If the guy could not be bothered to defend himself in court- where he would face penalties for misleading and outright lying, I am not going to ask him to explain himself. Why would you ask a con man to explain to you what he had a chance to explain to a court but refused? It was a default judgment against him. The press release states "The defendants never properly answered the allegations in the complaint. Instead, the Mortons filed dozens of papers with the Court claiming, for instance, that the Commission is a private entity that has no jurisdiction over them, and that the staff attorneys working on the case do not exist."
Does this sound like a man whose word you want to take at face value? (For which matter, does it sound like a man who is likely to have returned the money to his victims?) He had ample opportunity to give his side of the story in a forum that would be judged and where he was legally prohibited from lying and refused. If a con man refuses to give his story to the court I see no reason why I should be expected to believe him if he chooses to give his side of the story on his own podcast.
Sorry- but I think we are going to be stuck on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. I will accept the court ruling that he is a con man who defrauded investors. Again, I point out that we are not talking about somebody who has reformed years ago and repented. We are talking about somebody who was convicted earlier this year.
Coast to Coast had it's name tied in with Morton in news paper articles and by the SEC. It could be that Art does not want to risk having his name tied in with Morton by giving him a platform the next time something like this comes down. It could be that he is protecting himself and not just his listeners. Either way, I am glad that Morton was cancelled.
What value do you believe that Morton would bring to the program that is worth Art risking his name and the financial well being of his more gullible listeners to bring on Morton (or is it just a matter that we should learn to forgive as a society and that he should not have to pay for his crimes with more than a month or two of people refusing him a platform?)
As I said, I think we will be on opposite sides on this one. I am happy not to hear Morton and see no reason to waste my time calling a known fraudster and asking for his side of the story in a forum where he controlls what is said and what his listners hear. On the other hand, if you are worried that he is getting an unfair shake, call and ask. I would email him the questions and post the answers here, but he has taken his site down...