HomeCasesSmith v. Clarence Smith et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Smith v. Clarence Smith et al.

N.D. New York · Dec 22, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rights

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re B.W., 352 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003),' which the court determined does not exist and appears to be AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wilkinson v. United States, 13 F.3d 855 (2d Cir. 1994),' which the court found to be nonexistent and unrelated to any real opinion at that reporter citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Keir v. Schoeberl with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2025 WL 1123456'); the court identified the correct citation as 2025 WL 437953, noting continued mis-citation of authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Bennett v. Mnuchin with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2020 WL 3214565'); the court noted the correct citation is 2020 WL 4432662, indicating miscitation rather than a substantive supporting authority.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 22, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

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 | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re B.W., 352 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003),' which the court determined does not exist and appears to be AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wilkinson v. United States, 13 F.3d 855 (2d Cir. 1994),' which the court found to be nonexistent and unrelated to any real opinion at that reporter citation.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Keir v. Schoeberl with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2025 WL 1123456'); the court identified the correct citation as 2025 WL 437953, noting continued mis-citation of authority.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Bennett v. Mnuchin with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2020 WL 3214565'); the court noted the correct citation is 2020 WL 4432662, indicating miscitation rather than a substantive supporting authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith v. Clarence Smith et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Smith v. Clarence Smith et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Smith v. Clarence Smith 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 Smith v. Clarence Smith 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.

Jeri'yah Ford v. Troy City School District, et al.N.D. New York · Mar 4, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Linda Oliver v. Christian DribuschN.D. New York · Nov 21, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Advani v. Appellate TermS.D. New York · Aug 1, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Jeramiah Brown v. Fat Dough Incorp., doing business as Dominos PizzaN.D. New York · Sep 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Rule v. BraimanN.D. New York · Sep 4, 2024same court · pro se + trial Kevin Krzeminski v. Janine McQuillanSC New York · Jul 6, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateDec 22, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re B.W., 352 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003),' which the court determined does not exist and appears to be AI-generated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wilkinson v. United States, 13 F.3d 855 (2d Cir. 1994),' which the court found to be nonexistent and unrelated to any real opinion at that reporter citation.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Keir v. Schoeberl with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2025 WL 1123456'); the court identified the correct citation as 2025 WL 437953, noting continued mis-citation of authority.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited Bennett v. Mnuchin with an incorrect Westlaw citation ('2020 WL 3214565'); the court noted the correct citation is 2020 WL 4432662, indicating miscitation rather than a substantive supporting authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Smith v. Clarence Smith et al.?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'In re D.C. Judicial Conflicts of Interest, 540 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1976),' which the court found does not exist and is a fabricated citation. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Smith v. Clarence Smith et al. matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. New York, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about Smith v. Clarence Smith et al.?

Which source supports this Smith v. Clarence Smith 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.