I did an interview on Leppo’s psyop comedy channel, Teenage FBI Live.
It was a great chat, unfortunately cut off right at the end where I was telling a story about seeing Paul Simon in 2016 live at the Greek Theater in Berkeley. I went through the whole set hoping to hear him play “The Boxer”; right at the end, someone came up to whisper in his ear and Paul announced to the crowd that Muhammad Ali had passed away. The news was sad but I was stoked because I knew for sure I was gonna hear my tune…
In Part 3 we talked about “Shadow Box”, a “reputation defense” firm created by Well Traveled Fox, Thomas Schoenberger, Defango and Trevor Fitzgibbon. In this post we delve more into the claims made by Fox.
Was Fox Doxxed?
How dare I say I believer her! So outrageous.
In their recent interview, Lestat asked Fox specifically about my claim to have interviewed her extensively, which she dismissed as untrue. She said “he doxxed me and then we exchanged a few DMs, he wanted to know about the Seth Rich files”.
This information is false, and I am forced to respond. Below is my complete interaction with Fox. You be the judge of if this was “just a few DMs” or if my characterization that “I interviewed her extensively” was correct. She is not the innocent and unwitting victim that she tries to portray on social media, far from it. This person connects many of the LARPs together. Is that by accident, coincidence…or design?
Watch what happens with this post – I predict I will be demonized for “attacking” Fox, when all I am doing is sharing her own words that prove that she has been deliberately misleading people about our interactions.
First of all, I never doxxed her. I did not publish any private information that she had not already put in the public domain herself.
When I wrote about Q I didn’t know who this woman was, to me she was just part of the Cicada 3301 crew who were creating ARG puzzles with Thomas Schoenberger and certified IARPA contributor Manuel Chavez III aka Defango aka LARPWars aka MC Dummy Dumb aka Il1usiveMan. Thomas was only somebody I knew because he was doxxed by Defango, who used to work for him.
Fox’s name was brought up by Thomas in his explanation of connections between QAnon and Cicada 3301. I quoted in my story what Thomas told me were some of the Cicada 3301 elements that played into the origins of Q. He listed a bunch of people who were part of his team doing Cicada puzzles. If he was naming people who must not be named, then that’s on him.
You shouldn’t expect the messenger to divine all the subtle nuances and implications of each message. In this case Fox’s claim that nobody knew her identity before I interviewed Thomas is completely false. Here’s the evidence.
When Fox contacted me to object to her first name being in my January 2019 story, I immediately redacted it. I never published her address, phone number, or any other personal information. Her full name and connection to Cicada 3301 has been public since May 2018, as a quick Google search for “Cicada 3301 trademark” reveals.
If it’s fine for her to put her name with Cicada 3301 for official public documents that come up on page 1 of a search, why would I think that she only wants to be known by an alias? Why not use a pseudonym or LLC to file the trademark if secrecy was so important? Still, out of courtesy, I didn’t link to the trademark in that story in order to protect her privacy.
Defango had doxxed Fox in the previous year (2018) with her full name and threatened to ruin the life of her, her husband and her family, all over the Cicada trademark:
Why is Fox more upset with me quoting TS using her first name than with Defango making violent threats to her and her family? That’s a legitimate question to ask, right? Well I’ve asked it, so have others…her response was deleting her Twitter account for the umpteenth time.
For reference, here is the original Q post I wrote in January 2019 featuring these characters:
There is a whole crew of people clustered around Defango who hate Thomas Schoenberger. Some of them now hate Defango too. If you’re on Twitter or YouTube it’s easy to find them. Just like or comment on one of Thomas’s posts and then they will start targeting you too!
I knew when I interviewed Thomas that it would be controversial, and I fully expected attacks as a result of including his version of the narrative. However I never in a million years could have imagined the response that happened. Constant, round the clock attacks every day. Lawsuits. All kinds of character assassination attacks, smears without evidence to the reputation I’ve built over a lifetime. Attacks on my family. Accusations of murder, money laundering, pedophilia. I maybe expected that sort of thing going up against the Burning Man Organization, and indeed experienced a great deal of such lesser black magick warfare. It was nothing compared to what has happened to me merely for sharing Thomas’ side of the story.
I’ve never even met Thomas Schoenberger, yet these people who lived with him, worked with him, financed him, even loved him accuse me of being his “associate, lackey, minion, agent, handler, employer, enabler, colleague”.
The more these people attack me (and many others) for what they define as an “association” with Thomas , the more their true character is on display for the world to see – and showing them to be just as TS described. Even though many of them seem to be vile, spiteful people – literal trolls, many of them ex-cons – there is surely nobody on earth who is consumed with that much malice and misery. There is more going on here. As emotional as many of the attackers are, emotion itself is not their overarching motive. Do you really care about who people you’ve never met are friends with on social media? Whose posts they like? Me neither! So what’s up with these cats?
It is interesting that Defango pushed the same narrative as Fox in response to my first ever Q post: that I doxxed him. He filed a dozen false copyright strikes for clips I edited to show what he said in his own words (so there could be no argument that I was misquoting him). He put his home address on the complaint form to Vimeo, and they sent me an email with that information just as I was publishing the post. I didn’t read the letter far enough to see his details in it, I just copy-pasted it. When he objected, I immediately redacted the address – just as I did with Fox’s name in this post. Technically Vimeo doxxed him, but he freely volunteered the information to them himself and agreed to their terms that it would be shared.
In Fox’s case, I never published her full name, likeness, phone number, address, LinkedIn profile, Facebook account, photographs, family details, or any other personally identifiable information. Just the name “B[REDACTED]” as a quote from Thomas.
In almost 2000 posts on this blog, many of them on controversial topics, many people being upset to have their actions discussed in a critical manner, I’ve never run into this problem before. Just these two people from this one post – which happens to be the first one I’ve ever done on Q. #All4aLARP ?
Here’s the original comment with Fox’s name from her former lover Thomas Schoenberger, sharing his story about the origins of Q.
In the original post instead of [NAME REDACTED] it said “Beth”. That’s doxxing, really?
The argument that merely stating Fox’s first name is doxxing is thrown out by the behavior of Lestat’s mods, who were happy to use her name in the chat of his interview with no reprimand. You can clearly see the double standard: if I say the name they accuse me of doxxing, but when Lestat’s mods Esteban (CIA/DEA), Monkey Savant (known troll), Vinny (Temple of Set) and Diane say it? Everything’s kosher.
The following is presented to prove:
I’m not making up a claim that Fox put $50,000+ into ShadowBox, that’s what she told me and I verified it – more than once.
I interviewed her extensively as I said, not “never” like Lestat claims or “a couple of DMs” like Fox claims.
I’ve represented what she told me accurately and never misrepresented any of it.
I respected her request to be left alone after someone – maybe Thomas, more likely an enemy of Thomas – attacked her husband’s LinkedIn page by snitching on their love affair.
People need to learn that they can’t lie about me forever without any repercussions. Just because I let them run their mouth off for a while, doesn’t mean I will never respond. I always post evidence, which puts me in a stronger position should any lawsuits arise. Of course, everyone else is invited to post their own evidence – in the comments here, or post it somewhere else and share the link here. I’m happy to be proven wrong, so far in nearly 8 years of writing this blog that hasn’t really happened, despite what you might hear from trolls like Jason Goodman, Jan Irvin, or their psyop sidekick Douglas Dietrich. Is Fox another one of those low-lifes?
As you can see, Fox contacted me specifically in relation to the research I am publishing at this blog. Extensive? Just a couple of DMs? We report, you decide…
She is tired of people making her a character for their narrative. And yet she goes on Lestat’s show to portray me falsely as a fictional villain in his narrative.
I have shared all Fox’s information without editing. I hope you will agree that “interviewed her extensively” was an appropriate characterization.
Fox With Socks Doxxes Socks
As it turns out, Fox was the one working with doxxers:
Bobby “The Lone Cicada” and “Farkness Thee Failmon” above are the same people. This guy brags about his penis size and his fetlife profile, which is perhaps acceptable behavior within the LGBTQI+/BDSM community but not acceptable when speaking to someone who they know is a minor. He is saying that the doxxing information about Mind Inspired and Snow White that he published came from (and was paid for) by Fox.
Thomas’s story has been confirmed to me by both the victims who were doxxed. One is a single mother of young children with an abusive ex. There may have been an emotional motivation behind it:
Both Thomas and Mindy deny any kind of intimate relationship, so this seems like jealousy – which is further confirmation of TS’s claims that he and Fox had an extra-marital affair. Why else would she consider TS’s relationships with others “cheating”? Fox wonders why I consider her a bad person, I’m not sure what her wedding vows were so I’m in no position to judge. Perhaps this was the typical behavior of a good person. I used to live in San Francisco, where more than once a wife introduced me to her husband’s boyfriend or girlfriend. People have open relationships, it’s very European. To each their own. Every Fox has its henhouse.
Thomas has also shared evidence of another minor being targeted by people in this group. A disturbing pattern given that Defango was one of the main people scoffing that #PizzaGate as a LARP and has now teamed up with others who also push that narrative.
Here Defango appears to be stalking a female police officer:
Long after everyone in ShadowBox went their separate ways – on the surface, at least – Fox was still in touch with TS, and seemingly confused:
Playing the victim has brought Jason Goodman this far. A channel with 85,700 subscribers that he can’t stream to. A long list of burned bridges from former guests on his show that he later betrayed. A mounting number of lawsuits across the country.
We’re facing in 2020 an exciting leap year of intense political action. Will Jason be able to cover it live? Or will his days be spent pushing paper and sweating bullets over his increasingly numerous legal entanglements?
He’s talking about the copyright strike I gave him for doxxing my family. “Leave my family out of it” is a pretty reasonable and fair request, I would hope anyone would agree with that. If he chooses to ignore it then he must accept responsibility for the consequences of his decisions.
Sadly, instead of owning up to his actions Goodman chose a childish move, striking my video in petty retaliation – even though I didn’t play anything from his channel. I was forced to upload another one with the clips he objected to edited out:
It would be easy for Mr Goodman to do the same. Remove my copyrighted work from his video and re-upload it. Why does he choose lawsuits instead? Is the plan to tug on the heart strings of his audience to fund his pro se legal defenses with superchats? Perhaps Jason is looking longingly at the lucrative fundraising his frequent guest “Vabelle Danger” aka Robyn Gritz has been doing off her FBI wrongful dismissal claim. Her GoFundMe’s about to enter into its third year, even though the basis of her claim seems weak since she resigned in 2013 rather than being dismissed (she’s kept herself busy working at the Macy’s Cosmetics counter and as a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research).
Maybe Mr Goodman is seeing crowdsourced dollar signs after interviewing his other recent guest, the multi-million dollar king of them all, Sawman.
To remove his strike from my channel, I filed a counter-notification. Jason Goodman now has ten business days to file a new lawsuit against me, making his argument that playing modified versions of his clips from a comedy channel infringes his rights. It will be interesting to see what legal basis he comes up with, since the clips are marked parody which is specifically mentioned as acceptable Fair Use.
Outtrim v Goodman
Last week Jason Goodman filed an objection to my copyright claim.
I might be a public figure, but the other person in the photograph is not. Nor is she an employee of a UN-linked agency.
Mr Goodman thinks he has the right to take peoples’ Facebook photos and display them in high definition without modification for two minutes on his channel, even if the images were privacy restricted to only be available on Facebook. Pretend to be someone’s friend so you can steal their photos, then monetize them on your stream while begging for donations and “pateon” subscriptions. He will be arguing in Court that the law somehow lets him do all of this, but I don’t think he will find much case law he can cite in support of this idea. Even if he could make a successful argument that showing a photo for minutes without specifically discussing it is somehow Fair Use, that doesn’t override the right to privacy.
YouTube’s legal process requires me to file a lawsuit against Jason Goodman to settle his dispute of my copyright claim. So I wrote to the Magistrate Judge in the most local of all his lawsuits, Sweigert v Goodman in the Southern District of New York asking permission to file a Motion to Intervene. The issues in the two cases are almost identical, because Jason Goodman doesn’t just occasionally behave like this, he has built his entire multi-national operation on a consistent and readily identifiable pattern of fake news, lies, defamation and smear campaigns – all of which I can prove with evidence that meets the Federal Standards.
Think I’m kidding? Here is evidence of an active whisper campaign he is doing right now, contacting people he sees me communicating with to smear my character. Unfortunately for him most of the people I like to associate with in the research community are actually researchers too. They have critical thinking and logic skills, and the sleight-of-mind tricks that work on Jason’s mostly boomer audience aren’t going to turn out the same way with them. You can see in this conversation how that went for him…
“He claims I was in Ukraine fomenting revolution in 2013” – I challenge Mr Goodman to provide a citation showing where I ever made that claim. The Maidan Revolution was actually in 2014. Was this a Freudian slip, revealing he was involved with AeroEscape LLC which was incorporated in 2013? You can read my coverage (evidence-backed, as always) at Insane in the Ukraine Part 3 – Sheep Dipping the Truther (also Part 1 and Part 2).
Battleground 1: Pink Umbrella Court
Here’s my letter to the Magistrate Judge in New York:
This guy has no shame – he is gaslighting the Judge. He says “Outtrim wrote a declaration in support of the Plaintiff’s motion to intervene”. This is completely false, it’s not what happened at all. Jason as the Defendant wrote an Opposition to the Motion to Intervene in which he named myself, Titus Frost and a host of others in a vast (and vastly illogical) conspiracy theory, using likes on Steemit posts to somehow stop his “truth” from coming out. Several of us who were named in Goodman’s statement wrote letters to the Judge swearing under penalty of perjury (ie. voluntarily putting ourselves in legal jeopardy if we were lying) that his claims were completely false. Mine was titled “Statement in Response to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene”. It was not in support of any Plaintiff motions. Nor was it in support of the intervenor-applicant. It was a direct response to the unsubstantiated nonsense in Jason Goodman’s Defendant’s Statement of Opposition. The Virginia Judge refused to let Goodman bring us into his suit, ruling that we were non-parties. Goodman is trying to twist these facts into a claim that I filed a Motion to Intervene in his Virginia case which was denied by the Judge – a complete lie.
The New York Judge didn’t waste any time, issuing an Order denying Jason’s motion for a deadline extension.
This greatly upset Jason. He has a YouTube channel to run, these pesky Judges’ Orders get in the way! So he seems to have thought “maybe if I send the Judge an email with some more conspiracy theory allegations, he’ll change his mind and grant an extension so I can really ‘Close In’ with Charles Motel”
Jason Goodman emailed the Judge:
Date: November 13, 2019 at 7:53 PM Subject: Re: 1:18-cv-08653-VEC-SDA, Sweigert v. Goodman Thank you your honor, however Mr. Outtrim’s inappropriate actions have revealed new evidence that is extremely significant and must be included in my answer. Outtrim’s latest action provides further proof of the alleged conspiracy between Plaintiff and others including Outtrim.
This causes me to request that you reconsider today’s order given the following circumstances:
Irrespective of Mr. Outtrim’s denial of intervention, his reason for attempting to intervene changes my answer and requires additional time to complete. Prior to emailing you inappropriately, Mr. Outtrim submitted a fraudulent complaint to YouTube that has crippled my online business by preventing me from live streaming my daily broadcasts to my audience of 85,000 viewers. This has negatively impacted my income and is a clear example of the ongoing extrajudicial steps Plaintiff and his associates have taken in their persistent and escalating effort to disrupt my day to day life, my business and my ability to defend myself in this legal mater.
Online broadcasting is my full time job and primary source of income. The YouTube penalty will continue indefinitely IF Outtrim is able to demonstrate to Google that he has an active lawsuit against me for the same claim he has submitted to YouTube. It is extremely important to my defense that I have the additional time requested so I may adequately explain and present the relevant facts and details related to shed light on this newest development and so the court may consider these facts in rendering its decision.
I respectfully request that you reconsider the order and allow me the time extension. I stand ready to submit another motion for extention of time if that would please the court.
“Crippled” his business? He is still Premiering his videos live, which means he should be able to receive superchats and talk directly to his audience. He never interacts with the chat on his show anyway, except to delete any “trolls” who dare to question the narrative, or to post the links for his subscriptions. I haven’t gone after his Patreon or Subscribestar accounts…yet. So how is his business hurt in any way? Meanwhile my family is suffering greatly from him doxxing my wife, and I am defamed per se by him accusing me of “murdering” someone who was hit by a car in a different country, whose death was ruled suicide by vehicle.
He is also directly lying to the Judge that the YouTube copyright strike penalty is indefinite. It’s for 90 days.
His logic doesn’t add up either. He says his business is crippled while the lawsuit is going on; yet he says he wants to delay the lawsuit and stretch it out longer.
Jason’s case is jumbled and confused, and it seems that he is trying the patience of the legal system. Reconsider the Order? Who does he think he is? The judge made another Order, slapping him down again:
Jason Goodman’s response to the Second Amended Complaint was due today, November 14. He was given a choice whether to file what he was asked to three weeks ago; or file another Motion for the Judge to reconsider his denial of an extension.
Jason filed another Motion, in which he lies to the judge again and gets his own pronouns confused.
This is plainly nonsense. Why would the Plaintiffs file a motion to intervene in their own case? As I pointed out earlier, I did not write anything in support of the intervenor-applicant. Defendant Jason Goodman brought up my name and I wrote a letter to the Court categorically denying all of his claims. There was no ruling from the Judge about frivolous claims or abuse of process. In fact, the Judge spent 7 pages of a 14-page Memorandum Opinion going through the legal basis of rejecting the Motion to Intervene. There would be no need to do that for a frivolous claim, she could have just denied the Motion.
Did Jason just copy and paste his latest New York Motion? Maybe from one of Klarry Layman‘s documents? Did his close pal Laura Loomer help out? Either that or the Tinder Predator is getting rather confused about how he identifies:
He also swore under penalty of perjury that he sent a letter via email to a physical post office:
This is what happens with liars – they just can’t help themselves.
Jason asked for a week extension. The Judge finally caved on this third attempt, granting Jason an extension – but only for the weekend.
Can Mr Goodman see the rabbit hole he is digging for himself? The next stage of this case is the interrogatory discovery requests, due by next Thursday Nov 21.
Meanwhile, in Virginia
Jason Goodman recently had to appear in Court in one of the other defamation and slander lawsuits against him, Steele et al v Goodman et al in the Eastern District of Virginia.
He started out a bit confused:
The judge had to explain to the Defendant that he can’t give him legal advice:
There was a whole discussion about Goodman’s dick pics. He tried to get them taken out of the case, but it got shut down.
His claim that “I have never live-streamed a phone call with anyone without telling them” is another falsehood. I’ve personally witnessed him doing this to Laura Loomer (having an airport meltdown over her luggage), the New York Post and the Washington Post (where he used the social engineering technique of pretending to be someone else by using Kevin Marsden’s complaint ticket number). He also frequently records conversations without permission or even notification then broadcasts them, such as this one with Douglas Gabriel from American Intelligence Media.
By the end of his first day in Court, Goodman felt that anything he said would be inappropriate. The judge said that was probably true, since they were only there to set the trial date.
It’s going to be a busy 12 months of legal responses for Mr Goodman. I hear there are other lawsuits pending for him too…including two I’m aware of in California. At some point wouldn’t it be better to go back to “truth”, like the title of his channel? Surely that is preferable to trying to frame people for murders of suicide victims, shutting down ports, training people how to modify household appliances into directed energy weapons, and the rest of his LARPing antics.