[ Editor's note: Morton appearing on Coast To Coast AM and essentially calling me a liar (of course not having the courage to directly name my website) and not offering any proof is more of the same rhetoric I and others have heard for the past few years now. Morton offers lots of fingerpointing, volumes of excuses, promises of refutation, and yet not so much as a speck of proof has surfaced. This one is easy to figure out: No evidence, no credibility.

Morton has had more than ample opportunity to prove his claims and does nothing but fail and fail. It really is quite bemusing and painful to watch, akin to someone trying to run uphill with two broken legs while screaming in pain that everything is just fine and there's no problem at all. If Morton wants to babble about his non-existent proof to reassure himself, then I'm sure we can count on Coast To Coast Am providing Morton with all the comfort he needs...no questions asked.]

" Not once did they use the truth as their defense," so exclaimed self proclaimed psychic Sean David Morton on Coast To Coast AM with Art Bell this past Saturday evening, once again falsely insinuating the UFOWATCHDOG.COM victory over Morton in court was not supported by evidence. This latest spin attempt at damage control is just more of the same disjointed and desperate rhetoric from Morton who apparently would like nothing more than to have those listening to the Coast To Coast AM broadcast and others believe that this website did not employ the truth as a defense. Morton can keep dreaming that little dream all he wants.

During this broadcast, Bell opened Morton's appearance by saying he wanted to start off by asking Morton "something hard" and referenced "various websites" and "detractors" labeling Morton a fraud. Morton was asked why he thought people were "rough" on him and Morton replied, "...it's mostly people that number one: Don't pay attention, number two: haven't read read my newsletter, and number three: make general sweeping accusations about this sort of thing."

First, it is obvious Morton and a number of others UFOWATCHDOG.COM has reported on do not like anyone paying close attention, asking answer specific questions, nor do they like anyone asking for proof. Morton's attempt to marginalize anyone with anything negative to say about him is a maneuver he often employs.

Secondly, this website has indeed read Morton's self published newsletter. Morton has been this website's best source for investigating his claims. Unlike Morton, this website does its homework. Again, Morton is attempting to make those who have anything negative to say about him out to be misinformed - this simply is not the case.

Third, while Morton can attempt to minimize this all he wants, this website has not made any "general sweeping accusations". While Morton attempts to make out this website to be nothing but a piece of debunking propaganda, those in the know, those paying attention, they know better.

Morton replied, "Um, well, because I'm one of the few guests and let me pat myself on the head a little bit, that over the course of the last thirteen years I've been uh, I've been very very honest about my track record. I print when I'm right, when I'm wrong, I try to make sure things are printed, that we have transcripts of the interviews themselves, and I'm one of the few people they can't simply point their finger at and say, well you know this guy is just wrong all the time and he's just another freaky psychic.

I have the unfortunate distinction as far as my detractors go of actually putting in print both my Delphi Associates newsletter and stating on the radio a series of of very specific predictions that have been, that have been very specifically accurate and I think it, to tell you the truth, I think it drives them crazy that I've been as right as I have been for as long as I have been right and correct and as I said..."

Bell then cut in stating, "Well, that has been my observation that you've been correct. That's what I go by."

Again, nothing could be farther from the truth and Bell once again has failed to present both sides of the story to the public, instead opting to present a one sided pep rally in support of one of his long time guests. To no surprise, listeners were never referenced to this website during the broadcast for further information.

Morton's excuse for having failed to prove his own claims in a court of law and his loss to UFOWATCHDOG.COM have ranged from filing deadlines not being met to errors of law made by the courts. Morton has yet again conjured up more excuses for not being able to prove his claims in court.

Morton's failed litigation against this website had nothing to do with filing deadlines being missed, errors of law, or other drama drummed up by Morton. You see, confusing as this may be for some, when you sue someone for slander/defamation/libel or for any other matter, you actually have to have this thing called 'evidence' to support your claim(s) in court...e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e:

ev·i·dence
Etymology: Medieval Latin evidentia, from Latin, that which is obvious, from evident- evidens clear, obvious, from e- out of, from + videns, present participle of videre to see
something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof; especially something (as testimony, writings, or objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact.

The rule of law favors those in court who actually present evidence to support their claims. It should also be noted that the level of evidence required in a civil action is far, far less than that involving a criminal action. It is much easier to prove something in civil court than in criminal court.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM's attorney filed a motion challenging Morton to provide e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that this website and its editor made any false statement of fact, which means Morton had to provide e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to prove his accusation that what this website published in regard to him was false as Morton claimed in his court filing. Morton had the mere burden of simply providing evidence to demonstrate his claims were true.

What follows is a sample of what was submitted to the court on behalf of UFOWATCHDOG.COM challenging Morton to prove his claims:

..In order to prevail on a defamation claim, [Morton] must demonstrate that [UFOWATCHDOG.COM] published false and injurious statements of fact of and concerning the plaintiff, and that such publications were made with actual malice, i.e., knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The present facts show irrefutably that [Morton], a self-professed "expert" and therefore public figure in the field of UFOs and paranormal phenomena, cannot meet this burden. Since falsity is a necessary element of defamation, [Morton] bears the burden of proving that [UFOWATCHDOG.COM]'s statements are false. "

The law clearly and reasonably states Morton has to prove his claim that a statement made by UFOWATCHDOG.COM is false. He merely has to show that one statement is false to make his case - that's it, just a single false statement. UFOWATCHDOG.COM refuted the claim of Morton's "graduate work includes earning a Doctorate in Theology". If Morton states this claim made by him is true, then the nearly effortless step for Morton to take in providing proof when challenged would simply have been to submit any of the following: his school transcripts, a copy of his doctorate degree, or a copy of his thesis. Morton claimed the following in his lawsuit:

"[UFOWATCHDOG.COM] acted with intent and malice when they printed the false and libelous statements concerning [Morton]. With ordinary and reasonable care [UFOWATCHDOG.COM] would have realized or could have discovered that the content within their webpage prior to posting were obviously false and grossly libelous as it applied to [Morton]. Furthermore, [UFOWATCHDOG.COM] published the articles and statements knowing that they were false and with a reckless disregard for whether the statements were true because [UFOWATCHDOG.COM] acted out of malice and disregard for the truth since the editor of www.ufowatchdog.com, namely, Royce J. Myers III dislikes defendant and is biased towards [Morton] for a lawsuit he instituted against [Morton's] former employer Talk Radio Network, an Oregon Corporation, et al,(*NOTE: Morton did file a lawsuit against a radio network, but this website has absolutely no connection to that network. What that babble is about is still a mystery.)...The false statements and articles contained within www.ufowatchdog.com have a tendency to injure [Morton] in his occupation because they portray [Morton] as a fraud and a sham and impune his reputation for honesty as an author, commentator, lecturer, and radio talk show host...As a proximate result of the above described publications, [Morton] has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings all to his general damage in the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000 U.S.).

Morton claimed that everything published about him at UFOWATCHDOG.COM was a lie. If this were the case, that Morton was slandered/libeled/defamed, then why couldn't he prove it? UFOWATCHDOG.COM submitted in a sworn affidavit to the court that it was indeed the publisher of the information in regard to Morton's claims. This website never faltered in standing by what it had published and stated without hesitation that no defamation, slander, or libel had taken place.

Now, if you were going to sue someone for libel, based on the theory that your claims were actually true, how would you prove it in a court of law? Just as the previous example you might start by providing copies of your alleged diplomas and official school records, among other documents. A passport and copy of a visa would be readily accepted for travel claims, establishing you were where you claimed to be in a particular part of the world during a certain time period. Documents proving you worked for someone would help, business memos, meeting notes, payroll information, contracts...it doesn't get much easier than that, really.

Instead of Morton submitting any proof of his claims, he had his lawyer arguing to the courts that UFOs didn't exist because the government said they didn't. His lawyer went as far as trying to open a channel for discovery (the seeking of evidence) when it is well established that you must have proof to support your claims prior to filing a lawsuit. Essentially, this boiled down to Morton not having any evidence to support his claims and wanting to go on a judicial fishing trip in an attempt to establish some sort of credibility with the court.

The burden of proof and providing such proof is purely objective and not subjective as Morton likes to make it out to be. You either have the evidence or you do not.

Sean David Morton has made the rounds crying foul about losing his lawsuit against UFOWATCHDOG.COM, a lawsuit he initiated by making the fictitious claim that this website maliciously lied in order to cause him harm. Needless to say, Morton utterly failed on every level to produce even a microscopic fragment of evidence in court when challenged. It's one thing to appear on a radio program and make claims, it is quite another to meet the burden of proof with clear, convincing, and verifiable evidence for all to see.

UFOWATCHDOG.COM has had its evidence put to the test, a one million dollar test. This website has continually laid its cards on the table for everyone to see. The time for Morton to do the same passed long ago. In addition to several direct invitations to comment on this website, an open invitation to Morton has been posted here for nearly four years now.

If Morton wants to publicly continue promoting his furtive allegations that this website "got away" with something or didn't prove anything, then Morton is obligated to step up with his evidence and prove his claims to the public. Morton going on the radio and making nothing but more claims doesn't cut it. Morton can continue pointing fingers and making baseless accusations, none of it will change the fact that when it came time to answer the challenge of proving his claims, Morton showed up empty handed.

Share with the public the evidence you claim to have. If Morton wants to make claims then he should have no problem backing them. Enough is enough. Let's see the proof.