And what this person did was base his/her assumptions on the relationship between Thaler and Chavez. Granted, that is a huge red flag, but Sundance didn't even bother to go into any of the evidence presented. Fortunately, others have. So let's see what happens.

In my opinion, the testimony of Jacqueline Breger is truthful and full of facts and evidence. Whether the attorney (Thaler) developed a relationship with Breger after working with her for at least 3+ years has no bearing on this.

During the course of the years-long investigation, one attorney (Thaler) learned from his hired investigators the names of some of the Cartel-affiliated prolific money launderers, forgers and thieves. In the list of names he was horrified to see a familiar name - his wife's mother's name.

Upon confronting his wife, soon he realized that he was a victim of a honey pot situation with his marriage being a sham and just a vehicle to have his own wife access his private data and report back to the Cartel, which makes this story all the more heart wrenching.

I have no such worries that Jacqueline Breger's testimony isn't valid.

David Clements, former New Mexico prosecutor & law professor has given incredible credibility to the cartel bribery reports coming out of Arizona:

"The investigative work of J. Thaler that I’ve reviewed over the past 24 hours is textbook in its approach to exposing racketeering, and of crucial importance" - David Clements.

Sundance may be a shining beacon of insight, but he isn't always right. In saying this, Sundance's polemic ought to be heeded. We can't afford to be sucker punched on a possible elaborate fraud. I'm hoping David Clements is reviewing the documents himself and that his statement is not premature.

Also, Sundance emphasizes the custody battle issue as being a reason to be suspicious and a red-flag. He even slides "are they [mentally] stable" as one of the factors for us to consider. To me, this is somewhat of a despicable tactic to raise before any evidence is verified. Mental stability ought to be raised only after perjury is discovered. Then and only then should we ask whether they are mentally 'stable'. However, if the evidence is true, then the custody battle may not be a case at all. In fact, the opposite often results in custody battles. Battling to retain parental rights leads to some extraordinary acts of discovery that would normally be overlooked and never discovered. Divorce is acrimonious the vast majority of the time. And most divorces are over money. This is where the discovery is often made. In this case, J. Thuler followed the money and it led him down a rabbit hole. This is where I think Sundance might be underestimating J. Thuler's resolve.

Sundance is correct though in raising the red flag. The enemies of J. Thuler will use the custody battle to discredit him. And chances are it will be very effective. J. Thuler needs to transfer all of his research over to another party. David Clements may be just the individual to take over this project.

I think anybody that doubts the veracity of the AZ/Sinaloa connection should spend about a week watching the border wall between the hours of midnight and 5am in Sasabe, AZ, where there are 5 intentionally left holes in the wall in the space of about 7 miles. They should be there when all the unaccompanied minor children are sent through the wall alone and cold. They should talk to the border patrol agents. They should beg the area churches to help. No one cares - why? This, if true, answers a WHOLE LOTTA QUESTIONS. Go check it out for yourselves. I did, and the silence down there is f’ing deafening!

Yes, it could all be lies. Or, it could be déjà vu all over again!

Starts about 4:30 in ...

Instantaneously it occurred to me that all of this was far too good to be true.

I feel it's a setup to discredit everything downstream. That's their M. O.

Although no-one is infallible, I trust Sundance until proven otherwise.