HomeCasesRebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union

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

Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union

W.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesother

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response brief contained nonexistent authority and/or nonexistent quotations; court described them as 'nonexistent authority' and 'hallucinated cases or nonexistent quotes.' Outcome: Brief Struck; Severe Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Brief Struck; Severe Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Severe Warning 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 Unidentified with Brief Struck; Severe Warning 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

DateJul 15, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBrief Struck; Severe Warning

Known amountNot recorded

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

Brief Struck; Severe Warning

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 | Plaintiff's response brief contained nonexistent authority and/or nonexistent quotations; court described them as 'nonexistent authority' and 'hallucinated cases or nonexistent quotes.'

Questions this record answers

What happened in Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's response brief contained nonexistent authority and/or nonexistent quotations; court described them as 'nonexistent authority' and 'hallucinated cases or nonexistent quotes.' Outcome: Brief Struck; Severe Warning.
Why does Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Brief Struck; Severe Warning in W.D. Washington, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Rebecca Jean v. Seattle 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 Rebecca Jean v. Seattle 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.

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 Levy v. Google LLCW.D. Washington · Dec 22, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations William McNae and Ronda McNae v. ARAG Insurance CompanyW.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (1)W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Ligeri v. Amazon.com ServicesW.D. Washington · Jul 30, 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

DateJul 15, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeBrief Struck; Severe Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Questions this record answers

What happened in Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union?

Why does Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit Union?

Which source supports this Rebecca Jean v. Seattle 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.