For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In this episode of No Way, José, David McClam addresses Javier Leiva’s recent comments about the email packets sent to podcast hosts and other creators who have featured or endorsed his work.

David makes one point unmistakably clear from the beginning:

He sent the packets. He takes responsibility for the outreach. And any questions about those emails should be directed to him.

The packets were sent to people whose audiences may rely on their recommendations, with a request that they independently review concerns involving PRETEND’s reporting and decide whether those concerns affect their own view of the work. David emphasizes that the material contains different categories of issues, including acknowledged corrections, disputed interpretations, editorial concerns, and unresolved questions that still require additional evidence.

This episode walks through 60 separate points raised in the email packet, covering multiple PRETEND series and episodes. Among them are questions involving timelines, source attribution, legal terminology, forensic claims, corrections, transcript discrepancies, government records, electronic discovery, financial reporting, and the distinction between what evidence proves and what remains unresolved.

The review also includes issues involving the LaDonna Humphrey series, including DHS and Medicaid fraud reporting, TLO access, private versus unlisted videos, disputed communications, phone and SIM evidence, spoofing and location evidence, Lake Hills financial records, and PRETEND’s published correction concerning Oasis revenue.

David stresses that the goal is not to inflate every discrepancy into proof of dishonesty. The packet itself distinguishes confirmed mistakes from open questions and emphasizes the need to preserve those differences when evaluating the evidence.

The episode also examines a separate revised packet involving the Anthony Christopher litigation. That material raises questions about the alleged phone-handover deadline, when opposing counsel learned about the reported theft, electronic discovery agreements, available sources of digital evidence, disputed forensic interpretations, and the chronology surrounding LaDonna’s affidavit. At the same time, the packet acknowledges the adverse court findings, including contempt, spoliation findings, rejection of the theft account, and the striking of LaDonna’s answer and counterclaim.

At the center of the episode is a broader challenge:

Address the evidence instead of assigning every criticism to LaDonna.

David says that supporting LaDonna does not prove that she directed his actions, and he rejects the idea that his decision to contact other hosts should automatically be attributed to her. He also calls for specific evidence whenever terms such as “stalker” or “harassment” are used.

David applies the same standard to his own work. If something in the packet is wrong, identify the specific item and produce the evidence that corrects it. If an unresolved question can now be answered, provide the documentation and allow the assessment to change accordingly.

The message of this episode is simple:

David sent the packets. David owns the outreach. Now address what is actually in them.

Specific claims deserve specific answers.

Specific evidence deserves examination.

And if the evidence changes, the conclusions should change with it.

Bring the evidence.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

Additional Receipts in this episdode

PRETEND's episode page

Apple Podcasts

Amazon Music

PRETEND's published transcript

PRETEND's transcript.

We Are Not Afraid — my account and rebuttal

In this episode of No Way, Jose, David McClam examines a serious allegation published by PRETEND involving Westboro Baptist Church, Anthony Christopher’s LGBTQ establishment, and the claim that David threatened to send Westboro there for a “blood bath.”

But what does the available record actually show?

David breaks down the language used in PRETEND’s episode description and transcript, including Javier Leiva’s characterization of the alleged threat, and compares it with David’s account of what actually happened. According to David, Westboro Baptist Church contacted him first. He acknowledges that the thought of telling them to mobilize crossed his mind, but says he ultimately chose not to do so because of the potential hatred, confrontation, and violence that could result.

The episode also examines Javier’s conversation with Kiah Penfield and raises questions about what happens when someone is asked to react publicly to a serious allegation before independently reviewing the underlying source material. David argues that emotional reactions cannot substitute for verification, especially when the discussion involves Westboro Baptist Church, an LGBTQ establishment, threatened violence, and even references to the Pulse nightclub massacre.

At the center of the episode is one challenge:

Produce the threat.

If David contacted Westboro, show the communication. If he told them to mobilize, produce it. If he threatened Anthony Christopher with Westboro Baptist Church, show the words. If he said he wanted a bloodbath, play the recording in context.

David also makes an important distinction between evidence and allegation. Until the original Westboro communication is independently examined and authenticated, his description of that message remains his account. At the same time, PRETEND’s published characterization of the alleged threat is publicly available and can be examined directly.

This episode is ultimately about journalistic standards, primary sources, context, and accountability.

You do not have to automatically believe David McClam.

You do not have to automatically believe Javier Leiva.

Check everyone. Read the source material. Examine the evidence. Separate documented fact from characterization.

PRETEND has built its reputation around scrutinizing other people’s stories and demanding receipts.

Now the receipts are being turned in the other direction.

If the threat exists, play it.

Until then, we’ll keep reading the receipts.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In this episode of No Way, José, we address the disappearance of our subreddit, announce a new home for the receipts, and return to the questions PRETEND still has not answered.

A subreddit ban does not resolve a reporting problem.

The records still exist. The timelines still matter. The contradictions still need explanations.

And the work continues.

The receipts are getting a new home

The documents and supporting material examined throughout No Way, José will be moving to a new home, with the address announced through our official channels.

The goal remains simple:

Put the claims next to the sources.

Show the records.

Explain the contradictions.

Give people enough information to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

There is also more to come concerning the Reddit activity surrounding this story, but that material deserves its own episode.

For now, the focus is PRETEND’s own published standards and whether the reporting actually lives up to them.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In the fifth and final installment of our investigation into Anthony Christopher Rocko, the question is no longer whether there was information about his past that PRETEND’s audience could have been told.

The question is:

How much information can exist about a source before an investigative journalist has an obligation to examine it?

Over the previous four episodes, we have looked at contemporary reporting, lawsuits, business disputes, allegations involving money and real estate, and claims about Anthony Christopher’s efforts against LaDonna Humphrey.

Now we arrive at the most serious allegation of all.

Anthony Christopher was accused of rape.

That statement requires an immediate and important qualification.

An accusation is not a conviction.

We have not established that Anthony Christopher committed rape.

But this series has never been about assuming every allegation against Anthony is true.

It has been about whether PRETEND applied the same level of scrutiny to one of its own sources that it applied to LaDonna Humphrey.

And that is where this allegation becomes impossible to ignore.

A sexual-assault allegation existed

David McClam previously discussed the allegation on We Are Not Afraid, identifying Anthony Dewey as the alleged victim and Anthony Christopher as the accused.

McClam later specifically referred to the existence of a police report concerning the allegation.

Again, that does not establish guilt.

But PRETEND did not limit its examination of LaDonna Humphrey to criminal convictions.

Javier Leiva interviewed people with grievances.

He explored accusations.

He examined lawsuits.

He revisited interpersonal disputes.

He presented unproven claims as material his audience could consider when evaluating Humphrey’s credibility.

If allegations were relevant when they concerned LaDonna Humphrey, then allegations involving one of the people helping PRETEND scrutinize her should also have been examined.

Anthony Christopher’s broader history

The sexual-assault allegation did not exist in isolation.

By the time Anthony Christopher appeared in PRETEND’s narrative, there was already a documented history that should have invited serious source vetting.

Jennifer Powers

Jennifer Powers filed a verified lawsuit against Anthony Christopher a/k/a Anthony Rocko in Washington County Circuit Court.

Powers alleged that Anthony accepted $8,000 from her for what she believed was her share of a real-estate purchase in Cave Springs.

She alleged that she later discovered the property had not been purchased, was not for sale, and that its owners had not discussed selling it to Anthony.

Her lawsuit included a cause of action titled:

TORT OF DECEIT

She alleged that Anthony made false representations, intended for her to rely on those representations, and caused her financial harm.

Those were allegations.

But they were allegations preserved in a verified court filing.

Eureka Live

Another Arkansas lawsuit later named Anthony Christopher as a defendant in the dispute involving Eureka Live.

The plaintiffs alleged conduct involving:

Interference with contractual relationships

Conversion

and

Civil conspiracy

Court exhibits also included promotional material announcing Anthony Christopher as Eureka Live’s “new owner” after the plaintiffs alleged they had been deprived of control of the business.

Again, those allegations were not automatically proven simply because they appeared in a complaint.

But they were part of the history available to anyone seriously examining Anthony Christopher as a source.

Dennis McCaslin’s allegation

Then there is Dennis McCaslin, publisher of Today in Fort Smith.

McCaslin publicly alleged that Anthony Christopher offered his publication substantial money to help “bury” LaDonna Humphrey.

McCaslin says telephone and text communications existed surrounding that approach.

That allegation goes directly to motive.

If another publisher says a source previously attempted to put money behind a media effort against the same woman that source would later discuss with PRETEND, that is exactly the kind of information an investigative journalist should want to examine.

Not because it automatically makes the source dishonest.

Because it may help explain why the source is talking.

Then add the rape allegation

Now put all of that together.

PRETEND’s audience heard Anthony Christopher make allegations concerning LaDonna Humphrey.

Listeners were encouraged to evaluate Humphrey partly through Anthony’s perspective.

Meanwhile, Anthony Christopher himself had been the subject of serious allegations, including a reported sexual-assault allegation associated with a police report.

So the question becomes unavoidable:

Why wasn’t Anthony Christopher subjected to the same scrutiny?

Allegations cannot matter only in one direction

This is not an argument that every allegation against Anthony Christopher must be true.

That would repeat the exact mistake we are criticizing.

A complaint is not a verdict.

An accusation is not a conviction.

A police report is not proof of guilt.

But allegations were repeatedly treated as relevant information when PRETEND was examining LaDonna Humphrey.

That means the standard cannot suddenly change when the allegations concern one of PRETEND’s own sources.

If people accusing Humphrey deserved airtime, then Anthony Christopher’s accusers at least deserved investigation.

If lawsuits involving Humphrey were relevant, lawsuits involving Anthony Christopher were relevant to evaluating him.

If motive mattered when examining Humphrey, motive mattered when examining Anthony.

The standard has to work both ways.

Five episodes lead to one question

After five episodes, the questions for Javier Leiva are straightforward.

Did he know Jennifer Powers accused Anthony Christopher of tort of deceit?

Did he know about the $8,000 property allegation?

Did he know about the Eureka Live litigation?

Did he know about Dennis McCaslin’s allegation that Anthony offered money to help “bury” LaDonna Humphrey?

Did he know Anthony Christopher had been accused of sexual assault?

Did he know David McClam says there was a police report connected to that accusation?

Did he ask Anthony Christopher about any of these matters?

And if he did, why weren’t those answers part of the story?

If Javier knew

If Javier knew about this history and chose not to tell his audience while using Anthony Christopher to help evaluate someone else’s credibility, then listeners deserve an explanation for that editorial decision.

If Javier did not know

Then another question becomes unavoidable:

How thoroughly was Anthony Christopher investigated before PRETEND relied on him?

Because source vetting is not optional.

You cannot spend an entire investigative series digging through one person’s history while treating the history of the people accusing that person as irrelevant.

You cannot argue that unproven allegations are worth examining when they concern your subject, then suddenly decide allegations require a conviction before they matter when they concern your source.

And you cannot ask an audience to evaluate someone through the testimony of a source without giving that audience information that could materially affect how it evaluates the source himself.

The question PRETEND should have asked

For five episodes, No Way, José has opened records and examined allegations that existed before Anthony Christopher became part of PRETEND’s case against LaDonna Humphrey.

We have looked at contemporary reporting.

Court records.

Verified complaints.

Business disputes.

Allegations involving motive.

And now a reported sexual-assault allegation.

None of those records alone tells listeners what to believe about every accusation Anthony Christopher has ever faced.

Together, however, they raise a serious question about the depth and consistency of PRETEND’s source vetting.

Javier Leiva spent an extraordinary amount of time asking:

“Who’s afraid of LaDonna Humphrey?”

Maybe before asking millions of listeners to rely on Anthony Christopher, there was another question that needed answering first:

Who the hell is Anthony Christopher?

Because PRETEND’s audience deserved that answer before being asked to believe him.

No Way, José.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In this installment of our five-part investigation into Anthony Christopher Rocko, we return to the central question running through this entire miniseries:

How thoroughly did Javier Leiva vet one of the people he relied upon in PRETEND’s Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey?

By the time Javier produced that series, he had made an editorial choice to interview people who had grievances, accusations, and conflicts involving LaDonna Humphrey.

Those conflicts did not automatically disqualify them as sources.

But they did make motive, credibility, and bias important parts of the story.

That is why what we found about Anthony Christopher matters.

A publisher makes his own allegation

Dennis McCaslin, publisher of Today in Fort Smith, publicly alleged that Anthony Christopher approached his publication in 2021 and offered a substantial amount of money to help him “bury” LaDonna Humphrey.

McCaslin says telephone and text communications existed surrounding that approach.

That allegation is significant because it goes directly to motive.

It is not simply an old disagreement.

It is an allegation from another media publisher that Anthony had previously attempted to involve a media organization in an effort against the same woman he would later discuss with PRETEND.

If true, that is information an audience could reasonably consider when evaluating Anthony Christopher as a source.

Why motive matters

Investigative journalists routinely ask questions about the people bringing them accusations.

Why is this person talking?

What relationship do they have with the subject?

What do they want?

What have they previously done in pursuit of that objective?

Those questions become even more important when the source has a documented history of conflict with the person being investigated.

PRETEND repeatedly examined LaDonna Humphrey through the accounts of people who had disputes with her.

So why wasn’t Anthony Christopher examined through the same lens?

The Jennifer Powers lawsuit

McCaslin’s allegation does not exist in isolation.

As we examined in an earlier episode, Jennifer Powers filed a verified lawsuit in Washington County Circuit Court against Anthony Christopher, also known as Anthony Rocko.

Powers alleged that Anthony persuaded her to invest in a business venture and represented that he was contributing equally to their partnership.

She later alleged that Anthony accepted $8,000 from her toward a supposed Cave Springs real-estate purchase.

According to Powers, when she investigated the property herself, she discovered that it had not been purchased, was not for sale, and that its owners had never discussed selling it to Anthony Christopher.

Her complaint included a cause of action titled:

“COUNT IV – TORT OF DECEIT.”

Powers alleged that Anthony made false representations, intended for her to rely upon them, and caused her financial harm.

She also brought claims involving fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Those were allegations contained in a verified civil complaint.

They were not findings by this show.

But they were part of Anthony Christopher’s documented history before PRETEND presented him to its audience.

The Eureka Live litigation

Then came another Arkansas lawsuit.

Anthony Christopher was named as a defendant in litigation involving Eureka Live.

The plaintiffs alleged that Anthony Christopher and Walter Burrell discussed Christopher gaining control of the business before its existing operators were removed.

Claims involving Anthony included allegations of:

Interference with contractual relationships

Conversion

and

Civil conspiracy

Exhibits attached to the court filing also showed promotional material identifying Anthony Christopher as Eureka Live’s “new owner.”

Again, a complaint is not proof that every allegation contained within it is true.

But complaints, prior disputes, and documented litigation can be highly relevant when evaluating a source whose credibility is being used to attack someone else’s.

Now put the pieces together

At this point, PRETEND’s audience could have been told that Anthony Christopher had a history that included:

A verified lawsuit accusing him of tort of deceit.

Another lawsuit accusing him of conduct connected to interference with contracts, conversion, and civil conspiracy.

And a public allegation from another publisher that Anthony offered money to help “bury” LaDonna Humphrey.

None of those things automatically proves that anything Anthony later said about LaDonna was false.

That is not the argument.

The argument is much simpler:

This information could affect how a reasonable listener evaluates Anthony Christopher’s credibility, motives, and possible bias.

And that makes it relevant to source vetting.

What did Javier know?

That leads to a series of factual questions for Javier Leiva.

Did Javier know about the Jennifer Powers lawsuit?

Did he know that Powers specifically accused Anthony Christopher of tort of deceit?

Did he know about the $8,000 real-estate allegation?

Did he know about the Eureka Live litigation?

Did he know Anthony had been accused of interference with contractual relationships, conversion, and civil conspiracy?

Did he know about Dennis McCaslin’s allegation that Anthony offered money to help “bury” LaDonna Humphrey?

Did Javier ever ask Anthony about any of these matters?

And if he did, why weren’t those answers presented to the audience alongside Anthony’s allegations about LaDonna?

Two very different possibilities

It would be irresponsible to assume that Javier deliberately withheld this information without evidence establishing that.

There are at least two possibilities.

He knew about these matters and chose not to include them.

Or he never discovered them.

Those are different scenarios.

But either one raises questions.

If Javier knew, listeners deserve to understand why the information was omitted.

If he did not know, then listeners deserve to ask how deeply one of PRETEND’s sources was vetted before his allegations were broadcast.

The result for the audience was the same:

They were given Anthony Christopher’s allegations about LaDonna Humphrey without being given substantial information that could have affected how they evaluated Anthony Christopher himself.

Credibility cannot be a one-way investigation

PRETEND spent considerable time examining LaDonna Humphrey’s past.

Relationships.

Disputes.

Allegations.

Conflicts.

People who said they had negative experiences with her.

That history was presented because PRETEND apparently believed it helped listeners evaluate her credibility.

Then the same principle must apply to the sources making accusations against her.

Dennis McCaslin had allegations involving Anthony Christopher.

Jennifer Powers had allegations involving Anthony Christopher.

Cordale Moore had allegations involving Anthony Christopher.

Those voices existed too.

Some of those allegations were contained in Arkansas court records long before PRETEND released Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey?

Source vetting cannot mean investigating only the history of the person your source wants the audience to distrust.

If Anthony Christopher’s allegations about LaDonna Humphrey were relevant enough for PRETEND, then information bearing directly on Anthony Christopher’s own credibility and possible motive was relevant enough for listeners to know.

Javier told his audience a great deal about the woman Anthony Christopher wanted them to distrust.

This episode examines what they were not told about the man asking them to distrust her.

And No Way, José is opening those records now.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In Part Three of our five-part investigation into Anthony Christopher Rocko, we move from Washington County to Carroll County, Arkansas, and into yet another business dispute involving money, property, control, and credibility.

In Part One, we examined the 2010 reporting surrounding Labor of Love Charities in Oklahoma.

In Part Two, we opened an Arkansas lawsuit in which Jennifer Powers accused Anthony Christopher, also known as Anthony Rocko, of taking $8,000 for a real-estate purchase she alleged never existed and sued him for tort of deceit.

Now we have another lawsuit.

Another business.

Another set of serious allegations.

And another reason to ask how thoroughly PRETEND vetted Anthony Christopher before relying on him as a source.

The Eureka Live dispute

This case was filed in Carroll County Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs were Cordale Moore and Eureka Live Underground, LLC.

Anthony Christopher was one of several defendants.

The dispute centered on the ownership and control of Eureka Live, a restaurant and bar in Eureka Springs.

According to the complaint, Cordale Moore purchased Eureka Live from Walter Burrell in December 2018 for $546,000, with the purchase price to be paid through scheduled installments.

Moore formed Eureka Live Underground, LLC to operate the business and continued running it while making the required payments.

The complaint alleges that Burrell nevertheless remained heavily involved in the business after the sale.

Then Anthony Christopher entered the picture.

What the plaintiffs alleged

According to the complaint, Burrell brought Anthony Christopher into the bar on February 29, 2020 and showed him the operation of the business.

The plaintiffs alleged that Burrell and Christopher were discussing a plan to take control of the restaurant and bar away from them and transfer it to Christopher.

The following day, the complaint alleges, Burrell and Christopher entered the closed business using an alarm code obtained from another employee.

Again, those are allegations.

But what happened next is why the lawsuit becomes particularly relevant to Anthony Christopher’s credibility.

The plaintiffs alleged that the locks were changed and Moore was denied access to the business.

They further alleged that when they last left Eureka Live, the building contained several hundred dollars in the cash registers, money and other items in the safe, approximately $80,000 in inventory, and about $20,000 in additional assetsthat Moore had purchased.

According to the complaint, that property was not returned after the plaintiffs were locked out.

Anthony becomes the “new owner”

The complaint alleges that only days after Moore was denied access, Burrell told him that he had been evicted and that the bar was being turned over to Anthony Christopher.

Then come the exhibits.

Court exhibits attached to the filing included Facebook promotional posts advertising Eureka Live’s reopening.

One welcomed customers to the venue under “new owner Anthony Christopher.”

Another announced that the club would reopen under “a New Owner Mr. Anthony Christopher.”

Those screenshots are important because they were not merely allegations written into the body of the complaint.

They were exhibits showing how the business was being publicly presented at the time.

The claims against Anthony Christopher

The plaintiffs did not merely mention Anthony in the background of the dispute.

They sued him.

One count alleged interference with contractual relationships.

The plaintiffs claimed Anthony knew about the existing contractual arrangements surrounding Eureka Live and participated in conduct that disrupted those relationships.

Another count alleged conversion.

The complaint accused Anthony Christopher and other defendants of exercising control over property the plaintiffs claimed belonged to them or that they were entitled to possess.

That allegedly included cash, inventory, business assets, and access to the building itself.

Then came another claim:

Civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants agreed to take control of the business and transfer it, and that Anthony Christopher’s presence in the bar while it was closed formed part of the circumstances supporting that allegation.

They also alleged that the business later reopened under Christopher and other defendants after the plaintiffs had been removed.

The complaint sought compensatory damages and punitive damages, including a demand for punitive damages of no less than $1 million.

A verified complaint

As with the Jennifer Powers lawsuit examined in Part Two, this complaint also included a verification.

Cordale Moore signed under oath that the facts and matters contained in the complaint were true and correct as he believed them to be.

That does not turn the allegations into judicial findings.

A lawsuit records what the plaintiffs alleged.

It does not prove every allegation was true.

But this is exactly where source vetting begins.

A growing pattern of records

At this point in our investigation, we are no longer looking at a single isolated dispute.

In 2010, contemporary reporting raised questions surrounding Labor of Love Charities, donated funds, and a building Anthony discussed despite not owning it.

Years later, Jennifer Powers sued Anthony Christopher and alleged that he accepted $8,000 for a property purchase that she later discovered had not happened.

Then came the Carroll County lawsuit, where Anthony Christopher was accused of participating in a scheme to take control of Eureka Live, interfering with contractual relationships, converting assets, and participating in a civil conspiracy.

Three different episodes.

Three separate sets of records.

And that creates an obvious journalistic question.

How thoroughly was Anthony Christopher vetted?

PRETEND asked its audience to listen to Anthony Christopher discuss the conduct and credibility of LaDonna Humphrey.

That makes his own credibility relevant.

Again, the existence of a lawsuit does not automatically prove the allegations in that lawsuit.

But when a source has a documented history of serious disputes involving money, property, business relationships, and representations made to others, a reporter should investigate that history before asking an audience to rely on that source.

So the questions for Javier Leiva become increasingly difficult to avoid.

Did he know about the Jennifer Powers lawsuit?

Did he know Powers accused Anthony Christopher of tort of deceit?

Did he know about the $8,000 property allegation?

Did he know about the Carroll County litigation?

Did he know Anthony had been accused of interference with contractual relationships, conversion, and civil conspiracy?

Did he see the exhibits showing Anthony Christopher publicly promoted as Eureka Live’s new owner shortly after the plaintiffs alleged they had been locked out?

If Javier knew about this history, listeners deserve to know why it was not part of the credibility assessment presented to them.

If he did not know, then listeners have every reason to ask how thoroughly one of PRETEND’s sources was vetted before his allegations were broadcast.

Read the documents

That is why this five-part series exists.

We are not asking listeners to accept every allegation in every lawsuit as fact.

We are putting the records in front of you.

Read the complaints.

Look at the exhibits.

Follow the chronology.

Separate allegations from findings.

And ask the same question PRETEND repeatedly asks about everyone else:

What does the record actually show?

Anthony Christopher wanted to help tell the world who other people supposedly were.

This series is examining the documents that tell us something about the history of the man doing the telling.

And we are not finished yet.

No Way, José.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In Part Two of our five-part investigation into Anthony Christopher Rocko, we move several years forward from Labor of Love Charities in Oklahoma.

And once again, the story involves money, real estate, and questions about credibility.

This time, however, we are not relying on a newspaper account.

We are going directly to an Arkansas lawsuit.

On March 9, 2018, Jennifer Powers filed a civil lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas, naming Anthony Christopher, also known as Anthony Rocko, as a defendant.

The case number is 72CV-18-644-2.

Powers brought the case individually and as a member of Christopher-Powers Properties, LLC.

The allegations contained in that complaint raise serious questions about Anthony Christopher Rocko’s business dealings and, more importantly for this series, about what kind of source vetting should have taken place before PRETEND relied on him in Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey?

A business partnership begins

According to the complaint, Jennifer Powers met Anthony through mutual friends while he was attending graduate school at the University of Arkansas.

She alleged that Anthony became a close confidant while she was going through a divorce and later convinced her to invest money from that divorce into a business venture with him.

Together, they formed Christopher-Powers Properties, LLC.

Powers alleged that each of them owned 50 percent of the company and that they agreed to contribute equally to expenses and share income equally.

The original plan was straightforward:

Purchase older properties.

Renovate them.

Rent them.

Generate passive income.

But according to Powers, the financial reality did not match what she had been told.

The money starts raising questions

Powers alleged that Anthony repeatedly asked her for money during renovations and represented that he was contributing an equal amount.

She says she trusted him and believed that whenever she contributed funds, Anthony was putting in his 50 percent as well.

According to the complaint, Anthony handled the company’s finances while Powers handled cleaning and preparing the property after renters left.

Then came a proposed deal in Cave Springs, Arkansas.

The $8,000 Cave Springs transaction

According to the complaint, Anthony took Powers to a property in Cave Springs in March 2017 and allegedly told her that arrangements had been made to purchase it.

The plan, according to Powers, was to build houses there and expand their rental business.

Anthony allegedly told her that each of them needed to contribute $8,000 toward the purchase.

Powers says she gave him the $8,000.

Then she checked on the property herself.

What she alleges she discovered became one of the central claims in the lawsuit:

The property had not been purchased.

She further alleged that the property was not even for sale and that the owners had never discussed selling it to Anthony Christopher.

That allegation forms an important part of this episode because it was not buried in an online argument or anonymous accusation.

It appeared in a filed civil complaint.

Questions about the company records

According to Powers, discovering what had happened with the Cave Springs property prompted her to demand more information about Christopher-Powers Properties.

She alleged that she was told there were no tax returns and that rental income had not been deposited into the LLC’s bank account.

She demanded an accounting.

The complaint then raises another significant allegation.

Powers says she received documents purporting to be minutes from LLC meetings.

According to her complaint, those documents claimed she had attended meetings that she says never occurred.

She also alleged that the purported minutes reflected a transfer of 80 percent of her ownership interest in the company to Anthony Christopher.

Her response in the complaint was direct:

“That is not true.”

What the bank records allegedly showed

Powers says she later obtained records from Arvest Bank concerning the LLC.

According to the complaint, those records did not show Anthony contributing anywhere near his alleged half of the company’s costs and expenses.

She further alleged that the records did not show rental income being deposited into the LLC’s account even though the property had allegedly been rented many times.

Powers also alleged that Anthony refused to provide complete financial information and, upon information and belief, had commingled LLC funds with his personal account.

The causes of action

Jennifer Powers brought six counts in the lawsuit:

Count I: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Owed to Company

Count II: Breach of Duty Owed to Plaintiff

Count III: Breach of Contract

Count IV: Tort of Deceit

Count V: Unjust Enrichment

Count VI: Punitive Damages

Count IV is especially important to this episode.

Under “Tort of Deceit,” Powers alleged that Anthony made false representations to her.

She specifically pointed to the Cave Springs property and alleged that Anthony accepted her $8,000 for half of a property purchase that he “never bought or had a contract to purchase,” despite allegedly telling her that an agreement to buy the property existed.

Powers further alleged that Anthony intended for her to rely on those representations, that she did rely on them, and that she suffered financial harm as a result.

Those are allegations contained in the lawsuit.

They are not findings by this show.

And that distinction matters.

A verified complaint

The complaint also contains a verification.

Jennifer Powers appeared before a notary and swore that the facts and matters contained in the complaint were “true and correct as Affiant verily believes.”

Her signature appears on the document.

So does the notary’s signature, seal, and date.

Again, that does not by itself prove every allegation in the complaint.

But it does establish that these were formal allegations placed into the court record under verification.

Why this matters to PRETEND

PRETEND asked its audience to listen to Anthony Christopher Rocko while he discussed the credibility and conduct of LaDonna Humphrey.

That makes his own credibility relevant.

The question is not whether the existence of one lawsuit automatically proves that every statement Anthony has ever made is false.

It does not.

The question is whether an investigative podcast built around questions of honesty and credibility should have examined this documented history before presenting Anthony as a source.

There was a verified complaint in the Washington County court record alleging problems involving money, business finances, real estate representations, ownership interests, purported meeting minutes, and an $8,000 payment connected to property that Powers alleged was never purchased and was not even for sale.

One of the causes of action was literally titled:

Tort of Deceit.

That record existed.

So the question becomes:

Did Javier Leiva know about it?

And if not:

Why not?

The source deserves scrutiny too

This five-part series is applying the same standard PRETEND encouraged its audience to apply to everyone else.

Look at the documents.

Check the chronology.

Separate allegations from proven facts.

Compare what people say with what the record shows.

And do not exempt a source from scrutiny simply because that source supports your story.

Anthony Christopher Rocko wanted to talk publicly about the credibility of other people.

That makes it reasonable to examine his credibility too.

In Part Two, the receipts come directly from an Arkansas court file.

And we still have three parts to go.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

Before we continue with No Way, José, we need to introduce you to someone who became increasingly important as we examined PRETEND’s Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey?

His name is Anthony Christopher Rocko.

And over the next five episodes, we are going to take a much closer look at him.

This special five-part No Way, José miniseries examines Anthony Christopher Rocko’s credibility, his history, his public statements, the documentary record surrounding him, and one question that should have been answered before his allegations were presented to PRETEND’s enormous audience:

How thoroughly did Javier Leiva vet this source?

What began as background research quickly became something much larger.

We found records.

Then more records.

Then contemporary newspaper reporting.

And eventually, Anthony Christopher Rocko became a story all by himself.

This series is not built around anonymous internet accusations, speculation, or personal attacks.

We are going back to the records.

We will compare Anthony’s statements with contemporaneous reporting, examine the chronology, separate documented facts from allegations, and ask what information was available before PRETEND placed Anthony behind the microphone and asked its audience to evaluate allegations he made about someone else.

It starts in Shawnee, Oklahoma

One of the earliest stories we examine involves an organization called Labor of Love Charities.

Anthony Christopher Rocko founded Labor of Love with a public mission of helping homeless people.

There were volunteers.

There were donations.

There were efforts to feed people in need.

And there were plans for a homeless shelter.

Contemporary reporting described a project that appeared to be moving toward becoming something substantial.

Then the story changed.

According to an August 2010 report in The Shawnee News-Star, approximately $15,000 had been donated toward the effort.

Anthony had also publicly discussed Labor of Love being under contract to purchase a building intended for the shelter.

But Anthony did not ultimately purchase the property.

Other people did.

One of the men involved in buying the building, John Winterringer, gave the newspaper a statement that now takes on enormous significance:

“People need to know where their money went.”

That statement did not come from LaDonna Humphrey.

It did not come from Reddit.

It did not come from someone involved in the later PRETEND controversy.

It came from someone speaking to a newspaper in 2010, while the Labor of Love situation was unfolding.

The newspaper also reported that Anthony later discussed offering the building for sale at the best possible price.

There was a major problem with that statement.

He did not own the building.

The reporter asked Anthony how he could sell property he did not own.

According to the article, he declined further comment on that issue.

That exchange represents exactly the kind of source scrutiny this miniseries is about.

Ask the uncomfortable question.

Identify the contradiction.

Give the person an opportunity to explain it.

Then report what happened.

Not long afterward, Anthony announced:

“Labor of Love is dissolved. It is no more.”

And that is only the beginning

Over the course of five episodes, we will examine records concerning how Labor of Love was organized, what Anthony represented about the organization, what Oklahoma records reportedly showed, and how the effort went from public excitement about a homeless shelter to dissolution in a remarkably short period of time.

But Labor of Love is only one chapter.

Throughout this miniseries, we will examine Anthony Christopher Rocko using the same kind of scrutiny PRETEND encouraged its audience to apply to everyone else.

We will look at:

Anthony’s own statements.

Contemporary reporting.

Documents and records.

Chronology.

Contradictions.

The allegations he later made.

What he told Javier Leiva.

What PRETEND told its audience.

And what information could have been discovered before those allegations were broadcast.

At the center of all five episodes is a basic principle of investigative journalism:

Who exactly is your source?

Credibility is not something a reporter should investigate only when someone challenges the story.

Source vetting is not optional because someone gives a compelling interview.

And corroboration means more than finding several people who dislike the same person.

If an investigative series is going to spend hours asking its audience to question another person’s honesty, then the credibility of the people making those accusations deserves equally serious examination.

That is what this miniseries intends to do.

Five episodes.

One source.

Documents.

Contemporary reporting.

Anthony Christopher Rocko’s own words.

And a question we will return to again and again:

Who is Anthony Christopher Rocko, and why wasn’t PRETEND’s audience given the full picture of one of the sources it was being asked to trust?

The receipts are coming.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!OTHER RECEIPTS FROM THE EPISODE

Associated Press: case and guilty-plea background

PRETEND, Part 5

Epilepsy Foundation: What if the EEG is normal?

PRETEND, Part 4

American Cancer Society: ALL remission criteria

RMHC of the Ozarks: mission and eligibility

PRETEND, Part 1 and Part 2

PRETEND, Part 1 and Part 5

MedlinePlus Genetics: 1q21.1 microdeletion

MSD Manual: factitious disorder imposed on another

PRETEND, Part 6

Cleveland Clinic: FDIA diagnostic criteria

In this episode of No Way, José, we examine Javier Leiva’s PRETEND series about Gypsy Rose Blanchard and ask a straightforward question:

Does the reporting hold up when the medical claims, timelines, and conclusions are checked against the evidence?

This episode is not an attempt to erase Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s responsibility for her role in the murder of her mother. Gypsy pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

Our focus is PRETEND’s reporting.

Throughout its Gypsy Rose series, PRETEND challenges medical claims, questions historical accounts, analyzes records, and asks listeners to reconsider what they believe about one of the most heavily discussed true-crime cases of the past decade.

That kind of reporting comes with a responsibility.

If you challenge medical information, your own medical explanations need to be accurate.

If you present a number, the timeline supporting that number needs to make sense.

And if you reach a conclusion, listeners deserve to understand how the evidence actually gets you there.

In this episode, we examine several places where PRETEND’s reporting raises serious questions.

Can a seizure only be confirmed by EEG?

In Part 5, Javier states that the only way to confirm a seizure is to capture one on an EEG.

That is not an accurate description of how seizures are diagnosed.

An EEG can be an important diagnostic tool, but seizures may also be diagnosed using medical history, witness accounts, clinical examinations, symptoms, and other findings.

Even a normal EEG does not establish that someone has never experienced a seizure.

This does not prove that Gypsy had epilepsy.

It means the standard PRETEND used to evaluate that question was medically flawed.

Does normal bloodwork disprove a childhood leukemia history?

PRETEND also uses largely normal bloodwork from 2011 while questioning reports that Gypsy had childhood leukemia in remission.

But normal blood counts can be consistent with remission.

A laboratory result from years later cannot independently determine whether someone had leukemia as a child.

If a historical cancer diagnosis is being challenged, the relevant evidence would include the original diagnostic records, treatment records, oncology documentation, and any gaps in that record.

Normal bloodwork years later cannot carry that burden by itself.

Was cancer required to stay at a Ronald McDonald House?

PRETEND also raises the question of how Gypsy could have stayed at a Ronald McDonald House if she did not have cancer.

But Ronald McDonald House programs serve families of seriously ill and injured children, not exclusively children being treated for cancer.

That does not prove anything about Gypsy’s specific historical stay.

It does mean that the supposed mystery depends on a premise that should have been verified before being presented to listeners.

Where does “23 years in a wheelchair” come from?

The opening of the series describes Gypsy as having spent 23 years in a wheelchair.

Later episodes, however, describe a much different chronology, including an account that she regained the ability to walk around age seven after an alleged period of temporary paralysis.

Those accounts do not provide an obvious basis for a 23-year duration.

The criticism here is simple:

If a precise number is going to open an investigative series, the reporting should show how that number was established.

Did all of Gypsy’s health problems simply disappear?

PRETEND’s opening also suggests that once Gypsy’s ability to walk became known, her health problems effectively disappeared.

Yet the series itself later acknowledges a documented chromosomal deletion and continuing physical differences.

A real medical condition does not establish that every treatment Gypsy received was justified.

But evidence that some claims may have been false does not mean every medical condition was imaginary.

The medical history needs to be separated into categories:

What was documented?

What was fabricated?

What remains disputed?

What conditions continued?

Sweeping language may make for a stronger introduction, but complicated medical evidence requires more precision.

How many lies make a psychiatric diagnosis?

Part 6 discusses the distinction between malingering and factitious disorder imposed on another and asks, in effect, how many repeated acts of deception are required before something becomes a mental illness.

But frequency alone does not establish a psychiatric diagnosis.

Clinical criteria include the nature of the deception, how the person presents another individual as ill, the presence or absence of external incentives, and whether another psychiatric explanation better accounts for the behavior.

A reporter can investigate deception without diagnosing a deceased person.

In many cases, focusing on the documented conduct may produce stronger reporting than trying to attach one psychiatric explanation to everything.

Does failure to disclose abuse prove it did not happen?

PRETEND also discusses the absence of certain abuse allegations from Gypsy’s communications with Nicholas Godejohn and treats that absence as potentially significant.

It may be worth examining.

But people do not disclose abuse in predictable ways.

Some disclose only portions of what happened.

Some wait years.

Some fear consequences.

Others may not fully recognize their experiences as abuse at the time.

That does not prove Gypsy experienced everything she later described.

It means the absence of disclosure cannot automatically be transformed into a behavioral rule.

An omission and a contradiction are not the same thing.

If silence is going to be treated as evidence, the reporting needs to establish why the information would reasonably be expected to appear in that particular communication.

Can someone’s house tell you whether they are wealthy?

In Part 2, Javier visits Gypsy’s modest rental home while examining whether she has become wealthy from her story.

Observing where someone lives tells you something about where they live.

It does not establish their income, savings, debts, assets, contracts, or net worth.

PRETEND does qualify the observation by noting that any wealth she may have accumulated has apparently not been spent on a mansion.

That qualification matters.

But if an investigation is going to follow the money, it ultimately needs evidence of the money.

Can spending several hours with someone settle their medical history?

PRETEND also describes spending time with Gypsy without observing some of the walking or eating difficulties that others have claimed to see.

That can fairly challenge conclusions people draw from short social-media clips.

But a few hours of observation cannot recreate someone's childhood medical history.

The same standard works both ways.

A strange moment in a video does not prove someone has a medical disorder.

An uneventful meal or walk does not prove that a previous problem never existed.

Clinical questions require clinical evidence.

Not every criticism of PRETEND is valid

This episode also identifies places where PRETEND should receive credit for making distinctions correctly.

Its current Part 2 transcript distinguishes Missouri public-records requests from federal FOIA.

It also explains that a proposed laryngoscopy was an examination rather than a procedure involving surgical incisions.

Those clarifications matter.

A credible critique should preserve evidence that complicates its own argument.

The purpose of fact-checking is not to find fault at any cost.

It is to determine what the record actually supports.

The questions PRETEND still needs to answer

By the end of this episode, several questions remain:

What medical authority supports the claim that a seizure must be captured on an EEG to be confirmed?

What supports treating normal later bloodwork as inconsistent with a childhood leukemia history?

What evidence establishes the claim that Gypsy spent 23 years in a wheelchair?

What historical Ronald McDonald House admission requirement makes the absence of cancer suspicious?

And where conclusions are based on observations, omissions, or impressions, how much weight can those observations reasonably carry?

PRETEND encourages listeners to question established narratives.

That is a worthwhile standard.

But it applies to PRETEND too.

When a series challenges medical records, diagnoses, memories, motives, and public understanding, its own factual claims need to survive the same scrutiny.

A confident narrator cannot substitute for evidence.

A memorable line cannot repair a medical mistake.

And an investigative podcast should be willing to correct its own reporting with the same determination it uses to correct everyone else.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In this episode of No Way, José, we examine PRETEND’s treatment of the stolen-phone allegation involving LaDonna Humphrey and compare that presentation with the actual findings documented by the Benton County Sheriff’s Office.

At the center of the episode is a statement from Detective Paul W. Carter after reviewing the phone records supplied by the people accusing LaDonna of filing a false theft report:

“I found no evidence in the phone records to indicate Ladonna Humphrey had falsified her police report.”

That conclusion matters.

This episode follows the evidence through the original theft report, the detective’s analysis of the phone records, PRETEND’s later discussion of the SIM card, and the court proceedings that ultimately affected LaDonna’s ability to defend herself and challenge the judgment against her.

LaDonna maintains that her phone was stolen. Her husband and daughter have supported that account.

The original sheriff’s report documents that on November 8, 2018, LaDonna and her husband, Danny, reported hearing the alarm on their Suburban while inside their home. Danny reported seeing the vehicle’s interior light illuminated, the exterior lights flashing, and a white SUV nearby.

When Deputy Joshua Pierson accompanied them to the vehicle, LaDonna identified several missing items, including her purse, iPhone, identification, payment cards, approximately $280 in cash, and a Garmin GPS.

The investigation later became intertwined with civil litigation because the missing phone had been the subject of expedited discovery.

In February 2019, Anthony Christopher and his attorney brought phone records to Detective Carter and alleged that those records proved LaDonna had continued using the phone after reporting it stolen.

Carter reviewed the material.

His findings did not support that interpretation.

The detective documented three significant issues.

First, he found no outgoing phone usage after the police report was filed.

Second, he identified records indicating that the account had been updated to a different IMEI-numbered device.

Third, he found that the accusation failed to account for the six-hour difference between UTC and Central Time, a discrepancy capable of changing the timeline being presented as evidence.

Those findings formed the basis for Carter’s conclusion that the phone records did not establish that LaDonna had falsified her theft report.

This episode compares that analysis with PRETEND’s Part 3 discussion of the allegation.

Although PRETEND acknowledged that a detective had reached a conclusion favorable to LaDonna, its presentation focused instead on a courtroom claim involving the original SIM card, followed by sarcastic commentary suggesting that the theft account was implausible.

The episode asks whether that presentation gave listeners enough information to evaluate the actual evidence.

An IMEI identifies a device. A SIM card has its own separate identifying information. Carter’s report discussed a change in IMEI, but the material examined in this episode does not contain a corresponding ICCID comparison establishing that the same physical SIM card moved from the allegedly stolen phone into another handset.

That distinction matters.

A joke about a “magical SIM card” does not answer the detective’s findings concerning the time conversion, outgoing usage, or change in device identity.

If PRETEND believes those findings are wrong, the episode argues that the underlying records and technical reasoning should be shown and explained directly.

We also examine LaDonna’s claim that neither she nor her legal team knew Carter’s supplemental report existed until almost a year after contempt sanctions had been imposed and that the report was not introduced during those proceedings.

The civil case did not proceed through an ordinary trial on liability.

The state court imposed sanctions, struck LaDonna’s answer and counterclaim, made adverse findings that included rejecting her stolen-phone account, and imposed liability. A later bench trial addressed damages.

That procedural history is important because a judgment can carry enormous authority with the public while revealing little about how the underlying factual disputes were actually litigated.

The episode then turns to what happened when LaDonna attempted to challenge that judgment.

During bankruptcy proceedings, rights that included her ability to continue challenging the judgment were sold for $12,500 to Absolute.

LaDonna objected.

The practical consequence of the transaction was that the opposing party could acquire control of her appeal and seek to dismiss it.

U.S. District Judge P. K. Holmes III later reversed approval of that sale and strongly criticized the transaction. He contrasted the $12,500 purchase price with the possibility of challenging a judgment exceeding $3.57 million and wrote that the arrangement could not possibly have been in the best interest of the bankruptcy estate.

He also described allowing the sale to stand as a potential “plain miscarriage of justice.”

In July 2025, the Eighth Circuit later vacated that ruling and dismissed the bankruptcy appeal because the sale had not been stayed as required for the relief being sought.

That appellate decision concerned the bankruptcy transaction and its finality. It did not determine whether the stolen-phone allegation was true or false.

The distinction is essential.

This episode does not argue that the inability to identify a thief proves the theft occurred.

It argues that the inability to identify a thief also does not prove that LaDonna fabricated the report.

Detective Carter investigated the accusation placed before him. He reviewed the records supplied by LaDonna’s accusers and documented why he believed those records failed to establish falsification.

That evidence deserves to be addressed directly.

The episode challenges PRETEND to explain Carter’s time-zone correction, his finding concerning outgoing usage, the change in IMEI, and the records supporting the SIM-card claim.

Listeners should be given enough information to evaluate those competing interpretations for themselves.

A compelling podcast can ask difficult questions.

But difficult evidence deserves answers too.

When someone’s honesty and reputation are being publicly challenged, sarcasm cannot substitute for explaining the record.

The detective’s analysis exists.

The findings are documented.

And LaDonna Humphrey deserves to have that evidence included in the conversation.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

Other Receipts from this Episode:

Receipt: PRETEND’s November 2023 update.

Receipt: PRETEND’s December 2023 correction.

Receipt: the published transcript of Is This the End?

Receipt: The Stalker Correction.

Receipt: Maricopa County Attorney’s diversion information.

Receipt: the correction’s published explanation.

Receipt: PRETEND’s correction.

Receipt: Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-911.

Receipt: the publisher’s current Part 20 page.

Receipts: the current Apple series listing and PRETEND’s Part 7 notes.

Receipt: PRETEND’s June 2025 Part 21 transcript.

Receipt: Part 21’s courtroom discussion.

Receipt: PRETEND’s Part 23 transcript.

Receipts: Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-5307 and § 14-5312.

Receipt: the opening and email discussion in Part 20.

Receipt: Part 23’s closing discussion.

Receipt: PRETEND’s September 2025 guilty-plea update.

Receipt: PRETEND’s Part 22 update.

In this episode of No Way, José, we examine Javier Leiva’s reporting on PRETEND’s The Stalker series and ask a basic question: does the reporting hold up when somebody checks it?

Using PRETEND’s own published episodes, transcripts, corrections, and statements, this episode looks at a series of factual, legal, and editorial issues surrounding the coverage of Tanya and Rick Fernandez, their criminal cases, later proceedings, and the reporting surrounding their family.

At the center of the episode is a November 2023 update in which PRETEND suggested that Tanya and Rick Fernandez had accepted a plea deal and that their criminal case might be ending. Weeks later, PRETEND acknowledged that the conclusion had been based on speculation after a vacated trial date was interpreted as evidence of a plea. A new trial date later appeared.

The episode examines why announcing the apparent end of a criminal prosecution before confirming the disposition raises serious reporting concerns, particularly when the host had also suggested that an actual trial might have been repetitive or boring for listeners.

We then examine PRETEND’s later correction acknowledging another significant error: describing the Fernandez arrangement as a plea agreement when it was actually felony diversion.

Those are not interchangeable legal outcomes.

The episode explains the distinction between diversion, dismissal, a guilty plea, dismissal with prejudice, and sealed records, while examining whether PRETEND’s corrected explanation accurately described what those legal terms mean.

We also look at whether the correction actually reached the places where the original error continued to appear. Even after PRETEND acknowledged the plea-deal mistake, descriptions connected to earlier episodes continued to characterize the case that way.

Other issues examined include:

• Outdated descriptions of the original allegations remaining in PRETEND’s series materials even after later reporting indicated that investigators did not consider certain people suspects.

• Courtroom reporting that described reinstatement of felony charges as “highly probable” despite acknowledging that updated court information had not yet been obtained.

• The use of observations about defendants’ appearance and demeanor in place of confirmed information about what the court had actually decided.

• A statement that Shelbey Fernandez had “no rights” because of guardianship, and why Arizona guardianship law presents a much more complicated legal reality.

• PRETEND’s decision to publish information from an email in which the sender asked that her communication remain anonymous and stay out of the podcast.

• The use of comparisons to the Gypsy Rose case while PRETEND simultaneously acknowledged significant gaps in the available evidence concerning allegations of medical abuse.

The episode also makes important distinctions where the record requires them.

Rick Fernandez later pleaded guilty to a separate harassment matter connected to the book. PRETEND itself distinguished that guilty plea from the earlier felony allegations and acknowledged that the later plea did not establish who was responsible for the original messages.

Likewise, later reporting concerning Shelbey Fernandez involved allegations and an ongoing criminal case. Those developments do not automatically prove that every earlier accusation involving the family was false, nor do they establish the guilt or innocence of everyone previously accused.

The purpose of this episode is not to replace one sweeping narrative with another.

It is to examine specific reporting decisions.

When journalists and podcasters build their reputations by scrutinizing the statements of others, their own reporting should withstand the same examination.

That means verifying a criminal disposition before announcing it, understanding legal terminology before explaining it to an audience, correcting inaccurate material where the original error remains published, distinguishing allegations from established facts, and exercising particular care when reporting on vulnerable people.

PRETEND regularly encourages its audience to examine what the evidence actually supports.

In this episode, No Way, José applies that same standard to PRETEND.

The receipts are already public.

The question is what they show when someone takes the time to read them carefully.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

I tell you how we get our information and how we are presenting the information to you.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

OTHER RECEIPTS FROM THE EPISODE

The public docket records that the parties reached an agreement at a May fifth, twenty twenty-six conference Public docket

SPJ Code of Ethics

Core Points:

• David McClam analyzes court filings from the Meghan Walsh versus Javier Jose Leiva lawsuit to scrutinize podcast production practices.
• Producers must prioritize fair reporting and context over dramatic storytelling techniques that distort a subject’s credibility.
• Written communications and dates often conflict with the final narrative presented in true crime series.
• Journalistic standards require verifying information, minimizing harm, and correcting errors rather than dismissing complaints as boring.
• Evaluating editorial choices helps audiences hold podcasters accountable for the trust placed in their reporting.

The Walsh Filings and Production Ethics

David McClam examines the legal filings from the lawsuit involving Meghan Walsh and David McClam's evaluation of the podcast Pretend, hosted by Javier Jose Leiva. The central issue revolves around a message where Javier admits he has not caught Walsh in a lie and thinks she is honest, yet notes that this honesty did not translate into the final production. This discrepancy highlights a major ethical concern in investigative journalism regarding how producers manipulate edits for dramatic effect. Instead of ensuring a fair and accurate portrayal, the production sequence delayed key admissions, such as false welfare calls, to maintain suspense. David McClam argues that sacrificing fairness for entertainment value undermines the core integrity of true crime reporting.

Editing Choices and Accountability

The response from the production when confronted about editorial spin was that honesty would make the series short and boring. David McClam strongly criticizes this justification, noting that prioritizing entertainment over a person’s reputation damages trust. The filings reveal various contested elements, including disputed screenshots, characterizations of Walsh as a failed actor, and the dismissal of her requests to delay the episode. Javier offered a reaction episode, but this placed the burden back on Walsh without fixing the original misleading presentation. Ultimately, David McClam concludes that the podcast falls short of proper journalistic standards, emphasizing that a good reputation in reporting requires transparent answers rather than defensive dismissals.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

Core Points:

• David McClam examines public tax records to defend a former church secretary against unproven financial accusations.
• Always check official dates and documentation before accepting blame claims against former employees.
• Institutional records like meeting agendas and bank letters prove that financial decisions involved multiple leaders, not just one staff member.
• Investigative reporting requires vetting sources and aligning timelines to ensure accurate storytelling.
• Unfounded allegations can damage reputations unless countered with verified, chronological evidence.

Tax Notice Chronology

David McClam analyzes a federal tax notice to challenge claims made against LaDonna Humphrey. The official document lists eleven separate tax periods starting from December 31, 2003, and running through 2007. Because LaDonna resigned in May or June of 2003, these dates fall entirely after her departure. David McClam points out that holding a former employee responsible for tax liabilities incurred years after she left ignores basic chronological facts. The narrative presented by other podcasts connects unpaid taxes to LaDonna without showing payroll records or dated transactions linking her to the missing money.

Church Financial Oversight

David McClam introduces church documents showing that financial management involved an oversight committee rather than a single individual. An April 2003 elders meeting agenda lists a financial oversight team, proving that multiple leaders shared responsibility for church funds. Furthermore, financing proposals and bank letters from First Federal demonstrate that co-trustees and guarantors handled the institution’s loans. David McClam argues that assuming a secretary controlled all financial operations is incorrect when official records point to a broader leadership structure managing debts and answering to lenders long after LaDonna left the church.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack

If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

OTHER RECEIPTS IN THIS EPISODE

PRETEND Part 1 publication date, June 4, 2024

Steven Booth on Conversations with Rich Bennett, 2:42–4:25 Conversations with Rich Bennett.



Core Points:

• David McClam questions the reliability of Alicia Lockhart’s accusations against LaDonna Humphrey and the lack of journalistic scrutiny by Javier Leiva at PRETEND
• Financial records, including emails and spreadsheets provided by publisher Steven Booth, directly contradict Alicia’s claims of missing royalty payments.
• Comparisons between Alicia’s published book, Strangled, and her subsequent interview statements reveal significant contradictions regarding account control and investigations.
• Listeners must critically evaluate sources and verify documentation rather than accepting dramatic true-crime narratives at face value.
• Investigative platforms must rigorously test witness testimony and account for pre-publication warnings or contradictory financial evidence.

🔍 Summary

Financial Discrepancies and Publisher Evidence

David McClam examines the financial dispute raised by Alicia Lockhart regarding unpaid royalties, contrasting her claims with documentation provided by publisher Steven Booth. David McClam highlights an email sent by Booth to Javier Leiva prior to the podcast release, which contained financial records, payment documentation, and correspondence challenging Alicia’s narrative. Detailed transaction schedules and bank records show that payments were indeed made, reducing a complex allegation of months without compensation to minor accounting discrepancies. David McClam criticizes Javier Leiva for failing to evaluate these records before presenting Alicia’s accusations to the audience.

Contradictions in Published Works and Interviews

David McClam analyzes content from Alicia’s book, Strangled, and compares it with statements made during interviews regarding account security, investigations, and potential crimes. The book documents Alicia’s own experiences with unauthorized forum access and altered online personas, which undermines her later certainty when attributing similar digital activities to others. Furthermore, David McClam points out how initial investigative leads, such as a Mickey Mouse watch, were dismissed by Alicia and LaDonna themselves, yet later presented as sinister evidence. Through these comparisons, David McClam demonstrates how unsupported speculation and arithmetic errors inflated the perceived danger of the investigated subjects without adequate factual backing.

I discuss the upcoming changes to WANA and what to expect

David McClam evaluate's the professional standards expected of investigative podcasters, using an examination of Javier Leiva's reporting on the Fernandez case to highlight the critical importance of maintaining objectivity. The discussion argues that Leiva's reporting serves as a model of how journalistic neutrality can be compromised, demonstrating how an unsubstantiated narrative regarding the Fernandez family was presented as a public indictment despite a lack of forensic evidence. By prioritizing a theory that framed Tanya Fernandez as the perpetrator, the investigation effectively functioned as the manufacture of a guilty verdict rather than a pursuit of truth. This approach encouraged audiences to adopt the role of amateur investigators, leading to the misinterpretation of benign family dynamics as evidence of wrongdoing. McClam assert that journalists have a duty to counteract confirmation bias by actively pursuing information that challenges their existing hypotheses.

The Perils of Serialized True Crime

This analysis highlights how the serialized format of podcasts creates commercial incentives for dramatic arcs that often contradict the complex, non-linear realities of the legal system. Because open-ended mysteries are vital for listener retention, there is an inherent pressure to characterize legal developments as dramatic pivots. This frequently leads to the use of inflammatory rhetoric—such as claims of “evading justice”—to manipulate listener sentiment toward a desired conclusion. McClam emphasize that when a primary theory, such as the one promoted by Javier Leiva, is debunked by events like the arrest of a different suspect, the journalist has an ethical mandate to perform a retrospective review of their work rather than simply shifting the focus to a new narrative hook.

The Human Cost of Speculative Reporting

A recurring theme is the tangible damage inflicted upon the subjects of true crime media due to irresponsible framing. David McClam compares the treatment of the Fernandez family to the experiences of Ladonna Humphrey, arguing that both cases resemble “witch hunts” where hosts prioritized entertainment value over the reputations and well-being of the individuals involved. By demonstrating how a similarly incriminating narrative could be constructed against Javier Leiva himself using his own public records, McClam underscores the ethical peril of weaponizing isolated facts to create a damaging, distorted portrait of an individual. McClam advocates for more discerning audience standards, encouraging a shift toward media consumption that values verifiable facts, upholds due process, and rejects content dependent on speculation or the moral degradation of its subjects.

The podcast episode delineates the culmination of an extensive exploration into the contentious narrative surrounding LaDonna Humphrey, emphasizing the host's assertion that all things must ultimately reach a conclusion. David McClam, the host, articulates that the journey undertaken throughout the series has been one of profound significance, aimed at unveiling the truth amidst a plethora of fabrications and misrepresentations. He posits that listeners are now presented with a binary perspective regarding Humphrey's innocence, thereby inviting them to draw their own conclusions based on the presented evidence. Furthermore, he reflects on the evolution of the discourse, noting that what was initially a private matter has been thrust into the public arena largely due to the engagement of Javier's listeners. The episode serves as a poignant farewell to the series, while simultaneously introducing an unprecedented musical element that embodies the overarching theme of resilience and truth.

Presave the single How it all began HERE

Presave the Album The Witch Hunt Of Lanny Hughes HERE

Time Line

00:00 A Reflective Farewell

04:54 The Genesis of the Witch Hunt

11:13 Javier Leiva’s Deception

13:46 Vandalism of the Melissa Witt Page

17:50 Why Not Attack Javier’s Job?

22:00 Javier’s Disregard for Truth

26:22 Dispelling Lies and the ‘Eminem Effect’

33:04 Javier’s Failed Attempts and Parting Advice

38:09 New Music Album Announcement

46:05 First Song Release: Caught in a Lie

53:05 Second Song Release: Lanny’s Back

58:44 Album Release Details and Farewell

Takeaways:

• In this concluding episode, the host articulates a profound sentiment about the inevitability of endings, asserting that all things must ultimately culminate, thereby inviting listeners to reflect on the transient nature of experiences.
• The host unequivocally declares that he has accomplished all goals he set out to achieve, which encapsulates a sense of closure and fulfillment regarding the podcast's overarching narrative.
• The discourse reveals that the public conflict surrounding LaDonna Humphrey was inadvertently escalated by listeners, thus underscoring the complex dynamics between public perception and personal narratives in media.
• Listeners are urged to arrive at their own conclusions regarding LaDonna Humphrey's innocence, as the host emphasizes the importance of personal discernment in evaluating presented evidence and testimonies.
• The host indicates that the podcast serves as a platform to unveil truths amidst a plethora of misinformation, reinforcing the critical role of integrity and authenticity in media production.
• An introspective moment is provided wherein the host reflects on the humility and sincerity exhibited by LaDonna Humphrey during her interview, which influenced his decision to conclude the series with grace rather than animosity.

Summary

In this episode, David McClam interviews LaDonna Humphrey, addressing the controversies surrounding the Pretend Podcast and the impact it has had on her life. LaDonna clarifies her role in the podcast, her relationship with Alicia Lockhart, and the influence of Javier Leiva. The conversation delves into the complexities of friendship, betrayal, and the darker aspects of true crime podcasting, particularly focusing on the death fetish community and its implications. In this conversation, LaDonna Humphrey addresses various allegations made against her, particularly those propagated by Javier Leyva. She discusses her past experiences with John Allen, the arson incident, and the impact of family dynamics on her credibility. The conversation also delves into the Maura Murray case, professional rivalries in the true crime community, and the challenges faced by her organization, Oasis, amidst allegations of misconduct. LaDonna emphasizes the importance of truth in journalism and her commitment to advocacy work, while reflecting on her personal growth and future projects.

Takeaways:

• LaDonna discusses the absurdity of Javier's claims.
• She shares her experiences with John Allen and the church.
• LaDonna clarifies her relationship with her sister and the accusations made.
• The Maura Murray case and the rescinded reward are addressed.
• Jealousy and rivalry in the true crime community are explored.
• LaDonna reflects on the impact of the allegations on Oasis.
• She emphasizes the importance of truth in journalism.
• LaDonna expresses her commitment to advocacy work.
• The conversation touches on the effects of cyberbullying.
• LaDonna shares her plans for future projects.

The discourse presented in the latest episode of the podcast delves into the intricate dynamics surrounding the controversial figure of Javier Leiva, juxtaposed against the host David McClam's personal and professional narrative. McClam articulates a compelling critique of Leiva's portrayal as a paragon of journalistic integrity within the podcasting realm, asserting that the accolades attributed to Leyva are fundamentally superficial. He posits that true merit in the podcasting landscape transcends mere accolades and commercial success, emphasizing the moral imperative of authenticity and truth in storytelling. This episode serves as an exposé of Leiva's alleged misdeeds and the ethical implications of his actions, particularly concerning Ladonna Humphrey, a figure embroiled in a contentious narrative surrounding accusations that McClam vehemently defends against. Through meticulous analysis, McClam elucidates the fallacies embedded within Leiva's claims, challenging listeners to scrutinize the motives behind sensationalist storytelling that prioritizes profit over truthfulness.

Takeaways:

• In the context of podcasting, David McClam articulates a profound distinction between his integrity and that of Javier Leiva, emphasizing the significance of truth in media.
• Throughout the discussion, the speaker asserts that the pursuit of notoriety should not overshadow the moral obligations inherent in journalism and podcasting.
• McClam's reflections on personal loss serve as a poignant reminder of life's fragility, ultimately steering the conversation towards the ethical responsibilities of content creators.
• The episode presents a critical examination of public perception versus reality in the realm of podcasting, challenging listeners to scrutinize the narratives they consume.
• McClam's narrative posits that the legacy one leaves behind is paramount, urging individuals to reflect on the impact of their actions in both personal and professional spheres.
• A recurring theme in the podcast is the condemnation of sensationalism in media, specifically critiquing how some podcasters exploit others' tragedies for financial gain.