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.
Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al.
W.D. Texas · Sep 4, 2025
TX / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesother
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Villegas v. Schmidt that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion. The magistrate judge found multiple cited authorities in the plaintiff's complaint to be fabricated or misquoted: two cases could not be located and two quotations attributed to real cases did not appear in those opinions. The court warned the plaintiff and ordered him to provide copies of cited cases in future filings; recommended dismissal of federal claims and possible sanctions for continued misrepresentations.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Villegas v. Schmidt that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion. The magistrate judge found multiple cited authorities in the plaintiff's complaint to be fabricated or misquoted: two cases could not be located and two quotations attributed to real cases did not appear in those opinions. The court warned the plaintiff and ordered him to provide copies of cited cases in future filings; recommended dismissal of federal claims and possible sanctions for continued misrepresentations.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
TexasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Texas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateSep 4, 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
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Villegas v. Schmidt that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Leonard v. Vrooman that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cited a case the undersigned could not verify; court found no proof the decision exists.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint cited a case the undersigned could not verify; court found no proof the decision exists.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al.?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quotation to Villegas v. Schmidt that the magistrate found does not appear in that opinion. The magistrate judge found multiple cited authorities in the plaintiff's complaint to be fabricated or misquoted: two cases could not be located and two quotations attributed to real cases did not appear in those opinions. The court warned the plaintiff and ordered him to provide copies of cited cases in future filings; recommended dismissal of federal claims and possible sanctions for continued misrepresentations.
- Why does Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Texas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al.?
- 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 Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al. 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.