Michael Morris - In Focus

Usually when I get a comment form of the hostile nature I send a quick reply just to confirm that the email is valid before wasting my time on the phony email and name or even location that has been the trademark of the vast majority of the bold critics of my writing. Since the writers apparently did not want a reply it was dropped. Today, however, a comment came in that is so general interest and on point in every respect it deserves an answer even though its scribe does not.

The contact form included some lame veiled threat that I could be sued. Since all of the information in the contact form is fake coupled with the fact that the form was sent from an Alamogordo Public Schools network (10.20.2.185 through squid @ 72.0.47.38 aps4kids.org:8080) @ 21:25 GMT today while claiming to be elsewhere I am going to gamble that it is ethical to post it in its entirety.

Ima Believer submitted the following Information:
Email imabeliever_2029@yahoo.com
Company ABQ dist ofc
Location Alm-Alb
Comments

Like we said before, the final disposition supersedes the original charges. Your little posting does not encompass the facts, nor is it accurate.

I wonder what seasoned researchers would find in your background, Mr. Morris.

You must take pride in half-truths. Either that, or you didn't finish your reading on the case. Either way, you look foolish.

The courts, however, diligently address cases where irresponsible and malicious information is released with the intent of causing damage to others.

The "we" part of that was interesting. So was the familiarity of the writer with Anderson's case. The writer means that because I did not tackle the fact that Anderson later applied for and received an expungement, which is automatic and just as available to murderers, of the conviction for perjury that somehow the conviction never happened. Now that really is nonsense. We are not dealing with a job application. We are dealing with a reporter who has lied repeatedly fabricating embellishments and circumstances in published stories for his own gain. The fact that he was convicted more or less for forging veterinary certificates is confirmation that Anderson has little regard for the law or the truth when it gets in his way. That really is the crux of the matter isn't it?

While the fact that the conviction has been expunged may be important when Anderson is applying for a loan or a job it does not change the fact that he was convicted of perjury while on probation for numerous counts of animal mistreatment and permit and housing violations for wild animals including man eating predator cats. Enough of that.

Of course the writer thinks I should be sued because the conviction was expunged. In fact the writer uses significant drama when explaining to me the law that isn't. For actual law see Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (USSC). But we lose sight of the point.

Actually from that ruling we can get a better feel for what Karl Anderson did when he ran his libel piece on Anthony Wilson on the eve of his trial. You may remember that just before Wilson was to go on trial for multiple counts of embezzlement from the space museum Anderson published a story including an unverified accusation that Wilson had broken into his former employer's establishment in TX. The source of this was not court records but rather the recollections of another employee who cannot even remember the year this supposedly took place. That was libel with malice. Let's look at Cox again:

(a) The commission of a crime, prosecutions resulting therefrom, and judicial proceedings arising from the prosecutions are events of legitimate concern to the public and consequently fall within the press' responsibility to report the operations of government. Pp. 492-493.

(b) The interests of privacy fade when the information involved already appears on public record, especially when viewed in terms of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and in light of the public interest in a vigorous press. Pp. 493-495.

On jurisdictional point -> "Once true information is disclosed in public court documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it." (Cox, supra, 420 U.S. at p. 496.)

What that means is that the perjury conviction is protected while the outrageous publication of idle gossip backed up by nothing is not. It is Anthony Wilson who should be suing Lord of Loon Karl Anderson and that worthless rag he writes for. When it was attacking Wilson by printing rumors and gossip that he had committed a felony in some unspecified year in TX all was fine, but when I publish that Karl D. Anderson was convicted in the Superior Court of California for Ventura County for the crime of perjury Karl Anderson and his minions cry foul. Yeah right.

Interestingly enough Gannett, minority owner of the Alamogordo Daily News, was a defendant in such a suit at its Rockford Register Star in Rockford, IL in 2003. In Holder v. Register Star Gannett describes the case this way on its web site:

This libel and invasion-of-privacy action arose out of a report noting that plaintiff, a local political candidate, had been convicted of a felony. The Register Star article also reported that plaintiff's criminal record had been expunged six years later. In dismissing the suit, the court agreed with the newspaper's argument that since the conviction and expungement were both matters of public record, the newspaper's accurate report of them was privileged.

The funny part of this is that Media News Group, the owner of the Alamogordo Daily News owns the paper that covered the whole mess around Anderson and the Fillmore Museum of Natural History. In fact without the help of some MNG folks I would not have even come across this matter.

While my purpose in running the original story was to help explain the dishonesty that is Karl Anderson as he was publishing patently false portrayals of actual events, the fact that he may now understand a fraction of what he did to Wilson is a welcome side effect. Heck Anderson is actually fortunate compared to Wilson since I did not use a single rumor or gossip to do the story.

Well heck let me explain the rest of this so that you will get the picture on the sham Anderson puts on. In one interview with the LA Daily News after he was charged Anderson asserted "I panicked because they were looking for a reason in Sacramento to not renew our permits." In each of the cases it is the same - someone else's fault. In this case a conspiracy? It is quite possible Anderson spoke the truth considering a continuous string of animal violations up and down the west coast including giving a Siberian tiger cub to someone with no permit to keep one and some similar Oregon charges that landed Anderson in jail it is possible the California authorities were wary of Anderson.

For those of you who remember the incident in which the Cloudcroft Village Board yanked Anderson's permit to run his jousting event you may want to consider carefully 2 things -> Why did they do this? Why did Anderson not file the suits he threatened for damages and open meetings violations?

I'm not sure how important any of this is since most people now seem aware that Karl Anderson publishes lies and gossip with the full approval and encouragement of his boss, Michael Becker, at the ADN. I am thinking this about the end of this matter. It is simple. Just assume that Anderson has fabricated the story and ignore it. I mean what value is there in a newspaper that publishes lies knowingly?

Now to address the last part of this comment. Please feel free to investigate my past. That is probably what qualifies me best to report on people who themselves or their minions threaten such a thing. Print it, broadcast it or send it around by fax, but it does not change the fact that Lord Karl is a recalcitrant liar devoid of any ethics, journalistic or otherwise or that his lies have injured many in the community - most of them true victims of his tales of fantasy.

Ima, I hope that answered your questions.