Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Gunter v. Contango ORE, Inc., et al.

United States District Court for the District of Alaska · Federal district courts · AK · 2026-04-23 · order

The District of Alaska on 2026-04-23 admonished the self-represented party for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct. The self-represented party filed a submission with three mischaracterized case citations, one fabricated legal rule, and one fabricated or AI-like submission item, including Jimerson v. Tetlin Native Corp. as holding that transactions affecting ANCSA l.

Disposition: The court admonished the self-represented party for unverified or fabricated authorities and cautioned against repeating the citation misconduct.
Recorded conduct: The self-represented party filed a submission with three mischaracterized case citations, one fabricated legal rule, and one fabricated or AI-like submission item. — outcome: warning; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The Court recognizes the difficulty of making this showing and thus does not reach this conclusion lightly. However, Gunter is not advancing a debatable interpretation of an ambiguous law, which would clearly give rise to federal jurisdiction. He is relying on a phantom provision ofANCSAthat does not exist. Beyond that, Gunter offers no explanation for how ANCSA directly imposes a voting requirement on native corporation land sales. And because Gunter’s claim has no foundation in the text of ANCSA or any other tool of statutory interpretation, it is “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy. ”62 Akiachak Native Comm.

Authorities cited in the passage: Plaintiff cited Jimerson v. Tetlin Native Corp. as holding that transactions affecting ANCSA l · Inc. v. Doyon, Ltd. to argue the 1996 deed was improper

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public mirror; official copy pendingprovisional
Found via: charlotin-cc0
Notes: official copy pending

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub