False Attributions and Anonymity – Protecting Ourselves and Our Sources

Lost Messiah, May 29, 2016

Dear Readers, Critics, Contributors, Colleagues, Friends and Followers:

Today we were contacted by a few people who were apparently alleged to be directly linked to Lost Messiah. We were not provided details nor do we know the individuals in question.

This is not the first time someone has tried to place ownership of this site on one person or a group of people; and we are fairly certain it will not be the last. 

As many of you are well aware, anonymity has its reasons and its benefits. Authors write books under pseudonyms and bloggers post as anonymous posters to protect their identity for whatever the reason. We here at Lost Messiah have decided to follow that path and fight daily to keep it that way. 

We do not begrudge others their anonymity and we would be grateful if whomever is posting attributions would show us the same respect.

To the gracious persons who sent us emails today, we highly value our anonymity. We wish to remain as such and would therefore not attribute our site to anyone. We apologize to you for any inconvenience and are making these comments publicly so you can provide them to whomever is falsely linking you to our site or our site to you.

Many of our posts have been provided to us by email or through our tips page and we will only post an attribution or a “hat tip” when asked to do so or when we are explicitly given permission to do so. Otherwise anything you send along will be posted with great thanks, unending appreciation and a level of protection we work hard to insure.  

Finally, any emails you send to us are privileged. When you contact us, please keep that in mind. While this site is a blog, we try to hold ourselves to the same level of journalistic integrity when it comes to our sources as professional journalists. While we reserve our rights to some editorial latitude, we will not edit the work of our contributors unless they wish us to do so. Unless explicitly permitted to do otherwise, we will not divulge a source unless by virtue of court order, written permission, law enforcement demands or other legal directives, and will only then do so under protest and after we have given our source sufficient notice to apply whatever legal means he or she may have available. 

We thank you for your readership, tips, criticisms, contributions, ideas, patience and passion. 




  1. LM
    You have no intentions of “effectuating change.” You simply have a score to settle, as do Wigmore, that silly attorney and his ilk that post their venomous rhetoric regularly on all hate blogs.

    • Score to settle? And, what might that be? As for Wigmore, he criticizes us as much as he reads us but has some fairly reasonable comments. You follow Wigmore around? And, why scout these blogs if you don’t like them? Perhaps it is you who needs to find something better to do with your day.

      • Dear Sir,

        My mother is an unwilling/ neglected patient at Hopkins and my compaints to medicare and the department of health showed no results. I believe that Hopkins is not treating people, shuffling them off to the hospital to die and the various hospitals don’t care. If I can help at all with exposing Hopkins, please let me know.

  2. There is nothing noble in your work. You’re likely another lazy spiteful bum with too much free time.
    Cowering like a pervert caught with his pants down, hiding like a criminal being chased by the cops is proof that your motives are impure.

  3. “Finally, any emails you send to us are privileged. . .[we] will not divulge a source unless by virtue of court order, written permission, law enforcement demands or other legal directives. . .”

    I would urge you to get legal advice to explain the meaning of “privileged” to you as this is not it.

    • @ wigmore, we did.

      “A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters’ privilege. This privilege involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most of the 50 states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.”

      This is the second or perhaps third time you’ve mistaken us for fools who do not do our research. Perhaps it is you, sir, who needs to do yours. The last time it was Fair Use. Feel free to try again, though.

      New York State has shield laws and Bloggers arguably apply. So long as we are not protecting criminals, all is good. If we decide to protect criminals who provide us with information we will check that one specifically. In the meantime…

      Any other comments?

      • Sure, several more comments. First, don’t get your knickers in a twist.

        Quoting Wikipedia is pretty weak but doing so without attribution is really low rent. You say, “This is the second or perhaps third time you’ve mistaken us for fools who do not do our research.”

        I wouldn’t call you a fool for what you ORIGINALLY wrote but this last statement is foolish. If you believe that you are covered by a shield law (and it’s unclear to me that you are since I don’t know where you are), then you would NEVER write that you would divulge privileged information based on “law enforcement demands.” The whole point of a shield law is for a professional journalist to be able to refuse the demands of the police.

        One of the things Shmarya was good at was to occasionally ask for the input of several professionals who posted on his website like me or RJB for legal opinions. We graduated law school and are attorneys. That is automatically more learned in the law than someone who is not similarly qualified.

        As to Fair Use, I have no idea WTF you are talking about but I’m sure you have it filed away somewhere.

    • Oh Wiggles. Sigh. You don’t need to know the venue or jurisdiction of the blog owners to address Fair Use or anything else, about which you said “I have no idea WTF you are talking about” (yes, Wigs, you’re right, you have NO idea. You ole silly, you. It’s federal, in Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

      As to journalist and/or reporter privilege, you got confused with the privileges generally known to the masses such as Attorney/client, doctor/patient, clergy/penitent. Come on Wiggles, expand your world. Organizations and committees that address freedoms of a free press deal with this all the time. Review the law as to response to subpoenas and how that relates to codified and habitual press relations with sources, reporter privilege.

      Finally, Shmarya never asked you or Robert for an legal opinion. Lol. Who would do that??? I remember having to explain simple legal tenets to you. You didn’t even know the dif between bail and bond. Take some Continuing Education classes por favor.

      • dh, my favorite scumbag,

        Learn some English usage. By saying I did not know what LM was talking about I meant that I did not know where the subject of Fair Use had come up here. I certainly know what Fair Use is.

        I am also very well of journalist privilege. And if LM believes he has one, he should NOT ever turn over information simply on request of law enforcement.

        As to what Shmarya asked and to whom, did you hack his email?

        Finally, there is nothing about the law you can explain to me nor would I want an explanation.

        Why don’t you attend some CLE, particularly one on the standards of civility? There’s a lot you need to learn. Perhaps you should also investigate the sources of all this hostility you have.

        • Oh, Wiggles. Yeppers. I def have hostility, you ole duff, you. But not against an old fuddy duddy. You’re just trying to be relevant. But if you can’t be nice to your hosts (notice the plural – you should be more thorough and read more on the administrators. Then behave or leave.

        • to wigmore::
          you are on pretty thin ground interpreting “law enforcement demands” to mean the “demands of the police.” the demands of the police.
          Maybe to them “law enforcement demands” means the police with a court order. Maybe the FBI, maybe the DOJ or maybe…Which doctionary did you get ‘law enforcement demands” definition from that you are attributing to the owners of this site? At the very least they deserve poetic license to define such a vague term and they’ve put potential tipsters on notice so they’ve covered themselves if that was even necessary in the first place. But your nitpicking that term as if …is quite unbecoming.

          • Apologies for the typos and repeats in my previous post. My glasses were gone and I was rushing out. I think the point was clear, nonetheless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s