HomeCasesMitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)

W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a supposed Ninth Circuit case for the phrase 'to weed out meritless suits at an early stage' but the Court could not locate the cited case or the quote in any Ninth Circuit opinion. Outcome: Order include signed certification.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Order include signed certification; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order include signed certification in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order include signed certification in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeOrder include signed certification

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

Order include signed certification

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a supposed Ninth Circuit case for the phrase 'to weed out meritless suits at an early stage' but the Court could not locate the cited case or the quote in any Ninth Circuit opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Washington Court of Appeals case purportedly stating defamatory statements about private individuals 'do not become matters of public concern merely because they touch on litigation,' but the Court could not find the case or the quoted language in any Washington opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Washington Court of Appeals case as saying UPEPA protects speech 'on issues of legitimate public debate,' but that quote does not appear in the cited opinion.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Tenth Circuit opinion for the proposition '[a] litigant may not manipulate procedure to gain tactical advantage,' but the Court was unable to locate the cited Tenth Circuit opinion or the quoted language.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Southern District of California case/order for the proposition that blanket denials do not comply with Rule 8; while a case by that name exists, the Court could not locate the specific order Plaintiffs cited.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case from this district for the proposition the Court can strike an unintelligible answer, but the Court could not locate the cited case; the case number referenced an unassigned, administratively terminated matter.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)?: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a supposed Ninth Circuit case for the phrase 'to weed out meritless suits at an early stage' but the Court could not locate the cited case or the quote in any Ninth Circuit opinion. Outcome: Order include signed certification.
Why does Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Order include signed certification in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)?: 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.
Which source supports this Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1) 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.

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Merz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Krystle J. Lyons v. Oak Harbor School DistrictW.D. Washington · Dec 23, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Levy v. Google LLCW.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeOrder include signed certification

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Washington Court of Appeals case purportedly stating defamatory statements about private individuals 'do not become matters of public concern merely because they touch on litigation,' but the Court could not find the case or the quoted language in any Washington opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Washington Court of Appeals case as saying UPEPA protects speech 'on issues of legitimate public debate,' but that quote does not appear in the cited opinion.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs quoted a Tenth Circuit opinion for the proposition '[a] litigant may not manipulate procedure to gain tactical advantage,' but the Court was unable to locate the cited Tenth Circuit opinion or the quoted language.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Southern District of California case/order for the proposition that blanket denials do not comply with Rule 8; while a case by that name exists, the Court could not locate the specific order Plaintiffs cited.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case from this district for the proposition the Court can strike an unintelligible answer, but the Court could not locate the cited case; the case number referenced an unassigned, administratively terminated matter.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)?

Why does Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1) matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)?

Which source supports this Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1) 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.