Which source supports this In re John Daniel Deane 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.

HomeCasesIn re John Daniel Deane

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

In re John Daniel Deane

D. Maine (Bankruptcy) · Sep 18, 2026

ME / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations fabricated quotes bankruptcy None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The debtor cited a nonexistent or unverifiable Northern District of Georgia bankruptcy case and Westlaw returned no result for the cited 2021 WL citation. The docket number instead corresponded to Ogier v. Trauner, which did not support the cited proposition.

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 D. Maine (Bankruptcy). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Maine (Bankruptcy). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MaineSingle-state evidence scope

Explore MEOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Maine (Bankruptcy)

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 18, 2026

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | The debtor cited a nonexistent or unverifiable Northern District of Georgia bankruptcy case and Westlaw returned no result for the cited 2021 WL citation. The docket number instead corresponded to Ogier v. Trauner, which did not support the cited proposition.
False Quotes: Case Law | The debtor attributed a quotation to the cited Shirley Lett case, but the court found the language in Roth v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (In re Roth), which quoted McLean v. McLean (In re McLean).

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re John Daniel Deane?: Fabricated: Case Law | The debtor cited a nonexistent or unverifiable Northern District of Georgia bankruptcy case and Westlaw returned no result for the cited 2021 WL citation. The docket number instead corresponded to Ogier v. Trauner, which did not support the cited proposition.
Why does In re John Daniel Deane matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. Maine (Bankruptcy). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about In re John Daniel Deane?: 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 In re John Daniel Deane 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.

Noella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New Hampshire · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re Lisa CatoD. D.C. (Bankruptcy) · Jul 10, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Keirton Inc. v. Mersad RahmanovicD. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Mar 19, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Gerou v. George, Whitten, and United StatesE.D. Wisconsin · Dec 18, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)In re BryantM.D. North Carolina (Bankruptcy) · Nov 18, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Timothy J. BeallD. Maine · Jul 24, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Sep 24, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 24, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 23, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Maine (Bankruptcy) profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology