Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Slaughter Notice That The United States Has Attempted To Plant Trojan Malware On Defense Computors To Gain Remote Access
Slaughter Notice That The United States Has Attempted To Plant Trojan Malware On Defense Computors To Gain Remote Access
COMES NOW Defendants Rick Slaughter and Caden Gottfried, by and through undersigned
counsel John Pierce, with this notice to the court of serious structural violations of the 4th, 5th, and
On Monday, March 20, at 5:42 PM, the United States, through Assistant United States
Attorney Stephen Rancourt, emailed defense counsel John Pierce and John Pierce Law partner
Roger Roots, a discovery file entitled “Slaughter and Gottfried - 1st Supplemental Discovery.”
John Pierce Law (JPL) Client Advocate Emily Lambert downloaded the file and unzipped
Immediately upon unzipping the file, Lambert’s computer froze, and the computer’s
(Open Source Intelligence), skip-tracing, cyber and social media intelligence, and anti-money
laundering. She was previously tech support for a software company. It is significant that Ms.
Lambert subscribes to three (3) antivirus programs, McAfee, Norton, and Microsoft. Only
Microsoft’s anti-virus software detected the government’s Trojan malware attack. This means that
(1) the malware is newly invented and designed (possibly by the government), and (2) it is possible
that the government’s malware attack has been used before by the government and has succeeded in
taking over other defense lawyers or legal teams whose antivirus software failed to detect the new
spyware virus.
The government’s Trojan Malware is designed to allow a sender (apparently the FBI or the
U.S. Attorney’s Office) to secretly and illegally take over and remotely control defense lawyers’
computers. The spyware virus allows the government to invade and know all privileged and
confidential contents and work product of defense team computers. This violates the 4th
amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the 5th amendment right to due
process, the 5th amendment right not to be a witness against oneself and the 6th amendment rights
teams in a high-profile case. In 2019, military prosecutors launched a similar illegal cyber-attack to
invade the defense computers of Edward Gallagher, a highly decorated Navy SEAL platoon leader
charged with war crimes. 1 The government’s tracking malware attack in the Gallagher case was far
less significant than the attack in this (the Slaughter) case. According to media sources, military
prosecutors in the Gallagher case sent a “bit of digital artwork, embedded in an email message,
contained hidden software that could track if anyone read or forwarded the email, and may have also
been able to allow access to all communications and files on the recipients’ computers.”
Here, the government’s malware actually took over Emily Lambert’s computer. Below is a
screenshot of Ms. Lambert’s screen, notifying her that her “IT administrator” has limited her access
to her own computer. It goes without saying that Ms. Lambert is supposed to be the actual
1
Dave Philipps, Navy SEAL War Crimes Trial in Turmoil Over Claims Prosecutors Spied on
Defense,” New York Times, May 17, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/navy-seal-
war-crimes-spying.html (accessed 3/28/20023).
The court in Gallagher suspended proceedings and ordered the prosecutors removed 2 and
the defendant released from custody. 3 Slaughter and his son Gottfried ask for an investigation into
2
Howard Altman, “Lead Navy prosecutor in SEAL war crime case out over email spying,” Navy
Times, June 3, 2019 https://www.navytimes.com/news/2019/06/04/lead-navy-prosecutor-in-seal-
war-crime-case-out-over-email-spying/ (accessed 3/27/2023) (“Navy Cmdr. Christopher Czaplak
was ordered off the case against Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher by the
judge, Navy Capt. Aaron Rugh, on Monday after Czaplak admitted emailing 13 defense attorneys
and paralegals, as well as Navy Times editor Carl Prine, a tracking beacon in an effort to find the
source of leaks to the media.”)
3
Julie Watson, “Military judge frees Navy SEAL in advance of murder trial The Associated Press
and Brian Melley, May 30, 2019 https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-
military/2019/05/31/military-judge-frees-navy-seal-in-advance-of-murder-trial/ (accessed
There are only three possible explanations for this Trojan malware attached to government
discovery files, and the accidental explanations are the most serious.
There are only three possibilities:
(1) Federal prosecutors knowingly sent Trojan malware to take over defense lawyers’ computers;
(2) Federal prosecutors unintentionally forwarded discovery files containing malware from the
(3) Federal prosecutors’ computers and discovery files contain malware which allows someone
else to control US government computers; and federal prosecutors are unaware that their
For obvious reasons, each of these three possibilities is problematic. In fact it is difficult to
rank which of the three possibilities are worse than others; because all three pose the most serious
possible Constitutional, ethical and/or national security issues that can be imagined. If anything, the
Note that upon being questioned by email at 5:55 pm, AUSA Stephen Rancourt offered
explanation #3 (some 18 hours later): “Well I’m certainly not trying to send you malware. It may
have something to do with providing you the Cellbrite.exe. Let me re-run the .zip file and send
again. (Note that the idea of “rerunning” the file suggests Rancourt ran the infected file previously.)
3/27/2023) (saying freeing Gallagher at this point would be a remedy for interference by
prosecutors).
CONCLUSION
3. Determining precisely which agency or agents created or originated the tracking malware
virus;
4. Determining which agency or agents are now tracking and controlling defense lawyers’
computers—or to what extent. (AUSA states that the case agent in this case is named Mark
Tucher of Seattle.);
5. Determining whether the FBI or anyone else had a proper search warrant to search defense
6. Determining the scope and scale of the FBI’s (or other agencies’) use of such tracking
7. Any other relief the Court deems proper, including dismissal of this case.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ John M. Pierce
John M. Pierce
21550 Oxnard Street
3rd Floor, PMB #172
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (213) 400-0725
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Defendant