From yesterday’s decision by Judge Nina Wang Coomerv. Lindell (D. Koro.):
After confirming with Kacholov that he had signed an opposition party consistent with his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as widely discussed in the records, the court identified nearly 30 quotes of defects in the opposition. These defects include, but are not limited to, misquoting the cited cases. Falsely misrepresentations of law principles related to the cited case. This includes merely discussion of legal principles that do not appear within the scope of such decisions. Misstatement as to whether case law arises from binding authorities such as the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 10th Circuit. A false claim for case law was made to this district. And the most awful, nonexistent case quote.
Despite all the opportunities, Kachurov refused to explain to the court how the opposition parties were fulfilled by such fundamental mistakes. For example, it is said to be when faced with the first misconception that appears in parentheses depicted on page 3 of the Opposition. Mata vs. Farmington798 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1227 (DNM 2011)—Mr. Kachurov told the court:
Your honor I might have made a mistake, and I might have misparsed the quote. I had no intention of misleading the court. I don’t think the quote is far from what you read to me.
When asked how the case from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky belongs to the US District Court for the Colorado District, Kacholov noted that he “given a quote check to others,” later identified as DeMaster. When asked if he was surprised to find out he had a quote Perkinsv. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co. , 945 F.3d 1242, 1251 (10th, 2019) Appearing on the defendant’s opposition to pages 6 did not exist as an actual incident, Kacholov said he was surprised.
{There’s a Colorado incident Perkinsv. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co.945 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (D. Colo. 2013), The appeal was dismissedNo. 13-1250 (July 29th and 10th, 2013) asserted that in such cases the defendant argued, that the Court of Appeal “recognizes evidence of prior emotional difficulties in challenging the claim for damages.” Plea. ”
The court confirmed that Kacholov actually used generative artificial intelligence until he asked directly whether the opposition parties were a product of generative artificial intelligence. After further questions, Kacholov admitted that despite understanding his obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he did not cite any checks of opposition authorities after such use before filing it in court. Still, Kachouroff has stated that he personally outlined and wrote a brief draft before harnessing generative artificial intelligence. Given the prevalence of the legal authorities’ errors set out, the court treats this expression skeptical…
The court ordered the defendant’s attorneys to explain why they should not be approved and why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings. That has been added
The lawyer will specifically address the circumstances surrounding preparation for the plaintiff’s motion in Limin, including, but not limited to, whether the defendant has been advised and approved for the use of advisor’s generator artificial intelligence, under oath subject to perjury penalty.
By May 5, 2025, the record defense attorney Prove A copy of this order was provided to Defendant Michael Lindell. Personally ….
You might say that Kachurov was caught after defeating his pants, but I think the current problem is worse than the previous one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28zm4jwjzec
Thank you to my colleague Justin Glimmer about the pointer (not the pants, but the issue of hallucinations in AI).
