AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 8, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 3, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
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

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

D. Maine (Bankruptcy) · Sep 18, 2026

ME / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesbankruptcyNone 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

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.

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
First seenSep 24, 2026 (in this dataset)
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

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

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Moore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.S.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceNoella P. Turgeon v. FHLMCD. New Hampshire · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceEverett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Timothy J. BeallD. Maine · Jul 24, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsScott v. Federal National Mortgage AssociationMaine Superior Court · Jun 14, 2023same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsUlish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. Connecticut · Aug 5, 2026pro se + fake citationsAlexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.