Recurso em Sentido Estrito nº 0002062-61.2025.8.16.0019 — Vilmar Martins dos Santos
TJPR - 1ª Câmara Criminal · Apr 11, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a TJPR decision cited as nonexistent and noted the named relator (Paulo Vasconcelos) had retired before the cited dates and the process number format was implausible. Outcome: Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios.. The court found that the defense brief relied on AI-generated jurisprudence, listing 43 purported decisions many of which are invented (fake judges, impossible process numbers, or decisions not faithful to STF/STJ records). Because the pleading mixed fabricated authorities with real allegations, the court concluded it was impossible to separate true from false and therefore did not know the appeal. The lawyer (Dr. Roberley Elias) was formally warned and the court declined to fix honorários.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and trial and records Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios. in TJPR - 1ª Câmara Criminal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a TJPR decision cited as nonexistent and noted the named relator (Paulo Vasconcelos) had retired before the cited dates and the process number format was implausible. Outcome: Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios.. The court found that the defense brief relied on AI-generated jurisprudence, listing 43 purported decisions many of which are invented (fake judges, impossible process numbers, or decisions not faithful to STF/STJ records). Because the pleading mixed fabricated authorities with real allegations, the court concluded it was impossible to separate true from false and therefore did not know the appeal. The lawyer (Dr. Roberley Elias) was formally warned and the court declined to fix honorários.
This matter connects fake citations and trial with Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios. in TJPR - 1ª Câmara Criminal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a TJPR decision cited as nonexistent and noted the named relator (Paulo Vasconcelos) had retired before the cited dates and the process number format was implausible.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no desembargador by this name in the court and treated the citation as created by AI.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court noted the relator cited (João Pedro Gebran Neto) belongs to TRF-4, not this court, indicating the citation was wrongly invented or attributed.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed that the named desembargador does not exist in the court's composition and the process number appears fictitious.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court concluded that cited STF/STJ habeas corpus numbers and excerpts were not faithful to the official records and treated them as AI-generated fabrications.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Example of an apelação citation with an impossible process number and a relator name the court says does not exist, treated as AI invention.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Recurso em Sentido Estrito nº 0002062-61.2025.8.16.0019 — Vilmar Martins dos Santos?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified a TJPR decision cited as nonexistent and noted the named relator (Paulo Vasconcelos) had retired before the cited dates and the process number format was implausible. Outcome: Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios.. The court found that the defense brief relied on AI-generated jurisprudence, listing 43 purported decisions many of which are invented (fake judges, impossible process numbers, or decisions not faithful to STF/STJ records). Because the pleading mixed fabricated authorities with real allegations, the court concluded it was impossible to separate true from false and therefore did not know the appeal. The lawyer (Dr. Roberley Elias) was formally warned and the court declined to fix honorários.
- Why does Recurso em Sentido Estrito nº 0002062-61.2025.8.16.0019 — Vilmar Martins dos Santos matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and trial with Recurso não conhecido; formal advertência ao advogado; não fixação de honorários advocatícios. in TJPR - 1ª Câmara Criminal. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Recurso em Sentido Estrito nº 0002062-61.2025.8.16.0019 — Vilmar Martins dos Santos?
- 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 Recurso em Sentido Estrito nº 0002062-61.2025.8.16.0019 — Vilmar Martins dos Santos 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.