The Rabbit Files 7.0: File Summaries

White Rabbit and the “Seth Rich Files”

RABBIT FILES 1.0:
Who Spoofed the Seth Rich Files

According to independent journalist, Trish Negron, sometime in May 2017, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) started peddling files her associate, White Rabbit, previously downloaded off the internet to former CBS correspondent, Lara Logan, her husband, and Negron under the guise they might be the Seth Rich files. On or before June 1, 2017, Bogaerts then introduced Negron to White Rabbit in order for Negron to obtain the files. The files were actually the 7dc58-ngp-van.7z files originally released via a September 13, 2016 Future of Cyber Security Europe conference in a PowerPoint presentation allegedly submitted by Guccifer 2.

Bogaerts’ associate, @AnonScandinavia (previously known as @AnonScan), appeared as the conference’s keynote speaker in both 2018 and 2019. The Anonymous account is believed by some, including myself, to be administered by or a close associate of Bogaerts’ other associate, Ray Johansen.

After White Rabbit gave Negron a thumb drive that contained the files, Jason Goodman and Negron stated on live stream that they had the “Seth Rich files” based on what White Rabbit told them. However, after the livestream Bogaerts and others publicly defamed them for saying this and then spent years claiming that White Rabbit never told them they were the Seth Rich files.

A week or two after the incident, Negron and Goodman published a video in which Negron alleged that Bogaerts also told her that the files pertained to Seth Rich; Bogaerts was the one trying to peddle the files to different people; Bogaerts asked her to help Trevor Fitzgibbon so Negron got him an interview with Webb and Goodman; and Bogaerts is the one who introduced Negron to White Rabbit specifically to obtain the thumb drive.

In a 2018 interview with Nathan Stopleman (Lift the Veil), White Rabbit claimed that these so-called “Seth Rich files” were released before Rich’s death. No evidence suggests this happened unless he was working directly with Guccifer 2, the alleged source of the files.

Another associate of Bogaerts, @ATafoyovsky, is now trying to push the false narrative that Bogaerts’ former Shadowbox member, Manny Chavez, was the source of the “Seth Rich files.” However, White Rabbit himself and Bogaerts both admitted that Rabbit downloaded the files himself off the internet and eventually gave them to Negron.

RABBIT FILES 1.1:
Stunning Leaked Messages Between White Rabbit and Trish

Approximately ten days after the White Rabbit thumb drive incident, Jason Goodman’s Crowdsource the Truth released stunning text messages between Trish Negron and White Rabbit that show White Rabbit indeed tried to pawn the files off to Negron under the guise they were the Seth Rich files. At the time that these messages were leaked either no one cared or no one noticed. Luckily, after I published the The Rabbit Files 1.0, a Twitter user brought the leaked messages to everyone’s attention.

Six months prior to White Rabbit giving Negron the thumb drive, Julian Assange’s associate, Craig Murray, told the Daily Mail that he picked up a thumb drive in Washington D.C. that contained the DNC emails.

The text messages also show that White Rabbit privately acted as if he wasn’t concerned or upset that Negron, Webb, and Goodman told their audience the files were from Seth Rich. In fact, a week after the incident he himself was still calling them the Seth Rich files. At no point did he try to correct Negron nor did he tell her that the files were old and fairly insignificant. On the contrary, he kept pushing the files’ importance.

Meanwhile, in the public view, Bogaerts defamed Negron and Goodman and even shut down one of her Twitter sock accounts that she was letting Negron use. This was happening while White Rabbit was privately telling Negron that Bogaerts was upset at first that Negron received the files who then gave them to Webb and Goodman, but then he said she was okay with it after having a moment of hysteria. But both publicly and privately Bogaerts continued to drag people into her drama. Negron was completely baffled over Bogaerts’ behavior especially since Bogaerts was the one who had peddled the files in the first place. 

The Twitter account “Vetter,” who Bogaerts (and virtually everyone else) claims was really Thomas Schoenberger, also shows up in the text messages proving that the account was in contact with Bogaerts and White Rabbit at the time of the White Rabbit scandal. 

I can’t emphasize enough how bizarre some of these messages are and how much shite White Rabbit tried to sell to Negron. At one point he told her it must have been Google that “spoofed” the files and he was clearly was trying to social engineer her throughout the messages. He also told her that he was invited to join Cicada 3301, and that those behind the puzzle, which allegedly included members like Schoenberger and Bogaerts, would protect her. 

2016 Leaks, Hacks, DCLeaks.com, Guccifer 2, Shadowbrokers, and the .7z Files

RABBIT FILES 2.0:
Russian Hackers, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2

In February 2016, an online persona called “Alice Donovan,” who the U.S. government would later claim was the GRU, started submitting plagiarized stories to independent media. In March, Podesta became the target of a spear-phishing campaign. In April, the DNC and DCCC were allegedly hacked. On June 8th, the website DCLeaks.com went live and started publishing attachments found in the Podesta emails.

*Note: I didn’t write this in the article because I didn’t realize at the time but I think it’s an important distinction: Publishing attachments to emails is different than publishing the emails themselves because it doesn’t prove that, say, DCLeaks.com had access to Podesta’s emails. It means that someone had access to documents that were attached to his emails. For tech noobs like me think of it this way: Let’s say I have a rough draft of this post on my computer and I email a friend the rough draft as an attachment. Someone can hack into my system, find the rough draft, and publish it OR they can hack into my emails, find it as an attachment I sent in an email and publish it.

On June 9th, 2016, Cassandra Ford opened a twitter account called Guccifer 2 but she maintains she didn’t change the handle name to G2 until after G2 showed up. On June 12th, Assange announced that they had more material to publish and on June 14th, the Washington Post (and Crowdstrike) announced the DNC was hacked. This, despite the fact that DCLeaks.com was already publishing attachments found in Podesta’s emails, and the one document Washington Post cited as stolen that was released by Guccifer 2 the next day was also found in the Podesta emails. On June 15th, Guccifer 2 appeared claiming responsibility for the hack and publishing the Trump Opposition file. Multiple social media accounts were created during this time period:

  • April 19, 2016: DCLeaks.com
  • May 2016: Alice Donovan Twitter account @_alicedonovan_
  • Date unknown, earliest tweet to them is June 2, 2016: @baltimoreiswhr 
  • June 8, 2016: DCLeaks Facebook page
  • June 8, 2016: @dcleaks_
  • June 15, 2016: Guccifer 2’s WordPress
  • June 9/15th: @guccifer2 
  • June 20, 2016: @GUCCIFER_2
  • Date unknown: @dcleaks
  • Date unknown: Alice Donovan Facebook account

Accounts NOT mentioned in the Mueller report:

  • The Alice Donovan Twitter account @_alicedonovan_ despite Mueller claiming that the Russians were behind the persona and that the account spoke directly with at least one media outlet regarding plagiarized work they had submitted to them
  • The @dcleaks Twitter account (without the underscore)
  • Guccifer 2 WordPress
  • Note: Mueller also never mentioned the .7z files White Rabbit later gave Negron that were released via link and password at a 2016 cyber conference

According to Mueller, the @baltimoreiswhr Twitter account (allegedly tied to the “Alison Donovon” persona) was linked to the second DC Leaks Twitter account @dcleaks_ via the same computer. Mueller never tied these account to spear-phishing or hacking.

An Alice Donovan Facebook page was tied to a DCLeaks Facebook page. Mueller never tied these two accounts to spear-phishing or hacking.

Mueller tied the DCLeaks.com (the website) and the second @GUCCIFER_2 Twitter account to Russian bitcoin operations, a URL-shortening link used to spear-phish Podesta, a Malaysian server used to host DCLeaks.com, and a VPN used to log into the GUCCIFER_2 Twitter account. Mueller never mentioned that the DCLeaks.com website was hosted by a whistleblower-friendly, Icelandic company BEFORE moving to a Malaysian server. 

Mueller didn’t actually link Russian bitcoin operations to DNC/DCCC hacking, he basically just said that he did. We don’t have any definitive proof. The only thing that ties any of the above to hacking (hacking, not spear-phishing) is a domain called linuxkrnl.net which, so far, has been debunked by ClimateAudit.

RABBIT FILES 3.0:
In the Shadow of Brokers

On August 13, 2016, both the Guccifer 2 Twitter account and WordPress were suspended but were back online within 24 hours. That same day, the Shadowbrokers made their public debut and on August 15th, WikiLeaks said that they had a copy of the archive of cyber weapons that the Shadowbrokers released and they would release it later. They never did.

On the same day that WikiLeaks made that claim, Ray Johansen claimed that the Shadowbrokers had communicated with BerlinLeaks.org, a whistleblower platform that was created a few days after Podesta was spear-phished and (I guess?) Johansen was a part of.

Suspects behind the Shadowbrokers’ leaks included former TAO employee Harold T. Martin III although the government never proved he leaked anything.

TAO documents have been leaked to journalists like Jacob Applebaum (ANT catalog) and it’s been theorized that at least one source is linked to the TAO unit at the NSA Cryptologic Center in San Antonio, Texas. TAO documents have also been linked to Snowden documents (SECONDDATE); WikiLeaks (“NSA Tasking and Reporting: EU, Italy, UN”), ShadowBrokers; Chinese hackers (DanderSpritz).

RABBIT FILES 4.0:
Revisiting the .7z Files

On September 13, 2016, Guccifer 2 never showed up to the Future of Cyber Security Europe conference choosing instead to allegedly submit a PowerPoint presentation that contained the link and password to the .7z files that White Rabbit gave Trish Negron. I reached out to Tim Holmes, the conference’s organizer, to see if they ever confirmed that the PowerPoint/link/password came from Guccifer 2 but he did not respond to my request. In both 2018 and 2019, the Twitter account @AnonScandinavia (previously known as @AnonScan) was the conference’s keynote speaker. 

As for the actual files, no, they’re were not the Seth Rich files and as Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) put it, they were “not-even-chickenfeed” files and hardly worth any state actor or hacker’s time copying, exfiltrating, and linking to in a cyber conference’s presentation.

Less than a month after the cyber conference, Guccifer 2 released the cf.7z files which the online persona claimed were from the Clinton Foundation. They weren’t, but they did contain some of the .7z files. McIntyre was able to conclude that some of the cf.7z files were found in an earlier G2 leak in June 2016, meaning that there is a good possibility someone had a larger cache of documents that included both subsets: the .7z and cf.7z files. 

Mueller never mentioned the .7z files in his report.

Two self-proclaimed hackers said they received files from Guccifer 2: Ray Johansen, an associate of both Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) and the administrator and/or close associate of @AnonScandinavia, who said that he was “selected” to receive documents from G2 via a whistleblower platform called BerlinLeaks.org.

Aaron Kesel (@Cens0redAK, @An0nAKn0wledge), another close associate of Johansen’s, claims that he also received documents from Guccifer 2, the so-called Clinton Foundation documents to be exact. Kesel has an extensive record of playing victim and pushing lies and propaganda. Here are some of his claims (some of these are from The Gatekeeper Files): 

  1. He received documents from Guccifer 2
  2. He communicated with Guccifer 2 for at least 6 months
  3. He introduced Guccifer 2 to Protonmail
  4. He worked with Cassandra Fairbanks and the online persona “Alice Donovan” at WeAreChange (that part is true), and claims that the CIA used the Donovan persona to spy on him
  5. He’s mentioned in the Mueller report (nope)
  6. He’s mentioned in the Maria Butina case (nope)
  7. He’s on a U.S. no-fly list (for what?)
  8. He worked with the CIA during #OpIsis
  9. He’s the most targeted journalist on the internet
  10. Seth Rich leaked the files to WikiLeaks
  11. He saw the DNC emails unencrypted prior to WikiLeaks publishing them
  12. In 2012, he was arrested by the FBI and tortured (his own friends don’t believe it)

And like Johansen, Kesel has threatened a myriad of people both publicly and privately including activists and journalists.

Timeline and Guide

RABBIT FILES 4.1:
“Timeline and Guide”

Bogaerts, Vetter, Schoenberger, Cicada 3301, Warren Flood, and AnonScan

RABBIT FILES 5.0:
A Flood Approaches

Approximately two weeks after the 2016 Future of Cyber Security Europe announced that Guccifer 2 was going to appear via livestream at their September 13th event (which never happened), members of Anonymous started a #FreeMartyG campaign in support of hacktivist Marty Gottesfeld. The announcement was written by @Raincoaster, a long-time associate of Ray Johansen and the campaign was liked by @AnonScandinavia (previously known as @AnonScan). In November 2016, Johansen himself tweeted in support of the campaign.

Within the first few days of January 2017, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) got involved in the campaign likely either through Trevor Fitzgibbon’s contacts or she had been in contact with the hacktivist community as early as 2016, if not earlier. Within a few weeks she repurposed a Twitter sock account for the campaign, which she later gave Trish Negron. This is the account that she deleted on Negron after the White Rabbit incident. 

Within a week of her campaigning, another associate of Johansen’s named “Weda,” announced on Twitter that Bogaerts was “joining our team as an Editor 2017.” 

In February 2017, WikiLeaks released five days of hints about Vault 7 while the @AnonScandinavia account did the same, making it appear they were closely connected to Assange. They also began promoting Tracy Beanz and after I started blogging about the hints being released she reached out to me and said that she was in communication with Anonymous Scandinavia.

A month later and only a few days before WikiLeaks started publishing Vault 7, @AnonScandinavia along with pro-Assange accounts like @BellaMagnani began heavily promoting a story written by Adam Carter that incorrectly identified DNC worker Warren Flood as the man behind Guccifer 2. Even WikiLeaks promoted the article despite the fact it implicated an innocent man and they, of all people, had the knowledge and tools to realize Carter’s research mistakes. Cicada 3301 used this to try and link the puzzle to WikiLeaks and @AnonScandinavia because of their January 2017 hint, “A Fludd Approaches…”

Two weeks after WikiLeaks started publishing Vault 7, an Anonymous group called AnonIntelGroup started a “Question WikiLeaks” campaign and published an article accusing Assange of a host of things. The article also featured an illustration of Assange churning out CIA propaganda from Vault 7 files.

The AnonIntelGroup included Ray Johansen and his associates like Aaron Kesel, @Raincoaster (the one who did the PR announcement for the #FreeMarty campaign), Kitty Hundal, and @AnonFoxfire, who some speculate is Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind). A few weeks after they started the Question WikiLeaks campaign, Bogaerts, a so-called Wikileaks mega fan who accused Trevor Fitzgibbon of using her respect for Assange to manipulate her out of money, made a public plea to Twitter to have @AnonIntelGroup’s Twitter account restored.

Let me repeat that, she wanted an account tied to accusing Assange of helping Trump win the election and churning out CIA propaganda (among a host of other things), to be restored…and then claimed in court documents three years later that Fitzgibbon manipulated her because of her respect for Assange. In one tweet, it appears she called members of the group “amazing friends.”

At the end of June 2017, Weda (the long-time associate of Johansen’s and the one who announced that Bogaerts was going to become an editor of some sort for them) bizarrely threatened everyone on Twitter stating that Bogaerts was “off limits,” whatever that means. Sources say that Bogaerts was invited to join Barrett Brown’s Pursuance Project but she allegedly declined the invitation. Ray Johansen was in charge of the project’s onboarding.

RABBIT FILES 5.1:
A Fludd Approaches” (part 1)

Right before Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) started campaigning for Marty Gottsfeld in early January 2017, she claims that she met both Trevor Fitzgibbon and a Twitter account named “Vetter” in December 2016. Bogaerts and others now say that Thomas Schoenberger was behind the Vetter account the entire time. He denies it. 

Bogaerts has never clarified that this was her “first time” meeting Vetter and Twitter records show that she was tweeting with the account as early as August 2016. She also told blogger/journalist Steve Outtrim that she met Vetter “during the election bc of my WikiLeaks,” which contradicts her statements in court that she “met” Vetter after the election. However, we have no idea what her definition of “met” means when it comes to online relationships.

She also claims that she met Trevor Fitzgibbon via a sock account called @torlife101, which has since been deleted. Even so, Twitter records show that Bogaerts didn’t start tweeting with the account until March 2017, meaning that if she did beforehand she’s either wrong about the Twitter handle or has since deleted her own tweets which seems odd since she has accused Fitzgibbon of harassing her for years so why delete the record?

Vetter is the one who introduced Bogaerts to the puzzle Cicada 3301 but she’s never provided any dates for when this happened. In fact, no communications have been released between Bogaerts and Vetter between the time period of December 2016 – June 1, 2017.

I was personally introduced to Cicada by Tracy Beanz sometime in late February – early March 2017, during which time one of their clues led to the Mojave desert phone booth. The phone booth is owned by another associate of Ray Johansen’s who uses the handle “Lucky225m,” and he’s the one who gave Cicada permission to use the phone booth. Please be aware that there is no evidence to suggest that Lucky225 is involved in the same kind of fuckery as Johansen so don’t start defaming him, too, by adding him to insane, unintelligible Q-debunking charts that Johanson’s little buddy, @ATafoyovsky, likes to make.

Between February through June 2017, Vetter repeatedly tried to link Cicada to WikiLeaks, Assange, and the @AnonScandinavia account . Making things worse, at the start of March 2017, @AnonScandinavia pushed the false Warren Flood/Guccifer 2 story two months after Cicada dropped the clue, “A Fludd Approaches…” 

However, by mid-March, @AnonScandinavia publicly announced they didn’t have any special interest in Cicada 3301 and yet despite Bogaerts following @AnonScandinavia at the time of their announcement and the two accounts liking each other’s tweets, Bogaerts somehow didn’t get the memo. Now she claims that she fell for this anonymous account called “Vetter” telling her three months later that Thomas Schoenberger, the guy behind the 2017 Cicada puzzles who was allegedly a complete stranger to her, was behind the @AnonScandinavia account.

No conversations between Vetter, Schoenberger, and Bogaerts have ever been released that show Bogaerts asking any questions like a normal person would after finding out Schoenberger was allegedly behind the @AnonScandinavia account like, “Hey, why don’t you tweet Cicada stuff from the @AnonScandinavia account?” or “I loved that tweet you put out today.” Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

Lastly, one released screenshot of a conversation between Vetter and Bogaerts shows Bogaerts telling Vetter that she’s “just a researcher” and that she’s “addicted to WikiLeaks.” This is after they’ve allegedly known each other for at least six months so why would you say this to your friend after all that time like they didn’t know this about you already. Personally, I believe this indicates the conversation may have been staged.

RABBIT FILES 5.2:
A Fludd Approaches” (part 2)

After the White Rabbit thumb drive scandal, Bogaerts now claims that Thomas Schoenberger (allegedly behind the Vetter account the entire time), orchestrated online attacks she allegedly suffered as a result of her friend deliberately setting up Trish Negron and Jason Goodman. This, of course, would mean that Schoenberger orchestrated Bogaerts to peddle White Rabbit’s files for weeks before the scandal and introducing White Rabbit to Negron.

It would also mean that Schoenberger orchestrated Negron giving the thumb drive to George Webb and Jason Goodman, Goodman announcing they had the “Seth Rich files,” based on what Rabbit told them to the detriment of his own reputation, and Goodman, Negron, and George Webb attacking Bogaerts after she defamed them and inexplicably turned on Negron.

Absurd.

In late June 2017, Bogaerts claims she met Thomas Schoenberger as Schoenberger after Vetter told her he would reach out to protect her from the people rightfully upset that her friend purposely set them up. Schoenberger told her that he and Cicada would protect her. Timelines about Cicada 3301, Bogaerts’ involvement in it, and Schoenberger’s whole, “Cicada will protect you” doesn’t add up.

During this time period, Vetter told her that Schoenberger was longtime friends with Julian Assange and yes, we’re expected to believe that Bogaerts, allegedly obsessed with WikiLeaks, also believed an anonymous account telling her that a guy she’d never heard of before, who WikiLeaks and Assange had never acknowledged, was longtime friends with Assange. 

Like the complete absence of conversations about the @AnonScandinavia account (previously @AnonScan), no conversations have ever been released where Bogaerts asked Schoenberger any normal questions like, “How did you meet Assange?” “Did you visit him in the embassy?” “How’s he doing?” Nor did she ever tweet that Cicada and WikiLeaks/Assange/AnonScandinavia were linked despite allegedly falling for Vetter/Schoenberger’s schtick. Additionally, no screenshots have been released where Bogaerts questions why Schoenberger and/or Vetter lied to her when she found out these things weren’t true. 

Within two weeks of meeting some guy she had never heard of before, Bogaerts started talking with Schoenberger about starting a PR company together called Shadowbox. She now claims that Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon pressured her into starting the company but she’s never released any evidence that shows this. At the time, she was happily doing research for Steve Biss/Robert David Steele’s case against Jason Goodman and as of late 2019, she stated that she had no problem with taking part in that. Early on into helping with RDS’s research, Schoenberger asked Biss’ wife if her husband could also sue Goodman on White Rabbit’s behalf. 

Did Bogaerts send Schoenberger the Valentine’s Day card or not?

Bogaerts and Fitzgibbon

RABBIT FILES 6.0: “Puttin’ on the Fitz

The Rabbit Files 6.0 through 6.3 are all focused on claims that Bogaerts has made against Trevor Fitzgibbon. The reason for this is noted in “The Rabbit Files 6.0: Puttin’ on the Fitz”:

“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.”

Couple this drama with Suzie Dawson’s #Unity4J, and WikiLeaks, Courage Foundation, and @DefendAssange’s complicity and you can imagine the damage these people have done to Assange’s support. Anyhoo—

In court documents, Bogaerts claims that she met Trevor Fitzgibbon on or around December 2016, and yet eight months before she filed a lawsuit against him she admitted that she was only guessing about when she met him. She says that she met Fitzgibbon and Schoenberger at the same time but her failure to put forth a shred of evidence, as well as her tweet history, means this is not necessarily true.

She also claims that she was “offered” to enter into a mutually-beneficial business transaction when she met them but that’s not true either. She said she didn’t even meet Schoenberger until June 2017, and her own evidence shows they didn’t start talking about starting a PR firm until July 2017. She also claims she was pressured into starting the company but has failed to provide any evidence showing this either.

Days before Bogaerts and Schoenberger started discussing starting a company, Schoenberger sent Fitzgibbon a “nice to meet you” email that stated “EmCat was served well by you ;)” I have no idea what this means but it’s interesting that he would bring up Embassy Cat seeing that Bogaerts’ associate, Ray Johansen, claims to be behind the @EmbassyCat Twitter account and @AnonScandinavia recently returned to Twitter asking that their followers become their personal snitches by uploading files to their sketch Embassy Cat website.

The basis for @AnonScandinavia’s request was that individuals had pretended to be affiliated with them after their account was suspended this past February which doesn’t appear to have happened. What their snitch video appears to be about was the Vetter account telling Bogaerts OVER THREE YEARS AGO that Schoenberger was running the @AnonScandinavia website correction: Twitter account. Anonymous Scandinavia released the “please be my snitch” video a day or two before Bogaerts had to attend court; she’s currently being countersued by Fitzgibbon.

As for the email mentioned above, it also shows that Bogaerts knew Schoenberger as Schoenberger before Fitzgibbon did, and that it was Schoenberger who recommended that they “expose Radack on the deep web” by creating “a [Cicada] puzzle to lead people there,” not Fitzgibbon. And for the record, at no point have we ever seen Bogaerts objecting to these types of tactics and it’s not like Schoenberger had mind-Jedi’d her by this point. She’d only known him for like three weeks.

RABBIT FILES 6.1: “Shadowbox

Again, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) claims she was pressured into starting a PR firm with Thomas Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon and yet no evidence seems to exist that even remotely reflects this. On the contrary, leaked emails show her happily discussing the startup and even offering to do research into other reputation firms in order to figure out how they wanted to model their company.

Additionally, no communications have been released that show Bogaerts objecting to starting a company—this includes all of her own court filings and exhibits.

In a 2018 interview, Bogaerts agreed that approximately $11,000 she sent to Fitzgibbon was part of her investment in Shadowbox despite calling them “personal loans” in an email she sent to him the month prior. She has never filed a single court exhibit or released anything that shows she and Fitzgibbon had a prior loan agreement. In fact, prior to filing her lawsuit against him, she said she didn’t even care about the money and the only reason she was going after him was because she believed he had attacked her online via anonymous accounts that to this day she’s never proven were him.

(And guess what? Maybe he was behind the accounts but for f*cks sake, provide us with a shred of evidence so we stop thinking it was your buddy, Ray Johansen, doing it so you had a reason to sue.)

Bogaerts only source of evidence that Fitzgibbon promised to pay her back after the first Fitzgibbon v. Radack case—or at all—is one email dated April 4, 2018. However, it would have been impossible for him to make this promise because the case wasn’t even filed yet, unless there’s something Bogaerts isn’t telling us. She’s made it very clear in court documents that she had an interest in Radack “losing” the case so she herself could get paid by Fitzgibbon. However, Bogaerts also tried to sabotage the same case she was trying to collect on by leaking case information to Ray Johansen’s friend “Weda” before Fitzgibbon filed.

RABBIT FILES 6.2: “Shadowbox Earnings and Payouts

According to court exhibits filed by Bogaerts, it appears (again, appears) that she has accused Fitzgibbon of taking at least $5,000 in personal loans from her when in actuality they were monies due to him from Shadowbox. She has never filed nor released anything that shows they had any sort of loan agreement. Additionally, she sent at least $600 to him with “love” emojis included in the memo and messages like “have fun.”

Bogaerts admits that she controlled at least some of Shadowbox’s money so it’s super weird she claims she never paid herself despite being the sole investor of the company. It’s also weird that after they got paid by Ed Butowsky, she never asked Fitzgibbon if she could withhold some of his money as repayment for these so-called “personal loans.” Instead, she sued everyone three years later after Ray Johansen suggested she should.

A leaked email (no, I have no idea if it’s legitimate) also shows that Bogaerts was allegedly controlling some of the money for Cicada 3301 and paying her friend @ATafoyovsky at least $100 a week. To wrap up Bogaerts’ 3+ year allegations and defamation campaigns versus the evidence she’s actually produced:

  • 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 has never provided any evidence that she was pressured into starting a company
  • Bogaerts’ own evidence shows that she met Schoenberger before Fitzgibbon did
  • Bogaerts hasn’t provided any evidence that she had a loan agreement with Fitzgibbon
  • Bogaerts hasn’t proven that all the money she paid out to Fitzgibbon were “personal loans,” on the contrary, evidence suggests that Bogaerts paid Fitzgibbon $5,000 from monies received from their client, Ed Butowsky, which she now claims were “personal loans”

DisclaimerTen 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

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