Boycott PRETEND podcast for factual inaccuracies
The Issue
I am David McClam, and I am calling for a boycott of Javier Leiva’s PRETEND podcast. I am asking listeners to cancel paid subscriptions, advertisers to suspend sponsorship, and distribution platforms to independently review the reporting identified below. A podcast that builds its reputation scrutinizing other people should expect its own work to face equally serious scrutiny.
Real people bear the consequences when serious accusations rest on inaccurate explanations, incomplete context, or misleading conclusions. Medical information, legal terminology, investigative records, and allegations about identifiable people demand careful verification. A confident narrator and dramatic production cannot substitute for accurate reporting.
I am LaDonna Humphrey’s co-host and supporter, and I disclose that relationship openly. These concerns extend across multiple PRETEND series. The following twenty points identify the actual episodes or publications involved and describe the supporting evidence, distinguishing factual mistakes and acknowledged corrections from unresolved claims and disputed editorial framing.
Twenty specific grounds for review (There are over 70 to date, but I am sharing 20 to start this petition)
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The arrest preceded the recorded interview.
This episode links Humphrey’s statements to Jon Allen’s arson charge. His warrant records service on May 16, 2016; the supplied interview index dates her recorded interview to June 9. That interview could not cause the earlier arrest. PRETEND should distinguish it from any earlier contact or later prosecution decision.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The affidavit contains other investigative evidence.
The episode airs a claim that Humphrey’s statements supplied the only proof. The probable-cause affidavit records investigator observations, Allen’s statements, and reported accelerant evidence without naming Humphrey as a source. These allegations do not establish guilt, but they challenge that categorical account.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The financial accusation needs the correct lien.
The episode describes a state lien against a church. The supplied notice is federal, names Jon H. Allen, and lists eleven tax periods, ten in 2004–2007. It contains no theft finding against Humphrey. PRETEND should identify whether it meant this notice or another obligation.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 5” — The seizure explanation is medically inaccurate.
The episode presents capturing a seizure on EEG as the only way to confirm one. The Epilepsy Foundation explains that diagnosis also draws on the event history, examination, and other findings. That general explanation needs correction, regardless of anyone’s position on the individual case.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The Medicaid statement contradicts an official Arkansas report. The episode categorically excludes DHS from Medicaid fraud matters. Arkansas’s Office of Medicaid Inspector General reported 24 suspected beneficiary-fraud referrals to DHS for eligibility determinations in fiscal year 2023. Provider-fraud enforcement is a different function, but the blanket exclusion is wrong.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The TLO access explanation is too restrictive.
The episode limits TLO access to private investigators, law enforcement, and attorneys. TransUnion’s earlier public materials marketed TLOxp to financial institutions and collection agencies. Whether a particular search was authorized requires separate evidence; an inaccurate description of eligible users cannot settle that question.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The published transcript mixes incompatible database descriptions. The written transcript follows its TLO discussion with a parenthetical description of an FBI-maintained database unavailable even to private investigators. TLOxp is TransUnion’s commercial product. PRETEND should explain or remove this apparent conflation in the published text.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2” — The private-video explanation gets a basic technical distinction wrong. The episode implies that possessing a link defeats private YouTube restrictions. YouTube’s documentation distinguishes private videos, limited to selected viewers, from unlisted videos accessible by link. The particular video’s historical settings require evidence, but the general access rules are clear.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 3” — A clinical label does not settle legal disability.
The published explanation equates borderline intellectual functioning with being outside legal disability. The Social Security Administration explicitly evaluates that condition under its disability framework, subject to additional requirements. PRETEND should identify the relevant standard instead of collapsing benefit eligibility, competency, and criminal responsibility into one explanation.
“The Truth Experts, Part 1” — The supposedly missing voice was already in the earlier reporting.
The episode description says named outlets, including The New Yorker, missed Dan Ariely’s voice. The earlier New Yorker investigation includes his direct response and denial. A promotional claim should survive the simple act of reading the article it dismisses.
“The Stalker Correction” — PRETEND acknowledged using the wrong legal label.
In this correction episode, published October 3, 2024, Leiva acknowledges that the Fernandez family’s arrangement was described as a plea agreement when it was felony diversion. The correction deserves acknowledgment, and the original mistake deserves scrutiny. The affected coverage should clearly direct listeners to that correction.
“The Real Catch Me If You Can, Part 7” — PRETEND acknowledged publishing the wrong marriage timeline.
The episode description corrects Susan and Roy Abagnale’s marriage dates from 1970–1978 to 1978–1992. These are substantially different timelines. The publisher’s own correction establishes the error, and listeners should receive the corrected chronology wherever the affected episode remains available.
“The Prophet Part 3 — Word of Faith Fellowship” — An alleged victim’s first name was wrong.
The episode description identifies the alleged beating and kidnapping victim as Michael Fenner. Contemporaneous Associated Press reporting identifies Matthew Fenner. Reporting serious allegations starts with identifying the person correctly.
“The Psychic Kids — James Randi and Project Alpha” — The description confuses two different universities.
The episode description switches from Washington University to Washington State University when identifying the McDonnell laboratory. The research document cited by the episode identifies Washington University. The mismatch is visible in the publisher’s own description and its cited source.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The interview framing deserves a direct challenge.
The episode portrays Humphrey as directing the interview. Recovered source clips document investigators requesting her relationship history and initiating contact. I challenge that characterization: the questions investigators asked belong beside conclusions drawn from her answers.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2” — A qualified position was framed as refusing a theory.
The episode asks why Humphrey would not entertain the Vines theory after playing her acknowledgment that new evidence could prove her wrong. It also cites a firmer book statement. Fair reporting should distinguish those positions instead of flattening them into an absolute refusal.
The “Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey” season webpage — Account creation remains unresolved.
This point concerns PRETEND’s written season page, rather than a particular episode. The page acknowledges that PRETEND has not independently verified who created the Fetish Master account, while also presenting a screenshot and competing explanations. That uncertainty must remain prominent wherever the allegation is summarized.
“The Bounty Hunter, Part 1” — Sweeping claims about authority need actual legal boundaries.
The episode description presents broad pursuit and home-entry powers. The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. C-U-Out Bail Bonds illustrates that third-party homes have legal protections. The episode concerns Mississippi, so that opinion does not decide its events; it demonstrates why the general explanation needs jurisdiction and limits.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 6” — An absence of disclosure does not establish that abuse never happened. The episode gives weight to the idea that abuse would have been disclosed to Nick in messages. NSPCC’s safeguarding guidance explains that victims may delay disclosure or never disclose. Leiva later argues for medical child abuse; my criticism concerns the weight given to that particular inference.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2,” together with Leiva’s public LinkedIn post — Personal ridicule and public pressure deserve scrutiny. Part 2 mocks Humphrey’s writing. Separately, Leiva publicly urged the University of Arkansas and named partners to reconsider an association with All the Lost Girls. I regard that combination as bullying dressed up as investigative journalism. This criticism concerns the documented pressure and ridicule, without alleging threats or a canceled event.
In my opinion, Leiva behaves like a media piranha when he combines public pressure with ridicule of the people he covers. That is my judgment of the conduct described above. The authority to question others comes with the responsibility to answer for your own work, and a microphone provides no exemption from that responsibility.
Stop funding the show. Require answers and visible corrections.
I am asking listeners to boycott PRETEND wherever it is distributed by canceling paid subscriptions and withholding purchases and financial support until these concerns receive substantive answers and necessary corrections. I am asking sponsors to suspend advertising while they examine the evidence. Advertisers should decide whether they are willing to attach their brands to reporting that faces these specific, documented challenges.
I am asking Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and every other distributor carrying PRETEND to independently review the identified episodes and publications, remove material found to violate their policies, and consider action against the show where repeated or serious violations warrant it. I am asking Javier Leiva to answer these points individually and place necessary corrections directly in the affected audio, video, descriptions, and transcripts.
Javier, address the records and explain the contradictions. Your audience deserves answers that are as specific and visible as the allegations you publish about other people, and the people you cover deserve a fair account of what the evidence actually establishes.
The supporting materials include the original warrant, probable-cause affidavit, interview index, tax-lien notice, preserved interview excerpts, official Arkansas agency reporting, medical and safeguarding guidance, and PRETEND’s own published corrections. WANA’s Substack provides a place to follow the campaign and its commentary, while discussions also appeared in the former Reddit community NOWAYJAVIERJOSELEIVA, whose removal WANA reported.
Sign this petition, share the evidence, and join the boycott. People whose lives become podcast content deserve accuracy, and listeners have every right to withdraw their support when they believe those standards have failed.
This goes well beyond a debate about freedom of speech—it is about accuracy, accountability, and the treatment of real people whose lives become podcast content. In my view, the public ridicule and pressure tactics described in this petition amount to cyberbullying, while sensationalism that sacrifices accuracy and context deserves to be called yellow journalism. Calling something “investigative journalism” does not shield it from scrutiny, criticism, or a consumer boycott. We also ask signers who have listened to PRETEND to leave an honest review based on their own experience: identify the episodes, explain what informed your opinion, and give the podcast the rating you believe Javier’s work deserves.
76
The Issue
I am David McClam, and I am calling for a boycott of Javier Leiva’s PRETEND podcast. I am asking listeners to cancel paid subscriptions, advertisers to suspend sponsorship, and distribution platforms to independently review the reporting identified below. A podcast that builds its reputation scrutinizing other people should expect its own work to face equally serious scrutiny.
Real people bear the consequences when serious accusations rest on inaccurate explanations, incomplete context, or misleading conclusions. Medical information, legal terminology, investigative records, and allegations about identifiable people demand careful verification. A confident narrator and dramatic production cannot substitute for accurate reporting.
I am LaDonna Humphrey’s co-host and supporter, and I disclose that relationship openly. These concerns extend across multiple PRETEND series. The following twenty points identify the actual episodes or publications involved and describe the supporting evidence, distinguishing factual mistakes and acknowledged corrections from unresolved claims and disputed editorial framing.
Twenty specific grounds for review (There are over 70 to date, but I am sharing 20 to start this petition)
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The arrest preceded the recorded interview.
This episode links Humphrey’s statements to Jon Allen’s arson charge. His warrant records service on May 16, 2016; the supplied interview index dates her recorded interview to June 9. That interview could not cause the earlier arrest. PRETEND should distinguish it from any earlier contact or later prosecution decision.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The affidavit contains other investigative evidence.
The episode airs a claim that Humphrey’s statements supplied the only proof. The probable-cause affidavit records investigator observations, Allen’s statements, and reported accelerant evidence without naming Humphrey as a source. These allegations do not establish guilt, but they challenge that categorical account.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The financial accusation needs the correct lien.
The episode describes a state lien against a church. The supplied notice is federal, names Jon H. Allen, and lists eleven tax periods, ten in 2004–2007. It contains no theft finding against Humphrey. PRETEND should identify whether it meant this notice or another obligation.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 5” — The seizure explanation is medically inaccurate.
The episode presents capturing a seizure on EEG as the only way to confirm one. The Epilepsy Foundation explains that diagnosis also draws on the event history, examination, and other findings. That general explanation needs correction, regardless of anyone’s position on the individual case.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The Medicaid statement contradicts an official Arkansas report. The episode categorically excludes DHS from Medicaid fraud matters. Arkansas’s Office of Medicaid Inspector General reported 24 suspected beneficiary-fraud referrals to DHS for eligibility determinations in fiscal year 2023. Provider-fraud enforcement is a different function, but the blanket exclusion is wrong.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The TLO access explanation is too restrictive.
The episode limits TLO access to private investigators, law enforcement, and attorneys. TransUnion’s earlier public materials marketed TLOxp to financial institutions and collection agencies. Whether a particular search was authorized requires separate evidence; an inaccurate description of eligible users cannot settle that question.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 3” — The published transcript mixes incompatible database descriptions. The written transcript follows its TLO discussion with a parenthetical description of an FBI-maintained database unavailable even to private investigators. TLOxp is TransUnion’s commercial product. PRETEND should explain or remove this apparent conflation in the published text.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2” — The private-video explanation gets a basic technical distinction wrong. The episode implies that possessing a link defeats private YouTube restrictions. YouTube’s documentation distinguishes private videos, limited to selected viewers, from unlisted videos accessible by link. The particular video’s historical settings require evidence, but the general access rules are clear.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 3” — A clinical label does not settle legal disability.
The published explanation equates borderline intellectual functioning with being outside legal disability. The Social Security Administration explicitly evaluates that condition under its disability framework, subject to additional requirements. PRETEND should identify the relevant standard instead of collapsing benefit eligibility, competency, and criminal responsibility into one explanation.
“The Truth Experts, Part 1” — The supposedly missing voice was already in the earlier reporting.
The episode description says named outlets, including The New Yorker, missed Dan Ariely’s voice. The earlier New Yorker investigation includes his direct response and denial. A promotional claim should survive the simple act of reading the article it dismisses.
“The Stalker Correction” — PRETEND acknowledged using the wrong legal label.
In this correction episode, published October 3, 2024, Leiva acknowledges that the Fernandez family’s arrangement was described as a plea agreement when it was felony diversion. The correction deserves acknowledgment, and the original mistake deserves scrutiny. The affected coverage should clearly direct listeners to that correction.
“The Real Catch Me If You Can, Part 7” — PRETEND acknowledged publishing the wrong marriage timeline.
The episode description corrects Susan and Roy Abagnale’s marriage dates from 1970–1978 to 1978–1992. These are substantially different timelines. The publisher’s own correction establishes the error, and listeners should receive the corrected chronology wherever the affected episode remains available.
“The Prophet Part 3 — Word of Faith Fellowship” — An alleged victim’s first name was wrong.
The episode description identifies the alleged beating and kidnapping victim as Michael Fenner. Contemporaneous Associated Press reporting identifies Matthew Fenner. Reporting serious allegations starts with identifying the person correctly.
“The Psychic Kids — James Randi and Project Alpha” — The description confuses two different universities.
The episode description switches from Washington University to Washington State University when identifying the McDonnell laboratory. The research document cited by the episode identifies Washington University. The mismatch is visible in the publisher’s own description and its cited source.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 4” — The interview framing deserves a direct challenge.
The episode portrays Humphrey as directing the interview. Recovered source clips document investigators requesting her relationship history and initiating contact. I challenge that characterization: the questions investigators asked belong beside conclusions drawn from her answers.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2” — A qualified position was framed as refusing a theory.
The episode asks why Humphrey would not entertain the Vines theory after playing her acknowledgment that new evidence could prove her wrong. It also cites a firmer book statement. Fair reporting should distinguish those positions instead of flattening them into an absolute refusal.
The “Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey” season webpage — Account creation remains unresolved.
This point concerns PRETEND’s written season page, rather than a particular episode. The page acknowledges that PRETEND has not independently verified who created the Fetish Master account, while also presenting a screenshot and competing explanations. That uncertainty must remain prominent wherever the allegation is summarized.
“The Bounty Hunter, Part 1” — Sweeping claims about authority need actual legal boundaries.
The episode description presents broad pursuit and home-entry powers. The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. C-U-Out Bail Bonds illustrates that third-party homes have legal protections. The episode concerns Mississippi, so that opinion does not decide its events; it demonstrates why the general explanation needs jurisdiction and limits.
“The Gypsy Rose Obsession, Part 6” — An absence of disclosure does not establish that abuse never happened. The episode gives weight to the idea that abuse would have been disclosed to Nick in messages. NSPCC’s safeguarding guidance explains that victims may delay disclosure or never disclose. Leiva later argues for medical child abuse; my criticism concerns the weight given to that particular inference.
“Who’s Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey, Part 2,” together with Leiva’s public LinkedIn post — Personal ridicule and public pressure deserve scrutiny. Part 2 mocks Humphrey’s writing. Separately, Leiva publicly urged the University of Arkansas and named partners to reconsider an association with All the Lost Girls. I regard that combination as bullying dressed up as investigative journalism. This criticism concerns the documented pressure and ridicule, without alleging threats or a canceled event.
In my opinion, Leiva behaves like a media piranha when he combines public pressure with ridicule of the people he covers. That is my judgment of the conduct described above. The authority to question others comes with the responsibility to answer for your own work, and a microphone provides no exemption from that responsibility.
Stop funding the show. Require answers and visible corrections.
I am asking listeners to boycott PRETEND wherever it is distributed by canceling paid subscriptions and withholding purchases and financial support until these concerns receive substantive answers and necessary corrections. I am asking sponsors to suspend advertising while they examine the evidence. Advertisers should decide whether they are willing to attach their brands to reporting that faces these specific, documented challenges.
I am asking Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and every other distributor carrying PRETEND to independently review the identified episodes and publications, remove material found to violate their policies, and consider action against the show where repeated or serious violations warrant it. I am asking Javier Leiva to answer these points individually and place necessary corrections directly in the affected audio, video, descriptions, and transcripts.
Javier, address the records and explain the contradictions. Your audience deserves answers that are as specific and visible as the allegations you publish about other people, and the people you cover deserve a fair account of what the evidence actually establishes.
The supporting materials include the original warrant, probable-cause affidavit, interview index, tax-lien notice, preserved interview excerpts, official Arkansas agency reporting, medical and safeguarding guidance, and PRETEND’s own published corrections. WANA’s Substack provides a place to follow the campaign and its commentary, while discussions also appeared in the former Reddit community NOWAYJAVIERJOSELEIVA, whose removal WANA reported.
Sign this petition, share the evidence, and join the boycott. People whose lives become podcast content deserve accuracy, and listeners have every right to withdraw their support when they believe those standards have failed.
This goes well beyond a debate about freedom of speech—it is about accuracy, accountability, and the treatment of real people whose lives become podcast content. In my view, the public ridicule and pressure tactics described in this petition amount to cyberbullying, while sensationalism that sacrifices accuracy and context deserves to be called yellow journalism. Calling something “investigative journalism” does not shield it from scrutiny, criticism, or a consumer boycott. We also ask signers who have listened to PRETEND to leave an honest review based on their own experience: identify the episodes, explain what informed your opinion, and give the podcast the rating you believe Javier’s work deserves.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on October 18, 2026