Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 3

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part I

  • Introduction
  • How It Started: The First Tweet
    • The Yahoo Article
    • Radack v. Yahoo
      • How Dawson Jacked the Assange Movement
      • Anonymous
      • Kazakhstan, Abduction Attempt, and #JA4Me
      • The #AntiSpyBill, Pursuance Project, and the Pirate Party
      • It’s Never Been About #Unity4J
    • The CIA and Damaging Information Published in 2017
    • Disruption/Disinformation in the Assange Support Community (2017)
      • Anonymous Scandinavia, Warren Flood, Cicada 3301, and Qanon
      • AnonIntelGroup
      • Trevor Fitzgibbon and Jesselyn Radack
        • More Disinfo Ops
        • Erik Prince and Military Ops
      • Seth Rich
        • Robbin Young and “The Seth Rich Files”
        • Shadowbox and Ed Butowsky
    • In Summary

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 2

  • Introduction
  • “How Did I Divide the Community?” A Whistleblower Attorney’s Complete Lack of Introspection
    • How to Steal The Work of Targeted Journalists For Your Own Self-Gratifying Victimhood
    • My Personal Problems Are Assange Support Problems
    • Class and Victimhood
    • How to Stop Journalists From Exposing Fascism Within the WikiLeaks Community

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 3

(The introduction is the same as Part 2 so feel free to skip)

Exposing a Disinfo Operation in One Twitter Thread Part 3

Introduction

In Part 1 of this article, we examined two tweets that whistleblower attorney, Jesselyn Radack, posted in response to the recently published Yahoo article about the CIA’s discussions to assassinate Assange and disrupt WikiLeaks both internally and externally.  

https://archive.md/h4vAM

Radack tried to insinuate that Suzie Dawson and #Unity4J, along with Trevor Fitzgibbon, were involved with CIA disruption operations or somehow inspired the CIA to follow suit but it’s complete madness to believe that the CIA looks to Dawson on how to carry out their operations. If anything, the tweets above look more like an attempt to take the heat off U.S. intelligence agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Trump administration (the far-right) than anything else, which we’ll discuss later in this article.

Additionally, after studying the timeframe laid out by the Yahoo article, Radack’s accusations don’t even make logistical sense in light of the fact that #Unity4J didn’t come into existence until a year after U.S. intelligence was considering such activities. Worse still in terms of Radack’s allegations, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, was already in discussions with Ecuador about removing Julian Assange from the embassy in September 2018, at which point #Unity4J had only been around for a mere four months.

As for Radack’s obvious distaste for Dawson taking over the Assange support community in 2018, she has long-term WikiLeaks gatekeepers and her very own close associates to thank for that after they boosted Dawson’s credibility in the years prior despite a myriad of questionable things she had said and done. 

Furthermore, it wasn’t Dawson who was planting derogatory, divisive, or disruptive material about WikiLeaks and running LARPs and disinfo campaigns in 2017 (minus stories about her own life). It was, without question, Radack’s friends so it’s extremely interesting how much energy she’s putting into covering up these facts. 

As I stated previously, the reason I tend to publish nowadays is to preserve a historical record of what has or is currently transpiring in the WikiLeaks support community and my opinions about these events, especially in light of the fact that there is a massive whitewashing of history underway and Radack’s tweets are just one example.

In Part 2, we examined the conversation that ensued after Radack’s initial tweets including her astounding inability to take responsibility for her own incredulous behavior, a sock account that conveniently showed up to distract everyone, how she and her associates destroyed a small group of activists exposing fash in the Assange support community, how she and her associates destroyed a small group of activists that were exposing fash in the Assange support community, and how they married their hate of two individuals into one sprawling disinformation and defamation campaign that is currently being run from at least four different countries.

In Part 3, we’re going to start with a sock account that showed up in the Twitter and then we’re going to look at exactly what transpired before Fitzgibbon filed his first lawsuit against Radack, including two disinfo campaigns Bogaerts ran against Fitzgibbon; Shadowbox and Cicada 3301; the #ReconnectJulian vigil; and who leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit.

How It’s Going: Enter the Sock Account

Rather than Radack actually answering @Jaraparilla after they pointed out that Fitzgibbon was a perfect example of how she’s divided the community because literally everyone in the Assange support community has had to deal with it on some level or another, in came this helpful sock account to distract everyone by moving the goal posts to safer, greener pastures: The Cow.

https://archive.md/HKNoa
https://archive.ph/8Jz1f

There’s a lot to unpack in these tweets. We’ve got accusations that Biss used his client’s case to unmask the Cow on behalf of Devin Nunes but his plans were thwarted, “Black PR campaigns,” “projection,” and a money-making scheme that involved lodging false accusations against Radack. The sock account also slipped in one of Radack’s old tweets about the First Amendment, unmasking people, and silencing critics, which is hilarious but we won’t get into that until Part 3.

So in order to put the breaks on what feels like a 100-year old horror movie, first I’m going to review the events leading up to Fitzgibbon’s first lawsuit against Radack and in the next article we’ll review the actual lawsuits he filed because one of the operations that Radack and her associates are currently running is to make it appear that these legal cases were entirely about the Cow. In actuality, the first lawsuit had nothing to do with the Cow and the second one had nothing to do with the Cow initially.

As I mentioned in Part One, things took an abrupt turn after Suzie Dawson targeted Barrett Brown’s Pursuance Project in December 2017, and dragged Julian Assange along for the ride. I also noted that after this incident, Radack, Johansen, and Beth Bogaerts created a sprawling, on-going defamation operation that conveniently packaged together Dawson, Fitzgibbon, and anyone else they could remotely tie to them that they felt like destroying because, well, they got caught and the following is how and when this operation first appears to have started.

Cicada 3301 and Shadowbox

On the off chance I have any readers who aren’t familiar with Cicada 3301, it’s a puzzle that was created in 2012, and taken over by Thomas Schoenberger sometime between 2015-2016. In August 2016, Jesselyn Radack’s associate, Beth Bogaerts, started to openly communicate with a Twitter account called “James,” whom she later claimed was actually Schoenberger and the one who introduced her to the puzzle. 

In November 2016, Bogaerts started promoting Cicada 3301 on Twitter and in 2018, she told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that she was the owner of the puzzle, fraudulently portraying herself as someone who had been involved with it since 2012.

In mid-2017, members of the puzzle included Schoenberger, Bogaerts, Manny Chavez, and a guy who called himself “White Rabbit.” On October 19, 2017, Bogaerts introduced @ATafoyovsky (“Lestat”) to Schoenberger after which he, too, joined the puzzle although Chavez recently stated that he had nothing to do with it. 

As a side note, just remember that every time @ATafoyovsky acts like he was knee-deep in the Q stuff when it first started, he wasn’t introduced to Schoenberger until late October 2017. I mean, sure, if Schoenberger was the creator of Q as @ATafoyovsky claims, then it’s possible he spilled all of his Q secrets to him the minute he first met him but my guess is that whatever “Lestat” learned or, more accurately, thinks that he learned during this time period was passed to him from Bogaerts. And that’s just a theory, folks. Everybody calm down.

As for the PR firm, Shadowbox, after discussing the idea of starting a company to help people like Trevor Fitzgibbon who Bogaerts and Schoenberger both felt had been wrongly targeted, the two of them co-founded Shadowbox with Bogaerts financing the entire venture.

A copious amount of leaked emails along with a 2018 interview that Bogaerts did reflect that she was actively involved in the creation, financing, and direction of the company. In addition, a video that Chavez published but has since privatized (he recently denied my request to use a clip from the video) revealed emails exchanged between Shadowbox co-founders on September 15, 2017, that also show Bogaerts had no issue with the company description, something she has repeatedly denied.

Fitzgibbon: “[S]till works in progress but here’s some official docs.”

Bogaerts: “Would you like me to print 10x the corporate and personal docs each and a few of the contracts?”

Fitzgibbon: “If anyone has any last minute edits pls send by 3:00 central – Beth is going to make copies for clients on our Dallas trip.”

In the video (approx. 1:54:01-1:55:54 mark), Chavez opened the corporate documents that were attached to Fitzgibbon’s email, the same documents that Bogaerts offered to make copies of for their clients, some of which read:

“This is war. Shadowbox is your army…Where your enemies have lied to paint the company as the bad actor, we sow the seeds of doubt and present the counter-narrative…

We do this through sophisticated use of internet technology, meme creation, PR, and cyber-guerrilla tactics that stop the bleeding and begin to sway public opinion and the media in your favor.

Our proprietary covert approach includes swarming the opposition on multiple fronts and platforms…We address smear assaults head-on by custom-creating shadow ‘bot’ campaigns as a counter strategy. We use targeted chaos to confuse your opponents.

We are an elite team of specialists with backgrounds ranging from public image creation to coding and covert intelligence services.”

Covert intelligence services? Recently, it also came to light that Bogaerts told a close associate of Shadowbox that she wanted to incorporate military strategy, including PSYOPS, into Shadowbox’s operations after receiving a PDF file from a former U.S. military contractor.

She was also heavily engaged in the company’s activities. For instance, she created a PowerPoint that was used by Shadowbox to pitch former New York governor candidate, Bo Dietl, whose campaign paid the company $15,000 for at least one video they created. And in December 2017, Bogaerts traveled to New York with Schoenberger to meet with Dietl’s campaign manager.

Bogaerts’ Disinfo Campaigns Against Fitzgibbon

Silent Partner

In early August 2017, Shadowbox landed their first client, Ed Butowsky, but within two months of working with the Texas millionaire, cracks in the company’s foundation began to show. According to an email that Fitzgibbon sent to his partners, there was an internal dispute about Fitzgibbon doing work for a cryptocurrency company via a PR firm he founded a year prior called Silent Partner. On November 15, 2017, Fitzgibbon wrote:

Again, the issue at hand was that Fitzgibbon was doing PR for a crypto company but the bizarre part of this story is that this had nothing to do with what Shadowbox was supposedly all about: A reputation PR firm that assisted targeted individuals with nuclear-level warfare. And did you notice who Fitzgibbon included in the email? Right, Ed Butowsky, as if other members of Shadowbox had already dragged him into the drama and now Fitzgibbon was forced to explain himself.

But regardless of how absurd his partners’ objections were this non-issue issue appeared to be an ongoing problem weeks later. Schoenberger wrote to Chavez:

“The Crypto thing is fine in my book. I know Trevor has interest in this…But the important thing is Beth is ok with it. I know Trevor needs to make money for his kids.”

“But the important thing is Beth is ok with it.” The glaring message here was that if Bogaerts didn’t approve she was going to create problems for Fitzgibbon. Sure enough, six months later she went public in a Lift The Veil interview and blamed both Fitzgibbon and Chavez (who set up a Steemit account for Silent Partner) for the implosion of Shadowbox, a company that literally had nothing to do with promoting crypto companies. From the interview:

LTV: “Tell me about Shadowbox.”

Bogaerts: “Shadowbox was meant to help people. It was just something not even–anything to do with Cicada.”

LTV: “Shadowbox?”

Bogaerts: “Yeah, it was a company, not even–it had nothing to do with Cicada. It was with Defango [Chavez], Thomas [Schoenberger], and another person who I don’t want to mention [Fitzgibbon], and me. We were going to help people who get targeted online because there’s a lot of bullies online and, you know, we thought we could help and that was the main thing.”

LTV: “So did you sell services to help people? Where did the money come in?”

Bogaerts: “Well, the thing is like we got two guys, like two people [two clients] and then, I don’t want to say who they are, but um…and then Defango and someone else decided to go behind our back and destroy the company and start their own company, Silent Partner.

And when that happened it killed the company. And we brought Defango back in and the other guy didn’t come back. And then Defango’s the one that’s mad but he’s the one who killed the company with the other person…”

LTV: “Can you tell me where the money came from, like, so it’s a business…?”

Bogaerts: “It was a business but it wasn’t highly successful because it was dying because at one point they sabotaged us…”

LTV: “Who’s that?”

Bogaerts: “Him and the other guy. Defango and the other guy [Fitzgibbon]. They turned around and they were going to start another company without telling us and then just like sabotaged our company and at that point the company broke.”

Hoo boy, this here is some seriously outstanding horse shit and disinfo that Bogaerts deliberately shoveled to thousands of people. Honey, no one was “going to start another company without telling” you, someone DID start a company without telling you because they didn’t even know you when they started it. Fitzgibbon’s Silent Partner, Inc. was created in August 2016, while Bogaerts was busy chatting it up with “James” the Cicada 3301 account and well before she met Fitzgibbon.

I was able to request and confirm the company’s original filing (Delaware) and Bogaerts would be foolish to continue pushing these overt lies. This is the public record from OpenCorporates.com:

Fitzgibbon’s email alone proves that Bogaerts knew all about Silent Partner, Inc. as early as November 2017, if not earlier, and Shadowbox clearly did not “break” at that point. How in the world could she have brought Chavez “back in” to the company if it had been destroyed?

If anything, Bogaerts ramped up her disinfo campaign against Fitzgibbon, he left the company in December 2017, and she continued running it as vice president for the next 5-6 months, which included Shadowbox’s continued relationship with Ed Butowsky. So let’s talk about the steaming hot bowl of defamation that Bogaerts served up in December 2017, right around the time that Ray Johansen claims he started a “sexting” relationship with her.

Hotel CIA

Approximately two weeks after Schoenberger’s last message to Chavez about Bogaerts having to sign off on what Fitzgibbon did with his own private company, on December 6, 2017, he sent Chavez another message that read:

“Yup, so between us, Trevor is under watch. CIA…He took a chick name Christine to his hotel room, showed her a ton of wikileaks shit and the chick is the daughter of a recently retired CIA dude. Trevor really needs to lay low. CJ personally told Beth and I this. He is dating the ladies friend. Its getting really sketch…”

The following day he sent another message:

“I guess Beth talked to some lady named Lisa and she is feeling like she wants distance with Trevor. I pulled back 3 weeks ago. Not sure what to do, but I trust Beth. I trust you too, and Michael, and Hall. With Trevor, I think he has some bad judgement but we should not do anything to make his troubles worse.”

This is the same story that Bogaerts told me in both 2018 and 2019 as evidenced by her own DMs and my timestamped notes with another journalist while I was speaking with Bogaerts on the phone.

Bogaerts accusing Fitzgibbon of meeting up with the CIA in hotel rooms and Suzie Dawson, along with Elizabeth Lea Vos, being inexplicably involved. Note that Bogaerts admits that she doesn’t know who was behind a sock account she tried to claim was Fitzgibbon attacking her.

Basically the story that she tried to sell me was that Fitzgibbon met up with a woman from the CIA and I can only surmise that it’s possible Bogaerts:

a. lied (again)

b. was already working with Johansen to ruin Fitzgibbon due to her longstanding history with the hacktivist community via someone named “Weda,” #FreeAnons, and AnonIntelGroup, as well as the fact that Johansen claims he was sexting with her in December 2017

c. was upset that Fitzgibbon’s attention had wandered elsewhere based on what I would personally characterize as her rabid jealously, attacks on women she thinks are invading her territory, and her need to be the center of male attention which includes posting videos and pictures that have been drastically altered

d. all of the above.

If you think I’m kidding then maybe someone can explain what in God’s name these photos are about? Bogaerts is almost 50 years old and I’m suppose to believe that the picture on the far left is her currently? Or even her? The two on the far right were posted publicly about a month ago so I don’t know, you tell me.

And here are two different videos of Bogaerts. The one on the left has been dramatically altered while the one on the right is what Bogaerts actually looks like:

And for those of you shaking your head and thinking, “Llama has lost her mind, how in the world could she manipulate videos of herself,” well, lemme show you what I was able to do with an app called Facetune (for video).

On the far left is me, the real me trying to sex it up for the morons on Twitter. There’s a slight filter on the video but you can still see my deep laugh lines and crows feet. No features were manipulated. In the middle video there’s a heavier filter, you can see that I’ve thinned out my nose, and my eyes are both bigger and whiter. And in the far-right video, my eyes are bigger and whiter, the nose is thinned out and longer, and I have much larger lips–and all of this looks disturbingly real.

Wanna know how far you can take this? Both of these manipulated videos below are also me:

There’s another app you can use to manipulate your videos called “Snow.” In this case, I used it to change my hair color in a photo. And no, I don’t look like this in real life. Heavy filters have been used on both photos to hide the fact that I have deep laugh lines, crows feet, and my forehead is literally the poster child for Botox. Although my actual features have not been altered in any way and I’m certain that people would recognize me in real life, they would probably question why I had aged 100 years. 

So are you creeped out yet? You should be. And yeah, ya’ll have been honey potted or catfished or whatever you want to call it which is hilarious because Bogaerts likes to criticize A.I. manipulation and post about how people are being deceived by disinformation.

Listen, I have absolutely no problem with Bogaerts putting her best face forward on social media. We all tend to do that, especially women, and I probably took like ten videos, all of which I thought I looked horrible in, before deciding on the non-manipulated one above. But what Bogaerts has done here is so absurd it crosses over the line into manipulation and catfishing. 

What I find most disturbing is how many people have said to me that Bogaerts gets away with all the lies, deceit, and manipulation because she’s hot. Well, guess what? She played you. And it’s not just Twitter and Instagram users she’s catfishing, it’s any judge sitting on her legal cases because it’s her manipulated face they’ll see whenever she files her tweets in court like she’s done in the past.

This is why she deserves to be called out.

And no, this has nothing to do with Bogaerts trying to “stay safe.” If that was the case, she wouldn’t post photos at all nor would she tell everyone where she lives, post photos of her kids or dog, or attend art exhibits in the hopes that if she simply untags herself from videos that show what she really looks like, everything will be fine.

This isn’t about OpSec. This is about Bogaerts trying to manipulate you.

And would it surprise you to learn that Bogaerts started posting these manipulated photos on Twitter–the large majority of which are actually taken from videos she created– the day after I told Johansen’s ex-girlfriend that he told me he cheated on her with Bogaerts? I mean, surely this woman didn’t start doing this as a ginormous “f*ck you” campaign targeted at Johansen’s ex?

Weird that Radack doesn’t even mention Bogaerts’ husband as being an obstacle in their relationship.

Put it this way, when it comes to Bogaerts’ vindictiveness, does this sound like a woman terrified of a man who was supposedly compromised in a CIA hotel operation, or a woman jealous that Fitzgibbon started a PR firm before he knew her and met with another woman “behind her back,” when they weren’t even dating?

Anyhoo, this story gets better…

Despite believing, or at least spreading the rumor that Fitzgibbon was compromised and meeting with the CIA in hotel rooms, in a rough draft of a Bar complaint written by Bogaerts just last year against Steve Biss, she stated that on December 19, 2019, just 2 weeks after this alleged Hotel CIA meetup went down, she signed a legal agreement to help Fitzgibbon research his lawsuit against Radack.

In other words, Bogaerts herself admits that she deliberately chose to work with the CIA via one of their assets. Fitzgibbon was compromised by the CIA, that’s what you told people, right, Beth?

This cannot be said enough times:

IF YOU THINK THAT BETH BLACKBURN BOGAERTS IS AN HONEST PERSON AND KNOWS WTF SHE’S TALKING ABOUT, YOU ARE PROTECTING SOMEONE WHO KNOWINGLY SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH A CIA ASSET AND ENDORSES ASSANGE SUPPORTERS FUNNELING INFORMATION TO THE CIA ABOUT ACTIVISTS AND WIKILEAKS.

Oh, Bogaerts was wrong and doesn’t actually work with CIA assets? Really, because she was still peddling this story about Fitzgibbon years later and in her 2020 Bar complaint she said she stopped working with him because she was being attacked online, not because he was compromised.

Either Bogaerts lied and is such a vile and disgusting human being she can’t own up to it and apology, or she’s got a hard on for working with intelligence, the U.S. government, or people she thinks are tied to both i.e. Fitzgibbon (according to her), continuing to work with Ed Butowsky after she got Fitzgibbon to leave Shadowbox, conducting research for Robert David Steele who also worked with fed snitch Neal Rauhauser, incorporating military strategy and PSYOPS into Shadowbox, Shadowbox’s business description about “covert intelligence services,” and even Cicada 3301 because everyone knows that by 2015, a year before Bogaerts became entrenched in it, the media was already reporting on rumors that the puzzle was a CIA recruitment tool.

Bogaerts claimed in her Bar complaint that nine days after signing an agreement with Fitzgibbon she recused herself from his case (which in no way legally absolved her from confidentiality) after he started having her attacked online. But these “attacks” that she referred to, as evidenced by the very dates she used in the Bar complaint, were people literally fighting back against her Hotel CIA lies, as well as new attacks that Bogaerts was dishing out on Twitter.

For instance, during the time frame that Bogaerts laid out, she publicly targeted the woman she had just accused of being CIA for talking to a sock account that claimed they were Julian Assange’s niece. And no, I have no idea why Bogaerts cared about what this woman was doing on Twitter.

Naturally, Bogaerts didn’t mention the whole “compromised by CIA prostitutes” story to the Bar Association, and yes, I said “CIA prostitutes” because that’s how far she ended up embellishing the story. And then she passed it along to journalists:

Then there’s the issue with Bogaerts’ and Radack’s problematic story line that Fitzgibbon’s PR firm didn’t do any work for Julian Assange despite what his own staffers said after he shut down the company:

For some reason that Bogaerts has yet to explain in almost four years, according to her, the CIA set Fitzgibbon up in hotel honeypots at the exact same time they were setting up a spying operation in the Ecuadorian embassy but we’re also suppose to believe that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for the CIA to take any interest in Fitzgibbon.

In addition to the endless, unsubstantiated allegations that Bogaerts (and Radack, Johansen) has pushed for four years now, she also used the very situation she herself instigated with the Hotel CIA story to seemingly claim to the Bar Association that all of this somehow proved Fitzgibbon was a rapist. Um, okay.

At least two people are aware that Bogaerts had an extremely brief physical relationship with @ATafoyovsky prior to Shadowbox. Bogaerts also has no idea that Ray Johansen, her other “special friend,” has been in contact with me this entire time. Surprise! (Hey babe…) 

Additionally, Bogaerts has access to the @AnonScandinavia account so when the account tweets about how amazing she is, she’s actually tweeting to herself. And guess who’s been paying @ATafoyovsky and Elizabeth Mueller to terrorize people this entire time? Yuppers…

Last but definitely not least, according to Norwegian media, Johansen has been working as a snitch since the early 2000s and Jesselyn Radack knew the entire time.

See? If I play by these peoples’ rules, I don’t have to pony up a shred of evidence for any of the statements I just made in the last three paragraphs and the best part is that just because I said it, all of it must be true. Bogaerts, Jesselyn Radack, Ray Johansen, @ATafoyovsky, “Kaidinn,” Elizabeth Mueller, and even Chavez have made it THAT easy to create your own narrative and the more unsubstantiated the better!

Even more exciting is the fact that according to these rules none of these people are allowed to dispute my claims because if they do they might face the wrath of Neal Rauhauser on behalf of the Cow. Funny how this all works, isn’t it? That’s sarcasm btw. So if Bogaerts says that Fitzgibbon was compromised by the CIA but he was also never a person of interest then her conflicting statements must both be true…and she herself works for CIA assets.

Shadowbox and Ed Butowsky

Trevor Fitzgibbon left Shadowbox in or around December 2017, but despite this remaining members continued to work with Ed Butowsky. In December 2017, Seth Rich’s brother, Aaron, sent Matt Couch a scathing email about Couch’s derogatory and false accusations against himself and his family:

“Nearly every day, I am forced to deal with the harm your lies have caused me and my family…one of your followers on Twitter sent out a Tweet saying that I should be waterboarded.”

“If you were a man of decency, you would consider the harm you have caused me and family, and apologize. But, of course, you’ve already decided that decency and honesty take a back seat to advancing your personal and political agendas.”

On January 12, 2018, Aaron forwarded the email to Butowsky along with a personal note he wrote directly to him, “I’d ask you to also publicly apologize for the lies, pain and harm you have caused me and my family. You have already made it painfully obvious that you are focused on pushing your own political agenda rather than attempting to help me or my family deal with Seth’s murder.” 

Butowsky then forwarded both emails from Aaron Rich to Manny Chavez stating, “Let’s discuss this email address.” I contacted Chavez for comment about whether or not Butowsky asked Shadowbox to do anything with regards to Aaron’s emails. He said he didn’t have “any comments for you on anything” and then he rambled throughout two emails, demanding that I publish his insults and irrelevant, blatant disinformation to prove that I’m a “real” independent journalist.

As for Bogaerts, four days after Aaron Rich emailed Butowsky, she was busy sending Fitzgibbon messages like this:

“Listen you have fucking ruined my life and put me at risk..”

Hmmm. First, Bogaerts’ extremely comfortable lifestyle has never been ruined. She currently resides in the diplomatic quarter of Austria, receives over $130,000/year from one of the world’s largest oil companies, and her reputation has never been marred by blatant disinfo campaigns like the one she’s been running against Fitzgibbon.

Bogaerts obviously has the financial means to feed her kids a six-course meal every day while running disinfo campaigns in concert with Radack and Johansen that all but guarantee Fitzgibbon’s children go hungry. And for what purpose exactly? Because some people said some mean things to her on Twitter back in December 2017, after she accused a woman of being a CIA-linked prostitute? She started sabotaging Fitzgibbon in November 2017 with the whole Silent Partner situation so this isn’t about Christmas-time meanies. So what exactly is this all about?

If her “you have fucking ruined my life” comment is just a continuation of the Hotel CIA operation she was running, I hate to break it to everyone but the woman that Bogaerts accused of being CIA is a long-time associate of one of Ray Johansen’s close associates so I’m assuming this confirms that Bogaerts, Radack, and Johansen are also CIA, yes?

In February 2018, a month after Bogaerts’ message to Fitzgibbon, Ed Butowsky put two remaining members of Shadowbox up in a hotel in Texas during which time tax documents naming Bogaerts as vice president of the company were filed. Fitzgibbon is obviously not listed in this email because I can’t say this enough times: He was no longer part of the company.

In March 2018, Bogaerts tried to dangle Butowsky’s associate, Malia Zimmerman, as bait to get journalist, Elizabeth Lea Vos, to respond to her. This was a year after the media outlet retracted Zimmerman’s story about the far-right Seth Rich conspiracy…and then got sued for it.  This was also months after Butowsky had forwarded Aaron Rich’s emails to Shadowbox member, Manny Chavez, in which Rich had discussed the amount of emotional damage that Couch and Butowsky had inflicted on his family.

And in April 2018, Bogaerts thanked people on Twitter for retweeting Cassandra Fairbanks’ interview with Butowsky which we all know was only produced to clean up his reputation and keep the Seth Rich conspiracy alive.

Bogaerts was involved with all of these things well after Fitzgibbon left Shadowbox and after she and White Rabbit ran the “Seth Rich files” LARP almost a year prior that resulted in the revival of the conspiracy approximately a week after FOX news retracted Zimmerman’s story. Two months later, Ed Butowsky hired Shadowbox.

#ReconnectJulian

While Bogaerts, Schoenberger, and Chavez continued to associate with Butowsky, Julian Assange’s communications were cut at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The following day, on March 28, 2018, Suzie Dawson, Elizabeth Lea Vos, Kim Dotcom, and @BellaMagnani put together a vigil called #ReconnectJulian that eventually morphed into the #Unity4J campaign.

@ATafoyovsky has repeatedly used the #ReconnectJulian vigil as evidence that Fitzgibbon was the mastermind behind all things #Unity4J simply for appearing on it like a hundred other people did. Meanwhile, he buries the fact that Ray Johansen also appeared on the program.

@ATafoyovsky also refuses to acknowledge that his own associate, Jesselyn Radack, tried to get on the vigil but the time slot that she wanted wasn’t available. Apparently it was given to her client, Bill Binney, which, according to some, infuriated Radack.

Another member of Radack’s little disinfo clan, @AnonScandinavia (a.k.a. Johansen imho), privately encouraged me to go on the vigil if I was asked, a bizarre suggestion that I basically laughed at. 

So Radack tried to go on the vigil but wouldn’t budge on time slots. Johansen did go on the vigil and @AnonScandinavia encouraged me to go on it but Fitzgibbon is the only one catching flak for attending this thing? That’s some serious white washing, folks.

This also goes back to what I said in Part 1 of this article. Johansen had a personal vendetta against Dawson after the Pursuance Project incident in December 2017, not the #ReconnectJulian/#Unity4J movement per se and maybe someone should ask him why he’s still so angry and obsessed four years after Dawson targeted someone else’s project? 

For years I was under the impression that Barrett Brown, the creator of Pursuance Project, was a snitch due to what others had told me or said publicly. Additionally, Johansen led me to believe that Brown had inexplicably dropped him after all these amazing things he had allegedly done for Pursuance, calling him “Barrett ‘Dropped RayRay’ Brown.”

Needless to say, I was surprised when Johansen told me last year that Brown reached out to him for help recovering a suspended Twitter account (and no, I have no idea if Johansen’s story is true), but it was what Johansen said back in 2019 that now gives me pause.

He told me that Dawson had “killed my project,” and then quickly added, “Sorry what was Barretts vision,” meaning Pursuance Project. So has that been the issue all along? Johansen honestly believes that this was entirely his project?

As I noted earlier, approximately two weeks before the #ReconnectJulian vigil, Bogaerts reached out to Vos using Butowsky’s associate, Malia Zimmerman, as bait to get her to respond. She didn’t and the day after the vigil, Bogaerts reached out to Vos again, this time demanding that they talk and then accusing Vos of being influenced by Fitzgibbon a few days later.

And for someone who claims to be obsessed with WikiLeaks and Assange, it’s pretty sad that the day after Assange’s comms were cut, here was Bogaerts once again trying to drag supporters into her messy life

Who Leaked Fitzgibbon’s 2018 Lawsuit?

“Bogarts Speaks”

By April 2018, Bogaerts had been privately sabotaging Fitzgibbon for at least four months and despite stating in her 2020 Bar complaint that she distanced herself from him in December 2017, it appears that she did the opposite. In fact, it looks like she played him (or he’s that ridiculously trusting) because according to a lawsuit he filed against her last year for breach of contract, he still trusted her enough to send her a rough draft of his lawsuit against Radack sometime in March/April 2018 (corrected from “2020”). 

It was also during this time period that I was told Fitzgibbon met up again with the woman that Bogaerts had been targeting as a “CIA prostitute.”

A mere four days after the #ReconnectJulian vigil—the vigil where Radack couldn’t have the time slot she wanted, one of the creators wouldn’t respond to Bogaerts which she immediately blamed on Fitzgibbon, and Fitzgibbon’s attention was on another woman—@AnonScandinavia published a video on Youtube called “Bogarts Speaks.” I have exactly zero doubts that this was a “secret” public announcement about Bogaerts leaking Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit to Radack’s friends. But let’s back up for a moment.

A Timeline: March 25, 2018 – April 16, 2018

March 25

On March 25, 2018, three days before the #ReconnectJulian vigil, Bogaerts tweeted, “Like lambs to slaughter you have been led to be bled. Many things manifested will become hidden and what is hidden manifest.”

March 29

One day after the #ReconnectJulian vigil and hours after she told Vos, “We need to talk,” Bogaerts posted, “Twitter is saturated with paid opposition accounts and misinformation accounts,” along with “I give up.” Her long-time associate replied, “Fox Rest. Clear your mind. Gather your strength. Strike back.”

April 2

And just like that, on April 2nd—only four days after Bogaerts was planning to “strike back”—@AnonScandinavia posted the “Bogaerts Speaks” video which, again, I have no doubt was the account’s play on names using a Humphrey Bogart video to promote Randy Credico while simultaneously announcing (as something similar to an inside joke) that Bogaerts had leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit.

I’m curious if Credico has any idea that @AnonScandinavia has been using him for years in a slew of Humphrey Bogart videos to covertly promote Bogaerts’ disinformation operations, her tireless efforts to frame journalists for crimes they never committed, and the defamation campaigns she employs to bury people such as myself who helped expose fascism in the Assange support community.

April 4

Two days after @AnonScandinavia dropped the “Bogarts Speaks” video, Bogaerts sent Fitzgibbon an email demanding repayment for personal loans she extended to him the year prior via a financial agreement that only seems to exist in her mind. In fact, she sent him quite a bit of money that included love emojis and sentimental statements so Bogaerts’ perceived loan agreement is one of the more weirder ones I’ve come across. 

More perplexing is the fact that Bogaerts admitted in an interview a month later that the money she sent him was part of her investment in Shadowbox, contradicting what she told Fitzgibbon in her email. Last year she filed this email in court as evidence that they had some sort of financial agreement—which it appears that they didn’t—because as long as you say it, it must be true. 

I also reported in The Rabbit Files, which has covered Bogaerts’ financial allegations extensively, that it appears Bogaerts overinflated what Fitzgibbon allegedly owed her. Although the courts will ultimately decide, after studying some of the documents that Bogaerts filed, it appears (to me) that she tried to paint some of the money legitimately owed to Fitzgibbon from Shadowbox clients (Butowsky, Bo Dietl) as funds from this non-existent personal loan agreement she had with him.

The same day that Bogaerts sent Fitzgibbon this email, she quoted @GreekEmmy on Twitter, “If you actively support WikiLeaks and Assange’s work it is very likely you will attract Anti-WikiLeaks Anti-Assange Trolls. Some will limit themselves in disseminating disinfo. Some will attempt to spam, bully, discredit and intimidate you. Stay Strong.” 

Anyone who has followed this story long enough knows that these are tactics that Bogaerts generally employs: Accuse others of doing what you’re doing and post some ambiguous statements about being terrorized and harassed. Then share with others privately who you’re talking about a.k.a. the whisper campaign so no one nails you for defamation.

It appears that Bogaerts also posts tweets specifically to cover her arse later in case there’s any fallout for what her and her friends are doing. For example, here she allegedly just leaked case information and was bullying Fitzgibbon to repay her what seems to be more money than he actually owed, and had any of this become public knowledge at the time she simply would have spun the story: “See, I posted this tweet right here about being discredited and bullied, that’s what Fitzgibbon was doing to me.” Get it?

April 5

Bogaerts posted Schoenberger’s 2016 Cicada 3301 message, “Those that would destroy our lives with lies will themselves be destroyed by truth,” because of course she did.

April 6

The day after Bogaerts quoted Thomas Schoenberger as if Cicada 3301 would save her from breaching the legal agreement she had with Fitzgibbon, Ray Johansen sent out a private message stating that Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit would “tear the whistleblower community apart.” 

Clearly this shows that someone, probably Bogaerts, leaked the lawsuit to Johansen by April 6th but I suspect that she was playing both sides much, much earlier based on her own Twitter DM where she admitted she reached out to Radack when she was “being attacked.” 

This was likely the time period between December 2017 – January 2018 based on what she told me personally, what she said in the Bar complaint, what she wrote in a ridiculously insane, manipulative, and defamatory 42-page document that @ATafoyovsky later published on her behalf (below), and screenshots she sent me of her being “attacked” that were all dated within this time frame.

For the record, I’m pretty sure everything Bogaerts said in this clip from her 42-page document is false. Shadowbox lasted a heck of a lot longer than 7 weeks. The Schoenberger/Fitzgibbon “falling out” story is a lie. And Bogaerts didn’t stop working with Schoenberger in May 2018, because she found out there was some sort of massive conspiracy between all of these actors. In May 2018, she did an interview with Lift the Veil in which she did NOTHING but defend, protect, and support Schoenberger. When she contacted me for nine months between September 2018 – May 2019, again, she repeatedly defended Schoenberger and claimed that everyone else was being mean to him. 

This week a new sock account appeared on Twitter claiming that it was Diani Barreto who leaked Radack’s lawsuit, not Bogaerts, after she allegedly received a copy of it before it was filed. Not surprisingly, Ray Johansen, the king of sock accounts and Radack’s close associate, liked the tweet.

Right. So first of all, when Fitzgibbon filed his first lawsuit against Radack, Barreto was working at Radack’s non-profit, ExposeFacts, and she was literally in Germany working on an event that was promoted by the organization and Ray Johansen. So why in the world would Fitzgibbon secretly leak the lawsuit to Barreto? Why wouldn’t his attorney just send it to Radack?

The bottom line is that if this sock account’s story is true then they should have no problem ponying up evidence that Barreto, not Radack, received a copy of the lawsuit PRIOR to April 6th, when Johansen was messaging about it. I’d go so far as to say that they need to pony up evidence prior to the “Bogarts Speaks” video that @AnonScandinavia posted on April 2nd.  

And even if the sock account can do this, there’s still an extensive paper trail that shows Bogaerts, Radack, a member of the hacktivist community called “Weda,” and Johansen all stated that Bogaerts reached out and leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit and/or confidential information about the lawsuit. For example, in July 2020, Radack emailed me about information Bogaerts leaked about the first case—information that couldn’t be used in the second case due to time limitations:

“Beth is not going to be a witness. She had useful direct testimony about doing research for the opposing party and brainstorming on ways to scare me. But her info dates to before the relevant time frame.”

And this from Johansen:

“Yeah she [Bogaerts] did contact me 24 hours BEFORE the lawsuit hit the courts so I knew before Jesselyn. That was her in, it felt like. And the only two places she could get that from is either the feds or Trevor, who she supposedly was enemies with….Whatever little cred she had with me is completely gone. I will continue to ignore her.”

He knew about the lawsuit before Jesselyn did? But how is that possible if Barreto had already leaked it? Oh right. Everything that Johansen told me above in April 2019, turned out to be a lie (theme song of this entire dumpster fire). The lawsuit wasn’t filed until April 13th so he obviously knew about it well before it was filed, not 24 hours beforehand, and he never cut ties with Bogaerts. He’s been (or was up until last year) in communication with, if not directly working with her, for years. 

Again, there’s a lengthy paper trail that shows each and every one of these individuals stated Bogaerts leaked the lawsuit/confidential information so if their new sock account’s creative narrative turns out to be true, why would they all lie about it? Better yet, maybe someone should start asking some serious questions as to why all of these individuals propped up Bogaerts as some sort of hero for leaking this shiz and then inexplicably started supporting her 2020 defamation/disinfo campaigns?

Or is it that once again a member of this group doesn’t want to face the legal consequences of her actions so they’re just going to spin the story and pin this on Barreto? And even if that’s the case, one has to seriously wonder why a well known whistleblower attorney and members of Anonymous have gone to such extreme lengths to lie for, trust, and protect a virtual nobody? For instance, this is the type of stuff Radack’s close friend, Ray Johansen, was saying about Bogaerts just last year:

“How about that Beth aka Foxfire. ‘independently wealthy’ eh…just having fun…also could be the actual CIA agents in the crew. Twiddling everybody around her little finger. Having everyone fall in love. Playing the victim. Supplying documents, pretending they are whistleblower…Figuring me for a white knight they can play the victim with.”

And yet here we are. 

April 13

Fitzgibbon files his lawsuit against Radack. 

April 15

Two days after the lawsuit was filed, Bogaerts posted on Twitter:

So she’s going to continue signing confidentiality agreements and breaking them? And sorry, what was the reason again why she leaked Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit? Because people were mean to her on Twitter?

Again, Bogaerts’ tweet is nothing more than her crazy train way of deflecting, accusing others of doing exactly what she was doing, and staying ahead of any potential fallout from leaking the lawsuit. At any time in the future, she could point to this and claim, “See, I was still being harassed and discredited. I tweeted about it [so it must be true].”

And yes, in case you hadn’t notice, Bogaerts has long used the same unique hashtags that @AnonScandinavia has always used such as #tinytrolls (remember that one time, Beth, when you made a derogatory comment about Swedes and then quickly deleted it because you forgot what account you were logged into?) but that won’t save her from trying to get her story straight about Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit.

April 16

Johansen sent out another private message to a handful of individuals stating that Bogaerts was their personal snitch for Fitzgibbon’s lawsuit and that he was hacking U.S. citizens to help Radack win her case.

 

April 17

The day after Johansen claimed that he was hacking people, Bogaerts posted on Twitter:

“Someone hacked into my Twitter account so if there are any off tweets please let me know”

Good lord. AGAIN, this is Bogaerts’ way of deflecting from what she and her associates were actually doing privately and getting ahead of any potential fallout. It’s meant to cover their arses later so in case the shit hit the fan, she could point to it and claim, “We weren’t hacking anyone. Fitzgibbon was hacking ME.”

Patterns, people. Patterns.

That’s One Big Enchilada

For anyone interested in where we’re at in this dumpster fire as a whole, two days after Bogaerts claimed someone hacked her account (what is that, like the ten millionth time she’s claimed this?), she filed for the Cicada trademark while Schoenberger was in the middle of a million dollar deal with Sony. 

Bogaerts told him that after she was granted the trademark she would transfer ownership to him but she reneged on her agreement a year later, exactly like she did to Fitzgibbon with the lawsuit. This, after she fraudulently obtained the trademark in the first place by lying to the U.S. Trademark office that she was the rightful owner.

As for the rest of this article, THIS is what went down before Fitzgibbon filed his first lawsuit against Radack. We’ll cover both of his lawsuits in the next article but for now consider this cleanup in aisle five because Bogaerts has told some super messy lies. 

Unless she wants to explain what EXACTLY Fitzgibbon did to her between November 2017 – March 2018, that would justify any of her behavior i.e. the Silent Partner/Hotel CIA disinfo campaigns, targeting victims of her own lies and abuse, and breaching her legal contract, she appears to be the perpetrator, abuser, and disinfo agent in this situation, not Fitzgibbon.

Two months after Fitzgibbon filed his lawsuit, Bogaerts and Radack started collecting team players by privately reaching out to people about their alleged personal problems with him, including me despite the fact I didn’t even know who he was. 

By September 2018, their campaign seemed to be in full swing and it would eventually culminate into an internationally-run, criminal (yes, what Bogaerts has done is considered a crime in Austria where she resides), disinfo/defamation campaign that included blatant attempts on Bogaerts’ part to drag WikiLeaks, Assange, and supporters into her completely unrelated, personal problems stemming from her involvement in Cicada 3301 and Shadowbox. 

This is what I call “The Big Disinfo Enchilada.” A vile, malicious campaign and social engineering operation that they’ve been running since 2018, and we’re going to deconstruct this Mexican dish in a future article.

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

Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.

If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.

If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.

If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.

That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at jimmysllama@protonmail.com with any questions or concerns.

I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.

If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.

This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.

The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.

The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.  The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.

Leave a Reply