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

Free Speech Coalition v. Knudsen

No. 9:24-cv-00067-DWM, Judge Donald W. Molloy · Federal — Missoula Division

Scheduling order October 24, 2024; motion to dismiss granted August 6, 2025

What was published

The Free Speech Coalition and others sued Attorney General Austin Knudsen in his official capacity in the Missoula division, No. 9:24-cv-00067-DWM. The court’s October 22, 2024 opinion describes the challenged law as Senate Bill 544 (2023), MCA 30-14-159: a commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors must use reasonable age-verification methods, and may be liable for damages if a minor reaches the material. Judge Molloy’s October 24, 2024 order set a preliminary pretrial conference for December 17, 2024, at the Russell Smith Courthouse. On August 6, 2025, he granted a motion to dismiss. Bloomberg Law reported that the plaintiffs lacked standing after Montana removed the attorney general’s authority to bring an enforcement action, while private damages suits remained. This desk did not retype the ten-page dismissal order.

Where it stands

Dismissed, on standing as Bloomberg reported it, not on a holding that the age-verification law is constitutional. A dismissal for standing does not answer the First Amendment question the plaintiffs filed to ask.

Does not establish

The statute is identified from the court’s October 22, 2024 opinion. The reason for the 2025 dismissal is attributed to Bloomberg Law, because the order itself was not retyped here. This is a speech case about a content statute. It is not a criminal file.

Sources