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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re: Todd Elliott Koger
W.D. Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy) · Sep 30, 2025
PA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsbankruptcytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a non-existent case cited by the Kogers—used in their filings to support preclusion/ownership arguments—and noted it appeared fabricated, suggesting AI-generated pleadings and raising Rule 9011 concerns. Outcome: One-year filing bar.. The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is One-year filing bar.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with One-year filing bar. in W.D. Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a non-existent case cited by the Kogers—used in their filings to support preclusion/ownership arguments—and noted it appeared fabricated, suggesting AI-generated pleadings and raising Rule 9011 concerns. Outcome: One-year filing bar.. The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with One-year filing bar. in W.D. Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateSep 30, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOne-year filing bar.
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
One-year filing bar.
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 | Court identified a non-existent case cited by the Kogers—used in their filings to support preclusion/ownership arguments—and noted it appeared fabricated, suggesting AI-generated pleadings and raising Rule 9011 concerns.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re: Todd Elliott Koger?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a non-existent case cited by the Kogers—used in their filings to support preclusion/ownership arguments—and noted it appeared fabricated, suggesting AI-generated pleadings and raising Rule 9011 concerns. Outcome: One-year filing bar.. The Court observed that several authorities cited in the Kogers' pro se filings do not exist and appeared to be fabricated (noting possible use of AI), warned of Rule 9011 implications, and treated the filings as part of an abusive litigation strategy warranting dismissal and a one-year filing bar.
- Why does In re: Todd Elliott Koger matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with One-year filing bar. in W.D. Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In re: Todd Elliott Koger?
- 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: Todd Elliott Koger 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.