Michael Morris - In Focus

If you missed the Mike Haymes Show this morning on KRSY you missed Lord Karl Anderson getting a might defensive as questions about the accuracy of his reporting managed to get on the show. For those of you unfamiliar with Lord Karl Anderson he writes fiction and conjecture for the Alamogordo Daily News. Apparently after lying to us and confusing us with his "anything goes" style of reporting Anderson is staged to enlighten us on Saturday. (LISTEN TO ANNOUNCEMENT)

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think Lord Karl Anderson is nuts in the way the guy with the GodPhone 2000 Recliner is, but more in a delusional "who cares" kind of psychosis. The subject is the ever slippery and difficult to find "lawsuit" reported by Anderson to have been filed, presumably in US District Court - at least according to fingers crossed editor Michael Becker. According to the two stooges this suit was filed on Monday. As I told you before the court is having some trouble finding the case.

Today Anderson declared that he does not always print all of the facts at once. At the same time he promised to enlighten the damned stupid goobers about why the suit he claims has been filed cannot be found in the court records. But alas I could be wrong. Maybe Karl is going to publish the case in the paper and provide the case number so we can all be privy to this elusive suit.

Perhaps the most embarrassing "enlightenment" we could be treated to would be a "dog ate my homework" or "magic beans purchase" story explaining the reason for the missing case. The one we were having fun with is the story explaining how the crack reporter took the word of the interviewee that he was going to file, but, for some reason, did not. Then we looked at the case devoid of the politics of smoking. Low and behold we have a defendant in some criminal cases threatening to file a civil rights case against the officers involved. How uncommon is that - lol? Of course if this case were like those run of the mill idle threat or better cases we would see the typical In Forma Pauperis Motion asking the court to waive the filing fee. Also common in such pro se filings is a mailed in filing. Since both the mailing and the indigent request would delay the docketing of the case these could account for a delay, but this is just idle conjecture.

We are probably not going to hear a story about how an ace reporter was tricked into printing that a suit not filed was filed because the reporter took the word of the complaining party and represented it as fact. No writer would do that would he? Something like that would ruin the credibility of anyone. It is just not possible that these people got it wrong because of that kind of incompetence, is it? Then again if all of the reporting up to this point is on point then why do we need enlightened now?