HomeCasesKelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County

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

Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County

LUBA (Oregon) · Mar 19, 2026

OR / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Petition struck; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Petition struck in LUBA (Oregon), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtLUBA (Oregon)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 19, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePetition struck

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

Petition struck

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 | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Bartholomew's reply brief included a fabricated case citation that persisted after the county identified invalid authorities.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Bartholomew cited existing cases and statutes that do exist but do not support the propositions for which they were cited (mischaracterized authorities).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County?: Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.
Why does Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Petition struck in LUBA (Oregon), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County?: 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 Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County 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.

Holmes Family Trust v. Multnomah County AssessorOregon Tax Court · Dec 16, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Troy Allen Berg v. Mandi Marie WondraD. Oregon · Dec 12, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations 14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M. D... A. c. Département de l'IsèreTA Grenoble · Jun 4, 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

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 | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.

Operational lesson

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtLUBA (Oregon)

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 19, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePetition struck

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Bartholomew's reply brief included a fabricated case citation that persisted after the county identified invalid authorities.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Bartholomew cited existing cases and statutes that do exist but do not support the propositions for which they were cited (mischaracterized authorities).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.

Why does Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County?

Which source supports this Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County 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.