ga-fact-check · diff
v0.1.0 to v0.1.0
236 added, 31 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: ga-fact-check
description: >
- Use to fact-check a Georgia court filing before filing. Runs citation verification, internal consistency, packet consistency, and sworn-vs.-argued consistency passes.
+ Use to verify the citations in a Georgia court filing before it is
+ filed. Triggers include "check my Georgia citations", "verify this
+ O.C.G.A. cite", "is this Georgia case real", "fact-check my brief",
+ "Bluebook Georgia citation format", "check the Ga. App. parallel
+ cite", "is this O.C.G.A. section still good law", "audit the
+ authorities in my Georgia motion". Runs four passes: (1) citation
+ verification against canonical Georgia sources; (2) internal
+ consistency within a single document (dates, dollar amounts, defined
+ terms); (3) packet consistency across motion + affidavit + proposed
+ order + certificate of service; (4) sworn-versus-argued consistency
+ between affidavit assertions and motion arguments.
version: 0.1.0
---
# Fact-Check Georgia Court Filings
- > **TODO**: Author substantive content. This is a scaffolded
- > stub. Research the Georgia analog from authoritative sources
- > before writing — do not search-and-replace from another
- > state plugin.
+ > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Fact-checking detects citation and
+ > consistency errors but does not assess legal sufficiency. Verify
+ > substantive law independently before filing.
- > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Formatting and quality checks verify
- > the surface — they don't tell the user whether the
- > underlying legal position is sound. Verify current rules
- > before filing; pair with substantive review by counsel
- > where stakes warrant.
+ Use this skill before any Georgia court filing leaves the desk. It is
+ the deeper evidentiary-citation pass; it runs four passes.
- ## State context
+ ## Pass 1 — Citation verification
- - **State**: Georgia
- - **Format rule**: O.C.G.A. § 9-11-10 + Uniform Superior Court Rules
- - **Civil rules**: Georgia Civil Practice Act (O.C.G.A. Title 9, Ch. 11)
- - **Evidence rules**: Georgia Evidence Code (O.C.G.A. Title 24)
- - **Style manual**: Georgia appellate citation (Bluebook-based)
+ For every rule, statute, regulation, and case citation in the
+ document, verify four things: (a) the authority **exists** and is
+ cited accurately; (b) it is **still good law** (not repealed,
+ superseded, overruled, or distinguished); (c) the **pinpoint** is
+ correct; and (d) the cited text actually says what the brief claims.
- ## What to author
+ ### Georgia citation conventions
- 1. Description: replace the placeholder with realistic trigger
- phrases for how a Georgia pro se filer would ask about this
- 2. Body: substantive content matching the role
- 3. Composition notes: which other ga- skills this layers
- with
- 4. References: the supporting `references/*.md` files
+ Georgia follows its own appellate citation conventions (Georgia
+ Supreme Court Rule 22; Court of Appeals Rule 24). Georgia is **not**
+ a public-domain / neutral-citation jurisdiction — there is no
+ `[YEAR] GA [###]` vendor-neutral cite. Cite the **official reporters**
+ first, with the regional reporter as a parallel cite second:
- ## References to author
+ - **Supreme Court of Georgia**: official **Georgia Reports** (`Ga.`)
+ first, then **South Eastern Reporter** (`S.E.2d`) parallel second.
+ - **Court of Appeals of Georgia**: official **Georgia Appeals
+ Reports** (`Ga. App.`) first, then `S.E.2d` parallel second.
+ - **Order of a full cite**:
+ `Name, Vol. Ga. Page, Vol. S.E.2d Page (year).`
+ - **With a pincite** (point to the official-reporter page first, then
+ the parallel page):
+ `261 Ga. 491, 493, 405 S.E.2d 474, 476 (1991).`
+ - **Not-yet-reported opinions** (no Ga./Ga. App. volume yet): cite by
+ case name + docket/case number + the decision date, e.g.
+ `Name, No. S21A0001 (Ga. Mar. 1, 2021)`.
+ - **Statutes**: `O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56` (always the `§`; the official
+ code is the Official Code of Georgia Annotated).
+ - **Court rules**: Uniform Superior Court Rules (`USCR`), Uniform
+ State Court Rules, Uniform Magistrate Court Rules — cite by rule
+ number, no `§`.
+ - **Federal statutes**: `15 U.S.C. § 1692g`.
- - Research the Georgia analog from authoritative sources
- before authoring; do NOT search-and-replace from another
- state plugin
+ Common errors to flag:
- ## Cross-references
+ - Dropping the official `Ga.` / `Ga. App.` reporter and citing only
+ the `S.E.2d` parallel — Georgia practice leads with the official
+ reporter.
+ - Confusing the courts: `Ga.` is the Supreme Court, `Ga. App.` is the
+ Court of Appeals. A case in `Ga. App.` cited as `Ga.` (or vice
+ versa) is a real red flag.
+ - Inventing a neutral cite (`[YEAR] GA [###]`) — Georgia has none.
+ - Missing the `§` on an O.C.G.A. citation, or adding a `§` to a USCR
+ rule citation (rules take no `§`).
+ - A pincite that points to the parallel `S.E.2d` page only, with no
+ official-reporter pincite.
- - `ga-statewide-format` for format baseline
- - `ga-fulton` / `ga-cobb` / `ga-county-courts` for venue
- - `ga-pro-se` for pro se conventions
+ ### Where to verify
+
+ The official O.C.G.A. text is published by LexisNexis and is
+ **paywalled/copyrighted** — do not rely on scraped "official" text.
+ Use these open verification sources instead:
+
+ - **O.C.G.A. sections (current)**: `https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/`
+ (codes.findlaw.com/ga) — good for confirming a section exists and
+ reading current statutory text.
+ - **Case law**: **CourtListener** — court IDs `ga` (Supreme Court of
+ Georgia) and `gactapp` (Court of Appeals of Georgia). Confirms the
+ case exists, the reporter volume/page, and the parties.
+ - **Case pages**: Justia case pages corroborate parties and
+ citations, but **Justia 403s automated fetches** — expect to open
+ it manually rather than fetch it programmatically.
+
+ For live verification, prefer the bundled **CourtListener** and
+ **Legal Data Hunter** MCP servers (shipped via the shared federal
+ dependency). They can confirm a case exists, surface the reporter
+ citation, and check subsequent-history / good-law status without
+ scraping paywalled or bot-gated sites.
+
+ ### Known-good Georgia anchors
+
+ These citations are verified and may be relied on as anchors. If a
+ draft cites a Georgia proposition, prefer anchoring it to one of
+ these where it fits, rather than to an unverified cite:
+
+ - **Summary judgment** —
+ *Lau's Corp., Inc. v. Haskins*, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991).
+ Celotex-style standard under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56; movant may point to
+ the absence of evidence.
+ - **Equitable distribution of marital property** —
+ *Stokes v. Stokes*, 246 Ga. 765, 273 S.E.2d 169 (1980). Georgia is
+ an equitable-distribution (not community-property) state.
+ - **Credit card account = written contract** —
+ *Hill v. American Express*, 289 Ga. App. 576, 657 S.E.2d 547 (2008).
+ - **Debt-buyer standing / unbroken assignment chain** —
+ *Nyankojo v. North Star Capital Acquisition*, 298 Ga. App. 6,
+ 679 S.E.2d 57 (2009). Go-to for attacking debt-buyer standing.
+ - **Debt-buyer account-stated / business-records foundation** —
+ *Wirth v. CACH, LLC*, 300 Ga. App. 488 (2009); *Rutledge v. Gemini
+ Capital Group, LLC*, 327 Ga. App. 454 (2014).
+ - **Open default — "proper case" prong** —
+ *Bowen v. Savoy*, 308 Ga. 204 (2020) (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55).
+
+ > **Re-verify reporter pincites.** Some reporter pin-cites in
+ > secondary sources have been flagged for re-verification (notably
+ > the parallel `S.E.2d` cites associated with the *Hill* /
+ > American Express line). Before filing, re-verify every reporter
+ > pincite — especially the parallel `S.E.2d` page — against an
+ > authenticated database (CourtListener or a paid reporter service),
+ > not against a secondary summary.
+
+ ### Red flags — hallucinated / AI-generated citations
+
+ Treat any of these as a stop-and-verify signal:
+
+ - **A case that does not exist.** No hit on CourtListener (`ga` /
+ `gactapp`) for the party names + reporter cite. AI tools fabricate
+ plausible-looking Georgia cites; assume nothing is real until the
+ reporter volume/page resolves to the named parties.
+ - **Wrong reporter for the court.** A Supreme Court holding cited to
+ `Ga. App.`, or a Court of Appeals decision cited to `Ga.` — the
+ court and the official reporter must match.
+ - **Mismatched parallel cite.** The `Ga.`/`Ga. App.` cite and the
+ `S.E.2d` cite resolve to different cases or different years.
+ - **Repealed / superseded statute sections**:
+ - The pre-2016 garnishment provisions at **O.C.G.A. §§ 18-4-110
+ through 18-4-118 are REPEALED** (the garnishment article was
+ rewritten effective 2016) — a cite into that old numbering is a
+ dead section.
+ - The **pre-2013 Georgia evidence numbering (old Title 24) is
+ superseded** by the new Evidence Code (e.g., business records
+ moved from former § 24-3-14 to § 24-8-803(6)). Flag any cite to
+ the old Title 24 numbering.
+ - **Invented neutral cite.** Any `[YEAR] GA [###]` style cite is
+ fabricated — Georgia has no neutral citation.
+
+ ## Pass 2 — Internal consistency
+
+ Within a single document, verify:
+
+ - **Dates**: every date is consistent across all its appearances
+ (date of service, date of contract, date of last payment, etc.).
+ - **Dollar amounts**: every amount is consistent and the totals add
+ up (principal + interest + fees + costs = total demanded).
+ - **Defined terms**: a term defined with `(the "Account")` is used
+ consistently throughout — no slipping into "the loan" or "the debt"
+ once defined.
+ - **Party names**: each party named consistently (no switching among
+ "Plaintiff", "Plaintiff Smith", and "Smith").
+ - **Cross-references**: every "see paragraph X" or "see Exhibit Y"
+ resolves to something that exists at the cited location.
+ - **Numbered paragraphs**: sequential, with no gaps or duplicates.
+
+ ## Pass 3 — Packet consistency
+
+ Across the multi-document filing packet (motion + affidavit + proposed
+ order + certificate of service):
+
+ - **Caption identical** in every document: court name, county, case
+ number, and party names must match exactly.
+ - **Document title** matches in the certificate of service and the
+ proposed order's title bar.
+ - **Dates** align: the certificate of service date matches the
+ signature date on the motion; the affidavit's "sworn to" date
+ aligns with when it was executed before the notary.
+ - **Relief sought** matches: the motion's prayer ("WHEREFORE,
+ [movant] respectfully requests ____") must mirror the proposed
+ order's ordering language ("IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ____").
+ - **Exhibits** referenced in the motion are listed in the affidavit
+ and physically attached.
+ - **Filing path**: confirm the destination court's e-filing route is
+ consistent across the packet (the same county clerk / portal).
+
+ ## Pass 4 — Sworn vs. argued
+
+ Compare what is **sworn** in the supporting affidavit against what is
+ **argued** in the motion or brief:
+
+ - Every **factual assertion** in the argument should be either
+ (a) supported by a citation to an affidavit paragraph,
+ (b) admitted in the pleadings, or (c) a matter of judicial notice.
+ - Identify any factual claim in the motion that is **not** supported
+ by the affidavit — that gap must be fixed before filing.
+ - Identify any factual claim in the affidavit that is **not used** in
+ the motion — decide whether it belongs there at all.
+ - Verify the affidavit's **personal-knowledge foundation** — flag any
+ paragraph that begins "I believe" or "I understand" without a stated
+ basis, since affidavits must rest on personal knowledge.
+
+ ## Output format
+
+ When invoked on a packet, produce a structured report:
+
+ ```
+ FACT-CHECK REPORT — [Document title / Case number]
+
+ Pass 1 (Citations)
+ PASS O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 — exists; correct subsection
+ WARN Hill v. American Express, — re-verify S.E.2d parallel
+ 289 Ga. App. 576, 657 S.E.2d 547 pincite against an
+ (2008) authenticated database
+ FAIL O.C.G.A. § 18-4-112 — REPEALED (pre-2016
+ garnishment numbering)
+ FAIL Smith v. Jones, 300 Ga. 12 — no such case found on
+ CourtListener (court ga)
+
+ Pass 2 (Internal consistency)
+ PASS Defined terms used consistently
+ WARN Paragraph numbering jumps from 6 to 8
+
+ Pass 3 (Packet consistency)
+ PASS Caption matches across motion, affidavit, proposed order
+ FAIL Motion seeks $4,500 in fees; Proposed Order awards $4,000
+
+ Pass 4 (Sworn vs. argued)
+ FAIL Motion ¶ 3 asserts "Plaintiff sent a 30-day notice"; no
+ corresponding affidavit paragraph
+
+ Summary: 6 PASS / 2 WARN / 4 FAIL — DO NOT FILE until 4 FAILs resolved.
+ ```
+
+ ## Composition
+
+ - `ga-quality-check` — the lighter pre-filing format-and-content pass;
+ this skill is the deeper evidentiary-citation pass.
+ - `ga-draft-motion` — when a fact-check turns up a missing or bad
+ authority, re-draft the affected section.
+ - `ga-consumer-debt` — for verifying the debt-buyer / written-contract
+ anchors (*Nyankojo*, *Wirth*, *Rutledge*, *Hill*) in a collection
+ matter.
+ - `ga-family-law` — for verifying the equitable-distribution anchor
+ (*Stokes*) and custody / support statutory cites.
+ - `ga-law-references` — the canonical Georgia corpora (court rules,
+ O.C.G.A. statutes, and the shared federal symlinks) to verify cites
+ against.