A pro se litigant in NY, who has been litigating a complex matter for over 10 years, is finding that the opposition's papers have increasing false citations and gibberish in them.
A good example is a recent appellate rebuttal which contains literally dozens of legal claims, followed by scores of cases. Sounds impressive, except that in only but a few of those citations, does the cited case have anything to do with the claim of the attorney. In other words what on the face is made to appear as a well supported argument, has in fact no support, and dozens of cases which have nothing to do with the point of the argument and would frustrate a reader researching the arguments.
This type of false buttressing of arguments has escalated, and the pro se litigant is considering countermeasures. Some may be quite ineffective. However one that has been discussed would be to make a motion to the court, for sanctions against the attorney, with the cause being something like frustration of legal process.
There are numerous examples in federal (US) courts of pro se litigants being censured for "gibberish." Probably more applicable is fraud on the court.
However, legal texts have printed little on this topic, and there are very few cases similar that come up with searches. However this quote from recent cases seems appropriate:
In a recent case, the Court of Appeals described fraud on the court as:
willful conduct that is deceitful and obstructionist, which injects misrepresentations and false information into the judicial process "so serious that it undermines ... the integrity of the proceeding" ....
What might be effective methods to reduce this frustration of legal process?