Michael T-Alexander v. Michelle Baass et al.
CA California (6d) · Apr 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- CA California (6d)
- Record ID
- michael-t-alexander-v-michelle-baass-et-al-2026-04-14
- Observed outcome
- Admonishment
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant included purported quotations attributed to Tennessee v. Lane that do not appear in that opinion; court found the quoted language fabricated. Outcome: Admonishment.
The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Admonishment; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment in CA California (6d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Civil Rights
- Appellate
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Admonishment
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Limited (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.