AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.

W.D. Michigan · Jan 7, 2026 · Paul L. Maloney

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesotherCase Dismissed
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the plaintiff's case as frivolous after the pro se litigant submitted objections containing a fabricated quotation attributed to a 1795 Supreme Court case. The court explicitly identified the quote as fake and rejected the plaintiff's sovereign-citizen arguments as a waste of judicial resources.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a fabricated quotation to Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, asserting governments are "abstractions" that cannot interact with "the tangible"; the Court identified the quote as fake and not in the 1795 prize case.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Case dismissed as frivolous..

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a fabricated quotation to Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, asserting governments are "abstractions" that cannot interact with "the tangible"; the Court identified the quote as fake and not in the 1795 prize case. Outcome: Case dismissed as frivolous.. The court found the plaintiff's objections and central claims rooted in sovereign-citizen ideology and noted a fabricated quotation attributed to Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795). The R&R was adopted and the action dismissed as frivolous.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Case dismissed as frivolous..

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Michigan
Recorded decision-makerPaul L. Maloney · United States District Judge
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateJan 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court overruled the plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss the case as frivolous.
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

The District Court reviewed a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) following the plaintiff's filing of objections. The Court overruled the objections and adopted the R&R, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a fabricated quotation to Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, asserting governments are "abstractions" that cannot interact with "the tangible"; the Court identified the quote as fake and not in the 1795 prize case.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.?
The court dismissed the plaintiff's case as frivolous after the pro se litigant submitted objections containing a fabricated quotation attributed to a 1795 Supreme Court case. The court explicitly identified the quote as fake and rejected the plaintiff's sovereign-citizen arguments as a waste of judicial resources.
Why does Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Case dismissed as frivolous..
What does the public record establish about Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, 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 Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, 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.

Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)W.D. Michigan · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsDavid Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers AutomotiveW.D. Michigan · Nov 6, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)W.D. Michigan · Aug 29, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsIzzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra v. Steve Hinkley, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesChecks Aciek Ateny Nai v. National Asset Mortgage, LLC, et al.W.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes