Posted on June 22 2019
Updated June 27, 2019 -11:03AM EST:
Includes the 6/25 Order and 6/26 2ndCCOAs Mandate, See bottom on this entry for the update & links to Court Filings.
Schulte...can we talk about GitHub?
As you know late last night the Government wrote to the Court that “based on recent developments” - they had (past tense) released the 2017 search Warrant Materials to Schulte & his Public Defender. I updated my previous entry, the letter and other filings can be located at the bottom of yesterday’s entry, found here.
A few days ago I stated, almost in passing, that after spending more time reading through Schulte’s docket and the various Hearing Transcripts that I decided to revisit Schulte’s initial Indictment. And that between shoving bonbons in my calorie hole and binge watching Oprah I tend to go back over a docket. In my line of work, details matter - and equally important is you need to take the time to actually read and re-read filings. You failure to do so is at the peril of your client. Almost invariably you will find a few details you may have unintentionally overlooked.
Such is the case with Schulte’s Case No: 1:17-cr-00548 A quick update before we dive into Schulte’s Original Indictment - just after 4PM EST on June 20, 2019 the Government filed the following letter with the Court.
Government respectfully requests that the Court permit the Government to respond to the defense’s severance motion by July 12, 2019, and the remaining three defense motions by August 2, 2019.
If you’re asking me to speculate given the prior sentence that Schulte by counsel informed the Government that he plans to file two additional motions by July 1st - the Government might just be acting in “orderly” and organized manner. Although it would be easy for me to criticize the parties, particularly the Government who is asking the Court to grant them twenty-two days to answer Schulte’s:
The request for forty-three days on the remaining three defense motions - well it seems overly generous and “untimely” but again it’s super easy for me to critique absent facts . That said in general I am a curious person. I was that kid. You know that kid who always asked “why” and I’m of the mindset that the day I stop wanting to learn then that is the day I should die. Hence I naturally asked myself: “why would the Government ask for such a lengthy delay given the whole speedy trial caveat”
Unfortunately I don’t have an answer to aforementioned question. I then realized, wait a minute I haven’t done my job. I needed figure out the “why” and that’s when I traced Schulte’s previous 2ndCCOAs Case and came to the realization that yes he did file another Appeal in 2019. As in there was a new case number that had inadvertently slipped my radar. And that Appeal is the likely reason the Government requested a delay in the SDNY matter.
Quick Lesson of our Judicial System Hierarchy
Also I should probably tie up a few loose ends, Schulte appears to be exhausting all of his Judicial Remedies, absent a petition to SCOTUS. As you know our Circuit Court of Appeals are split in to Thirteen Circuits, (12 “geographical” circuits plus the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit = 13 total)
Our court system can be explained in really simple terms, one way I have explained it to my children - when they dared to asked me “what do you do besides yell at people on your phone” - I had to explained it in terms they could understand. No joke when my kiddos were toddlers I read them various briefs at bedtime. Nope I was never a “Mother Goose” at bed/story time parent. Seriously in my line of work competent multitasking is literally a prerequisite for my job, which does not actually include shoving bonbons in my calorie hole. Although I’ll admit when my kiddos were toddlers it kind of warmed my heart when they would use “I find your assertion lacking in substance” or “a line of ‘just’ is not always the ‘right’ decision”.
Seriously have you ever tried debating with a strong willed 3 or 4 year old? At any rate, I explained to my kiddos that our Federal Judicial System is best visualized as a Triangle. At the apex - SCOTUS. In the middle - Circuit Court of Appeals (13) and at the bottom of the Triangle are the District Courts (94). Judicially speaking cases move from the bottom up. To understand the case totality, on average the Supreme Court of the United States on an annual basis “grants” 100 to 150 petitions out of more than 7,000 per annum - meaning our Circuit Court of Appeals end up making thousands of rulings per year. The Appeal Circuit is the work horse of our judicial system.
Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Case 19-1048
With respect to Defendant Schulte - he appealed his 2017 Detention Order to the 2ndCCOAs, Case No 18-145 - on March 27, 2018 the 2ndCCOAs issued their MANDATE, (paywall but Screen Capture below), they affirmed the District Court’s ruling which denied Schulte’s request to be RoR’d or provided bail until trial. The venerable and formidable SDNY Prosecutors successful argued that Schulte presented “a great risk to the Community and an greater risk to our Country’s National Security” - in some respects I understand what Schulte is doing. He is trying to exhaust every judicial remedy that is afforded to all Defendants. I don’t blame him for working the judicial system, hopefully in his favor. Conversely the public optics of this case, well it’s not the most flattering for the Government.
However one very important detail that you should remind yourself of - is Schulte’s Discovery is largely shielded by the Protective Order. And yes it’s easy to sit back on my chaise lounge and attempt to judge the Government’s conduct but the fact we are nearly one year and nine plus months post original Indictment - with a trial date not in the near future, unfortunately that cab make the public’s patience wane. And while some have taken the increased liberty of castigating the Government, going as far as to say they’ve botched this case. I for one am not there, yet. In all actuality I give the prosecutors a lot of deference and their management of the Schulte case - while its not as expedient as I would like - I am still okay with giving prosecutors a wide berth & even more latitude.
What most might not know, given it totally missed my radar until very recently, is Schulte has another pending case with the 2ndCCOAs - Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-1048 - See Docket Report (sorry for the paywall) but I’ve taken the liberty of exporting the docket in to a PDF, below:
I’ve embedded Schulte’s brief and Appendices. On its face Schulte’s Appeal is almost entirely based on the 2017 Search Warrants - although it is important to remember that on May 2, 2019 Schulte (the Government did not oppose) filed a Motion to Expedite his Appeal - subsequently thereafter on May 6, 2019 the 2ndCCOAs granted his request by way of a Minute Order.
Document 28 paywall
Google Drive link (no Paywall)
|REDACTED BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Joshua Adam Schulte, FILED. Service date 06/05/2019 by CM/ECF. [19-1048]--[Edited 06/05/2019 by KS] [Entered: 06/05/2019D 02:33 PM]|
Google Drive link (no paywall)
|REDACTED APPENDIX, volume 1 of 2, (pp. 1-250), on behalf of Appellant Joshua Adam Schulte, FILED. Service date 06/05/2019 by CM/ECF. [19-1048]--[Edited 06/06/2019 by KS] [Entered: 06/05/2019 02:50 PM]|
Google Drive link (no paywall)
REDACTED APPENDIX, volume 2 of 2, (pp. 251-490), on behalf of Appellant Joshua Adam Schulte, FILED. Service date 06/05/2019 by CM/ECF. [19-1048]--[Edited 06/06/2019 by KS] [Entered: 06/05/2019 02:52 PM]
When your read the opening paragraph of Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs (Case No 19-1048) Redacted Brief you’ll note that his opening salvo is: the Government refuses to hand over the 2017 Search Warrant materials. As you might note and rightly concluded this issue is now likely moot.
And sure it’s okay to be skeptical about my assertion - yet I see you skepticism and raise you, June 19, 2019 letter from the Government to the Court (as updated in this recent write up, toggle to the bottom and you can read Document 102 and the previous April 2019 SDNY Orders). Again as standard practice I almost always provide you with a link to the original documents, in the disinformation age and ramped up active measures, I fully understand the importance of having original documents.
From a strictly procedural basis - it is really unclear what the Government’s June 19th Letter will mean for Schulte’s Appeal. Given the 2ndCCOAs agreed to an Expedited Schedule that one could surmise that the 2ndCCOAs might make the adjudication that Schulte’s Appeal is in fact moot. Alternatively they could opt to affirm the District Court’s April 15th & 16th Orders, respectively. But full disclosure I’m not entirely familiar with the 2ndCCOAs whereas with the 4thCCOAs I would feel comfortable opining on what that court would do - in-light of the “central issue of the Appeal” is the 2017 Search Warrant materials. Although I’m going to point out as of writing this entry the Government has yet to file its June 19, 2019 letter to the SDNY Court with the 2ndCCOAs. Essentially I’m suggesting that you keep a sharp eye on Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Case No 19-1048 for a variety of reasons, such as Filing by Interested Party the Reporters Committee.
Accordingly in support of Schulte’s Appeal - his brief which is heavily redacted enumerates and particularizes the six 2017 Search Warrants. Again, as you can see the pages are in fact heavily redacted but the un-redacted sections actually reveal a lot. For example regarding the March 13, 2017 Search Warrant - the Affidavit presented to the Court, overtly states that the “purpose” is in part related to the “classified information released by WikiLeaks” - Schulte also goes on to cite that after the Warrant was executed the Government “submitted a letter” - but specifically points out USA v Brady - this is actually pretty important.
Portions of the affidavit in support of the warrant contain __[REDACTED]___ including vague descriptions about the __[REDACTED]_____affidavit states that the classified information released by WikiLeaks...
In this write up - Flynn, Rafiekian et al & EDVA - I explained the following SCOTUS cases Jenks (1957), Brady (1963) and Giglio (1971) of all which govern evidence. The fact that Schulte has invoked the USA v Brady Case - that insinuation means that Schulte’s argument is the Prosecution “may” have withheld EXCULPATORY evidence, that is evidence that helps the Defendant. I need to reiterate that Schulte’s word alone does not mean the Government has engage in anything improper.
Before we dive any deeper into Schulte’s Appeal, I feel compelled to reiterate, I am not defending Schulte and/or harshly criticizing the SDNY prosecutors. What I am attempting to do is give you “both” sides. In some respects Defendant Schulte does make a few substantive arguments. Moreover Schulte was indicted in September of 2017 on three child pornography counts. It is now June of 2019 and we are not any closer to trial.
Granted there have been a lot of twist and turns in this Criminal Proceeding but every defendant has a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. On the flip side of the same coin - Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Brief, it’s not very persuasive. Meaning he’s largely hinged his argument on First Amendment Rights but he took it a step further. Implicitly and Explicitly stating the original Protective Order and various Orders denying his request for Search Warrant Materials: “Mr. Schulte’s motion was not based on his right to present a defense. It was based instead on his separate right—and that of the public—to open and transparent judicial proceedings, especially in criminal case”
..the order did not state that Mr. Schulte may never move to modify the protective order. Indeed, the district court explicitly told Mr. Schulte: If you want to vary the terms of the protective order … have your lawyer come into court and explain why there should be a modification to the order”
But now is the time to go back to the September Indictment and the search warrants that preempted the Indictment. For reference you may want to re-read Part I fair warning that was a deep dive in to the Child Porn Charges. Remember the FBI found the circa 2009 Child Porn files in various encrypted “virtual machines” aka containers on Schulte’s computers he brought from the EDVA to SDNY circa late 2016 when he moved from Northern Virginia to NYC after Bloomberg hired him.
March 15, 2017 - Search Warrant:
members of the FBI searched the Residence. During the course of that search, law enforcement officers recovered, among other things, multiple computers, servers, and other portable electronic storage devices (the "Subject Devices"), including SCHULTE's personal desktop computer (the "Desktop Computer")
During the course of reviewing the Desktop Computer, CACS agents encountered a volume of files in an encrypted container, approximately 54 GB in size (the "Encrypted Container")
In previous Schulte write ups - I’ve mentioned his online activity starting in 2006 to present. I absolutely refuse to embed or reference his digital “activity” when he was under the age of 18. As you know I have deep red lines that I will never cross: no doxing, no children and no spouses, I know that previously I’ve provided you with embedded links to Schulte’s “digital diaries”. In case you’ve forgotten the various links, please see below - also Schulte was in fact a creature of habit his online persona aka “handle” was: pedbsktbll
Schulte’s online persona Pedbsktbll
Schulte’s Chess.com profile - he created this in 2009 it’s pretty banal and nothing stuck out to me beyond the picture of Schulte, presumably his parents in front of the Capitol. Side-note I literally had a 5 minute debate with my spouse on why it’s CapitOl and not Capital. After I pwnd him - it was fun. Because my retort was: “listen here spaz-o-matic English is my second language what the hell is your excuse that you don’t understand the difference in capitol v capital” Yes this is a daily occurrence in my household. /snort.
Schulte’s StackOverFlow profile - this particular account interest me the most. He created it after he started working at the CIA - creation date 2013 - the last time he was “seen” on this platform was May 8, 2015. And I am absolutely certain the hardworking men & women of the FBI are aware of Schulte’s Activity on Stack given that particular action reached >4K people.
And yes I get it - I can be a super P.I.T.A. and some of my research is like - what are you talking about but I’m pretty very few people noticed Schulte’s “answer” to the StackOverFlow question - notice the Time/Date Stamp? Schulte likely posted this “answer” from his CIA Computer. I suppose it’s probable that he may have called out “sick” that day and he may have used his personal computer but I’d put serious money he was at 6250 Georgetown Pike - because anyone who lives in this area knows at 3:07PM on a random Tuesday is gridlock hell. Meaning Schulte would have used 193, Route 7 and/or GW Parkway and he would have been absolutely stuck in the 495 level of vehicular hell - where DC commuters lose their souls and mind. Why? If you’ve ever sat on GW Parkway where it splits to 270 spur and 495 you know exactly what I’m talking about. When you layover his GitHub with his Cryptm.org (website now defunct, but archived provided further down) there does appear to multiple direct correlation - although I’m smart enough to know that far more IT versed experts should probably weigh in on this.
And yes of course Schulte’s “answer” is of interest to me. Because the question and answer had the following tags - all of which are advanced programming tags - ergo this is all way beyond my humble pay-grade.
But it’s this particular entry/question that Schulte posted on StackOverFlow that caught my interest. On its face it looks like a pretty banal Question - nothing more than a reasonable question posed by an “advanced” software nerd, right? Well it is curious to me (and no I am not nor will I ever embed a WikiLeaks link) that there’s a weird component. In each of the Vault releases they referenced compression and decompression of “files” - if you’ll recall in the Manning matter there was also a software issue “brute force” versus an elegant software script.
Schulte’s GitHub Profile - You might recall a few days ago I rhetorically asked - did Schulte have a crypto-wallet? Well that was kind of a loaded question see SchulteCrypto GitHub Repository. In fact Schulte’s GitHub has a total of 21 Repositories circa 2011 until just before his 2017 arrest. Although if I’m going to be intellectually honest I am far more interested in Schulte’s followers on GitHub. Meaning he didn’t follow other users, which oddly makes me think he may have used GitHub as an a-symmetric communication.
I would also like you to look at the Avis - do you see what I see? At first glance they look like Tetras Avis but I’m genuinely wondering if there’s an encoded “subtle” message, see the two users in the red box.
You might find Schulte’s Sever Archive of interest too - some of the file names correspond with his GitHub entries but surprisingly it’s almost a decades worth of his files
Some of the file names are - in a word disturbing given Schulte’s 2008 blog and his thoughts on porn and rape. Truly at a loss for words. Because it’s pretty clear Schulte wasn’t a kid and he appears to have deep sexual deviancy tendencies. I do not have a lot of sympathy for misogynistic, kiddo porn and LGBTQ haters and based on the files I’ve reviewed I’m inclined to say Schulte is exactly where he belongs, in jail.
Schulte’s YouTube channel - this appears to be relatively new - meaning that nearly all 12 videos were created and uploaded to YouTube March thru August of 2017. Its pretty clear Schulte was a gamer - remember on his GitHub Profile he was all about PokeMan. But if you look at the dates/time of each of his videos...
The very first video Schulte ever uploaded to YouTube was a few weeks after the WikiLeaks Vault -7 release. As you will see on Schulte’s YouTube Channel eleven more videos were subsequently uploaded. What I am wondering is (in arguably) Schulte is an “advanced” software programmer could he have used videos to transmit data. Because there’s something odd about his YouTube uploads, for example this video is the very first one he uploaded in late March of 2017. It garnered more than 1900+ hits, the subsequent eleven videos barely broke a few dozen hits.
Schulte’s Wikipedia Profile - his first contributions commenced on May 13, 2009 and his last known contribution occurred on June 9, 2019 - that’s according to Wikipedia’s user data info. What I found semi interesting is with Wikipedia if your user ID is flagged as a “special contribution” - it appears to default to RU servers but I should probably say I’m not an IT expert so my observations could be unfounded.
Schulte’s DANIWEB Profile - he created this account in 2012, and only posted seven responses but it’s clear he knows C and C++.
He also created a profile on College Confidential but because Schulte was likely under 18 years old - I am purposefully not linking to it. Again I have certain ethical lines that I will not cross and dissecting what a person said/write when they were under 18 years old is not something I condone - at all. And yes of course Schulte had/has a twitter account.
Hence why this 2010 tweet is somewhat interesting because I genuinely wonder if Assange was playing Manning, Snowden and Schulte off of each other. And while you may not agree with the following assessment - I’m sticking to it: Schulte is like if Manning and Snowden had a baby - Schulte would be that computer nerd baby. It’s almost like Schulte watched the errors & challenges that Manning and Snowden made and then decided to show Assange “what a competent programmer could do”
Bolton on WikiLeaks: 'Treason, Punishable by Death' http://is.gd/hXHYn At last! Someone who shares my thoughts... Off with his head!— Pedbsktbll (@pedbsktbll) November 29, 2010
Last but most certainly not least Schulte’s Blogspot - which brings us back to the beginning of Schulte’s Criminal Issues - for the record I’m not judging those who identify as “Libertarian” - you do you but as of late it seems like the libertarians with a public profile well they tend to be chaos agents with a healthy serving of subversive subterfuge and really bad for our Democracy.
Schulte and Pornography 2008
On then topic of Pornography - in July of 2008 Schulte wrote the following
Is pornography harmful to society? I believe that pornography is fundamentally protected by the first amendment of the United States constitution, that pornography promotes freedom of speech and liberty, that pornography is not degrading to women, and that it does not incite violence.
The attorney general viewed sexually violent material and ‘degrading’ material as ultimately harmful to society. They concluded that the more individuals exposed to such material, the higher probability of violent, sexual crimes against women. Now, I do not necessarily refute these claims. However, it should be noted that not all pornography is categorized as such, and so porn that is in neither category should therefore be legal.
If you had read the Part I of the Schulte series then you would have undoubtedly found the embedded Hearing Transcript Link - specifically Pages 7-11 of the Transcript. The prosecutor informed the Court that Schulte had “hidden” the child porn files under three levels of encryption:
The nature and circumstances of this offense in particular are troubling. This is not a run-of-the-millchild pornography case. The defendant was caught with literally over 10,000 images and videos of child pornography. It's an enormous volume of child pornography, and it included sadistic and masochistic images and videos of children as young as a few years old who had been...
Again it’s the timeframe that matters here - Schulte contends that the child porn was “procured” during 2009. The “transport” comes into play because Schulte lived in Northern Virginia until 2016 when he moved to NYC to take a software job at Bloomberg. For the record 18 USC §2252 - Certain activities relating to material in- volving the sexual exploitation of minors - this statue does not have a statue of limitations. It is unclear why Schulte’s defense strategy is to harp on about the 2009 procurement date given it is both probable and possible that 2009 date isn’t accurate, at all,
During the October 2017 hearing the SDNY prosecutors disclosed to the Court the sheer volume of potential data their investigators needed to examine and to added complexity that Schulte was/is a highly skilled computer and software programmer. And this is why sometimes I go back and re-read transcripts - as detailed on pages 11 and 12 - even when Schulte was originally released on bail (September 2017) during the October 5, 2017 Detention Hearing, the prosecution proffered to the Court that Officers had executed an additional search and found that Schulte had already procured another computer, which was in violation of the terms of his bond.
The context of this portion of the Transcript is the Court is pressing the Government hard - as to why Schulte should remain in Custody:
difficulty with this is that the defendant is sophisticated enough to be able to create data files that virtually are undetectable. And it's been very difficult to get through that entire cache of data. So he has some sophistication to be able to hide this, he has the sophistication to be able to do this, whether it's his computer or if he gets another computer after, if he was to be released. We just do not think there's any set of conditions that would prevent that risk.
As previously reported this is the same hearing where prosecutors proffered evidence of a “potential” additional crime - that being the 2015 sexual assault of an unconscious woman, who was passed out on Schulte’s bathroom floor - to be clear some news outlets have erroneously reported there was video of the sexual assault. The Transcript is clear - the prosecutor stated unequivocally there was not video of this sexual assault it was pictures - again no such video was proffered in this Hearing,
Back to Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs brief - admittedly I’ve already asserted that his Appeal is likely moot given the Government’s recent letter but I’d like you to look at what I’ve highlighted and placed in the black box on page 26 of Schulte’s brief...
Schulte clearly states in his brief the “potential” of at least three “real name” individuals in the Search Warrant(s). What is of secondary interest is when the Government unsealed the first superseder (Document 47 on Schulte’s SDNY Criminal Docket) - the main reason I’m focused on the un-redacted sections on page 26 of Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Brief is when you read Superseder # 1 specifically Count V there’s something incredibly nuanced...for now put a pin in that paragraph demarcated in the black box.
SCHULTE JUNE 2018 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE - Illegal Gathering of National Defense Information,
COUNT TWO - Illegal Transmission of Lawfully Possessed National Defense Information,
COUNT THREE - Illegal Transmission of Unlawfully Possessed National Defense Information
COUNT FOUR - Unauthorized Access to a Computer To Obtain Classified Information
Counts one thru four all share the same timeframe and all fall under the following Federal Statute - for clarification it’s Count Four where the Government alleges Schulte leaked to WikiLeaks,
The Grand Jury charges: In or about 2016...for thepurpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States....in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793(b) and 2
COUNT FIVE - Theft of Government Property:
...which exceeded the sum of $1,000, and did receive, conceal, and retain the same with intent to convert it to his own use and gain...
I had previously (possibly erroneously asserted) that this was a “transaction” and prematurely discarded the alternative that “something of value” was the inherent value, which is incomprehensibly difficult to place a true and correct valuation - but it’s this part of Count Five that many overlooked:
The way I read the text in parentheses is the Government cites two, not one statutes. Title 18, Chapter 31 entitled “Embezzlement and Theft” specifically 18 USC §641 and 18 USC §2 which is colloquially known as “aiding and abetting” what you should also know is 18 USC §2 is not an “independent offense” meaning the statute itself does not cite a penalty. That the question as it relates to Schulte should be: Did the Government charge Schulte as a “principal” or as an “accessory”.
Now for the complicated part: this statute “provides venue to prosecute an accessory not only where the accessorial acts occur but also where the substantive crime was committed.” - the DOJ USAM is a worthwhile read to understand the nuance and complexity of this particular statute. But again the question should be: did the Government charge Schulte as a principal or accessory. More broadly in Superseder # 1 ALL Counts 1 thru 7 have “and 2” cited. My deductive reasoning why “and 2” were included in these counts - it’s known as the “unfair surprise” which would require Defendant Schulte to prove and overcome that hurdle. In short this was an incredibly shroud move on behalf of the SDNY-AUSA. By adding those two words the Government has foreclosed Schulte’s attempts to argue the “unfair suprise”
Not to belabor my previous position - I’m not in any way condoning nor will I amplify WikiLeaks. Conversely I decided to compare the various events during the Vault leaks Sometimes the absence of any content/comment actually tells you a lot. For example I ran a twitter archive search for the word vault - Trump tweets about everything and anything but weird that not once has he tweeted the word vault
That said there are still a lot of unanswered questions, for example (but not limited to);
Why did WikiLeaks wait until March 2017 to release the Vault 7 and then methodically roll out leaks every five to seven days for the next few months? Given the ‘stolen data was transmitted to WikiLeaks in 2016”
How did Schulte transmit those classified documents - was it via Steganography emended in pictures and/or video?
Who helped Schulte disseminate the stolen documents? Specifically of the billions of people with internet access why are Schulte’s StackOverFlow “nine followers” not being discussed
Why would Schulte cross state-lines with a massive library of child porn and then house that child porn on his servers and laptops?
June 27, 2017 Update
As previously discussed Defendant Schulte filed an Appeal concerning the Court’s two previous Orders (April 14 & 15, respectively which was discussed at length in Schulte Part III, See Part II here, See Part I here). Incidentally we are still awaiting the Court’s ruling concerning Defendant Schulte’s Motion(s) to UnCouple the Child Porn and Copyright Counts, you can find further information on that particular matter here.
As you know and further explained at the beginning of this write up - last week the Government sent a Letter to the Court, respectfully requesting a few weeks (23 days and 43 days, respectively) to file their response(s) to Defendant Schulte’s Motion - remember Defendant Schulte informed the Prosecutors that he intended to file two motions before July 1, 2019. To date Schulte hasn’t filed the aforementioned additional motions. Notwithstanding the Court Granted the Government’s request of additional time to respond to Schulte’s previous & impending motions.
With respect to Defendant Schulte’s 2ndCCOAs Case concerning the 2017 Search Warrant Materials - the parties filed a “stipulation of withdrawal”, accordingly the 2ndCCOAs Issued a Mandate (it’s also known as a Final Judgment) concerning Schulte’s recent Appeal.
The Stipulated Withdrawal which was originally filed on June 25, 2019 ( it does appear to be withdrawn with prejudice - ergo Schulte can’t file another appeal concerning this specific issue. Given that once the Government notified the Court that they had turned over the Search Warrant materials - within an hour of their filing i ruminated that Schulte’s Appeal would likely be tossed as it is now moot. Gosh it’s almost like I know what I’m talking/blogging/tweeting about and the likelihood that I do not spend my workday cyberstalking or shoving bonbons down my calorie hole. Maybe just maybe
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.