A filing cabinet in a valley, with a record unspooling toward the river.
Custody LedgerExhibits 02–10Illustration · not a record

  1. Ex. 02Copy

    Follow the routing, not the rumor. A routing note is not a verified transaction.

  2. Ex. 03Copy

    A mention in correspondence is not a resolved record.

  3. Ex. 04Copy

    Place names repeat. Fact patterns stay in separate files.

  4. Ex. 05Copy

    One question can have more than one custodian.

  5. Ex. 06Copy

    Match the claim to the source. A mention is not a verdict.

  6. Ex. 07Copy

    Redact only what the law requires, and say what was withheld.

  7. Ex. 08Copy

    Release what the law allows. Say what it withholds.

  8. Ex. 09Copy

    A sourced page corrects a rumor. Distinctions stay on the page.

  9. Ex. 10Copy

    Who holds it, what can be released, and what is withheld.

Wire · @altmilknews · not a filing

Asks the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General to release what they have. · Asks where a government response is, and tags the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Attorney, and Missoula. · Posts a sourced note on EFTA01526966: a July 2007 JPMorgan Fedwire debit, described as via WEST SEC MISSOULA to Ideal Manufacturing, memo about a batch plant. · Asks the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General to release what they have. · Asks where a government response is, and tags the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Attorney, and Missoula. · Posts a sourced note on EFTA01526966: a July 2007 JPMorgan Fedwire debit, described as via WEST SEC MISSOULA to Ideal Manufacturing, memo about a batch plant.

Desk up. Public posts compiled. Compiled 2026-10-14. The private fleet is not on this network. No packet sent.

Open the tape · three posts, none of them a filing

  • Asks the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General to release what they have.

    A demand on X. Not a record produced, and not a finding that either office is withholding a named file.

    Open the post

  • Asks where a government response is, and tags the U.S. Marshals, the U.S. Attorney, and Missoula.

    A question. Tagging an office is not proof the office has a file, and not proof it has answered.

    Open the post

  • Posts a sourced note on EFTA01526966: a July 2007 JPMorgan Fedwire debit, described as via WEST SEC MISSOULA to Ideal Manufacturing, memo about a batch plant.

    The post itself says this is not a Montana account, not delivery in Montana, and not knowledge of a crime. The desk has not re-opened the DOJ page image.

    Open the post

Arming rings this page at once, then again when a later check carries a different newest post. A post is still not a filing.

File copyPublicNot a roster

Docket

What is already on paper

7 files in this cut. Compiled October 14, 2026. Saving a file keeps it on this browser only.

Federal docket · On a public docket

Accountability in State Government v. Knudsen

No. 6:26-cv-00038, Judge Susan P. Watters · Federal — Helena Division

Complaint May 6, 2026; preliminary injunction September 16, 2026

What was published

Former legislator Dan Bartel and Accountability in State Government, the political committee for which he is treasurer, sued in the District of Montana on May 6, 2026. A public docket index lists nature of suit 440, other civil rights, and cause 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They challenge Senate Bill 25 (2025), MCA 13-35-801 through 13-35-804, which regulates the use of AI “deepfakes” in election communications during the 60 days before voting, with civil penalties and possible criminal prosecution. The mailers used real photographs altered to add pride flags and pronoun pins. Defendants are Attorney General Austin Knudsen, Lewis and Clark County Attorney Kevin Downs, and Commissioner of Political Practices Chris Gallus. Judge Watters held a hearing on August 21, 2026, and on September 16 granted a preliminary injunction. The public docket line enjoins those officials from enforcing the act against the named plaintiffs. The Glasgow Courier reported that Gallus, in a court filing, found COPP complaints over the mailers fit the statute’s satire or parody exemption.

Where it stands

A § 1983 speech case with a public number. The injunction, in the language copied here, runs in favor of the named plaintiffs. It is not a final judgment, and it is not a statewide strike-down of SB 25.

Does not establish

Counsel’s description of the bill as a “Digital Censorship Act” is their name for it, not the bill title. Do not treat a preliminary injunction as the last word. The candidates depicted on the mailers are not restated here.

Sources