Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United States
E.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Wisconsin
- Record ID
- gerou-v-george-whitten-and-united-states-2025-12-18
- Observed outcome
- The court dismissed the petition and issued a formal warning to the petitioners regarding the submission of hallucinated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se petitioners regarding their submission of fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court explicitly cautioned that any future filings containing non-existent citations or inaccurate legal quotes—regardless of whether they are AI-generated—may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions.
False Quotes: Case Law | Petitioners quoted Oates v. National Bank as stating banks 'may only deal in negotiable instruments and lawful money'; court found no such quote in Oates (100 U.S. 239 (1879)). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners attributed to National Bank v. Matthews a statement that banks 'cannot lend their credit to another'; court found the cited case (98 U.S. 621 (1878)) does not contain that statement. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Commercial Bank of Cleveland v. Ely (1853)'; court could not locate that case and found the similar Commercial Bank of Cleveland v. Iola, 154 U.S. 617 (1875) does not contain the quoted language. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners repeatedly quoted 'Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco v. United States (1919)'; court was unable to locate any case with that name or date. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Glover v. Standard Oil Co., 65 N.E.2d 389 (Ind. 1946)' to support that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth; court traced citation to a different reported opinion which does not support that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioners cited Bank of Augusta v. Earle and Merchants' Bank v. State Bank as holding a bank that lends credit acts beyond its charter; court found those cases do not hold that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioners cited 'Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Smith (1819)'; court could not locate any such case and noted the closest is an 1821 case that does not support petitioners' claims.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court dismissed the petitioners' mandamus petition at the screening stage for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the accuracy of their legal citations.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the errors as consistent with the use of generative AI programs.
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 Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.