HomeCasesJamal Berry v. Early Warning Services

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.

Corpus matter record

Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services

E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 2026

PA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage purportedly from McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., 773 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2014); the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the opinion and the pincite (page 918) is nonexistent. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Pennsylvania

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateApr 30, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

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.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage purportedly from McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., 773 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2014); the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the opinion and the pincite (page 918) is nonexistent.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gonzalez v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 20-cv-8997, 2021 WL 7285265 (C.D. Cal. 2021); the court found that citation does not appear on Westlaw and the docket number corresponds to a different case—i.e., a fabricated or incorrect citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Weseman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 06-1338, 2008 WL 542961 (D. Or. Feb. 22, 2008) and attributed to it a rule about disputes transmitted through the CFPB triggering CRA duties; the court found Weseman addressed preemption and involved a furnisher, not a CRA, so the plaintiff mischaracterized the opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services?: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage purportedly from McIvor v. Credit Control Servs., 773 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2014); the court found the quoted passage does not appear in the opinion and the pincite (page 918) is nonexistent. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services?: 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 Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services 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.

Casey A. Gaddy v. Wood Brothers Bar, Inc., et al.E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lifetime Well LLC v. IBSpot.com Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (1)E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 27, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Jay Folse v. Governor Sproul Associates, A Pennsylvania Limited PartnershipE.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Nydia Rosario v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance CompanyE.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 13, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Pennsylvania

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateApr 30, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Gonzalez v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., No. 20-cv-8997, 2021 WL 7285265 (C.D. Cal. 2021); the court found that citation does not appear on Westlaw and the docket number corresponds to a different case—i.e., a fabricated or incorrect citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Weseman v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., No. 06-1338, 2008 WL 542961 (D. Or. Feb. 22, 2008) and attributed to it a rule about disputes transmitted through the CFPB triggering CRA duties; the court found Weseman addressed preemption and involved a furnisher, not a CRA, so the plaintiff mischaracterized the opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services?

Why does Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services?

Which source supports this Jamal Berry v. Early Warning Services 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.