In The Rabbit Files 5.1 (“A Fludd Approaches” Part 1), we left off with the Vetter account, allegedly run by Thomas Schoenberger, repeatedly trying to connect Cicada 3301 to Anonymous Scandinavia (@AnonScan), WikiLeaks, and Assange throughout the first half of 2017. Speculation continued after @AnonScan, other large pro-Assange accounts, and even WikiLeaks started pushing an entirely debunked story that DNC worker, Warren Flood, was behind the Guccifer 2 persona, only two months after Cicada revealed their 2017 puzzle, “A Fludd approaches…”
@AnonScan eventually announced that they had no interest in the puzzle but despite this, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind), an associate of both whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, and “hacktivist” Ray Johansen, didn’t appear to question why her friend Vetter continued to push the connection. In fact, Vetter eventually went on to make even more extraordinary claims.
Vetter Orchestrated Everything?
To the left is where we left off in general and things got even more ridiculous between June 24th – June 30th, the time period when Bogaerts claims she (first?) met Schoenberger as himself. According to a Medium post that @ATafoyovsky published (and recently deleted) and an alleged rough draft of a Bar complaint against attorney, Steve Biss, that Bogaerts and Ray Johansen wrote/edited together:
“In June of 2017, I [Bogaerts] was attacked online which now I know this initial incident was orchestrated by Mr. Schoenberger. I had never been attacked like that before.”
“I [Bogaerts] was introduced to Steven Biss by email after being harassed online in 2017 by Jason Goodman and Patricia Negron. At the time I had never been harassed like that.”
Bogaerts is obviously referring to her own allegations that Goodman and Negron harassed her after the White Rabbit incident and it’s interesting that she didn’t include George Webb since she sat online claiming that his “minions” were attacking her, too, and then made sure that WikiLeaks knew about it—without providing any evidence.
This was after Webb, Goodman, and Trish did a livestream where Goodman said that they had the Seth Rich files based on what White Rabbit told them. After the livestream, Bogaerts deleted a Twitter account that she had given to Trish and publicly defamed them while White Rabbit told everyone that the files they had (that came from Rabbit himself) had malware in them. Additionally, Rabbit spent over a week gaslighting Trish via text messages. He literally tried to tell her that Google “spoofed” the files.
Bogaerts then spent the last 3+ years telling everyone that Rabbit never misled the three of them so it’s hardly surprising that people were upset and trying to defend themselves. What exactly did White Rabbit and Bogaerts think would happen?
Then there’s Bogaerts’ claims that Schoenberger orchestrated the entire thing meaning I guess we’re suppose to believe that it was Schoenberger who told Bogaerts weeks prior to the White Rabbit incident that she should peddle Rabbit’s files not only to Trish but to Trevor Fitzgibbon’s associates, Lara Logan and her husband.
Moreover, Schoenberger did this with the hopes that one day White Rabbit would give the files to Trish under the guise they were the Seth Rich files. Once Trish had the thumb drive, Schoenberger convinced Webb, Goodman, and Trish to hold a livestream that evening where Goodman would tell his entire audience that they had the Seth Rich files. This, of course, was meant to delegitimize Goodman and ruin his reputation which Goodman was happy to do under the direction of Schoenberger. Then Schoenberger convinced them to “attack” Bogaerts online. The rest, as they say, is history.
Is this the story we’re suppose to believe? Where’s the evidence that “Vetter” was the one behind the “Seth Rich files,” or all the conversations that Vetter surely must have had with Bogaerts, White Rabbit, Goodman, Webb, and Trish to organize this operation because remember, at this point, Bogaerts claims she hadn’t even met Schoenberger as Schoenberger yet.
The truth of the matter is that both Bogaerts and White Rabbit said that White Rabbit downloaded the files himself. Additionally, it was Bogaerts that introduced White Rabbit to Trish, and the messages between White Rabbit and Trish are beyond damning that he set the three of them up. So spare me “the Schoenberger effect,” where everyone thinks Schoenberger is some sort of omnipotent god who controls everything in the universe. These people might as well build an altar to him next.
Bogaerts Meets Schoenberger Due to Online Attacks
Moving on with this incredulous story, this is what Bogaerts said about (first?) meeting Schoenberger as himself in late June 2017:
“The ‘Vetter’ account told me that when I couldn’t handle it anymore when I was at my most vulnerable ‘Cicada 3301’ and Thomas Schoenberger as its head would reach out and protect me.”
“Mr. Schoenberger himself reached out to me through a Facebook DM on June 26, 2017. Where he stated he would protect me. Mr. Schoenberger also stated that the Cicada 3301 puzzle was meant to find me specifically.”
First, I want to point out that the message both Vetter and Schoenberger told Bogaerts—that Cicada would protect her—is virtually the same exact baloney that White Rabbit told Trish the week following the thumb drive incident. Same message, same playbook.
This brings us to a possible glitch in the Matrix. On June 6, 2017, five days after the thumb drive incident, White Rabbit told Trish that he was asked to join Cicada and wanted her to include that information in one of her articles. The assumption has been that Bogaerts was already a “member” of Cicada before White Rabbit joined (see Part 1) so why was Vetter and Schoenberger telling her that Cicada would protect her weeks after White Rabbit was asked to join? Wouldn’t she know this already if she was already a member of Cicada?
I mean, White Rabbit seemed to have the inside scoop that Cicada was going to protect Trish so…? And yes, Bogaerts stated in a 2018 interview that she was, indeed, a member of Cicada so don’t even try going there. On that note, what does being a member mean and what exactly did she do for Cicada? Did she create anything?
More Lies From Vetter?
As you can see in the timeline below, between June 24th and June 30th, Vetter told Bogaerts some incredible things: Schoenberger was behind the AnonScan account; WikiLeaks loves Cicada; and Thomas and Assange have been friends since 2003. DMs that @ATafoyovsky posted also show that on June 24th, Bogaerts admitted to dragging Vetter into the Goodman drama and then she asked him who “Thomas” was. Vetter responded, “Thomas is CICADA. THE Cicada Our leader.”
The very next day, on June 25th, Vetter told her that Thomas was “anon scan” on Twitter and Bogaerts replied, “No way I love them.” This goes back to what I pointed out earlier: @AnonScan publicly denied interest in the puzzle three months prior so did she just not get the memo despite following the account when they announced it and claiming that she “loved” them?
And again, Bogaerts claims she met Vetter in December 2016 (despite tweeting with him almost four months prior), so at this point she’s known the account for at least six months, Vetter has supposedly taught her all about Cicada, and she’s become a member. But note in the above screenshot that it appears he has no idea she’s a “researcher” and that she’s obsessed with WikiLeaks. To be perfectly blunt, as late as June 2017, it doesn’t even sound like Vetter/Schoenberger and Bogaerts knew each other at all.
On June 26th, Schoenberger reached out to Bogaerts allegedly for the first time via Facebook (as himself) and four days later Vetter told her that “WikiLeaks loves Cicada” and “Thomas and Julian have been friends since 2003.”
So we’re expected to believe that Bogaerts, a woman allegedly obsessed with WikiLeaks and drooling over the @AnonScan account, believed that some random guy she’s never heard of before, “Thomas,” knew Assange since 2003 but her only source for this was an anonymous account using the name “Vetter”? Worse, she knew full well that WikiLeaks and Assange had never acknowledged Vetter or Cicada 3301, and my understanding is that she tried to peddle this Vetter-Assange story to other people.
So where are all the conversations that Bogaerts had with Vetter and/or Schoenberger about this? I mean, surely after being told that Thomas was besties with Assange she asked him questions about it, right? Like, maybe when was the last time Thomas spoke with Assange, or how Assange was doing, or why Assange ignored Cicada? Did she ask him how he met Assange or if he ever visited him in the embassy and if not, why not? What were his responses if she did? I can’t emphasize enough how weird it is that we’ve never seen any of these types of conversations leaked by any of the parties involved when it appears that none of the parties involved seem to have a particular problem with leaking.
And what about @AnonScan? After Vetter told Bogaerts that Schoenberger was @AnonScan, they didn’t discuss it further? She never sent Schoenberger any messages like, “Hey, loved that tweet you posted today,” or “Man, I really love your @AnonScan account,” or maybe, “Why don’t you ever post anything about Cicada on the @AnonScan account?” If she believed all of this nonsense and wants to claim she never saw @AnonScan’s tweet denying interest in Cicada, why didn’t she ever tweet that Cicada was tied to the @AnonScan account, WikiLeaks, or Assange?
Even better, when she realized that the Vetter account might have been Schoenberger the entire time, did she confront the Vetter account or Schoenberger about all the lies? What was his response? Are there any conversations that exist where she’s telling him off? If not, why not? In fact, what we’ll see later is that there’s evidence Bogaerts was still working with Schoenberger via Cicada in September 2018, well after Vetter changed his handle and people started putting together that Vetter may have been Schoenberger all along.
And if Vetter’s statements essentially happened in a vacuum, meaning that everything that’s been released and what we’ve seen so far is basically the extent of what Vetter, Schoenberger, and Bogaerts talked about regarding these unbelievable revelations, then it’s impossible for me to find any of this credible. In fact, I find the whole thing to be entirely manufactured.
I’ll be revisiting Shadowbox, the PR firm that Bogaerts co-founded with Schoenberger and Fitzgibbon, in the next article but for now I wanted to cover Bogaerts’ allegations that she was manipulated or pressured into starting the company. Eleven days after Schoenberger reached out to Bogaerts on Facebook, Bogaerts claims that he and Fitzgibbon started putting pressure on her to start a business.
According to a screenshot that Lestat included in his Medium post, on June 9, 2017, Schoenberger sent a message to Bogaerts stating, “I believe we should form a company after Trevor is repaired. I am serious. Between all of us, we have some talent.” And this is what Bogaerts wrote in her 42-page document as well as documents she filed in court:
“…on July 7, 2017 both Mr. Schoenberger and Mr. Fitzgibbon started putting pressure on me to start a business with them. The reality was they were just using it to gain money from me.”Bogaerts’ 42-page document circa February-March 2020
“On or about December 15, 2016, and May 25, 2017, Plaintiff met Defendants online when she was contacted by them and offered to enter into a mutually-beneficial business transaction.Bogaerts’ initial complaint in Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al
“On or about October 3, 2017, after discussing the business model and related logistics, Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to enter into the mutually-beneficial business transaction.”Bogaerts’ initial complaint in Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al
For the record, I’ve never seen a shred of evidence that shows Fitzgibbon pressured her into starting anything, let alone a company, or colluding with Schoenberger to get her to start a company. This is after Bogaerts has spent like three years now pushing this narrative. Second, how in the world does what Schoenberger said to her equate to him pressuring her into starting a company? Suggesting, yes. Pressuring? I mean, maybe if you’re off your hysteria meds.
In fact, Bogaerts was apparently feeling so pressured by these two individuals that two days later she was happily doing research with Schoenberger for Robert David Steele’s (RDS) case against Jason Goodman (don’t ask or see above timeline about the “dirty bomb” and google). Steve Biss was the attorney on the case and I’m not aware of a single communication that shows Bogaerts was coerced into doing this, either.
On the contrary, in 2019, she didn’t appear bothered at all that she did research for Steve Biss’ case—until her and associates made it social suicide to be even remotely linked to him. Well guess what? They created their own monster because she was linked to him at one point and without question she did research for RDS’s case against Goodman. No amount of gaslighting or white washing can change these facts.
And I’m not particularly surprised that she did work for him because you have to remember that this was only a month after the White Rabbit incident and RDS was looking to sue the one guy, Jason Goodman, who was calling White Rabbit out for what he did (RDS was suing for different reasons). At one point, Schoenberger even asked Biss’ wife if her husband could sue Goodman on White Rabbit’s behalf. So you set Goodman up with some bogus, old files that you claim are the “Seth Rich files,” he goes online and tells everyone he has the Seth Rich files because you told him he did, then you defame him for doing that and when he reacts and tries to protect his reputation, you sue him.
Now that’s what I call a setup.
Perhaps White Rabbit had a little sense because he never ended up suing Goodman. I mean, discovery is a bitch, amirite? As for Shadowbox, here’s what gets lost in Bogaerts’ propagandized translation: She knew exactly who Schoenberger was when she started the PR firm with him. She didn’t start the company with some rando named “Vetter.” She knew Schoenberger’s real name, she sent him money, and she apparently didn’t bother to do any due diligence whatsoever.
Now, almost four years later she conflates Vetter with Schoenberger, Fitzgibben, and Shadowbox; threatens and defames journalists who speak to Schoenberger as a source; and makes outlandish claims that the media shouldn’t be allowed to talk to him because he has an alleged criminal background. This, to distract from the fact she either knew about Schoenberger’s background all along and didn’t care or she didn’t bother to do her own homework back in 2017. She wasn’t duped by the “Vetter” account when it came to Shadowbox because Vetter had nothing to do with her jumping into a company bed with two men. That is, unless she believed that Vetter, Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, and Shadowbox were her way into WikiLeaks’ inner circle. More on that later.
Almost Last But Not Least
Whether anyone likes it or not, we going to talk about the allegations that Bogaerts had some sort of relationship with Schoenberger and if you’re upset by that lemme explain something to you: Bogaerts herself has publicly spoken about this. Additionally, people involved in this story have sat online threatening and defaming activists and journalists and calling each other pedophiles while she herself committed perjury in court and deliberately, blatantly, and maliciously tried to put a journalist in danger because she developed a bad case of the jellies. So no, this topic isn’t even close to being too delicate for this crowd.
Bogaerts’ alleged affair with Schoenberger is yet another point of contention in this Cicada/Shadowbox/Qanon drama/psyop that has led to a myriad of actions perpetrated by other parties like Schoenberger who threatened to tell her husband. In return, Bogaerts has used those threats ad nauseam to further her narrative that she’s been nothing but a victim for the past four years. Here are some of Bogaerts statements:
“To be clear I didn’t do that…I did not sleep with [Schoenberger] period.”– Steve Outtrim article
“[Bogaerts] repeatedly requested from Defendant Schoenberger to leave her alone and stop making false accusations about having a love affair with her…[Bogaerts] remitted additional funds towards Defendant Schoenberger in order to prevent him from spreading lies about her having an extramarital affair with him.”Bogaerts’ initial complaint in Bogaerts v. Schoenberger et al
“On or about June 6, 2018, Defendant Schoenberger falsely accused me of having sexual relations with him and threatened to inform my husband unless I paid him. Moreover, he threatened to post a video online about the so-called ‘love affair’ with me unless I paid him.”Bogaerts April 23, 2020 declaration in Bogaerts vs. Schoenberger et al
“Thread of emails stating that I had to prove I did not sleep with Mr. Schoenberger and him stating that he would contact my husband.”Bogaerts’ 42-page document
Bogaerts has repeatedly stated that she didn’t have sex or sleep with Schoenberger which, okay, got it. You didn’t have sex with him. But no one is accusing her of having sex with him and that includes Schoenberger. She’s been accused of having an “affair” with him which goes back to the whole issue of when did you guys “meet” and when did he “reach out.” Everyone has their own definition of what an affair consists of so it can be very easy to deny that you had one when, in fact, you did. I’m not saying Bogaerts had an affair with Schoenberger, I have no idea if she did or not.
According to Lestat’s Medium article, Bogaerts claimed:
“On June 6 2018 I received around 100 emails that started with threats that he would lie about me. Saying we slept together when we had not. It eventually led to him requesting that I pay him to leave me alone. The Emails started saying that I would have to prove I hadn’t slept with him…On June 6, 2018, the same day as the other emails stating I needed to prove I hadn’t slept with him he then started emailing that if I sent him, money he would leave me alone, and if I didn’t he would make more things up. So I ended up paying him $300 through a Square account.”
Like the Medium article, Bogaerts included screenshots of these emails in her 42-page document. In fact, Lestat’s Medium article cites word for word what Bogaerts wrote on page 17 of her 42-page document about receiving 100 emails and claiming that she “would have to prove” she didn’t sleep with Schoenberger. Here’s the screenshot she included to back up these statements:
At no point does Schoenberger ever say that she has to prove they didn’t have an affair. What he did say is that he’s going to prove they had an affair. Note that her only denial is that she didn’t sleep with him. On page 18 of the 42-page document, Bogaerts wrote, “Thread of emails stating that I had to prove I did not sleep with Mr. Schoenberger and him stating he would contact my husband.” These are the screenshots she used to back up those statements (click to enlarge):
At no point did Schoenberger accuse her of having sex with him and, again, he never says that she has to “prove” anything. She’s literally just making this shite up as she goes. Her responses to him include, “I did not sleep with you period,” “I never invited you to my room,” “I never slept with you,” and “We never had sex.” Right. Again, no one is accusing this woman of having sex with Schoenberger but she clearly wants you to believe that happened.
The issue at hand is whether or not they had a romantic relationship which obviously doesn’t have to include sex. I mean, unless people like Bogaerts and Bogaerts’ associate, Ray Johansen (who played the exact same game with me), want to explain to all the virgins out there waiting for marriage that they were never in a romantic relationship with their fiancés until they consummated the relationship on their wedding night. See how stupid Bogaerts and Johansen think you are? Not having sex doesn’t answer the affair question because it doesn’t clarify Bogaerts’ definition of an affair. Or Schoenberger’s, for that matter.
On page 19 of the 42-page document she admits that she paid him $300 dollars after he threatened to tell her husband about the alleged affair and a Valentine’s Day card she allegedly sent him which, if you’ve seen it, is indisputably romantic in nature. So rather than telling Schoenberger to go f*ck himself, she sent him more money. I don’t know about you but if I was innocent and someone threatened to tell my significant other that we had affair, I can assure you the last thing I would do is send money to the wacko threatening me and the first thing I would do is tell my husband and contact the cops.
In no way do I condone Schoenberger’s threats and it’s disgusting that anyone would try to extort someone over an alleged affair but it’s not like this hasn’t happened ten billion times in history where the third party gets upset or jealous and threatens to tell the significant other. My god, the Lifetime Movie channel was built entirely on this story line. Again, I’m not condoning what he said and did and I think his behavior was completely unacceptable but if she did indeed lead him on in some way, she knew this might happen.
Lemme put it this way, even if Schoenberger is the deranged psychopath everyone says he is, normal people who believe they were having an affair per their definition of what an affair consists of have done insane things after becoming jealous or upset that the other party cut it off or their feelings changed. Normal, everyday people. Although extortion is taking it way beyond what is unfortunately the norm—threatening to tell the spouse—this is why the term “crimes of passion” exists. Again, I’m not justifying the behavior but if Bogaerts sent the Valentine’s Day card to him, she’s no angel in this.
And apparently we shouldn’t be upset about the spouse because it appears no one else is either. I won’t even get into what multiple sources have told me about how Bogaerts portrayed him and their relationship to a myriad of other people, but I will say that even Ray Johansen claimed that he had some sort of sexting relationship with her (and may still) and her own friend, Jesselyn Radack, wasn’t even remotely concerned about her spouse during Johansen and Bogaerts’ sextcapades. Rather, it was the kids who were in the way. Stay classy, Jess.
And here’s the kicker: When I went public with what Johansen told me he had been doing with Bogaerts and included evidence for it in a document that was filed in Bogaerts’ case against Schoenberger (after she perjured herself about me), she didn’t attack him, call him a liar, or let us all know that she didn’t have sex with him like she’s done for years with Schoenberger. Rather, she attacked me claiming that I was somehow benefiting from going public about what happened during my relationship with Johansen because the pharmacy was out of refills and that’s a pretty good indication they’ve been (fill in the blank) together for awhile.
Johansen and Bogaerts also play the same games. They don’t deny what they’ve been accused of, they only deny what they haven’t been accused of. For instance, take these tweets:
I’ve never stated in the history of mankind that I was Johansen’s girlfriend (although he called me his girlfriend during a Zoom meeting with two other people), and yet that’s what he is denying in this tweet in order to social engineer you into thinking I’m lying that I had a relationship with him. I know now that the relationship was completely one-sided but, yes, a relationship nonetheless occurred regardless of him acting exactly like a spycop.
So now, note Bogaerts’ response. She’s responding to Johansen’s tweet which also states he’s never had a married girlfriend, which is in reference to Bogaerts. Again, no one has ever accused Johansen of having a married girlfriend nor has anyone ever accused Bogaerts of being his girlfriend. She doesn’t deny what Johansen actually said about her like sexting with him, her saying she “wants to f*ck him,” having her kids talk to him, and making travel plans to visit him, very much like how she hasn’t denied the Valentine’s Day card. She simply says she didn’t have sex with Schoenberger. See how this social engineering works on their Twitter audience, friends, and associates? Cute, eh?
I can’t say it enough times. You have to pay attention to what someone is actually saying—or denying.
There’s also the money trail and when it comes to this story that’s Bogaerts and Bogaerts alone. Not only did she send a shiz ton of money to Fitzgibbon and Schoenberger, she invested in Shadowbox, and allegedly paid other men, too. Or, she allegedly sent them “gifts” (i.e. money, computers) and my guess is that if the allegations are true, she does this in order to avoid the accusation that she’s paying them. I have long suspected that she also paid—sorry, sent “gifts” to Ray Johansen who wouldn’t answer the question when I asked him. Not that it matters, he’s a notorious liar.
The bottom line is if anyone else on the other side of this story was conducting themselves in a manner in which Bogaerts and her friends conduct themselves and that includes threats, perjury, intimidation, and defamation campaigns, they would be publicly crucified for it and their credibility destroyed. Oh wait, they’ve already spent at least the last year destroying reputations…of innocent people like myself.
So, if the Valentine’s Day card is legit, Bogaerts either led Schoenberger on or was initially interested in him and then changed her mind, the latter of which is perfectly normal and happens all the time so what’s the big deal? If it’s legit, her denials/ non-denials are just another host of lies she’s dragged out which has fueled years of stage 5 drama so I’m asking Bogaerts directly, “Did you send Schoenberger the Valentine’s Day card, or not?” I’m not asking if you had sex with him or what your definition of an affair is and I’m not even going to post the text messages you allegedly sent. I’m asking, “Did you send the card or not?” If you did, stop being embarrassed, own up to it, apologize for lying, and put an end to your forever online shit show. If you didn’t, then why haven’t you denied it? Or was this entire thing manufactured by Bogaerts and Schoenberger?
So What Happened to Vetter?
Right, so what happened to Vetter? We’ve never gotten an explanation as to what happened to Bogaerts’ Cicada guru, Mr. Vetter, and all we know is that she was still speaking to the account in late August 2017, and then at some point realized Vetter had changed the name of the account.
Did Vetter just fall off the face of the planet and Bogaerts never questioned where he went? Did she continue to communicate with the account up until the day she realized it might have been Schoenberger all along which I believe was sometime in 2018? I haven’t seen any communications between them from the end of August 2017 through early to mid-2018. I believe this means that in total we’ve only seen communications between Bogaerts and Vetter from June 24th, 2017 through August, 2017. Two months. That’s it.
Warning: Coffee is hot. Ten 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. That’s not a llama problem, that’s a you problem.
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 email@example.com with any questions or concerns.
This is an opinion piece about my own theories and viewpoint. You should research this story and events yourself and come to your own conclusions.
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.