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 76/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
McDowell et al. v. Turpen
D. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Feb 17, 2026
CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 17, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in McDowell et al. v. Turpen?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
- Why does McDowell et al. v. Turpen matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about McDowell et al. v. Turpen?
- 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 McDowell et al. v. Turpen 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.