HomeCasesKaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.

D. Hawai‘i · Oct 31, 2025

HI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 29-7.2" for the proposition that intentional confinement via trespass is unlawful; the court found no such section and observed ROH ch.29 pertains to affordable housing. || Fabricated: Case Law | "Blair v. City of Honolulu" cited in the complaint but does not appear to exist; court flagged it as likely fictitious.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

HawaiiSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Hawai‘i

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 31, 2025

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

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

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 29-7.2" for the proposition that intentional confinement via trespass is unlawful; the court found no such section and observed ROH ch.29 pertains to affordable housing.
Fabricated: Case Law | "Blair v. City of Honolulu" cited in the complaint but does not appear to exist; court flagged it as likely fictitious.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition.
Why does Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, 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.

Yuri Petrini v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et al.S.D. Mississippi · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2)D. New Mexico · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026pro 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 Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

HawaiiSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Hawai‘i

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 31, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 29-7.2" for the proposition that intentional confinement via trespass is unlawful; the court found no such section and observed ROH ch.29 pertains to affordable housing.

Fabricated: Case Law | "Blair v. City of Honolulu" cited in the complaint but does not appear to exist; court flagged it as likely fictitious.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?

Why does Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

What does the public record establish about Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?

Which source supports this Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, 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.