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.
Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board
CA Federal Circuit · Dec 15, 2025
/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs. Outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs. || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quotes language attributed to Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) that the court states does not appear in that opinion (a false quotation attributed to an existing case).
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs. Outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
Record details
CourtCA Federal Circuit
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 15, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAffirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes
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
Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes
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: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief quotes language attributed to Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) that the court states does not appear in that opinion (a false quotation attributed to an existing case).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief cites “Special Counsel v. Hatch, 654 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” a citation the court identifies as incorrect (reporter citation actually corresponds to CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Court treated this as a fictitious/misleading citation in the briefing and relied on it as basis to strike the briefs. Outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
- Why does Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in CA Federal Circuit, with the listed outcome: Affirmed the Board; granted motions to strike the Kulkarnis' informal reply briefs containing the false citations/quotes.
- What does the public record establish about Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board?
- 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 Sayali Kulkarni & Abhijit Kulkarni v. Merit Systems Protection Board 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.