District of Columbia · federal district court · 2026

MARKI REVEND v. TREEFA AZIZ

District Court, District of Columbia, 22 June 2026 to 30 June 2026. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from 2 documents on file.

Case record · D.D.C.

  1. Court. District Court, District of ColumbiaCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Dates. 22 June 2026 to 30 June 2026DATED
  4. Docket. No. 1:24-cv-00278DOCKET
  5. Judge. Randolph Daniel MossJUDGE
  6. Documents. 2 documents, 2 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, 30 June 2026 · source

Docket text. MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiffs' counsel's apparent intention to seek substitute counsel and then withdraw from this representation, Dkt. 181, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall file any response to Plaintiffs' counsel's request that the Court grant them additional time with which to do so on or before July 7, 2026. In addition, given Plaintiffs' counsel's admission that they filed briefs containing multiple hallucinated citations and quotations drafted by unidentified third party "volunteers" whose identities, qualifications, backgrounds, and motivations were not disclosed to Plaintiffs' counsel, and Plaintiffs' counsel's professed inability to comply with the Court's prior order directing them to inform the Court of the identities of the persons responsible for those filings, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the Court with a complete list of every other filing in this case that was drafted in whole or in part by unnamed "volunteers" affiliated with Stephen M. Studdert, the Kurdistan Victims Fund, or any other entity, rather than by attorneys at Tate, Bywater, Fuller, Mickelsen & Tull, PLC, on or before July 7, 2026. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/30/2026. (lcrdm3)

In addition, given Plaintiffs' counsel's admission that they filed briefs containing multiple hallucinated citations and quotations drafted by unidentified third party "volunteers" whose identities, qualifications, backgrounds, and motivations were not disclosed to Plaintiffs' counsel, and Plaintiffs' counsel's professed inability to comply with the Court's prior order directing them to inform the Court of the identities of the persons responsible for those filings, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the Court with a complete list of every other filing in this case that was drafted in whole or in part by unnamed "volunteers" affiliated with Stephen M.

Docket entry, 22 June 2026 · source

Docket text. MINUTE ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing held on June 22, 2026, and in light of Plaintiffs' counsel's representation on the record that Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration containing hallucinated citations and then re-filed a materially identical motion despite having been put on notice of its deficiencies, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file (under seal if necessary) a complete list of every person involved in drafting the two motions for reconsideration along with their professional affiliations and bar admissions, if any, on or before June 29, 2026. It is further ORDERED that James R. Tate and Paul Mickelsen shall file a sworn declaration attesting that they will take full responsibility for any future filings in this case on which their signatures appear, and that they will personally verify the substantive accuracy of any factual or legal representation contained therein, on or before June 29, 2026. This includes verifying the accuracy of all quotes and citations, and it imposes an independent duty on counsel to verify that a good faith and reasonable basis exists for all factual assertions. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' counsel stated that he believed that the Court's minute order of April 16, 2026, relieved him of his obligation to have at least two partners at Tate, Bywater, Fuller, Mickelsen & Tull, PLC, sign any filings submitted in this matter. Having reviewed the Court's order, which referred unambiguously to staying only Plaintiffs' "deadline to pay the sum of $100,000 as sanctions to Defendant Joe R. Reeder," the Court cannot see how the order could have been interpreted in good faith as Plaintiffs claim. To remove any ambiguity, the Court reiterates that all future filings submitted by Plaintiffs in this matter must bear two such signatures for as long as that firm continues to represent the Plaintiffs, and both signatories must take full responsibility for the accuracy of all legal and factual citations and quotes contained in the filing and must certify that nothing contained in the filing is "being presented for any improper purpose," Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). Signing a lawyer's name to a brief that the lawyer has not read, as apparently occurred here, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/22/2026. (lcrdm3)

MINUTE ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing held on June 22, 2026, and in light of Plaintiffs' counsel's representation on the record that Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration containing hallucinated citations and then re-filed a materially identical motion despite having been put on notice of its deficiencies, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file (under seal if necessary) a complete list of every person involved in drafting the two motions for reconsideration along with their professional affiliations and bar admissions, if any, on or before June 29, 2026. It is further ORDERED that James R.

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, District of Columbia, from District of Columbia, 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 my files