The Rabbit Files 6.2: Shadowbox Earnings and Payouts

In the last Rabbit Files, we looked at Beth Bogaerts’ (@humanofmind) allegations that she was pressured into starting a PR firm called Shadowbox with Trevor Fitzgibbon and Thomas Schoenberger (debunked), her failure to produce any evidence that she had a loan agreement with Fitzgibbon, and her disparate views about the money she dispersed to him throughout mid- to late 2017. According to Bogaerts’ own court exhibits, between July 2017 through November 2017, she sent him approximately 21 payments and now claims that he manipulated and stole $11,000 from her via “personal loans.”

Aside from the question of whether or not some of these payments were actually part of Bogaerts’ investment in Shadowbox, after examining the exhibits it’s highly questionable that Fitzgibbon owes her this sum of money. I’m not saying he doesn’t owe her anything (I think he does) but almost half of what she claims she sent him under the personal loans-Mother Theresa defense, “I was just trying to help his family,” actually appears to have come from fees paid by Shadowbox’s clients.

Additionally, none of the payments nor any of Bogaerts’ exhibits reflect any sort of loan or financial agreement between the two parties. For example, in one conversation between the two of them:

So listen, I don’t give a rat’s arse if you don’t like Fitzgibbon, I mean, he still retweets Suzie Dawson and it makes me cringe all the way to Sunday that anyone would still promote such a compulsive liar who has fraudulently stolen a shiz ton of money from naive supporters and called everyone and their mother a JTRIG agent, but just because you don’t like him doesn’t give you the right to lie about non-existent loan agreements.

These messages regarding a whopping $35 that Fitzgibbon asked for so he would have a place to stay that night in no way reflect a loan agreement and when she joked around with him initially he literally said “Ok,” “No worries,” and apologized. Wow, what a monster. How in the world did Bogaerts survive this kind of financial pressure? Worse, between July 21st and August 11th, she sent him seven out of the 21 payments, four of which she attached the below notations:

“For fun”

“For ❤️”

“For fun” [a second time]

“For ;)”

After the first “for fun” payment she sent him, Fitzgibbon messaged her, “You are so nice, thank you so much, this totally helps me for today,” and she responded, “No worries ❤️.” These four payments totaled $625 and it is beyond absurd that anyone would try to argue that monies sent with “love” emojis attached to them, no indication they were loans, along with messages that said, “No worries,” were part of some prior loan agreement.

Somewhere in her court documents, Bogaerts also argued that after sending money to Fitzgibbon to stay at a hostel for the night, the “rest of the Personal Loans” she gave him allegedly followed “the same deceitful pattern,” and I literally have no idea what this woman is talking about. Did Fitzgibbon not stay in an airbnb or hostel that night? Was he lying about his financial situation because Bogaerts’ own associate, Jesselyn Radack, claimed that Fitzgibbon was living in his car at times during this period. So what exactly was the deceitful pattern?

The only thing Bogaerts used to back up this statement in court was Manny Chavez who acted as her witness that Fitzgibbon said he would repay these alleged “personal loans.” This takes us back to The Rabbit Files 6.1 and the April 4, 2018 email between her and Fitzgibbon, the only shred of evidence she’s ever produced about these so-called personal loans and repayment. This is also the very circular email she used to back up Chavez’ statements which were used to back up her own statements. It’s also the first time we’ve ever seen her call the money she dispersed to Fitzgibbon as “personal loans.” In court documents, she also wrote:

“I made the Personal Loans with the condition to repay them upon my request or within a reasonable time.” 

“With the condition to repay them upon my request or within a reasonable time”? I call utter and complete bullshite that this woman ever had this sort of loan agreement with Fitzgibbon and I think she probably told him “no worries” about paying her back more often than we think hence the reason why she cut off all of her text messages with him before submitting them to court.

And then there’s the PR firm, Shadowbox, and money the company earned from clients like Ed Butowsky and Bo Dietl. Again, after examining her own court exhibits, I personally believe that Bogaerts is trying to recoup money she paid out to Fitzgibbon that was part of what was owed to him from Shadowbox under the guise they were “personal loans.”

Shadowbox Earnings and Payouts

Although Bogaerts has made statements to the effect that Shadowbox didn’t last very long and they literally did nothing for their clients, a confession that shockingly hasn’t gotten them sued, the company made at least $25,000-$35,000 via two clients: Texas financier, Ed Butowsky, and New York politician, Bo Dietl, both of whom were acquired solely because of Fitzgibbon’s contacts.

ED BUTOWSKY

In early August 2017, Shadowbox landed Ed Butowsky as their first client. He allegedly paid at least $20,000 in client fees which was then divvied up between three members of the company with approximately $5,000 left over. On August 20th, Schoenberger told Manny Chavez to pay Fitzgibbon $500, adding that “we” already took care of him “on our end.” I’m assuming by “we” he was referring to Bogaerts.

Four days later, he wrote to Chavez again, “Hey, can you get that money to Beth [Bogaerts]? She carried Trev [Fitzgibbon] since last week…Would deeply appreciate it brother.”

Schoenberger also told Chavez that out of the money Butowsky paid Shadowbox, Chavez got $5,000; he himself got $4,000 with another 1K owed to him; and Fitzgibbon got $2500. Later in the day, he wrote, “Thats not how we are doing this bro. I brought you in, I was forming this since 2013…You only needed to do 500 tops to trevor [Fitzgibbon], which I did too.”

I find it super weird that Fitzgibbon ended up getting paid 50% less than Schoenberger and Chavez, especially since he’s the one who brought the client in. But based on payments that Bogaerts sent to Fitzgibbon during this exact same time period (and per her own court exhibits), I believe he was paid $5,000, as well. Here are the payments she made to him between August 11th through August 29th:

August 11th: $225
August 18th: $1,000
August 18th: $2,000
August 19th: $2,000

*August 20th: Schoenberger’s message to Chavez to send Fitzgibbon $500
August 21st: $500
*August 24th: Schoenberger’s messages about what everyone got paid from Butowsky; telling Chavez he only had to do $500 tops with Fitzgibbon; send money to Bogaerts
August 29th: $250

Bogaerts sent Fitzgibbon exactly $5,000 over approximately a 24-hour period and within a day of Schoenberger telling Chavez that they both got paid $5K out of Butowsky’s fees. So yeah. I don’t know about you but it sure AF looks like Fitzgibbon got paid $5K as well, which was owed to him from Shadowbox and paid out by Bogaerts who is now characterizing it as “personal loans.”

There’s also the $500 and $250 payments which appears to be tied to Schoenberger telling Chavez to pay Fitzgibbon $500 after “we” already took care of him “on our end.” The bottom line is that if the $5,000 payment from Bogaerts originally came from Shadowbox then she lied in court (again) by maliciously trying to paint Shadowbox earnings as “personal loans” she extended to Fitzgibbon. And it doesn’t appear that she made any effort to get repaid for these alleged personal loans like, “Hey, do you mind if I keep $100 or $200 or even $50 out of the Butowsky funds owed to you in order to start paying me back?”

BO DIETL CAMPAIGN

Shadowbox was also paid for the work that Fitzgibbon and Chavez did for Bo Dietl’s New York mayoral campaign against Bill De Blasio. I have no idea how much the company was paid but I’ve heard numbers ranging from $5K – $15K. What I do know is that they were paid something. I’m assuming the work took place sometime in October or November 2017, and I’ve listed the payments that Bogaerts sent to Fitzgibbon during that time period, again, according to her own court exhibits. Please note that November 29th appears to be the last payment she sent him.

October 12th: $500
October 17th: $50
October 17th: $50 *Fitzgibbon and Chavez
October 30th: $500.37
November 15th: $329.63 *phone bill
November 17th: $250
November 29th: $250

Bogaerts’ notations on two of the payments indicate that one payment was for both Fitzgibbon and Chavez, and the other was for Fitzgibbon’s phone bill which seems like something Bogaerts could reasonably argue he owes her. That leaves us with approximately $1500.

Was any of that $1500 from the Bo Dietl campaign and if not, then who paid Fitzgibbon for the work he did on that? And if he didn’t get paid, why not and who got his cut of the money? And did they stay in a hotel when they traveled to New York for the campaign and if so, who paid the tab? Did Shadowbox pick that up, were they reimbursed? Late September – early October was also after Shadowbox had their meeting at Ed Butowsky’s home. Did he pay them any more money after the meeting? If so, how much and who dispersed the funds?

The very next day after Bogaerts sent Fitzgibbon that $500 on October 12th, Schoenberger told Chavez that he sent him $1500 for “ops” and that more was coming.

So between the $500 that Bogaerts sent and $1500 that Chavez received, where did this $2,000 come from? Bo Dietl? Butowsky? Here’s the thing: In her complaint, Bogaerts only sued Chavez for $499.12, and yet here he is receiving at least $1500 dollars (with more coming) that no one considered a “personal loan,” at the exact same time Bogaerts paid Fitzgibbon $500, which she did consider a personal loan.

Who Controlled the Money?

The big question is who controlled Shadowbox’s money because of course it’s always possible that someone else was paying Fitzgibbon the money that came in from Butowsky and Dietl. The only thing I can tell you is that in Bogaerts’ April 4, 2017 email where she demands repayment from Fitzgibbon, she stated:

“…with Ed [Butowsky] I need to check with another bank account that I had transferred all the money to pay Manny. I didn’t pay anything from my UBS account.”

Clearly she had at least one account, if not two, that she used to control at least some of Shadowbox’s funds. Then there’s an alleged Gmail thread from June 17, 2018, where Bogaerts’ associate, @ATafoyovsky, mentions that Bogaerts was paying him $100 a week (nope, she never sued him for “personal loans”) and Schoenberger tells him that he’ll get paid another $100 via Beth “as I did on the 1st.”

IF these emails are legitimate and although they’re about the Cicada 3301, it appears that Bogaerts was acting as some sort of banker for the puzzle, as well. It also appears that she was paying “Lestat” weekly. As a side note, the emails are from June 2018 and maybe someone should ask Bogaerts if she already knew that Schoenberger might have been behind the Vetter Twitter account by this point but still continued to work with him.

Going back to 2017, messages from early September also show Schoenberger telling Chavez that Bogaerts “already cleared it” for Chavez to “dip into” the money. The following day he stated in a private Twitter group that included Chavez and Bogaerts, “He [Manny] is low on cash, Beth, can we each pay Manny 75 bucks via paypal…Manny needs money now, and he can dip into Shadowfunds.” Both of these conversation also seem to indicate that Bogaerts either controlled Shadowbox’ funds and/or everyone needed her permission to spend the funds.

Why You No Get Paid?

So the weirdest part about this story is the fact that Bogaerts was the sole investor in Shadowbox, meaning she IS the money trail, and yet she apparently never got paid from any monies earned by Shadowbox…and it was allegedly her choice.

This seems especially odd since she herself said that she lost $50K while admitting that she controlled at least some of the money. In a 2018 interview she stated that she never took a dime from the company and in her April 4, 2017 email she told Fitzgibbon, “You know I was never paid anything for either of those campaigns [Butowsky and Diel].” 

—–> Full 2018 interview with Bogaerts, Chavez, and @ATafoyovksy via Lift the Veil (LTV) <—–

It would seem that part of the money that came in was rightfully due to her so this is probably one of the most bizarre parts of this story. And sure, maybe Bogaerts was trying to be nice but if that’s the case, it means that her feigned kindness comes with the condition that you don’t cross her or have a falling out with her because if you do that generosity just turned into personal loans.

Take for example the April 2018 email where she demanded that Fitzgibbon repay her (likely for the first time). A month later, she did the interview (above) in which she agreed that the $11,000 he owed her was an investment in Shadowbox. Then, a year later—and only ten months before she filed a lawsuit against Fitzgibbon—she not only said that she only “counted up” what he owed her because she believed he “attacked” her online, she stated a week later that she didn’t even want her money back…

…because if she did, she said she would just file a lawsuit. And just like that, less than a year later and two months after her associate, Ray Johansen, suggested that she should sue everyone, Bogaerts suddenly decided that she was interested in her Shadowbox investment from three years prior. 

In case you missed it, Ray Johansen has changed his handle and Twitter name multiple times now since I started publishing The Rabbit Files. He used to be @RayJoha2, then @NorwayAnon, then @justray111, and now @justray1111

We’ll be revisiting Bogaerts’ claims that Fitzgibbon “attacked” her and the evidence, or lack thereof, that she’s produced for those allegations, as well. The bottom line here is that Bogaerts could have easily tried to recoup some of her investment and/or money from Fitzgibbon and she literally chose not to, choosing instead to sue everyone three years later.

DisclaimerDo not drive or operate heavy machinery while using this product. 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 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.

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.

Liked it? Take a second to support Jimmysllama on Patreon!
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.

Leave a Reply