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.
Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath
CA Washington · Jun 15, 2026
WA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath, the CA Washington addressed a False Quotes: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Sanctions affirmed. The entry is dated 2026-06-15. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath, the CA Washington addressed a False Quotes: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Sanctions affirmed. The entry is dated 2026-06-15. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Operational lesson
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA Washington
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 15, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSanctions affirmed
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
Sanctions affirmed
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.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant incorrectly cites and quotes Olson, misrepresenting that authority.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant cited Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance but relied on it improperly; court found Burnet concerns CR 37(b) and is inapplicable to the asserted point.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath?
- In Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath, the CA Washington addressed a False Quotes: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Sanctions affirmed. The entry is dated 2026-06-15. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
- Why does Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath 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.