Kim Tim Jim Vestor.
Whatever you chose to call him how much do you really know about Kim Schmitz? More importantly, is his background even relevant to what is going on in the news today? Would knowing his history give you more or less hope that at some point he’s going to follow through on the Seth Rich promise he gave and then broke yesterday? The easiest way to answer either of these questions is by starting with a few videos that were posted yesterday on Twitter by @AnonScan. It should be noted that the first video I’m going to discuss lays the groundwork for where I’m headed but it was not the first one @AnonScan posted nor did they create it.
The message in the video (there are spelling errors and I’m assuming whoever made this is German but NO quotes please) states,
“Dear Citizen of the world, fellow internet users. You all Probably heared about Kim Schmitz or Kim Dotcom. He is the founder of Megaupload and was arrested, because he allowed other people to upload illegal content to his servers. But you probably don’t know his background.
In the 90’s Kimble started his own Warez platform. He payed people to uploaded warez to his platform with Calling Cards, which were stolen from normal citizen.
Before, people would use a trick to do free phone calls, but Kim, craving for validation, went to a TV Show and leaked this trick. So Calling Cards where the only way to do free phone calls now. He did not really want to help phone companies when he busted this trick, he just wanted attention and fame. His Warez platform grew bigger and bigger, but it was not big enough for Kimble, who wanted to be in the centre of attention. He joined a major cracker group, even though he had no cracking skills or major computer knowledge, which allowed him to collect information about the whole warez scene. And he indeed captured all information he could get and gave them to Freiherr von Gravenreuth, a copyright lawyer.
You have to understand that the warez scene back in the days was basically the free internet movement and the precursor of Anonymous. But he busted almost the whole scene, he sent police to every member of the scene and his friend, the lawyer sued all these people.
Now you may ask yourself: Why did he do that? It’s simple: He wanted money! For every warez member he busted he recieved a nice payment. Well after that he did some other, minor projects till he founded Megaupload. He did not programm it himself, because he is a bad programmer.
The whole idea of Megaupload was to earn money, not to fight for a free internet. He only kept megaupload because he earned billions of dollars with it. And now he acts like he is pro internet freedom. This is a lie. He is not now, and he never was in favour of internet freedom.”
Okay, so let’s break this down a bit. First of all, the word “warez” basically means pirated software. Second, a 2013 Forbes article best described Schmitz’s scheme during the 1990s as an “online bulletin board service” called the “House of Coolness” where people could upload pirated software such as video games and more. But according to the article, “House of Coolness wasn’t exactly a principled stand for free information.” In other words, if you didn’t have anything good to upload or you couldn’t keep up with “a certain ratio of uploaded to downloaded content” Schmitz forced you to pay for access.
On the other hand, if you were uploading popular content my understanding is that Schmitz paid you in stolen calling cards. And here’s the kicker: Like the video states, there used to be a “trick” to making free phone calls (I think it’s called blue boxing but no quotes there either, please) but Schmitz took this trick public so that there was no other way to make free calls (for your internet habit) besides stolen calling cards. And again, like the video states, innocent people were the victims of Schmitz’s scheme. But that may not be the worst part. Or maybe it was.
After House of Coolness was targeted by a German copyright lawyer, Gunter Freiherr von Gravenreuth, Schmitz began working with him. According to Forbes, “rather than face legal attacks from Gravenreuth, associates of Schmitz tell me he instead began supplying Gravenreuth with names of other figures in the bulletin board scene involved with pirated content.” The article goes on to say that Schmitz was, indeed, paid for each bust that was made. As one poster on Reddit stated, “He had no hacking skills of his own…people should be aware that he was a rat and destroyed most of the early German cracker, phreaker, and hacker community!” As a side note, with so many allegations floating around out there about Schmitz’s lack of talent I can’t help but wonder if his boasts about hacking NASA, the Pentagon, and Citibank are really true. Just pointing out the obvious. He was arrested in 1994 and was eventually convicted on eleven counts of computer fraud and ten counts of data espionage. He was given a suspended sentence and then learned nothing from the judge’s leniency.
Instead of being grateful and perhaps turning over a more benevolent leaf, a few years later Schmitz purchased 375,000 euros worth of shares in a failing, online retailing company called letsbuyit.com. He then promised to invest another 50 million euros over the course of the following year. News that Schmitz was resuscitating the bankrupt company sent stock share prices soaring; the irishtimes.com noted it tripled in value in one day. After pocketing approximately 1.5 million euros on his initial investment, Schmitz secretly sold his shares and fled to Thailand. He later admitted that at no point did he have any intentions on investing the additional 50 million euros. He was eventually returned to Germany and convicted of insider trading in 2002.
After the insider trading debacle, Schmitz moved to Hong Kong where he established Megaupload in 2005. The ibtimes.co.uk reported that this was where Schmitz “really made his millions” through advertising. And getting back to the above video, if anyone seriously thinks Schmitz started and then held onto this company strictly to fight for internet freedom—not because he was making billions off of it—I’ll sell you that amazing land next to Guantanamo Bay I offered a few posts back. And I understand that for many people Schmitz’s platform for pirated software—especially knowing what we know about management companies that take advantage and make millions off of their talent—isn’t a big, moral deal. However, don’t confuse support for a guy who was purportedly screwing it to “The Man” allegedly for the sake of internet freedom as being somehow different from supporting his insatiable greed. It’s one and the same.
On January 5, 2012, the U.S. filed charges against Schmitz and six of his associates for criminal copyright infringements, racketeering and money laundering. He was arrested fifteen days later and Megaupload was taken down. During a 2012 interview with Campbell Live, Schmitz claimed he was innocent, stated that he wasn’t a “piracy king,” (ha!) and likened his case to the WMDs in Iraq—a rather dramatic reference to a lie that led to the death of at least 500,000 people. In February of this year, New Zealand’s High Court upheld Kim Dotcom’s extradition to the United States and although I am not sure 100% sure what is happening with the case currently, I am assuming he will appeal the decision if he hasn’t already.
So let’s get back to @Anonscan’s videos. One video in particular should be of extraordinary interest to everyone who has been following the Schmitz/Seth Rich/Hannity shenanigans. It was created by @Anonscan and timestamped on May 22, 2017, the day before Schmitz, now legally known as Kim Dotcom, released his statement about Seth Rich. The message in the @Anonscan video reads as follows,
“Dear Citizens of the World
We have noted that on 19th May a certain person we only will refer to as Kim Schmitz once again did what he does best.
Instead Schmitz should keep his silence.
There are numerous examples concerning as to when Schmitz has not been capable of holding his tongue.
However, we merely focus on issues that concerns Mr. Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Mr. Edward Snowden and last but not least the parents and family of the late Mr. Seth Rich.
Issues that are a matter of safety and security.
Schmitz had to burst out about “Hillarys Nightmare” in a Bloomberg interview during May 2 years ago.
Now Schmitz seems to have gone rogue again with reference to Seth Rich.
We are more than well aware of the background of Schmitz and for some reason Schmitz has a need to obtain awareness of his own personality.
But in our view not when other people’s safety may be at stake.
So, at the time of writing this little note, which will be published as a video (thereby given a time-stamp on vid.me) we will predict that no matter if there is a ‘radio-interview’ or not with Hannity, whatever you will hear or read on Twitter from Schmitz, is nothing more than something similar to:
“…based on advice from my team of lawyers, I have been informed that currently I should not provide any details concerning the death of Mr. Seth Rich…”
You see, the case is, that Schmitz has NO knowledge.
It’s that simple.
So…as the saying goes:
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.”
In our opinion Schmitz is merely seeking more ‘fame’ (as always) and has some weird narcissistic need of promoting himself.
Fine too, but not when such action involves our friends for such purpose.
Okay, don’t kill me but before I go into this second video, I want to revisit Assange’s interview with Nieuwsuur news back in
June August, 2016 (with my emphasis):
Nieuwsuur: “The stuff that you’re sitting on, is an October surprise in there? Did you know what you were sitting on?”
Assange: “Wikileaks never sits on material. Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There was a 27-year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, ah, just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington so…”
Nieuwsuur: “That was just a robbery I believe, wasn’t it?”
Assange: “No, there’s no finding so, uh…”
Nieuwsuur: “What are you suggesting…what are you suggesting?”
Assange: “I’m suggesting that our sources take risks and they are, they become concerned, ah, to see things occurring, uh, like that…”
Nieuwsuur: “But was he was he one of your sources then, I mean..?”
Assange: “We don’t comment on who our sources are…”
Nieuwsuur: “Then why make the suggestion..about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”
Assange: “Because we have to understand, uh, how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are, you know, our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity, uh…”
Nieuwsuur: “But it’s quite something to suggest a murder, that’s basically what you’re doing.”
Assange: “Well that, others have suggested that, we are investigating to understand, what happened in that situation with Seth Rich. I think it is a concerning situation, there’s not a conclusion yet, we wouldn’t be willing to state a conclusion but we are concerned about it. More importantly, a variety of Wikileaks’ sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.”
The obvious thing here to me is that at the present time we only have one narrative that everyone is either running with (Wheeler says Seth was the source, Dotcom says Seth was the source, Assange hinted at Seth being a source), or running away from (The Rich family says there’s no evidence and to please stop, the MSM is telling everyone to stop, and @Anonscan says that Dotcom has no evidence and that they are concerned with security and safety). So where does this leave us? Going back to the Assange interview, it doesn’t sound like he agrees it was a robbery either and I would be lying if I told you that I didn’t think Assange knew something about Seth and/or the case prior to that interview. I mean, why bring up whistleblowers being concerned if Seth wasn’t a whistleblower? Could the rumors alone that Seth was a Wikileaks source be what was concerning? It certainly would be for me if I was a source for Wikileaks. But I think it goes further than that.
So again, what does this all mean? Let’s take this all apart a bit by starting with Dotcom, then @Anonscan’s video, then the Assange interview. Omg. This feels like this my brain right now. Seriously.
We have Dotcom’s shady, criminal background where he stole from hackers and crackers, ratted out his colleagues for money, stole from innocent people and probably didn’t hack the Pentagon—and this is just what I’ve found so far. Next, we have Dotcom publicly proclaiming to have evidence that Seth was Wikileaks’ source which of course, if true, would bring the entire Russian narrative crashing down. Although, it would bring us no closer to finding Seth’s murderer, only a possible motive.
Furthermore, why didn’t the MSM use Dotcom’s background to discredit him? I had previously theorized that he held off on disclosing any evidence until May 23, 2017 (which, in the end, he reneged on) because I thought he might be using this alleged “evidence” as leverage against the U.S. charges and extradition he faces. And I still believe that. But now, looking at the MSM’s massive lapse in memory, I can’t help but wonder if he made a deal with U.S. officials before he went public about his alleged evidence.
I mean, did anyone stop to think that maybe someone from the U.S. government, maybe Comey while he was in New Zealand just a short time ago, went to Dotcom and made a deal with him? All I’m saying is that both FOX News and Sean Hannity now look like complete, insensitive arseholes to a lot of people for publishing this stuff at the same time the Rich family’s “knee-deep in the Democratic party” spokesperson was asking them to stop. Aw, FOX. You may have walked right into this one.
Sidenote: As I was sitting here finishing up this post someone on Twitter sent me an Anonymous video that appears to have been released today. This video could be pure gold. But again, there’s no guarantees it’s legit information. Bottom line is that they suggest Comey was working with Dotcom but, I believe (I’ve only watched it once so far), he ended up getting fired for trying to make a deal with Dotcom. No quotes on this, again, I’ve only listened to it once. It brings up some other stuff like an alleged Russian SVR report that people have been talking about. Start here and then head over to this. I think the allegations in this video are definitely worth looking into.
Next is @Anonscan’s videos. First, let’s go through the arguments some people are using against them.
- In order to keep Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, and the Rich family safe, @Anonscan is willing to lie about Dotcom in order to prevent him from releasing incriminating evidence. Well, if Dotcom really wanted to release this so-called evidence he would have released this so-called evidence. He would have kept his promise. It’s really that simple. Assange is threatened with assassinations almost daily and that doesn’t stop him from publishing the truth. And yes, Assange has children to worry about, too.
- @Anonscan/Wikileaks has been compromised. They are trying to suppress evidence that would bring down the Deep State and DNC by lying about Dotcom having any evidence and discrediting his reputation. See my answer above.
- @Anonscan’s video are about a beef that Anonymous has with Dotcom and that beef may or may not be about Seth Rich. Okay, first of all, you can’t just throw the term “Anonymous” around in this situation. If you weren’t already aware there are Anonymous accounts out there right now fighting tooth and nail against Assange and Wikileaks. Seriously. So remember, not all Anonymous accounts are the same. Furthermore, when it comes to trustworthiness, Dotcom dug his own grave over the past two decades by completely screwing people over. None of this is new news. You should be asking why the MSM never told you anyone of this.
Hmm. Surprisingly I don’t have one yet. UPDATE: I actually do have a bottom line. My bottom line is that just because you don’t want to hear about Dotcom’s criminal history doesn’t make the videos that @AnonScan posted about him any less important or true. We don’t always want to hear the truth but that’s not @AnonScan’s fault. So who’s really trying to discredit who here?
Let’s move on to the Assange interview…
Julian Assange’s interview crept back into the media because of both FOX News’ interview with private investigator Rod Wheeler and Dotcom’s independent statements which came out afterwards. However, after re-listening to the video it became apparent to me (and I could be wrong) that Assange put emphasis on the word “our” when he said, “I’m suggesting our sources…” You can take that two ways: He means that Seth is one of Wikileaks’ sources or he is distinguishing Seth from Wikileaks’ sources. For today, I’m going with the latter. This, of course, means that for the moment Seth was not a source for Wikileaks. I know, don’t freak out. I’m not ruling that theory out. I’m simply exploring other options so hear me out.
At the time of his death, Seth was the Voter Expansion Data Director at the DNC and his job was about helping voters find their polling places. If you read my first piece on Seth you’ll remember me mentioning his girlfriend’s post on Facebook (which I have not verified). Here’s what she wrote:
I didn’t get into this post previously but now I can’t help but wonder if this is what Seth was whistleblowing on. No, seriously. This was Seth’s job and if anyone was going to figure out this scam it may very well have been Seth. So following this line of thinking, we have Seth who knows that Bernie is getting royally screwed in the primaries and not in a legal (or good) way and the girlfriend thinks he figured it out a week after the primaries which ended on June 14, 2016. She then claims he started asking questions. Isn’t that where every story goes wrong?
“Someone started asking questions.”
First of all, let’s say that Seth indeed figured this out. And let’s assume he did start asking questions. Now he’s on the radar. And it’s going to be a problem for the DNC. And lo and behold, right around that time is when Julian Assange hinted at another publication. It’s also around that same time that Guccifer 2 appeared. First theory: What if Seth Rich was killed because the DNC thought Seth was a source for Wikileaks but in reality he really wasn’t. Assange’s earlier statements that whistleblowers were concerned about the murder of Seth and how dangerous the U.S. can be for whistleblowers then makes sense: This is what happens to someone when they think you’re a whistleblower. The theory also plays into @Anonscan’s video where they state they are concerned about the safety and security of certain individuals including the Rich family—they don’t want to see them harmed for something that isn’t true—not that they would ever want to see them harmed in any sense but you understand what I mean. (updated)
Additionally, this theory also plays into my earlier theory about Seth’s neighborhood, the heightened crime in the few weeks leading up to his death, and my outlandish Soros claims. Lastly, this would then leave my theory about Craig Murray who allegedly picked up the DNC and Podesta emails from an intermediary, who was delivering them for someone other than Seth Rich, as a theory that never included Seth in the first place.
But it’s just a theory, folks.
As for Seth being an actual whistleblower, I’m beginning to seriously wonder what kind of part, if any, he played in the current DNC lawsuit. As you may know, the DNC was served papers on July 1, 2016, nine days before Seth was killed. Sean Lucas who served those papers was found dead less than two months later. Is it possible that Seth had passed along information or documentation prior to Sean Lucas serving the DNC that would have helped with the lawsuit? Was he about to before he was killed? I mean, obviously people were getting together and discussing the idea of filing a lawsuit well before it actually happened. Perhaps Seth caught wind of it. Or, after hearing that the DNC had been served and realizing the scope of the case, Seth reached out to the plaintiffs and offered testimony or documentation. Oh boy. There’s some serious research that needs to be done on that angle.
I’m working on it.
So at the end of the day, do you really feel confident that Kim Schmitz will ever follow through on his promise to give up evidence regarding Seth Rich? My advice, don’t hold your breath.
Leave a comment below or send me your comments, ideas, theories, criticisms (don’t include spelling errors today, I have a wicked head cold and they won’t be corrected anytime soon), rants (for a more private rant where you can really go off go send your email to email@example.com), or to tell me how wonderful you think this post was tweet me at @jimmysllama. If you just came into some money and need a place to spend it, consider becoming my patron at patreon.com.
Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or concerns.
I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.
If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.