The Rabbit Files: Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections

Contents

Update: Oops He Did It Again: Ray Johansen Lied About ‘All Of It’ (August 30, 2021)
click here

Update: Who Really Controls the @EmbassyCat Twitter Account and Why is Assange’s Fiance Promoting It? (July 22, 2021)
click here

Update: Newly Leaked Email Shows Bogaerts Involved with Ex-Military (July 16, 2021)
click here

Update: Twitter’s Active Engagement Allowing Abuse On Platform (July 7, 2021)
click here

Correction and update: Jason Fishbein (July 7, 2021)
click here

Update: More Discrepancies In Bogaerts’ Story About “Vetter” and Cicada (July 7, 2021)
click here

Update: “Tiny Troll” Anonymous Scandinavia (May 25, 2021)
click here

Update: August 30, 2021
Oops He Did It Again: Ray Johansen Lied About ‘All Of It’

There are a myriad of issues that have been discussed in this series including the egregious false accusations that Beth Bogaerts publicly wrote online and then filed in court documents about me between 2020-2021. At the time that she started a public defamation campaign against me (January 2020), I was friendly with Ray Johansen, a so-called hacktivist who has been mentioned numerous times throughout this series.

In 2019, Johansen told me that he had been in communication with Bogaerts and when I asked him if she could be trusted he stated that she could not. He also said that he believed she was working as a plant for Trevor Fitzgibbon to obtain information that would assist Fitzgibbon in his defamation suit against Jesselyn Radack, and that she was a scorned lover of Thomas Schoenberger.

In 2020, he was in communication with both myself and Bogaerts and he forwarded documents to me that he said she had authored. This included a 42-page document with demonstrably false statements about me and a rough draft of a Bar complaint against Steven Biss that Johansen said he was helping her edit.

During my time spent with Johansen (online, in private communications), he also claimed, among other things, that he sexted with Bogaerts in December 2017. Jesselyn Radack also later insinuated that “flirting” had gone on and that Johansen has been “open” about “lusting” over Bogaerts (Open where, Jess, just to you?)

Despite whatever issues I have with Bogaerts’ egregious defamation against me, it is only fair and my duty in this series to give a voice to her story, as well. She recently denied everything Johansen said about her and that “all of it is false. ALL of it.” She added that he treated her less than a human being (trust me, you ain’t alone, girl).

It’s unclear if her statements included the documents that Johansen said she wrote and if Johansen (or someone else) wrote them. What is clear is that if she’s telling the truth, Johansen is more of a sex smearing dirtbag than we previously thought and I feel bad for any woman getting caught up in his insanity.

Mr. Johansen, will you please see the error of your ways?

The bottom line is that this situation has been brought up before in The Rabbit Files but only Johansen’s claims were reported on because at no point since all of this went public eleven months ago did Bogaerts reach out to me to share her side of the story until now.

All of the articles on my website that discussed this debacle have been updated to include Bogaerts’ statements.

Update: July 22, 2021
Who Really Controls the @EmbassyCat Twitter Account?

(This update is an extension of The Rabbit Files 9.1) During the Crowdsource the Truth livestream Jason Goodman messaged Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, and @EmbassyCat on Twitter about the files that White Rabbit gave to Trish Negron.

What interesting about this is that Beth Bogaert’s associate, Ray Johansen (@JustRay1111, @RayJoha2, @NorwayAn0n), claims to be the administrator of the @EmbassyCat account. Johansen is also a prolific liar who spends his time threatening female activists and making up insane, bold-faced lies about investigative journalists like Stefania Maurizi but on the off chance he’s telling truth, it seems to me that the sock account was meant to garner trust in order to collect intel from and/or about WikiLeaks, Assange, and activists.

The Crowdsource the Truth situation is a perfect example of how people fed that account information believing that it was direct pipeline to Assange—and maybe it was.

A few months ago the Anonymous Scandinavia account, which I firmly believe Johansen has access to (the account denies it), asked activists to be his personal snitch by uploading information from their personal devices to the Embassy.Cat (.cat = Catalan domain) website because that’s not at all sketchy AF. You can read more about this story in detail below in this page’s first update “‘Tiny Troll’ Anonymous Scandinavia.”

The account wanted information about anyone masquerading as “AnonScan” despite the fact that the last time any of us are aware of someone doing that was four years ago and that person was the administrator of the @Bernies4_Trump account (“Vetter”) who some now claim was Thomas Schoenberger. But as I noted in The Rabbit Files 5.2:

“And what about @AnonScan? After Vetter told Bogaerts that Schoenberger was @AnonScan, they didn’t discuss it further? She never sent Schoenberger any messages like, ‘Hey, loved that tweet you posted today,’ or ‘Man, I really love your @AnonScan account,’ or maybe, ‘Why don’t you ever post anything about Cicada on the @AnonScan account?’ If she believed all of this nonsense and wants to claim she never saw @AnonScan’s tweet denying interest in Cicada, why didn’t she ever tweet that Cicada was tied to the @AnonScan account, WikiLeaks, or Assange?

Even better, when she realized that the Vetter account might have been Schoenberger the entire time, did she confront the Vetter account or Schoenberger about all the lies? What was his response? Are there any conversations that exist where she’s telling him off? If not, why not? In fact, what we’ll see later is that there’s evidence Bogaerts was still working with Schoenberger via Cicada in September 2018, well after Vetter changed his handle and people started putting together that Vetter may have been Schoenberger all along.

And if Vetter’s statements essentially happened in a vacuum meaning that everything that’s been released and what we’ve seen so far is basically the extent of what Vetter, Schoenberger, and Bogaerts talked about regarding these unbelievable revelations, then it’s impossible for me to find any of this credible. In fact, I find the whole thing to be entirely manufactured.”

Of course, when Anonymous Scandinavia asked everyone a few months ago to be his snitch, Bogaerts was in the middle of suing Schoenberger and had a court appearance that week. Again, I warned ya’ll last year that I believed this group was deploying a bunch of shenanigans, LARPs, and targeted defamation campaigns to sway U.S. court cases.

I mean, did you read the last Rabbit Files about whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, associating with Johansen who claimed to have hacked U.S. citizens to help her win a defamation case lodged against her? This is literally where we are at—licensed attorneys that claim they are human rights activists looking the other way while their foreign allies illegally hack U.S. citizens for their own private benefit.

I mean, the fact that no one cares about this says it all so stop bitching about Israeli spyware. This is exactly what ya’ll support, yes?

And since the publishing of The Rabbit Files, Anonymous Scandinavia deleted their original Twitter account and scrubbed information off of their Youtube channel. They have also become more preoccupied with protecting Bogaerts than supporting Julian Assange despite the fact she categorically perjured herself multiple times in her own court case.

She also tried to intimidate a journalist (myself) by adding an alleged dox of me in court documents despite the fact I literally had nothing to do with the case. Not surprisingly, the alleged dox came from…Ray Johansen.

Johansen and/or his thugs also privately threatened a well-known independent journalist to drop a story and Johansen personally sent death threats to indie journalist, Dack Rouleau. He’s also threatened Suzie Dawson who I personally find to be a troubled individual and a fraud (she’s also defamed innocent activists and journalists like Class Conscious’ Davey Heller as JTRIG agents) but in no way do I support her being threatened. And just last week, he threatened his own (former?) friend, Kitty Hundal, a close associate of Dawson’s and a former member of a hacking group called AnonIntelGroup.

So that’s five journalists and one activist I’ve mentioned in one post alone (there’s more) that this cyber ring of so-called Assange supporters have blatantly lied about, intimidated, and/or threatened. At least once to stop a journalist from publishing and twice in retaliation for publishing.

It’s beyond humiliating for someone like me that long-supported and defended Anonymous Scandinavia to realize what a shit account it actually is and that the person(s) behind it protect and support perjury, abusive behavior towards women (unless it’s one of their female buddies otherwise everyone else apparently deserves it), intimidation, defamation, and/or attacks against journalists—which comes directly from its own administrator, Ray Johansen, or its associates like Johansen, Bogaerts, Jesselyn Radack, @ATafoyovsky, and others.

I suppose that The Rabbit Files have that kind of effect, getting people to reveal their true colors, motives, and agenda. For example, Johansen spent a year telling me that Bogaerts was looney tunes, completely full of shite, Schoenberger’s ex, and a plant for Trevor Fitzgibbon but look at where we are now in “the truth always comes out in the wash” game.

You’re welcome.

What’s perhaps most disconcerting about all of this is the fact that Assange’s fiance, Stella Moris, recently asked Twitter to restore access to the @EmbassyCat account:

If Johansen was being truthful about @EmbassyCat, it’s fairly insane that Moris would post this not only because Johansen and his associates are the very anthesis of anything “FreeSpeech” or “FreePress,” he (and allegedly Anonymous Scandinavia) was also part of AnonIntelGroup, a group of hacktivists/trolls that Bogaerts called her “amazing friends” back in 2017. Well, here’s one video that they posted on their website five months before Bogaerts said that and only four months before AnonIntelGroup started an anti-Assange campaign called “Question WikiLeaks.” The video was originally released by YourAnonCentral.

“We do not support nor do we endorse Julian Assange…”

“We do not support nor do we endorse Julian Assange…we reject Julian Assange and everything he stands for. We strongly discourage anyone from leaking to him, listening to him or giving him money.”

Ouch.

Of course AnonIntelGroup said that they posted the video for the sake of unbiased journalism which is beyond comical coming from a cyber mercenary group of so-called hackers/hacktivists and their trolly friends who threaten, intimidate and defame others or perjure themselves in court because of published material or information they don’t like.

And no, after getting off the kool-aid I don’t particularly freak out anymore over peoples’ opinions about Assange but I will speak up to protect activists from other so-called activists pretending to support him when really all they’ve done is try to undermine him and his support. So Stella, you might want to look into @EmbassyCat so you can decide how much more of a dumpster fire you want to make the pro-Assange movement. Who knows, maybe Johansen lied like virtually everyone else in The Rabbit Files.

UPDATE: JULY 16, 2021
Newly Leaked Email Shows Bogaerts Involved with Ex-Military

In The Rabbit Files 8.5, I noted that Twitter user @ATafoyovsky, an associate of both attorney, Jesselyn Radack (@JesselynRadack), and Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind), tried use a PowerPoint presentation from a company called “Janus” to bizarrely claim that it was Laura Logan’s husband, Joe Burkett, and/or Trevor Fitzgibbon who told Ed Butowsky about Seymour Hersh (it was actually former CIA agent, Larry Johnson, who told him):

“Janus is a codename that Lestat is using for the husband of investigative journalist, Lara Logan, Trevor Fitzgibbon, or both because at one point they were both working with ex- and current military/contractors to put together some sort of PR/data firm called “Janus.” 

Lestat’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, who was a member of both Cicada 3301 and Shadowbox, was given a Janus presentation in the fall of 2017, and then she privately disseminated it later like freaking candy as part of her false narrative and defamation campaign against Trevor Fitzgibbon that he was working with Erik Prince. That’s why Lestat had to tweet, “Don’t post the name,” because so many people know about it.

So anytime you see this particular narrative, now you know that it started with Bogaerts via a private whisper campaign she conducted. However, she eventually admitted to me over the phone that she had no idea—nor any evidence—that Fitzgibbon ever worked with Prince just like virtually everything else she accuses people of doing. Hence the reason why I’ve never published anything that said Fitzgibbon (or anyone else from Shadowbox) worked with Prince despite Bogaerts initially trying to convince me that he did.”

Shockingly, a newly leaked email (I have no idea if it’s legit or not) shows that Bogaerts not only knew one of the ex-military guys involved with Janus, Joe Burkett, it appears that she wanted to use his work to amplify Shadowbox, a PR company she financed and co-founded with Fitzgibbon and Thomas Schoenberger.

On September 20, 2017, a mere day or two after that infamous meeting was held at Ed Butowsky’s home that both Bogaerts and Burkett attended, Schoenberger replied to an email from Burkett stating that the “whole team” [Shadowbox] was “very excited” by Burkett’s “developments” and that his contribution was “integral to the building out of a model” that could be a “$1 billion business.”

He added that this could “truly be one of the most influential ways to impact human thought that I have ever seen,” which sounds like some super creepy Cambridge Analytica stuff without any further context as to what he meant.

Shockingly, Bogaerts, who has waged a campaign against Fitzgibbon for almost four years now, wrote, “I agree and this information can take what we have and make it effective exponentially.” Bogaerts was well aware of who Joe Burkett was and his background when she wrote this because in a video that Trish Negron recorded with Jason Goodman three months prior to the email (that has since been deleted since the publishing of The Rabbit Files), Negron mentioned Lara Logan and Burkett because Bogaerts tried to peddle White Rabbit’s .7z files to them.

Negron was also under the impression from Bogaerts that Burkett was CIA which wouldn’t be surprising since Bogaerts later described Burkett to other people as a “spook.” FYI, he’s not CIA. He’s ex-military and a former military contractor.

See, the issue isn’t that Bogaerts was involved with the same people that Fitzgibbon was (and that’s a fact, not manufactured drama that Bogaerts will later try to spin), the issue is that after she had a inexplicable falling out with Fitzgibbon around the same time she started an online sexting relationship with Ray Johansen behind her husband’s back (UPDATE: Bogaerts vigorously denies Johansen’s claims there was an online relationship, please see “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections“) she and her associates have used Burkett and this company he was trying to start called “Janus” to smear Fitzgibbon when Bogaerts is just as guilty of being involved.

I take no issue with Bogaerts if she’s changed her opinion over the years and has since decided that she made some poor choices. What I do take issue with is her ongoing harassment and intimidation via defamation campaigns in which she literally accuses other people of doing exactly what she did. That, or she fails to provide any evidence for her endless lies that are meant to deliberately and maliciously ruin peoples’ reputations.

If Janus has since come to fruition and Fitzgibbon is a part of it, then post the evidence because in no way would I ever support activists, especially those in the WikiLeaks community, of getting involved with current or ex-military. It’s generally not safe and that’s an opinion I’m absolutely entitled to have. But if there’s literally no evidence that anything became of Janus and Fitzgibbon’s involvement, then Bogaerts and Fitzgibbon are literally in the exact same boat — they both supported it and Burkett’s work.

To be clear, I’m not picking sides in this dumpster fire but what I will say is that I’m not going to believe anyone’s accusations without evidence including Bogaerts’, which she has privately disseminated and most of which she has never backed up. If she and her associates like whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, hacktivist Ray Johansen who recently just spent more time on Twitter threatening yet another female activist, Lestat, or @AnonScandinavia have some real evidence—or any evidence at all—that shows Fitzgibbon is manipulating the world and has infiltrated WikiLeaks with some sort of U.S. military force behind him, then post it. Otherwise, my god, just shut the f*ck up. We’re tired of your harassment, threats, intimidation, drama and larping.

UPDATE: JULY 7, 2021
Twitter’s Active Engagement In Allowing Abuse and Threats On Their Platform

For the last ten days I’ve enjoyed a gloriously Twitter-free summer after I received a notification from the social media platform that they were restricting my account:

The background story on why I posted the tweet that got flagged is because a Twitter account that works with Ray Johansen posted that I should be hunted down in real life and that I was going to be murdered. This finally led me to file a report with the FBI’s cyber division for ongoing harassment, threats, intimidation, blackmail, and/or perjurious statements framing me as a supporter of the domestic terrorist group, Qanon. These actions have all come from a small group of WikiLeaks supporters including this particular account otherwise known as “Kaidinn” or “Leticia Medina,” Ray Johansen (@JustRay1111, @NorwayAn0n, RayJoha2), Jesselyn Radack (@JesselynRadack), Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind), and Elizabeth Mueller (@LizActivate).

Mr. Johansen is still angry that I went public last year with his statements that he cheated on his ex-girlfriend with Beth Bogaerts, statements that Bogaerts herself has finally recognized as legitimate in a recently filed court document that inadvertently vindicated me of being the liar these people paint me as.

Unfortunately, after weeks of Johansen threatening and blackmailing me last year and Bogaerts using the U.S. court system to frame me as a paid supporter of a domestic terrorist group in a court case I have literally nothing to do with, apparently these nut jobs have escalated the situation to the point where they think I deserve to be murdered over such an absurdity as cheating. Um, Heathers called. They want their dysfunctional high school back.

And all of this kinda makes you wonder how far Bogaerts’ associate, Jesselyn Radack, was willing to go to cover up cheating on her husband because even Radack, a self-proclaimed human rights activist (insert massive eye roll), spent this spring trying to dox me online in an effort to intimidate and silence me. Her behavior, of course, is beyond hypocritical since attorney, Steve Biss, tried to do the same thing to me via a Twitter subpoena that Radack and her associates cry about all the time because mah privacy.

In fact, three people who were also included in Biss’ Twitter subpoena, all of whom profess to be advocates of WikiLeaks, whistleblowers, and privacy rights, incomprehensibly tried to finish what Biss failed to do (unmasking me): Johansen posted an alleged dox of me on Twitter after his blackmail attempts against me failed; his associate, Beth Bogaerts, then filed a multitude of documents that bizarrely included this alleged dox in a court case I have nothing to do with in yet another effort to intimidate me; and their associate, Radack, a whistleblower attorney, no less, openly and gleefully tried to dox me on Twitter this spring.

Just to be clear about how insane crazy pants Radack is, the Twitter subpoena submitted by Biss that Radack cries about all the time was literally part of a case filed against her for defamation. The only reason why my account was subpoenaed is because Radack dragged me into her insanity back in June 2018, and I unfortunately believed her for a long time.

I mean, doesn’t all of this go against everything these people have argued online about Steve Biss’ lawsuits and the subpoena? More to the point, doesn’t it go against the very idea of Anonymous (a hacker collective that Johansen claims to be a part of), WikiLeaks, journalism, free speech, and a free press? At some point ya’ll are going to have to face reality and ask yourselves why a small group of hypocritical, so-called WikiLeaks supporters who are all associated with one particular whistleblower attorney are trying so hard to intimidate and dox activists, journalists, and Assange supporters who call out wrong doing.

No one’s telling you not to support or promote these people, just remember what side of history you’re standing on when you do…

So yeah, that’s the background on my tweet and I have reported a number of these individuals and Twitter accounts to both Twitter and the FBI cyber unit including “Kaidinn” who Johansen once told me was part of a group that literally bullied someone into killing themselves. Like, on purpose. Such nice people.

But apparently calling people out for threats and harassment will land you in Twitter jail while the actual abusers are free to roam the social media platform despite the fact they repeatedly violate Twitter’s TOS and have been reported literally hundreds of times by users.

I filed multiple appeals to Twitter over my tweet and they never bothered to get back to me even once yet they’re always trigger happy to let me know when rabidly abusive accounts haven’t violated their terms of service. I think we all know that Twitter would have never restored my account until I deleted the tweet so I deleted it yesterday and decided to publish about it on my website.

Maybe these operatives can figure out a way to censor me on one platform because of what I say on another. Sounds about right for WikiLeaks supporters. It should be noted that the report about my tweet came literally weeks after I had posted it but right after I posted this:

Despite the fact that Anonymous Scandinavia a.k.a. “John” or “Johann” in German, has spent years happily shutting down other peoples’ Twitter accounts, or at least claiming to because it seems that censorship is very much his thing, I’m assuming his feelings got hurt (again) after I tweeted this hence the restriction on my account.

UPDATE/CORRECTIONS: JULY 7, 2021
Jason Fishbein

If you read The Rabbit Files 8.4, the Mueller Report, or Buzzfeed’s FOIA releases, you’re probably familiar with Jason Fishbein, an attorney in Florida who has done legal work for WikiLeaks in the past. In The Rabbit Files 8.4, I discussed Fishbein, his relationship with Aaron Nevins (Nevins received a large cache of documents from Guccifer 2), and his background working with a private intelligence company founded/managed by three former CIA agents. At one point I wrote:

“…someone should have a chat with Stella Moris about how friendly she was with Aaron Nevin’s former colleague, Jason Fishbein.”

The reason I wrote that is because a reliable source told me that Moris had been in contact with Fishbein and it’s fairly easy to glean from released documents that he was, indeed, in contact with someone close to Julian Assange. The implication was that Moris was feeding Fishbein information during the 2016 election i.e. emails and/or information that would help Trump.

After The Rabbit Files 8.4 was published, Fishbein was nice enough to reach out to me in order to correct the record. We spoke about his ties to Nevins and, yes, he knew him briefly years ago but this was not an ongoing relationship.

Fishbein was not in contact with Nevins when he received documents from Guccifer 2 and it was actually Fishbein who told the media about his past acquaintance with Nevins meaning this wasn’t a scandal that the media uncovered although they made it appear that way, myself included based on their reporting, so I hope Fishbein will consider this as my apology.

As for the password to the Trump website that Fishbein passed along to WikiLeaks, we didn’t really discuss it because I’m well aware of how sensational the media made the story. The bottom line is that the password didn’t grant anyone access to administrative permissions on the website and it was made available to other people in the media besides WikiLeaks.

The only real scandal was the far-right/alt-right rearing its ugly head once again in the WikiLeaks story via Charles Johnson’s online forum. However, Fishbein made it clear that he is in no way far-right or even alt-right.

As for Stella Moris, yes, he has spoken with her and, again, he did some legal work for WikiLeaks during that sketchy Todd and Claire case that went down during the fall of 2016. But was he receiving privileged information from WikiLeaks insiders (aside from anything pertaining to legal affairs) like pre-published emails that would help the Trump campaign? No, he emphatically denied it.

So that’s that. The media totally blew out of proportion his past ties to Nevins and I appreciate Fishbein reaching out to me and giving me the chance to tell his side of the story. He was super friendly, understanding, and open to discussion.

And yes, I realize, again, that he used to work for a private firm run by former CIA agents so maybe the guy was playing me but at least while I was speaking with him he seemed to have a genuine concern for Assange’s well being and freedom; he was patient and acknowledged/understood my hesitation about his former employment; and he openly discussed the majority of topics I brought up about him in my article (except his legal cases and clients which he obviously can’t discuss) rather than just blowing me off because of my concerns.

UPDATE: JULY 7, 2021
More Discrepancies In Beth Bogaerts’ Story About “Vetter” and Cicada

HELPFUL HINT: For the sake of understanding the following update please note that “James Rock” “DeplorableJames” and “Vetter”were three different account names used for the same Twitter handle @Bernies4_Trump so when any of these names or Twitter handle are mentioned, they all pertain to the same Twitter account. Also as a reminder, Beth Bogaerts (@HumanOfMind) also claims that Thomas Schoenberger was behind the @Bernies4_Trump account so according to her allegations:

James Rock = DeplorableJames = Vetter = @Bernies4Trump = Schoenberger

Okay, now the fun part. This update coincides with The Rabbit Files 5.0 series which discusses how and when Beth Bogaerts first met Thomas Schoenberger. In a complaint that she filed last year in California, she claimed that she first “met” him “on or around December 15, 2016,” but in the document she didn’t mention that when she first met him he was disguising himself behind the @Bernies4_Trump Twitter account using the name “Vetter.”

However, aside from her complaint, Bogaerts has consistently maintained both publicly and privately that she first “met” Schoenberger in mid-December 2016, as “Vetter,” the alleged user behind the @Bernies4_Trump account. For example, in this 42-page document filled with defamatory statements that she wrote and sent to Ray Johansen back in March 2020 (a guy she recently said she didn’t know loool), and that her associate, @ATafoyovsky, published on her behalf via Medium.com, she wrote:

“During late 2016 I had two accounts reach out to me via Twitter…’Vetter’ reached out to me by way of Dms.”

Since that time, The Rabbit Files exposed Bogaerts as having actually tweeted with “Vetter” (@Bernies4_Trump) as early as August 2016, approximately four months before she now claims she “met” him (for more see The Rabbit Files 5.1).

Newly uncovered records via Archive.org also show that the @Bernies4_Trump account didn’t change the account’s name to “Vetter” until the very last days of December 2016, or sometime in early January 2017. Below you can see that as late as December 26, 2016, the account was still using the same name it had used for months: DeplorableJames.

Although the screenshot above shows @Bernies4_Trump’s tweets are from September 2016, the Twitter account was preserved via Archive.org on December 26, 2016, meaning this is how it looked on that date.

The name Vetter didn’t exist until after December 26, 2016, so why has Bogaerts never mentioned “DeplorableJames” before since that was the name of the account she was tweeting with between August – December 26, 2016? She only talks about the name “Vetter.” Unless, of course, “DeplorableJames” a.k.a. @Bernies4_Trump privately told her sometime during this time period that their name was actually “Vetter,” a claim that Bogaerts has never made.

Is it that Schoenberger was telling the truth and that his friend, James, initially had control of the Twitter account like he’s professed all along? Or is Bogaerts desperately trying to bury the fact she was tweeting with the DeplorableJames/Bernies4_Trump account as early as August 2016 (if not earlier), and chose to become closely associated with the person running the account despite the fact the account was making the most absurd claims online like this:

For the next year, the @Bernies4_Trump account continued to makes claims that Cicada 3301 was working with Assange and WikiLeaks and Bogaerts went along with all of it. Now, her and her associates spend their days on Twitter pointing the figure at people like Tracy Beanz who fell for this utter bullshit as if it’s entirely their fault they believed Cicada’s endless lies and propaganda which was clearly exactly what Cicada wanted in the first place.

And don’t forget, it was Bogaerts’ associate, Anonymous Scandinavia, who introduced and promoted Tracy Beanz to the WikiLeaks support community, going so far as to claim that WikiLeaks was “compiling” her videos in order to social engineer all of us into believing they were working directly with Assange (exactly like Cicada 3301 did) but, meh, that’s now everyone else’s fault, too. Talk about a setup…

So going back to Bogaerts’ 42-page document, she also wrote: “Through a series of months Mr. Schoenberger used the ‘Vetter’ account to gain my trust and familiarized me with the concept of Cicada 3301….” And while speaking with blogger/journalist Steve Outtrim, she stated:

In the Outtrim messages, Bogaerts changed her story about when she met Vetter a.k.a DeplorableJames a.k.a. @Bernies4Trump a.k.a. Thomas Schoenberger. Here she says that she met him “during the election,” not mid-December 2016. So which is it and why is the date when these two people met been one of the biggest secrets and hardest things to pin down in this entire dumpster fire?

She also claimed that she never heard of Cicada 3301 until Vetter familiarized her with it but that’s impossible if we stick with her main narrative that she didn’t meet Vetter/Schoenberger until mid-December 2016. According to Archive.org’s time-stamped records, on October 6, 2016, the @Bernies4_Trump account did not have a Twitter banner and the name was still “DeplorableJames,” not Vetter:

At some point between October 6th and November 7th, the account’s Twitter banner was changed to a quote taken from a 2016 Cicada 3301 puzzle. The second image below in which you can see the full Cicada quote is the same @Bernies4_Trump account after the name and handle were changed to ChristWins and GumboInOrleans, respectively.

During that exact same time period in 2016 when @Bernies4_Trump changed their Twitter banner, Bogaerts changed her Twitter banner to the exact same Cicada quote. You can see on the left that on November 2nd she was using a screenshot from a WikiLeaks document as her banner and by searching the banner ID# of Bogaerts’ Twitter account, https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/3291733369/1492912415 (the first number is her Twitter ID, the second is the banner ID), we can see on the right that by November 13th, she had changed it:

For those of you that want the tutorial, I’ll use my Twitter account as an example. If you go to Archive.org, you can easily find the banner ID for my account:

Then, if you search Archive.org for that link you’ll see:

And if you click on the first link in the search results above you get:

Now click on May 14, 2018 and voila! You’ll see the Twitter banner I was using on that date:

I’m guessing it’s possible that Bogaerts decided not to use the Cicada banner but she definitely uploaded it to her Twitter account in mid-November 2016, and here’s the bottom line: If she wants to maintain her story that she didn’t meet Thomas Schoenberger until mid-December 2016, like she has in her own filed court documents, then regardless of what Twitter account he was using at that time, that means someone else introduced her to the Cicada 3301 puzzle and she likely promoted it via her Twitter banner before she ever met him. However, she always has the option to change her story…again.

UPDATE: MAY 25, 2021
“Tiny Troll” Anonymous Scandinavia

In case you missed it, the “Disclaimers” and “Updates” sections at the end of my Rabbit Files articles have become longer than some of the actual articles because this is what happens when you’re dealing with operatives hungry for lawfare, censorship, and influence. The following is one of those updates.

Throughout The Rabbit Files, I’ve mentioned my personal belief that so-called hacktivist, Ray Johansen, is an administrator or close associate of the Anonymous Scandinavia Twitter account and in the latest Rabbit Files update, I noted that this account publicly denied that Johansen had access.

I would love to believe the account but let’s be honest, for a myriad of reasons, I don’t. Since 2018, this account has promoted and protected the same small group of abusive activists that revolve around the exact same agenda as Ray Johansen’s. Additionally, they generally only attack Suzie Dawson, Trevor Fitzgibbon, or other people and accounts that their paranoia has led them to believe are working with Dawson and Fitzgibbon—just like Johansen.

If you think that’s because of Dawson’s moral bankruptcy for grifting off a fraudulent story she’s been telling since 2012, welcoming fascists into #Unity4J, or because of the accusations that Jesselyn Radack has been throwing around about Fitzgibbon since 2016, think again. But we’re not quite there yet…

Let’s start with how someone like “Anonymous Scandinavia” claims to be on the right side of history and that they stand for Assange, free press, and free speech while they themselves try to intimidate people into silence and the person they support the most is a virtual nobody who actually perjured herself repeatedly in court to frame a journalist/activist…and then gleefully tried to dox them in the same court documents. Wow, someone get this guy a leotard and a cape that reads “hero.”

Anonymous Scandinavia also vouched for Johansen privately claiming that he would “never sell out,” and apparently they meant that Johansen would never sell out to anything that’s decent or honest. Despite demanding undying loyalty from female activists he social engineers or the activists around him, he’ll stab you in the back in a heart beat. The lies he has told about many of you privately, including investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, would make you see red.

Worse, if you’ve ever been in contact with this guy and shared anything about trauma, abuse, or mental health issues you’ve been struggling with, assume that everyone knows about it at this point, including me. Johansen enjoys using other peoples’ trauma to excuse his own inadequacies in a relationship or just to make fun of them like he did to his ex-girlfriend. In fact, one source told me about a well known journalist who was threatened by Johansen’s associate: If the journalist didn’t kill a story, they would go public with trauma suffered by the journalist. I’m aware of the trauma that allegedly happened and I personally believe these threats happened. And the terrorist tactics worked, the journalist killed the story.

@BellaMagnani is also notorious for privately messing with activists’ heads who won’t play ball or toe the line by sending them nasty, manipulative psychological summaries about them that she created in her own head but that’s a whole ‘nother story. So who exactly vouched for Johansen?

In September 2020, Anonymous Scandinavia tried to sell an absurd story (above) to their followers and most of you didn’t notice because they did it right before Assange’s extradition hearing. Immediately after posting the story, Johansen spent the entire extradition hearing publicly threatening, blackmailing, and trying to dox me in order to cover up the lies that he spews privately. That, and to deliberately distract you from supporting Assange and to delegitimize the three videos and seventeen articles I published about Assange’s hearing.

Part of this absurd story that Anonymous Scandinavia tried to sell to their followers inadvertently included them admitting that their OPSEC is a joke. Here’s the backstory on why unnamed actors allegedly tracked down the administrator’s family: On approximately April 11, 2020, the old Anonymous Scandinavia account (@AnonScan) went quiet, only to reappear in September right before the extradition hearing.

In between that time, during the summer of 2020, Johansen started spreading rumors privately about why the account went dark (below). Oh, you thought Johansen and I stopped talking at the end of our short-lived relationship in April? Surprise! But ya’ll should keep up your cute little “jealousy” narratives about me because the more you lie, the more material you give me.

After these rumors were circulated, the @AnonScan account returned right before Assange’s extradition hearing by dropping a video on Youtube. I believe this video is the pinned tweet on the new Anonymous Scandinavia account (@AnonScandinavia) 👇

Here’s what the video description used to say (the absurd story they tried to sell right before the extradition hearing):

Just like Suzie Dawson, Johansen, and 90% of the Assange community, Anonymous Scandinavia has claimed that they’ve been targeted by intelligence an absurd amount of times over the years. Now we’re expected to believe that despite this, the administrator of the old Anonymous Scandinavia account (@AnonScan) handed out their personal information and passwords like candy.

And not only did they give out enough personal information so others could track down their family, they gave their own family members passwords to at least three different accounts, deliberately putting their loved ones in danger from these evil intelligence agencies that have been stalking Anonymous Scandinavia for years. People like Dawson and Anonymous Scandinavia are for suckers and sell outs like Enrique Tarrio.

Five days after I started publishing The Rabbit Files, the @AnonScan account mysteriously shut down and the new one (@AnonScandinavia) claiming to be the old one popped up a month later. But which old one was that exactly? 👇

Almost every activist in the Assange support community should probably be committed over their paranoia about infiltrators and fed snitches and yet NONE of them, especially the “old timers involved with Assange support for like forever and who get in everyones’ faces because they know better than YOU,” take safety and red flags seriously. Below is a perfect example.

If you do take safety and red flags seriously, you’re disparaged, humiliated, smeared, threatened, ostracized and risk being doxed. I wonder why that is and maybe if you had a brain you’d start looking at the people who encourage that kind of behavior. Some random guy asks you to become their personal snitch via an unsecure server; a woman who infiltrated Occupy, took it over, lied about her asylum story, and then started grifting off Assange; a whistleblower attorney who tries to intimidate activists and journalists with doxing attempts; a so-called supporter framing journalists in court…

…Anonymous Scandinavia threatening female (and underage?) activists; Ray Johansen threatening god only knows how many activists in his lifetime; Johansen, Dawson, Anonymous Scandinavia, gatekeepers, and all their minions deliberately delegitimizing and ruining the reputation of smart and well-intentioned activists who get in their way or won’t stay silent; endless propaganda, grifting, defamation campaigns, and abuse that almost always originates from the same small group of Assange supporters; ex-spooks everywhere…

And no one blinks an eye.

Just like Dawson, Anonymous Scandinavia plays the victim of intelligence agencies to social engineer you. The associates of both play the victim to social engineer you. And all of these so-called activists who play the victim of [insert absurd story] using lies, easily debunked evidence, or no real evidence at all is a red fucking flag.

To be clear, activists who lie about their background is a red fucking flag. Activists who threaten, dox and/or frame activists and journalists is a red fucking flag. Activists who are caught lying repeatedly is a red fucking flag. Activists who call everyone that disagrees with them or exposes wrong doing a fed snitch, infiltrator, or JTRIG agent is a red fucking flag. Activists who deliberately use other peoples’ trauma to gain trust, intimidate, threaten, or social engineer them is a red fucking flag. Deliberate, sustained, and unsubstantiated defamation campaigns that use the same message, words and hashtags over and over again to manipulate Twitter’s algorithms is a red fucking flag.

And it works on you every single time.

These people have purposely divided, cornered, and conned Assange supporters into choosing two sides: Johansen, AnonScandinavia, and Jesselyn Radack’s insanely dishonest, abusive, intelligence gathering operation or Dawson’s dishonest, abusive, grifty, fashy campaigns and projects. And that’s because none of these people actually care about Assange’s freedom, they only care about themselves, their power and influence over others, and the money they can collect. And they’ve been doing it for a long time.

Dawson has been scamming and destroying reputations since 2012, Anonymous Scandinavia has been scamming and destroying reputations since at least February 2017, but it’s never too late to wake up and start a real movement without the hierarchal, abusive insanity.

Recently, one of Dawson’s associates took to Twitter to complain that people were “attacking” Dawson as if she somehow couldn’t grasp why anyone would do that after Dawson has lied for years about her background and used those lies to grift off of Assange supporters. Dawson has also spent an exorbitant amount of time smearing journalists and calling activists “feds” and “JTRIG” agents. Maybe this associate isn’t aware of her background or is drinking the Dawson kool aid but myself, Class Conscious’ Davey Heller, and “Mason Bee” have been exposing this shite since 2018 (and taking all the hits for it while guys like Johansen now ride our research and journalistic coattails), so it’s not hard to find the information thanks to the three of us.

And finally, going back to what I said earlier:

Additionally, [Anonymous Scandinavia] generally only attack[s] Suzie Dawson, Trevor Fitzgibbon, or other people and accounts that their paranoia has led them to believe are working with Dawson and Fitzgibbon—just like Johansen. If you think that’s because of Dawson’s moral bankruptcy for grifting off a fraudulent story she’s been telling since 2012, welcoming fascists into #Unity4J, or because of the accusations that Jesselyn Radack has been throwing around about Fitzgibbon since 2016, think again.

Indeed, think again. None of the recent attacks on Dawson made by Johansen and Pamela Drew (isn’t she an associate of Cassandra Fairbanks?) have anything to do with her lies or penchant for destroying the reputations of innocent people. The issue stems from Johansen’s rage over Dawson destroying Pursuance Project’s funding back in December 2017 (Johansen would rather die than retweet my article about it which you can find HERE). It’s literally that simple. Anonymous Scandinavia, Johansen, and their associates never had an issue with Dawson’s grifting and lies prior to that. In fact, Johansen welcomed her into Pursuance Project with open arms—after she was already spinning her background story into a “I had to flee New Zealand because the Five Eyes fail assassinated me ten million times” scam.

Who do you think was the lead on getting Dawson’s New Zealand’s political party, the Internet Party, membership into Pirates Party? Yup. Johansen. He also helped promote her “AntiSpy Bill” in mid-2017, as did his and Jesselyn Radack’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, who was happily working with Trevor Fitzgibbon at the exact same time via their PR firm, Shadowbox.

Notice how no one had a problem with each other in the late summer of 2017? Even Anonymous Scandinavia’s buddy, Randy Credico, was working with Trevor Fitzgibbon in September 2017, and this was over a year after Jesselyn Radack filed rape allegations against Fitzgibbon (he was never charged and the investigation was closed).

In early December 2017, Pursuance Project and Dawson had a falling out after Dawson lost her shit online and dragged Julian Assange into the debacle like she tends to do on occasion and if you’ve been following The Rabbit Files, you’re well aware of what happened next that same month: Johansen claims he started having an online sexting relationship with Bogaerts (UPDATE: Bogaerts vigorously denies Johansen’s claims, please see “Updates, Disclaimers, and Corrections“) who just so happened to inexplicably freak out on Trevor Fitzgibbon during the same time period, leading to the demise of their relationship (this will be covered in The Rabbit Files eventually).

My guess is that since Fitzgibbon was associated with Dawson i.e. helping her promote her Internet Party shite just like everyone else did, and then Bogaerts used her own meltdown to start smearing him privately, he became one of Johansen’s targets after Dawson sabotaged Pursuance Project’s funding. And voila! Just like that the “Jesselyn Radack operation” was born.

And yup, you guessed it. Within the next few months, Bogaerts leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit against Radack to one of Johansen’s friends before it was filed by his attorney, Steve Biss, and is now being countersued for it. From The Rabbit Files 8.2:

To put it simply, Bogaerts introduced Fitzgibbon to Biss, Biss started putting a case together for him against Radack while Bogaerts was cheering Fitzgibbon on and after they had a falling out, she leaked the lawsuit to Johansen via one of his associates that she had been working with since at least January 2017. Then, she and/or her associates like Johansen and Jesselyn Radack have spent the last three years beating Fitzgibbon up for hiring the very attorney she introduced him to in the first place.

Then, after Dawson created #Unity4J in May 2018, Johansen later claimed that he planted SoMee Social’s social media director, Aaron Kesel (@AnonKn0wledge; @Cens0redAK), and Internet Party member, Jo Booth, inside Dawson’s campaign to basically act as his snitches. Bogaerts also privately encouraged at least two journalists, including myself, to create fake #Unity4J Discord channel accounts to spy on Trevor Fitzgibbon.

Make no mistake, I believe that Suzie Dawson is a nasty manipulator, compulsive liar and raging opportunist. But if you’re looking for manipulative liars who also infiltrate campaigns or encourage others to do so—according to their own words and for the benefit of their own agendas—look no further than Johansen and his associates.

Basically, these despicably dishonest people within the Assange support community have no problem with dishing out abuse, defamation and lies as long as no one does it back to them or calls them out for it. Johansen has threatened more activists than anyone I know but god forbid Dawson attack Pursuance Project. And if Johansen and every other long term activist within the Assange community who claim that they “know best,” weren’t such a flaming pile of ego and idiocy, they would have called Dawson out years ago, well before newbie Assange supporters like myself came along and tried to clean up their mess.

Now you know that virtually all of the insanity surrounding Jesselyn Radack and Trevor Fitzibbon, and Suzie Dawson and Ray Johansen, probably stems from the debacle that took place in December 2017, between Dawson and Barrett Brown’s Pursuance Project. The only reason why Johansen and Radack ever supported my articles about Dawson i.e. discrepancies in her story, her alleged asylum problems, and intelligence agencies allegedly trying to kill her was strictly for their own personal agenda: Revenge. When Bogaerts decided she was going to target me next, I simply got added to the Dawson/Fitzgibbon list. These peoples’ actions have never been about making the community a healthier, safer place for activists. Far from it.

So that’s one of the latest updates from The Rabbit Files with some super fun stuff thrown in for good measure. I highly recommend that you read next “Assange Support Community: Dawson vs. Johansen,” which dives into Dawson’s social media platform, “Panquake,” a social media platform called, “SoMee Social,” that Johansen plays a role in, and how Johansen is probably using the competition between the two to continue his revenge plot and seek more support. And yes, the two of them truly deserve to destroy each other.

Although you may scoff, threaten, or try to intimidate me to silence The Rabbit Files and The GateKeeper Files, the only extensive historical records in existence today about the dark underbelly of the WikiLeaks/Assange support community, one day—not today, not tomorrow, not even next year—but when everyone stops drinking the kool aid or someone ends up killing themselves because of the abuse some of the people mentioned in this article dish out, they will be considered a significant source of what’s happened and a warning to all activists. Cheers!

THIS ENTIRE POST IS STRICTLY MY OPINION. PLEASE DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND COME TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

DisclaimerTen more pages of disclaimers about my disclaimers and updates 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.been

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.

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