U.S. Bank National Association v. Richmond
D. Maine · Oct 27, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Maine
- Record ID
- us-bank-national-association-v-richmond-2025-10-27
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a show cause order regarding the defendant's conduct in his post-trial submissions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a show cause order against the pro se defendant after finding his post-trial memorandum contained substantial misleading misquotations and misattributed citations. The court characterized the brief as replete with incorrect citations and noted the defendant's history of combative, unprofessional conduct in the litigation.
The court addressed the defendant's post-trial brief, which contained numerous misquotations and misattributed citations, alongside a history of combative and unprofessional behavior that had previously triggered a Cok filing restriction.
This case illustrates the intersection of pro se litigation, unprofessional conduct, and the submission of unreliable legal research. It highlights judicial intolerance for filings that misrepresent authority, regardless of the litigant's status.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Post-trial phase following a bench trial; the court issued a show cause order regarding the defendant's conduct in his post-trial submissions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court's opinion does not name a specific tool, but the context of the errors implies AI usage.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.