Ali Behroz Aziz, et al. v. United States of America, et al.

What the court wrote

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

53–55, 56–58) comprising over 40 pages of coherent legal analysis all on April 10, 2026, the day after the Court’s prior order, ECF No. 52. The latest flurry worsens a pattern of repeated filings: the Court’s previous order denied four of Plaintiffs’ motions that were filed within the space of a few weeks. ECF No. 52. The likeliest explanation is that Plaintiffs are using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool. This inference is further corroborated by numerous hallucinated cases and citations: for example, in ECF No. 59 at 8, Plaintiffs’ quote a previous case of this Court (“United States v. $17,900 in U. S. Currency”) that does not appear to exist. Although the use of AI tools for legal research or drafting is not inherently improper, Plaintiffs’ avalanche of filings here, whether AI-generated or not, have burdened the Court, advanced frivolous arguments, misstated the record, and fabricated legal authorities.