No way Jose: The Prodigal son

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!Content Warning: This episode contains allegations of physical and emotional abuse, coerced nudity, sexual mistreatment, substance use, humiliation, and suicidal feelings.In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David introduces the account of Jason Scott, a man who says he knew Javier Leiva through the University of South Florida and later had an intimate relationship with him.Jason’s account contains serious allegations. They are presented here as his statements and recollections, not as independently established findings.According to Jason, the relationship was kept secret at Javier’s request. He says the two drank alcohol together and used marijuana and cocaine, and he describes the relationship as emotionally damaging and deeply manipulative.Jason alleges that Javier lied to him, belittled him, screamed at him, disappeared for days at a time, and used private information Jason had shared in confidence as a means of control. Jason says that what began as an intimate relationship became, in his view, a pattern of emotional abuse.He also describes two alleged incidents of physical humiliation.In one, Jason says he was made to remove his clothing and submit to being struck with a belt.In another, he says he was forced to sit naked in ice water while Javier laughed at him.Jason characterizes both incidents as coercive rather than consensual.Jason further alleges that sexual encounters could become so rough that he sometimes experienced significant physical pain afterward. He says he remained silent at the time because he believed Javier loved him and that it took years for him to understand the relationship differently.Perhaps the most serious part of Jason’s account concerns his mental health. He says the emotional suffering became so severe that he experienced suicidal feelings and that recovering from the relationship took years.Jason now identifies himself as one of David McClam’s investigators and says he is coming forward because the person he says he experienced privately was profoundly different from the public figure he later saw behind PRETEND.Jason describes a relationship marked, in his telling, by secrecy, manipulation, humiliation, alleged coercive abuse, substance use, emotional trauma, and a long recovery.Some details remain unverified or incomplete, including dates, locations, surviving communications, and documentation connected to specific incidents. Those gaps matter, and this episode does not treat an allegation as proof simply because it is serious.But Jason says he is ready to tell his story.And if his account is going to be examined, it should be examined carefully, directly, and on the evidence.This is For The Record.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!David McClam originally planned to close the book on the recent wave of false allegations—until his 24-year-old daughter, Madison, asked to step up to the microphone and make her voice heard. In this deeply personal and unfiltered episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For the Record (No Way Jose), Madison joins the show for the first time to share her firsthand perspective on growing up in the McClam household, address the painful betrayal by her older brothers DaVonte and DeAndre, and set the record straight while their mother recovers in the hospital.David also breaks down the latest Patreon release from Javier Leiva (Who's Afraid of LaDonna Humphrey Part 19),dismantling the twisted narratives, addressing the false welfare check sent to his home, and bringing undisputed receipts regarding past DCFS records, background clearances, and the truth behind his podcast production. Finally, David delivers a definitive, final message to his sons and Javier Leiva before closing this chapter for good.Key Topics & Episode Breakdown:Breaking Down the Description: David dissects the claims made in Javier Leiva’s latest episode description,clarifying the facts behind his BMI-credited country album, Substack, and why everything traces back to David—not LaDonna Humphrey.Madison Speaks Out: Making her podcast debut entirely of her own accord, Madison addresses the emotional toll of her brothers' actions while their mother is hospitalized, shuts down claims of abuse or control in the home, and explains why she chooses to live with and support her parents.The Welfare Check & Protecting Jacob: David and Madison react to the false police welfare check called in on their home while Madison was on jury duty, and address the documented abuse suffered by their youngest brother,Jacob.Under Oath: Madison debunks the rumor that LaDonna Humphrey writes, produces, or runs David's podcast and Substack, stating she is willing to testify under oath to what she witnesses in their home every day.Receipts & Background Clearances: David lays out the documented history involving DCFS, juvenile court records, his past help getting DaVonte into the Navy, and the extensive state, FBI, and child-abuse registry background checks he has cleared.The Final Word: David delivers his closing message of forgiveness paired with firm boundaries—officially cutting ties and telling all three parties to "lawyer up."Resources & Receipts:📄 View the Full Receipts & Documents: Visit David McClam’s Substack to read the unedited text messages,documentation, and additional evidence not included in the audio. SubStack🎙️ Follow the Show: Subscribe to We Are Not Afraid Presents: For the Record wherever you get your podcasts so you never miss an episode.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!We talk about the upcoming pretend podcast episode where my son's has contacted the show to spread lies about me. Well here is the truth!

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David responds directly to questions sent to him by Javier Leiva concerning allegations involving David’s family, his sons, and events dating back many years.The accusations are serious, and David addresses them one by one.Among the claims raised are allegations of physical abuse, withholding food, domestic violence, and incidents involving David’s sons. David disputes several of those accounts and argues that allegations this serious should be examined through original records, complete context, prior statements, and the outcomes of investigations rather than through the most damaging version of events alone.David discusses a 2010 incident involving his son DaVonte and notes that the question sent to him itself acknowledges that the original child-cruelty and obstruction charges were dismissed, with the remaining disposition involving disturbing the peace. His position is that both the original allegations and the ultimate outcome belong in any fair account.He also addresses an earlier allegation involving a paddle, disputing both who was accused and the explanation attributed to him. David says he is attempting to obtain the underlying records because memories and competing accounts should not substitute for the original investigation.The episode also examines the claim that his children were deprived of food. David denies that accusation and points listeners to a previously published conversation with DaVonte in which his son discussed eating regularly at home, taking snacks, gaining a different perspective on his childhood, and expressing appreciation and love toward his father. David is careful to acknowledge that affection does not automatically disprove painful memories, but argues that those earlier statements are still part of the record and deserve consideration.David also corrects his own earlier characterization of that interview, acknowledging that an abuse allegation was in fact discussed during the conversation. He argues that if he expects precision from others, he must apply the same standard to himself.The episode does not avoid David’s own admissions. He acknowledges describing physical discipline and an angry confrontation with DaVonte, including grabbing him by the shoulders and striking him on the back of the head. David maintains that the circumstances surrounding those actions matter and that a physical description without context does not automatically establish the motive or meaning of an event.A significant portion of the episode concerns David’s younger son, Jacob, and a painful conflict between the brothers. David describes what he says was a serious incident involving DaVonte and Jacob, followed by a period in which the family feared for Jacob’s safety after a suicide attempt. He explains that this family history forms part of the context surrounding later angry communications between David and DaVonte.David also discusses a January 2026 Minnesota court order referencing DaVonte’s participation in Veterans Court, while emphasizing his broader concern that vulnerable people, family conflict, addiction, mental health struggles, and criminal allegations should not be turned into entertainment without careful verification and context.At the heart of the episode is David’s challenge to the way personal accusations are reported.He argues that sending questions is only the beginning of responsible journalism. What matters afterward is whether the answers are presented fairly, whether conflicting evidence is examined, whether outcomes are disclosed, and whether listeners are given enough information to evaluate the story for themselves.David acknowledges that he has made mistakes and that some of his own words deserve criticism. What he rejects is the idea that the harshest interpretation of every disputed event should automatically become the accepted version of his life or his relationship with his children.This episode is personal.It is uncomfortable.And it raises a question that sits at the center of For The Record:When the accusation is powerful, will the evidence receive equal attention?

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David examines the correspondence and court filings behind the Anthony Christopher case, focusing on what the attorneys actually wrote, when they wrote it, and how those documents compare with the version listeners have heard elsewhere.At the center of the episode are several specific questions:When was the theft of LaDonna Humphrey’s phone disclosed?Was there actually a November 8 deadline to surrender the phone?Did LaDonna refuse electronic examination altogether?And what did her attorney argue about the disputed evidence?The first key document is a November 13, 2018 email from LaDonna’s attorney, Tom Stockland, notifying opposing counsel that LaDonna’s car had been broken into and that her purse and phone had been stolen. Christopher’s attorney, Glenn Ritter, responded that same day and discussed the reported theft while requesting emergency court attention. David argues that this contemporaneous exchange is important because it establishes when the theft was disclosed and when opposing counsel acknowledged it.The episode then turns to the claim that the phone was stolen on the very evening LaDonna was supposedly required to turn it over to a third-party expert. David asks for the order, agreement, or appointment establishing that specific November 8 deadline. The records discussed in the episode instead show attorneys still negotiating expedited discovery afterward, with the judge’s office later stating that discovery would proceed “in due course.”Another major document comes from Christopher’s own attorney.On November 16, Ritter wrote that the parties had “agreed on the terms of Humphrey’s Gmail account search by Pivot.” The agreement set out search terms, dates, original email headers, IP information, account-registration data, and procedures for reviewing potentially private or privileged material. David argues that any blanket description of LaDonna refusing all electronic examination must account for this written agreement.The episode also examines LaDonna’s October 30 affidavit. David emphasizes the chronology: the affidavit describes deletion of employment emails tied to her September departure from the business, while the later preservation proceedings occurred afterward. His argument is that an earlier admission cannot automatically be treated as proof of a later violation without evidence establishing that later act.A restored page from Stockland’s trial brief adds another layer to the defense. The brief disputes attribution of spoofed messages, argues that receiving or forwarding a communication is not the same as originating it, and explains LaDonna’s reports to authorities regarding alleged business misconduct. David stresses that the brief is advocacy, not an independent finding, but argues that it remains an important contemporaneous record of what the defense was actually contesting.The phone and SIM evidence also receives closer scrutiny. David discusses the Benton County detective’s finding that there was no evidence of a false theft report after correcting a time-zone issue, while also acknowledging the later adverse civil findings. He reviews Stockland’s arguments about the replacement phone, SIM information, disputed interpretations of phone records, shared-password access, and the need to distinguish an expert conclusion from a full explanation of how competing evidence was evaluated.The episode does not ignore the outcome of the civil case.David acknowledges that the state court made serious findings against LaDonna, including contempt and spoliation, struck her pleadings, established liability, and later entered a damages judgment of approximately $3.57 million. His argument is narrower: those outcomes do not erase the underlying emails, agreements, and disputed chronology that preceded them.At the heart of this episode is a simple demand for precision.If there was a November 8 phone-handover deadline, produce the document.If LaDonna refused all electronic examination, explain the November 16 Gmail agreement.If the defense raised substantive objections at the time, address those objections directly rather than pretending they never existed.David’s position is that people can disagree about the case while still expecting dates, agreements, court records, and source documents to be presented accurately.Because a judgment answers some legal questions.It does not rewrite the paper trail.Anthony, your own lawyer put the agreement in writing.Javier, your audience deserves to hear what it says.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this one we come to dispel yet another lie by Javier Leiva. In 2024 I sent an email to his then employer telling them why I could not and would not do business with him. Javier took off to his Facebook page and once again lied and stated LaDonna Humphrey actually wrote the email and my name was just on it. He also added that I tried to get him fired. Well folks as always, I brought receipts and what you hear will shock you!

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David highlights two voices he believes deserve more attention in the ongoing conversation surrounding Javier Leiva, PRETEND, and accountability in true-crime media: Liam Bosonnet and CaseStudyz.David argues that when journalists and podcasters build their work around scrutinizing the conduct of others, their own reporting should remain open to the same level of examination. His criticism of PRETEND centers on what he describes as sensational framing, ridicule, disputed conclusions, and reporting choices that can continue affecting real people long after an episode ends.The episode begins with Liam Bosonnet, author of The Woman They Made a Monster, which examines the Dee Dee Blanchard case from a perspective that challenges the familiar public narrative. David praises Liam’s willingness to revisit a heavily debated case, engage with the available evidence, and put his reasoning before an audience willing to question established assumptions.David also recognizes CaseStudyz, whose YouTube coverage has contributed to the discussion surrounding Javier Leiva and PRETEND. He encourages listeners to examine the channel’s work, consider the evidence being presented, and judge the arguments for themselves.The larger theme is simple:Do not accept a narrative merely because it has been repeated often enough. Examine the sources. Examine the claims. Examine the receipts.David also discusses his petition calling for a boycott of PRETEND and an independent review of concerns raised about its reporting. The petition identifies twenty issues across multiple series, including factual mistakes, previously published corrections, unresolved questions, and disputed editorial framing.Importantly, David distinguishes between those categories. A confirmed factual error is not the same as an unresolved question. A disagreement over interpretation is not automatically proof of false reporting. And when PRETEND has issued corrections, David says those corrections should be acknowledged.His request is that the remaining concerns receive the same specific treatment:Identify the statement.Produce the supporting evidence.Explain the reasoning.Correct the record when necessary.David also openly discusses his relationship with LaDonna Humphrey, noting that she is his podcast colleague and that he supports her. He argues that listeners deserve to know that relationship while also being able to examine the evidence behind his criticism independently.The episode further addresses the human consequences of true-crime coverage. David argues that criticism of journalism is not simply about dates, technical mistakes, or wording. It is also about how subjects are portrayed, how ridicule is used, and what happens when media attention spills into someone’s professional and personal life.For David, investigative journalism carries an obligation:Accurate sourcing. Fair context. Transparent corrections. Meaningful accountability.Liam Bosonnet and CaseStudyz are highlighted in this episode because they are willing to participate in that broader conversation and put their own arguments before the public for examination.David encourages listeners to seek out their work, ask questions, compare sources, and keep the discussion centered on evidence.Because true-crime storytelling does not end when the episode does.The people being discussed still have to live with the story afterward.And they deserve an audience willing to look closely.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this episode I tell you why Javier will never talk to me about the case against Ladonna Humphrey or anything else that he has lied about. I introduce you to. Evil Ghost and his live stream where he exposes Javier for the liar that he is as he plays a panel that Javier sat on talking about his coverage of Gypsy Rose BlanchardEvil Ghost Live StreamMake sure to show Liam Some support!

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David addresses information reported to him alleging that PRETEND host Javier Leiva is the subject of a federal cyberstalking investigation involving a Reddit profile that targeted a subject of his podcast.David makes an important distinction from the beginning: he has not independently confirmed an official finding against Javier Leiva, and an investigation is not proof of guilt.However, David says he intends to cooperate fully with investigators and provide the evidence in his possession.The allegation raises a much larger question about journalistic independence:What happens if a person reporting on accusations of harassment is also secretly participating in harassment against the very person he is covering?If evidence were to establish that a reporter operated or participated in an anonymous account targeting a subject, the implications could extend beyond the posts themselves. It could raise questions about whether apparent public reaction was truly independent, whether confrontations were being influenced behind the scenes, and whether resulting responses were later presented to an audience without disclosure of the reporter’s own involvement.The episode examines those questions through the principles of journalistic independence, transparency, accountability, and minimizing harm.David also discusses the potential legal distinction between offensive or anonymous online speech and conduct that could satisfy the elements of federal cyberstalking. An anonymous account, criticism, or hostility by itself does not establish a federal crime. Investigators would still have to establish the conduct, intent, and other required legal elements.But the ethical questions remain.If evidence ultimately connects Javier Leiva to the account in question, David argues that PRETEND’s audience deserves clear answers:What was posted?What was encouraged?What involvement existed?And what, if anything, was withheld from listeners?There is also an unavoidable contradiction at the center of the allegation. PRETEND has reported extensively on stalking and harassment, including through The Stalker. If evidence were to show that its own host engaged in similar conduct, the credibility questions would be significant.David’s position is simple:He will provide the evidence he possesses.He will cooperate with investigators.And he will allow the evidence to be examined.Because accountability cannot apply only to the people being investigated.The person holding the microphone does not get to place himself outside the standard of accountability he applies to everyone else.

For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStackIf the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!You would think people would learn, but apparently they do not.Once again, Javier “Lying” Leiva took to video to misrepresent the emails I sent to hosts of shows he had appeared on. Or, more specifically, to misrepresent who I sent them to.When someone is committed to a narrative, the easiest way to protect it is to distort the facts around it. Change the story, reshape the motive, and make the opposition look more sinister than the evidence actually supports.In my view, Leiva has relied on that kind of framing for years.But when it comes to me, I am not asking you to simply take my word for it.I am asking you to look at the evidence.I am asking you to read the receipts.Because narratives can be manipulated.Receipts cannot.