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.
Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, et al.
E.D. Michigan · Feb 20, 2026
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'ABC Corp. v. XYZ Inc., 123 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2019)'; the Court found that citation to be nonexistent and not a valid binding authority.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateFeb 20, 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
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'ABC Corp. v. XYZ Inc., 123 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2019)'; the Court found that citation to be nonexistent and not a valid binding authority.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Wells v. UPS Airlines, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2022 WL 1234567 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2022)'; the Court determined no such decision exists and noted a different similarly titled decision does not support plaintiff's recusal argument. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, 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 Zlatkin v. Gladwin County, 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.