Home » In Focus » Goon Squad Politics @ DumpCounts.com

Goon Squad Politics @ DumpCounts.com

Michael Morris – In Focus

In fact the anonymous writer is actually more a part of the problem rather than the solution as you encourage fear among fellow citizens while stripping credibility from the story you propose to tell.” – Michael Morris May 16, 2005. (569)

”Even more important for us has been to be everything the no name – no signature “Concerned Voters of Socorro” scandal rag was not.” – Michael Morris July 15, 2004. (500)

The fact that the name(s) of the publisher(s) and editor(s) was nowhere to be found on this publication only went to discredit this organization. Honestly I would not put my name on such a thing. Of course I would never trade in such scandalous material.” – Michael Morris February 13, 2004 (426)

Those who suggested that I may have had something to do with the hooded cowards who engineered the embarrassment known as DumpCounts.com should be judged on that basis. I have a hard time understanding why some, including the authors of this abomination, think I would have anything to do with what amounts to a bunch of poorly educated fools making assumptions and accusations based on their limited grasp of the law or even reality.

When you see the billboards or go to the web site it is impossible to escape the juvenility of not only the site and graphics, but more interestingly the concepts and claims underlying what appears a campaign employing one or more level 6 jailhouse lawyer lifers as its legal consultant(s). Complete with bold red text to highlight their failure to understand much of what they read the faceless soldiers endeavor to see that James Waylon Counts not be retained as District Judge in November. At first I joked that the whole thing seemed like an attempt by Counts to use a trailer park diversion to direct attention away from the real questions that should be addressed before we ask Bill Richardson to send us a new judge. Then I realized that a person would have to be entirely amoral to make such bold pronouncements while cowering in fear of detection of his identity like a common burglar. I don’t see Counts that way.

When this klan meeting originally went live on the web the front page included a credit to me, by name, and my 3 web sites linked as sources for some of their information. Sadly, even with the cases they read about on my sites, explained in detail for them, the braintrust at DumpCounts.com never managed to get the comprehension beyond 20%. What do you think the chances are these morons did any better reading appellate opinions where they obviously disregarded the big words they did not recognize? When the misrepresentation of the law could not make their point the tactics change to emotional pleas to ignore the law in the name of their brand of “fair”. Lynch mob that they are there is some humor to be had in the incredible temerity displayed by this band of gomers simply assuming that a large faction of folks as mentally challenged as they will be turning out at the polls this fall. I am not so convinced. Join me for a walk through the set of Deliverance West before the Trojan and Forex people snap up these box models.

Now that I have your attention I wanted to mention that I am in no way sandbagging these people. Here is my email followed by the response from the hood and sheet signing his name “Admin”. Did I mention that the domain name DumpCounts.com is registered through a proxy/private registration. I will explain that later as I explain how to pierce that veil in 1 to 2 hours tops.

From: Michael Morris – Mountain Mail Country [mailto:editor@mountainmailcountry.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:49 AM
To: feedback@dumpcounts.com
Subject: Reconsider your links?

I just wanted to suggest that it might not be in your interest to have those links to my sites from yours. Counts may need to go I disagree substantially with some of your characterizations, conclusions and methods. I plan to explain those differences in some detail and in a way that may not be something you would want to link from your home page. I wish you well in your endeavor to the extent that it is based in fact and law, not the hateful lynch mob speech in which you currently engage. Asking your readers whether they consider a sentence fair is asking those with no knowledge of the law to decide the competence of the judge based on drama.

Fortunately you have opened a web site based entirely on conflict and confrontation. That is refreshingly honest. It also eliminates all that “mean man” and cries of unfair thing too. Shame you could not find it in yourselves to stick to factual confrontation.

Michael Morris

Quiet down for a moment. Here is the response:

Thank you for your critique. We will of course drop any reference to your site(s). We tried to call your number prior to linking to the sites but was informed that it was not in service. We are glad that you agree he needs to go, but we are puzzled by your disagreements as stated. Please expound on those disagreements so that we can correct any errors on our part. We have not, to our knowledge, made any statement not based on fact or law or that is not a matter of public record without so stating. We hope you understand that most of us have had experiences with Judge Counts that have adversely affected our or a relative’s or friend’s lives. That is why we strive so hard to not engage in “hateful lynch mob speech” that some of us may feel. We gleaned some of our remarks from your reporting and analyses in columns on your websites, including your Media Distortion column of 01/15/2006: Cody Posey Trial Players.

We were not intending to offend you or become embroiled in a confrontation with you about any matter, and hope this is is not your intention in your plans as ominously mentioned. For your information, we have three billboard signs that should be up on August 15th and a fourth ordered. The website should be finished by Wednesday. We have already received several responses to our website without any advertising and yours was the only one with a partly negative tone 🙂 for our goals.

We have no intentions to attack Judge Counts personally, but his decisions as well as his retention as a judge are another matter. Our readers would disagree, but perhaps you are correct that the average person is not very knowledgeable of the law, but that is what keeps an unfair judge in office, isn’t it.

We appreciate constructive criticism and look forward to your expounding on your disagreements.

Thanks again,


The boldness with which this one identifies himself is exceeded only by the weaseliness of his tone, but at least the Minister of Chicanery was honest enough to admit that they have grievances with Judge Counts yet lack the stones to post their own cases for the people to use to decide their case instead relying on primarily slim grounds using red type rather than logic or reason to exclaim “the sky is falling”. How about I treat their site, which is arranged like the allegations in a legal complaint, as such and undermine the judge’s rules constrained response entirely free of any such restrictions.

The Code of Judicial Conduct applies to judges and candidates

For the DNA challenged souls who felt this was the way to address their grievances consider this a reading lesson. The rest of us can simply sit back and be entertained by the best voluntary self-pantsing an explanation of their cluelessness can yield.

The place to start here is the preamble or home page. This is the diatribe that formerly included my name as mentioned above. Interestingly enough the claim that their little cabal included lawyers is gone as well. The constant site edits are quite troubling but let me stay on point. After telling us who they might be and that many of them have a grudge we are presented with a set of statistics saying that they found 13 published opinions of NM appellate courts naming Counts as they judge and that “47%” of the time this judge was reversed. Wow, reversed half of the time sounds really bad, huh? Careful, YOUR chromosomes are more diverse to not ask for more. As we move forward you will see they have redacted most of the text of the opinions using a few words from the dicta of the case in order to make a point that is not the point sane individuals were deciding. I guess we could construe this silly page as the caption John Doe et al vs. Sanity with some basic outline of the rage that is the claim they cannot use that would be the action title were their grievances the kind that they could make a cogent case. Since that did not work we understand the complaint title to be Complaint for Whaaaamages. After the required clicking of the clipart gavel we enter the command center.

In the secret squirrel command center we are given a set of questions answered with this rather thin refrain:

”Don’t count on it with Counts!! His record reflects the opposite.”

Quite compelling and a little catchy in a sit-com kind of way, but altogether not all that informative. Then again this is not about telling the truth now is it? It is about a vendetta, so we have to expect a slant. Slant is what we got. Slant to the point of helping these guys to slide off of any moral high ground onto the thin cliff of simply using copy and paste to lie to the citizens of the 12th Judicial District.

Moving on to the page titled “Judicial Duties” which will no doubt be rewritten by the time you read this, thank goodness Morris does not understand forensic preservation, isn’t it? The first solid evidence that these people are without an actual understanding of the law or even our form of government is when they cite the RULE concerning some duties of the judge as “21-300 NMSA” when it is actually NMRA 21-300 the difference being that NMSA is statutes passed by the legislature and NMRA is the compilation of the Rules of the Judicial Branch. An understanding of our government structure would not allow for such a mistake since the Judiciary is a co-equal branch with the Legislature and therefore in control of its operations including the Code of Judicial Conduct from which this context free redacted and red highlighted fragment is drawn. This can be best illustrated by understanding that lawyers are licensed by the NM Supreme Court and not some Executive Branch agency. This is about fundamental understanding. Without that what are the chances that you will ever get the point of the decisions based on the law you misunderstand, but let me stay off that topic lest I lose any more friends this day.

OK, maybe it will be an answer with subtitles…

Answer to Complaint for Whaaaaamages

Defendant answers as follows:

Spurious un-numbered allegation 1 (Cody Posey Sentence was “unfair”):

After watching the sentencing video (link) Defendant denies the allegations in Spurious un-numbered allegation 1.

Spurious un-numbered allegation 2 (Rage at Billy Anders Sentence):

Defendant admits that Billy Anders was sentenced to 1 year in prison on the firearm enhancement. Defendant denies that any facts are in evidence to suggest this was a capital case. The remaining parts of this rage require conclusions regarding state and county personnel rules and job descriptions then presents conclusions of law and policy which Defendant is without knowledge upon which to base an answer.

Case 1 (Timberon Airport Usurpation case):


Case 2 (Doc Collins Securities case)


[Editor’s note – The above are the 2 cases lifted from my sites in the profiles of the Cody Posey Trial Players series just prior to the opening of the trial, so there may be some bias against the Defendant on my part.]

Case 3 (STATE V. GONZALEZ, 2005-NMCA-031, 137 N.M. 107, 107 P.3d 547)

Admit as to the case was overturned on appeal. Admits that the grounds for the reversal were Defendant’s failure to instruct the jury that Gonzalez had to know that the baggie in which he was secreting water in order to defeat a work release drug test was in fact the baggie from which he got the cocaine in the first place in order to convict for bringing contraband into the jail.

[More chiming in – The too dumb to know that there is still coke in the bag even though you can’t snort it defense has legs after all – congrats Stacey “a little dab will do Mr. Tolliver” Ward]

Case 4 (STATE V. TAVE, 2007-NMCA-059, 141 N.M. 571, 158 P.3d 1014)

Admit that Defendant sentenced Tave as a 3rd time repeat felon under the law in effect at the time this case came to court. Admit that the grounds for this reversal are that the Supreme Court determined that sentencing enhancement is not a matter pending before the court prior to conviction in Shay, pending at the time of Tave 1, and therefore not subject to NM Const. Article 4 Section 34:

No act of the legislature shall affect the right or remedy of either party, or change the rules of evidence or procedure, in any pending case

Admits that Tave 2 was reversed on the grounds that upon the ruling in Shay the 10 year period counted for prior convictions in the Criminal Sentencing Act is to be counted back from the date of sentencing no matter how far removed from the conviction.

[Just can’t help it. The rulings rushed the new lighter sentences from the 2002 law change for repeat offenders on pending cases and made appealing one’s sentence a way to shave years off a sentence if it goes back for re-sentence – hooray for the people?]

Case 5 (SOLORZANO V. BRISTOW, 2004-NMCA-136, 136 N.M. 658, 103 P.3d 582)

Admit that the cause of the reversal of the grant of summary judgment was based on the appellate decision stemmed from this dicta from the opinion:

New Mexico has not had occasion in the civil personal injury arena to articulate a standard for determining when a death may be labeled a suicide.

Admit also the COA determined that without a legal definition of suicide there were genuine disputes of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment.

[Yeah I know… The case involved a mother driving her daughter home from an LC dentist who let her go before the drugs in the 3 tooth pull wore off. Subsequently she opened the door of the moving car out on US 70 and went out the door. The guardian of the Def’s. grandchildren raised this wrongful death suit. The case settled on remand with the whole thing being dismissed on a stipulated motion. Not exactly a “get a rope” kind of reversal. The bonus feature is the case was prosecuted by perhaps the most ridiculous shyster in the state, former Scot Key assistant Steven K. Sanders. You may remember Sanders as the madman enlisted by Sandra Grisham to sponsor lunatic anti-video games, never won a case, “attorney” Jack Thompson in from Florida where their Supreme Court had ordered him to a psych eval, in the incredible $600 million wrongful death suit against Sony and Cody Posey – lol.]

Case 6 (STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2005-NMCA-015 , 136 N.M. 779, 105 P.3d 332)


[Since this is the last one I beg a Mulligan. This case concerns a career criminal with dozens of convictions ranging from shoplifting to drug dealing to an armed home invasion burglary as well as a half dozen DUI’s who OD’d in front of his stepdaughter who called 911. Deputies arrived then EMS. Def. was on his way out of our world, but was transported to the hospital first. Deputy searched Def’s. pockets he says to find out the drug that was killing the def. I agree that the suppression was appropriate, but I am not heating the tar, nor plucking the feathers for Counts letting the COA decide the issue.]

By and through his Chief Critic and without any authority whatsoever other than that of “self appointed puffer fish” [J. Michael Becker] and one who ain’t about to let a bunch of subterranean darkness dwellers subvert the electoral process with red text and rotten teeth,

Michael Morris

All right, now that we have that out of the way I would like to thank those of you who have used your money to make asses of yourselves. In fact the realization that you are a group of people unconstrained by honesty in pursuit of your goals reassures me that it is even more important now that we the people of your community know who you are. If you are willing to lie and misrepresent that which you do not comprehend in order to prosecute a vendetta to what I now believe to perhaps be the detriment of the community the question then turns to what other goals you lie to attain?

Had this just been some obscure web site designed in MS Publisher 2000 that no one would ever find these people would be nothing more than a joke I would review in a paragraph, but you decided to form a PAC and buy billboards. Having those billboards, in the minds of some, gives you a certain credibility that is as undeserved as your case is contrived.

You are absolutely right when you say that I have been incredibly critical of Judge Counts. The overwhelming weight of the early evidence was that Counts trusted the lawyers too much. The high water mark in this was Counts’ realization that the entire Cody Posey case and all the attendant publicity was the direct result of perjured “expert” testimony brought by Children’s Court Attorney Sandra Grisham. This was weakly articulated in the disposition hearing, but clearly states that with the truth out the confession would have not come in and no prima facie case existed. Since that day I am told the Judge is hardworking and the cases these rubes cite show that Counts is willing to make the tough calls. No evidence has been presented that shows that Jim Counts is not becoming an excellent judge. I had yet to delve into the issue until you sillies pulled this boner. I look forward to introducing each and every one of you to my readers.