The Internet Ninjathe internet ninja.
Verified proof · Process automation & AI-led ops

The internet is full of claims.We publish the proof.

Real outcomes from automation and AI-ops projects, checked with the client, never lifted from a pitch deck. The source buyers read before they hire, and AI answer engines cite when asked who actually delivers.

Read verified stories Get your work verified →
tin://exhibit-001 · process automation & ai-led ops verified

Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations

$31,150 (CAD) in costs ordered against the respondent, payable by June 26, 2026, with 4% interest on any overdue amount
Full costs awarded without any reduction; AI misuse held to be 'an additional and significantly aggravating factor'
First time a party has included 'hallucinated' authorities in arguments before the Law Society Tribunal
sources archived · method on record open the file →

01Why this exists

Every agency claims results. Almost none can be checked. In automation and AI-ops, where the field is young and the buyers are non-technical, that gap is expensive. TIN closes it.

for buyers

Stop guessing.

Verified before/after numbers from real engagements, with the client confirmed and the method on record.

for agencies

Proof beats marketing.

Turn a great project into a verified, citable asset that ranks in search and gets quoted by AI answer engines.

for the AI era

Be the cited source.

When someone asks ChatGPT "who's best at ops automation?", the answer comes from somewhere. TIN is built to be that source.

02How a badge is earned

Three checks clear before a green badge appears. If any fails, the story stays unverified. No exceptions, that rule is the whole product.

step 01

Independently validated

We re-research the story and check every figure against primary and independent sources before it can go green.

step 02

Evidence on record

Every number is backed by something checkable: a followable source, before/after metrics, documentation. No adjectives.

step 03

Method published

How each story was verified ships on the story itself. The record is public, not a claim in fine print.

Read the full verification standard →

03Latest case files

The registry starts here. Each entry is one checked outcome, typed and tagged.

Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified

Ontario Law Society Tribunal orders a lawyer to pay $31,150 in costs after Grok-generated fake citations

In Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario (2026 ONLSTH 112), the Law Society Tribunal ordered a suspended lawyer to pay the regulator's full costs of $31,150 after he filed motion materials produced by generative AI — which he admitted was 'in particular Grok' — that cited non-existent decisions and misused real ones. The panel called the AI misuse 'an additional and significantly aggravating factor' and noted it was the first time a party had put hallucinated authorities before the Tribunal.
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified

OTG New York v. Ottogi America: a New Jersey federal court fines a lawyer $3,000 for a reply brief built on AI-hallucinated citations (2025)

In OTG New York, Inc. v. Ottogi America, Inc. (D.N.J., No. 24-cv-07209), Magistrate Judge José R. Almonte sanctioned plaintiff's counsel Sukjin Henry Cho $3,000 under Rule 11(c) after Cho's reply brief cited nonexistent cases and fabricated legal propositions 'derived from generative artificial intelligence.' Cho confirmed he used AI, which produced hallucinated case law he incorporated without verification; the court struck the reply and ordered him to self-report the sanction to his state bars. No AI product is named.
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified

Torres Campos v. Munoz: a published California appellate opinion sanctions a lawyer $5,000 for citing AI-hallucinated cases in a dog-custody fight (2026)

In In re the Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos & Munoz (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. One, No. D085584), the court affirmed a family-court order over visitation of a dog and separately sanctioned respondent's counsel Roxanne Chung Bonar $5,000 for citing two fictitious authorities — Marriage of Twigg (1984) and Marriage of Teegarden (1995). Bonar conceded at oral argument that the fabricated details 'may have' come from her use of AI tools; the panel published the opinion to warn against 'hallucinated case citations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools.'
Process Automation & AI-Led Ops
verified

A federal court prices an unchecked AI legal workflow: $3,000 sanctions each for the attorneys behind an AI-drafted brief with nearly thirty defective citations

On July 7, 2025, Judge Nina Y. Wang of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado sanctioned Christopher I. Kachouroff (and his firm, McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff PLLC, jointly and severally) and Jennifer T. DeMaster $3,000 each under Rule 11(c)(1). Their February 25, 2025 opposition brief in Coomer v. Lindell — the election-defamation case against Michael J. Lindell, FrankSpeech LLC, and My Pillow, Inc. — contained what the court called 'nearly thirty defective citations': misquoted cases, misstated law, and, 'most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist.' Kachouroff told the court the brief was run through AI and that he personally did not check the citations. The court found Rule 11 violated and called the fines 'the least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance.'

Open the full registry →

/// on the ninja radar

Full wire →

Proof beats marketing.

Bring a real engagement to the dojo and turn it into a verified, citable asset, or read what's already on record.

Get your work verified Browse case files →