The Erroneous Affidavit & Contradictory Documentation of a Desperate Plaintiff

Preface: Clark Baker has an issue with the truth; it eludes him. Nowhere is that more evident than in the documents he has provided in his Federal lawsuit against me. Personally I find that to be ironic and perversely funny considering part of the suit accuses me of defamation for calling Mr. Baker a liar. (NOTE: I have learned “liar” is potentially a legally actionable word and I have not used that word in conjunction with Mr. Baker since this lawsuit began and I am not using that word to describe Mr. Baker now.) I will, however, provide many instances in this post and future posts that will highlight Mr. Baker’s conclusory errors and I will use Mr. Baker’s own documentation to do so.

This will be the first in a series of posts that should prove to be quite fun as well as educational regarding the character of Mr. Baker.

Blogs & Conspiracies

Throughout much of this lawsuit Mr. Baker is trying to convince the judge there is a huge conspiracy against him by Big Pharma and major scientists. Mr. Baker wants desperately to convince himself the judge that his work is so important that he is perceived as a threat to the income and credibility of those out to get him. Strangest of all, Mr. Baker claims they are using me of all people to accomplish this nefarious task and save the “HIV Complex”. Mr. Baker raises this conspiracy notion several times in his 38 page affidavit with the hopes that the court will find this credible and allows him to get to the discovery phase. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker draws some creative conclusions and provides documentation that clearly prove his conclusions are erroneous.

One glaring example is in Mr. Baker’s second affidavit. He tries to tie myself and Seth Kalichman together by making the completely erroneous claim that Dr. Kalichman and I started our blogs within hours of each other. In paragraph 3 and 4 Baker explicitly states that Kalichman and I started blogs on the very same day: Kalichman with Denying AIDS & Other Oddities and me with Dissidents4Dumbees.

Paragraph 3: On 30 December 2008 at 1232 AM, University of Connecticut social psychology Prof. Seth Kalichman Ph.D created a blog he calls “Denying AIDS and Other Oddities”. His first post was a cynical tribute following the death of mother and author Christine Maggiore. (ATTACHMENT 1)

Paragraph 4: Later that same day, J. Todd DeShong (DeShong) created a blog he called Dissidents4Dumbees and posted similar false claims about Maggiore…(ATTACHMENT 2)

Perhaps Baker’s “proof” of this conspiracy is flimsy because he is not as adroit an investigator as he thinks. Attachments 1 and 2 supplied by Baker to establish the date the blogs were created (and suspiciously within hours of each other…cue ominous music) actually and very clearly refute Baker’s statements.

Both attachments display the archives of each blog. Attachment 1 clearly shows Kalichman had written three posts before the Maggiore post with the first post 8 days before her death. So, not only was Baker wrong about the date the blog was created but he was also wrong about it being the very first post.

Attachment 2 regarding Dissidents4Dumbees actually proves that I wrote 18 posts before the Maggiore post. It also shows that my first post was in October about two months before Ms. Maggiore died.

Because of the egregious and obvious error I wonder why Baker chose to claim that both of our first posts were about Ms. Maggiore’s death. It can only be because of the way Baker characterized the posts. He called Seth’s post “cynical” and said that I had “posted similar false claims about Maggiore.” Aside from collusion, Baker is clearly trying to establish that we are both bad people for writing such things about a woman who had just died as well as opportunists to seize on this tragedy. It actually proves the opposite and is one more peek into the lack of soul of Baker himself.

First of all the post at Kalichman’s site was not written by him as Baker claims. There were actually two posts, both by the LA Times. One was an article immediately after her death written factually as a newspaper would when a person in the public eye dies. I believe it is called an obituary. The second was an editorial about 5 days later. I also would not characterize it as “cynical” but that is my opinion.

What I really take issue with, however, is Baker’s attempt to impugn my integrity. The post I wrote was very respectful. I wrote many very nice things about Ms. Maggiore as well as respectfully noting our difference on the subject of HIV. But I guess it would not play into this strange narrative Mr. Baker is weaving to allow me even a smidgen of humanity.

I cannot say that Baker specifically knew that the statements he made to the court were not accurate, but it definitely shows that he is sloppy and not detailed in his work as you would expect a private investigator with over 25 years’ experience to be.

OMSJ Appeal of Sgt David Gutierrez: The Case Against HIV False Positives Due to Vaccinations

Clark Baker, along with his stable of AIDS Denialist “experts” Rodney Richards and Nancy Banks, are trying to make a military court believe that Sgt David Gutierrez is not HIV positive. The bulk of their reasoning hinges on the tired and exaggerated AIDS Denialist trope of false positives caused by cross reactive antibodies due to vaccinations.  From Baker’s Press Release of August 2014:

OMSJ expert Nancy Banks, M.D., a board certified gynecologist and sexually transmitted disease specialist, further challenged the medical evidence used to convict Gutierrez. “Even if standard FDA-proved tests had been used,” she stated, “the tests are subject to false positives for a variety of reasons, and particularly for vaccinations.”

And:

Although he was healthy and never assigned to hostile combat zones, Gutierrez cooperated with the military’s experimental vaccination program and received more than 40 vaccinations – for such diseases as anthrax, hepatitis, tuberculosis, and pneumonia, 17 of which he received in 2007 at roughly the same time he submitted to the initial HIV tests.

NOTE: There is no “Military Experimental Vaccination Program”.  You have to love Mr. Baker’s use of hyperbole and scare tactics.  But I digress.

However, Sgt David Gutierrez supplied an affidavit in his Appeal Request which clearly contradicts Baker’s Press Release. (I will summarize the pertinent information from Gutierrez’s Affidavit. I have the affidavit because Baker included it as part of Baker’s lawsuit against me. Why? That is a post for a later date.)

·         First, Gutierrez says that he received 49 vaccinations over his 20 year enlistment.

·         Second, Gutierrez says that he received an influenza vaccine in November of 2006.

·         Third, Gutierrez says 5 months later, on April 25, 2007, he received vaccines for typhoid and anthrax and had an HIV test on that same day.

Nowhere in Gutierrez’s affidavit does he say that he received 17 vaccinations “roughly the same time he submitted to the initial HIV tests.”  Let’s give more points to Baker for sheer vagueness.

None of these vaccines could be causing a false positive due to cross reactions. The typhoid and anthrax vaccines definitely could not because they were administered the same day as his blood was drawn for the HIV Test. The human body does not respond to the vaccines, produce antibodies and circulate those antibodies all in the same day. That is ludicrous. (Also, Gutierrez does not specify if the blood was drawn before the vaccines were administered or vice versa.) HERE is a good source about white blood cells and how antibodies are produced after a vaccination.

This response from your immune system, generated by the B lymphocytes, is known as the primary response. It takes several days to build to maximum intensity, and the antibody concentration in the blood peaks at about 14 days.

Your body continues making antibodies and memory B cells for a couple of weeks after vaccination. Over time, the antibodies will gradually disappear, but the memory B cells will remain dormant in your body for many years.

Clearly the influenza vaccination from November 2006, 5 months prior to the HIV test, would not cause a false positive, either. The antibodies do not persist for that long. It is widely known and accepted that the influenza vaccine can cause false positives under the right conditions. Most notably, the HIV test must come soon after the vaccination. A person will test as positive on the ELISA but the WB is indeterminate. (That’s how we know the test is a “false positive”.) This report from the New England Journal of Medicine shows that a man tested HIV false positive 11 days after a flu vaccine, but was negative when tested one month later. Therefore it would be statistically unlikely that Sgt Gutierrez would test false positive 5 months after his influenza vaccine.

This is just one more example of Mr. Baker not presenting the facts accurately and the second example from the press release. It was in this post in August where I highlighted the deceptive nature of the same press release. In that post I showed how Mr. Baker made a comment by the attorney for Sgt Gutierrez, Kevin McDermott, seem as if the appeal strategy was centered on questioning the science of HIV:

“This one case has the potential to remap the entire landscape of HIV testing and prosecution in the United States military,” said Gutierrez attorney Kevin B. McDermott, “and to halt this national injustice.”

But the full quote shows the deceptive nature of Mr. Baker’s truncated, out of context quote. (No where could I find Mr. McDermott say “halt this national injustice”. Could Mr. Baker be taking poetic license?)

The attorney for David Gutierrez said Monday his case could potentially remap HIV testing and prosecution in the U.S. military. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is expected to hear arguments this year. Attorney Kevin McDermott says existing case law reflects attitudes from the mid-1990s, and the hope is that the case will get the military up to speed on current issues with HIV.

And this longer article further proves that Mr. McDermott is not relying on challenging the science of HIV as Mr. Baker implies in his duplicitous press release:

Defense attorney Kevin McDermott said the military’s case was based on old attitudes about AIDS and the virus that causes it “and how infectious it was and how much of a death sentence it was at that particular time.” The virus isn’t as easily transmitted through heterosexual sex as once thought, he said, and people can now live a long time with it.
“Really what this case is hoping to do is to get the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and every other military panel up to speed with what is going on with HIV today and to perhaps change those attitudes and mores,” McDermott said.

Who knows what Mr. Baker’s intention is with his strange press release? But this case is high profile enough that once the dust settles, we should know the facts and how this played out. Hopefully Baker will not be able to bury the transcript in this military case.

Clark Baker Is Following My Blog & Stealing My Ideas

NOTE: A few hours after posting this, I got a comment from a friend suggesting I sounded “bitter”. I was surprised because nothing could be further from the truth. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I just find it creepy being imitated by someone like Clark Baker. I find myself continuously amazed that every time I think he has sunk to the lowest depths possible, he sinks lower. Baker makes me laugh…but I have a weird sense of humor.

Original Post

On September 1, 2014 I wrote this post about the hypocrisy of Clark Baker and his PSYCHO website. He has now outdone himself in the hypocrite-douche-of-the-year category and it only took him 9 days to do it.

The PSYCHO post told the story of how sore-loser Clark Baker lost the website James Murtagh MD dot com and put up an identical site called James Murtagh MD PSYCHO dot com. I even provided the WHOIS database information proving the site was put up by Baby Baker. On September 10, 2014, a mere 9 days after I wrote a post detailing the facts of the PSYCHO website and who created and owns it, the site was gone and has been replaced by James Murtagh MD TRUTH dot com. Does any of that URL address look familiar? Perhaps the word TRUTH?

Yep, just like my very own website, the one Baker is suing me over and wasting literally 100’s of thousands of dollars to do it (and losing at every turn), he is stealing the word that has cost him all that $$. The really sad part is that Baker does not see the irony in his use of the word TRUTH.

This time Baker is trying to cover his tracks. When I go to the WHOIS database, I found that the site is owned by Perfect Privacy, LLC. He is being a coward as usual. However, he is also displaying what a terrible, sloppy Private Investigator he is as well. I know Baker is behind this site from his facebook page:

September 11

This is just sad and pathetic and is further evidence of a mental pathology that needs to be studied and perhaps medicated. If Baker would just make an appointment with Dr. Seth Kalichman…

 

Phone Conversation with Jason Young: Former Client of Clark Baker & HIV Innocence Group/OMSJ

Back in October of 2011 I wrote a post about the case of Jason Young. This was the first case that Clark Baker actually attempted to provide proof of his involvement in any of the cases listed at his website. Much of my post involved deconstructing Baker’s grandiose claims and proving why they amounted to nothing more than hyperbole. For example, Baker claimed the prosecution miraculously and spontaneously made a plea deal from 70 years in prison to mere months out of fear of OMSJ cross examining their expert witnesses:

“But as OMSJ prepared to cross-examine the prosecution’s four expert witnesses in a jury trial next week, Aiken’s top prosecutor offered a plea-deal that could set Young free by December.” (Emphasis Baker) “Although prosecutors claimed they wanted to spare Young’s victims from the ordeal of a trial, it now appears more likely that they wanted to spare Aiken’s top HIV experts, hospitals and clinics the ordeal of being discredited in a trial that would result in a flurry of malpractice lawsuits by hundreds of Aiken’s other misdiagnosed HIV patients – including the man Brisbin sent to prison in 2009.”

As I pointed out in my original post about this case, Mr. Baker never provided one single fact or fraction of evidence to back up his extraordinary claims. Thankfully (for my funny bone) Baker did provide one example of the hard-hitting cross examination questions OMSJ would have used to destroy the “so-called HIV experts” of the prosecution:

“OMSJ planned to ask Dr. Ball if he recommended other equally-ineffective and unapproved methods – like Ouija boards and Tarot cards.”

OUCH!

Conversation with Jason Young

Almost 3 years after that post I received a comment from the defendant Mr. Jason Young. That comment lead to a telephone conversation.

(NOTE: I have provided the complete comment at the bottom of this post. I have also contacted Mr. Young twice more telling him I was planning on writing a post about our conversation and asking if he would like me to include anything specifically or if he wanted to give me more details. Mr. Young never responded to my requests. I also plan on sending Mr. Young this post before uploading it to my blog so that he has one more chance to correct me on any factual issues.)

UPDATE: I did send this post to Mr. Young and waited several days. He did not respond.

Mr. Young asked me to remove the post completely because he said that I am wrong. However, even after talking to Mr. Young and re-reading the post, I realize the only thing I got wrong was that Mr. Young received two 5 year sentences to run concurrently which would be 5 years tops not 10 years as I reported. I included the fact that the sentence included the word “concurrently” but I overlooked it and reported it as a 10 years sentence.

I replied to Mr. Young via email and set up a telephone conversation. Mr. Young was very professional and personable on the phone and he did clear up on thing: I did not give Mr. Baker enough credit for the help he provided in this case. Mr. Young stated it was indeed the affidavit by Mr. Rodney Richards that prompted the plea deal and I will take Mr. Young at his word on that. However, Mr. Young verbally told me that the plea deal came about because the prosecution did not want to spend the money to hire experts and go through the expense of a trial. That proves Mr. Baker was simply making unsubstantiated, grandiose claims when he said:
“…it now appears more likely that they wanted to spare Aiken’s top HIV experts, hospitals and clinics the ordeal of being discredited in a trial that would result in a flurry of malpractice lawsuits by hundreds of Aiken’s other misdiagnosed HIV patients – including the man Brisbin sent to prison in 2009.”

Alford Plea

I don’t want to get into the plea deal because I feel I adequately covered that in the previous post 3 years ago. However, I did want to provide another example of the unsubstantiated, grandiose claims Mr. Baker is prone to make. Baker made two statements about the Alford Plea. Both are variations and both are wrong:

“Young’s guilty plea was wholly unrelated to the medical evidence (emphasis mine) that undermined the prosecution’s case. Under North Carolina v. Alford (1970), his “guilty plea” was not an admission of guilt, but was but merely an admission that he wanted to benefit from the prosecutor’s plea agreement.”

This variation at QA.com:
“Aiken’s top prosecutor Strom Thurmond Jr. offered Young a plea deal that involved several years in prison. Young refused and Thurmond eventually reduced his offer to two counts in an “Alford Plea,” which allows defendants to plead guilty without admitting that the charges had any scientific merit. (emphasis mine) Although Young faced 70 years (life), he’s out by Christmas!”

Neither of these statements are true, although I do give Baker credit for his subtle but significant addition of “medical evidence” and “scientific merit” to his statements. The truth is really the exact opposite of what Baker states. Here are 3 definitions:

• According to University of Richmond Law Review, “When offering an Alford plea, a defendant asserts his innocence but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.”

• The book Plea Bargaining’s Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America published by Stanford University Press defines the plea as one in “which the defendant adheres to his/her claim of innocence even while allowing that the government has enough evidence to prove his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• According to the book Gender, Crime, and Punishment published by Yale University Press, “Under the Alford doctrine, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to find him or her guilty, should the case go to trial.”

“If it was not for Clark Baker my life would have been over with. I owe everything to him.” ~ Jason Young

I explained to Mr. Young that the truth is he got very lucky. If the prosecution had taken this to trial and called Mr. Baker’s bluff, it is more likely he would have spent a much longer time in prison. I told Mr. Young that every trial that challenged the science of HIV as its defense strategy lost the case. I told Mr. Young that included all 6 trials in which Mr. Baker was involved. The exception could be Sgt Terence Dixon but my sources tell me Mr. Dixon’s case had nothing to do with the science of HIV. If Mr. Baker were to step up and provide proof that I am wrong, I would be the first to admit it. But the facts and the statistics clearly show that AIDS Denial in the court room is a losing strategy.

Potential Health Consequences

The worst part of this entire saga could be coming. Mr. Young told me several times that he has taken many different HIV tests and he has gotten many different results. He was not exactly clear on this point or perhaps I just did not understand. And this is one reason I have been trying to get Mr. Young to follow up with me: I want to be clear on this. I am not only concerned with Mr. Young’s health. He told me that he has a new wife and that she is pregnant. I will not go into the possible scenarios. That is not my place or my business to try and influence a grown man. However, I do wonder about Mr. Young’s influences. I will just end with this statement by Mr. Baker:

“After a careful review of Young’s medical records, OMSJ’s team found no evidence that Young was infected with HIV.”

______________________________________________________________________________________
Complete Comment from Mr. Young:

Submitted on 2014/08/11 at 6:36 pm
My name is Jason Young and I am the defendant mentioned in this case. I am sending you this comment while I sit in from of my bank here in Georgia. Not from a prison cell. Now i have made it a point not to look on the Internet since I was released from prison but my new wife text me this link for me to read. I ask you to please remove this page and I will tell you why. You are wrong. I sat in Aiken County Jail for over 10 months, housed in solitary confinement the entire time, only allowed out of my small cell for 1 hour a day all while the courts denied my fast and speedy trial because they said their docket was to full to accommodate. My daughter, who I love with all my heart and have even worked out to me getting for 2 weeks a month with her mother was 6 months old when I was arrested. Her mother is the one who started the investigation because we were fighting over custody. Long story short, I am a Freemason, member of Phi Beta Sigma, spoke at different churches in the area, cub scout leader and coached kids soccor. Even though I was well known in the community I did not take a plea deal of “no contest” to spare anyone embarrassment. My attorney (Aaron Walsh) did not give the affidavits to the prosecution until 3 days before they offered the plea deal. And yes, my attorney told me that I would be home by Christmas. All I thought is that I’m not going into a courtroom and saying that I’m guilty of something I’m not and the paper that my attorney gave me even had a release date of December 12, 2011 if I can remember. Aaron told me that I can fight this once I get out through a PCR. Now being that I have never been in this situation before I believed everything he told me. I should not have become I took the plea as instructed and was not out by Christmas. All and all I only did a year and five months in prison. But when someone is housed in solitary confinement for no reason other then being trained by the military to escape, they would do anything they can to get their lives back. Anything… If it was not for Clark Baker my life would have been over with. I owe everything to him. But to say the solicitor offered the plea to spare the so called victims (none of witch had tested positive) is so wrong. The solicitor has tried a case just like mine 5 years before that and wanted to make a name for herself. She told my daughters mother that they were no interested in a plea deal because I was an animal that should have been stopped. That was told to her 2 weeks before the plea deal. So what is the difference between that moment and the deal???? The affidavits… So please do not sit in the outsiders point of view and act as though you were riding shotgun in the car with me. If anyone knows the truth, I would. So with all due respect sir, you are wrong… And don’t try and judge me due to this so called crime spree when even if someone does have HIV, they are no different then you or I. They are normal people who just want to be treated the same as others. On ALL levels. If they don’t disclose their status to their partner they are ethically wrong. But it has no place in any court room. Just like have hepatitis C is not a crime not to disclose then so should hiv. By allowing this to remain a crime to telling people that they are not personally responsible for their own health. When it’s your responsibility to protect yourself. Not someone else. Thank you for your time and understanding.

The Extreme Hypocrisy of Clark Baker

There is an on-going theme in the lawsuit of Clark Baker V. J. Todd DeShong: Plaintiff accusation that my sole purpose is the destruction of Clark Baker’s business. That is ridiculous, of course. My only objective when I started looking into and detailing the inconsistencies of Baker’s HIV Innocence Group/Project was to provide as much verifiable proof that Baker was not being completely truthful about his involvement in HIV Criminalization cases and the strategy used in those cases. I was obviously very successful because Baker tried to shut me down and continues his impotent charade despite losing at every turn.

Even though my intention was not to destroy Baker’s business nor his credibility that is an inevitable conclusion when dealing with a man like Mr. Baker. You see, Baker is his own worst enemy. As I made clear in this summary, Baker was either not involved or greatly exaggerating his input in 25% of the cases he lists as “wins” at his website. (And those are only the cases I could verify and provide proof.) Five of those cases involved nothing more than Mr. Baker contacting attorneys and offering help that was never accepted. Mr. Baker had the audacity to post emails from these attorneys and pass them off as proof that he was involved in those cases. I, however, have emails from all 5 attorneys stating that Baker was not involved. It is that kind of reckless ego that makes Baker his own worst enemy.

Now Baker has gone and done something that should shatter the trust of even his most ardent supporters. I had written this post discussing how Baker lost arbitration to Dr. James Murtagh over a website whose url address was Dr. Murtagh’s exact name and credentials. In that post, I pointed out how hypocritical this was of Baker to operate this site while suing me over my website that was only similar to the name of his “group”. Instead of losing graciously and maturely, Baker put up two mirror sites to continue his aggressive actions against Dr. Murtagh. The two mirror sites were not enough for Baker, he had to go over board and start a new website with the identical look, feel and information as the old site whose address was James Murtagh MD dot com. The new site address is: James Murtagh MD PSYCHO dot com.

Talk about a spoiled sport and sore-ass-loser! A site like that actually does more harm to Baker than anyone else. This is a perfect example of how Mr. Baker destroys his own credibility. All I have to do is point it out and let the reader make up his or her own mind.

Just so there are no doubts, I have confirmed with WHOIS Database that the PSYCHO website is owned and operated by Clark Baker.

Domain Name:JAMESMURTAGHMDPSYCHO.INFO
Domain ID: D53246509-LRMS
Creation Date: 2014-08-04T03:24:27Z
Updated Date: 2014-08-04T03:25:41Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-08-04T03:24:27Z
Sponsoring Registrar:TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd. (R326-LRMS)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 900
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL:
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
Domain Status: addPeriod
Registrant ID:NETREG-43899
Registrant Name:Clark Baker
Registrant Organization:Clark Baker
Registrant Street: 2645 Greenvalley Road
Registrant City:Los Angeles
Registrant State/Province:Outside Australia
Registrant Postal Code:90046
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+32.36506667
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:clark@cwbpi.com
Admin ID:NETREG-43900
Admin Name:Clark Baker
Admin Organization:Clark Baker
Admin Street: 2645 Greenvalley Road
Admin City:Los Angeles
Admin State/Province:Outside Australia
Admin Postal Code:90046
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+32.36506667

 

Clark Baker Misses Deadline to Refile State Defamation Claims Against Me

After the Texas Federal Court dismissed Baker’s frivolous trademark claims against me (holding that the complaint had not even alleged a tenable claim for infringement), it did so upon jurisdictional grounds such that it did not have to deal with the State claims. The Federal Court allowed Plaintiff Baker to refile those claims in State Court where they were “more proper”. Baker’s attorney Weitz verbally told my attorneys they planned to refile. However, the deadline passed as of August 25, 2014.

Personally I was hoping he would refile. It would not have meant more work for either side. The Federal Court explicitly said the same documents could be filed in State Court that had been filed in Federal Court.  I know there was no way for me to lose as I have done nothing wrong and I was hoping to see how badly the State Court judge would humiliate Baker. But Baker’s counsel must have finally been able to talk some sense into him regarding those claims as I am sure they knew their case had no legal standing.

So why did Baker blow off the State charges and appeal the trademark claim to the Circuit Court? One big, fat reason is that Baker cannot let go of his Conspiracy Theory that I am working with and being paid by Big Pharma and scientists such as Dr. Gallo. As I have written about before, Baker thinks he can use my lawsuit as a vehicle to depose Dr. Gallo. Or perhaps Mr. Baker needs to strike out three times to learn his lesson:

Strike 1: Arbitraton

Baker not only lost UDRP arbitration (which is notoriously favorable to trademark holders), he was also found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking; the UDRP equivalent of bad faith.

“The Panel finds Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking because it was clear Respondent was legitimately using Complainant’s mark to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.  Complainant clearly knew this before it began this proceeding.  Complainant did not disclose this obvious fact in its Complaint.”

Strike 2: Federal Lawsuit

As I said above, this case barely made it out of the gate before it was dismissed for the same basic reasons he lost arbitration. But this is even more pathetic because Baker knew I have exceptional attorneys. These attorneys schooled plaintiff counsel on the case laws in two different responses: Original and First Amended Complaint. Despite this Law School 101 they still refused to admit their case was a loser.

Strike 3: Withdrawing Appeal from the Circuit Court

I am betting that once Baker loses the current fight against paying my attorney fees he will reconsider the appeal. But on one hand, I am hoping he does not withdraw the case because I am interested to see what the Circuit Court judge would say. But on the other hand, my attorneys are working pro-bono and I don’t want them to have to do more work. But on the third hand, after they are awarded fees out of Baker’s pockets, perhaps they will be motivated. Just think how sweet it must be as an attorney to win a case and then have the losing side pay your fees! And now that Baker has missed the deadline for refiling the State Claims, my attorneys are going to file a motion for award of attorney fees under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Clark Baker Issues Press Release on HIV Appeal Case via Office of Medical and Scientific Justice/OMSJ: Neglects to Mention HIV Innocence Group: UPDATE

The appealed case is that of Air Force Sgt David Gutierrez. Baker and his group were not even part of the original defense team.  As a matter of fact, Baker admits in his own words that the US Air Force considered him and his group “frauds”:

Gutierrez said that USAF Major James Dorman and Capt. Aaron Maness told him that Baker and OMSJ were frauds and that both attorneys would quit if Gutierrez accepted Baker’s assistance. 

Appeal Defense to use Science, Not Denial

The appeal will be interesting because the defense strategy will actually focus on the orthodox science of HIV. That strategy is the antithesis of Baker’s strategy of challenging the science as “incoherent gibberish” and that HIV tests are worthless. But you would not know that from Baker’s press release where he quotes lead attorney Kevin McDermott out of context:

“This one case has the potential to remap the entire landscape of HIV testing and prosecution in the United States military,” said Gutierrez attorney Kevin B. McDermott, “and to halt this national injustice.”

Here is the full context from KSN.com:

The attorney for David Gutierrez said Monday his case could potentially remap HIV testing and prosecution in the U.S. military. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is expected to hear arguments this year.
Attorney Kevin McDermott says existing case law reflects attitudes from the mid-1990s, and the hope is that the case will get the military up to speed on current issues with HIV.

UPDATED SOURCE: And this AP article published in Stars and Stripes clearly shows the defense strategy is to use the current and accepted science of HIV: (The link to the AP Article in Stars and Stripes is no longer available. You can find the same article HERE NOW)

Defense attorney Kevin McDermott said the military’s case was based on old attitudes about AIDS and the virus that causes it “and how infectious it was and how much of a death sentence it was at that particular time.” The virus isn’t as easily transmitted through heterosexual sex as once thought, he said, and people can now live a long time with it.
“Really what this case is hoping to do is to get the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and every other military panel up to speed with what is going on with HIV today and to perhaps change those attitudes and mores,” McDermott said.

This strategy also comports with every legitimate advocacy group as well as the US Government.  Alison Yager with the HIV Law Project put it very succinctly:

These laws are frequently based on outdated understandings and unfounded fears of HIV transmission risks. They do not prevent HIV transmission or promote public health, but instead foster environments of hostility and brutality toward people living with HIV.

The REPEAL Act of the U.S. Congress also relies on the current science of HIV to change these laws.

Relying on science rather than denial is just a much more sound and winning strategy. Dr. Seth Kalichman, editor of the peer reviewed journal AIDS and Behavior and author of Denying AIDS says: “There is not a single case where AIDS Denialists actually accounted for an acquittal or dismissal. Despite their trying, AIDS denialists in courts have failed in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.”

No matter what the outcome of this appeal is, it is obvious from the above statements by the lead attorney that they are going in the OPPOSITE direction from Baker and his strategy of challenging the science of HIV.  Whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see how Baker spins it.

I have contacted Mr. McDermott twice and have yet to hear back from him.

HIV Innocence Group Noticeably Absent from Press Release

This is really surprising to me. As I have been saying for months, Clark Baker has not posted any case wins or even an update at his HIV Innocence Group site since November 2013. When my google alert brought this Press Release, I thought that had come to an end. After all, Mr. Baker has been harping about this case for two years. But there is not a single mention. Not even in the “key words” section at the bottom:

KEYWORDS: HIV criminal cases, HIV tests, wrongful prrosecutions, (sic) criminal defense attorney, criminal investigation, private investigator, private investigation service

Here is my hunch: In the lawsuit Baker lost against me, he and his attorney are continuing to be less than truthful and say that my sole intention is to destroy Baker’s business. I believe Baker is intentionally trying to make it appear as though I have succeeded in their silly fantasy that I am hell bent on destroying Baker’s business. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.