I’ve been getting some feedback about the Rabbit Files and I realize that each article is fairly lengthy and a bit of a deep dive as they say. It’s unfortunate that this story is so convoluted that it requires lengthy articles but I am going to try and break them up into smaller parts. I will also be posting a summary of each Rabbit File so that should be available soon.
As for where we are now in the story, I noted previously that there are two male figures that a small group of individuals, including attorney, Jesselyn Radack, have deemed of such godlike quality that they are now controlling Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, every female on the planet that doesn’t want to sleep with Radack’s associate, Ray Johansen, and pretty much the rest of humanity. Who are these two men, you ask? Thomas Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon, of course.
Some of you have probably never heard of them but make no mistake, you should hide your children as if the Russians were coming because urban legend has it that they can Jedi mind control you, your children, and your entire community if you don’t take the proper precautions. And yes, I’m kidding, but for a small group of people who are obsessed with them, I think they believe that these two men have infiltrated just about every facet of life as we know it.
Associates of Radack, Johansen (@NorwayAn0n), and Beth Bogaerts’ (@HumanOfMind) like @ATafoyovsky also believe that Schoenberger is the mastermind behind Qanon and Bogaerts herself has made a wide-range of serious accusations against Trevor Fitzgibbon while simultaneously failing to provide evidence for a large majority of her allegations. Johansen is so obsessed with Fitzgibbon that he recently threatened me with prison (lol wut?) in the hopes of scaring me into framing the guy for documented lies and threats Johansen himself made previously and that I’ve been publicly speaking out against.
This isn’t the first time Johansen has threatened myself and other activists and journalists but to be so desperate to bring down a PR guy who was already brought down over five years ago that you have to blackmail and threaten women? Bizarre is putting it mildly. But before we get into the Fitzgibbon v. Radack cases which seems to be one of the driving forces behind Johansen’s rabid, threatening behavior we’re going to look at how Fitzgibbon met Bogaerts and then in subsequent articles how she’s portrayed him and the situation over the years. Simply put, it has been Bogaerts, Radack, and Johansen who have single-handedly kept their obsession over Fitzgibbon alive for all of these years, dragging activists into their drama, which has led to chaos, increased division, large-scale propaganda and defamation campaigns, and social engineering within the Assange and WikiLeaks support community.
How Did Bogaerts Meet Fitzgibbon?
According to court documents submitted by Bogaerts, she met Fitzgibbon in December 2016, but I am not aware of anyone who has seen communications between the two parties during this time period. She also stated that she met Fitzgibbon at the same time as Schoenberger who was allegedly hiding behind a Twitter sock account called “Vetter,” at the time. As for multiple sources that I’ve spoken with, they claim that Bogaerts met Vetter first and then she introduced Vetter to Fitzgibbon (none of them provided any evidence for this). Emails also show that Bogaerts met Schoenberger (as himself, not Vetter) before Fitzgibbon did. From documents that Bogaerts either wrote herself or filed in court:
“In late 2016 I had two accounts reach out to me via Twitter. The first, was a man by the name Trevor Fitzgibbon who told me he was the ex-PR guy for Wikileaks/Assange and that he was targeted for his affiliation with these organizations which I later learned was not completely true. At the same time another individual, ‘Vetter’ reached out to me by way of Dms. I did not know at the time but the ‘Vetter’ account was in fact Mr. Thomas Schoenberger.”
— Medium article that Bogaerts allegedly wrote and was published by @ATafoyovsky
“Since the first time I met Trevor he was on disposable sock accounts. Sometimes keeping small ones up because he would forget the password, a liability to having so many. Quietly slipping into peoples DMs as he did to me, coupling himself with Wikileaks to gain trust and support…”
— Medium article Bogaerts allegedly wrote and was published by Ray Johansen
“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
So according to Bogaerts, Fitzgibbon “quietly slipped” into her Twitter DMs on or around December 15, 2016, but she’s never backed up these statements with any evidence. She also said that Fitzgibbon initially reached out to her using the sock account @Torlife101 but as I pointed out in The Rabbit Files 5.1:
“Bogaerts also told me personally that [Fitzgibbon] first approached her using the Twitter account @torlife101, which appears to have been created sometime in 2016. But Twitter records show that the first tweets between @torlife101 and Bogaerts weren’t until March 20, 2017, unless, of course, she deleted her tweets as she is known to be a serial tweet deleter.”
“The @torlife101 account no longer exists so Fitzgibbon’s tweets aren’t available but anything Bogaerts tweeted to @torlife101 should still be online unless deletion occurred…And why would you delete your own tweets involving conversations you had with someone you have now accused for over three years of harassing you? Wouldn’t you save that shiz for the authorities, court, and your Twitter audience?”
Worse, 18 months ago—only seven months prior to filing her initial complaint against Fitzgibbon—Bogaerts said that she was only “guessing” about when she met him so let’s hope she’s gotten all her emails, messages, and screenshots in a row because nothing says trustworthy like stating something in court documents that you literally just pulled out of your arse.
Bogaerts’ statements in court also make it sound like Fitzgibbon and Schoenberger reached out to her around the same time, if not the same day, at which time she was offered to enter into a mutually-beneficial transaction. But despite how the initial complaint reads, Bogaerts and Schoenberger supposedly didn’t start discussing a new company until July 9, 2017, almost six months after she claims she met these two men.
She also wasn’t “offered” anything. Schoenberger suggested that they start a PR firm because as he put it he felt that he himself, Bogaerts, and Fitzgibbon were talented enough to start a company that could help people who were being targeted online. But Bogaerts now claims that both Fitzgibbon and Schoenberger pressured her into starting a company despite the fact that there is literally no evidence to suggest this happened and most of the things that Schoenberger has said or done to Mrs. Bogaerts, she now conflates with Fitzgibbon.
And I’m not sure how any of this was mutually beneficial to Bogaerts who agreed to shell out investment money for the company but then according to a 2018 interview, she said she didn’t take a dime from the company which would have included approximately $25K-$35K in earnings. After deliberately turning down payments which she appears to have been rightfully due, she turned around and sued all of her former business partners three years later. But we’re not even there yet.
So no, this story isn’t about two guys who showed up together one day in December 2016 with some sort of corporate offering. Far from it.
Who Really Met Who First?
Bogaerts Tweeting With “Vetter” in August 2016
Bogaerts has repeatedly made it seem like the Vetter account and Fitzgibbon reached out to her at the same time in December 2016, but as I reported previously, Bogaerts and the Vetter account were tweeting to each other almost four months prior. In fact, it appears that she has only released screenshots of her interactions with Vetter from a time period of approximately a month and a half during the summer of 2017.
Bogaerts Met “Vetter” During the 2016 Election
Additionally, Bogaerts sent journalist/blogger Steve Outtrim a message stating that she met the Vetter account “during the election bc of my WikiLeaks,” so why did she claim in court documents that she didn’t meet Vetter until December 15, 2016, over a month after the 2016 U.S. election, and after her own tweets seemed to suggest that.
Because she didn’t actually do that.
What Bogaerts technically stated in her initial complaint was that she met Schoenberger in December 2016. She didn’t state that she met Schoenberger while he was pretending to be “Vetter,” and to be honest I’m not aware of any court filings where Bogaerts stated that Schoenberger was behind the Vetter account and that he manipulated her using it. Maybe someone can point me to those documents because as of now the only thing I see in her filings and declarations made under oath is that she met Schoenberger as Schoenberger in December 2016.
And as I’ve noted repeatedly, at no time has Bogaerts ever stated that “on or around” December 15, 2016 was the FIRST TIME she met Schoenberger and/or Vetter. Why is that a big deal? Because I personally believe that this entire thing was manufactured.
Bogaerts “Meets” Schoenberger via Facebook
Around June 24, 2017, the Vetter account told Bogaerts that Schoenberger was going to reach out to her personally because of the backlash she was receiving after the whole White Rabbit “Who spoofed the Seth Rich files” incident. Remember, she claims that she still thought that Vetter and Schoenberger were two entirely different people at this point. So the following day Schoenberger sent her a Facebook message and this is the moment she says she “met” Schoenberger as himself:
The message was sent to her on June 25th at 12:52 a.m. Although Bogaerts claims that this was (the first time?) he reached out to her, on June 24th at 10:12:37 p.m., she left a comment on his Youtube channel stating, “Nice to finally meet you,” almost three hours prior to his Facebook message.
This could very well be a timezone issue but if it’s not it shows that she “met” Schoenberger earlier than she claims she did. If it is a timezone issue and Schoenberger did indeed reach out via Facebook before the Youtube comment, it shows that Schoenberger and Bogaerts initially talked about more than him just protecting her from some sort of ludicrous accusations that Trish Negron, who is in no way a hacker but rather an independent journalist, was going to hack Bogaerts e.g. he told her about his Sophia Musik/Cicada 3301 Youtube channel potentially within the first 40 minutes of meeting. That, or the Vetter account told her about the Youtube channel previously.
Bogaerts Met Schoenberger Before Fitzgibbon Did
More importantly, when you compare the Facebook message and Youtube comment with an email that shows when Fitzgibbon met Schoenberger (as Schoenberger) for the first time, it shows that Bogaerts knew Schoenberger almost two weeks before Fitzgibbon met him, not the other way around.
So many things going on with this. First, the date of the email shows that Fitzgibbon met Schoenberger (as himself) on July 7, 2017, well after Bogaerts met him. Second, notice who was asking for advice versus who was talking about exposing Jesselyn Radack on the dark web and “we have connections to influencers” who can help.
I also couldn’t help but notice that Schoenberger brought up Embassy Cat or “EmCat,” stating that the account was served well by Fitzgibbon. I have no idea what this comment means and when I asked Schoenberger about it he gave me three different answers. What’s interesting about Embassy Cat (@EmbassyCat) is that it’s a Twitter which portrayed itself as being close with Assange and is allegedly run by, or was run by Bogaert’s associate, Ray Johansen. That is, according to Johansen himself. Three months prior to this email, Bogaerts publicly asked Twitter to restore the @AnonIntelGroup account, an Anonymous group that included members like Johansen. Bogaerts also appeared to call the group’s members “amazing friends.”
As I’ve noted previously, I also believe that Johansen is either a close associate or one of the actual administrators behind the Anonymous Scandinavia account (the new one and the old one). After having their first account suspiciously suspended in February (I say “suspiciously” because it obviously deleted all of their tweets from public view), Anonymous Scandinavia returned a week or so ago with a new account and a video asking that people become their personal snitches by uploading documents directly from their own computer or phone to Anonymous Scandinavia’s unsecure “Embassy Cat” website.
The basis for their request was that individuals had pretended to be affiliated with them after their account was suspended but it doesn’t appear that that actually happened. What the video appears to be about is the Vetter account who told Bogaerts over three years ago that Schoenberger was running the Anonymous Scandinavia account. Bogaerts is currently being countersued by Fitzgibbon and Anonymous Scandinavia’s video request came only days before their last court date.
Anonymous Scandinavia also used the anniversary date when Ecuador cut Assange’s communications on March 27, 2018, as the opening to their video in order to get Assange supporters to retweet the snitch request. I reached out to WikiLeaks for comment about an Anonymous account encouraging people to upload documents to an unsecure server using Assange’s name to do it but they didn’t respond to my request.
At the end of the day, Bogaerts has failed time and time again to produce much of anything to back up her narrative that Fitzgibbon colluded with others to pressure her into starting a company in order to steal her money despite throwing around some serious allegations against him for years. If Fitzgibbon is the monster that Bogaerts has made him out to be then it shouldn’t be that hard to come up with some solid proof and yet:
- Bogaerts has never provided any evidence that Fitzgibbon and Vetter knew each other before her nor has she provided any evidence as to how Fitzgibbon met the Vetter account
- Bogaerts has never provided any evidence that Fitzgibbon was communicating with the Vetter account before she did
- Bogaerts has never provided any evidence that shows she met Fitzgibbon “on or around December 15, 2016”
- Bogaerts has never provided any evidence that Fitzgibbon and Vetter and/or Schoenberger colluded to contact her initially or to start a company approximately six months later
- Bogaerts’ own evidence shows that she met Schoenberger before Fitzgibbon did
Warning: Scrubbing Bubbles® is not a body wash. 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.
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 jimmysllama@protonmail.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.
Post Disclaimer
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 jimmysllama@protonmail.com 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.