HomeCasesJones v. Department of the Army

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Jones v. Department of the Army

Fed. Cir. · May 13, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativeappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. 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 Fed. Cir., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

CourtFed. Cir.

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitFederal Circuit

DateMay 13, 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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Lipscomb v. Dep’t of the Army, 301 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which the court found does not appear to exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's brief lists additional apparently fraudulent or erroneous citations in the petitioner's filings (specified at Resp’t’s Br. 10–11 & n.5).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jones v. Department of the Army?: Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Jones v. Department of the Army matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in Fed. Cir., making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Jones v. Department of the Army?: 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 Jones v. Department of the Army 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.

Khan v. Howard County BAPCA Maryland · Jul 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Isaiah Hunter-Bey v. City of Cleveland Law DepartmentCA Ohio (8d) · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Eagle Township v. Shaun VanAlstineCA Michigan · Apr 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection BoardCA Federal Circuit · Dec 15, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chan v. British ColumbiaCA British Columbia · Nov 28, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Lipscomb v. Dep’t of the Army, 301 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002), which the court found does not appear to exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Respondent's brief lists additional apparently fraudulent or erroneous citations in the petitioner's filings (specified at Resp’t’s Br. 10–11 & n.5).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jones v. Department of the Army?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited Riley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 64 M.S.P.R. 42, 44–46 (1994), which the court found does not appear to exist. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Jones v. Department of the Army matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Jones v. Department of the Army?

Which source supports this Jones v. Department of the Army 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.