The Rabbit Files 6.1: Shadowbox

After allegedly only knowing Thomas Schoenberger for approximately two weeks, on July 9, 2017, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) started to discuss with him the possibility of opening a PR firm called Shadowbox and it was this company that she claims was used as one of the vehicles to defraud her out of thousands of dollars…sort of. The company was initially designed as a PR warfare firm promising cyber-guerrilla tactics conducted by “an elite team of online specialists.” But according to Schoenberger, both he and Bogaerts were against starting a company that used these types of active measures.

Despite Bogaerts’ claims that she was pressured into starting the company by both Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon as a way to defraud her, leaked emails show her discussing the startup with other people and even offering to do research into other reputation firms in order to figure out what type of model they wanted to use for their company. 

Additionally, no communications seem to exist where Bogaerts objected to starting the company nor where Schoenberger and Fitzgibbon pressured or harassed her into doing so. In a 2018 interview, she even stated, “I was part of Shadowbox. I know exactly what happened…I thought it was something I thought could help people. All of us had been bullied online and we thought we could help.” Meanwhile, questionable amounts of money sent to Fitzgibbon and Bogaerts’ own wishy-washy stance on personal loans versus corporate investment makes her other claims even more dubious.

Bogaerts’ Investment in Shadowbox

In March 2020, Bogaerts filed a lawsuit against her former business partners and claimed that between July 2017 through November 2017, she made approximately 21 payments to Fitzgibbon totaling approximately $11,000. According to Bogaerts’ 2018 interview:

“They got $11,000 off of me because I was trying to help Fitzgibbon and his family and then he tried to discredit us, made us into the bad guys.”

And no, I’m not sure who “they” are because the only person who allegedly owes her $11,000 is Fitzgibbon. In the same interview, she told former Shadowbox member, Manny Chavez, “It was your ex-business partner [Fitzgibbon] who manipulated me for $11,000, remember that!” Right. So this seems to be Bogaerts’ usual M.O. where she tries to paint herself out of the story despite the indisputable fact that Fitzgibbon was also her ex-business partner. More:

Bogaerts: “Have you ever seen me take money from Shadowbox?”

Chavez: “No, you invested your money, that was your decision…You invested money which was your prerogative, correct?”

Bogaerts: “I didn’t want to, I just wanted you guys to do well.”

So she didn’t want to invest the $50K she claims to have lost which apparently included the $11,000 she says Fitzgibbon owes her, but she did it anyways because she wanted to see her friends do well—one of whom she had only known for two weeks before discussing starting a company. Now here’s what she said in court filings two years later:

“I have extended a total of Ten Thousand Eight-Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars and Ninety- Nine Cents ($10,899.99) towards Trevor Fitzgibbon as a personal loan.”

“On or about April 4, 2018, Mr. Fitzgibbon wrote an email to me and promised to repay me after he settled a separate lawsuit against a third party.”

After seemingly agreeing in the interview that the $11,000 was part of her investment in Shadowbox, the question is what did Mrs. Bogaerts consider personal loans versus her investment money? 

The Personal Loan Angle

According to Bogaerts’ initial complaint filed against Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, and Chavez in March 2020, she claimed that Fitzgibbon owed her $10,899.99 in loans and that “on or about April 4, 2018″ he agreed to repay her. In addition, a declaration she filed a few months later claimed that she extended “personal loans” to Fitzgibbon with the condition “to repay them upon my request or within a reasonable time.” 

She added that the “defendants” failed to reimburse her for registering the Cicada 3301 trademark which Fitzgibbon literally had nothing to do with. I can assure you, he wasn’t sitting around making puzzles about Pi or cryptography–like ever–and he left Shadowbox two years prior to her registering the trademark. This is merely another example of how Bogaerts and her associates conflate certain individuals with Bogaerts’ personal and professional problems with Schoenberger. As for the April 4, 2018 email where Fitzgibbon “promised to repay her”:

First, this is a screenshot from one of Bogaerts’ declaration in the lawsuit she filed. In the 42-page document she wrote before the lawsuit, she added a different heading to this screenshot which read, “Trevor Fitzgibbon used me and my respect of Mr. Assange to gain money,” which, trust me, we’re getting to in the next article or so. Obviously she changed the heading completely for court (above) and wrote, “…stating he would in fact pay me back after his settlement in a separate lawsuit with third party Jesselyn Radack.”

There’s a few things that are a bit comical about this. Trevor Fitzgibbon didn’t file his lawsuit against Radack until April 13, 2018, over a week after this email exchange between Bogaerts and Fitzgibbon. This means that there was no guarantee Radack was going to settle the case rather than face a jury trial when he wrote that he could “likely” repay Bogaerts after the case. The point being is what exactly would Bogaerts be arguing in court today if Fitzgibbon had never filed the case in the first place?

What everyone also failed to notice is that if there was anyone besides Fitzgibbon who had a financial interest in Radack “losing” the case and settling, it was Bogaerts and it’s slightly amusing in a disturbing kind of way that she’s so upset she didn’t get paid out from her own friend’s massive financial losses. Additionally, she’s the one who leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit to Radack’s associates like Ray Johansen (who recently changed his Twitter handle for the 99,876th time since the Rabbit Files started being published), so she tried to sabotage his case while still wanting to collect money from it. Okay dokey…

In addition to the headline Bogaerts added in her 42-page document about Fitzgibbon manipulating her using Assange, she also wrote underneath the email exchange, “Trevor admitting that he would pay me back,” meaning at no point prior to this email did she have any sort of agreement with him otherwise why would anyone say that? 

What I mean is that if you have a loan agreement with someone, they don’t “admit” that they’ll pay you back, they “already agreed” to pay you back. If Bogaerts had any sort of agreement with him that was signed or agreed upon prior to her dispersing funds to him why didn’t she supply the court with it? There doesn’t appear to be any sort of contract for her investment in Shadowbox either. 

And it’s not like Bogaerts was under the impression that Fitzgibbon could pay her back any time soon because she was well aware of his acute financial situation. Even Bogaerts’ associate, attorney Jesselyn Radack, has made at least one comment that she was aware of Fitzgibbon “living in his car” at one point. You know, the same guy that Radack, Bogaerts, and their friend, Ray Johansen, apparently believe has taken over WikiLeaks, the entire support community, and even Julian Assange’s brain, all from the bunker of his GMC war room.

Going back to the email, Fitzgibbon told her that he would repay Bogaerts “as I am able to earn it,” again, stating that that would “likely” be from the Radack suit (if she ended up settling), but this in no way reflects any prior agreement between the two parties either or that he promised to repay her “upon Plaintiff’s request or within a reasonable time.” In fact, this email is the only shred of evidence Bogaerts has ever produced that shows her demanding repayment and him stating he would repay her.

In no way am I suggesting that Fitzgibbon doesn’t owe her any money because I believe that he does, just not anywhere close to the amount she’s claiming which we’ll be revisiting in the next article. And I have to wonder if her lack of evidence is because she repeatedly told him in previous communications that he didn’t have to pay her back, you know, until she got mad at him four months prior—kinda like how she allegedly told Shadowbox members that she didn’t want to get paid by the company and then she sued all of them three years later.

As a fun side note, you’ll notice that Bogaerts told Fitzgibbon she would take $1500 off her “bill,” just in case any of it was from Shadowbox but if you look at the total sum she claims Fitzgibbon owes her, she didn’t. So she gets to hold Fitzgibbon to his “I can likely pay you back from the Radack case” but she herself couldn’t stick to her own word.

At the end of the day, the question is whether or not Bogaerts extended personal loans or was the money she paid Fitzgibbon part of her investment in Shadowbox and/or its co-founders? She can’t have it both ways although she’s seems to be trying. The other question is what happened to all the money Shadowbox made and is Bogaerts now trying to collect from Fitzgibbon money earned through the company under the guise they were “personal loans”?

Disclaimer: May cause drowsiness. Ten 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 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.

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

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.

Leave a Reply