Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.

What the court wrote

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

Obi continues to submit AI hallucinated arguments and cases. On page 7, she asserts that “The district court acknowledged on page 7 that ‘a federal court may hear a claim alleging a state court judgment is void forlackofjurisdiction.’ItcitedAndradev.ArbyConcessions, 88F.4th1014(7thCir.2023).”(Dkt.100at7).Theentiretyof that assertion—the quote, case, and “acknowledgement”—is made up. (Compare id. with Dkt. 88). Obi is a repeat offender on this front. She has continually filed briefs generated by AI that are riddled with fabricated cases and arguments. (Dkt. 97 at 3) (ruling that “[t]he severity of Plaintiff's Rule 11 ongoing and repeated violations warrants sanctions”). She also continues to ignore basic orders and court rules (such as page limit and spacing requirements). (Id. at 1-2).3 Obi claimsthattheCourtdismissedoneofherpositionsrelyingon “a single authority” and “without engagement with binding precedent.” (Dkt. 100 at 8). That is false. The Court cites to, relieson,andengageswith,multiplebindingcases.(Compare id. with Dkt. 88 at 6-8). Obi re-raises her frivolous position that “Docket 14 [i]s the Operative Complaint.” (Dkt. 100 at 10-11, 4).

Authorities cited in the passage: Rule 11