ApodictaShow me on my files

Connecticut · federal district court · 2026

In re: Booker

District Court, D. Connecticut, 5 August 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · D. Conn.

  1. Court. District Court, D. ConnecticutCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 5 August 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 3:25-cv-01205DOCKET
  5. Judge. Vernon D. OliverJUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 8 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.

Docket entry 33, 5 August 2026 · source · PDF · 21 pages

Docket text. ORDER ADMONISHING Booker III for his Rule 11 violations; AFFIRMING the Bankruptcy Court's July 18, 2025 Order; and DISMISSING Booker III's appeal, per the attached. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/5/2026. (JD2)

13 Booker III filed his brief on November 20, 2025.14 U.S. Bank filed its opposition on December 22, 2025,15 and Booker III replied on January 5, 2026.16 On June 25, 2026, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause after discovering that Booker III’s briefs were riddled with cases that do not exist, incorrect quotes, and erroneous citations.17 Specifically, i n its Show-Cause Order, the Court identified the following hallucinations: Case Notes ECF No. 22 at 8: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 17(a), “every action Incorrect quote.

Ariz. 2021) Nonexistent case. Page 771 of Volume 104 of the Bankruptcy Reporter lands in the middle of In re Crouch, a bankruptcy case from West Virginia (104 B.R.

E.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that a bankruptcy court may not overturn a state-court foreclosure judgment) Nonexistent case. This citation leads to a case called In re Richmond.

Bank of Connecticut, 201 Conn. 247, 251 (1991) (emphasizing the statutory requirement of a recorded decree) Nonexistent case. This citation goes to the middle of State v.

567 (1989) (due-process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard). Nonexistent case. Page 567 lands in the middle of a case called Coit Independence Joint Venture v.

That case explicitly does not discuss due process. The Court could not find any case called “Mathews v. Dillon.” ECF No.

Mar. 30 2022) Nonexistent case. There are no “Easley” bankruptcy cases in Connecticut, nor were any 5 bankruptcy cases decided on March 20, 2022 in Connecticut.

Appellant also does not reference this case outside the Table of Authorities. In sum, the Court was able to identify at least two inaccurate quotes, four erroneous citations, and six fabricated cases. These hallucinations clearly indicate d to the Court the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the preparation of these briefs.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, D. Connecticut, from Connecticut, or from 2026. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on one of my filesTry the gate
Show me on my files