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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Jurkowski v. Berkowitz
SC DC · Apr 21, 2026
SC / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a nonexistent case citation asserted to support that civil conspiracy is a 'parasitic tort'; court could not find the case in reporters or Lexis and found the reporter number corresponded to an unrelated case. 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 SC DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a nonexistent case citation asserted to support that civil conspiracy is a 'parasitic tort'; court could not find the case in reporters or Lexis and found the reporter number corresponded to an unrelated case. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in SC DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
South CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC DC
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit4th Circuit
DateApr 21, 2026
AI
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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a nonexistent case citation asserted to support that civil conspiracy is a 'parasitic tort'; court could not find the case in reporters or Lexis and found the reporter number corresponded to an unrelated case.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a real case for a proposition the case does not discuss (distinguishing a continuous tort from a single act with continuous effects); court found the authority did not support the asserted rule.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jurkowski v. Berkowitz?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff submitted a nonexistent case citation asserted to support that civil conspiracy is a 'parasitic tort'; court could not find the case in reporters or Lexis and found the reporter number corresponded to an unrelated case. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Jurkowski v. Berkowitz matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in SC DC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Jurkowski v. Berkowitz?
- 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 Jurkowski v. Berkowitz 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.