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 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig
CA California (6d) · Apr 22, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfamilyappellate
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig, the CA California (6d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-22. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig, the CA California (6d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-22. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.
Operational lesson
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California (6d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateApr 22, 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
9 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
Show 1 additional discrepancies
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig?
- In In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig, the CA California (6d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant's brief cited this case as authority; the court identified it as fictitious/nonexistent. The source record does not state a separate procedural consequence. The entry is dated 2026-04-22. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding.
- Why does In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this In re the Marriage of Joanne Rodrigues and Nathan Craig 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.