SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al.
E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court struck the defendant's answer because it failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically regarding the requirements for responsive pleadings and the inclusion of fabricated and misrepresented case law citations, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Goldberg v. 401 North Washakie Venture LLC, 155 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2014)'; court found the citation incorrect/nonexistent and noted 155 F.3d 465 corresponds to Condon v. Reno; court located a different Seventh Circuit Goldberg decision at 755 F.3d 456. || Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an unintelligible 'Johnson v. 2003 App. 242, 117, 652 N.W.2d 48 at 647' and a purported direct quote; court found the citation and quote unintelligible and noted the reporter '652 N.W.2d 48' corresponds to a Minnesota case (In re Silicone Implant Ins. Coverage Litig.). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Presented 'Sengry v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.' rather than the actual Stenger v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.; court identified this as a typographical/garbled citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Hirk v. R-Arch-Roch. Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1977)' in place of Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the mismatch and garbling. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Miriam M.S. Commodities Inc., 15 E.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1972)' instead of Milnarik v. M–S Commodities, Inc., 457 F.2d 274 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the garbled name and citation.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: Brief Struck.
Why this matter is tracked
In an SEC enforcement action, the pro se defendant Joseph Nantomah filed a response to the complaint that the court struck for failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that Nantomah's filing contained multiple fabricated and misrepresented case citations, which the court identified as hallmarks of generative AI. Specifically, the court noted that cited cases were either nonexistent, garbled, or misattributed to incorrect reporters. The court ordered Nantomah to file an amended answer in compliance with procedural rules, warning that failure to do so could result in default or further sanctions. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are not excused from the duty to ensure legal contentions are warranted by existing law.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: Brief Struck.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court noted the citations bear the hallmarks of generative AI.
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's answer (Dkt. No. 30) and ordered the defendant to file an amended answer by February 28, 2026.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited 'Goldberg v. 401 North Washakie Venture LLC, 155 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2014)'; court found the citation incorrect/nonexistent and noted 155 F.3d 465 corresponds to Condon v. Reno; court located a different Seventh Circuit Goldberg decision at 755 F.3d 456.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited an unintelligible 'Johnson v. 2003 App. 242, 117, 652 N.W.2d 48 at 647' and a purported direct quote; court found the citation and quote unintelligible and noted the reporter '652 N.W.2d 48' corresponds to a Minnesota case (In re Silicone Implant Ins. Coverage Litig.).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Presented 'Sengry v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.' rather than the actual Stenger v. R.H. Love Galleries, Inc.; court identified this as a typographical/garbled citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Hirk v. R-Arch-Roch. Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1977)' in place of Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, Inc., 561 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the mismatch and garbling.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Miriam M.S. Commodities Inc., 15 E.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1972)' instead of Milnarik v. M–S Commodities, Inc., 457 F.2d 274 (7th Cir. 1972); court noted the garbled name and citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al.?
- The court struck the defendant's answer because it failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically regarding the requirements for responsive pleadings and the inclusion of fabricated and misrepresented case law citations, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI.
- Why does SEC v. Joseph Nantomah et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Wisconsin, with the listed outcome: Brief Struck.
- What does the public record establish about SEC v. Joseph Nantomah 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 SEC v. Joseph Nantomah 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.