An associate of Assange supporters Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) and “hacktivist” Ray Johansen (@JustRay1111, previously known as @RayJoha2 and @NorwayAn0n) has struck again posting more misleading and less than truthful information in the last few days that include some real doozies in his fictitious quest to debunk Qanon. It’s important to preserve some of this insanity for the record especially since he’s an associate of at least three people in The Rabbit Files, all of whom have propagated as many lies and inexplicably caused as much damage and division within the Assange support community as Suzie Dawson, if that’s even possible. With that said, this article is an unexpected and unplanned file within The Rabbit Files and I’ve included it under the 5.0 series because it pertains more so to what happened during that time period than anything else.
Tracy Beanz
So in the last week, foreign propagandist Lestat (@ATafoyovsky) returned to posting clips of a Youtube show I did with Tracy Beanz back in March 2017. He also continued to push Bogaerts’ ongoing Erik Prince defamation campaign that Lestat appears to be running for her, and then he published the most outrageously funny take on a Trish Negron look-alike in order to increase his impossible odds of winning the “Who Spoofed the Seth Rich Files” argument.
First, I love the fact that this guy keeps retweeting the Tracy Beanz clip (below) because it validates my argument in The Rabbit Files that it’s absurd to believe his associate’s claims that in late June 2017, she was conned by a random Twitter account named “Vetter” who told her that Thomas Schoenberger controlled the @AnonScan account (presumably now using the handle @AnonScandinavia). Let me further explain this incredulous story.
In case you haven’t been following The Rabbit Files, Lestat’s associate, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind), and a random anonymous account called “Vetter” started tweeting to each other as early as August 2016 (if not earlier), but allegedly unbeknownst to her at the time, Bogaerts and others now believe that Thomas Schoenberger was behind the Vetter account the entire time.
In court documents filed last year, Bogaerts claimed that she “met” Schoenberger “in or around December 15, 2016,” and everyone assumes that she meant she met Schoenberger “under the guise of another account named Vetter,” but she didn’t state that nor has she ever proven that Schoenberger was in control of the Vetter account at the time (even if he was). Additionally, she’s never stated that December 2016 was the first time she “met” Schoenberger—or Vetter, for that matter. So just an FYI.
After tweeting with Vetter back in August 2016 and then allegedly meeting him three months later, Vetter introduced her to the Cicada 3301 puzzle. Less than three weeks later, Bogaerts somehow got involved in a campaign to free an imprisoned hacktivist, likely through Trevor Fitzgibbon’s contacts or she was communicating with the hacktivist community long before she wants anyone to know about it.
Within a week of Bogaerts’ involvement in this particular campaign, which included close associates of Ray Johansen, if not Johansen himself, an account using the name “Weda” (another associate of Johansen) announced that they were bringing Bogaerts on board (of something) as an editor. One could easily surmise by this that indeed Bogaerts had been involved with hackers/hacktivists as early as 2016, if not earlier. During a phone call with Bogaerts two years after Weda’s announcement, in April 2019, she told me that she was still doing “PR” for Weda.
At the exact same time that Bogaerts was campaigning for the imprisoned hacktivist and being brought on as an editor by one of Johansen’s friends, Cicada 3301 released their 2017 puzzle on January 5, 2017, a part of which led to the Mojave desert phone booth owned by yet another associate of Ray Johansen. This associate gave Cicada 3301 permission to use the phone booth which, again, seems to indicate yet another event that actually kicked off in 2016, unless Cicada approached Johansen’s associate mere days before they dropped their puzzle on January 5th.
On or around February 5, 2017, one month after Cicada dropped their new puzzle and Bogaerts was appointed editor by someone in Johansen’s hacktivist circle, the Twitter account @AnonScan, which some believe, including myself, is controlled by Johansen and/or his associates, started dropping “puzzles” just like Cicada 3301, only this time the clues supposedly referred to WikiLeaks’ Vault 7. It was also during this time period that Bogaerts and @AnonScan started liking each other’s tweets and Vetter tried to publicly link Cicada to Vault 7 and the @AnonScan account.
At no point does it appear that Bogaerts had a problem with her friend trying to link Cicada to these things nor did she appear to question it. On the flip side, since she now claims that she basically took everything that Vetter told her as gospel, it’s beyond bizarre that she herself never tweeted that Cicada, @AnonScan, and Vault 7 were all linked.
To make matters worse, on or around March 3rd, @AnonScan (and eventually WikiLeaks) promoted a bogus story that Warren Flood was behind the Guccifer 2 persona, fueling Vetter’s suggestions that the Cicada puzzle was linked to them since its January 2017 puzzle started with the hint, “A Fludd Approaches…”
On March 7th, WikiLeaks started publishing Vault 7, during which time the @AnonScan account began privately communicating with Tracy Beanz and promoting her videos thus giving her more exposure than she ever had before. If you want to blame someone for her rise to fame, blame @AnonScan. P.S. Ya’ll remember that @AnonScan was also following and promoting Suzie Dawson during this time period, right? And this was AFTER her bogus “Oh mah gawd, I’m fleeing New Zealand because agents are trying to kill my children” story. As for Tracy Beanz—
In the tweet below, @AnonScan went so far as to actually say that WikiLeaks was “compiling” Tracy Beanz’ videos, leading people (and I’m sure her, as well) to believe that not only was the @AnonScan account closely associated with WikiLeaks, they wanted you to believe that Beanz was important enough to Assange and WikiLeaks (neither of whom ever retweeted her) that they was compiling her videos. Can you believe I actually drank this idiot’s kool-aid for years?
This is literally the same type of shite that everyone accused Schoenberger of doing via the Vetter account: Trying to falsely associate oneself with Assange and WikiLeaks. Take for instance this other tweet from @AnonScan:
Of course WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 didn’t contain anything about Benghazi so here’s the scoop on the lovely smoke and mirrors @AnonScan has been serving up for years: By 3:26 a.m. on February 4, 2017, the FBI had released Vault 6 of their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s personal server. An hour later, WikiLeaks released their first Vault 7 hint, “What is #Vault 7?” Then, on February 11th, AnonScan posted the tweet above about Clinton and Benghazi using the #Vault7 hashtag to deceive you into believing that WikiLeaks’ Vault 7 contained documents about Clinton and Benghazi, which of course they didn’t. See what I mean?
Technically, the next FBI drop about Clinton after Vault 6 was obviously going to be Vault 7 and there was a 99% chance it would contain at least something related to Benghazi. However, since @Anonscan used the hashtag #Vault7 only a few days AFTER WikiLeaks started using it but BEFORE the feds dropped their own Vault 7, this was just one more incident in which they a. were clever? b. hoodwinked followers into believing they had inside WikiLeaks information?
Of course, this theory is open to interpretation and if you’d rather tell yourself that WikiLeaks colluded with @AnonScan to put out ridiculous puzzles about the FBI’s next Vault dump because of Assange’s hatred of Hillary Clinton, and then WikiLeaks essentially used the FBI’s upcoming file name for their own publication, Vault 7, I’m not going to stop you.
I mean, looking back this all seems so absurd that I wouldn’t even flinch if it turns out that Bogaerts, Schoenberger, and Johansen were all co-administrators of the Anonymous Scandinavia account the entire time. I mean, ya’ll realize that Johansen has played both the “Anonymous Norway” and “Anonymous Sweden” persona online, yes? I’d post the embarrassing tweets and articles but imma let you dig on that so you can figure out just how far he and his friends have gone to bullshit activists (and no, he never told me directly that he was Anonymous Sweden or part of it so if he whines about snitches, just remind him that as a member of Anonymous, his opsec is a full-on dumpster fire).
So back to this ungodly story —
On March 16, 2017, after pushing the bogus Warren Flood story and communicating with Tracy Beanz, @AnonScan publicly announced that they had no interest in Cicada 3301. A few days later I appeared on Tracy Beanz’ Youtube channel to discuss WikiLeaks’ Vault 7, during which time you can see in Lestat’s clip (above) that I reiterated that exact same message. And yet, despite Bogaerts following the @AnonScan account during this time period, her and @AnonScan liking each other tweets, her later proclamation that she “loved” the @AnonScan account, and @AnonScan’s public announcement, she somehow didn’t get the “@AnonScan doesn’t do Cicada” memo.
On April 3, 2017, less than three weeks after @AnonScan’s announcement, Bogaerts asked Twitter to reinstate @AnonIntelGroup’s account stating that its members were “amazing friends.” Members of the obscure Anonymous group included Johansen, associates from the hacktivist campaign that Bogaerts worked on, #Unity4J’s Kitty Hundal, and @AnonFoxfire, a Twitter account created in 2015 that some now believe was actually Bogaerts. The group was running an anti-Assange “he was working with the Russians” campaign when Bogaerts made the request.
Then, at the end of June 2017, the sock account called Vetter, the one who introduced Bogaerts to Cicada over six months prior, told her that a random stranger she had allegedly never heard of before named Thomas Schoenberger was not only the head of Cicada 3301, he was running the @AnonScan account. The kicker is that she acted all surprised as if she somehow missed five months of tweets that Vetter posted where he tried to connect Cicada to @AnonScan.
Now, after her long-time involvement with hacktivists and members of Anonymous, after seemingly palling around with Ray Johansen and @AnonScan for years (Johansen says he had an online “sexting” relationship with her in 2017. Bogaerts vigorously denies Johansen’s claims, please see “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections“) after @AnonScan publicly announced they had no interest in Cicada, after I reiterated their non-interest during Beanz’ Youtube show, and after Bogaerts repeatedly claimed to be an avid follower of WikiLeaks and Assange who have never in their lives acknowledged Cicada 3301 or Thomas Schoenberger, Bogaerts expects us to believe that she bought Vetter’s story lock, stock, and barrel that Schoenberger, the 2017 King of Cicada, was actually @AnonScan. Bitch, please.
Less than a year after Vetter told her this, Bogaerts and @ATafoyovsky both claimed in a 2018 interview that while they were Cicada members, the puzzle started Qanon because that’s what opportunists do when they feel that an admission of this type can give them some semblance of significance that they failed to acquire previously. In fact, Lestat has stated multiple times on Twitter that “we” started Qanon.
However, now that Qanon has been designated a domestic terrorist group, these confessions (whether bogus or not) are obviously no longer convenient for them. In fact, Bogaerts perjured herself in court repeatedly in order to frame me, an indie journalist and activist, as a supporter of this domestic terroristic group by falsely claiming (without a shred of evidence, of course) that I’m paid by or work for Thomas Schoenberger because *gasp* I used him as a source. Meanwhile, this was happening while her associate, Lestat, a Mexican national, was planting stories in U.S. media that Schoenberger was the mastermind behind Qanon (and yes, just like how the CIA plants stories in foreign countries). This, despite the uncomfortable fact that it was Lestat’s associate, Bogaerts, clearly not me, who worked with “Vetter” and Schoenberger in Cicada 3301, started a company with him, and then claimed to have started Qanon.
Now Lestat spends 24/7 pointing the finger at everyone else using the only two sources he himself claims to use: Bogaerts and one other unnamed source who I’ve always assumed was Ray Johansen/AnonScandinavia. You literally can’t make this psyop up.
The Erik Prince Defamation Campaign
Then there’s the ongoing defamation campaign that Lestat has been carrying out since early last year about Trevor Fitzgibbon, a former PR representative for WikiLeaks that Bogaerts, Johansen, and the increasingly embarrassing whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, are obsessed with. Lestat has made ongoing claims that Fitzgibbon worked with Erik Prince and yet he and his associates, as usual, have failed to produce a shred of evidence that proves this.
Based on my former interactions with Bogaerts, I have personally concluded that this campaign was initiated by her and either Lestat is paid, gets off on pushing utterly false stories in social media and the MSM, or he hasn’t a clue that his own source admitted that she has no idea if Fitzgibbon was tied to Prince. Here’s Lestat’s recent tweet:
Lestat doesn’t even state that he personally believes or is of the opinion that Fitzgibbon worked with Erik Prince. He legit states it as fact. If we search his Twitter accounts (both @Atafoyovsky and @Cheshire3301), we find that he didn’t even start tweeting about Erik Prince until last year, one month before Bogaerts filed her lawsuit against Fitzgibbon and Schoenberger.
And here’s where it gets even more interesting. My records show that as early as February 2019, Bogaerts was already trying to push the Erik Prince story on me and if ya’ll hadn’t noticed, I’ve never written nor published anything that included her allegations about Fitzgibbon and Prince because she’s never backed them up with any evidence.
While I was on the phone with Mrs. Bogaerts back in 2019, my time-stamped notes with another journalist show that not only did Bogaerts try to peddle this story to me, she tried to tell me that the infamous Shadowbox meeting held at Butowsky’s home in September 2017, involved Erik Prince—something that no other participant at the meeting has ever stated aside from Schoenberger.
But it gets so much worse. After I pressed her on Fitzgibbon’s involvement in Suzie Dawson’s #Unity4J campaign and the Erik Prince story, she provided zero evidence of Fitzgibbon’s involvement aside from joining Dawson’s Discord channel which, I believe, she herself joined at one point. She also encouraged me to join under a fake name in order to spy on Fitzgibbon and the #Unity4J campaign, advice that I chose to ignore.
Additionally, she conceded that she “never did figure out the Prince thing,” and again, she’s one of two sources that Lestat said he trusts. Like, he trusts her to pay him every week or…? Not only that, she herself admitted that her buddy, Jesselyn Radack, told her that Fitzgibbon was “broke” and didn’t work with any “big people.” Imagine that compared to the public drama that Bogaerts, Radack, and Johansen have deliberately pulled other Assange supporters into for years. Don’t believe me? Ask Radack to check her emails to see if she told me the same thing because I’ll be more than happy to post crazy pants’ messages if she tries to deny it.
So is it possible that associates of Fitzgibbon wanted to pitch something to Erik Prince but never did? Absolutely, and if that’s the case Bogaerts should post the evidence that proves this instead of running her defamatory mouth for years on end. But remember, even that wouldn’t prove anyone actually worked with Prince.
In the meantime, my only question is what on God’s green earth would provoke a rich housewife like Bogaerts, a self-proclaimed victim, innocent mother, and alleged interior designer who is married to some oil guy, to privately push a whisper campaign FOR YEARS that even she admits she doesn’t know is true…or seemingly has her associate that she’s paid in the past to do it for her? I’m legitimately asking because Bogaerts’ ongoing behavior like previously paying the same person who is now churning out steaming bowls of lies that benefit her, ongoing defamation and whisper campaigns, and using the U.S. court system to try and frame activists for things they’ve never done screams RED FLAG within an activist community.
Valerie Plame?
And then there was Valerie Plame. Imma make this short and sweet. Two days ago Lestat also tweeted out a video clip from George Webb in which Webb stated that he was meeting up with an Oliver Stone intermediary who looked like Valerie Plame. Lestat’s take? Webb was obviously talking about Trish Negron, the independent journalist who White Rabbit gave the thumb drive to under the guise they were the “Seth Rich files.” His reasoning? Negron must have been working as Stone’s intermediary because Negron and Valerie Plame look exactly alike (insert eye roll and a “Just Say No” pamphlet).
And again, he doesn’t even state this as an opinion but rather as a defamatory fact and this laughable Plame-Trish lookalike story is the only thing he has backing up this charade. So in what appears to be a desperate bid to keep a three-plus year false story alive that Bogaerts’ associate, White Rabbit, never deceived Negron because The Rabbit Files is destroying these peoples’ lies, so too must the destruction of Negron’s reputation continue in order to bury the truth.
Disclaimer: 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.
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.