the case does not analyze venue.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Martinez v. Bloomberg held that a court on a venue challenge "assumes the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations," which the court said Martinez did not state.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Nat'l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis. for a venue principle the opinion did not analyze; the court observed the cited opinion contains no such venue analysis.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Farrow v. John Does?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.
Why does Farrow v. John Does matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Farrow v. John Does?: 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 Farrow v. John Does 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.

Owens v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.E.D. New York · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Terrance Anthony Norris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.E.D. New York · May 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Evgeny Yaroshevsky v. Karlin et al.E.D. New York · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Polanco v. Himalayan Real Estate LLC, et al.E.D. New York · May 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Viral Bhagat v. Anuja Sharad ShahS.D. New York · Apr 6, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez v. Christopher ShanahanE.D. New York · May 13, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

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 Open jurisdiction map

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

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 3, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a venue rule to In re Aggrenox that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted the case does not analyze venue.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff claimed Martinez v. Bloomberg held that a court on a venue challenge "assumes the truth of the plaintiff's factual allegations," which the court said Martinez did not state.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Nat'l Acad. of Television Arts & Scis. for a venue principle the opinion did not analyze; the court observed the cited opinion contains no such venue analysis.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Farrow v. John Does?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent decision; the court identified the citation as to a case that does not exist.

Why does Farrow v. John Does matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about Farrow v. John Does?

Which source supports this Farrow v. John Does 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.