How to Read the Sources

Everything we report about Carlos Adams traces back to something you can look at: a filing, a recording, a published story or a saved post. This page lists those sources. Each entry tells you what the source is, where to find it and what it can actually prove.

That last part is the important one. A trademark record can prove an application was filed on a certain day. It can't prove the applicant's claim about when he first sold anything. A news story can tell you what a reporter was told. It can't stand in for a birth certificate. We try to keep those differences visible, and this page is where you can check whether we did.

The labels

Each source carries one of these labels.

• Official record. A document filed with or issued by a government office, and the copy described was checked for this coverage. It proves the record says what it says. Statements a person made inside it are still that person's statements.
• Claim in a filing. A specific statement someone made in an official filing, like a claimed first-use date. The government recorded it. That doesn't mean the government verified it.
• Reporting. Another outlet's account. We name the outlet and treat its story as its account. Copies, or one interview posted in two places, count as one source.
• Archive note. An earlier reading of a record, kept in our research files. The original couldn't be re-checked for the current story. We use these carefully, and we say so when we do.
• Official video transcript. The City's transcript of a recorded public meeting. It's a written record of what was said, but it isn't certified, and we haven't checked it word for word against the audio. Misspellings in the transcript stay as they are.
• Company's own statement. What a business says about itself on its website or in its materials. It tells you how the business presents itself, not what a government registry shows.
• Commercial data summary. A private website's summary of shipping or trade data, usually drawn from government records the site doesn't show in full. Useful for dates and names. It isn't the underlying customs document, and two pages on the same site can show the same shipment twice.
• Research log. Our own record of what we searched for, where, and what couldn't be reached. It shows the limits of the search, not that something doesn't exist.
• Saved screenshot. An image of a post or message as it appeared on screen. It shows what was displayed. It doesn't independently prove who controlled an account or when something was first posted.
• Our analysis. A conclusion we drew by comparing records. We tell you how confident we are and why.

Records involving Yuma Informed

These sources concern our publisher's own involvement. We list them so you can see what's documented about our role, not just what we say about it.

Added for the complete series (October 16, 2026)

The sections below cover the records cited in Parts 3 through 7 and in the Tecate stories. They follow the same card format. Four labels are new:

• Correspondence. An email or message, sent or received. It proves what was written and, when headers are intact, when. It doesn't prove the contents are true or that anyone acted on them.
• Recorded testimony. A person's own account, recorded in an interview or published in their words. It's strong evidence of what they remember or believe. It isn't a civil record.
• Court filing. A complaint, affidavit or indictment. It proves what was filed and what was alleged. An allegation in a court filing is not a finding, and an indictment is not a conviction.
• Research decision. A choice we made about how to organize our own files, such as treating two records as one working identity. It isn't evidence of anything, and we list it so you can see where our assumptions came in.

Added Oct. 29, after the screenshot recovery

• Facebook screenshots, Aug. 9 to Oct. 9, 2026, recovered Oct. 29 into our research archive with SHA-256 fingerprints. They include: the "why such a question" thread; my Oct. 2 post about Olga Zulema Adams Pereyra and Adams's "my family" reply; my Oct. 3 birth-certificate question and his "Obama" reply; his Oct. 3 ancestry post; the Aug. 9 "stop flirting with me" exchange; and 15 more Oct. 4 to 7 captures from his campaign page. Facebook showed relative times ("21h"), so dates are when the screenshots were saved. Screenshots show what was posted; they don't independently prove who runs an account.
• Fingerprint note: the recovered "why such a question" file doesn't match the fingerprint in our earlier notes. The visible words match exactly.
• ACTIC screenshots, Oct. 4, 2026: three images showing the full tip text, three attachments and the confirmation. Reference number withheld.
• FBI tip form screenshots, Oct. 4, 2026 morning: blank form only. Not proof of a submission.
• Punto Norte, July 19, 2020: now also cited in Part 6 for the reported 2003 plea and 50-month sentence. Not checked against the judgment.
• Private commenters in these threads are not named in the series.

Earlier Yuma Informed coverage cited

• "Yuma's Proposed Ethics Commission Has Changed. The Legal Questions Haven't Disappeared." (September 23, updated September 25, 2026). Our own reporting. Used in Part 5.
• "Yuma Transparency Club Is Active in Local Politics. Does That Make It a PAC?" (September 26, updated September 29, 2026). Our own reporting. Used in Part 5 and the topic page.
• "Following the Money: What Yuma's Mayoral Campaign Finance Records Reveal" (October 1, 2026). Our own reporting. Used in Part 5 and Part 7.

*Sources will be added to this guide as new stories in the topic are published. If you think we've misdescribed a record, tell us. *