Michael Morris - In Focus

My wife is fond of saying I suffer from Sarcastic Spasm Syndrome. Well, thanks to the class clowns over at the Alamogordo Daily Snicker I am in the throes of an attack at the moment. The humiliation of standing in the stocks had to be child's play compared to the environment in the newsroom the day after the ADN published the story featuring the lawsuit filed by Henry Smith against the Sheriff, Otero County and just about everyone in charge there as well as all of the deputies involved in the Grubstake Incident. This story was even picked up by the Associated Press and run at the top of Page 1 of the Metro Section of the Albuquerque Journal today. The problem is the US District Court for NM has no record of a case. The same is true for the 12th Judicial District Court on New York Ave.

Where do you start to describe this? I mean certainly the fact that the story was devoid of the boilerplate line, "The suit, filed in District Court on Monday..." and replaced instead with, "The filed lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff's civil rights were violated as secured by the fourth, 10th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the state of New Mexico." should have attracted at least a passing curiosity from editor Michael Becker. Did I mention that the story was written by Kingdom of Foo Honorary Jester Lord Karl Anderson? None of this should surprise anyone in the wake of a nearly uninterrupted string of factually confused and outright dishonest smears from the Alamogordo Lord of Loon. Like the south end of a compass Anderson and Becker have systematically taken the news out of the newspaper morphing it into a mere gossip rag pointed at the latest target of one of Anderson's patrons.

So, what was wrong with the report? Well, first and foremost the lawsuit it claims to describe has never been filed though the story claims it has been. Isn't the filing the only thing that makes a story headlined "Suit filed against county" newsworthy? Well, Moe and Larry did not feel the need to make sure the suit had been filed before printing that it had. Why should they? Apparently Media News Group has commissioned this paper to sell copies no matter what. Also apparent is the manner in which the editorial department has chosen to get the circulation up. Sensationalism sells and these two hooligans are not about to let the truth stand in the way of a good trashing of the Sheriff. Everyone likes a good trashing of someone. This week it is John Blansett and about the rest of the department. Not having the balls to make direct commentary against Blansett the two stooges have chosen to use a series of allegations hurled by a defendant in several criminal complaints. Instead of waiting for the suit to be filed and become public record before citing its particulars Becker and Anderson simply declared it filed and printed it.

Ok, now the real question is did Michael Becker or Karl Anderson know the suit was not really a suit, but rather some paper full of allegations shown to Anderson? The answer to that question also answer the question of whether we are dealing with fools or liars. Personally I am leaning in the direction of liars. Practically everything from the mouth or pen of Lord Karl is a lie. Michael Becker lies so fluently and with such regularity the presumption is liar. On the other hand daily someone will contend that Both Becker and Anderson are just not smart enough to cook something up and that incompetence is the cause. Of course Anderson has limited understanding and reasoning abilities, but stupid is not the word to describe Karl Anderson. Conniving is a word that fits the puzzle a bit better. So here we are.

When I first heard of this suit being "filed" Janet White related that Anderson did not know what court the case had been filed in and the copy of the "suit" Anderson was sporting had no filing stamp on it. By this time the story had run. Well, what the heck, let me see if I can find something at the state court - nope. Well, with all of the Constitutional questions I checked the US District - nope. So where is this suit in court Karl? Since that time Ms. White has thoroughly checked the District on New York and another source the US District in Las Cruces - nope.

It is bad enough when National Lampoon's Newspaper embarrasses us locally with its patented 97% Fact Free (tm) editorial policy, but it is worse still when the Associated Press is foolish enough to take what these comatose flunkies write and run with it. Then, the Metro Editor flops this down today on P1 of the Albuquerque Journal Metro. Of course everyone now thinks a huge $435 million suit has been filed against Blansett et al when all we have so far is a criminal defendant threatening to sue over a civil rights violation. Are Mr. Smith's allegations true? I have no idea. Do Mr. Smith's allegations establish a legally cognizable claim? I have no idea. I have no idea because I cannot read the suit because it has not been filed.

So, why does the filing of a lawsuit differ from writing up something titled "Complaint" and showing it to a fool? Filing brings along with it binding assurances of truthfulness and the possible penalties of a frivolous lawsuit. Until a person is willing to assume those liabilities he has taken no tangible risk. Quoting from a printout from a $50 ink jet is nothing more than printing "over the fence" gossip. What assurance do we get regarding Mr. Smith's credibility as he is quoted? The answer is his word. Mr. Smith's word may indeed be like gold to those who know him, but to the rest of us he is a defendant in some misdemeanor cases related to the prohibition law who claims his rights have been violated. So what was the hurry to publish this tale that left no time for checking the filing? Until Mr. Smith places himself in jeopardy by assuming the risks associated with filing suit his accusations are just that. This is not news and it is not true. You decide. Are Karl Anderson and Michael Becker merely incompetent or psychopathic liars willing to print anything to reach their goals?