Lawsuit: Pending Multiman155 v. Federal Reserve Bank & DonTrillions [2026] DCR 29

[Franciscus]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Multiman155
Plaintiff

v.

Federal Reserve Bank,
Defendant;
&
DonTrillions,
Defendant
​

---

Complaint​

On 25 February 2026, the Federal Reserve Bank publicly announced what it described as a “board decision” to move financial institutions onto the Compliant reporting system and require daily API-based reporting. That same day, Plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information request through the FRB’s official ticket system seeking the records and communications behind that decision. The FRB Governor was present in that ticket.

The law required a response within seven days. The FRB and its Governor did not approve the request, deny it as unreasonable, propose narrowing it, provide a partial release, or offer redactions or a summary. It simply did nothing. Silence is not compliance. Silence is a failure to perform a basic statutory duty.

This case is about enforcing a simple rule of public administration: when a government entity is asked for records about a major public decision, it must answer. The FRB, and its Governor, did not.

---

I. Parties​

1. Multiman155 (Plaintiff)
2. Federal Reserve Bank (Defendant)
3. DonTrillions (Defendant)

---

II. Facts​

1. On 25 February 2026, the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) publicly announced that it would move financial institutions to "Compliant" as the required system for reporting total client deposits, tracking central reserve positions, and monitoring institutional balances (Exhibit P-001).
2. The announcement stated that the change was a "board decision," that the transition was mandatory for all financial institutions, and that daily reporting through the Compliant API would be required (Exhibit P-001).
3. The announcement further represented that all financial institutions would be expected to provide real-time deposit information through automated API reporting (Exhibit P-001).
4. The same afternoon, Plaintiff publicly petitioned against the announced change (Exhibit P-002).
5. Also on 25 February 2026, Plaintiff opened ticket #ticket-96 in the FRB’s official ticket system and submitted a Freedom of Information request ("the Request"; see Exhibit P-003).
6. The Request sought all communications regarding the decision to transition to Compliant, including but not limited to:
   1. conversations between the FRB and Redmont Group regarding the subject;
   2. conversations on the FRB server regarding the subject; and
   3. other records in the possession of the FRB regarding the subject.
7. The Request was directed to the FRB and concerned a discrete FRB decision and the records underlying it.
8. The Request targeted records held by, maintained by, or accessible to the FRB in its official capacity, including official server communications and other records in FRB possession.
9. If Defendants believed any part of the Request was too broad, the law still required a response and the fullest possible compliance by way of narrowing, partial production, redaction, or summary.
10. Seven days passed without any response from the FRB nor its Governor as to the Request.
11. Plaintiff received no approval, denial, request for clarification, partial release, summary, or explanation of any kind from the FRB nor its Governor with regards to the Request.
12. While DonTrillions has publicly stated his intent to depart as FRB governor and train his successor (Exhibit P-009), he still retained the office of the FRB Governor at all times relevant to this case (Exhibits P-007, P-008, P-011).
13. On 5 March 2026 Plaintiff provided the Department of Justice with notice of intent to file suit (Exhibit P-006).
14. The Department of Justice acknowledged the notice and stated that it would attempt to resolve the matter before suit (Exhibit P-006), but no FRB response followed (Exhibit P-003).
15. As of the filing of this complaint, the FRB still has not responded to Plaintiff’s FOI request.
16. The public importance of the requested records is heightened by the fact that the FRB announcement described the Compliant transition as a "board decision" (Exhibit P-003), while at least one person publicly identified as a Board Member stated, "talking to board, there was no vote on this" (Exhibit P-004; Exhibit P-005).
17. Plaintiff operates the bLAWg, a news organization (Exhibit P-010).
18. The mission of the bLAWg is cover to updates in the business community, legal community, and beyond (Exhibit P-010).
19. Plaintiff has been de facto prohibited timely access to records sought to evaluate the lawfulness, process, and factual basis of a major FRB policy announcement affecting all financial institutions.
20. The de facto prohibition on timely access has harmed the ability of the bLAWg to engage in investigative reporting regarding the subject of the Request.

---

III. Claims for Relief​

III.I Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information​

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) by failing to respond to Plaintiff’s valid FOI request within the time required by law.

Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information is a tort under RCCA, Part XI, Section II:

2. Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Penalty: Up to 50 Civil Penalty Units; Writ of Mandamus
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) unreasonably delays or fails to respond to a valid Freedom of Information request within the time limits prescribed by law.
Relevant Law: Act of Congress - Classified Materials Act

The Classified Material Act (CMA), which sets the "time limits prescribed by law" referred to in the RCCA, requires that FOI requests to government entities receive a response within seven days (CMA, Section 8(2)). For requests submitted to the FRB, the responsible officer is the FRB Governor (CMA, Section 8(5)(d)). The government must comply with reasonable FOI requests to the fullest extent possible, including through partial release, redaction, or summary where full disclosure would be unlawful or harmful (CMA, Section 8(6)).

Plaintiff submitted an FOI request to the FRB on 25 February 2026 through the FRB’s official ticket system. The request sought records and communications regarding the announced transition to Compliant. Defendants gave no response at all within the statutory period.

The materials sought were facially within the FRB’s possession, jurisdiction, or knowledge. Defendants were still required to respond within seven days by approving the request, denying it as unreasonable, or complying to the fullest lawful extent through narrowing, partial release, redaction, or summary. Defendants did none of those things.

Plaintiff does not claim any special press-only entitlement to government records beyond the law. Rather, Plaintiff relies on the Classified Materials Act, which grants FOI rights to any individual or entity and requires a response within seven days. But the Court should construe that statutory right in light of the Constitution’s protection of Freedom of the Press and Media. Where a news organization seeks records concerning a major public financial decision, silence by the government does more than violate a statute; it frustrates timely public scrutiny and impairs the ability of the press to inform the public on a matter of immediate importance.

As such, defendants committed Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information, and Plaintiff is entitled to a writ of mandamus and the statutory civil penalty.

III.II Failure to Perform Statutory Duty​

We now examine whether the Defendants, as a government body and responsible officer, failed to perform a duty required by law.

Failure to Perform Statutory Duty is a tort under Redmont Civil Code Act Part XI, Section 7:

7. Failure to Perform Statutory Duty
Violation Type: Negligent
Remedy: Writ of Mandamus
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) being a government officer or body, fails to perform a duty required by law; and
(b) the failure causes harm to the plaintiff.
This violation shall not occur where:
(c) The failure was due to circumstances beyond the defendant’s control.

As discussed supra in Claim for Relief III.I of this complaint, a legal duty to timely respond to Plaintiff’s FOI request is imposed by the RCCA and CMA. In addition, the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) requires that the FRB "be transparent about its operations, only limited by the reasonable adverse effects of this transparency" (FRA, Section 4(2)(c)).

Plaintiff alleges that the following duties were breached:

1. The duty to respond to Freedom of Information requests imposed by RCCA, Part XI, Section II; and
2. The duties of the FRB Governor under CMA, Sections 8(2), 8(5)(d), and 8(6);
3. The duty of the FRB itself to be transparent under FRA, Section 4(2)(c).

The FRB had a statutory duty to answer Plaintiff’s FOI request. The Governor had the statutory role for handling FRB FOI matters and the broader legal responsibility to ensure compliance with law. Plaintiff was harmed by that failure because the nonresponse deprived him of timely access to records concerning a major public FRB action, impaired his ability to assess whether the announced “board decision” was lawfully made, and frustrated journalistic scrutiny of a matter affecting all financial institutions.

Defendants, therefore, committed Failure to Perform Statutory Duty, and Plaintiff is entitled to mandamus compelling a lawful response and production process.

III.III On Original Jurisdiction and Parties joined to this case​

III.III.I The Constitution grants the District Court original jurisdiction over this case​

"The Constitution is the highest law of the Commonwealth. It binds all institutions, people, and overrides any law or authority that conflicts with it" (Const., Preamble). This Constitution lays out the original jurisdiction of the District Court, granting it original jurisdiction over both "public official misconduct" (Const. 16(1)(c)) and "minor‌ ‌civil‌ ‌cases‌ ‌whose‌ ‌value‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌exceed‌ more than $120,000 dollars" (Const. 16(1)(e)).

This case is a minor civil case whose value does not exceed more than $120,000. Even if we were to read either tort as public official misconduct, the District Court would retain constitutional jurisdiction over this case.

I note this only because the text of the Classified Materials Act purports to grant the Federal Court jurisdiction over challenges to ignored and denied FOI requests "made to the Executive or Congress" (CMA, Section 8(7)(a)), stating that upon denial or failure to respond "that the appeal shall be lodged in the Federal Court in the first instance. The Judiciary shall order the full or partial release of the material if it determines that the request was reasonable. The Court may impose redactions or conditions on any such disclosure" (ibid.).

Statute cannot override the Constitution, and attempts to modify the Constitution "with statute must fail because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land" (In re [2023] SCR 5 | [2026] SCR 4, Decision, Par. 15). As such, the District Court retains jurisdiction here, regardless of statute that would purport to strip jurisdiction therefrom.

III.III.II The FRB, and its governor, are both direct parties to this case.​

III.III.II.I The FRB Governor may bear some personal liability for Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information
RCCA, Part XI, Section II notes that a person commits the violation of Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information, when that person "unreasonably delays or fails to respond to a valid Freedom of Information request within the time limits prescribed by law".

Plaintiff recognizes that, within Redmont, "it is well established that when a government department causes harm through its officers, liability attaches to the department itself" (YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76, Verdict, "Opinion and Analysis of the Court", "On Colour of Law and Institutional Liability", Par. 3). This liability need not solely arise "on a theory of respondeat superior, but on the independent ground that the Department's own policies, customs, and failures of supervision were the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. Where the policy of an institution is indifference to the rights of those subject to its authority, the institution bears responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of that indifference" (id., Par. 7). When an individual acts using the power of the underlying government institution, thus, that institution may be held liable.

This case may be different; the duty to handle Freedom of Information requests is imposed directly upon the "The FRB Governor" (CMA, Section 8(3)(d)). The liability for this violation, therefore, may lie (in whole, or in part) with the Governor himself.

As his personal rights may be implicated by the relief sought here, the FRB Governor must be listed as a direct party (see generally: MasterCaelen v. Hon. Magistrate Dr_Eksplosive [2026] FCR 14); he is thus included as a Defendant.

III.III.II.II The Federal Reserve Bank is nevertheless a Direct Party for its to adhere to FRA 4(2)(c)
The Federal Reserve Bank is a governmental entity (and thus a distinct legal entity) under the law (Legal Entity Act, Part II, Section 5(d)). As "Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their directors, managers, members, shareholders, employees and other agents" (Legal Entity Act, Part I, Section 2(b)), the legal liability from the FRB's duty to be transparent under FRA Section 4(2)(c) thus attaches directly to the FRB. The FRB itself is, thus, a direct party to this case, regardless of how liability attaches for the claim discussed in Claim for Relief III.I.

---

IV. Prayer for Relief​

Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment providing the following relief:

1. Declaratory Judgement. Plaintiff prays that the Court declare:
   1. That Plaintiff’s FOI request was valid;
   2. That Defendants committed Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information in violation of RCCA, Part XI, Section 2;
   3. That FRB Governor Dontrillions committed Failure to Perform Statutory Duty in violation of RCCA, Part XI, Section 7, by failing to perform duties of the FRB Governor under CMA, Sections 8(2) and 8(5)(d);
   4. That the governmental entity known as the Federal Reserve Bank committed Failure to Perform Statutory Duty in violation of RCCA, Part XI, Section 7, by failing to perform duties of the government under CMA Section 8(6) and by failing to "be transparent about its operations" as required by FRA Section 4(2)(c).
2. Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff prays that the Court issue the following injunctive relief:
   1. A Writ of Mandamus ordering Defendants to formally respond to Plaintiff’s 25 February 2026 FOI request within 72 hours of judgment.
   2. A Writ of Mandamus requiring Defendants to produce all responsive non-exempt records held by or accessible to the FRB in official channels, files, tickets, motions, votes, orders, and maintained correspondence, within a deadline set by the Court.
   3. A Writ of Mandamus requiring that, for any responsive material withheld in whole or in part, Defendants must identify the category of material withheld and state the specific legal grounds for withholding it.
   4. A Writ of Mandamus requiring partial release, redactions, summaries, or other tailored disclosure to the fullest extent possible if the Court concludes that any portion of the request cannot lawfully be released in full.
   5. A preservation order preventing the deletion, destruction, or alteration of responsive records, including official FRB server messages, tickets, board motions, votes, gubernatorial orders, and external communications held by the FRB relating to the Compliant transition.
3. Monetary Relief. The Plaintiff prays that this Court order the following Monetary Relief and/or damages:
   1. Civil Penalties. For Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information (Claim III.I): A civil penalty of up to 50 Civil Penalty Units, as authorized under RCCA, Part XI, Section II.
   2. Nominal Damages. For Failure to Perform Statutory Duty (Claim III.II): Nominal Damages in the amount of $7,500 from each defendant, as authorized under RCCA, Part III, Section 4.
   3. Legal Fees. As a pro-se litigant, Plaintiff seeks legal fees equal to 30% of the total case value, pursuant to RCCA, Part III, Sections 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(h).
4. Other Relief. Such other and further monetary or equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

---

V. Evidence​

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004

Spoiler: Exhibit P-005

Spoiler: Exhibit P-006

Spoiler: Exhibit P-007

Spoiler: Exhibit P-008

Spoiler: Exhibit P-009

Spoiler: Exhibit P-010

Spoiler: Exhibit P-011

Spoiler: Exhibit P-012

---

VI. Witness List​

1. Multiman155
2. DonTrillions
3. jJoshuaTheGreat
4. FloorIsTired
5. xSyncx
6. Kaiserin_

---

VII. Attestation​

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7 day of March 2026

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honor:

In order for a final judgement to be meaningful, records sought must be preserved. Preservation of records does not cause harm to the FRB, but deletion of records after the filing of the FOI would irreparably harm the Plaintiff.

At present, the Federal Reserve Bank has already deleted at least one message plausibly related to the FOI request. This includes the message shown in Exhibit P-001, which has since been deleted from the #fi-announcements channel on the FRB discord (See: Exhibit P-013). This deletion occurred after the FOI was filed (compare timestamps in Exhibit P-003 with that of Exhibit P-014).

On an emergency basis, the Plaintiff thus prays that this Court issue:

• A writ of Mandamus preventing the deletion, destruction, or alteration of records possibly responsive to the FOI scope, including but not limited to official FRB server messages, tickets, board motions, votes, gubernatorial orders, and external communications held by the FRB relating to the Compliant transition. This should last until final judgement is issued.

Spoiler: Exhibit P-013

Spoiler: Exhibit P-014