Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-1OFMPWMGenerated October 26, 2026Evidence checked Oct 25, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Gail Fung v. Liberty University

W.D. Virginia · Feb 24, 2026

Jurisdiction
federal
Court
W.D. Virginia
Record ID
gail-fung-v-liberty-university-2026-02-24
Observed outcome
Warning
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions. Outcome: Warning.

Why the decision-maker cared

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Friedman v. Southern New Hampshire University, 104 A.D. 3d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)'; the Court found no such case exists and that it does not support the plaintiff's argument, warning of potential Rule 11 sanctions.

Why it matters now

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Civil Rights
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
No tool named in source
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
Procedural posture
Warning
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Limited (medium confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.
EXPLAINABLE COMPARATORS

Related public matters

Brian Bailey v. Hon. Clark A. Ritchie, et al.W.D. Virginia · Jan 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsScott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsUnited States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations