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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union
CA California (4d) · Jun 23, 2026
CA / stateEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
Operational lesson
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtCA California (4d)
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJun 23, 2026
AI
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 | Patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Patterson cited Romero for a proposition about the Uniform Commercial Code though Romero is a criminal case and does not support the proposition (misapplied precedent).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Patterson relied on a purported Fifth Circuit decision that the court determined does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Multiple cited bankruptcy decisions listed in the brief were identified as nonexistent or unverifiable AI-generated citations.
- False Quotes: Case Law | A quotation was attributed to a real California Supreme Court decision but the quoted language does not appear in that decision (false quotation).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union?
- In Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union, the CA California (4d) addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a pro se litigant filing. The linked source records that patterson cited a non-existent federal case to support her arguments; court flagged it as fabricated authority. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-23. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
- Why does Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a state proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union 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.