We've Been Sued by Christopher Morales

Last Wednesday I was directed to an article on Autograph Alert that, beyond saying the usual things they say about this site and me, seemingly "outed" one of our members whose comments they didn't like. At the end of the article, they wrote:

"By the time you read this story,
Cyrkin will have the first of a major rude awakening,
one he has invited and is well deserved."

The next morning I received an email from a court services firm asking for an appointment to serve me with legal papers. I arranged to be served this Wednesday. And I had a copy of the suit sent to me.

I have been sued by Christopher Morales, the autograph authenticator I have called, "the forger's best friend." Morales is joining me to his lawsuit against Roger Epperson alleging:

libel
slander
business disparagement
tortuous interference with prospective business relations, and
civil conspiracy.

I don't look forward to this or any lawsuit. Who does? But I feel it's my duty, and all of ours, to do everything we can to protect collectors, fans and the autograph hobby against forgeries. So, like Roger has, I'll defend the lawsuit vigorously—and I will not stop speaking out.

I stand behind everything I've ever said or published about Christopher Morales, and the forgery industry that uses him. I would be surprised if even one-percent of the autographs he has authenticated are genuine. But this is Morales's opportunity to prove that I am wrong; that most of the autographs he authenticates ARE genuine—and that we are "out to get him."

The truth is on our side.

Sincerely,

Steve Cyrkin
Editor & Publisher

10 members like this

Comment by Richard Kim on March 24, 2011 at 10:49am: I know it sounds crazy - I am actually encouraging bad stuff to be registered on our site - eventually, we will build up enough examples and evidence to identify bad people and items... I just started a new discussion thread in the Authentication and Forgery Alert Group.

http://live.autographmagazine.com/group/authenticationandforgeryale...

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 10:50am: @Mike:

I appreciate your concern. I am not going to stop talking, ever, and people are welcome to talk as long as they're not doing it maliciously.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 10:55am: Greg,

It should be applied to everyone who sells an autograph.

Comment by DB on March 24, 2011 at 11:18am: MIke, as far as Morales goes where is that poster who commented that he had approximately 30 items and 28 of them turned out to be non-authentic. If my ciphering is correct that turns out to be a 94% error rate. Reminds me of an old saying, "if you throw jello against the wall, some of it will stick!". So to say he get's everything wrong is perhaps an overstatement however how'd you like those odds from someone who claims to be something he isn't unless of course 94% error rate is acceptable.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 11:53am: @Greg,

I don't think sellers have to be experts, but they need to work with experts and question things just like a collector does.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 11:56am: @ Greg:

Loved that. On the bright side, everyone down there won't be strangers.

Comment by CJCollector on March 27, 2011 at 11:54am: The below Beatles signed 8X10 sketch sold (March 25, 2011) for a whopping $525.00 on the Coach's Corner auction site. The item comes "Certified authentic by forensic examiner and court-qualified expert Chris Morales." $525.00? As a "Court Qualified expert on forensic examination" I'm sure the below Beatles signed 8X10 sketch was examined by Mr. Morales in a vigorous manner for such a precious and rare item.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 27, 2011 at 12:54pm: Chris,

Morales actually testified that he generally charged $75 or less per item for autograph authentication--not per signature. So if he did spend at least two hours a signature, that 14 signature bat would be $75 divided by 28 hours: That's $2.68 an hour.

Comment by CJCollector on March 27, 2011 at 12:59pm: Gotcha, Steve. I had it reversed. Still, the numbers do not add up and never will.

Comment by Steve Zarelli on March 27, 2011 at 12:59pm: Even a rank amateur would have to question the slowly drawn signatures on that 1939 ball. You can see where the ink is heavier on all the stops and slow parts. What a joke.