Last Friday I e-filed a document to an LA courthouse. It was late in the day and I didn’t expect anything to happen with it until Monday. But nothing happened on Monday. It wasn’t until today that I received word that my document, which is a letter to a judge, was not able to be filed because I’m not a defendant in the case. So it appears that anyone can smear you in court documents which will live on forever in the public arena and there’s apparently nothing you can do about it unless the plaintiff has actually named you as a defendant. However…
Bizarrely, I was also told that although the letter couldn’t be re-filed today as attempted by the e-filing company, the Clerk of Courts did tell them that if I paid almost $500 it could be filed. And no, that doesn’t make sense but what I do know is that apparently wealthy individuals who spend their time suing people can add your name in court documents to defame and intimidate you sheerly out of spite and again a. there’s nothing you can do about it or b. you have to shell out a ton of money to do something about it. I can assure you, I won’t be spending $500 to file a letter to a judge. That’s absurd. With that said, I’m posting the letter here. Feel free to use it and if you have any questions, need further information, or would like a copy of the letter/document, you can contact me at email@example.com. I can attest to the truthfulness of this and if someone wants to shell out the dollars, I’m happy to have a specialist verify all of the evidence. Grammer and punctuation have been corrected in this version. At least most of it 😉
January 29, 2021
Honorable Daniel S. Murphy
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al (20STCV10636)
Dear Honorable Murphy,
I am writing to inform you that the plaintiff in this case, Beth Bogaerts, has named me (“jimmysllama”) in this case via her initial filing and the declaration she filed on November 16, 2020. Both documents contain false statements she knowingly made about me including my website was used by the defendants to defame her and that I was hired, paid or influenced by defendant Thomas Schoenberger to publish defamatory content about her. She has weaponized these false statements in court to smear my reputation and stifle a free press. (Exhibit 1)
As part of a year-long smear campaign that Bogaerts’ has inexplicably waged against me, she also included an alleged dox of me in her November 2020 filings that she obtained from her associate, Ray Johansen, who published it in retaliation for me speaking out about his deception during our personal relationship and her ongoing assault on my reputation.
I am an independent journalist who has been published in independent media multiple times. At least seven of my articles have been posted on social media by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. No defamatory or threatening statements about Bogaerts have ever been published on my website nor have I ever worked on behalf of any of the parties in this case. They are not my friends or associates, I have no personal relationship with them, and I have never had any financial arrangements with them. I want to protect my reputation from Bogaerts’ egregious lies which have escalated since January 2020, and I graciously ask that you read this letter in its entirety. It’s a wild ride, as they say.
Between Sept. 2018 – May 2019, I received a substantial number of unsolicited Twitter messages from Bogaerts about defendants Trevor Fitzgibbon and Manny Chavez, neither of whom I know personally and whom she alleged were harassing and threatening her via fake Twitter accounts. She never mentioned that defendant Schoenberger was harassing/threatening her and she would be hard-pressed to find any messages she sent to me during that time period that say otherwise. I advised her to block the fake accounts, contact the authorities, and not to respond. I did not know why she was being attacked and she provided no evidence to support who she said was behind the fake accounts outside of, “I just know” and “Fitzgibbon taught me to do that.”
She continued to engage with what was happening and I grew tired of what seemed like interpersonal drama. I also felt she wanted me to publish a slanted article for her. She never said that, it was just a feeling based on the amount of unsolicited messages I received and her lack of transparency. On May 9, 2019, I told her to stop contacting me. (Exhibit 2)
On August 12, 2019, I contacted defendant Schoenberger as a source for background information regarding an online puzzle called Cicada 3301, as well as Shadowbox, a PR company he and some of the defendants started. The company was hired by Texas financier, Ed Butowsky, to improve his image over the Seth Rich conspiracy. (Exhibit 3)
The Defamation Campaign
(A) August 12, 2019, The same day I reached out to Schoenberger, Bogaerts messaged me and falsely accused me of working with people who were pushing the conspiracy theory “Qanon,” including “Tracy Beanz,” and that I was somehow complicit in the conspiracy. This was after I posted on Twitter a .10 second video clip last year of Beanz “Bean” and I speaking on camera. The video was from 2017. Beanz was one of the earliest promoters of Qanon but I had cut all communications with her, which totaled a few months, prior to Qanon. I have repeatedly stated this publicly and have never supported or promoted Qanon. (Exhibit 4)
(B) Jan. 10, 2020, an article about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was published on my website. In response, Bogaerts tweeted false statements, including but not limited to I’m an accessory to crimes and covering them up; I publish material on behalf of Schoenberger; the article contained “faked evidence.” (Exhibit 5)
Schoenberger was not a source for any information in the article that pertained to Bogaerts aside from background information about Cicada 3301, an online puzzle that Bogaerts herself claims she was a member. Nor has Bogaerts ever offered any evidence for her false accusations.
(C) She also claimed I used fake evidence which is patently false. Any screenshots used in the article that pertained to Bogaerts came directly from Bogaerts herself and her Twitter account.
She falsely accused me of trying to “take her down,” a bizarre and seemingly paranoid statement which, again, she provides no evidence. She also publicly accused me of “coupling” her with people “who have attacked and threatened” her despite the fact she herself doesn’t dispute being a member of Cicada 3301 and a co-founder/financier of Shadowbox with three of the defendants. (Exhibit 5)
A month after the article was published, and her associate, Ray Johansen, publicly encouraged her to leave me alone and file a lawsuit against the defendants, she accused Johansen of doing the same thing (“coupling” her to former colleagues) to which he responded privately that she was responsible for coupling herself to them. So why hasn’t Bogaerts filed any defamatory statements about Johansen in this case? (Exhibit 5)
Bogaerts has also repeatedly made derogatory statements insinuating that I, myself, and by extension all journalists, should be cancelled and their work defamed, if they speak with sources who have an alleged criminal background e.g. Schoenberger, in an effort to police my communications and disparage my reputation. However, multiple journalists from mainstream media have spoken with Schoenberger as a source and yet Bogaerts has never publicly defamed them, tried to gatekeep who they use as sources, or filed any statements about them in court. (Exhibit 5)
In the past I’ve reached out to Bogaerts for clarification but she continued to accuse me of things I’ve never written or published. (Exhibit 5)
(D) Jan. 13th – Jan. 22, 2020, my website’s email address was attacked with over a 1,000 spam emails a.k.a. “email bombing.” (Exhibit 6)
(E) On January 23, 2020, I was sent screenshots of an associate of Ray Johansen’s who posted false statements about me in a private chat including that I promote “MAGA, Q and shit with Tracy Beanz,” virtually the same thing that Bogaerts falsely accused me of 4 months prior. (Exhibit 6)
(F) In Feb. 2020, Bogaerts created a 42-page document containing false statements I publish articles for Schoenberger. The document also contains evidence she used a fake Twitter account in Nov. 2019 to troll me and then used my reaction, having no idea it was her, to defame me later in the 42-page document, on Twitter, and in a video she created. She disseminated the document to other people. (Exhibit 7)
(G) Between Feb – June 2020, Bogaerts created a video stating I was “reeled in” by Schoenberger and she included in the video the same material about me found in the 42-page document. She made the video public and it’s still available online. (Exhibit 8)
(H) March 16, 2020, Bogaerts filed an initial complaint in this case falsely stating that: “[D]efendants and their cohorts have posted false, derogatory, or threatening comments about [Bogaerts]” on my website, jimmysllama.com.
(I) In Sept. 2019 (note the year), defendant Fitzgibbon filed an amended complaint in Fitzgibbon v. Radack. He accused me, Johansen, Johansen’s ex-girlfriend, and a Twitter sock account named “Kaidinn,” of conspiring with whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, to defame him. I didn’t find out about this until December 2019, after a second amended complaint was filed. Johansen used to work with “Kaidinn,” and Bogaerts used his/her tweets to privately harass/gaslight me. (Exhibit 9)
Between Jan. 2020—June 2020, during both the Fitzgibbon v. Radack case and the newly filed Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al, “Kaidinn” tweeted well over a 100 abusive, patently false statements about me alleging I targeted Bogaerts and I work for/am paid by Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, and/or Fitzgibbon’s attorney, Steve Biss. At no time has Bogaerts, her associates, or “Kaidinn” presented any evidence to support their defamatory statements. (Exhibit 10)
(J) I have been falsely accused of working with both sides by both sides regardless of the fact that I have spoken out against Steve Biss’ lawsuits which I believe are an attack on free press, free speech, anonymity, and right to expression.
(K) May 7th, 2020, I wrote an opinion piece about Bogaerts and Kaidinn’s ongoing lies and my growing disgust which, as far as I’m aware, is still allowed in this county.
(L) July 28, 2020, Johansen’s associate published a defamatory blog post (here, which I addressed here) about me in which he regurgitated Bogaerts’ lies that I pushed the Qanon conspiracy with “Tracy Beanz.” He also used threatening language directed at me such as “#Killshot” “KO u” “This is going to hurt” “Nail in ur coffin” “I would watch your back” “You have been warned” “Killshot!” “You fucking human piece of toilet paper.” Bogaerts “liked” the blog post on Twitter. (Exhibit 11)
I. The Defamation Campaign (Exhibits)
In the letter to the judge, I included page 38 of a 42-page document that Beth Bogaert’s created on February 23, 2017 (according to the metadata). The entire document can be found HERE. I wrote the following based on page 38:
Again, Bogaerts finds it acceptable to defame a journalist and their work based solely on the fact they spoke with a source that she has had ongoing personal and professional problems with, none of which pertain to @jimmysllama.
Bogaerts has failed to provide any evidence for her false allegations that @jimmysllama wrote or published any information on behalf of any of the defendants in this case and/or that @jimmysllama wrote or published defamatory or threatening statements about/towards her, starting before March 16, 2020, when she filed her first false accusations. She has also failed to provide any evidence that specifically shows what information she falsely claims Schoenberger influenced, hired, or paid @jimmysllama to write and/or publish, or any alleged financial transactions that occurred.
Exhibit 8, 9, and 10
II. Sexting, Threats, Blackmail, and Doxing
(A) In Feb. 2020, after the Seth Rich article was published, Ray Johansen and I developed an online romantic relationship that he now denies despite communications that prove otherwise including an April 2, 2020 email in which he stated, “I need you and love you….” At the same time, he was in communications with Bogaerts regarding the Fitzgibbon v. Radack case but he falsely led me to believe for a year that he didn’t like/trust her. (Exhibit 12)
On April 6th, he told me he “sexted” with Bogaerts, she tried to make travel arrangements to visit him, and that he spoke with her daughters. I was obviously stunned and hurt and he tried to convince me he was just “social engineering” her for information. I didn’t know what to make of it and chalked it up to the endless times he had demanded my trust, and my own vulnerability to deception because of my feelings towards him. Our relationship ended in late April. (Exhibit 13)
On June 10th, he said the sexting happened 1-2 years before we “connected,” indicating he cheated on his ex, who he had falsely told me he broke up with because she had cheated on him. (Exhibit 13)
(B) On Aug. 29th, Bogaerts and Johansen’s associate seemed to confirm the “sexting” and that it went on behind the back of his ex-girlfriend, myself, or both depending on when it allegedly occurred and how long it has continued. Johansen subsequently tried to spin her statements and further defame me. (Exhibit 14)
(C) On Aug. 30th, Johansen’s ex-girlfriend tweeted that he had been abusive towards her and categorized his alleged sexting with Bogaerts as “cheating.” 4 days later, I went public with Johansen’s statements and my own disgust. (Exhibit 15)
(D) Between Aug. 30th – Sep. 16th, directly after I went public and for 18 straight days, Johansen trolled me on Twitter with fake “sock” accounts, blackmailed me to retract his own statements, and posted over 50 threatening tweets directed at me. (Exhibit 16)
(E) On Sep. 17th, after I didn’t retract, Johansen posted my alleged dox (identity) online. According to the DOJ, “Doxing is the act of gathering, by licit and illicit means and posting on the Internet personal identifying information,” including “details regarding the individual’s children and other family members.” Doxing is used by abusers to threaten and silence their victims. (Exhibit 16)
(F) Johansen used this alleged dox on Twitter to target a child who was reportedly abused by insinuating the child was mine and that the alleged abuse never occurred because the mother (allegedly me) didn’t report it. Johansen knew that another news source reported that a pediatrician called in the alleged abuse which is standard legal advice during an acrimonious divorce, which was also publicly reported. If I am who Johansen says that I am, he did this to a child he’s actually met online and spoken with before. (Exhibit 16)
Johansen also posted an article about a police officer he claimed was my ex-husband. The article reported that this officer was being sued for violating a citizen’s rights and was investigated for steroid use. A Google search also shows that the officer waged a 14-year harassment campaign against an Arab American restaurant owner that resulted in the state government issuing a settlement and an apology.
Despite this and under the impression that the officer is my ex-husband, Johansen started to follow the officer on Twitter and then publicly claimed I had lied to him about fear and abuse that had taken place in my past. This included me telling him about a sworn affidavit someone filed with the police in which they stated that my ex said he was going to kill me and that he knew “how to kill people and not get caught.” Another individual reported to authorities that my ex told them “he could kill somebody and get away with it,” (yes, before Trump said it) and that he would contact women he knew were victims of domestic violence. I’ve attached the redacted affidavit in Exhibit 17.
This is the identity (dox) that Bogaerts attributed to me in her November 16th declaration filed with this court and the circumstances under which she obtained it from Johansen. She clearly believes that the person he identified as me is, in fact, me, so she deliberately used the U.S. judicial system to retaliate against an anonymous, published journalist as evidenced by the fact I am not even named as a defendant in this case. Nor should I be. I have no involvement in the parties’ disputes.
While publicly threatening and trolling me, Johansen and Bogaerts’ associate, Jesselyn Radack, a prominent whistleblower attorney who has been sued twice for defamation and forced to settle in both cases, thanked Johansen for all that he does, further legitimizing Johansen’s abhorrent and malicious actions. (Exhibit 18)
After Johansen posted the alleged dox, his associate, @LizActivate, retweeted it over 16x on Twitter including his insinuations about the child, and, as of today, continues to retweet it. Johansen has since changed his Twitter handle after threatening me and allegedly sending death threats to another activist. He’s also changed his profile picture multiple times and announced right before he posted the alleged dox that he was making his Twitter account a “group account” to maintain complete deniability. Most of his tweets are still online.
(G) Between Aug 26 – Sept. 29, during the weeks that Johansen spent threatening me, I promoted and covered the Assange extradition hearing, managing to create and publish three videos, as well as seventeen articles despite his cyber-harassment.
On October 18, 2020, Johansen publicly denied any relationship we had and Bogaerts publicly smeared me by implying I lied about Johansen’s statements. Incredulously, after Johansen posted over 50 threatening tweets directed at me in retaliation for going public, she said I was “benefitting” from it. (Exhibit 19)
(H) Johansen told me about the sexting in April 2020. I didn’t go public about it until September, after I found out he lied to me about his ex cheating on him which indicated to me that he probably lied about a host of other things I suspected, too. This isn’t rocket science. And frankly, it’s bizarre that Bogaerts continues to attack the one woman who exposed Johansen for lying about her and degrading her marriage. That is, if he lied.
II. Sexting, Threats, Blackmail, and Doxing (Exhibits)
Exhibit 18 and 19
III. More Threats and Retaliation (42-page document)
(A) On October 23, 2020, I posted one page of Bogaerts’ February 42-page document (mentioned earlier) after speaking with an attorney and discovering it going through old emails. Johansen threatened me (again) for posting it claiming, “it’s about to be over.” Indeed, a week after he threatened me, Bogaerts filed documents claiming that I am paid or hired by Schoenberger. Then, she filed her November 16th declaration, under oath, using the dox Johansen gave her. (Exhibit 20 and 21)
(B) Despite Johansen’s claims, I never had an agreement with anyone to keep the document confidential nor would I agree to bury Bogaerts’ defamatory statements. It’s absurd he would even try to peddle this story. (Exhibit 21)
I was specifically told by Johansen that the document was being filed as part of an amicus brief in the case Fitzgibbon v. Radack and I later emailed one of the attorneys involved in filing the brief to confirm if it was (it wasn’t). Yet, Johansen continued to disparage my reputation and paint me as a liar. This is the kind of insanity, drama, and lies I suspected Bogaerts trafficked in when I told her to stop contacting me in May 2019. (Exhibit 21)
(C) Exposing Bogaerts’ relentless defamation campaign against me is not an “instrument of torment” against her as Johansen suggested. Bogaerts is not the victim here. She is the perpetrator.
(D) Inexplicably based on what Johansen and Bogaerts have done to me in the last year, while I was still in a relationship with Johansen, he wrote in the email containing the 42-page document (my emphasis), “Its going to be upsetting…Its not really interesting how Beth is protecting herself from all the shit she has done.” (Exhibit 21)
(E) Bogaerts’ video that she released to the public (mentioned earlier) contains almost all of the same material about me as the 42-page document and what I posted online that led Johansen to threaten me and Bogaerts to retaliate in court filings. And yet no one has threatened Bogaerts’ associate for posting the video 3 times on Twitter. Bogaerts spread her libelous claims about me with the entire world prior to me posting one page of her document.
III. More Threats and Retaliation (Exhibits)
Bogaerts has repeatedly accused people of doxing her when in reality she has used her real name and location on social media repeatedly and posted pictures of her kids. Despite her alleged outrage over doxing, she intentionally included an alleged dox of an anonymous journalist, @jimmysllama, in court documents.
@Jimmysllama has never publicly posted or revealed their real identity or their family’s, whether or not they have children, nor a single picture of any family members. Nor has any identity ever been publicly attributed to @jimmysllama until Bogaerts and Johansen’s actions.
Iv. Qanon and Further Retaliation
(A) On or about October 16, 2020, Heavy.com and Financial Times reported on Qanon, a cult-like movement the DOJ classified as a “domestic terrorist threat.” Both outlets mentioned Schoenberger as being part of or the creator of Qanon.
(B) Conspiracy debunker, Jim Stewartson, was the public mouthpiece for the stories, but it was Bogaerts’ associate, “Lestat” aka “Arturo” aka @ATafoyovsky, who provided the source material. Bogaerts has allegedly paid “Lestat” in the past and given him a computer. Bogaerts worked with @ATafoyovsky previously via Cicada 3301, an internationally known puzzle she said she was involved in along with Schoenberger. @ATafoyovsky recently said Bogaerts aka “Fox” took part in the research and is one of only two people he trusts. (Exhibit 22)
Approximately 2 days before the Heavy.com and Financial Times articles ran and after 10 months of Bogaerts defaming me, Stewartson, who I had never heard of before the published articles, tweeted Bogaerts’ lies that I work for Schoenberger. He has since deleted the tweet. (Exhibit 23)
(C) As you may be aware, the Qanon movement has been widely blamed for the Capitol riots and violence that took place earlier this month. In the past week, Vice ran a 3-part documentary about Qanon in which Schoenberger was named again. And again, Bogaerts’ associate, @Tafoyovsky, took credit for providing source material to the media outlet.
Since the airing of the documentary, multiple journalists who have followed the Qanon movement have publicly stated that the documentary was poorly sourced, they noted that sources like defendant Manny Chavez were known liars, and the series didn’t provide any real evidence for the individuals they named. @ATafoyovsky is notorious for posting serious allegations (as fact) about individuals by either providing abhorrently dishonest and incorrect “evidence,” omitting evidence, or splicing together individuals’ associations with dangerous conspiracy movements.
In no way am I making an argument about who is behind the Qanon movement or not. I have no idea, nor do millions of Americans. But it is incredibly ironic that in a 2018 interview, Bogaerts herself and @ATafoyovsky took credit for starting Qanon via the Cicada 3301 puzzle (see Exhibit 24). And yet, due to Bogaerts’ vicious defamation campaign against me, I have been publicly smeared as being associated with a “domestic terrorist threat” that I have never supported or promoted. (Exhibit 24)
(D) Both @ATafoyovsky and Jim Stewartson appear to be as threatening as Ray Johansen. Neither Johansen nor @ATaofyovsky are citizens of the United States, nor do they live in the country. (Exhibit 25)
Iv. Qanon and Further Retaliation (Exhibits)
Exhibit 22 – 24
Bogaerts is obviously not responsible for the defendants’ actions and may have been “taken for a ride,” as they say, and deceived by them which I will leave up to the court to decide. In the meantime, journalists have a protected, constitutional right to report on stories in the public interest. I have never reported or published defamatory material on my website nor anything with malicious intent towards anyone, including Bogaerts, who could not have realistically expected me to remain silent after she filed multiple false statements about me in court.
She is entitled to scream her opinions from the rooftops but she is not entitled to spend over a year purposely damaging a journalist’s reputation with false claims and zero evidence because of personal feelings or jealousies. She is not entitled to defame me by falsely stating Schoenberger hired and paid me to help “take her down.” For what purpose, how, and why? I have no dog in this fight. I don’t even know Bogaerts, the defendants in this case, or their associates personally, except Johansen. I was never involved on any level, in any manner whatsoever, with Cicada 3301 or Shadowbox, nor do I owe Mrs. Bogaerts any money.
No other outlet, journalist, or blogger has faced Bogaerts’ wrath like I have. Although Bogaerts has attacked me for merely mentioning her for things she herself has admitted to taking part in while claiming that she just wants to be left alone, she herself has been more than happy to speak to the press about her former colleagues and/or dealings as long as her name is kept out of it. Unbelievably, she cites concern for her own safety which apparently doesn’t extend to journalists she doesn’t like. (Exhibit 26)
During one exchange of Signal messages between Bogaerts and Johansen, he told her that he wouldn’t have left her name out of Twitter thread about Shadowbox even if she would have asked. So again, why hasn’t Bogaerts publicly defamed him or filed defamatory statements against Johansen in this case? (Exhibit 26)
In December 2020, I posted on Twitter that I was willing to put aside Bogaerts and Johansen’s actions towards me. Less than two weeks ago, however, Bogaerts allowed her November 10, 2020 Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted to be granted by this court without correcting her defamatory statements about me. Afterwards, I began publicly posting my private conversations with Johansen to prove I had been honest and to finally fight back against the defamation after remaining silent and scared for five months. According to a source who claims they’re in contact with Bogaerts and/or her associates, thirty minutes after I posted some of these conversations, Bogaerts posted a video called “Fuck You” allegedly in response. If this is true, it’s certainly evidence of her extreme distaste for the truth and her propensity to retaliate against victims.
Even if it’s not true, this certainly wouldn’t be the only evidence of her vindictive nature. She admitted to helping Fitzgibbon troll attorney Jesselyn Radack online to provoke a response from her that could be used in court, even directing him to use a burner email so he wouldn’t get caught—just like she trolled me online using a fake account and then used my response (having no idea it was her) in documents, a video, and tweets.
After Fitzgibbon cut ties with her in late 2017, Bogaerts and Johansen admit that she leaked Johansen information about Fitzgibbon’s upcoming 2018 court filing against Jesselyn Radack, only a few months later. She also advised at least two journalists to create a fake Discord account in order to spy on members of Unity4J, a pro-Assange/WikiLeaks campaign, and she has gone so far as to perjure herself in this case in retaliation for unknown actions on my part. Thus, a “fuck you” Youtube video would hardly surprising me.
This letter is not an endorsement of any party in this case or acknowledgement of the court’s jurisdiction to rule on it. I simply want Bogaerts to cease and desist using the U.S. judicial system to weaponize her own defamatory statements about me. I am also writing to you on behalf of a free press. I noted on the LA court website that there’s only one attorney listed for this case so I felt it would be unfair to forward this letter just to them. As of now, I am solely filing it with the court as I’m unsure what else I should do. I’ve also reported Bogaerts and Johansen’s harassment, threats, and intimidation to multiple police jurisdictions and other authorities to protect myself, family members, friends, and associates. I have also been in contact with an attorney.
I have been put in the position of having to release screenshots of private communications in order to protect my safety and reputation. I assume this was done deliberately by Bogaerts or at the behest of Johansen as evidenced by the fact he refused to give me permission to release his communications while simultaneously demanding publicly that I do so in order to back up my statements or else prove myself a liar. These screenshots will undoubtedly be used to attack me further and supplement lies that I’m helping the defendants in this case simply by defending myself against a situation they, themselves, created. Because I am deeply concerned about my own safety and that of my family for submitting these documents, I have chosen to remain anonymous. I’m damned if I do, I’m damned if I don’t.
Exhibit 26 cont’d
Below are screenshots from one of Steve Outtrim’s blog posts which clearly discusses Bogaerts and Johansen. His website has been mentioned in Bogaerts’ filings as some sort of defamation dumping ground for the defendants. However, Bogaerts has never included an alleged dox of him and/or his real name in her filings, nor has she accused him of being paid or influenced by Schoenberger. This clearly shows a pattern on Bogaerts’ part of deliberately targeting @jimmysllama, an anonymous journalist, because of her own personal issues, not because of her patently false claims she was defamed on jimmysllama.com or @jimmysllama was/is working on behalf of Schoenberger or any defendants in the case.
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.