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.
