Which source supports this Kim v. Wexel 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.

HomeCasesKim v. Wexel

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 81/100. 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

Kim v. Wexel

CA Georgia · Jun 24, 2026

GA / state Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations family appellate Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Kim v. Wexel, the CA Georgia addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-24. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.

Why the court cared: The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions..
Why it matters now: The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore GAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtCA Georgia

Jurisdictionstate

Circuit11th Circuit

DateJun 24, 2026

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kim v. Wexel?: In Kim v. Wexel, the CA Georgia addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant cited a non-existent case, which the court identified as fictitious and warned could lead to sanctions. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-24. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Why does Kim v. Wexel matter for legal AI risk?: The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
What does the public record establish about Kim v. Wexel?: Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
Which source supports this Kim v. Wexel 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.

Washington v. WashingtonCA Georgia · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Broyles v. McNealCA Georgia · May 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Slay v. RossCA Georgia · Mar 9, 2026same court · fake citations + family Shahid v. EsaamCA Georgia · Jun 30, 2025same court · fake citations + family Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al.CA Georgia · Jun 10, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Hicks v. City of AlbanyCA Georgia · Feb 26, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open CA Georgia profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.

Read methodology