AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 9, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesII SAB/Po 175/26
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

II SAB/Po 175/26

WSA w Poznaniu · Sep 16, 2026

PolandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 17 November 2023 under docket number III OSK 2415/22. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Poznaniu. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 17 November 2023 under docket number III OSK 2415/22. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Poznaniu. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtWSA w Poznaniu
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateSep 16, 2026
AI
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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 17 November 2023 under docket number III OSK 2415/22. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 10 May 2022 under docket number III OSK 4983/21. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 24 November 2021 under docket number III OSK 4341/21. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 27 November 2019 under docket number I OSK 1993/18. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  5. Fabricated: Case Law | The court collectively identified the cited NSA authorities as non-existent and characterized their use as a known case of AI hallucination, referring to NSA order I FZ 104/26 of 23 June 2026 as an example of the phenomenon.

Questions this record answers

What happened in II SAB/Po 175/26?
Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 17 November 2023 under docket number III OSK 2415/22. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
Why does II SAB/Po 175/26 matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Poznaniu. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about II SAB/Po 175/26?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this II SAB/Po 175/26 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.

In the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr.AC Maryland · Oct 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Miller v. Colorado Department of RevenueD. Colorado · Sep 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lo v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS4555Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia · Sep 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County CourtAdministrative Court · Sep 22, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Matter of H2L Solutions, Inc.GAO · Sep 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)