Lawsuit: In Session Multiman155 v. Federal Reserve Bank [2026] DCR 29

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Franciscus said:
Despite the Defense's repeated attestations that they were aware of the injunction and have preserved all such records (see: Post No. 75, "[a]fter the Court’s order, records were maintained"; Post No. 80, "the Defendant is fully aware of the injunction on the FRB"... [t]he Defense, in due time, will submit all information ordered by this Court"), no such records were presented to this Court.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff has perjured himself by stating that the Defense has produced "no such records" following the emergency injunction.
The Defense did, in fact, present audit logs through D-001. The Plaintiff acknowledged the existence and substance of D-001 in Docket #97. Should these logs not be of satisfaction to the Plaintiff, or should he find that they are incomplete, that is a different matter. But to assert that "no such records" have been submitted is entirely false, as the phrase "no such" denotes the absolute non-existence of any records. As the Honourable Magistrate has said, Court records are immutable, and the record must reflect the truth.

 
Franciscus said:
The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any deletions of messages recorded in the audit log;
Click to expand...
In regards to the motion to compel, we do not oppose any points except the first one. We ask that the request is specified, as producing these records may render a large amount of unrelated data.
Specifying this request would ideally look like naming specific authors of any deletion of messages, or naming specific actions shown in D-001 for the FRB to produce the associated metadata, if any.
 
Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff has perjured himself by stating that the Defense has produced "no such records" following the emergency injunction.
The Defense did, in fact, present audit logs through D-001. The Plaintiff acknowledged the existence and substance of D-001 in Docket #97. Should these logs not be of satisfaction to the Plaintiff, or should he find that they are incomplete, that is a different matter. But to assert that "no such records" have been submitted is entirely false, as the phrase "no such" denotes the absolute non-existence of any records. As the Honourable Magistrate has said, Court records are immutable, and the record must reflect the truth.

Click to expand...

Response


Your Honor,

The records presented lacked full metadata and full timestamps. “Such” in this case refers to the complete records ordered preserved (i.e. those with metadata), not the partial records presented.

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

Moving to the matter of the substance of the audit logs, the Defendant has not complied with the Court order. What the Defendant has presented is plainly not the full audit log that was available to them at the time, but instead screenshots of only the most surface-level information available to the FRB.

To demonstrate this further, the Plaintiff provides Exhibit P-031, which contains a surface-level view of an audit log of a small server. Exhibit P-032 shows that certain audit log entries that can be expanded through this interface; such expansion is not present in the linked FRB audit logs. Exhibit P-033 shows the actual audit log, with full timestamps and associated metadata, when pulled through the mechanisms described in Exhibit P-021. As can be glanced from looking at the file, there is much, much more information available in the audit log than is present in what the Defendant has presented: most notably the exact timestamps of audit log entries.

This Court granted in full the emergency injunction ordering the defendant to preserve "all audit log records, including timestamps and associated metadata, which may be relevant to this case's subject" (emphasis mine; see Post No. 45). The Defendant has stated in response to interrogatory that "[a]fter the Court’s order, records were maintained" (Post No. 75),

As such, if the Defendant actually complied with Court order, the Defendant should be in possession of the richer data. But the Defendant, despite an order requiring production of the audit logs, did not submit it. The Plaintiff thus asks that the Court sustain this objection and order the production of the full data that the Defense should be in possession of.

Click to expand...
Overruled

It is true that, under an emergency injunction, the preservation of the information, with full timestamps and associated metadata, was ordered. The presentation of said information is bound to require only what is relevant to the case matter at hand. The Court finds that within the crowd of submissions of evidence, the one that is relevant to the case matter at hand is a message deletion by coshjlose, in the channel #fi-announce, with this being the channel where the now-deleted message as found in P-001, the Court shall infer that this is the audit log showing the deletion of said message. Notably, this mention within the audit logs lacks the capacity of expanding its metadata, so while the injunction required the preservation of the media in this form, it was not relevant to the motion to compel to actually provide it.


Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor:

The Defendant has knowingly made misrepresentations to this Court as it pertains to the audit logs.

The Court granted an emergency injunction that required the Defendant to "fully preserve all audit log records, including timestamps and associated metadata" (see: Posts 45 and 49). After receiving this, the Defendant pleaded before the Court that "that the Defendant is fully aware of the injunction on the FRB and acknowledged that 'records were maintained' in its answer to interrogatories, which is fully the case" (Post No. 81).

Upon further pressing, the Defendant now maintains that the only way to provide the audit logs is by providing screenshots. This is false and plainly contrary to evidence-in-case submitted prior to making that statement.

The Plaintiff has submitted before the Court various pieces of information regarding audit logs. These include the discord documentation page for them (Exhibit P-021), which indicates that one may "Get Guild Audit Log" by making a GET request to "/guilds/{guild.id}/audit-logs"; doing so "returns an audit log object for the guild". These audit log objects contain the full metadata described in Exhibit P-021; one example of such audit log object data is available in Exhibit P-033 of Post No. 89.

Because that final exhibit is included in the quotation given by the Defense in Post No. 93, and because the Defendant quoted references to Exhibit P-021 in Post No. 81 (and the Exhibit itself in Post No. 42), Defendant was aware of these exhibits. If the Defendant actually preserved the timestamps and metadata, as this Court ordered in an emergency injunction, the Defendant would not merely have taken screenshots of the mobile app's representation of the audit log; they would have actually have to have pulled the log - a text fileset - itself. It is plainly not necessary to present 400 screenshots when a text file can be routinely obtained through a specifically dedicated resource, as evidence quoted by the Defendant itself establishes.

Either the Defendant did not comply with the Court Order to preserve timestamps and metadata and has indicated otherwise to the Court, or the Defendant did comply but now seeks to confuse the Court as to the difficulty of producing these text files. No matter how it is cut, this is perjury from the Defendant - plain and simple.

Click to expand...
Overruled

The Emergency injunction was granted and did not include a stipulation requiring it to be presented in any particular format. While the record shows a guide as to how to present the information through the "Get Guild Audit Log" API pull, neither the motion to compel nor the emergency injunction required the information to be formatted in this way; as such, the Defendant would have no notice as to this action. As shown in the other motion in this same post, the information provided meets the requirements for submission, and as such, the Plaintiff lacks the capacity to perjure, as the information presented was done so with the intention of fulfilling the motion to compel, and not to commit perjury.


Superwoops said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The Plaintiff has perjured himself by stating that the Defense has produced "no such records" following the emergency injunction.
The Defense did, in fact, present audit logs through D-001. The Plaintiff acknowledged the existence and substance of D-001 in Docket #97. Should these logs not be of satisfaction to the Plaintiff, or should he find that they are incomplete, that is a different matter. But to assert that "no such records" have been submitted is entirely false, as the phrase "no such" denotes the absolute non-existence of any records. As the Honourable Magistrate has said, Court records are immutable, and the record must reflect the truth.

Click to expand...
Overruled
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff moved for and this Court granted an emergency injunction for the Defendant to "fully preserve all audit log records, including timestamps and associated metadata, which may be relevant to this case's subject" (see: Post No. 45 and Post No. 50).

Despite the Defense's repeated attestations that they were aware of the injunction and have preserved all such records (see: Post No. 75, "[a]fter the Court’s order, records were maintained"; Post No. 80, "the Defendant is fully aware of the injunction on the FRB"... [t]he Defense, in due time, will submit all information ordered by this Court"), no such records were presented to this Court.

The Plaintiff thus seeks the Court to order the Defendant, on pain of default and contempt of court, to provide the following information:

  1. The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any deletions of messages recorded in the audit log;
  2. The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from ElysiaCrynn, as recorded in the audit log;
  3. The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from FloorIsTired, as recorded in the audit log;
  4. The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from DonTrillions, as recorded in the audit log;
  5. The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from any member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank, as recorded in the audit log;
  6. In the alternative, all information preserved by the Defendant in response to the Emergency Injunction in Post No. 45.
All of this information should be preserved in an audit log (see: Exhibit P-033), and thus should be readily available to the Court. The Plaintiff believes that exact timestamps are relevant as to timeline, as they can help to establish the exact sequence of events. If the Defendant has not preserved timestamps or metadata, this is relevant to the case inasmuch as it would unlawfully frustrate the Plaintiff's ability to conduct discovery in spite of emergency injunction.

Click to expand...
Granted - In Part
The following aspects shall be granted:
  • The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from ElysiaCrynn, as recorded in the audit log;
  • The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from FloorIsTired, as recorded in the audit log;
  • The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from DonTrillions, as recorded in the audit log;
  • The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any grants or removals of roles to/from any member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank, as recorded in the audit log;
And only to the extent that may be relevant to the facts of the case at hand.
The first request shall be denied simply because there is no metadata associated with audit logs that show deletion of a message, as shown both in D-001 and through the other motions in this post.

The Defendant shall have 48 hours to present this information.
 
The Defense submits the following pieces of evidence in accordance with Docket #104.
 

Attachments

  • D-079.png
    D-079.png
    447.4 KB · Views: 14
  • D-080.png
    D-080.png
    570.7 KB · Views: 11
  • D-081.png
    D-081.png
    572.4 KB · Views: 14
  • D-082.png
    D-082.png
    573.2 KB · Views: 11
  • D-083.png
    D-083.png
    541.8 KB · Views: 12
  • D-084.png
    D-084.png
    496.7 KB · Views: 11
  • D-085.png
    D-085.png
    532.5 KB · Views: 14
  • D-086.png
    D-086.png
    582.1 KB · Views: 14
  • D-087.png
    D-087.png
    631.5 KB · Views: 14
  • D-088.png
    D-088.png
    556.2 KB · Views: 14
  • D-089.png
    D-089.png
    285.7 KB · Views: 16

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor:

The Plaintiff’s case is straightforward.

On 25 February 2026, the Federal Reserve Bank publicly announced that financial institutions would be moved to Compliant. This was not announced as a suggestion, a draft, or a personal idea by some employee. It was announced as a “board decision,” and it was represented to require daily reporting through the Compliant API.

That same day, the Plaintiff filed a Freedom of Information request through the FRB’s own ticket system. The request sought the records and communications behind that decision.

The law required a response within seven days. The Defendant did not respond within seven days. Such is the core of the case.

The Defendant’s own Answer makes this significantly simpler. The Defendant has affirmed the facts regarding the announcement. The Defendant has affirmed the material facts of the FOI request. The Defendant has affirmed that the law required a response. The Defendant has affirmed that Plaintiff received no response from the FRB within seven days.

Simply put: the Defendant has already admitted most of what Plaintiff needs to prove on the Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information claim.

The remaining issues are not really about whether the deadline was missed. It was. The remaining issues are about (1) whether the FRB can excuse the missed deadline by pointing to internal disorder, the Governor’s absence, workload, later compliance, or alleged lack of harm; and (2) whether the FRB can excuse deletion or nonproduction of relevant materials.

The Plaintiff submits that the FRB cannot defeat liability.

I. What the evidence will show​

First, the evidence will show that the FOI Request was valid. This request was directed to the FRB, concerning a discrete FRB announcement, and sought communications regarding the decision to transition financial institutions to Compliant. It asked for records held by or accessible to the FRB in its official capacity.

If the FRB believed that some material was sensitive, the law provided a path: redact, summarize, partially release, or explain the legal basis for withholding. If the FRB believed the request was too broad, the law provided a path: say so and seek that the Plaintiff narrow the request. If the FRB believed there were no responsive records, the law provided a path: say so.

Doing none of these was not one of the lawful options.

Second, the evidence will also show that this was not a harmless paperwork issue. Plaintiff operates the bLAWg, a news organization. The announcement affected financial institutions across Redmont. Timely access mattered because the question was not merely what the FRB eventually wanted to say after litigation had begun. The question was what records existed at the time of a major public announcement, and what those records showed about the process behind that announcement.

The Defendant says Plaintiff could have interviewed people instead. That is not a plausible defense. FOI exists because members of the public are entitled to government records, not merely whatever officials choose to say informally after the fact.

Third, the evidence will further show that potentially responsive material was a live issue of public concern even shortly after suit was filed. In the public discussion of this matter, individuals connected to the FRB discussed material being deleted, including a template and an announcement. Plaintiff will show that this was not some unrelated Discord conversation. It went directly to whether the FRB preserved or deleted records that would have been responsive to the FOI request.

The Plaintiff is not asking the Court to assume bad faith from one word in one screenshot. The Plaintiff is asking the Court to look at the timeline, the people involved, the nature of the deleted material, who had permissions to delete it, and what steps the FRB actually took to preserve material once the FOI request and this litigation existed.

II. How Plaintiff will prove the claims​


On the Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information claim, the proof is direct. A valid FOI request was submitted. A response was required within seven days. No response was given within seven days. The Defendant has affirmed these material points. This is a strict-liability violation under the RCCA. Plaintiff therefore does not need to prove corrupt motive to prevail on that claim.

On the statutory duty claim, Plaintiff will show that the FRB is not a private person and not a casual association. It is a public legal entity with legal obligations. The Federal Reserve Act and the Classified Materials Act do not allow the FRB to avoid transparency obligations because its internal workflow was inconvenient.

On the abuse of power and misfeasance issue, Plaintiff will show that the deletion of potentially responsive material was not merely a side conversation. If material related to the Compliant transition was deleted after the FOI request and before proper compliance, and if that deletion was done through FRB permissions or by persons acting through FRB authority, then the Court should treat that as a serious misuse of public power or, at minimum, reckless mishandling of public records.

III. On anticipated defenses​

Plaintiff expects the Defense to argue that no harm was suffered because the request was eventually fulfilled. That argument should be rejected. Later compliance may affect the exact form of mandamus. It does not erase the violation. If a government entity can ignore the statutory deadline, wait until suit is filed, comply later, and then say there is no case, then the seven-day deadline has no meaning.

Plaintiff also expects the Defense to argue that the FRB Governor’s alleged absence should diminish or excuse responsibility. But the Defendant in this case is the FRB, which does not stop existing when one official is allegedly absent. The FRB had a Board, had employees, and had an official ticket system that could be accessed. It had enough institutional capacity to make a major public announcement. It had enough institutional capacity to give at least some lawful response to a public records request. And it had a governor who sent a message in the FRB’s management-compliance channel the day after the FOI request was filed.

IV. On Relief​

At the end of trial, Plaintiff will ask for modest and properly tailored relief.
We will ask this Court to find that the Federal Reserve Bank failed to respond to a valid Freedom of Information request within the time required by law, that the FRB failed to perform its statutory duties, and did intentionally delete responsive material to the request.

Plaintiff will ask for the relief requested in the complaint, including civil penalties, nominal damages where appropriate, any mandamus still necessary, punitive damages where supported by the evidence, and legal fees.

V. Conclusion​

A government entity received a public records request. The government entity had seven days to answer. It did not timely answer, and only did so after this case was filed.

The Defendant can explain why it failed. It cannot turn that failure into compliance with the law.
Silence is not compliance. Submitting materials only after a lawsuit is filed does not remedy this is. And deletion of potentially responsive material exacerbates the harms.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff is prepared to prove the claims for relief.

 
aubunny said:
Thank you. Now, the Defendant shall have 72 hours to do the same.
Click to expand...
Good afternoon your honour, I am respectfully requesting to have until Tuesday 5th of May at 10pm EDT, noting that I have an important exam coming up that I need to study for.

Respectfully filed,
AG Superwoops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top