Kelly Bartholomew v. Clackamas County
LUBA (Oregon) · Mar 19, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- LUBA (Oregon)
- Record ID
- kelly-bartholomew-v-clackamas-county-2026-03-19
- Observed outcome
- Petition struck
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition for review contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist; LUBA agreed most citations were fabricated. Outcome: Petition struck.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Petition struck
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Source Unavailable (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.