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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
United States v. Thomas Czartorski, et al.
W.D. Kentucky · Nov 10, 2025
KY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycriminaltrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent. Outcome: Order to show Cause. In his response, Counsel acknowledged that he first researched relevant cases, and then "entered the cases into ChatGPT and requested that it highlight favorable arguments contained in the list of cases."
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites 'United States v. Cope, 312 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Ky. 2004)' which the court treated as a fictitious opinion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Wright cites 'United States v. Abbott, 2023 WL 4106534 (E.D. Ky. June 27, 2023)'; the court found the citation non-existent and noted internal inconsistencies. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief quotes and characterizes United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) in a manner the court found to misrepresent that Sixth Circuit holding. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Wright cites United States v. Tran, 433 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2006) but the court found the holding as presented was misstated.
- Why it matters now
- Never feed cases into ChatGPT for 'favorable arguments' — fabrications flow back as quotes and holdings you cannot defend.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent. Outcome: Order to show Cause. In his response, Counsel acknowledged that he first researched relevant cases, and then "entered the cases into ChatGPT and requested that it highlight favorable arguments contained in the list of cases."
Operational lesson
Never feed cases into ChatGPT for 'favorable arguments' — fabrications flow back as quotes and holdings you cannot defend.
Record details
KentuckySingle-state evidence scope
CourtW.D. Kentucky
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateNov 10, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to show Cause
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Order to show Cause
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 | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief cites 'United States v. Cope, 312 F. Supp. 2d 791 (E.D. Ky. 2004)' which the court treated as a fictitious opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Wright cites 'United States v. Abbott, 2023 WL 4106534 (E.D. Ky. June 27, 2023)'; the court found the citation non-existent and noted internal inconsistencies.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The brief quotes and characterizes United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) in a manner the court found to misrepresent that Sixth Circuit holding.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Wright cites United States v. Tran, 433 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2006) but the court found the holding as presented was misstated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in United States v. Thomas Czartorski, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Wright's brief cites a purported opinion 'United States v. Hang Le-Thy Tran, No. 3:07-CR-53, 2008 WL 2699394 (E.D. Ky. July 3, 2008)' which the court identified as non-existent. Outcome: Order to show Cause. In his response, Counsel acknowledged that he first researched relevant cases, and then "entered the cases into ChatGPT and requested that it highlight favorable arguments contained in the list of cases."
- Why does United States v. Thomas Czartorski, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Never feed cases into ChatGPT for 'favorable arguments' — fabrications flow back as quotes and holdings you cannot defend.
- What does the public record establish about United States v. Thomas Czartorski, 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 United States v. Thomas Czartorski, 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.