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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.
E.D. Michigan · Jan 16, 2026
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI report asserted that Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah supports the plaintiff's standing to assert her church's rights; the court noted Lukumi does not discuss standing. Outcome: Arguments ignored. The Court refused to consider a pro se plaintiff's AI-generated "Legal Analysis Report" produced with ChatGPT-4o because it contained incorrect and factitious citations and misstatements of law; the Rule 60(b) motion was denied.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI report asserted that Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah supports the plaintiff's standing to assert her church's rights; the court noted Lukumi does not discuss standing. || Fabricated: Case Law | The AI report contained various incorrect or nonexistent case citations and factitious references; the court described the Report as unreliable and declined to consider it.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Arguments ignored.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI report asserted that Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah supports the plaintiff's standing to assert her church's rights; the court noted Lukumi does not discuss standing. Outcome: Arguments ignored. The Court refused to consider a pro se plaintiff's AI-generated "Legal Analysis Report" produced with ChatGPT-4o because it contained incorrect and factitious citations and misstatements of law; the Rule 60(b) motion was denied.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Arguments ignored.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateJan 16, 2026
OP
AI toolOpenAI ChatGPT-4o
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeArguments ignored
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
OpenAI ChatGPT-4o is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Arguments ignored
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI report asserted that Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah supports the plaintiff's standing to assert her church's rights; the court noted Lukumi does not discuss standing.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The AI report contained various incorrect or nonexistent case citations and factitious references; the court described the Report as unreliable and declined to consider it.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The AI report asserted that Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah supports the plaintiff's standing to assert her church's rights; the court noted Lukumi does not discuss standing. Outcome: Arguments ignored. The Court refused to consider a pro se plaintiff's AI-generated "Legal Analysis Report" produced with ChatGPT-4o because it contained incorrect and factitious citations and misstatements of law; the Rule 60(b) motion was denied.
- Why does Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Arguments ignored.
- What does the public record establish about Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.?
- 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 Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al. 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.