Part 1 can be seen at the following URL
https://exegy.today/exegy-ceo-david-taylor-affidavit-filled-with-lies-and-being-deceitful
I find it so interesting this Affidavit can state so many things, but none of it ever seems to have any kind of evidence or facts to back it up.
I am trying my best to back up all my claims if possible, so id you feel there something you would like to see, please feel free to reach out to me at editor@exegy.today.
Parts of David Taylor Affidavit contains items that are meticulously out of place, the reason why they would do this is to make the reader believe they have happened prior to other events, when in reality they didn't. It is really funny how they enjoy dating some items but not others.
I have also come across items on this were specific words are used to make a reader feel like something would seem malicious or ugly thing to do when in reality it isn't. Example would be were they used the word “Poking”.
I have also come across items were they will state so little and never the full context. This way it leave the reader to speculate things, when in reality they had the rest of information but decided not to include it. It like they wanted to paint an ugly portrait for the reader instead by not doing so.
I do believe this kind of behavior is dirty and I might need to increase the zoom on my microscope lens to get even more deeper look in it all.
It does make me wonder what kinds of thing a judge looks at and what they might ask an attorney about with an affidavit like this. Though hopefully one day I will get those documents and transcripts to post on here.
It so makes me wonders how many of Exegy employees or others read this Affidavit and have fallen for these manipulative & deceitful tactics.
It almost makes me wonder how many times they reviewed this Affidavit to make sure it sounds like i am a terrible and malicious person, just so they to try getting a restraining order
I do hope they keep all recordings, emails, chats and any other evidence in making this Affidavit, because I know the courts are going to want it.
It so just seems like they did all this to try and remove my posts through a restraining order and didnt like their skeletons comes out from the closet to the public eye. They already know they will lose in court and there more laws and ethical rules against this sich behavior, one of them is misuse of the judicial system.
I am still trying to go over all of this, but finding it interesting how I haven't seen any emails as Exhibits like I have been posting here. Almost like they are trying to hide it all from the courts When filing for that restraining order. They have had all the emails for the past 7 months but would rather make claims on an affidavit without showing the facts.
DevOps Engineer Job Posting in Managed Services at Exegy
I came across the following Job listing on Exegy Inc Career Page this evening on 10/28/2025. It is one of the positions i held at the company and you will the word “Security” does not exists anywhere on it.
Noticed on 11/1/2025 the devops position was no longer on Exegy career page.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X0fMm8Hs19OHIP2G1drMruTIw21h7JqC/view?usp=drivesdk
Surety Bond
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OYq-tZcq8ouDXU4X-1a24Ih0YiYYKScH/view?usp=drivesdk
I still can not believe the restraining order surety bond was only $1,000… it suppose to cover a person legal fees and an attorney I talked to stated most good law firms would want at least $15,000 just to start on the case.
What Google Gemini thinks my Surety Bond should be…
Damage Multiplier: The court will look at the potential loss of the underlying civil case. If the LinkedIn posts were vital, their destruction could lead to a multi-million dollar judgment against the defendant that they otherwise could have avoided. The bond needs to cover that potential loss.
Sanctions Risk: The destruction of evidence, even if court-ordered and later found wrongful, can sometimes be viewed as a negative action by the plaintiff. In spoliation cases, courts have imposed massive sanctions, sometimes reaching over $500,000 for one party's failure to preserve electronic evidence. The bond must cover the defendant's potential exposure to similar sanctions.
Attorney's Fees: The bond covers all legal fees the defendant incurs to fight the wrongful TRO and to attempt to cure the prejudice (the lost evidence). This can quickly reach tens of thousands of dollars.
https://g.co/gemini/share/3f95aa5a4551
Memo in Support TRO
Google Gemini about Memo in Support TRO
https://g.co/gemini/share/697d1482e539
A Memorandum in Support of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in a civil case is a crucial legal document filed with the court to convince a judge to issue an immediate, short-term order against another party.
While trying to learn what some of these documents are and all about, I found the “3.0 Memo in Support of TRO.pdf” to have statements that point to the Affidavit.
This document can be seen here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXK8Trtp8o1prwncsJbofRJ619763YAS/view?usp=drivesdk
I guess this is another document I am going to have to look over with my Zoomed microscope and tweezer, because I found one of the Perjury items on it at first glance.
On page 3 under Background it states the following
Justin Walters was employed at Exegy from 2014 to 2024. See D. Taylor Aff. ¶ 36.
During that time, he was a Managed Services Engineer, and his performance reviews show him to have been considered an average to below-average employee. Id. at ¶ 17-19.
Though I am unsure what is with ¶ 36, but it seems ¶ 17-19 pretty much line up with what is on the affidavit.
There is nothing wrong with a person reaching out to a company about possible vulnerability and flaws in their systems or network.
From my understanding Exegy is supposed to report and follow up on any potential vulnerability or flaws to their customers. If not, this could be in breach of contract with their customers and possibly any stock exchanges.
An example of this would be what if someone came to them about a potential issue in their fortinet firewalls they noticed being misconfigured, would they ignore this request.
White hats are people that go around notifying companies of potential issues they might come across.
I was never part of anything related to security while working with Exegy Inc.
I have been researching security since being a high school student.
I have also notified Cooley LLP CEO Rachel Proffitt of potential issues they should be aware of when dealing with PDF documents, especially with security issues being an evolving issue.
I have also notified the Colorado government many years ago about their Oracle Platform being misconfigured and having the default credentials enabled on it. This system entitled me to see what people were calling 911 about and many other things, but don't remember it all.
There is nothing wrong with a person soliciting a company, if the company asked me to stop communicating with them, I would do so.
The issues I raised were actually potential issues and the company should be aware of them.
My knowledge of security is way over than most people, but this is due to years of experience.
Exegy lacks hiring anyone that is security conscious.
Exegy lacks internally documenting any security compliance people should follow.
Exegy never used me or my knowledge in any part of their security. I have even demonstrated to them how flawed they are by exploiting their XCR web application while working at Exegy, but still never asked me to be part of anything security related.
35. I and other Exegy employees reviewed the Mr. Walters’ emails. We found them to be threatening. Given the messages’ contents and Mr. Walters’ history with the company, we believed the emails to be an ill-conceived attempt to extract some sort of payment or employment offer from Exegy.
This statement is manipulative and the person reading it will believe my history to be terrible based on the false information from Affidavit Item #19
I have an excellent work history at Exegy Inc and have never had any complaints about my performance besides having an attitude, which was about my compensation.
There is nothing wrong with reaching out to companies to see if they have instituted a bounty program.
None of my emails would be constituted as threatening, the company never reached back out to me to see if they misunderstood anything or to talk about anything.
This isn't the first time Exegy has lied about my history, their in-house counsel Patrick Sellers also stated the same thing to the Illinois ARDC. item II.j contains the following “Mr. Taylor considered the 4 February email to be a potential threat based on the language in the emails and Mr. Walters’ history with Exegy”
First they state my emails were ignored previously and threatening, but stating they were taking it seriously.
The company never reached back out to me to offer anything at this point. Their attorney Patrick Seller sent an email with an extortion letter threatening to prosecute me under false allegations unless I turned over what I had in a matter of a few hours. That document can be seen here
This statement is also misleading and manipulative, it makes the person reading this Affidavit believe they tried to make me offer before the events after this Affidavit item.
Exegy reached out to me through Cooley LLP attorney Kristen Mathews on February 13, 2025 about actually being interested in making an offer after I stated to them I would be suing them after their February 7th extortion email.
Google Gemini meaning of Extortion
37. Mr. Walters did not wait for us to respond with our planned offer. Instead, within a matter of days, he escalated.
This statement is manipulative and a lie, since it never happened, especially in this time line of chronological order of events.
It does not state what he escalated in doing.
When Kristen Mathews did reach out to me later about an offer, I was trying to work with her on the offer and stated to her a confidentiality agreement does not protect my property being stolen.
I also stated to her the initial payment they offered would not be enough for my time and an attorney's time to look over any contracts they had.
I do believe this statement was put here to make a reader believe I escalated it by what the next event item says, so it looks worse against me.
Kristen Mathews did not reach out to me about any kind of offer until February 13, 2025.
38. On February 7, 2025, Mr. Walters wrote a new email to Exegy, expressing his unhappiness and stating that he thought “it interesting how I can’t even get a single response about wanting to talk about disclosing vulnerability in your network and architect that have a high potential for affecting your customer.” He then stated that “I will move to trying to talk with your customers and seeing if they have a bounty program and give me time about the things that could affect their network.”
I found it interesting how a company would not respond back to me at all.
There is nothing wrong with reaching out to company customers to see if have a bounty program on their third-party vendors' appliances, especially when the main company won't respond back.
Exegy customers require Exegy to notify them about any flaws or vulnerabilities.
If Fortinet doesn't want to hear about a flaw in their appliances, a person is allowed to reach out to their customers to notify them about potential issues.
39. I and my colleagues viewed this direct threat to disclose potential security vulnerabilities to third parties unless he was offered a “bounty” as extortion. We considered this an existential threat to Exegy’s business operations.
This statement is also a lie. I never tried to extort anything from the company and I am legally allowed to reach out to their customers regarding potential security issues.
They viewed it as a threat because they are scared of their customers knowing potential issues.
Security is an evolving thing that is always changing and Exegy does not keep on top of it and do not want their customers realizing this.
This statement is also a lie and they have never asked me to evaluate my claims.
They sent an email trying to extort me and demanded I turn over everything in a matter of hours or they will prosecute me.
I replied back stating nothing I had was any property belong to them
They replied stating they will follow what was stated in the extortion letter, which was to notify the FBI.
I never made any kind of threat or have ever demanded any kind of payment.
Google Gemini meaning of Extortion
Extortion Letter
Exegy Extortion emails and my replies
I will try to get back to Affidavit items 41 through 48, but I wanted to put my focus on the item regarding their webpage status.exegy.com
49. On March 3, Mr. Walters sent an email to Exegy’s helpdesk detailing his attempts to access “status.exegy.com,” a basic status site that was maintained for clients—something a senior managed services engineer described as “technically poking at our public facing services.”
This statement is manipulative and makes the reader of this Affidavit think I could possibly be doing something malicious, when in reality I was going through a web browser. It doesn't state that I was informing them their webpage was not working, which could be accessed from anywhere online and by anyone.
- Depending on the Web server configurations, they could most likely verify what web browser I was using to view this web site, which can also be seen on their customer support ticket XCS-87302 I created.
This is a public facing website that anyone is able to access.
Other companies also have these status types of web sites available publicly, this allows others to know if their issues are going on.
I reached out to notify them that this webpage was returning 500 & 503 errors, which usually states there is an issue going on.
You can see in the following document, web sites like “The Wayback Machine” also try accessing this site.
You can also view my communications about this page in the following emails.
You can view the tickets I submitted to Exegy Customer Support telling them this page was returning errors and asking them when it would be fixed or asking if there was a bug open about it. Though they would close my tickets not long after opening them or one time they stated they would look into it but turn around and close my ticket.
You can see in these screenshots the Exegy Customer Support page kept changing to remove and add the link back to status.exegy.com. It is labeled as “Click here to see the current status of Exegy Services”
I also notified Exegy Counsel at Cooley LLP Kirsten Mathews and Robert “Bobby” Earles about their behavior regarding this
I have tried accessing this public facing website a few times here and there through a web browser, because I was curious if they have fixed it, since I have never actually seen this webpage.
This is also a webpage that is being hosted on Google Servers, which you can see in this screenshot showing Google owns theIPs it is hosted on
I find it funny that someone like David Taylor who holds a PHD in computer engineering doesn't know the difference between accessing a website or being malicious towards a website. It almost makes me believe he always feels like he is making a malicious act when he is accessing Google Search webpage.
I am unsure if a senior in Managed Services should be answering this question, you would think this Affidavit would have an employee from ITS who most likely Administer the webpage or someone from the Exegy Security Group and state who because that person would be qualified to help provide the right meaning and a better picture on what Justin was doing instead of making it seem like he was being malicious. It almost makes me think the senior from Managed Services stated one thing and he turned around and asked them “Would you think this could be called Poking a site” so he could make manipulative statement on an affidavit.
Google Gemini Questions
The attorney in Missouri who knowingly files a deceitful or manipulative affidavit to obtain an immediate restraining order could face severe professional discipline, financial sanctions, and potentially criminal charges for participating in a fraud against the court.
The key factor is the attorney's knowledge or intent to deceive.
1. Attorney Disciplinary Action (Professional Sanctions)
The Supreme Court of Missouri, through its Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, would handle violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 4). The primary rules violated would be:
| Rule Violated | Description of Misconduct | Potential Sanction |
| Rule 4-3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal | This is the most direct violation. An attorney "shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." Submitting a sworn affidavit known to be false, or one that is intentionally written in a manipulative, deceitful way to mislead a judge, is a clear breach of this duty. | Reprimand, Suspension, or Disbarment. Disbarment is possible if the lawyer knowingly participated in a fraud on the court, particularly one that affects a party's liberty (like a restraining order). |
| Rule 4-8.4(c): Misconduct | This rule prohibits a lawyer from engaging in "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." A manipulative affidavit falls squarely under this category. | Reprimand, Suspension, or Disbarment. |
| Rule 4-3.1: Meritorious Claims | A lawyer must not file an action or assert a position when they know it would serve "merely to harass or maliciously injure" another party. Using a deceitful affidavit to get an order against someone without factual merit is harassment. | Admonition, Reprimand, or Suspension. |
Sanctions range from a public admonition (least severe) or reprimand to suspension of their law license for a period of time, or, in the most egregious cases of knowing fraud, disbarment, which permanently revokes the ability to practice law.
2. Judicial Sanctions and Civil Liability
Beyond professional discipline, the court and the opposing party have recourse:
| Type of Sanction/Liability | Description of Consequence |
| Rule 55.03/Inherent Authority Sanctions | The judge, upon finding that the filing was done for an improper purpose (such as harassment or misleading the court), can impose monetary sanctions on the lawyer (and potentially the client). This typically includes ordering the lawyer to pay the opposing party's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred to fight the wrongful restraining order. |
| Criminal Referral (Rare, but Possible) | If the attorney directly advised the client to lie under oath, or drafted the affidavit knowing the material facts were false, they could be investigated and potentially charged with subornation of perjury (persuading or assisting another person to commit perjury) or being an accomplice to the client's perjury. |
| Civil Lawsuit by Opposing Party | The party wrongfully restrained could sue the attorney for malicious prosecution or abuse of process in a separate civil lawsuit, seeking compensation for damages (such as lost wages, emotional distress, and legal fees). |
Because a restraining order is often issued ex parte (without the other side present) and immediately affects personal liberty, the court’s expectation for absolute candor from the applying attorney is at its highest. A judge will be particularly harsh on a lawyer who is found to have abused this process.
🏛️ Federal Law: False Statements to Government Agencies
A company lying to a state agency could potentially fall under federal law if the state agency's matter involves or is within the jurisdiction of a federal department or agency (e.g., if the state program receives federal funding).
The primary federal statute for false statements is:
Code: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Statements or entries generally)
Crime: Making a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States Government.
Penalties:
Generally, a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
The penalty can be up to eight years if the offense involves terrorism or certain federal sex offenses.
⚖️ Missouri State Law: False Declarations and Documents
In Missouri, a company's false statement to a state agency that is intended to mislead a public servant could potentially fall under statutes related to making false declarations or filing false documents.
False Declarations
Code: Missouri Revised Statutes \S 575.060 (Making a false declaration—penalty)
Crime: A person commits this offense if, with the purpose to mislead a public servant in the performance of their duty, they submit any written false statement they do not believe to be true, concerning a fact material to the purpose of the statement.
Penalties: The offense of making a false declaration is a Class B misdemeanor.
Filing False Documents
Code: Missouri Revised Statutes \S 570.095 (Filing false documents)
Crime: With the intent to defraud, deceive, harass, alarm, or negatively impact financially, or in a manner reasonably calculated to do so, a person files, causes to be filed, creates, or uses as genuine a materially false document.
Penalties:
Generally a Class D felony for the first offense.
Can be a Class C felony under aggravating circumstances (e.g., a prior conviction, or if the victim is a judge/peace officer).
⚖️ Illinois State Law: Deceptive Practices and False Claims
In Illinois, offenses related to false statements to a government entity could be charged under general fraud statutes or, potentially, the Illinois False Claims Act if state funds are involved.
Deceptive Practices (General Deception)
Code: 720 Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) 5/17-1 (Deceptive practices)
Crime: A person commits deceptive practice when, with intent to defraud, they knowingly cause another, by deception or threat, to execute a document disposing of property or by which a pecuniary obligation is incurred. (This applies to general deception and is not solely targeted at agencies).
Penalties: Generally, a Class A misdemeanor.
Illinois False Claims Act (Civil Liability)
While criminal charges would likely fall under the general fraud/perjury statutes, the act of submitting a false claim to a state agency often incurs civil penalties under the state's False Claims Act.
Code: 740 ILCS 175/ (Illinois False Claims Act)
Penalty: This act imposes civil liability on persons who knowingly present a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to the State. Penalties typically include substantial civil fines per false claim, plus two or three times the amount of damages the State sustained.
📌 Important Legal Context
The issue of an employer making a false statement about employee performance to a state agency outside of an unemployment context could also involve other areas of law, such as:
Obstruction of Justice: If the lie was intended to impede an official investigation or proceeding by the state agency.
Retaliation or Defamation: If the false statement was made in retaliation for a protected activity or damaged the employee's reputation.
Whistleblower Protection: If the false statement was used to manipulate or retaliate against a former employee who engaged in whistleblowing activity.
Recommendation: Given the complexity of laws across federal and state jurisdictions, I strongly recommend you consult with an attorney who is licensed in both Illinois and Missouri to evaluate the specific facts of your situation.
Looking for Legal Representation
Also if anyone knows anyone or attorneys that can help me with the following, please feel to reach out to me at the following email addresses editor@exegy.today or justin.m.walters@gmail.com
Find legal representation to fight this case
Sue the following companies
Carmody MacDonald P.C
Cooley LLP
Exegy
Help file complaints on multiple attorneys, I already have one against Patrick Sellers.
I also might update the items above to add or edit changes, since the page doesn't state when last modified (Last Updated 10/29/2025 @ 10:49PM CST)
Important Notes
I am going to try to start adding notes when I update this Article, so my readers know what has changed.
● Important Note - Added a Exegy Job Listings Post from their career page for Managed Services Position.
● Add another Question to Google Gemini about an employer lying about a previous employee performance. Updated a second time to remove unemployment items with a better question.
● Added Surety Bond
● Add Gemini responses about what my Surety bond should be.
● Add Motion to Support TRO
● Noticed on 11/1/2025 the devops position was no longer on Exegy career page.
