Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 27, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 27, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKrystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.

E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a purported Supreme Court statement attributed to United States v. Sineneng-Smith that does not appear in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a purported Supreme Court statement attributed to United States v. Sineneng-Smith that does not appear in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateAug 26, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a purported Supreme Court statement attributed to United States v. Sineneng-Smith that does not appear in the opinion.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent Sixth Circuit opinion United States v. Abdi at 827 F.3d 533 for a docket-management proposition.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | Listed Hill v. Synder, 814 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2016) in index of authorities though the court could not locate such a decision.
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky for a proposition about cognitive/communicative accommodations that the case does not support.
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Asserted Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the Court supports an exception to Younger abstention when it actually held Younger abstention was required.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.?
False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted a purported Supreme Court statement attributed to United States v. Sineneng-Smith that does not appear in the opinion. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning in E.D. Michigan. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.?
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 Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, 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.