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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC
E.D. North Carolina · Jan 13, 2026
NC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsemploymenttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. North Carolina
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateJan 13, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
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 | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant identified numerous fictitious or fake case citations in both memoranda filed by the pro se plaintiff; the court found the citations to be fictitious and relied on that finding in denying leave to amend. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC?
- 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 Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC 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.