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.
United States v. Brian Boehm
M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2025
PA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritypublished opinion
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited United States v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288, 291 (3d Cir. 2018) to suggest only a court (not probation) may impose supervised-release conditions; Helena did not involve a probation officer imposing conditions and was mischaracterized. Outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings.…
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited United States v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288, 291 (3d Cir. 2018) to suggest only a court (not probation) may impose supervised-release conditions; Helena did not involve a probation officer imposing conditions and was mischaracterized. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Albertson as stating probation officers 'lack authority' to expand judicial conditions; the phrase does not appear in the published opinion and the case was misapplied. || False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed statements to United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) about explicit imposition of monitoring costs; the court found those quotes and propositions false and Miller was misused.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited United States v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288, 291 (3d Cir. 2018) to suggest only a court (not probation) may impose supervised-release conditions; Helena did not involve a probation officer imposing conditions and was mischaracterized. Outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings. "12) The Al tool possibly used was sophisticated enough to include pinpoint citations to precedential Third Circuit authority.13) Fortunately for Boehm , the cases cited in his motion are very real decisions by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.14) Unfortunately for Boehm, these cases are misrepresented in his motion and his motion also contains false quotations from these opinions."
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings.
Record details
PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtM.D. Pennsylvania
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateDec 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeOrdered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings
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
Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited United States v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288, 291 (3d Cir. 2018) to suggest only a court (not probation) may impose supervised-release conditions; Helena did not involve a probation officer imposing conditions and was mischaracterized.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted Albertson as stating probation officers 'lack authority' to expand judicial conditions; the phrase does not appear in the published opinion and the case was misapplied.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Attributed statements to United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) about explicit imposition of monitoring costs; the court found those quotes and propositions false and Miller was misused.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in United States v. Brian Boehm?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited United States v. Helena, 906 F.3d 288, 291 (3d Cir. 2018) to suggest only a court (not probation) may impose supervised-release conditions; Helena did not involve a probation officer imposing conditions and was mischaracterized. Outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings.…
- Why does United States v. Brian Boehm matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: Ordered disclosure of AI use and affidavit certifying accuracy of citations for future filings.
- What does the public record establish about United States v. Brian Boehm?
- 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 United States v. Brian Boehm 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.