This is about the blatant and utterly untrue statements made by Daniel Duzan and Niki Leinberger. Nearly every claim they’ve made is a fabricated, fictional story. Simply put, Daniel and Niki did not purchase the paper for even a single cent (Signed Purchase Agreement). Furthermore, they assumed zero of the paper’s existing debt: more than $40,000 in loans and outstanding bills. If they had chosen not to take over the papers, the refunds would have already been issued. However, Daniel made it clear that he wanted those subscribers.

When I was informed by Daniel via text that he wasn’t going to continue publishing the paper because of some supposed “competition,” I reminded him of our agreement — that he had promised to honor all refund requests — but ultimately, it was his decision how to proceed. He stated that he wouldn’t give refunds more than once, denied all responsibility, and even threatened to make my family “look like s***”.

Subsequently, we sent a straightforward letter to the list of roughly 150 people who had requested refunds, simply reminding them that ownership had changed after they’d been left with no paper and no communication from Daniel and Niki. Instead of addressing subscribers directly, Daniel and Niki shut down all Facebook pages and deactivated their personal accounts to avoid accountability. There was no public announcement, no explanation, just a quiet disappearance to dodge responsibility.

When I confronted Daniel directly, he made excuse after excuse, claiming “competition” was preventing him from publishing and insisting that “the chamber/city is against it” and that somehow the market was “saturated.” His true intent to make my family “look like s***” became clear when he and Niki reactivated the Facebook pages, not to inform the public, but to post baseless, cruel lies. Countless claims can easily be disproven with text messages, email exchanges, and the signed agreement — an agreement they had full access to and opportunity to review and amend several days before closing. The clause they now claim was hidden in “fine print” is, in fact, written in bold, as you can plainly see.

It’s obvious that Daniel’s false claims are an attempt to avoid accountability and shift blame onto my family. He has even claimed that he recorded the two-hour meeting where the agreement was signed. I encourage him to post that recording in full, as it would only further incriminate him and Niki.

Our goal from the beginning was simple: allow the paper to continue without forcing my parents into further debt. In any subscription-based business, taking on existing subscriber liability is standard practice. Taking on a newspaper business is like buying a gym that already has members with active paid memberships. Even if the new owner hasn’t personally collected a single monthly payment yet, they still must honor the memberships or issue refunds — because the value of the business included those prepaid contracts. You can’t take ownership of the business, benefit from the existing subscriber base, and then deny the corresponding obligations.

The subscribers, along with the advertisers, are the business. Without that responsibility, there is no true transfer of ownership. This was a merger of two existing papers into one new, county-wide publication — something we and they stated publicly, but now they deny it.

Subscription renewals come in year-round, not as a lump sum. To claim that my parents “took the money and ran,” as comments on the post allege, is simply false. Claiming that we never intended to send refunds is also demonstrably false. Nearly every dollar went back into the paper and to paying staff. My parents were taking home less than minimum wage to keep the business afloat. In 2024, only 17% of revenue came from subscriptions; nearly 80% came from advertising. The business survived on ads, not subscriptions. Any advertiser who prepaid was refunded. The idea that my parents schemed to pocket subscription money and shut down is nonsensical. If Daniel and Niki had continued publishing, they would have collected ongoing subscription and advertising revenue, as they were informed multiple times. They didn’t — because they never launched the paper or put in a real effort to do so. Several employees and advertisers (the vital building blocks for a newspaper) have commented on the Courier’s post stating they were never even contacted by Daniel or Niki.

I even told Daniel directly that he could start a brand-new newspaper without taking on subscriber liability. He decided instead that the value of acquiring the 30-year foundation of the Advocate, which was actually started from scratch, outweighed starting from scratch himself— yet he failed to honor any responsibility that came with it. Daniel and Niki invested nothing. We gave them everything outlined in the agreement — and more.

For clarity: Daniel and Niki initially offered $10,000, a profit-share, and a 50/50 split on any refunds in the first two months of ownership. That offer ultimately became $0 with only the sole liability for refunds, as he proposed. It’s now obvious that they wanted the business for free — with zero accountability. They have stated that they didn’t receive any funds when they took over. This implies that they somehow were owed compensation for buying our business. Why would we pay them to take over our business? They did, however, take many of our assets besides the subscriber lists, despite what they have claimed. This includes advertiser lists, contacts, and schedules, rates, template information, computers with monitors and accessories, Facebook pages, employee information, website domains, and even desks and chairs (Supplied Documents). We have received nothing in return except for defamation and emotional distress as a consequence of that.

I also want to make something very clear: absolutely no one knew we were going to close the business — not even my dad. The possibility of shutting down was discussed for the first time on the morning of Friday, May 16, after my dad woke up severely unwell following days of only an hour of sleep each night. Mental health is serious and not always visible, but in my dad’s case, it was. He had lost alarming amounts of weight, his blood pressure had skyrocketed, and he was in a borderline psychosis. There were no subscription renewals cashed the week of May 12th or after, once we realized the potential of closing. He was admitted for a week to the Behavioral Health Unit at Sarah Bush Hospital. If anyone needs proof, I can provide the hospital records.

My dad would never have deliberately shut down his business so abruptly and disappointed subscribers and advertisers. These relationships were personal to him, built over a 30-year career, and he took them to heart. So much so that we were willing to give the paper away to someone who we thought truly cared about us and the community.

Looking back, our mistake was trusting Daniel and Niki to fulfill their promises. We should have done our due diligence on their character, just like they should have done their due diligence on understanding just how hard the work would be. We still hope someone starts a paper that the entire Clark County community can enjoy, but it’s clear that the days of the Advocate and Reporter are over.

We are working with legal counsel to help untangle the mess Daniel and Niki have created. Our goal remains to ensure refunds are returned to those subscribers who requested them — how that happens is to be determined. We’ve saved screenshots of some of the most relevant texts and emails that directly refute Daniel and Niki’s false statements. We also asked them to remove their post. They even began deleting comments on their Facebook posts that question or challenge them — further proof of their malicious intent.

They have no evidence to back up any of their claims. There is no gray area here. This is black and white: there are facts, and then there are the lies Daniel and Niki are spreading.