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

[Superwoops]

Objection

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

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 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.

 

[Superwoops]

The exact timestamps and all associated metadata associated with any deletions of messages recorded in the audit log;

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.

 

[Franciscus]

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.

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.

 

[aubunny]

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Overruled

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.

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.

 

[Superwoops]

The Defense submits the following pieces of evidence in accordance with Docket #104.

 

[aubunny]

Alright, with all this set straight, we can untoll our deadlines and move forward.

The Prosecution (@Franciscus) shall have 72 hours to present its opening statement.