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.
Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union
CA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: highpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a 1961 California appellate decision that does not appear to exist as cited. Outcome: Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL).
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL) in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a 1961 California appellate decision that does not appear to exist as cited. Outcome: Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL).
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL) in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California (4d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 2, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL)
Known amount$500
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL)
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
12 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a 1961 California appellate decision that does not appear to exist as cited.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Romero that the court found does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Tweel that the court found does not appear in that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a Seventh Circuit case that does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a Fifth Circuit unpublished opinion that does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a bankruptcy decision that does not appear to exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Strong v. County of Santa Cruz that the court found does not appear in that opinion.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed a quotation to Lake v. Reed that the court found does not appear in that opinion.
Show 4 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Romero (a criminal case) for the proposition that UCC provisions are binding, which the court found to be an inapposite or misrepresented use of that authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a purported bankruptcy decision reported in a UCC service that does not appear to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a non-existent bankruptcy memorandum opinion by docket reference.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a California appellate decision that does not appear to exist as cited.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opening brief cited a 1961 California appellate decision that does not appear to exist as cited. Outcome: Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL).
- Why does Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary sanction; Bar Referral (UPL) in CA California (4d), making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union?
- 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 Patterson v. Nuvision Credit Union 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.