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.
Labonte v. Bokf, et al.
D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026
CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation warning against dismissals that would 'strip a court of its ability to afford complete relief' to Citizen Center v. Gessler; the Court found that language does not appear in Gessler. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp. using an apparently fabricated or incorrect Westlaw-style citation that does not match the case or proposition relied upon.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 10, 2026
AI
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
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation warning against dismissals that would 'strip a court of its ability to afford complete relief' to Citizen Center v. Gessler; the Court found that language does not appear in Gessler.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Harris v. Sand Canyon Corp. using an apparently fabricated or incorrect Westlaw-style citation that does not match the case or proposition relied upon.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Labonte v. Bokf, et al.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp. as '855 P.2d 1188' and as a Colorado court decision; the Court noted the correct reporter and that Sterling is 855 F.2d 1188 (Sixth Circuit), not a Colorado decision. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Labonte v. Bokf, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Labonte v. Bokf, et al.?
- 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 Labonte v. Bokf, 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.