OPINION: Jesselyn Radack posted this tweet below on Twitter yesterday and her ongoing behavior is so mind boggling it’s difficult to believe anymore that she’s not paid to do this, or needs some sort of professional intervention. Lemme help her followers with the truth since she can’t seem to manage…
What Radack is referring to is a TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER (Case No. 2018CPO001516) she was granted on April 18, 2018, FIVE DAYS after her alleged assailant, Trevor Fitzgibbon, filed a civil suit against her for defamation. What she doesn’t tell people is how EASY it is to get a TPO. What’s hard is getting it to stay in place, which she couldn’t do. This is what she hides from the public, amongst other things.
Additionally, if you look at the actual TPO issued, it was only good for (in effect for) TEN DAYS. That’s it. Ten days. It was TEMPORARY.
Unless you’ve been through the process, most people also probably don’t know that after you’re granted a TPO, there’s always a hearing. Naturally, Radack and the person she filed against had a hearing and that’s also something she hides from everyone.
Steve Biss basically argued in court that she got the TPO so she could play out the Fitzgibbon v. Radack (2018) case in public to further destroy his client’s reputation and win in the public’s eye, and guess what? Despite what an idiot we all think Biss is, he was right (keep repeating this to yourself, “Just because Steve Biss is an idiot, in no universe does that equate to Jesselyn Radack being truthful”).
For example, she inexplicably contacted me in June 2018 and sent me a copy of the TPO privately on Twitter even though I was a complete stranger. And she did it with the intent to not only further disparage her alleged assailant, she did it to ruin a pro-Assange rally that the person she was targeting was attending. At the time, I had never even heard of the person she was targeting. THAT’S literally how I met Radack…and then all of her deranged friends.
She did EXACTLY what Biss said she was going to do. And here she is STILL waving around this TPO like it means something. Honey, I could probably get a TPO against you tomorrow, that doesn’t mean I could prove it should stay in place in a subsequent hearing.
And not only is she still waving this TPO around, she once again dragged her kids into it in front of her 39,000 followers on Twitter. Oh, your assailant harassed and stalked you and kids? Are you sure, Mrs. Radack?
Let’s look at the court documents and how this is all played out. First, here’s an entire write-up about Radack’s relationship with Trevor Fitzgibbon because things are not as they seem:
In case you’re not aware of the FACTS of this case, Radack herself claimed (this isn’t make believe or manipulated facts, the following all comes from Radack herself via her police report, her own filed court documents, her own text messages, and a 2018 deposition—her words, no one else’s):
1. She was allegedly sexually attacked by Fitzgibbon on
December November 4, 2015, at her office.
2. Approximately two weeks later she inexplicably sent Fitzgibbon — her attacker — photos of her naked breasts via text messages, asked if he had any STDs, and talked about how they needed use condoms.
3. She then made plans to meet this man, who she says had already assaulted her, at a hotel so they could have sex, but then he allegedly raped her instead.
4. On the date on which this alleged rape happened, the date that Radack — a former federal attorney — filed with the police, her alleged assailant wasn’t even in town. He was literally OUT OF TOWN so she changed her story 2 years later to a new date, during a 2018 deposition.
5. That new date on which Radack says this rape now occurred isn’t even the date when they met up at the hotel where she says it took place. There’s hotel receipts, folks. I’m sorry no one likes FACTS but this is how absurd Radack’s story is. To be clear: Radack has NEVER stated under oath the correct date on which this assault allegedly took place.
6. Radack’s target a.k.a. victim filed a defamation suit against her on April 13, 2018, after the Department of Justice closed their investigation, declined to charge him for rape, but Radack continued to spread the allegation.
7. Five days after he filed the lawsuit, she filed for the TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER. She didn’t file for a TPO after he first attacked her. She didn’t file for a TPO after he allegedly attacked her the second time. In fact, she didn’t even file one after she cried “rape” to the police months later.
She filed one THREE YEARS LATER in response to his lawsuit, not in response to TWO alleged attacks she suffered at the hands of this supposed monster, in between the two of which she inexplicably sent him naked photos of herself.
As for the TPO and Radack’s attempt to extend it by obtaining a civil protection order (CPO), she tried to use the alleged rape that supposedly occurred in D.C. as jurisdictional basis for the court to decide the case. She didn’t argue that her alleged assailant stalked, harassed, or threatened her children, and according to the judge, “[Radack] apparently invokes sexual assault as a jurisdictional basis, however offers no proof of a sexual assault.”
Despite this, because of the explicit text messages Radack sent to her victim and his testimony that “corroborated such an ongoing romantic relationship”:
Accordingly, the Court finds a jurisdictional basis based on the evidence presented at the hearing. Thus, since Petitioner [Radack] resides and works in the District of Columbia and the parties previously had a romantic relationship, the court finds a jurisdictional basis for Petitioner’s claim.
So that’s good news for Radack, right? The court decided that they would hear her case because, according to her as recently as 24 hours ago, this guy was basically terrorizing her family, right? Right.
After the judge decided that the court had the authority to hear the case, the next question was whether or not there was “good cause” to believe Fitzgibbon “committed or threatened to commit a criminal offense” against her.
The crime, you ask? Nope. Not rape.
Not stalking, harassing, or threatening her and her family.
In fact, her family and everyone being allegedly terrified of this guy blah blah blah doesn’t come up in the judge’s decision once. Not once.
It was revenge porn.
And what exactly did Radack say was “revenge porn” in her attempt to get a civil protection order (CPO) — one of only two orders issued in Washington D.C. (TPOs and CPOs)? It appears she argued that because Fitzgibbon filed a defamation suit against her that included the explicit photos of her naked breasts that she sent to him (he did) that, as such, was a crime perpetrated against her.
Just so we’re clear about this: Radack spent years telling the entire world that this guy raped her, even after the DOJ declined to prosecute, while completely burying the facts of this case. When the guy tried to put a stop to it by filing a civil action against her in which he included evidence that PROVED she wasn’t being honest, she accused him of revenge porn…and stalking and harassing her kids because apparently what I believe to be are entirely fabricated sexual assault allegations wasn’t malicious or damaging enough.
This guy is no angel but he didn’t harass or threaten Radack’s kids and yet she inexplicably wants everyone to believe that he did — and she continues to publicly promote this narrative. So WTF is this really about?
After dragging her family into this as seen on the TPO (and, yet again, on Twitter yesterday), on July 20, 2018, approximately two months after Radack was granted the TPO, the court made a ruling on her case (No. 2018CPO001516):
Again, at no point did the judge mention anything about Fitzgibbon stalking or harassing her, or her kids. The judge also didn’t mention that Radack was terrified nor does it appear she offered up a shred of evidence that showed this guy was stalking her family.
She argued revenge porn because my guess is that she was livid over the fact her text messages were made public — text messages that she tried to bury for almost 3 years.
Not only that, the judge noted in his ruling that she didn’t even testify or provide any evidence that this guy included her text messages in the civil suit with “malice,” or with the intent to “harass or intimidate” her. This is a former federal attorney we’re talking about.
Respondent [Fitzgibbon] credibly testified that he filed the lawsuit in order to clear his name. Respondent did not testify that he intended to publish the photos maliciously or with the “intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate” Petitioner.
Petitioner [Radack] did not testify and did not put forth any evidence of Respondent’s malice or intent to “harass or intimidate.” The context alone of the instant “dissemination”—i.e. a civil action in a federal district court—coincides more with the purpose of obtaining civil relief than with the purpose of “intimid[ating]” Petitioner.
The only extant evidence of intent was the testimony under oath by Respondent [Fitzgibbon], which was unrebutted and unimpeached. Petitioner’s [Radack’s] argument is seemingly grounded in a per se malicious intent theory given that Respondent could have filed the complaint under seal. However, Petitioner’s argument—which concedes the relevance and materiality of the images in question to the underlying suit—does not take into account that sealing is an extraordinary measure as an exception to the public’s right to trial information.
As for what the judge ultimately thought about Radack’s petition for a CPO against Fitzgibbon:
Here’s the entire ruling:
What’s mind boggling is that Radack has already been held in contempt and sanctioned by the courts “so that, wherever she seeks to practice, she will have to report that she has been held in contempt of Court.”
She’s also been sued TWICE for this very thing and settled in both cases instead of testifying under oath. From a previous article:
Radack’s attorney objected to approximately 55 questions that [Steve] Biss asked during the  deposition but Radack still answered approximately 50 of them. There were only approximately five questions that Radack wouldn’t answer. They included:
“Did you represent to the United State’s Attorney that Trevor Fitzgibbon had raped you?”
“Do you remember taking these photographs of yourself and texting them to Mr. Fitzgibbon?…Do you remember attaching photographs of yourself to text messages that you transmitted to Trevor Fitzgibbon?”
“When you wrote: ‘The author is buds with the guy who sexually assaulted me…the guy who sexually assaulted me’, that’s a reference to Trevor Fitzgibbon; correct?”
“When you wrote: ‘Going through something similar, and it’s utterly terrifying,’ you were referring to this case?”
For someone who has spent years trying to destroy Fitzgibbon’s reputation over a rape allegation, I’m surprised she didn’t take opposing council’s questions as an opportunity to get her story on the record. Under oath. However, it’s also a known fact that you can face up to five years in federal prison for making false statements and perhaps Radack was keeping that in mind during the deposition.
In the end, Radack also chose to settle two defamation cases that Fitzgibbon filed against her rather than take it to trial and testify under oath, which seems like another missed opportunity.
And sure, Radack can argue that trials are costly (they are), but then that doesn’t explain why she deliberately keeps trying to get sued.
Which brings us to my last point: It is beyond bizarre that Radack has been sued twice, sanctioned, held in contempt, has cried about being a victim FOR OVER SIX YEARS NOW, grifted for money to cover her legal fees (all of which are her fault), and here she is posting yet another tweet yesterday that blatantly breaks her SECOND settlement agreement.
She clearly wants to get sued again; she clearly wants to keep dragging activists and whistleblowers into this; she and her associates clearly want to keep using this sick narrative to divide and disrupt activist communities, and threaten and destroy the reputation of anyone they even remotely suspect is an associate of Fitzgibbon; and she wants to keep dragging her family into this.
And for what purpose? What exactly is Radack’s end game, or is she and her associates going to keep churning out lies, intimidation tactics, and chaos for the next 30 years? WTF is this really about?
**FYI: If Radack decides to publicly accuse me of posting court documents that were leaked to me by Fitzgibbon (like she’s done in the past), the documents were made public over two years ago on Reason.com.
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 email@example.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.