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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)
W.D. Michigan · Dec 1, 2025
MI / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Show Cause Order is here.
- Why the court cared
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined Stefanski v. City of Center Line (504 Mich. 877 (2019)) does not exist at that citation and the reference appears fabricated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Kaufman & Payton citation was used to assert a specific legal proposition the Court found the case does not support. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Chandler was cited for a point the opinion does not discuss; the citation was misapplied. || Misrepresented: Case Law | United States v. Garber was cited as if addressing professional responsibility, but the opinion is a tax-evasion appeal and does not support the asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Shallal v. Catholic Social Services is not present in that opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Wurtz was cited for propositions about knowledge and causation that the Court said Wurtz does not address. || Fabricated: Case Law | Pettigrew citation does not correspond to a defamation case and the named decision does not appear to exist at that citation (fabricated/interstitial miscitation). || False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quote attributed to U.S. ex rel. Marlar does not appear in that Sixth Circuit opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Riverview was cited for a specific maxim about pleading and amendment that the Court concluded Riverview does not contain. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found the Olitkowski and Wolverine citations do not contain the equitable-restitution language the defendant quoted or were misapplied. || Fabricated: Case Law | Wirsing citation appears to be fabricated or is an interstitial miscitation; the Court found no supporting authority at the cited source.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Show Cause Order is here.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateDec 1, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
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
Monetary Sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
12 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court determined Stefanski v. City of Center Line (504 Mich. 877 (2019)) does not exist at that citation and the reference appears fabricated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Kaufman & Payton citation was used to assert a specific legal proposition the Court found the case does not support.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted Chandler was cited for a point the opinion does not discuss; the citation was misapplied.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | United States v. Garber was cited as if addressing professional responsibility, but the opinion is a tax-evasion appeal and does not support the asserted proposition.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Shallal v. Catholic Social Services is not present in that opinion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Wurtz was cited for propositions about knowledge and causation that the Court said Wurtz does not address.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pettigrew citation does not correspond to a defamation case and the named decision does not appear to exist at that citation (fabricated/interstitial miscitation).
Show 4 additional discrepancies
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quote attributed to U.S. ex rel. Marlar does not appear in that Sixth Circuit opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Riverview was cited for a specific maxim about pleading and amendment that the Court concluded Riverview does not contain.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court found the Olitkowski and Wolverine citations do not contain the equitable-restitution language the defendant quoted or were misapplied.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Wirsing citation appears to be fabricated or is an interstitial miscitation; the Court found no supporting authority at the cited source.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the quoted language attributed to Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. does not appear in the cited opinion. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Show Cause Order is here.
- Why does Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2)?
- 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 Lothamer Tax Resolution, Inc. v. Paul Kimmel (2) 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.