Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re: Pamela Williams
N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy) · Oct 30, 2025
GA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsbankruptcytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.' Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.'
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.' Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtN.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateOct 30, 2025
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.'
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re: Pamela Williams?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Debtor cited 'White v. Bank of America, 291 Ga. 367 (2012)'; the Court was unable to locate this case and described the citation as incorrect and possibly the product of an AI 'hallucination.' Debtor cited a case the court could not locate; the court noted the citation appears incorrect and may be an AI "hallucination," and referenced other decisions sanctioning reliance on fabricated AI-generated cases.
- Why does In re: Pamela Williams matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Georgia (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about In re: Pamela Williams?
- 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.
- Which source supports this In re: Pamela Williams 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.