August 20, 2026
There are times when the most useful evidence is not what somebody else says about a person.
It is what that person says in his own words.
That is why I am publishing and analyzing an audio recording of Danny Keith Martin of Calgary, together with a transcript. I will insert the link to the original audio here:
[ORIGINAL AUDIO LINK — https://blacksheepwhistleblower.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Danny-About-MY-WIFES-WORK-Harassment-1.mp3
The conversation, as I understand it, is between Danny Keith Martin and private investigator Jolene Johnson.
This context matters. Johnson is the private investigator who, according to the information provided to me, reported an alleged plot against my life to the RCMP before Christmas 2025. She subsequently approached me, about a week after I received the duty to warn by the RCMP on November 19 2026 that warned of an imminent threat against my life, out of what can be described as an abundance of caution and allowed me to hear recordings she had made of Michael Martinez her client st the time who was the former fiance of Svetlana Dalla Lana of Ezra healing.
Those recordings contain evidence consistent with a plot to kill me and that’s not disputable at all for any reasonable person. Danny Martin’s name also arose in material connected with those events. I regard that as something police should investigate; I am not presenting that allegation here as a proven judicial finding of conspiracy.
This article is about something narrower and much easier for readers to evaluate themselves:
What does Danny Martin say about my wife and her workplace in his own recorded words?
Because the answer is extraordinary.
First, the Workplace Context
My wife is an executive at a public college.
Whatever dispute Danny Martin believes he has with me, my wife’s workplace is not his battleground.
Yet emails involving this conflict have been sent into her workplace and to people associated with that workplace. I regard that conduct as harassment and is in the realm of workplace-safety concerns.
Whether particular communications ultimately satisfy the legal elements of criminal harassment or another offence is for police, prosecutors and, if necessary, a court to determine.
But Danny’s own recorded explanation deserves scrutiny.
Because he simultaneously denies harassing my wife while describing conduct that, in my view, demonstrates exactly why the workplace communications are so concerning. This first quote is a beauty though I must admit:
QUOTE NO. 1: “Donna might not be working for the fucking college by the time I’m done with her.”
According to the recording, Danny says:
«“I made one comment about her fucking job… and I said, ‘Well, Donna might not be working for the fucking college by the time I’m done with her.’ That’s what I said.”»
Read that again.
“By the time I’m done with her.”
Those are not my words.
Those are Danny’s recorded words.
This is particularly important because Danny then tries to characterize the situation as though nothing is being directed toward my wife or her employment.
How does that square with explicitly talking about my wife potentially losing her college position “by the time I’m done with her”?
Readers can decide for themselves.
QUOTE NO. 2: “And I’m fucking standing by that.”
Danny doesn’t immediately retract the statement.
He says:
«“And I’m fucking standing by that.”»
That matters.
This isn’t somebody saying, I said something stupid in anger and shouldn’t have said it.
Instead, on the recording, he appears to reaffirm it.
So we have a statement concerning the possible loss of my wife’s employment followed by:
“I’m fucking standing by that.”
Again, those are his words.
QUOTE NO. 3: “You don’t get to… hide behind your fucking wife and fucking family…”
Danny continues:
«“You don’t get to fucking do the shit that you’ve done and then fucking hide behind your fucking wife and fucking family and think that you’re fucking untouchable.”»
There is a fundamental problem with this logic other than Danny is retarded.
My wife is not a proxy for me.
Her employment is not leverage in somebody else’s dispute with me.
Her workplace should not become a pressure point through which somebody attempts to get at me.
Whatever Danny believes I have done, he can complain about me. He can retain counsel. He can contact police. He can sue me if he believes he has a legitimate cause of action.
What he should not do, in my opinion, is drag my wife’s professional life and workplace into the conflict.
QUOTE NO. 4: “If that fucking costs Donna her fucking job, that’s not my fucking problem.”
This may be one of the most revealing statements in the recording.
Danny says:
«“I’m saying that I will fucking expose everything that’s fucking gone on, and if that fucking costs Donna her fucking job, that’s not my fucking problem.”»
Think about what is being acknowledged.
He is contemplating an outcome in which his actions could cost my wife her job which is the entire point of why he went after my wife so he could get at me by costing my wife her job who is the sole bread winner for our family who cares for two disabled person in the household .. my daughter and I.
That is precisely why communications directed into her workplace cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary criticism of me.
There is an expressly identified employment consequence.
He may insist that he does not intend to threaten her employment.
But the recording should be assessed as a whole, not by simply accepting the label Danny puts on his own conduct.
QUOTE NO. 5: “Nobody’s fucking harassing Donna at her fucking workplace.”
Then comes the denial and it makes me go wtf and how can he say that since he’s been harassing my wife since May 2025 .. it’s gets worse as he actually says he cares for me wife 😆
«“But nobody’s fucking harassing Donna at her fucking workplace.”»
That is Danny’s characterization.
It is not necessarily the legal conclusion.
Whether conduct constitutes workplace harassment, criminal harassment, intimidation, defamatory communication, or some other actionable conduct depends upon the facts, context, frequency, recipients, content and applicable law.
Someone cannot necessarily make those questions disappear simply by declaring:
“Nobody’s harassing her.”
Especially when the same speaker has just discussed her potentially losing her job.
QUOTE NO. 6: “Donna might not have a fucking job when this is all fucking done.”
Danny repeats the employment theme:
«“And if you want to fucking call that harassment because I fucking said that Donna might not have a fucking job when this is all fucking done, well then fucking call it whatever the fuck you want.”»
There it is again.
Not once.
Again.
“Donna might not have a fucking job when this is all fucking done.”
This is why I want the original recording preserved and heard rather than asking anyone to rely solely upon my interpretation.
Listen to Danny.
Read the transcript.
Look at the emails.
Look at who received them.
Look at the repeated references to my wife’s employment.
Then draw your own conclusion.
QUOTE NO. 7: “There’s gonna be fucking consequences…”
Danny then says:
«“But there’s gonna be fucking consequences for the fucking shit that David has done.”»
That statement becomes significantly more concerning when combined with his previous statements about my wife’s employment.
Because immediately afterward he goes further.
QUOTE NO. 8: “If those consequences fucking spill over into his fucking family…”
This, for me, is the most important passage in the recording:
«“And if those consequences fucking spill over into his fucking family, that’s on fucking David. That’s not on fucking me.”»
No.
My family members are responsible for their own conduct.
They are not responsible for mine.
If somebody has a legitimate complaint against me, pursue me through lawful channels.
The idea that “consequences” arising from a dispute with me can simply “spill over” onto my family is precisely the mentality that concerns me.
And when those words are considered alongside communications reaching my wife’s workplace, I believe they deserve serious examination.
BONUS QUOTE: The Absurdity of Danny’s “I Care About Donna” Claim
The sheer contradiction in this statement is difficult to overstate.
Danny says:
“I care about Donna. I don’t want to see Donna lose her job.”
Seriously? Does that sentence make any sense to anyone with a brain after listening to this recording and does anyone think Danny actually cares about my wife?! And doesn’t want my wife to lose her job?! Hmmm yeah right and if you believe that I have ocean front for you in Calgary!! This is the entire harassment of my wife since May 2025 by Danny Martin is to get to me by causing my wife to lose her job .. he’s actually saying the opposite of what’s he’s actually doing.
That statement has to be considered alongside the other words attributed to Danny in the very same recording. He also talks about Donna potentially not working for the college “by the time I’m done with her,” says he is “fucking standing by that,” and says that if what he does “costs Donna her fucking job, that’s not my fucking problem.”
So which is it?
You cannot credibly proclaim that you care about someone and don’t want her to lose her job while simultaneously talking about what might happen to that very job “by the time I’m done with her.”
And this isn’t merely an abstract argument about Donna’s employment. My concern is that Danny has been communicating into the workplace where she is an executive. That real-world context is precisely why his words matter.
The “I care about Donna” line doesn’t magically erase everything else he says. If anything, when the statements are placed beside one another, the contradiction becomes impossible to miss.
Forget my opinion for a moment. Put the quotes side by side:
“I care about Donna. I don’t want to see Donna lose her job.”
versus
“Donna might not be working for the fucking college by the time I’m done with her.”
and
“If that fucking costs Donna her fucking job, that’s not my fucking problem.”
Those statements speak loudly enough on their own.
Calling this “caring” doesn’t make the contradiction disappear.
It exposes it.
The Contradiction Is the Story
Strip away all the profanity and the recording boils down to an extraordinary sequence:
- Danny says my wife is not being harassed at work.
- Danny acknowledges saying she might not be working at the college “by the time I’m done with her.”
- He says he stands by that statement.
- He says his actions could cost Donna her job.
- He again says she might not have a job when everything is finished.
- He predicts “consequences.”
- And he says those consequences may “spill over” into my family.
That isn’t my characterization of what Danny said.
Those are the propositions contained in the recording.
And Now the Emails Exist
This is where the recording becomes particularly relevant.
We aren’t examining Danny’s words in a vacuum.
There is an actual documentary trail of communications.
There are emails.
There are recipients.
There are dates and timestamps.
There are communications that reached my wife’s workplace.
Those records can be preserved and examined independently.
That is why I believe investigators and the relevant workplace authorities should assess the entire pattern, rather than evaluating each email or recording as though it occurred in isolation.
A Note About the Alleged Murder Plot
There is another reason I take these communications seriously.
Jolene Johnson—the person Danny is apparently speaking with in this recording—is not some random observer who wandered into this story.
She is the private investigator who, according to the information available to me, reported concerns about an alleged plot against my life to the RCMP before Christmas 2025.
Johnson later came to me out of what she described as an abundance of caution and allowed me to listen to recordings involving Michael Martinez.
I believe those recordings contain extraordinarily serious evidence and should be fully investigated.
Danny Martin’s name also appears in material connected to those circumstances. I have consequently asked investigators to determine what Danny knew, when he knew it, and whether his involvement went beyond knowledge of events.
Those remain allegations requiring investigation.
I am deliberately drawing that distinction because evidence matters.
Preserve the Evidence
This is no longer a matter of competing social-media stories.
Preserve the original audio.
Preserve its metadata.
Preserve the emails in their native electronic form.
Preserve the complete email threads and headers.
Preserve the recipient lists.
Preserve the communications sent to my wife’s workplace.
Preserve the communications with Jolene Johnson.
Then establish the chronology.
That is how allegations are tested.
Listen for Yourself
I don’t need anyone to accept my interpretation blindly.
Here is the recording:
[ORIGINAL AUDIO LINK]
Listen to Danny Keith Martin’s own words.
Then ask yourself a very simple question:
If someone repeatedly communicated into your spouse’s workplace while saying that your spouse “might not be working for the fucking college by the time I’m done with her,” that she “might not have a fucking job when this is all fucking done,” and that consequences could “spill over” into your family—
would you consider that harmless commentary?
I don’t.
And now the recording can speak for itself.
Leave a Reply