SHOW / EPISODE

No Way Jose Ep 5: PRETEND, Meet Your Own Receipts

Season 1 | Episode 5
15m | Sep 22, 2026

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.

Paused
Audio Player Image
WANA Presents: For The Record With David McClam
Loading...