This Audio Engineer Was Accused of a Crime.
Then the Paperwork Leaked.
(Nolan Wells)
Jenetta Brantley’s attorney sent this letter or message.
It says, “I represent Jenetta Brantley concerning your repeated publication and dissemination of false and defamatory statements concerning Ms.
Brantley, her professional qualifications as an audio engineer, and her work involving the C-Tow recording connected to >> I represent Jenetta Brantley concerning your repeated publication and dissemination of false and defamatory statements concerning Ms.
Brantley, her professional qualifications as an audio engineer, and her work involving the C-Tow recording connected to the Nolan Wales investigation.
That is the opening line of a formal cease and desist letter sent to a nonprofit organization called the United Cajun Navy.
Think of a credential hanging on an office wall, a degree, a license, proof of expertise, and then picture someone walking past that wall and turning the frame face down.
Not because the credential was fake, but because acknowledging it would collapse the entire story they had already decided to tell.
The paperwork already knew.
>> is because this video is about them still telling lies, okay?
Jenetta Brantley’s legal team sends a cease and desist to the United Cajun Navy cuz she said they harᴀssed her, calling causing her emotional distress, and that they some liars.
Now, the thing about it is >> That letter concerns Jenetta Brantley, an audio engineer whose name became attached to the Nolan Wales case after she enhanced a publicly available recording.
The recording in question is known as the C-Tow call.
Brantley did not create it.
She did not leak it.
She processed what was already public, and for that, she is now the center of a defamation dispute.
>> discussing Ms.
Ms.
Brantley’s audio work.
The The United Cajun Navy stated, “That lady who doctored the original C-Tow call is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living.
She made the whole thing up.
>> The United Cajun Navy published a statement that, according to the letter, reads as follows: “The lady who doctored the original C-Tow call is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living.
She made the whole thing up.
Not a critique of method, not a disagreement with interpretation, a direct attack on her professional existence.”
>> Robert that a friend was coming to tow the boat for free.
These statements are not merely criticism, disagreement, or protected opinion.
They communicate specific factual ᴀssertions about Ms.
Brantley that are false and that directly attack her professional reputation, honesty, integrity, and credibility.
>> The letter responds with a sharp legal distinction.
“These statements are not merely criticism, disagreement, or protected opinion.
They communicate specific factual ᴀssertions about Ms.
Brantley that are false and that directly attack her professional reputation, honesty, integrity, and credibility.
In plain terms, side opinion is protected, fabrication is not.”
>> Mrs.
Brantley is an audio engineer.
Your statement otherwise is false.
Your statement that Mrs.
Brantley is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living is false.
>> And the evidence presented is concrete.
“Mrs.
Brantley is an audio engineer.
Your statement otherwise is false.
Your statement that Mrs.
Brantley is not an actual audio engineer and does not actually do it for a living is false.
>> false.
Ms.
Brantley possesses documented academic credentials relevant to her possessed I’m sorry, profession, including a bachelor’s degree in music production from Full Sail University, through which she received formal education and training in audio engineering and related disciplines, as well as a master’s degree in entertainment business from Full Sail University.
See
Attached trans- >> The letter then lists documentation, a bachelor’s degree in music production from Full Sail University with formal education and training in audio engineering and related disciplines, a master’s degree in entertainment business from the same insтιтution, professional history documented and verified through IMDb where she is identified as a professional in the sound department for television and film projects.
>> subjective opinion and the quality of her work.
About the quality of her work.
It is factual ᴀssertion concerning her education and profession and it is false.
The Texas Supreme Court has recognized that statements falsely impugning a person’s personal qualifications can support a defamation claim.
Woo!
>> The legal threshold is not vague.
The Texas Supreme Court has recognized that statements falsely impugning a person’s personal qualifications can support a defamation claim.
This is not a personality feud.
It is a question of whether you can publicly erase someone’s credentials without consequence.
>> the original C call C toe call is false.
Your statement that Ms.
Brantley doctored the original C toe call and made the whole thing up is likewise false.
Those statements convey convey that unmistakable factual accusation that Ms.
Brantley fabricated, manipulated, falsified, or otherwise fraudulently altered an original record.
>> Then the letter turns to the more explosive accusation, the accusation that Ms.
Brantley doctored the original SC toe call is false.
Your statement that Ms.
Brantley doctored the original C toe call and made the whole thing up is likewise false.
The letter continues, those statements convey the unmistakable factual accusation that Ms.
Brantley fabricated, manipulated, falsified, or otherwise fraudulently alter an original recording, and then represented that altered recording to the public as genuine.
>> Extremely serious accusation.
It attacks not Ms.
Brantley’s opinion or interpretation of an audio recording, but her professional integrity and honesty.
And it effectively accuses her of fraudulently I’m sorry, a fraudulent conduct involving purported evidence in a highly publicized investigation.
>> That is an extremely serious accusation.
The letter states it plainly.
It attacks not Ms.
Brantley’s opinion or interpretation of an audio recording, but her professional integrity and honesty.
And it effectively accuses her of fraudulent conduct involving purported evidence in a highly publicized investigation.
There is no factual basis for that accusation.
>> The source chain for the audio that Ms.
Brantley enhanced is at is as follows.
It came from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources via WLOX News, and on WLOX’s YouTube channel is where she got it from.
Fools, okay?
WLOX obtained the C2C directly from MDMR, and then uploaded the recording to its YouTube channel.
That publicly released WLOX/MD >> And here is where the sourcing collapses the accusation entirely.
The audio Brantley enhanced came from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.
It was obtained by WLOX News directly from that agency and uploaded to the WLOX YouTube channel.
Brantley pulled the file from that public source.
She did not create the chain of custody.
She received it as everyone else did.
>> Our North C2C has publicly stated that Ms.
Brantley or anyone has altered, fabricated, doctored, or manipulated the original C-Tow call recording, which was again independently obtained from MDMR and later uploaded to WLOX News YouTube channel.
Ms.
Brantley has publicly demonstrated her methodology in which she did by recording herself live while processing the publicly available recording to reduce >> The letter makes this impossible to ignore.
Most importantly, MDMR has publicly stated that Ms.
Brantley or anyone has altered, fabricated, doctored, or manipulated the original C-Tow call recording.
The agency that produced the recording has not claimed it was tampered with, and Brantley did not work in secret.
She recorded herself live while processing the publicly available recording to reduce background noise and make portions of the conversation easier to hear.
>> Other audio enhancement techniques to a recording does not establish establish that the underlying recording was fabricated.
The original C-Tow recording remains publicly available on the WLOX News channel and continues to contain the same underlying background audio.
In other words, the original recording has not been replaced by Ms.
Brantley enhanced presentation.
>> The technical distinction matters.
The fact that an audio professional applies noise reduction, filtering, equalization, or other audio enhancement techniques to a recording does not establish that the underlying recording was fabricated.
Enhancement is not fabrication.
Reducing noise is not rewriting speech.
The original recording remains publicly available on the WX News channel containing the same underlying background audio.
>> And Nancy Grace have independently addressed and or enhanced the background noise in the same publicly available Cito call recording and reach conclusions concerning audible portions of the recording that are consistent with what Ms.
Brantley identified.
>> And Brantley was not alone in her conclusions.
The letter points out that other respected media and legal commentators, including Nancy Grace, independently addressed or enhanced the same publicly available Cito call recording and reached conclusions consistent with what Brantley identified.
So, the question hanging in the air is unavoidable.
Why is only one of those people being called a fraud?
>> A single tech- technical examination, forensic or forensic audio, or an expert, or a Cito call representative, law enforcement agency, or any other competent source establishing establishing that Ms.
Brantley fabricated the Cito call.
>> The letter does not soften.
Your own statement makes the extraordinary accusation without identifying a single technical examination, forensic audio expert, Cito call representative, law enforcement agency, or any other competent source establishing that Ms.
Fabricated the CTO call.
The statements are actionable and defamatory.
No expert, no report, no source.
Just the accusation.
>> Texas court recognized accusations that a person committed a crime as a classic example of defamation, meaning damages to reputation may may be presumed without the plaintiff having to prove specific economic damages in the ordinary manner.
Additionally, falsely stating that a professional lacks the qualification or credentials that she actually possesses can independently independently cause serious professional and reputational harm.
>> Under Texas law, the stakes are specific.
Texas courts recognize accusations that a person committed a crime as a classic example of defamation, meaning damages to reputation may be presumed without the plaintiff having to prove specific economic damages in the ordinary manner.
A false criminal accusation does not require Brantley to prove she lost a single dollar.
The harm is presumed.
>> The harᴀssment, public targeting, and doxing magnify the harm.
These statements are not occurring in isolation.
Ms.
Brantley has been subjected to public harᴀssment and the dissemination of personal information including conduct amounting to doxing in connection with the controversy surrounding the Nolan Wells investigation.
The continued publication of false accusations coupled with the dissemination um I’m sorry, the dissemination of personal information that facilitates further harᴀssment creates a foreseeable risk of continuing reputational, professional, and emotional and personal >> Then the letter expands into something darker.
The harᴀssment, public targeting, and doxing magnify the harm.
Brantley has been subjected to public harᴀssment and the dissemination of personal information including conduct amounting to doxing in connection with the controversy surrounding the Nolan Wells investigation.
The false accusations did not happen in isolation.
They were amplified.
The paperwork already knew.
>> Harᴀssment were legally I mean, you did this intentionally, okay?
And you intentionally inflicted emotional distress were independently available.
Invasion of privacy related theories and other applicable Oh my gosh.
Other applicable both >> The letter reserves every remedy, defamation, harᴀssment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy.
It is not a warning sH๏τ.
It is a legal map of every road this could go down.
>> His legal team sends a cease and desist to the United Cajun Navy cuz she said they harᴀssed her calling causing her emotional distress in that they some liars.
Now, the thing about it is if one person say you a liar, you know, we don’t know if that one person is being honest or not, but now we got two people saying that you are a liar.
And that you know, she is considering legal action.
>> And this is not the first time the United Cajun Navy has been accused of this exact pattern.
Another organization, Cajun Navy 2016, filed a separate defamation lawsuit against the United Cajun Navy naming its president Todd Terrell and vice president Brian Thrasher.
That suit alleged a multi-year campaign of false statements questioning the other organization’s legitimacy, integrity, and disaster response record.
Two separate parties, two separate legal actions, the same accusation, false public statements.
>> From what I gather, this is a warning and I believe if they go back and change it, retract it, or whatever, it may go away, but I don’t know.
Um, you know, I’m not Gennette.
I have no idea what, you know, what she has went through as it relates to, you know, these people lying on her because they want to keep this narrative going that these boys didn’t do it.
>> Now, consider the full frame.
The letter demands retraction.
If the United Cajun Navy retracts, the matter may end there.
But if they do not, the question becomes whether this is a pattern they cannot stop repeating.
Not because they believe the claims, but because backing down would raise a larger question, “What else have they said that was not true?”
>> You say it You say that she’s a liar.
We don’t know.
She could have lost jobs.
Who knows?
You all let me know what you guys think in the comments.
There is a few things that I need you to do before we get out of here.
And one of the things is I need you guys to make sure you are liking the video.
Give the video a thumbs up.
It’s free, okay?
>> So, before this goes any further, go read the actual cease and desist letter yourself.
It is a public demand, and its evidence is laid out line by line.
The question I want you to answer in the comments is this: If the agency that released the recording never claimed it was altered, and the audio engineer showed her work live, then what exactly was the lie?
The paperwork already knew.
