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.

 

[Franciscus]

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]

Thank you. Now, the Defendant shall have 72 hours to do the same.

 

[Superwoops]

Thank you. Now, the Defendant shall have 72 hours to do the same.

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

 

[aubunny]

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

Granted, good luck with finals.

 

[Superwoops]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,
The Commonwealth agrees with the specific conclusion brought up by the Plaintiff as he states that "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 mitigating circumstances brought up by the FRB do not eliminate liability, but can help explain why this is not a case of gross governmental misconduct as it has been framed in this Court by opposing counsel.

Firstly, former FRB Governor DonTrillions had already expressed intent to resign before the FOI request was filed. This did not actually come into action until later, meaning the FRB Governor at the time was still DonTrillions.
The Act of Congress - Classified Materials Act poses that "(5) FOI requests will be handled by [...] (d) The FRB Governor for requests made to the FRB." DonTrillions was the only person legally capable of fulfilling the FOI request. Witness testimony will be able to corroborate the former Governor's de facto absence as a limiting factor when dealing with FOI requests.

Even assuming other members of the Board would have wanted to fulfill this FOI request, the FRB was under heavy workload both because of the Governor's absence and because of the policy change, which was later reverted. Following this line, the RCCA provides the following definition for Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information:
"(a) unreasonably delays or fails to respond to a valid Freedom of Information request within the time limits prescribed by law."
The Defense asserts that due to the state of the FRB at the time of the filing of the request, the delay in answering was not unreasonable in nature. In the event that the Court does not find that the delay was unreasonable insofar as to delay the answer to the FOI for this period of time, the Court must take it as a mitigating factor because if a fully-reasonable delay produces no liability, then a delay that is not fully reasonable but is grounded in genuine justifications can surely produce reduced liability.

Regarding the news organisation named "bLAWg", the Plaintiff has not proven to this court that the organisation was writing an article or reporting on the issue. The simple ownership of this firm does not equate to amplified injury.

Finally, witness testimony will be able to confirm that the deletion of the publicly-available announcement was necessary to signify a backtrack in intended policy, and audit records, as well as the text of the announcement, were fully available to the public upon request, as have been given to this Court. The Defense further notes that images of the announcement were publicly available shortly following the announcement, diminishing any perceived harm.

Respectfully filed,
AG Superwoops​

 

[Superwoops]

Good evening your honour @aubunny,
We would like to make it known that the FRB Governor (jJoshuaTheGreat), a listed witness, will be fully unavailable from May 9th through June 5th. We would like to expedite these proceedings so that both sides are able to submit questions to said witness.
cc: @Franciscus

 

[aubunny]

Writ of Summons

@DonTrillions @coshjlose @FloorIsTired @xSyncx @Kaiserin_ @ElysiaCrynn @EATB @EmmDubz is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Multiman155 v Federal Reserve Bank​

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

Present!

 

[EATB]

Present, your honour.

 

[coshjlose]

Your honour,

I am present.

I would like to respectfully notify the Court that I will be unavailable from May 9, 2026 to June 5, 2026.

During this period, I will be outside the continent for real-life travel, including several days at sea, and do not expect to have reliable internet access or the ability to respond to the Court, counsel, or parties.

I am notifying the Court as soon as possible so that my testimony, if necessary, may be scheduled outside of those dates or otherwise handled at the Court’s direction.

Respectfully,
jJoshuaTheGreat

 

[EmmDubz]

Present your honour,

Likewise to Coshjlose, there's a chance I will be unavailable until the 13th due to a combination of coursework and travelling. However if able during this time, I will answer questions if I'm able to do so without deep time investment.

Many thanks,
Matt.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Present

 

[FloorIsTired]

Present

 

[aubunny]

Given the time constraints for our witnesses, I will allow the Plaintiff (@Franciscus), who has summoned all witnesses, to begin questioning those available immediately. The Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to present their questions to the available witnesses, pinging the witness [or witnesses], the witness shall then have 24 hours to respond.

When the remaining witnesses arrive, a separate 24-hour timer shall start immediately upon the witness announcing their presence; the same rules apply to them as our current witnesses.

I request that both parties keep in mind the time constraints. Follow-up questions and extensions are, of course, permitted, but please submit each post with the knowledge that it may be your last for that witness.

 

[Franciscus]

Given the time constraints for our witnesses, I will allow the Plaintiff (@Franciscus), who has summoned all witnesses, to begin questioning those available immediately. The Plaintiff shall have 24 hours to present their questions to the available witnesses, pinging the witness [or witnesses], the witness shall then have 24 hours to respond.

When the remaining witnesses arrive, a separate 24-hour timer shall start immediately upon the witness announcing their presence; the same rules apply to them as our current witnesses.

I request that both parties keep in mind the time constraints. Follow-up questions and extensions are, of course, permitted, but please submit each post with the knowledge that it may be your last for that witness.

Your honor, I request an extension until 11:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time on Thursday, May 7. I don't think I'm going to be able to do all of this tonight, and I am going to be in the office tomorrow at work.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour,
The witness Coshjlose will be unavailable from May 9th as previously stated.
Seeing as the Plaintiff will require extra time, we do not think both sides will be able to properly question the witness.
We would move to conduct witness questioning normally with all other witnesses, and when finished, stay these proceedings until the Governor is back.
We hope the Plaintiff will see this as a reasonable arrangement.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour,
The witness Coshjlose will be unavailable from May 9th as previously stated.
Seeing as the Plaintiff will require extra time, we do not think both sides will be able to properly question the witness.
We would move to conduct witness questioning normally with all other witnesses, and when finished, stay these proceedings until the Governor is back.
We hope the Plaintiff will see this as a reasonable arrangement.

Your honor,
Plaintiff requests to file an oppositional statement to the stay request.

 

[aubunny]

Your honor, I request an extension until 11:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time on Thursday, May 7. I don't think I'm going to be able to do all of this tonight, and I am going to be in the office tomorrow at work.

Granted

---

Your honor,
Plaintiff requests to file an oppositional statement to the stay request.

Granted

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Court's order permitting Plaintiff to question available witnesses, Plaintiff submits the following questions:

---

Questions for jJoshuaTheGreat (@coshjlose)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-003 and P-022, what access did you have to the FRB ticket system and ticket #96 on February 25, 2026 and during the following seven days?

3. When and how did you first become aware of the FOI request submitted in ticket #96?

4. What actions, if any, did you personally take during the first seven days after ticket #96 was submitted to route, answer, narrow, deny, partially produce, redact, summarize, or otherwise respond to that FOI request?

5. What response, if any, did the FRB provide to ticket #96 during the first seven days after the request was submitted, and who sent or approved that response?

6. When did the FRB ultimately respond to ticket #96, what was provided, and who participated in preparing or approving that response?

7. What FRB business, Compliant-related work, or official communications, if any, did you conduct between February 25, 2026 and March 4, 2026?

8. What instructions, if any, did DonTrillions give you concerning ticket #96 or the Compliant FOI request, and when were those instructions given?

9. With reference to Exhibit P-001, what formal Board action, if any, authorized the mandatory Compliant transition described in the February 25 announcement before that announcement was posted?

10. Would you please describe each Board discussion, vote, motion, order, or approval concerning Compliant before February 25, including the date, channel or setting, participants, and what was actually approved?

11. With reference to Exhibit P-023, what steps were being taken before Exhibit P-001 was posted to set up Compliant access, financial-institution onboarding, reporting processes, or staff permissions?

12. In Floor-01, you stated that the matter had "only been discussed at board level so far." What discussions were you referring to?

13. In Floor-03, you stated that "we voted on using Compliant not necessarily the implementation." What vote were you referring to, and what was the distinction between using Compliant and implementing the policy announced in Exhibit P-001?

14. What role, if any, did you have in preparing, drafting, editing, reviewing, approving, or providing the announcement language, draft, or template used for Exhibit P-001?

15. What was the draft or template referenced in Floor-01, where was it located, who had access to it, and who created or maintained it?

16. What happened to that draft or template after Exhibit P-001 was posted?

17. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-003, P-015 through P-017, P-022, Floor-01, Floor-03, and D-001, would you please describe in chronological order everything you know about the deletion, removal, withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, replacement, or loss of access to Compliant-related materials on or after February 25, 2026, including the announcement, any draft, any template, any rescission or rollback text, and any related audit-log material?

18. For each item you identify in response to Question 17, what was the item, where was it located, who authored or maintained it, what did it contain, when did it become unavailable or change status, what role did you have in that change, who else participated, and what records now show what happened?

19. With reference to D-001 and the Court's ruling at Docket #104 concerning the #fi-announcements deletion, would you please describe your own involvement in the deletion or removal of the announcement shown in Exhibit P-001, including the events leading up to the deletion, the act of deletion itself, and any communications after the deletion?

20. What reasons, concerns, instructions, objectives, or circumstances led to the announcement in Exhibit P-001 being deleted or removed rather than left visible with a correction, reply, edit, replacement notice, or rescission notice?

21. What did you understand at the time about how deleting or removing the announcement would affect public notice, financial-institution obligations, the FRB's recordkeeping, the pending or potential FOI response, and later ability to prove what had been posted?

22. What was your awareness, if any, of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request at each point when the announcement, draft, template, or other Compliant-related material was deleted, removed, moved, hidden, edited, replaced, or became unavailable?

23. What communications did you have with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, DOJ, any Board member, or any other person about deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials?

24. What distinction, if any, did you draw at the time between the public announcement, the draft, the template, the rollback/backtrack communications, and records responsive to ticket #96?

25. What copies, screenshots, exports, audit logs, metadata, backups, Google Docs, Discord messages, direct messages, local files, or other records of the deleted or removed announcement, draft, template, or related materials were preserved, and by whom?

26. What searches, if any, did you perform or direct to locate copies of the announcement, draft, template, rollback text, audit-log entries, or related Compliant materials after ticket #96 or this case arose?

27. What Compliant-related records, if any, remain deleted, missing, unavailable, unproduced, or outside the FRB's current access, and what is your understanding of why each such record is in that status?

28. After you became aware of ticket #96 and after any Court preservation order, what concrete steps did you personally take to preserve records responsive to the FOI request?

29. What records, if any, responsive to ticket #96 have not been produced in this case, and where would those records be located?

---

Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-020, and P-035, what role did you have in preparing or posting the February 25 Compliant announcement?

3. How did the assignment to prepare or post that announcement come to you?

4. What instructions, source materials, draft language, template, or approval information did you receive before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

5. What draft or template did you receive, use, or see before posting Exhibit P-001, and where was that draft or template located?

6. In Floor-01, your conversation with jJoshuaTheGreat included discussion of authority and Board approval. What concerns were you raising in that conversation?

7. What did you understand Exhibit P-001 to require of financial institutions at the time it was posted?

8. What did you understand at the time about whether the Board had formally approved the mandatory implementation described in Exhibit P-001?

9. What later information, if any, changed your understanding of whether Exhibit P-001 was backed by a Board decision?

10. In Floor-03, what information led you to prepare or consider preparing a rescission or rollback announcement?

11. What happened to the rescission or rollback announcement you were preparing?

12. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Floor-02, would you please describe what you meant when you said that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

13. What consultation, notice, request, or approval process, if any, occurred with you before the announcement in Exhibit P-001 was deleted or removed?

14. What versioned Google document did you reference in your discovery response, what does that document contain, who can access it, and where is it located?

15. What, if anything, was produced from that versioned Google document to Plaintiff, the Department of Justice, or the Court?

16. In Floor-02, jJoshuaTheGreat asked you to gather messages relating to Compliant for the FOI request. What records did you gather, provide, identify, or recommend gathering in response?

17. What channels, documents, licensing materials, agreement discussions, or other records did you believe might be responsive to ticket #96 but outside your access?

18. What led you to recommend involving the Department of Justice in the FOI response?

19. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable to you, or not produced?

---

Questions for ElysiaCrynn (@ElysiaCrynn)​

1. What government positions did you hold on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-018, P-019, and Elysia-03, what was your understanding of your ex-officio role on the Federal Reserve Board as Secretary of Commerce?

3. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels could you access on February 25, 2026?

4. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels were unavailable to you on February 25, 2026, and when did that access change?

5. What formal Board motion, vote, order, written approval, or other Board action, if any, were you aware of concerning the mandatory Compliant transition announced in Exhibit P-001?

6. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Elysia-01, what material were you referring to when you said you were "pretty sure" you saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

7. What did you personally see before that material became unavailable, and what did you infer from other people's statements or from later inability to find it?

8. What draft or template were you referring to when you later discussed "the draft etc," and where had you previously seen or expected to find it?

9. What happened when you looked for that draft or template after public pushback to the announcement?

10. What do you know about who controlled, deleted, moved, hid, or otherwise made unavailable the announcement, draft, or template material you discussed?

11. When and how did you become aware of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request?

12. In Elysia-01, you stated that you would answer the ticket if you could see it. What prevented you from seeing or answering the ticket?

13. What requests, if any, did you receive from FRB or DOJ to preserve, search for, or produce records relating to the Compliant transition before this litigation began?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for Emmdubz (@EmmDubz)​

1. What roles did you hold in Redmont Group, Compliant, Vendeka Software LLC, VDASoft, or any related entity during February 2026?

2. With reference to EmmDubz-01, EmmDubz-02, EmmDubz-03, Exhibit P-023, and the Compliant-FRB license agreement, would you please describe your communications with jJoshuaTheGreat, DonTrillions, or the FRB about Compliant before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

3. What Compliant functions, FRB needs, pricing terms, reporting features, licensing terms, implementation steps, or onboarding steps were discussed in those communications?

4. What did FRB representatives tell you, if anything, about Board consideration, Board approval, or the internal authorization status of Compliant before February 25?

5. What documents, draft documents, proposed agreements, onboarding instructions, templates, or policy-related materials did you send to or receive from the FRB before February 25?

6. What channels, direct messages, or other communication settings were used for your Compliant-related communications with the FRB?

7. What announcement language, draft announcement, template, policy text, or public-facing language relating to the Compliant transition did you draft, receive, review, or comment on, if any?

8. What communications, if any, did you have with any FRB officer, employee, Board member, or DOJ representative about public pushback, withdrawal, rollback, deletion, removal, or replacement of the February 25 announcement?

9. What requests, if any, did FRB or DOJ make to you to preserve or produce Compliant-related communications before this litigation began?

10. What materials in your possession relating to the FRB's decision or contemplated decision to transition to Compliant have been produced in this case?

11. What additional records, if any, relating to ticket #96 exist or may exist outside the materials already produced?

---

Questions for Kaiserin (@Kaiserin_)​

1. What positions did you hold in the Department of Justice or Commonwealth government on February 25, March 5, and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibit P-006 and ticket #96 as shown in Exhibits P-003 and P-022, when and how did you first become aware of Plaintiff's FOI request?

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

4. To what extent was DOJ involved in the FOI request before the seven-day response deadline expired?

5. What response, if any, did DOJ help prepare, advise upon, approve, send, or attempt to send before the seven-day response deadline expired?

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

8. When did DOJ understand that the FRB ultimately responded to ticket #96, what was provided in that response, and who participated in preparing or approving it?

9. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual information did DOJ receive about deletion, removal, loss of access, or non-preservation of the announcement, draft, template, audit logs, or related Compliant records?

10. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual basis supported DOJ's distinction between records it treated as responsive to ticket #96 and records it treated as non-responsive?

11. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what preservation requests, instructions, or directions, if any, were communicated to persons outside DOJ concerning records responsive to ticket #96?

12. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual role, if any, did DOJ have in any decision to delete, remove, withdraw, replace, preserve, or produce the announcement or template?

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for @EATB​

1. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017, what connection, if any, do you have to the Discord user shown as "Euphemia A. T. Britannia"?

2. What roles, if any, did you hold in or with the FRB, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Public Affairs Department, any court, or any affected financial institution during February and March 2026?

3. With reference to Exhibit P-016, what did you mean when you stated that it "might be time to do another sidebar"?

4. What facts, observations, or concerns led you to make that statement?

5. What did you understand from ElysiaCrynn's statement in Exhibit P-016 that she was "pretty sure" she saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

6. What did you understand from FloorIsTired's later statement in Exhibit P-016 that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

7. In Exhibit P-017, what did you mean when you stated "um good luck with the lawsuit"?

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?

9. What communications, if any, did you have with ElysiaCrynn, FloorIsTired, any FRB representative, DOJ, or any other person about the deleted announcement, deleted template, FOI request, or this case after the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017?

10. What non-privileged facts, if any, did you know at the time about why a "sidebar" might be warranted?

11. What records, if any, do you possess or know about that may be responsive to ticket #96 and have not been produced in this case?

---

Plaintiff fully reserves the right to ask follow-up questions based on witness answers.

 

[Franciscus]

Your honour,
The witness Coshjlose will be unavailable from May 9th as previously stated.
Seeing as the Plaintiff will require extra time, we do not think both sides will be able to properly question the witness.
We would move to conduct witness questioning normally with all other witnesses, and when finished, stay these proceedings until the Governor is back.
We hope the Plaintiff will see this as a reasonable arrangement.

Response

Your Honor,

Plaintiff opposes the stay because we believe it both unnecessary and an undue burden on the right to speedy trial guaranteed to citizens under the ninth charter right.

We believe that this is unnecessary because the Defendant is liable to default judgement under Rule 3.6 for failing to have affirmations or denials on all facts. The Plaintiff's complaint, at the end of discovery, asserted 24 facts; the Defendant's Answer fails to respond whatsoever to facts 21-24. This arises from the Defendant's failure to respond to facts asserted in amendments during the discovery period. Rule 3.7, which provides additional time to amend a complaint, grants 72 extra hours to the Defendant when an amendment to complaint is filed less than 72 hours prior to the end of discovery; such extension did not trigger because the amendments were filed well before the 72-hour-till-end-of-discovery mark.

The Plaintiff has chosen to question witnesses to obtain information from witnesses. But this does not erase the harm caused by the Defendant's failure to respond. The stay will be unnecessary because we will move for default judgement following the closure of direct questioning.

As to speedy trial concerns under Const. 35(9), the Plaintiff is concerned that this case's witness questioning would be delayed another month. This case has already been going on for two months: this case was filed on March 7, discovery began on April 9, and it is now May 8. The Court has granted numerous extensions to the FRB throughout this trial, both inside and outside of the discovery period. While this was generous then, a further one month delay because the Defendant's current governor is going on vacation (something appears to have been knowable by the Defendant at the time that extensions were requested) is so much greater in scope than prior delays that it would unduly burden the ninth charter right.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff opposes the stay. We wish to continue to pursue this case in a speedy manner, consistent with Const. 35(9), and we believe that the Defendant's default will allow us to do this.

 

[EmmDubz]

1) I believe that during February 2026 i was CEO of Redmont Group, VDRB, Vendeka, and VDASoft.
2) As is visible in EmmDubz-01, I was initially approached by jJoshuaTheGreat to develop a solution for FI deposit reporting to the FRB, this communication continued in the form of discussions relating to features of the software, and implementation that would suit the client's needs. On the 23rd of February I was added to a channel called "compliant" in the FRB discord where i sent the proposed license agreement, gave a brief overview of the software, workflow etc.

3) From what I recall, the FRB required daily deposit monitoring. The feature list for Compliant's FRB portal grew to include allowing FIs to view their balance (RRR held @ FRB), making deposits or withdrawals, transferring between FIs, to the FRB for fines etc, and automatically providing interest on excess reserves. Interbank lending was also implemented where FIs could set their own rates and provide liquidity to other banks under RRR. Furthermore, exportable statements in .csv.

Licensing terms were mostly proposed solely by myself, with jJoshuaTheGreat suggesting a monthly subscription by the FRB would be more tenable for them. Onboarding was mostly discussed in the FRB's discord as I provided a walk through of features, functionality, and onboarding.

4) I was not privvy to any board discussions bar either 'Pending board approval' or 'The board has voted to implement' or something along those lines.

5) I only recall sending the license agreement. I don't believe i received any templates, and neither did I send any other documentation. Though I did make available an API guide on my website for FIs to assist in their implementation. Likewise, to guide the development on the bot, I used FRB policy available on the website, and was send a formula to calculate RRR interest by jJoshuaTheGreat.

6) Direct messaging with jJoshuaTheGreat, and the Compliant channel in the FRB discord.

7) I received no information regarding announcement language or templates. I was however vocal about the fact that I did not agree with API usage being mandatory, and as present in the current Compliant software, did include 3 methods for reporting:

- Fully manual, including "remembering" the prior day's report so it can be updated only when deposits change, and not show as a null reporting.
- Channel automated, where the bot looks in a channel for a certain format of messsage, either able to be posted by an individual, or a bot, to to provide a middle ground, or for people with bots who don't use APIs.
- Full API functionality.

I do believe that requiring API usage disadvantages non-bot based banks, or those without technical capabilities to use APIs, and as such, implemented these features for ease of use by all.

8) In the FRB discord I did comment that I was receiving some backlash and personal insults, which included me being equated to Peter Thiel, a gentleman i'm not a fan of, and "being the sort of person you'd expect to" (not exact wording). These comments are publicly available on the DC's main discord.

Furthermore, a few days later jJoshuaTheGreat did check in on me via dm to see how I was doing, as these comments did effect me quite deeply.

9) I received no requests, however as practice, I do not delete any business related communication or documentation.

10) All formal documents and agreements have been produced. The only omission is technical discussion of features and check-ins with jJoshuaTheGreat regarding progress etc. This does count to thousands of messages.

11) All relevant communication between Redmont Group entities and the FRB have been produced.
I can't comment on internal FRB communications that I am not privvy to, bar the Compliant channel in the FRB that was opened on the 23rd of Feburary, two days before the ticket was opened.

 

[EATB]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Court's order permitting Plaintiff to question available witnesses, Plaintiff submits the following questions:

---

Questions for jJoshuaTheGreat (@coshjlose)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-003 and P-022, what access did you have to the FRB ticket system and ticket #96 on February 25, 2026 and during the following seven days?

3. When and how did you first become aware of the FOI request submitted in ticket #96?

4. What actions, if any, did you personally take during the first seven days after ticket #96 was submitted to route, answer, narrow, deny, partially produce, redact, summarize, or otherwise respond to that FOI request?

5. What response, if any, did the FRB provide to ticket #96 during the first seven days after the request was submitted, and who sent or approved that response?

6. When did the FRB ultimately respond to ticket #96, what was provided, and who participated in preparing or approving that response?

7. What FRB business, Compliant-related work, or official communications, if any, did you conduct between February 25, 2026 and March 4, 2026?

8. What instructions, if any, did DonTrillions give you concerning ticket #96 or the Compliant FOI request, and when were those instructions given?

9. With reference to Exhibit P-001, what formal Board action, if any, authorized the mandatory Compliant transition described in the February 25 announcement before that announcement was posted?

10. Would you please describe each Board discussion, vote, motion, order, or approval concerning Compliant before February 25, including the date, channel or setting, participants, and what was actually approved?

11. With reference to Exhibit P-023, what steps were being taken before Exhibit P-001 was posted to set up Compliant access, financial-institution onboarding, reporting processes, or staff permissions?

12. In Floor-01, you stated that the matter had "only been discussed at board level so far." What discussions were you referring to?

13. In Floor-03, you stated that "we voted on using Compliant not necessarily the implementation." What vote were you referring to, and what was the distinction between using Compliant and implementing the policy announced in Exhibit P-001?

14. What role, if any, did you have in preparing, drafting, editing, reviewing, approving, or providing the announcement language, draft, or template used for Exhibit P-001?

15. What was the draft or template referenced in Floor-01, where was it located, who had access to it, and who created or maintained it?

16. What happened to that draft or template after Exhibit P-001 was posted?

17. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-003, P-015 through P-017, P-022, Floor-01, Floor-03, and D-001, would you please describe in chronological order everything you know about the deletion, removal, withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, replacement, or loss of access to Compliant-related materials on or after February 25, 2026, including the announcement, any draft, any template, any rescission or rollback text, and any related audit-log material?

18. For each item you identify in response to Question 17, what was the item, where was it located, who authored or maintained it, what did it contain, when did it become unavailable or change status, what role did you have in that change, who else participated, and what records now show what happened?

19. With reference to D-001 and the Court's ruling at Docket #104 concerning the #fi-announcements deletion, would you please describe your own involvement in the deletion or removal of the announcement shown in Exhibit P-001, including the events leading up to the deletion, the act of deletion itself, and any communications after the deletion?

20. What reasons, concerns, instructions, objectives, or circumstances led to the announcement in Exhibit P-001 being deleted or removed rather than left visible with a correction, reply, edit, replacement notice, or rescission notice?

21. What did you understand at the time about how deleting or removing the announcement would affect public notice, financial-institution obligations, the FRB's recordkeeping, the pending or potential FOI response, and later ability to prove what had been posted?

22. What was your awareness, if any, of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request at each point when the announcement, draft, template, or other Compliant-related material was deleted, removed, moved, hidden, edited, replaced, or became unavailable?

23. What communications did you have with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, DOJ, any Board member, or any other person about deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials?

24. What distinction, if any, did you draw at the time between the public announcement, the draft, the template, the rollback/backtrack communications, and records responsive to ticket #96?

25. What copies, screenshots, exports, audit logs, metadata, backups, Google Docs, Discord messages, direct messages, local files, or other records of the deleted or removed announcement, draft, template, or related materials were preserved, and by whom?

26. What searches, if any, did you perform or direct to locate copies of the announcement, draft, template, rollback text, audit-log entries, or related Compliant materials after ticket #96 or this case arose?

27. What Compliant-related records, if any, remain deleted, missing, unavailable, unproduced, or outside the FRB's current access, and what is your understanding of why each such record is in that status?

28. After you became aware of ticket #96 and after any Court preservation order, what concrete steps did you personally take to preserve records responsive to the FOI request?

29. What records, if any, responsive to ticket #96 have not been produced in this case, and where would those records be located?

---

Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-020, and P-035, what role did you have in preparing or posting the February 25 Compliant announcement?

3. How did the assignment to prepare or post that announcement come to you?

4. What instructions, source materials, draft language, template, or approval information did you receive before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

5. What draft or template did you receive, use, or see before posting Exhibit P-001, and where was that draft or template located?

6. In Floor-01, your conversation with jJoshuaTheGreat included discussion of authority and Board approval. What concerns were you raising in that conversation?

7. What did you understand Exhibit P-001 to require of financial institutions at the time it was posted?

8. What did you understand at the time about whether the Board had formally approved the mandatory implementation described in Exhibit P-001?

9. What later information, if any, changed your understanding of whether Exhibit P-001 was backed by a Board decision?

10. In Floor-03, what information led you to prepare or consider preparing a rescission or rollback announcement?

11. What happened to the rescission or rollback announcement you were preparing?

12. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Floor-02, would you please describe what you meant when you said that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

13. What consultation, notice, request, or approval process, if any, occurred with you before the announcement in Exhibit P-001 was deleted or removed?

14. What versioned Google document did you reference in your discovery response, what does that document contain, who can access it, and where is it located?

15. What, if anything, was produced from that versioned Google document to Plaintiff, the Department of Justice, or the Court?

16. In Floor-02, jJoshuaTheGreat asked you to gather messages relating to Compliant for the FOI request. What records did you gather, provide, identify, or recommend gathering in response?

17. What channels, documents, licensing materials, agreement discussions, or other records did you believe might be responsive to ticket #96 but outside your access?

18. What led you to recommend involving the Department of Justice in the FOI response?

19. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable to you, or not produced?

---

Questions for ElysiaCrynn (@ElysiaCrynn)​

1. What government positions did you hold on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-018, P-019, and Elysia-03, what was your understanding of your ex-officio role on the Federal Reserve Board as Secretary of Commerce?

3. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels could you access on February 25, 2026?

4. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels were unavailable to you on February 25, 2026, and when did that access change?

5. What formal Board motion, vote, order, written approval, or other Board action, if any, were you aware of concerning the mandatory Compliant transition announced in Exhibit P-001?

6. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Elysia-01, what material were you referring to when you said you were "pretty sure" you saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

7. What did you personally see before that material became unavailable, and what did you infer from other people's statements or from later inability to find it?

8. What draft or template were you referring to when you later discussed "the draft etc," and where had you previously seen or expected to find it?

9. What happened when you looked for that draft or template after public pushback to the announcement?

10. What do you know about who controlled, deleted, moved, hid, or otherwise made unavailable the announcement, draft, or template material you discussed?

11. When and how did you become aware of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request?

12. In Elysia-01, you stated that you would answer the ticket if you could see it. What prevented you from seeing or answering the ticket?

13. What requests, if any, did you receive from FRB or DOJ to preserve, search for, or produce records relating to the Compliant transition before this litigation began?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for Emmdubz (@EmmDubz)​

1. What roles did you hold in Redmont Group, Compliant, Vendeka Software LLC, VDASoft, or any related entity during February 2026?

2. With reference to EmmDubz-01, EmmDubz-02, EmmDubz-03, Exhibit P-023, and the Compliant-FRB license agreement, would you please describe your communications with jJoshuaTheGreat, DonTrillions, or the FRB about Compliant before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

3. What Compliant functions, FRB needs, pricing terms, reporting features, licensing terms, implementation steps, or onboarding steps were discussed in those communications?

4. What did FRB representatives tell you, if anything, about Board consideration, Board approval, or the internal authorization status of Compliant before February 25?

5. What documents, draft documents, proposed agreements, onboarding instructions, templates, or policy-related materials did you send to or receive from the FRB before February 25?

6. What channels, direct messages, or other communication settings were used for your Compliant-related communications with the FRB?

7. What announcement language, draft announcement, template, policy text, or public-facing language relating to the Compliant transition did you draft, receive, review, or comment on, if any?

8. What communications, if any, did you have with any FRB officer, employee, Board member, or DOJ representative about public pushback, withdrawal, rollback, deletion, removal, or replacement of the February 25 announcement?

9. What requests, if any, did FRB or DOJ make to you to preserve or produce Compliant-related communications before this litigation began?

10. What materials in your possession relating to the FRB's decision or contemplated decision to transition to Compliant have been produced in this case?

11. What additional records, if any, relating to ticket #96 exist or may exist outside the materials already produced?

---

Questions for Kaiserin (@Kaiserin_)​

1. What positions did you hold in the Department of Justice or Commonwealth government on February 25, March 5, and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibit P-006 and ticket #96 as shown in Exhibits P-003 and P-022, when and how did you first become aware of Plaintiff's FOI request?

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

4. To what extent was DOJ involved in the FOI request before the seven-day response deadline expired?

5. What response, if any, did DOJ help prepare, advise upon, approve, send, or attempt to send before the seven-day response deadline expired?

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

8. When did DOJ understand that the FRB ultimately responded to ticket #96, what was provided in that response, and who participated in preparing or approving it?

9. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual information did DOJ receive about deletion, removal, loss of access, or non-preservation of the announcement, draft, template, audit logs, or related Compliant records?

10. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual basis supported DOJ's distinction between records it treated as responsive to ticket #96 and records it treated as non-responsive?

11. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what preservation requests, instructions, or directions, if any, were communicated to persons outside DOJ concerning records responsive to ticket #96?

12. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual role, if any, did DOJ have in any decision to delete, remove, withdraw, replace, preserve, or produce the announcement or template?

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for @EATB​

1. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017, what connection, if any, do you have to the Discord user shown as "Euphemia A. T. Britannia"?

2. What roles, if any, did you hold in or with the FRB, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Public Affairs Department, any court, or any affected financial institution during February and March 2026?

3. With reference to Exhibit P-016, what did you mean when you stated that it "might be time to do another sidebar"?

4. What facts, observations, or concerns led you to make that statement?

5. What did you understand from ElysiaCrynn's statement in Exhibit P-016 that she was "pretty sure" she saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

6. What did you understand from FloorIsTired's later statement in Exhibit P-016 that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

7. In Exhibit P-017, what did you mean when you stated "um good luck with the lawsuit"?

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?

9. What communications, if any, did you have with ElysiaCrynn, FloorIsTired, any FRB representative, DOJ, or any other person about the deleted announcement, deleted template, FOI request, or this case after the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017?

10. What non-privileged facts, if any, did you know at the time about why a "sidebar" might be warranted?

11. What records, if any, do you possess or know about that may be responsive to ticket #96 and have not been produced in this case?

---

Plaintiff fully reserves the right to ask follow-up questions based on witness answers.

1. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017, what connection, if any, do you have to the Discord user shown as "Euphemia A. T. Britannia"?
A. Euphemia A. T. Britannia has been my legal name since 22 March 2026, meaning that the evidence you have provided to this court was gathered during or after this date. Provided below is evidence of this.

Spoiler: EATB-001

Spoiler: EATB-002

2. What roles, if any, did you hold in or with the FRB, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Public Affairs Department, any court, or any affected financial institution during February and March 2026?
A. Throughout February and March 2026, I was a Senior Economist and Compliance Manager within the Department of Commerce, and since 23 March 2026, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce. Throughout February and March 2026, I was a Media Advisor in the Department of Public Affairs. Throughout February until 10 March 2026, I was a Senator, and President of the Senate from 12 February 2026 to 10 March 2026.

3. With reference to Exhibit P-016, what did you mean when you stated that it "might be time to do another sidebar"?
A. Because, as President of the Senate, I had inadvertently become a witness to the events in this case as I tried to motion for a Joint Congressional Investigative Hearing into the Federal Reserve Bank.

4. What facts, observations, or concerns led you to make that statement?
A. On 26 February 2026, as President of the Senate, I moved for a Joint Congressional investigative hearing into the Federal Reserve Bank and Compliant, to investigate the announcement @FloorIsTired made on 21:40 on 25 February 2026 GMT as Head of Internal Risk & Compliance, to introduce a digital Financial Institution compliance system requiring API usage and daily reporting, which has since been deleted by the time I made my motion on 26 February 2026 at 13:02 GMT.

Attached are screenshots of the motion, which itself contained a quote from the FRB announcement shared by FloorIsTired, which has since been deleted.

Spoiler: EATB-003

5. What did you understand from ElysiaCrynn's statement in Exhibit P-016 that she was "pretty sure" she saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?
A. I assumed that Department of Commerce Secretary @ElysiaCrynn was referring to the same announcement that I saw that was deleted.

6. What did you understand from FloorIsTired's later statement in Exhibit P-016 that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?
A. Considering the announcement he made at 21:40 on 25 February 2026 GMT as Head of Internal Risk & Compliance was deleted, I can confirm that FloorIsTired's statement "they deleted the announcement without consulting me" is true in part, that the announcement was deleted, as I saw this occur and mentioned it in my evidenced Joint Congressional Hearing.

7. In Exhibit P-017, what did you mean when you stated "um good luck with the lawsuit"?
A. These comments were made the same day of the original filing of this case; the lawsuit in question was referring to this one. I made these comments with the understanding that FloorIsTired would be brought in for questioning in some capacity due to his involvement in the situation.

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?
A. I, as President of the Senate at the time, shared the same concerns as you, Plaintiff Multiman155. I had seen your popular petition at the time, which was referenced in my motion of Joint Investigative Hearing, and shared the same concerns regarding the unnecessary burden that daily automatic reporting via an API would place on Redmont's financial institutions.

9. What communications, if any, did you have with ElysiaCrynn, FloorIsTired, any FRB representative, DOJ, or any other person about the deleted announcement, deleted template, FOI request, or this case after the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017?
A. After the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017? Not any that I recall.

10. What non-privileged facts, if any, did you know at the time about why a "sidebar" might be warranted?
Being a witness to the deletion of the announcement, as evidenced by the screenshots I have provided of my senate floor motion.

11. What records, if any, do you possess or know about that may be responsive to ticket #96 and have not been produced in this case?
I have never had any access to this ticket, nor was I party to it, and thus do not possess any knowledge or information that addresses the questions posed in this ticket. I haven't been a member of the Federal Reserve Bank since I resigned as Inspector General around mid 2025, and am not familiar with its internal deliberations.

 

[FloorIsTired]

Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-020, and P-035, what role did you have in preparing or posting the February 25 Compliant announcement?

3. How did the assignment to prepare or post that announcement come to you?

4. What instructions, source materials, draft language, template, or approval information did you receive before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

5. What draft or template did you receive, use, or see before posting Exhibit P-001, and where was that draft or template located?

6. In Floor-01, your conversation with jJoshuaTheGreat included discussion of authority and Board approval. What concerns were you raising in that conversation?

7. What did you understand Exhibit P-001 to require of financial institutions at the time it was posted?

8. What did you understand at the time about whether the Board had formally approved the mandatory implementation described in Exhibit P-001?

9. What later information, if any, changed your understanding of whether Exhibit P-001 was backed by a Board decision?

10. In Floor-03, what information led you to prepare or consider preparing a rescission or rollback announcement?

11. What happened to the rescission or rollback announcement you were preparing?

12. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Floor-02, would you please describe what you meant when you said that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

13. What consultation, notice, request, or approval process, if any, occurred with you before the announcement in Exhibit P-001 was deleted or removed?

14. What versioned Google document did you reference in your discovery response, what does that document contain, who can access it, and where is it located?

15. What, if anything, was produced from that versioned Google document to Plaintiff, the Department of Justice, or the Court?

16. In Floor-02, jJoshuaTheGreat asked you to gather messages relating to Compliant for the FOI request. What records did you gather, provide, identify, or recommend gathering in response?

17. What channels, documents, licensing materials, agreement discussions, or other records did you believe might be responsive to ticket #96 but outside your access?

18. What led you to recommend involving the Department of Justice in the FOI response?

19. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable to you, or not produced?

In response to @Franciscus 's questions:

1. I hold both the Head of Internal Risk & Compliance, as well as the Head of Data & Analytics with the Federal Reserve Bank.

2. P-001 was the announcement posted, I was provided a template and information to make a public announcement I had heard about the same day. I was the main sender of the post, but I did not have much real knowledge about the details ahead of time only finding out by what was given to me to post about. P-020 appears to be my discord profile roles, which are correct and should not have changed at the time. P-035 is @ElysiaCrynn 's application as a compliance officer for which I do not feel the need to currently comment on, or have much to say about.

3. I was asked to post an announcement to FI's informing them about a new FRB policy related to compliant. I was requested to make this post by the, at the time, Lt. Governor of the FRB @coshjlose .

4. Just a template which was mostly what I posted, which had pre-made formatting, points, and information to send for the compliant announcement itself. I was introduced to compliant the same day, and didn't have much reference. When initially asked to post the announcement I was under the impression it was a board approved decision when it was brought to me.

5. It was located under the notices forum, under the Internal Risk & Compliance Division category of the FRB discord. The original post is deleted, and I do not have a copy of the original template to provide to the court.

6. My initial questions about what I assume you are referring to is: "Has the board thought about how to get FIs to adopt compliant? I'm not certain if I have the authority to do that unilaterally or not without board approval (I don't think there is much put forward by the board about IR & Compliance authority or any of the heads afaik)"

This was me asking for guidance and broaching the subject of if the board had put much thought into how to enforce adoption, as it seemed like a pressing aspect of the policy. My initial suggestions and personal bias in such matters is to exercise soft power for policy adoption rather than hard requirements for adoption in policy. In the conversation @coshjlose mentioned examples of soft power being exercised for disincentivizing banks from not adopting the new policy so I chose not to push the subject further as that aspect had satisfied my initial question about it, as in my reading of @coshjlose 's response, it seemed they would likely follow up with other board policy decisions to support the current one after it was released.

7. At the time I understood it as likely requiring some kind of automated system to provide a daily reserve # to the FRB, which would be hooked into the compliant system for the FRB to have ease of access to that information according to an original FRB motion R-001 passed on November 14th, 2025 Section 5 of that policy would be for the goal of the FRB's operations to have automatic verification that each FI's reserve held within the FRB was meeting its requirement every 24 hours. The compliant policy I saw was the next step of actually bringing that verification and reporting in to existence, even if it may have been a bit unclear how institutions would do so at first in very specific cases.

8. I had assumed that with it being brought to me in the first place that it was board approved policy and that this had been in the works in the background without my knowledge up to the day, where I became privy of what compliant is, how it would be used, and the proposed policy announcement.

9. A board member @xSyncx had mentioned in the #management-compliance channel that they didn't clock a board vote on the policy to jJosh, upon which I was obviously alarmed and concerned enough to ask further questions about the status of the policy with the board. It was indeed not a passed policy, my understanding from inference is that Compliant was approved to be explored, but not to be implemented as required by policy. I do not have access to the FRB Board channels to verify any claims or information brought to me however, so my best guess is on the information originally brougt to me, and subsequently from the conversations that resulted after the announcement post and lashback that had occured and that is all.

10. I had begun to prepare a statement rescinding the announcement about the compliant policy after it @xSyncx 's remark, upon which I thought it proper to roll back officially, and let the board think about how it wanted to proceed with compliant first properly. If the policy wasn't backed by the board, it had no reason to be announced, nor active policy outside of a motion or some other official board vote. Rescinding the announcement would've saved face for both myself, and the Federal Reserve Bank of which I am given the resonsibility of advising the board on the FRB's actions & conduct as well as conduct with those the FRB works with. Most of my role as Head of IR & Compliance focuses on making sure board policy is followed, but I also tend to advise on areas where policy or processes should be strengthened, and making sure the FRB is keeping up with/mindful of all laws and regulations regarding its operations, as well as protecting itself as a reliable government entity.

11. I was typing it in the announcement channel preparing to post, but the original post was deleted before I could send it, upon which I chose not to post a message rescinding, due to the situation. I was apalled and disheveled by the fact that such a thing happened knowing possible litigatin in the future was likely, and because of that I had to take a day away to let my irritation at the matter settle, after being bombarded with messages and pings about the announcement itself. It left my wholly open to be discredited by the public and left me looking inept in the public's eyes without saving face for me as an employee of the FRB who had attempted to carry out what I thought was a board approved decision at the time.

12. The template and the announcement were both deleted without asking me first, I had responded the way I did with "they deleted the announcement without consulting me" because I found the situation that I was put in as irritating to say the least. It put me in a publicly bad position in the situation as the "mouthpiece" of the policy announcement, with no resolution or remedy outside of apologies internally. It felt like a loss of face for me and the FRB for what I felt like was no reason, and could have been majorly avoided with better handling and coordination in regards of how the FRB should have responded to the public pressure. In my opinion we could have had a measured resonse, but instead we visibly looked like we paniced, and that initial blame was originally assigned to me as the original poster of the announcement. Hence my irritation at the matter of not being consulted and my dissatisfaction with the resolution of the situation.

13. There was no consultation or anything, I saw the announcement was deleted or removed, and I brought up that it was removed, and my feelings on the matter. Which is visible in Floor-03.

14. Only I had access to it, and I didn't share it with anyone else until the court date as view only. it contains template with changes I made to it before it entered the document, and ended as the close to final post of the announcement if I remember correctly, though I do think I made changes right before posting the final discord announcement to FI's.

15. I didn't provide it to anyone else before making further changes and posting, the google doc was just a way for me to draft easier without having something random on discord's end from losing what I had written down which has happened to me sometimes in the past before. To mitigate that, I tend to put writing in google docs so i can access it again and have progressed save easier.

16. I did not contribute to the FOI as we had left off in the conversation seen in Floor-03 that he would contact the DOJ to help with complying and gathering of evidence. I wouldn't be able to help them compile things such as channels I didn't have access to so that was my recommendation. Outside of that I had just assumed it was being handled in the background as I didn't hear about it again really, and other things had taken my focus.

17. Any potential FRB board member vote on compliant, or any possible conversations surrounding it. As I don't have access to any of the board channels in the FRB discord.

18. I believe the DOJ was wanting to help the FRB in complying anyway, as the DOJ helps represent the FRB in this matter I think is the general understanding. I had little experience with FOIs directly so I had directed them to someone who might know better about the law and offer more thorough support than I could have.

19. That I know of, just the FI announcement, and the template used for it. I can't think of anything else that may have been relevant to my knowledge.

 

[aubunny]

Your honour,
The witness Coshjlose will be unavailable from May 9th as previously stated.
Seeing as the Plaintiff will require extra time, we do not think both sides will be able to properly question the witness.
We would move to conduct witness questioning normally with all other witnesses, and when finished, stay these proceedings until the Governor is back.
We hope the Plaintiff will see this as a reasonable arrangement.

Response

Your Honor,

Plaintiff opposes the stay because we believe it both unnecessary and an undue burden on the right to speedy trial guaranteed to citizens under the ninth charter right.

We believe that this is unnecessary because the Defendant is liable to default judgement under Rule 3.6 for failing to have affirmations or denials on all facts. The Plaintiff's complaint, at the end of discovery, asserted 24 facts; the Defendant's Answer fails to respond whatsoever to facts 21-24. This arises from the Defendant's failure to respond to facts asserted in amendments during the discovery period. Rule 3.7, which provides additional time to amend a complaint, grants 72 extra hours to the Defendant when an amendment to complaint is filed less than 72 hours prior to the end of discovery; such extension did not trigger because the amendments were filed well before the 72-hour-till-end-of-discovery mark.

The Plaintiff has chosen to question witnesses to obtain information from witnesses. But this does not erase the harm caused by the Defendant's failure to respond. The stay will be unnecessary because we will move for default judgement following the closure of direct questioning.

As to speedy trial concerns under Const. 35(9), the Plaintiff is concerned that this case's witness questioning would be delayed another month. This case has already been going on for two months: this case was filed on March 7, discovery began on April 9, and it is now May 8. The Court has granted numerous extensions to the FRB throughout this trial, both inside and outside of the discovery period. While this was generous then, a further one month delay because the Defendant's current governor is going on vacation (something appears to have been knowable by the Defendant at the time that extensions were requested) is so much greater in scope than prior delays that it would unduly burden the ninth charter right.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff opposes the stay. We wish to continue to pursue this case in a speedy manner, consistent with Const. 35(9), and we believe that the Defendant's default will allow us to do this.

Granted - In Part

This trial has gone on for many months, with multiple delays from both parties. With a key witness potentially unavailable for a whole month, further undermining the Plaintiff's ability to be, theoretically, made whole for their alleged harm.
The Court sees multiple key issues weighing the scales for and against a potential stay.

Coshjlose is a Key Witness
As the Plaintiff has said in their initial complaint, the duty to respond to FOI requests falls upon the FRB Governor, while at the time our witness was only the Lt Governor. Section 5.3.a.i of the Federal Reserve Act states, "(i) The Lieutenant-Governor shall become the Acting Governor if the Governor is incapacitated or the position is vacant." The Court sees the inactivity of the, at the time, Governor of the FRB DonTrillions, with the lack of a proper incapacitation procedure, and with the current evidence presented showing the Lieutenant-Governor performing the day-to-day duties of the Governor to the best of their ability, acknowledges that the testimony of this witness holds its weight in gold. Additionally, as the proposer of the original idea behind the underlying FOI, the now Governor holds invaluable information for the proceedings of this trial.

Speedy trial v Fair Trial
The Constitution gives every citizen the right to a "speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer", and while the Plaintiff references this in their brief, the Court sees reason to weigh the concept of a speedy trial and a fair trial against each other.

In this instance, with the questions being left unanswered by our key witness as of May 8th, a day before their announced departure for the seas, we would be unable to properly give the Defendant time for cross-examination, nor would we be able to allow for potential follow-up questions from either party. This ruling is made under the assumption of regular proceedings, as while the witness has not responded to the Plaintiffs' questions yet, the chance of neither party being able to question this witness before departure is on the table, this Court rules as if proceedings follow without complication, and that the witness meets their deadline to answer the questions currently in front of this Court. If questioning were to continue as is, the trial would be needlessly hampered against the Defendant, fulfilling the right to a speedy trial but violating the right to a fair one.

Default Judgement
The Court cannot factor in the future motion for default judgment that the Plaintiff has brought up in its response to this motion, as a default judgment is a dispositive motion. In re [2026] FCR 8 | [2026] SCR 8 lays out that not allowing the non-movant party to respond to a dispositive motion is a violation of their right to a fair trial. This Court finds that utilizing this motion in its rulings, especially to rule as if the intent is to rule in favor of granting the future motion to default, without allowing the Defendant to give a response, would be prejudicial and in violation of the right to a fair trial. I request that if the Plaintiff wishes to utilize a motion for default judgment to modify proceedings, it do so in its own motion.

Conclusion
The Court finds that, as long as Coshjlose is a required witness by both parties, this case cannot fairly proceed with only the Plaintiff's half of the proceedings. While a delay this long is downright outrageous, it is a sad reality that this case must endure to ensure its fairness.
The Court does not see reason enough to grant a blanket stay in proceedings, however, as the inability of the witness to respond has not been demonstrated in totality. This creates gaps so that, with more leeway on deadlines, the witness may respond before the turn of the month.

The Court Orders as follows in a modification of the original stay in proceedings request:

We will proceed with witness questioning and cross-examination for all witnesses, including coshjlose. Deadlines normally levied against witnesses for coshjlose shall be lifted where applicable.
We shall split the proceedings into two, whereas the rest of the witnesses follow one timeline, and the FRB Governor follows another.
Once the Plaintiff has no further questions of all witnesses other than coshjlose, we shall move on to cross-examination, leaving the Governor to finish the proceedings separately. Once both separate proceedings are concluded, we will move on to closing arguments.

Spoiler: Dicta

I take no particular joy in settling on this decision. Announcing such a long extension in the case hurts all parties involved. I informally request that both parties evaluate the weight of this witness and determine if their presence is worth a month-long delay, or if there is enough information already present in this case in order to proceed without. Motion for a sidebar to discuss if truly necessary. This case is being unintentionally held hostage by our witness, and it would be incredibly disheartening to see such a delay unfold for very little gain. It is not the job of a Judicial Officer to summarily decide what is or is not "worth it" in the exposition of information in this case, as the witness testimony demonstrates clear potential value for both parties. As the Plaintiff requested this witness, the onus is on them to decide if their case stands "good enough" without them. Barring the future default judgment motion, which is a separate matter and shall be ruled upon in its own merits.

 

[coshjlose]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Court's order permitting Plaintiff to question available witnesses, Plaintiff submits the following questions:

---

Questions for jJoshuaTheGreat (@coshjlose)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-003 and P-022, what access did you have to the FRB ticket system and ticket #96 on February 25, 2026 and during the following seven days?

3. When and how did you first become aware of the FOI request submitted in ticket #96?

4. What actions, if any, did you personally take during the first seven days after ticket #96 was submitted to route, answer, narrow, deny, partially produce, redact, summarize, or otherwise respond to that FOI request?

5. What response, if any, did the FRB provide to ticket #96 during the first seven days after the request was submitted, and who sent or approved that response?

6. When did the FRB ultimately respond to ticket #96, what was provided, and who participated in preparing or approving that response?

7. What FRB business, Compliant-related work, or official communications, if any, did you conduct between February 25, 2026 and March 4, 2026?

8. What instructions, if any, did DonTrillions give you concerning ticket #96 or the Compliant FOI request, and when were those instructions given?

9. With reference to Exhibit P-001, what formal Board action, if any, authorized the mandatory Compliant transition described in the February 25 announcement before that announcement was posted?

10. Would you please describe each Board discussion, vote, motion, order, or approval concerning Compliant before February 25, including the date, channel or setting, participants, and what was actually approved?

11. With reference to Exhibit P-023, what steps were being taken before Exhibit P-001 was posted to set up Compliant access, financial-institution onboarding, reporting processes, or staff permissions?

12. In Floor-01, you stated that the matter had "only been discussed at board level so far." What discussions were you referring to?

13. In Floor-03, you stated that "we voted on using Compliant not necessarily the implementation." What vote were you referring to, and what was the distinction between using Compliant and implementing the policy announced in Exhibit P-001?

14. What role, if any, did you have in preparing, drafting, editing, reviewing, approving, or providing the announcement language, draft, or template used for Exhibit P-001?

15. What was the draft or template referenced in Floor-01, where was it located, who had access to it, and who created or maintained it?

16. What happened to that draft or template after Exhibit P-001 was posted?

17. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-003, P-015 through P-017, P-022, Floor-01, Floor-03, and D-001, would you please describe in chronological order everything you know about the deletion, removal, withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, replacement, or loss of access to Compliant-related materials on or after February 25, 2026, including the announcement, any draft, any template, any rescission or rollback text, and any related audit-log material?

18. For each item you identify in response to Question 17, what was the item, where was it located, who authored or maintained it, what did it contain, when did it become unavailable or change status, what role did you have in that change, who else participated, and what records now show what happened?

19. With reference to D-001 and the Court's ruling at Docket #104 concerning the #fi-announcements deletion, would you please describe your own involvement in the deletion or removal of the announcement shown in Exhibit P-001, including the events leading up to the deletion, the act of deletion itself, and any communications after the deletion?

20. What reasons, concerns, instructions, objectives, or circumstances led to the announcement in Exhibit P-001 being deleted or removed rather than left visible with a correction, reply, edit, replacement notice, or rescission notice?

21. What did you understand at the time about how deleting or removing the announcement would affect public notice, financial-institution obligations, the FRB's recordkeeping, the pending or potential FOI response, and later ability to prove what had been posted?

22. What was your awareness, if any, of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request at each point when the announcement, draft, template, or other Compliant-related material was deleted, removed, moved, hidden, edited, replaced, or became unavailable?

23. What communications did you have with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, DOJ, any Board member, or any other person about deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials?

24. What distinction, if any, did you draw at the time between the public announcement, the draft, the template, the rollback/backtrack communications, and records responsive to ticket #96?

25. What copies, screenshots, exports, audit logs, metadata, backups, Google Docs, Discord messages, direct messages, local files, or other records of the deleted or removed announcement, draft, template, or related materials were preserved, and by whom?

26. What searches, if any, did you perform or direct to locate copies of the announcement, draft, template, rollback text, audit-log entries, or related Compliant materials after ticket #96 or this case arose?

27. What Compliant-related records, if any, remain deleted, missing, unavailable, unproduced, or outside the FRB's current access, and what is your understanding of why each such record is in that status?

28. After you became aware of ticket #96 and after any Court preservation order, what concrete steps did you personally take to preserve records responsive to the FOI request?

29. What records, if any, responsive to ticket #96 have not been produced in this case, and where would those records be located?

---

Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-020, and P-035, what role did you have in preparing or posting the February 25 Compliant announcement?

3. How did the assignment to prepare or post that announcement come to you?

4. What instructions, source materials, draft language, template, or approval information did you receive before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

5. What draft or template did you receive, use, or see before posting Exhibit P-001, and where was that draft or template located?

6. In Floor-01, your conversation with jJoshuaTheGreat included discussion of authority and Board approval. What concerns were you raising in that conversation?

7. What did you understand Exhibit P-001 to require of financial institutions at the time it was posted?

8. What did you understand at the time about whether the Board had formally approved the mandatory implementation described in Exhibit P-001?

9. What later information, if any, changed your understanding of whether Exhibit P-001 was backed by a Board decision?

10. In Floor-03, what information led you to prepare or consider preparing a rescission or rollback announcement?

11. What happened to the rescission or rollback announcement you were preparing?

12. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Floor-02, would you please describe what you meant when you said that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

13. What consultation, notice, request, or approval process, if any, occurred with you before the announcement in Exhibit P-001 was deleted or removed?

14. What versioned Google document did you reference in your discovery response, what does that document contain, who can access it, and where is it located?

15. What, if anything, was produced from that versioned Google document to Plaintiff, the Department of Justice, or the Court?

16. In Floor-02, jJoshuaTheGreat asked you to gather messages relating to Compliant for the FOI request. What records did you gather, provide, identify, or recommend gathering in response?

17. What channels, documents, licensing materials, agreement discussions, or other records did you believe might be responsive to ticket #96 but outside your access?

18. What led you to recommend involving the Department of Justice in the FOI response?

19. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable to you, or not produced?

---

Questions for ElysiaCrynn (@ElysiaCrynn)​

1. What government positions did you hold on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-018, P-019, and Elysia-03, what was your understanding of your ex-officio role on the Federal Reserve Board as Secretary of Commerce?

3. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels could you access on February 25, 2026?

4. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels were unavailable to you on February 25, 2026, and when did that access change?

5. What formal Board motion, vote, order, written approval, or other Board action, if any, were you aware of concerning the mandatory Compliant transition announced in Exhibit P-001?

6. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Elysia-01, what material were you referring to when you said you were "pretty sure" you saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

7. What did you personally see before that material became unavailable, and what did you infer from other people's statements or from later inability to find it?

8. What draft or template were you referring to when you later discussed "the draft etc," and where had you previously seen or expected to find it?

9. What happened when you looked for that draft or template after public pushback to the announcement?

10. What do you know about who controlled, deleted, moved, hid, or otherwise made unavailable the announcement, draft, or template material you discussed?

11. When and how did you become aware of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request?

12. In Elysia-01, you stated that you would answer the ticket if you could see it. What prevented you from seeing or answering the ticket?

13. What requests, if any, did you receive from FRB or DOJ to preserve, search for, or produce records relating to the Compliant transition before this litigation began?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for Emmdubz (@EmmDubz)​

1. What roles did you hold in Redmont Group, Compliant, Vendeka Software LLC, VDASoft, or any related entity during February 2026?

2. With reference to EmmDubz-01, EmmDubz-02, EmmDubz-03, Exhibit P-023, and the Compliant-FRB license agreement, would you please describe your communications with jJoshuaTheGreat, DonTrillions, or the FRB about Compliant before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

3. What Compliant functions, FRB needs, pricing terms, reporting features, licensing terms, implementation steps, or onboarding steps were discussed in those communications?

4. What did FRB representatives tell you, if anything, about Board consideration, Board approval, or the internal authorization status of Compliant before February 25?

5. What documents, draft documents, proposed agreements, onboarding instructions, templates, or policy-related materials did you send to or receive from the FRB before February 25?

6. What channels, direct messages, or other communication settings were used for your Compliant-related communications with the FRB?

7. What announcement language, draft announcement, template, policy text, or public-facing language relating to the Compliant transition did you draft, receive, review, or comment on, if any?

8. What communications, if any, did you have with any FRB officer, employee, Board member, or DOJ representative about public pushback, withdrawal, rollback, deletion, removal, or replacement of the February 25 announcement?

9. What requests, if any, did FRB or DOJ make to you to preserve or produce Compliant-related communications before this litigation began?

10. What materials in your possession relating to the FRB's decision or contemplated decision to transition to Compliant have been produced in this case?

11. What additional records, if any, relating to ticket #96 exist or may exist outside the materials already produced?

---

Questions for Kaiserin (@Kaiserin_)​

1. What positions did you hold in the Department of Justice or Commonwealth government on February 25, March 5, and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibit P-006 and ticket #96 as shown in Exhibits P-003 and P-022, when and how did you first become aware of Plaintiff's FOI request?

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

4. To what extent was DOJ involved in the FOI request before the seven-day response deadline expired?

5. What response, if any, did DOJ help prepare, advise upon, approve, send, or attempt to send before the seven-day response deadline expired?

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

8. When did DOJ understand that the FRB ultimately responded to ticket #96, what was provided in that response, and who participated in preparing or approving it?

9. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual information did DOJ receive about deletion, removal, loss of access, or non-preservation of the announcement, draft, template, audit logs, or related Compliant records?

10. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual basis supported DOJ's distinction between records it treated as responsive to ticket #96 and records it treated as non-responsive?

11. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what preservation requests, instructions, or directions, if any, were communicated to persons outside DOJ concerning records responsive to ticket #96?

12. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual role, if any, did DOJ have in any decision to delete, remove, withdraw, replace, preserve, or produce the announcement or template?

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for @EATB​

1. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017, what connection, if any, do you have to the Discord user shown as "Euphemia A. T. Britannia"?

2. What roles, if any, did you hold in or with the FRB, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Public Affairs Department, any court, or any affected financial institution during February and March 2026?

3. With reference to Exhibit P-016, what did you mean when you stated that it "might be time to do another sidebar"?

4. What facts, observations, or concerns led you to make that statement?

5. What did you understand from ElysiaCrynn's statement in Exhibit P-016 that she was "pretty sure" she saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

6. What did you understand from FloorIsTired's later statement in Exhibit P-016 that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

7. In Exhibit P-017, what did you mean when you stated "um good luck with the lawsuit"?

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?

9. What communications, if any, did you have with ElysiaCrynn, FloorIsTired, any FRB representative, DOJ, or any other person about the deleted announcement, deleted template, FOI request, or this case after the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017?

10. What non-privileged facts, if any, did you know at the time about why a "sidebar" might be warranted?

11. What records, if any, do you possess or know about that may be responsive to ticket #96 and have not been produced in this case?

---

Plaintiff fully reserves the right to ask follow-up questions based on witness answers.

1. Lieutenant Governor and Head of Accounting

2. I had access.

3. On or about February 25.

4. I referred the Freedom of Information request to the Board and the then Governor in the board discussion channel once I was aware of it.

5. None.

6. The then Governor approved the FOI request 10 days after it was submitted, on March 7th.

7. None to my recollection.

8. DonTrillions instructed me to have someone send over the related data on the date the FOI request was approved, March 7th.

9. Policy R-001, which was in place since before my time on the board, was formally approved by the Board in November of 2025. This policy requires the daily verification of Financial Institution's reserve levels as described in the February 25 announcement. To my understanding, there is no formal Board action taken as to that policy's proposed implementation which was announced on February 25.

10. On February 18, I introduced into discussion the topic of exploring a software solution to the implementation of Policy R-001. DonTrillions, the then Governor, and I, constituting two of three Board members participated in this discussion, with the Governor approving of the notion, generally. On February 23 I updated the Board on the developments I undertook to explore our options, noting that Compliant would have a working product for us within the week, and attached their proposed license agreement. DonTrillions, then Governor, and I, constituting two of three Board members participated in this discussion, with the Governor's approval. Our third Board member had been absent during the week of these discussions.

11. I do not specifically recall the steps being taken before Exhibit P-001 was posted regarding Compliant access, financial-institution onboarding, reporting processes, or staff permissions. Those operational and technical setup matters would be better answered by the developer of Compliant, and I would refer to his testimony on those issues.

12. I would refer you to my answer to question 10.

13. I would again refer you to my answer to question 10. The distinction drawn in that comment is between the general approval of using Compliant and the technical and specific methods of implementing its use.

14. My involvement was in using AI to generate a sample template for the announcement language, which I then provided to our Head of Compliance for review and further handling.

15. I do not recall for certain where the specific draft or template being referenced in Floor-01 was located.

16. I do not recall for certain where the specific draft or template being referenced in Floor-01 is now located or what happened, if anything, to it.

17. I am not aware of any withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, or replacement of any Compliant-related materials or audit log material. The announcement was deleted on February 25. I am not aware of where any draft announcement may currently be located or whether it still exists or has been deleted.

18. The announcement was located in the #fi-announcements channel of the FRB discord, it was posted by FloorIsTired, it became unavailable at that particular location on February 25 as I deleted it. The announcement remains fully available to the public in the plaintiff's petition on the DemocracyCraft discord server and in this Court. As for any draft announcement, I am unaware of whether or when it may have become unavailable.

19. I deleted the announcement.

20. My understanding at the time was that there had been misinformation circulating on the Democracy Craft discord server regarding the announcement and proposed implementation of Policy R-001, which I believed was causing confusion and strong reactions from some individuals. I was also dissatisfied with the wording and preparation of the announcement itself. The AI-generated sample draft referenced in my earlier response had been prepared in a rushed manner and was not, in my view, adequately refined or ready for broader rollout. At the time, I preferred to fully backtrack and delay the full implementation and rollout of Policy R-001 until communications and preparation surrounding the transition could be better organized and clarified. These are the reasons, concerns, objectives, and circumstances that led to the announcement in Exhibit P-001 being deleted or removed rather than left visible with a correction, reply, edit, replacement notice, or rescission notice.

21. At the time, my understanding was primarily focused on delaying or reconsidering the rollout of the implementation and avoiding further confusion and misinformation arising from the existing announcement. I did not specifically consider or analyze any other second-order effects.

22. To my recollection, I was unaware of ticket #96 when the announcement was deleted.

23. I referred the FOI request to the Board when I became aware of it. I recall that DonTrillions and ElysiaCrynn suggested reaching out to DOJ for assistance in relation to the matter. I also discussed the FOI request with FloorIsTired to assist in gathering potentially responsive records. Other than the above, I do not presently recall in detail the specific content of communications with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, any Board member, or others regarding deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials. To the extent the question relates to communications with DOJ in its advisory or representative capacity, I maintain that those communications are privileged and confidential and do not intend to disclose their substance.

24. My understanding at that time and at this time was that the FOI request for materials regarding “the decision to transition to Compliant” was distinct from the draft announcement, the eventual public announcement, and subsequent communications. In identifying records responsive to the FOI request, a distinction was drawn between records related to the decision-making process for implementing the transition, as opposed to communications created after that decision had already been made.

25. I am unaware of any preserved copies of the draft announcement. To my knowledge, the removed announcement has been preserved by the plaintiff.

26. I conducted a search of the FRB discord and of my Google drive.

27. I am unclear whether this question is referring to (1) FOI-responsive materials specifically, or (2) any Compliant-related materials more generally.
To the extent the question relates to FOI-responsive materials, my understanding is that no FOI-responsive records remain outstanding, missing, or unproduced, and that all responsive records were provided to the requester. To the extent the question relates more broadly to Compliant-related materials generally, I am only aware that the draft announcement may not currently be readily available or may be missing. I do not have knowledge of any other specific records being deleted, unavailable, or outside FRB access.

28. Upon approval of the FOI, I instructed our head of compliance to gather materials responsive to the "decision to transition to Compliant," and personally searched for responsive materials. I immediately compiled and provided these materials to the requester in ticket #96.

29. No records responsive to the FOI, to my knowledge, have not been produced.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

Your Honour, I would like to request a 30m extension while I work on my answers, unfortunately my earlier draft did not save when I got home from work.

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

1. What government positions did you hold on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?
Commerce Secretary, Economist, Senior Economist, Compliance Officer, Congressional Clerk, Detective, Ranger and possibly a couple more minor roles im forgetting the timing of.

2. With reference to Exhibits P-018, P-019, and Elysia-03, what was your understanding of your ex-officio role on the Federal Reserve Board as Secretary of Commerce?
That I act as another member on the reserve board same as the others except for the fact that I only vote in the case of tie-breaks.

3. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels could you access on February 25, 2026?
The #compliant channel, the reserve board discussion and voting notification channel, the management-compliance channel, the compliance general channel, the notices channel, the management development channel, the tech and development channel, the division heads channel, the press releases channel, the frb staff chat, the fi announcements channel and some of the individual FI channels.

4. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels were unavailable to you on February 25, 2026, and when did that access change?
All ticket channels were unavailable to me and some of the FI channels. That access changed on the 13th of March when I was given the reserve member role.

5. What formal Board motion, vote, order, written approval, or other Board action, if any, were you aware of concerning the mandatory Compliant transition announced in Exhibit P-001?
I was unaware of any formal motion, vote or order over the mandatory Compliant transition. There was approval on the use of Compliant by some members of the Board. I believe a member of the board did give written approval to the mandatory Compliant transition but I do not think there was a consensus on that, nor any kind of motion etc.

6. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Elysia-01, what material were you referring to when you said you were "pretty sure" you saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?
A draft for the announcement of the use of compliant by the FRB as well as the announcement itself. And potentially some other talk around it beforehand but I'm unsure what that would have been or if it even existed.

7. What did you personally see before that material became unavailable, and what did you infer from other people's statements or from later inability to find it?
I saw discussion around Compliant's implementation and a draft of the mandatory transition for Compliant as well as it's full posting and assumed it had later been deleted.

8. What draft or template were you referring to when you later discussed "the draft etc," and where had you previously seen or expected to find it?
A draft for the announcement of the use of compliant by the FRB as well as the announcement itself. I think I saw it in the management compliance channel as well as some kind of briefing channel but im not sure.

9. What happened when you looked for that draft or template after public pushback to the announcement?
I was unable to locate it.

10. What do you know about who controlled, deleted, moved, hid, or otherwise made unavailable the announcement, draft, or template material you discussed?
It could only have been deleted, moved or hidden by the original poster of the material or the FRB governor or lieutenant governor as only they had perms at the time to do so to my knowledge.

11. When and how did you become aware of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request?
I became aware of the FOI request when it was forwarded to the reserve board discussion channel by josh.

12. In Elysia-01, you stated that you would answer the ticket if you could see it. What prevented you from seeing or answering the ticket?
The ex-officio discord role which I formally was restricted to, was much more limited in what it could see of the FRB discord with it not being able to see or talk in any FRB tickets so I could not answer the ticket due to a lack of permissions. In addition it was my understanding beforehand that josh was handling it.

13. What requests, if any, did you receive from FRB or DOJ to preserve, search for, or produce records relating to the Compliant transition before this litigation began?
I did not receive any directly from the FRB or DOJ, the only records I have been required to produced have been those as required of me in this litigation.

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?
I believe that at minimum the original announcement draft and the announcement itself were deleted, there may have been further items that were deleted but I could not reliably assess whether that is the case.

 

[Superwoops]

Objection

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

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

Regarding questions 3 and 7, the DOJ acts, and has acted, in legal representation of the FRB. As such, many of its communications with the FRB after the 7-day deadline are covered under attorney-client privilege.
Regarding question 6, this message was sent in the #doc channel within the DOJ Discord server, which is a channel that is also covered under attorney-client privilege and where the Department of Commerce contacts the DOJ regarding legal questions/issues.

Objection

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

Your honour,
Witness questions are meant to be easy to respond to. The Plaintiff makes this difficult by creating an amalgam of different inquiries into single questions. The Commonwealth could easily object to several questions posed by opposing counsel, however, we will only object to those compound questions that are especially confusing to answer. These are as follows:

17. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-003, P-015 through P-017, P-022, Floor-01, Floor-03, and D-001, would you please describe in chronological order everything you know about the deletion, removal, withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, replacement, or loss of access to Compliant-related materials on or after February 25, 2026, including the announcement, any draft, any template, any rescission or rollback text, and any related audit-log material?

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

18. For each item you identify in response to Question 17, what was the item, where was it located, who authored or maintained it, what did it contain, when did it become unavailable or change status, what role did you have in that change, who else participated, and what records now show what happened?

23. What communications did you have with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, DOJ, any Board member, or any other person about deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials?

8. What communications, if any, did you have with any FRB officer, employee, Board member, or DOJ representative about public pushback, withdrawal, rollback, deletion, removal, or replacement of the February 25 announcement?

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your honour,
This question asks for the witness' opinion: (personal concerns on a topic)

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS QUESTIONS

Your Honor,

Pursuant to the Court's order permitting Plaintiff to question available witnesses, Plaintiff submits the following questions:

---

Questions for jJoshuaTheGreat (@coshjlose)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-003 and P-022, what access did you have to the FRB ticket system and ticket #96 on February 25, 2026 and during the following seven days?

3. When and how did you first become aware of the FOI request submitted in ticket #96?

4. What actions, if any, did you personally take during the first seven days after ticket #96 was submitted to route, answer, narrow, deny, partially produce, redact, summarize, or otherwise respond to that FOI request?

5. What response, if any, did the FRB provide to ticket #96 during the first seven days after the request was submitted, and who sent or approved that response?

6. When did the FRB ultimately respond to ticket #96, what was provided, and who participated in preparing or approving that response?

7. What FRB business, Compliant-related work, or official communications, if any, did you conduct between February 25, 2026 and March 4, 2026?

8. What instructions, if any, did DonTrillions give you concerning ticket #96 or the Compliant FOI request, and when were those instructions given?

9. With reference to Exhibit P-001, what formal Board action, if any, authorized the mandatory Compliant transition described in the February 25 announcement before that announcement was posted?

10. Would you please describe each Board discussion, vote, motion, order, or approval concerning Compliant before February 25, including the date, channel or setting, participants, and what was actually approved?

11. With reference to Exhibit P-023, what steps were being taken before Exhibit P-001 was posted to set up Compliant access, financial-institution onboarding, reporting processes, or staff permissions?

12. In Floor-01, you stated that the matter had "only been discussed at board level so far." What discussions were you referring to?

13. In Floor-03, you stated that "we voted on using Compliant not necessarily the implementation." What vote were you referring to, and what was the distinction between using Compliant and implementing the policy announced in Exhibit P-001?

14. What role, if any, did you have in preparing, drafting, editing, reviewing, approving, or providing the announcement language, draft, or template used for Exhibit P-001?

15. What was the draft or template referenced in Floor-01, where was it located, who had access to it, and who created or maintained it?

16. What happened to that draft or template after Exhibit P-001 was posted?

17. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-003, P-015 through P-017, P-022, Floor-01, Floor-03, and D-001, would you please describe in chronological order everything you know about the deletion, removal, withdrawal, hiding, movement, editing, replacement, or loss of access to Compliant-related materials on or after February 25, 2026, including the announcement, any draft, any template, any rescission or rollback text, and any related audit-log material?

18. For each item you identify in response to Question 17, what was the item, where was it located, who authored or maintained it, what did it contain, when did it become unavailable or change status, what role did you have in that change, who else participated, and what records now show what happened?

19. With reference to D-001 and the Court's ruling at Docket #104 concerning the #fi-announcements deletion, would you please describe your own involvement in the deletion or removal of the announcement shown in Exhibit P-001, including the events leading up to the deletion, the act of deletion itself, and any communications after the deletion?

20. What reasons, concerns, instructions, objectives, or circumstances led to the announcement in Exhibit P-001 being deleted or removed rather than left visible with a correction, reply, edit, replacement notice, or rescission notice?

21. What did you understand at the time about how deleting or removing the announcement would affect public notice, financial-institution obligations, the FRB's recordkeeping, the pending or potential FOI response, and later ability to prove what had been posted?

22. What was your awareness, if any, of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request at each point when the announcement, draft, template, or other Compliant-related material was deleted, removed, moved, hidden, edited, replaced, or became unavailable?

23. What communications did you have with DonTrillions, FloorIsTired, xSyncx, ElysiaCrynn, EmmDubz, Kaiserin_, DOJ, any Board member, or any other person about deleting, removing, rolling back, rescinding, preserving, searching for, or producing the announcement, draft, template, or related Compliant materials?

24. What distinction, if any, did you draw at the time between the public announcement, the draft, the template, the rollback/backtrack communications, and records responsive to ticket #96?

25. What copies, screenshots, exports, audit logs, metadata, backups, Google Docs, Discord messages, direct messages, local files, or other records of the deleted or removed announcement, draft, template, or related materials were preserved, and by whom?

26. What searches, if any, did you perform or direct to locate copies of the announcement, draft, template, rollback text, audit-log entries, or related Compliant materials after ticket #96 or this case arose?

27. What Compliant-related records, if any, remain deleted, missing, unavailable, unproduced, or outside the FRB's current access, and what is your understanding of why each such record is in that status?

28. After you became aware of ticket #96 and after any Court preservation order, what concrete steps did you personally take to preserve records responsive to the FOI request?

29. What records, if any, responsive to ticket #96 have not been produced in this case, and where would those records be located?

---

Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What positions did you hold in or with the Federal Reserve Bank on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-001, P-020, and P-035, what role did you have in preparing or posting the February 25 Compliant announcement?

3. How did the assignment to prepare or post that announcement come to you?

4. What instructions, source materials, draft language, template, or approval information did you receive before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

5. What draft or template did you receive, use, or see before posting Exhibit P-001, and where was that draft or template located?

6. In Floor-01, your conversation with jJoshuaTheGreat included discussion of authority and Board approval. What concerns were you raising in that conversation?

7. What did you understand Exhibit P-001 to require of financial institutions at the time it was posted?

8. What did you understand at the time about whether the Board had formally approved the mandatory implementation described in Exhibit P-001?

9. What later information, if any, changed your understanding of whether Exhibit P-001 was backed by a Board decision?

10. In Floor-03, what information led you to prepare or consider preparing a rescission or rollback announcement?

11. What happened to the rescission or rollback announcement you were preparing?

12. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Floor-02, would you please describe what you meant when you said that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

13. What consultation, notice, request, or approval process, if any, occurred with you before the announcement in Exhibit P-001 was deleted or removed?

14. What versioned Google document did you reference in your discovery response, what does that document contain, who can access it, and where is it located?

15. What, if anything, was produced from that versioned Google document to Plaintiff, the Department of Justice, or the Court?

16. In Floor-02, jJoshuaTheGreat asked you to gather messages relating to Compliant for the FOI request. What records did you gather, provide, identify, or recommend gathering in response?

17. What channels, documents, licensing materials, agreement discussions, or other records did you believe might be responsive to ticket #96 but outside your access?

18. What led you to recommend involving the Department of Justice in the FOI response?

19. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable to you, or not produced?

---

Questions for ElysiaCrynn (@ElysiaCrynn)​

1. What government positions did you hold on February 25, 2026 and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibits P-018, P-019, and Elysia-03, what was your understanding of your ex-officio role on the Federal Reserve Board as Secretary of Commerce?

3. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels could you access on February 25, 2026?

4. What FRB Board channels, Compliant-related channels, ticket channels, or other relevant FRB channels were unavailable to you on February 25, 2026, and when did that access change?

5. What formal Board motion, vote, order, written approval, or other Board action, if any, were you aware of concerning the mandatory Compliant transition announced in Exhibit P-001?

6. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017 and Elysia-01, what material were you referring to when you said you were "pretty sure" you saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

7. What did you personally see before that material became unavailable, and what did you infer from other people's statements or from later inability to find it?

8. What draft or template were you referring to when you later discussed "the draft etc," and where had you previously seen or expected to find it?

9. What happened when you looked for that draft or template after public pushback to the announcement?

10. What do you know about who controlled, deleted, moved, hid, or otherwise made unavailable the announcement, draft, or template material you discussed?

11. When and how did you become aware of ticket #96 or Plaintiff's FOI request?

12. In Elysia-01, you stated that you would answer the ticket if you could see it. What prevented you from seeing or answering the ticket?

13. What requests, if any, did you receive from FRB or DOJ to preserve, search for, or produce records relating to the Compliant transition before this litigation began?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for Emmdubz (@EmmDubz)​

1. What roles did you hold in Redmont Group, Compliant, Vendeka Software LLC, VDASoft, or any related entity during February 2026?

2. With reference to EmmDubz-01, EmmDubz-02, EmmDubz-03, Exhibit P-023, and the Compliant-FRB license agreement, would you please describe your communications with jJoshuaTheGreat, DonTrillions, or the FRB about Compliant before Exhibit P-001 was posted?

3. What Compliant functions, FRB needs, pricing terms, reporting features, licensing terms, implementation steps, or onboarding steps were discussed in those communications?

4. What did FRB representatives tell you, if anything, about Board consideration, Board approval, or the internal authorization status of Compliant before February 25?

5. What documents, draft documents, proposed agreements, onboarding instructions, templates, or policy-related materials did you send to or receive from the FRB before February 25?

6. What channels, direct messages, or other communication settings were used for your Compliant-related communications with the FRB?

7. What announcement language, draft announcement, template, policy text, or public-facing language relating to the Compliant transition did you draft, receive, review, or comment on, if any?

8. What communications, if any, did you have with any FRB officer, employee, Board member, or DOJ representative about public pushback, withdrawal, rollback, deletion, removal, or replacement of the February 25 announcement?

9. What requests, if any, did FRB or DOJ make to you to preserve or produce Compliant-related communications before this litigation began?

10. What materials in your possession relating to the FRB's decision or contemplated decision to transition to Compliant have been produced in this case?

11. What additional records, if any, relating to ticket #96 exist or may exist outside the materials already produced?

---

Questions for Kaiserin (@Kaiserin_)​

1. What positions did you hold in the Department of Justice or Commonwealth government on February 25, March 5, and March 7, 2026?

2. With reference to Exhibit P-006 and ticket #96 as shown in Exhibits P-003 and P-022, when and how did you first become aware of Plaintiff's FOI request?

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

4. To what extent was DOJ involved in the FOI request before the seven-day response deadline expired?

5. What response, if any, did DOJ help prepare, advise upon, approve, send, or attempt to send before the seven-day response deadline expired?

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

8. When did DOJ understand that the FRB ultimately responded to ticket #96, what was provided in that response, and who participated in preparing or approving it?

9. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual information did DOJ receive about deletion, removal, loss of access, or non-preservation of the announcement, draft, template, audit logs, or related Compliant records?

10. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual basis supported DOJ's distinction between records it treated as responsive to ticket #96 and records it treated as non-responsive?

11. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what preservation requests, instructions, or directions, if any, were communicated to persons outside DOJ concerning records responsive to ticket #96?

12. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual role, if any, did DOJ have in any decision to delete, remove, withdraw, replace, preserve, or produce the announcement or template?

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

---

Questions for @EATB​

1. With reference to Exhibits P-015 through P-017, what connection, if any, do you have to the Discord user shown as "Euphemia A. T. Britannia"?

2. What roles, if any, did you hold in or with the FRB, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, Public Affairs Department, any court, or any affected financial institution during February and March 2026?

3. With reference to Exhibit P-016, what did you mean when you stated that it "might be time to do another sidebar"?

4. What facts, observations, or concerns led you to make that statement?

5. What did you understand from ElysiaCrynn's statement in Exhibit P-016 that she was "pretty sure" she saw "some stuff for it get deleted"?

6. What did you understand from FloorIsTired's later statement in Exhibit P-016 that "they deleted the template" and "they deleted the announcement without consulting me"?

7. In Exhibit P-017, what did you mean when you stated "um good luck with the lawsuit"?

8. What concerns, if any, did you have at that time about the FRB's handling of the Compliant announcement, the FOI request, or deletion of related materials?

9. What communications, if any, did you have with ElysiaCrynn, FloorIsTired, any FRB representative, DOJ, or any other person about the deleted announcement, deleted template, FOI request, or this case after the conversation shown in Exhibits P-015 through P-017?

10. What non-privileged facts, if any, did you know at the time about why a "sidebar" might be warranted?

11. What records, if any, do you possess or know about that may be responsive to ticket #96 and have not been produced in this case?

---

Plaintiff fully reserves the right to ask follow-up questions based on witness answers.

I note before my responses that the events in question occurred months ago, and my memory of this period is a little shoddy - I had a lot going on both DC-wise and in real life. I also don't have access to any of the records anymore. Nevertheless, by my memory, all of my answers are true.

1. What positions did you hold in the Department of Justice or Commonwealth government on February 25, March 5, and March 7, 2026?

On March 25th, I was the Solicitor General, Speaker of the House, and Acting Attorney General. I believe I was just the Solicitor General and Speaker on the other listed dates - I wouldn't become Acting Attorney General again until the 8th of March, by my count.

2. With reference to Exhibit P-006 and ticket #96 as shown in Exhibits P-003 and P-022, when and how did you first become aware of Plaintiff's FOI request?

I believe it was through that ticket that you made - the one in P-006.

3. What contacts did DOJ receive from the FRB, DonTrillions, jJoshuaTheGreat, FloorIsTired, or any other FRB representative concerning ticket #96, and when did those contacts occur?

Pending objection

4. To what extent was DOJ involved in the FOI request before the seven-day response deadline expired?

None, to my knowledge.

5. What response, if any, did DOJ help prepare, advise upon, approve, send, or attempt to send before the seven-day response deadline expired?

None. I don't think we were made aware.

6. In Floor-02, FloorIsTired asked whether the Lieutenant Governor had contacted DOJ to help comply with the FOI and you answered yes. What contact were you referring to?

Pending objection

7. What materials did DOJ receive from the FRB for purposes of responding to ticket #96, and when did DOJ receive each category of material?

Pending objection

8. When did DOJ understand that the FRB ultimately responded to ticket #96, what was provided in that response, and who participated in preparing or approving it?

I don't have the exact date. I became aware after litigation had begun, I think. I don't think I was made aware of exactly what was in the response. I advised Joshua on how to properly respond.

9. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual information did DOJ receive about deletion, removal, loss of access, or non-preservation of the announcement, draft, template, audit logs, or related Compliant records?

The first I heard of it was from you. I don't think I can provide more without revealing privileged communications.

10. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual basis supported DOJ's distinction between records it treated as responsive to ticket #96 and records it treated as non-responsive?

As far as what I advised the Lieutenant Governor... I don't know, my personal legal knowledge? The law? I'm not sure how else to answer.

11. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what preservation requests, instructions, or directions, if any, were communicated to persons outside DOJ concerning records responsive to ticket #96?

I don't know how I could possibly speak as to communications made to people outside of my post, especially not without breaking attorney-client privilege.

12. Without revealing legal advice, attorney-client communications, attorney work product, or litigation strategy, what non-privileged factual role, if any, did DOJ have in any decision to delete, remove, withdraw, replace, preserve, or produce the announcement or template?

None.

13. What records, if any, were withheld from production on relevance, classification, confidentiality, privilege, or other grounds, and how was that communicated?

Pending objection

14. What responsive records, if any, do you know to have been deleted, hidden, unavailable, or not produced?

I know of none.

 

[Franciscus]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
FOLLOW-UP WITNESS QUESTIONS

---

Follow-Up Questions for jJoshuaTheGreat (@coshjlose)​

1. What criteria, if any, did you use to decide whether a record concerned the "decision to transition to Compliant"?

2. What criteria, if any, did you use to treat a record as merely concerning implementation?

3. What criteria, if any, did you use to treat a record as merely concerning announcement language?

4. What criteria, if any, did you use to treat a record as merely concerning rollback?

5. What criteria, if any, did you use to treat a record as merely concerning public reaction?

6. What parts, if any, of the contents of the AI-generated sample template referenced in your answer to Question 14 are included in Exhibit P-022?

7. What parts, if any, of the contents of the AI-generated sample template referenced in your answer to Question 14 are included in Exhibit P-023?

8. What parts, if any, of the contents of communications about the creation of that AI-generated sample template are included in Exhibit P-022?

9. What parts, if any, of the contents of communications about the creation of that AI-generated sample template are included in Exhibit P-023?

10. What parts, if any, of the contents of communications about transmitting that AI-generated sample template to FloorIsTired are included in Exhibit P-022?

11. What parts, if any, of the contents of communications about transmitting that AI-generated sample template to FloorIsTired are included in Exhibit P-023?

12. What parts, if any, of the contents of the management-compliance communications later filed as Floor-01 are included in Exhibit P-022?

13. What parts, if any, of the contents of the management-compliance communications later filed as Floor-01 are included in Exhibit P-023?

14. What parts, if any, of the contents of the management-compliance communications later filed as Floor-03 are included in Exhibit P-022?

15. What parts, if any, of the contents of the management-compliance communications later filed as Floor-03 are included in Exhibit P-023?

16. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-01 are included in Exhibit P-022?

17. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-01 are included in Exhibit P-023?

18. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-02 are included in Exhibit P-022?

19. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-02 are included in Exhibit P-023?

20. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-03 are included in Exhibit P-022?

21. What parts, if any, of the contents of the direct messages later filed as EmmDubz-03 are included in Exhibit P-023?

22. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of the AI-generated sample template from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

23. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of Floor-01 from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

24. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of Floor-03 from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

25. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of EmmDubz-01 from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

26. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of EmmDubz-02 from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

27. To the extent, if any, that you excluded the contents of EmmDubz-03 from the completed response to ticket #96, what reason did you have for doing so?

28. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you review before marking ticket #96 complete but not include because you considered it an implementation record?

29. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you review before marking ticket #96 complete but not include because you considered it an announcement-language record?

30. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you review before marking ticket #96 complete but not include because you considered it a rollback record?

31. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you review before marking ticket #96 complete but not include because you considered it a public-reaction record?

32. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you know about before marking ticket #96 complete but not review?

33. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you ask another FRB official or employee to search for before marking ticket #96 complete?

34. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did another FRB official or employee identify to you before ticket #96 was marked complete?

35. What record reflected in an exhibit submitted in this case, if any, did you understand to be unavailable in FRB records before marking ticket #96 complete?

36. What request, if any, did you make to EmmDubz for records before marking ticket #96 complete?

37. What request, if any, did you make to FloorIsTired for records before marking ticket #96 complete?

38. What request, if any, did you make to ElysiaCrynn for records before marking ticket #96 complete?

39. What communication, if any, did you have with DonTrillions before ticket #96 was marked complete about the scope of the completed response to ticket #96?

40. What communication, if any, did you have with DonTrillions before ticket #96 was marked complete about the announcement draft or template?

41. What communication, if any, did you have with xSyncx before ticket #96 was marked complete about Board approval or implementation status of Compliant?

42. What communication, if any, did you have with any Board member before ticket #96 was marked complete about records to include in the completed response to ticket #96?

43. What communication, if any, did you have with any Board member before ticket #96 was marked complete about records not to include in the completed response to ticket #96?

44. Excluding communications with DOJ or counsel, what communication, if any, did you have with any FRB official or employee before ticket #96 was marked complete about the availability of the announcement, draft, or template?

---

Follow-Up Questions for FloorIsTired (@FloorIsTired)​

1. What parts, if any, of the contents of the template you received before posting Exhibit P-001 are included in Exhibit P-022?

2. What parts, if any, of the contents of the template you received before posting Exhibit P-001 are included in Exhibit P-023?

3. What parts, if any, of the contents of the Google Doc draft referenced in your answer to Question 14 are included in Exhibit P-022?

4. What parts, if any, of the contents of the Google Doc draft referenced in your answer to Question 14 are included in Exhibit P-023?

5. What parts, if any, of the contents of Floor-01 are included in Exhibit P-022?

6. What parts, if any, of the contents of Floor-01 are included in Exhibit P-023?

7. What parts, if any, of the contents of Floor-03 are included in Exhibit P-022?

8. What parts, if any, of the contents of Floor-03 are included in Exhibit P-023?

9. What statement, if any, in Floor-01 addressed your authority to announce Compliant adoption?

10. What statement, if any, in Floor-01 addressed Board approval?

11. What statement, if any, in Floor-01 addressed adoption of Compliant by financial institutions?

12. What statement, if any, in Floor-03 addressed Board approval?

13. What statement, if any, in Floor-03 addressed rollback of the announcement?

14. What statement, if any, in Floor-03 addressed deletion of the announcement?

15. What request, if any, did the FRB make to you for Floor-01 before ticket #96 was marked complete?

16. What request, if any, did the FRB make to you for Floor-03 before ticket #96 was marked complete?

17. What request, if any, did the FRB make to you for the template before ticket #96 was marked complete?

18. What request, if any, did the FRB make to you for the Google Doc draft before ticket #96 was marked complete?

---

Follow-Up Questions for ElysiaCrynn (@ElysiaCrynn)​

1. What parts, if any, of the contents of the draft for the Compliant announcement are included in Exhibit P-022?

2. What parts, if any, of the contents of the draft for the Compliant announcement are included in Exhibit P-023?

3. What parts, if any, of the contents of the deleted announcement are included in Exhibit P-022?

4. What parts, if any, of the contents of the deleted announcement are included in Exhibit P-023?

5. What Compliant-related discussion, if any, did you personally see in management-compliance?

6. What parts, if any, of the contents of that management-compliance discussion are included in Exhibit P-022?

7. What parts, if any, of the contents of that management-compliance discussion are included in Exhibit P-023?

8. What Compliant-related discussion, if any, did you personally see in a briefing channel?

9. What parts, if any, of the contents of that briefing-channel discussion are included in Exhibit P-022?

10. What parts, if any, of the contents of that briefing-channel discussion are included in Exhibit P-023?

11. What, if anything, did jJoshuaTheGreat forward to the reserve board discussion channel regarding ticket #96?

12. What parts, if any, of the contents of that forwarded material are included in Exhibit P-022?

13. What parts, if any, of the contents of that forwarded material are included in Exhibit P-023?

14. What Compliant-related record, if any, did you know about before the completed response to ticket #96 that you do not recognize in Exhibit P-022?

15. What Compliant-related record, if any, did you know about before the completed response to ticket #96 that you do not recognize in Exhibit P-023?

---

Follow-Up Questions for EmmDubz (@EmmDubz)​

1. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-01 are included in Exhibit P-022?

2. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-01 are included in Exhibit P-023?

3. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-02 are included in Exhibit P-022?

4. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-02 are included in Exhibit P-023?

5. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-03 are included in Exhibit P-022?

6. What parts, if any, of the contents of EmmDubz-03 are included in Exhibit P-023?

7. In EmmDubz-01, what was jJoshuaTheGreat asking you to build for the FRB?

8. In EmmDubz-01, what FRB need did jJoshuaTheGreat identify for the application?

9. In EmmDubz-01, what did you communicate about feasibility?

10. In EmmDubz-01, what did you communicate about implementation burden for financial institutions?

11. In EmmDubz-01, what did you communicate about projected timing?

12. In EmmDubz-01, what did you communicate about cost?

13. In EmmDubz-02, what software options did you discuss for the FRB application?

14. In EmmDubz-02, what did you communicate about initial cost?

15. In EmmDubz-02, what did you communicate about a recurring subscription?

16. In EmmDubz-02, what did jJoshuaTheGreat communicate about raising the proposal with the Board?

17. In EmmDubz-03, what did you communicate about a twelve-month term?

18. In EmmDubz-03, what did jJoshuaTheGreat communicate about an early-termination fee?

19. In EmmDubz-03, what did jJoshuaTheGreat say about a twelve-month commitment?

20. In EmmDubz-03, what did jJoshuaTheGreat ask about exporting a monthly interest report?

21. Before the creation of the FRB #compliant channel reflected in Exhibit P-023, what Compliant-related communications, if any, did you have with jJoshuaTheGreat outside the FRB Discord server?

22. After the creation of the FRB #compliant channel and before Exhibit P-001 was posted, what Compliant-related communications, if any, did you have with jJoshuaTheGreat outside Exhibit P-023?

23. What records, if any, did the FRB request from you before ticket #96 was marked complete?

24. After Exhibit P-001 was posted and before ticket #96 was marked complete, what communication, if any, did you have with jJoshuaTheGreat about public reaction to the Compliant announcement?

25. What parts, if any, of the contents of any public-reaction communications you identify in response to Question 24 are included in Exhibit P-022?

26. What parts, if any, of the contents of any public-reaction communications you identify in response to Question 24 are included in Exhibit P-023?

27. After Exhibit P-001 was posted and before ticket #96 was marked complete, what communication, if any, did you have with jJoshuaTheGreat about changing or withdrawing the Compliant announcement?

28. What parts, if any, of the contents of any changing-or-withdrawing communications you identify in response to Question 27 are included in Exhibit P-022?

29. What parts, if any, of the contents of any changing-or-withdrawing communications you identify in response to Question 27 are included in Exhibit P-023?

30. After Exhibit P-001 was posted and before ticket #96 was marked complete, what communication, if any, did you have with jJoshuaTheGreat about deletion or removal of the Compliant announcement?

31. What parts, if any, of the contents of any deletion-or-removal communications you identify in response to Question 30 are included in Exhibit P-022?

32. What parts, if any, of the contents of any deletion-or-removal communications you identify in response to Question 30 are included in Exhibit P-023?

---

Follow-Up Questions for Kaiserin_ (@Kaiserin_)​

1. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about what materials were included in Exhibit P-022?

2. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about what materials were included in Exhibit P-023?

3. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether the announcement draft was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

4. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether the announcement template was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

5. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether Floor-01 was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

6. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether Floor-03 was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

7. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether EmmDubz-01 was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

8. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether EmmDubz-02 was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

9. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about whether EmmDubz-03 was included in the completed response to ticket #96?

10. Based on public filings, exhibits, or non-privileged personal observations, what factual information, if any, do you have about when DOJ learned that materials outside Exhibits P-022 and P-023 existed?

---

Follow-Up Questions for EATB (@EATB)​

1. What sentence from the deleted FRB announcement did your Senate motion quote?

2. What attachment to your Senate motion preserved the deleted FRB announcement?

3. What did you understand about the announcement's deletion status when you made the Senate motion shown in EATB-003?

---

Plaintiff reserves the right to ask additional follow-up questions based on witness answers and any rulings on pending objections.