In the matter of Machinsky
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.
Massachusetts Land Court · Aug 7, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Defendant attributed a non-existent quotation to G.L. c. 185, § 86; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that statute or elsewhere. Outcome: Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7) in Massachusetts Land Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Defendant attributed a non-existent quotation to G.L. c. 185, § 86; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that statute or elsewhere. Outcome: Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7).
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7) in Massachusetts Land Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7)
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Defendant attributed a non-existent quotation to G.L. c. 185, § 86; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that statute or elsewhere.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Commonwealth v. LeBlanc as supporting recusal, but the court found LeBlanc irrelevant to recusal and not on point.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Defendant cited Peterson v. Hopson and King v. Driscoll as authorities for limits on Rule 70, but the court noted neither case addresses Rule 70 or the duties of a commissioner and one predates the Rules.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In the matter of Machinsky?
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Defendant attributed a non-existent quotation to G.L. c. 185, § 86; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that statute or elsewhere. Outcome: Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7).
- Why does In the matter of Machinsky matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court documented the defendant's fabricated quotations and inaccurate citations on the record as a warning to him and other litigants, noting it does not bear on the outcome of the case (PDF pp. 6-7) in Massachusetts Land Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about In the matter of Machinsky?
- 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 the matter of Machinsky 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.
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.