HomeCasesTsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC

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

Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC

S.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025

IN / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent. Outcome: Admonishment and Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Admonishment and Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment and Warning in S.D. Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent. Outcome: Admonishment and Warning.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment and Warning in S.D. Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Indiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateSep 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment and Warning

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

Admonishment and Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent.
Misrepresented: Other | Plaintiff's brief included AI-style placeholder language and bracketed instructions indicating use of an AI-generated draft, undermining the brief's substantive citations/arguments.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Eastern District of Kentucky decision to support a legal principle; the Court found the case does not exist and that similar-cited cases from Florida did not support Plaintiff's asserted principle.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent. Outcome: Admonishment and Warning.
Why does Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Admonishment and Warning in S.D. Indiana, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC 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.

Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance CorporationS.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Jana James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Michael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey SmithS.D. Indiana · May 26, 2026same court · 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

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent. Outcome: Admonishment and Warning.

Operational lesson

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Indiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateSep 17, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment and Warning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent.

Misrepresented: Other | Plaintiff's brief included AI-style placeholder language and bracketed instructions indicating use of an AI-generated draft, undermining the brief's substantive citations/arguments.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Eastern District of Kentucky decision to support a legal principle; the Court found the case does not exist and that similar-cited cases from Florida did not support Plaintiff's asserted principle.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's filings contained multiple other citations to cases the Court could not locate and deemed non-existent. Outcome: Admonishment and Warning.

Why does Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC?

Which source supports this Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLC 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.