HomeCasesLothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)

W.D. Michigan · Aug 29, 2025

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined the citation to Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC (No. 2:21-cv-2611, 2022 WL 1591563) could not be located at the provided citation and treated it as a fictitious authority. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateAug 29, 2025

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined the citation to Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC (No. 2:21-cv-2611, 2022 WL 1591563) could not be located at the provided citation and treated it as a fictitious authority.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded Kimmel mischaracterized or quoted inaccurately from Shane Grp. v. Blue Cross (825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)), citing language not found in the decision.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted the citation to Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 147 (2018) was cited at a location that could not be verified and flagged it among other suspect citations.
False Quotes: Case Law | Court observed that language Kimmel attributes to FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc. (No. 10-3095, 2012 WL 2061520) does not appear in that opinion, i.e., a false quotation/misattribution.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited PFK Co. v. Protective Technologies, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 802 (S.D. Ind. 2008) could not be located at the provided citation and treated it as a fabricated authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined the citation to Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC (No. 2:21-cv-2611, 2022 WL 1591563) could not be located at the provided citation and treated it as a fictitious authority. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in W.D. Michigan, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)?: 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 Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1) 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.

Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)W.D. Michigan · Dec 1, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Jonathan David Deak v. Mike Schuitema, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jun 18, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Checks Aciek Ateny Nai v. National Asset Mortgage, LLC, et al.W.D. Michigan · Mar 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Kamps v. British Crown Corporation, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra v. Steve Hinkley, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Christian Brothers AutomotiveW.D. Michigan · Nov 6, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateAug 29, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded Kimmel mischaracterized or quoted inaccurately from Shane Grp. v. Blue Cross (825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)), citing language not found in the decision.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted the citation to Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 147 (2018) was cited at a location that could not be verified and flagged it among other suspect citations.

False Quotes: Case Law | Court observed that language Kimmel attributes to FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc. (No. 10-3095, 2012 WL 2061520) does not appear in that opinion, i.e., a false quotation/misattribution.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited PFK Co. v. Protective Technologies, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 2d 802 (S.D. Ind. 2008) could not be located at the provided citation and treated it as a fabricated authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)?

Why does Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1) matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1)?

Which source supports this Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (1) 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.