My Cart



July 4th Schulte Case Update - un-redacted SEARCH WARRANTS

Donate to Mad Dog

Posted on July 04 2019

In order to fully understand the Schulte Case Update, it might be worthwhile if you read up on the previous entries. As the primary focus of this entry will entirely be centered around Schulte’s late night July 3, 2019 filing - for the first time we, the public get to read the various 2017 search warrants & applications 


Schulte’s Background 

Part I - the general overview of Schulte’s Case - various Hearing Transcripts, his NoVa (alleged) sexual Assault, the child porn, his encrypted “virtual machines”  and his 2ndCCOAs argument  of which he lost.


Part II - high level overview of Schulte’s Superseder(s) - because accuracy matters there have been two superseding Indictments, June and October 2018 respectively. The June 2018 Superseder included espionage charges, wiping log files, evasiveness when questioned by Federal Law Enforcement and Obstruction of Justice. This resulted in Schulte’s remand. While in Custody in October of 2018 prosecutors filed the second Superseder. I also drilled down on his alt- online personas, his GoFundMe, his blog - which I’m pretty sure if you are in jail it’s not a prudent move to write a blog entry detailing how you “are declaring war on your own government and will tear them down brick by brick”.


Part (not) III - this was a deeper dive in to the new Public Defender, evidence and several litigation maneuvers by Schulte. And tying up other loose ends on his docket - also since my forced exile from Twitter I had to recreate my previous research. 


Part IV - further discussion concerning the Government and Schulte’s motions, largely centered around the 2017 Search Warrant materials, potential “Brady” material and potential Brady violation.  Although the vast majority of that write up focused heavily on Schulte’s strategy of “uncoupling” his child porn & copyright charges from the espionage charges. And further opined that Schulte’s Appeal would likely be moot - given the June 16th letter from the Government informing the Court “do to recent events...the 2017 Search Warrant materials were sent to the Defendant”


Part V - this is what happens when I decide to spend my weekends researching. In this June 22, 2019 entry, which was subsequently updated on June 27, 2019 to include Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Appeal (Update is included at the bottom of the entry). After spending innumerable hours researching Schulte and his prolific online personas  - I went ahead and culled that research into Part V. The GitHub and other online posts, specifically his coding and deleting records intrigued me because after reading Schulte’s entire docket (at least what’s not under seal or bound by the Protective Order) his online activity from 2008 to 2016 seemed irrelevant to his current precarious situation. 


Schulte 2017 Search Warrant Materials 


Up until a few hours ago nearly all of Schulte’s 2017 Search Warrant Material were, at the request of the Government and later Ordered by the Court remained out of the public. Did I mention until a few hours ago. Because just before 8PM on July 3  2019 Schulte filed the following Motion to Suppress and uploaded the following attachments. 

Schulte’s Defense attorney requested that:

..the Court convene an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, grant suppression, and direct such other relief as may be just and appropriate..


My assumption is the predicate for the evidentiary hearing under the Franks v Delaware  - legal standard is Schulte’s central argument is the FBI “lied and purposefully withheld exculpatory evidence” therefore the “search warrants” were unlawful and and evidence obtained via those search warrants are “fruit of the poisonous tree”. At least that’s how I read Shulte’s Memorandum of Support to suppress the evidence.

Specifically regarding the “original” March 2017 Search Warrant - Schulte’s two pronged argument - which is almost exclusively centered around the Fourth Amendment claims. Again this isn’t me saying Schulte is right - although he does set forth some pretty weighty arguments. Whether the Court finds his arguments are meritorious - I suppose we will have to wait and see. Conversely one could infer the Government’s handling of Schulte’s Case has - left a lot to be desired.  But it is really important to emphasis the vast majority of “opinions” rarely factor in the Counterintelligence component of this rather complex criminal matter. So it might be prudent to wait and see all the facts versus trying to paint Schulte as some patriot or the Government as paranoid & over reaching.   


The initial March 13, 2017 search warrant is void because
it contained deliberate or reckless misstatements or omissions
of material fact
. Accordingly, the good-faith exception to the
exclusionary rule does not apply, and all resulting evidence must
be suppressed. At a minimum, an evidentiary hearing is required

The initial warrant to search Mr. Schulte’s New York City home is invalid, and the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply, because the supporting affidavit failed to establish even a minimal factual nexus between the alleged offenses and the home...



Exhibit "A"

is a true and correct copy of the March 13, 2017 search warrant and search  warrant application. The problem with Schulte’s aforementioned arguments is Investigators (both CIA & FBI) identified 200 employees in “the CIA Group”, of those 200 employees, only three ...”had access to the specific portion of the Group’s computer network”



Furthermore the investigators identified a timeframe of March 7 thru March 8, 2016 which was largely supported by anomaly, which appeared in the automatic backup of said classified files. Yes I know it’s confusing but reading page 5, section c, i-iii there’s enough data that supports the affiant’s assertion that narrowed the window of opportunity.


Also because footnotes are always important you’ll note that the Government acknowledges that there is a possibility “that the Classified Information was copied later than March 8, 2016”. The reason I believe this disclosure and tacit acknowledgment is important is, it will foreclose Schulte’s likely counter argument that it “wasn’t me” it could “be anyone but definitely not me”  

If past is prolonged we know that Assange and WikiLeaks have an affinity for what they believe is “just and right” and this further affirms my previous assertion that maybe we should be asking: “Why did WikiLeaks wait for 1 year to release the stolen CIA records”


Moreover investigators determined that WikiLeaks own press release stated “an Isolated high-security network”, presumably that voluntary WikiLeaks disclosure most likely gave investigators a tip of the Who, Why, What, When and How that highly sensitive National Defense Information was exfiltrated and then illegally given to WikiLeaks.  And no, as my standard practice I will not link or provide any WikiLeaks data. I’m American and I refuse to amplify their cyber espionage. 



At the time Schulte was one of three people who had “system administrative privileges” to the CIA Group’s Backup Servers. The footnote is also critically important because the Classified Information That WikiLeaks published - Investigators concluded came from the “server back ups” - I do not see how Schulte can overcome this datapoint.



 Based on a quick glance of Exhibit A - Schulte’s other two CIA Group System Administers, on March 8, 2016 were offsite at a work retreat. Process of elimination and deductive reasoning lead investigators to Schulte. I know that’s overly simple but that’s how I read the March 2017 Search Warrant Application. Also of note this is how specious WikiLeaks is - upon publishing Vault 7 WikiLeaks intentionally named the two other CIA Group System Administrators but they made a rookie mistake - they didn’t name Schulte.

It is also really important to note on April 4, 2016 Schulte was moved to a different unit within the CIA Group - accordingly because of that reassignment Schulte’s System Administration Privileges were revoked for “Project 1” (colloquially known as Vault 7) on April 11, 2016 Schulte “unilaterally reinstated his system admin privileges” - that level of deception and abuse of his credentials is just vulgar,

Although on page  

Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the March 14, 2017 search warrant and the search warrant application.

Exhibit "C" is a true and correct copy of the remaining search warrants (through
May 17, 2017), issued in this case.

Exhibit "D" is an excerpt of Joshua Schulte's Google search history from 2006 to
March 2017 (JAS 000024)

Exhibit "E" is an excerpt of Joshua Schulte's 2011 IRC Chats (JAS_000028).

Exhibit "F" is is a true and correct copy of *the Brady Letter dated September 28,

Exhibit "G" is a true and correct copy of the non-classified Bill of Particulars dated
April 29, 2019.

Exhibit "H" is a true and correct copy of the Report of CP Image, including
information pertaining to the file path.

Exhibit "I" is a true and correct copy of certain FBI 302's.

Exhibit "J" is a true and correct copy of the Diagram of CIA network

Exhibit "K" is a classified addendum drafted by defense counsel.4 


 At any rate give me a few hours to power through last night filing because 600+ pages take time to read and digest - which means I will likely push several writeups over the course of the next few days. -SpicyFiles 



While you're here, throw us a bone.

Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.

Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.



Leave a comment

All blog comments are checked prior to publishing