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 Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 5:41am: If those were bodies of people who bought autographs authenticated by Morales, we could have saved him a lot of work. They died of heart attacks.

Comment by CJCollector on March 24, 2011 at 5:47am: Mr. Zipper, I sincerely believe that Mr. Morales thought that his lawsuit against Steve would shut everyone up. That we would all run scared; but instead we are building a case here against him. We are all fed up!!! Many of us have been FED UP for years.

Mr. Morales will eventually have to explain in precise terms (and via all of his records) how he combines exhumation, forensic examination/analysis and autograph authentication for numerous companies and individuals. He'll have to explain how he's been able (as per his own website) to be involved in "international forensic development and training for two decades" while "authenticating" 17,000 signatures.

I look forward to hearing how Mr. Morales uses his 'forensic expertise' to "authenticate autographs. I want to know the number of autographs he has rejected over the years. There's a lot we all want to know. And it will be revealed.

Comment by Steve Zarelli on March 24, 2011 at 5:56am: Just for laughs...

Comment by DB on March 24, 2011 at 6:17am: one thing to also recall was with the "JSA" resubmittals (that were supposedly done and published on the cesspool of informatin a/alert). To wit: "We decided to put this assertion to the test, with an unusual twist. We had several pieces certified by JSA. We then had them certified by Christopher L. Morales, Forensic Document Examiner (Chris Morales)".

whoever the "we" is in all of this but the relevant portions are that if the JSA sticker had been removed then a Forensic Examiner would have noted that an alteration to the removal of a "sticker" to the lower right hand corner had occurred.

However, since it appears there was collusion between the "we" and Morales in this then it is also clear that Morales Knowinglly, Willfully & Fraudulently failed to idenitfy the JSA documents as an Item examined in his under documents of comparison section of his COA that he signs. Furthermore, his sticker clearly covers the JSA sticker leading to the conclusion he was further aware of these documents that he purposely omits from his examination.

Comment by Steve Zarelli on March 24, 2011 at 6:34am: In my view, any good exam will take into account the WHOLE picture, which includes provenance and past history. If an item originates from a known source of fakes, shouldn't that weigh heavily on the conclusion? If Greg Marino himself submitted items, no matter how good they looked, wouldn't any good authenticator flunk it based on that alone?

Comment by Richard Kim on March 24, 2011 at 8:28am: @ Mike Aring and to anyone interested.

My site will not be "policing" the items. It is meant to be a centralized repository of everything (both good and bad). Once the items (and their owners) have been registered and cataloged, then we can then all make decision on the "goodness" of those items. So, instead of attacking one particular item or the person, for example Charlton Heston being sold by one particular dealer, you (and hopefully hundreds of more) can upload examples of all secretarial signatures - that way, we will have an over-whelming evidence (backed by people who claimed to own them) and then the person who have claimed the forgery will look pretty foolish - will eventually expose and eliminate the fraud. It appears that this particular blog space is not a good forum to continue this particular discussion, so I will soon start a new blog so that anyone interested in coming up with at better system can participate. Also, I will participate in the Authentication and Forgery Group - which would be a better place for further discussions.

Comment by CJCollector on March 24, 2011 at 8:43am: I immediately recognized one item (100% Jeter forgery) that was sold on the Roach's Corner auction and then attempted to be flipped on Ebay. That item was removed from Ebay. So now the seller has discovered another venue in an attempt to dump his junk.

A website like yours might work, Richard, if, like Mike wrote, was just a place to scrutinize autographs, but having that stuff for sale makes it just another website to dump their garbage.

Comment by Richard Kim on March 24, 2011 at 8:57am: @ Mike Aring and Christopher Williams:

I completely understand your concerns and eventually, they will all be answered. I had long discussions regarding this issue and it will take some time for everyone to understand the true nature of how this new system will work. I will start a new blog/discussion later today so that anyone interested can participate and allow this particular space to concentrate on the topic at hand of legal proceeding by Chris Morales.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 24, 2011 at 10:11am: @ Richard Kim:

Go for it, please. Make it a discussion under Town Hall please. Mike and Chris are voicing the same concerns others have had. An interesting concept, but it builds confidence in collectors who may not be aware there are lots of forgeries on your site. Lots of great material, too...but lots of bad stuff.

Comment by CJCollector on March 24, 2011 at 10:42am: Mike, to a certain degree I agree with you, but I doubt very much if any judge is going to take the opinions of those in this forum.

And no one here (as far as I've read) as been malicious towards Mr. Morales. As collectors we have brought up some very points of which many were taken directly from his own website. We have a right to know his "autograph authentication" credentials. He is getting paid to make serious decisions on autographs. We've heard and read conflicting stories on about his credentials. We have a right to know the real truth as hobbyists.

Again, I will repeat, Mr. Morales is getting paid to authenticate autographs based on the fact that he claims to be a "Court Qualified Forensic Science Expert," as per his website. His website states (with photos) that he was in Panama City, Panama conducting a exhumation.

His website also contains a write-up about the "Forensic Handwriting Identification Process." He has "authenticated" autographs from George Washington to Babe Ruth to Mickey Mantle to Mike "King" Kelly to Al Capone to Charles Lindbergh.

We, as hobbyists, have every right to know the truth about his authentication process, his exemplar database, etc.