AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMatthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑Kamerath

CA Washington · Jun 15, 2026

WA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed CR 11 sanctions against a pro se litigant who submitted filings containing fabricated quotations and misrepresented legal authorities. The court held that the appellant failed to meet the objective standard of reasonable inquiry required for court filings, confirming that pro se status does not excuse the submission of baseless or inaccurate legal arguments.

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
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Washington
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 15, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment and awarding CR 11 sanctions against the appellant.
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

Appellate review of a superior court's denial of revision of a commissioner's order, which had granted summary judgment and CR 11 sanctions.

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.

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed a nonexistent quotation to State ex rel. McCool and presented it as authority.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant incorrectly cites and quotes Olson, misrepresenting that authority.
  3. 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?
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed CR 11 sanctions against a pro se litigant who submitted filings containing fabricated quotations and misrepresented legal authorities. The court held that the appellant failed to meet the objective standard of reasonable inquiry required for court filings, confirming that pro se status does not excuse the submission of baseless or inaccurate legal arguments.
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.

Arthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREYCA Washington · Mar 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGregory Richmond and Lynne Richmond v. City of Newport, WashingtonCA Washington (d3) · Mar 17, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsIn re the Marriage of YoungCA Washington · Jul 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsT.M. v. M.M.CA Indiana · Sep 24, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)