Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi Soliman
CA California · Dec 1, 2025
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. as holding courts must evaluate standing based on objective evidence; the court noted that Southern Cal. Gas does not discuss standing and thus was misapplied. Outcome: Admonishment.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. as holding courts must evaluate standing based on objective evidence; the court noted that Southern Cal. Gas does not discuss standing and thus was misapplied. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on Patterson v. Superior Court for the proposition that courts cannot presume standing; the court observed Patterson does not address standing and that Patterson was disapproved by Ramirez. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | In her reply brief appellant cited a nonexistent 'Code of Civil Procedure section 2330' claiming it mandates how agency relationships must be established; the court treated this statute as a nonexistent citation. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant misquoted Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), claiming it bars granting summary judgment while a counter-motion is pending; the court noted the subdivision's actual text differs from appellant's description. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed the sentence 'Standing is a jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before the merits of a case may be reached.' to Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted Angelucci v. Century Supper Club as stating 'A plaintiff must have a real, present interest in the outcome – not just a theoretical or governmental interest in enforcing its laws.' The court found the quote is not in Angelucci.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. as holding courts must evaluate standing based on objective evidence; the court noted that Southern Cal. Gas does not discuss standing and thus was misapplied. Outcome: Admonishment.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 1, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAdmonishment
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
Admonishment
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. as holding courts must evaluate standing based on objective evidence; the court noted that Southern Cal. Gas does not discuss standing and thus was misapplied.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant relied on Patterson v. Superior Court for the proposition that courts cannot presume standing; the court observed Patterson does not address standing and that Patterson was disapproved by Ramirez.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | In her reply brief appellant cited a nonexistent 'Code of Civil Procedure section 2330' claiming it mandates how agency relationships must be established; the court treated this statute as a nonexistent citation.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant misquoted Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2), claiming it bars granting summary judgment while a counter-motion is pending; the court noted the subdivision's actual text differs from appellant's description.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed the sentence 'Standing is a jurisdictional issue that must be addressed before the merits of a case may be reached.' to Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles; the court found the quoted language does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant quoted Angelucci v. Century Supper Club as stating 'A plaintiff must have a real, present interest in the outcome – not just a theoretical or governmental interest in enforcing its laws.' The court found the quote is not in Angelucci.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi Soliman?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. as holding courts must evaluate standing based on objective evidence; the court noted that Southern Cal. Gas does not discuss standing and thus was misapplied. Outcome: Admonishment.
- Why does Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi Soliman matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA California, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
- What does the public record establish about Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi Soliman?
- 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 Kingdom of Sweden v. Samantha Ashhadi Soliman 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.