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.
Rathi & Rathi
Federal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 22, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityfamily
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on 's 97(3)' in submissions; the court found that section did not support the appellant's contention and treated the reliance as evidence of generative AI use (misrepresentation/misapplication).
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
CourtFederal Circuit and Family Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 22, 2025
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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Appellant relied on 's 97(3)' in submissions; the court found that section did not support the appellant's contention and treated the reliance as evidence of generative AI use (misrepresentation/misapplication).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rathi & Rathi?
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Appellant cited 's 43(c) of the Act', but the court noted there is no s 43(c) of the Act and treated it as an AI-generated (fabricated) citation.
- Why does Rathi & Rathi matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in Federal Circuit and Family Court, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Rathi & Rathi?
- 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 Rathi & Rathi 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.