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.
Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.
W.D. Michigan · Jun 18, 2026
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a sentence to Brown v. Matauszak that the court found does not appear in that opinion; the court noted this false quotation in a footnote and questioned whether it was an AI-generated hallucination.
- 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. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a sentence to Brown v. Matauszak that the court found does not appear in that opinion; the court noted this false quotation in a footnote and questioned whether it was an AI-generated hallucination.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in W.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateJun 18, 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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a sentence to Brown v. Matauszak that the court found does not appear in that opinion; the court noted this false quotation in a footnote and questioned whether it was an AI-generated hallucination.
- Fabricated: Other | Multiple unverified citations in the plaintiff's filings were flagged by the court's Editor's Note as likely generated by AI and not attributable to the court; the citations were preserved in the record without links.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a sentence to Brown v. Matauszak that the court found does not appear in that opinion; the court noted this false quotation in a footnote and questioned whether it was an AI-generated hallucination.
- Why does Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, 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. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, 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 Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, 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.