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.

Baron Coleman Affidavit: Erroneous Timeline & Facts Leads to Absurd Conclusion

In my previous post I wrote about the departure of Baron Coleman from the HIV Innocence Group and the possible correlation of its sudden demise. In that post I said I tried to contact Mr. Coleman three times to discuss his departure and he did not reply. I also mentioned the probable reason for Mr. Coleman’s lack of reply: Mr. Coleman supplied an affidavit for the Plaintiff in the lawsuit I won against Mr. Baker. In that affidavit, Coleman not only claimed that I misrepresented our one and only correspondence, he went so far as to say that I did so with the intention of “destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession.” I was going to supply the email chain in that previous post but I decided this deserved proper attention and a post of its own.

 
The only thing that is accurate in Mr. Coleman’s affidavit is the date he received the original email.
 
Here is what happened succinctly:
 
1.    September 26, 2011: I sent Mr. Coleman an email asking for information about his and Mr. Baker’s working relationship. That email was unambiguous regarding my feelings about Mr. Baker’s credibility. I gave specific examples.
2.    September 26, 2011: Mr. Coleman replied.
3.    September 27, 2011: I sent Mr. Coleman a short, two sentence email to thank him for his help.
4.    September 25/26, 2011: I wrote this post where I copy/pasted 50% of Mr. Coleman’s email verbatim. The entire point of the post was to be honest and report on cases where Mr. Baker was actually involved and his involvement was beneficial. And that is what I did. It was important for me to do so because my credibility and integrity is actually important to me.
5.    November 28, 2011: I sent an email to Mr. Coleman NOT ASKING FOR INFORMATION, but giving him information about possible defamation made by Mr. Baker about an opposing witness in the Andre Davis Case. Mr. Coleman was an attorney in that case and from my previous correspondence with Mr. Coleman I thought he was a stand-up guy and would want to know of such egregious behavior.
 
The timeline is important when you read Mr. Coleman’s affidavit below.
 
                1. My name is Baron Coleman. I over the age of 19 years and have personal knowledge of all matters contained in this affidavit.
 
                2. On or about September 26, 2011, “Jack Knight” sent an email addressed to me.
 
                3. The email stated in its entirety: (I have copy/pasted all emails below in chronological order)
 
                4. I sent a response email to the address used by “Jack Knight” indicating that I had indeed worked with Clark Baker on at least 3 cases, with Mr. Baker providing various levels of support on each of the cases.
 
5. “Jack Knight” sent a reply email to me seeking additional information in response to my response to him, but I did not reply to it. The two emails from “Jack Knight” to me and the response from me to “Jack Knight” are the only contact I am aware that I had with “Jack Knight”.
(**WRONG** the second email was only a professional, very short email thanking Coleman. The only other email I sent to Coleman was 2 months and two days later and that was only information for Coleman. I was not “seeking additional information”.)
 
                6.  Within a few days Mr. Baker contacted me to let me know “Jack Knight” had posted correspondence from me on a website. I followed a link provided to me from Mr. Baker and read the post from “Jack Knight”.
 
                7. The post contained an edited version of my email response to him and made only a passing reference of his first email to me. It did not reference the follow-up email from “Jack Knight” to me. The result was a mischaracterization of our conversation and a total absence of any reference to his negative comments to me about Mr. Baker and his profession.
(**WRONG**the post contained 50% of his email verbatim. The Coleman email was 8 paragraphs: 2 introductory paragraphs and 2 closing paragraphs with just professional niceties in those 4 paragraphs. The 4 paragraphs with the important, pertinent information were copy/pasted verbatim.  And why would I have to mention “negative comments about Mr. Baker and his profession” when my entire website is about Baker and his untruthfulness and duplicity? And I did not mention the follow-up email because that was 2 months in the future from when I wrote the post. And that email was not a request for information about Baker from Coleman.)
 
                8. The characterization of our brief email exchange was so poor that I concluded “Jack Knight” was not interested in learning the truth about my working relationship with Mr. Baker. Rather I concluded “Jack Knight” was interested in destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession by presenting a portion of my reply to him out of context.
(**WRONG**that is laughable and not even believable, especially when in proper context. I never presented anything out of context, but Mr. Coleman certainly has. Mr. Coleman should have supplied the post and his full email to the court along with his affidavit to give full context. But that would defeat his affidavit. Even if Mr. Coleman was confused about the timeline of events, his conclusion that my intention was “in destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession” is beyond absurd. What I can conclude from Mr. Coleman’s utterly dubious affidavit is that birds of a feather…)
 
Email chain. I have not redacted or changed anything. Coleman’s email I have BOLDED the paragraphs that I copy/pasted verbatim.
 
 ——– Original Message ——–
Subject: darren chiacchia
From: Jack Night <kckow@aol.com>
Date: Mon, September 26, 2011 7:36 am
To: baron@hubbardcoleman.com

Dear Mr. Coleman,
Congratulations on the Darren Chiacchia case.  I am an AIDS Activist and I am hoping you can help me regarding a man named Mr. Clark Baker of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice and the HIV Innocence Project.  Mr. Baker has publicly claimed that he and his organizations helped you and your office in getting the HIV Charges dropped in this case.  
 
Mr. Baker is an AIDS Dissident.  He asserts that his organizations get charges dropped in HIV Criminalization Cases by proving that HIV does not exist and that HIV Science is fraudulent and that HIV Scientists are in the pocket of “Big Pharma”.  Mr. Baker calls them “Pharma Sluts”.  That is the caliber of man who is using your hard work to increase his credibility.  
 
I would be incredibly grateful if you could confirm or deny Mr. Baker’s assertions regarding his help in this case. If he was indeed helpful, could you please give an example or two of the help that he provided?
 
I have spent the last few months investigating other cases where Mr. Baker has made similar claims.  My research has found that Mr. Baker is greatly exaggerating his assistance in these cases.  I have received confirmation from Attorney James Galen in Michigan that Mr. Baker was not helpful as he had claimed in a very prominent case regarding a Bio Terrorism Charge against Daniel Allen.  I have also confirmed that 3 other cases were dropped when the defendant actually tested negative (this would not be consistent with the “Fraudulent/Faulty Science” angle Mr. Baker asserts.)  There was also another case in Florida, Shan Ortiz, in which the charges were dropped due to the same precedent that helped in the Darren Chiacchia Case.
 
Thank you for you time, and I would greatly appreciate your help in this very important matter.
 
Sincerely,
Jack Night
 
—–Original Message—–
From: baron <baron@hubbardcoleman.com>
To: Jack Night <kckow@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 7:08 am
Subject: RE: darren chiacchia
Dear Mr. Knight,
 
Thank you for your interest in the Darren Chiacchia case.  My office has handled a number of criminal cases involving HIV-related charges, including the Chiacchia case, and we have received help from a number of different organizations and individuals concerning these cases.  As you know, HIV is a hot-button political issue, and there are a number of entities involved in different capacities, each pushing their side when it comes to these issues.

I am a lawyer.  As such, my sole concern is doing what is in the best interest of my client.  At times, my clients benefit from resources from one or more outside groups to help further my clients’ interests.  These resources include access to financing, medical experts, assistance tracking down documents, and encouragement and support groups for the clients.  The groups range from local HIV support groups to entities that bill themselves as national interest groups.
 
In my line of work, I would have a difficult time turning down assistance in any area that could help generate a positive outcome in a criminal case.  Indeed, our national model of criminal justice depends on an attorney seeking every ethical and legal measure at his or her disposal to assist in getting a positive outcome for each client.
 
My office does not view the support from a particular individual or group as an endorsement of every aspect of that individual’s or group’s private and professional life.  That one or more of our past supporters may have said or done something less than desirable is not shocking, just as it would not shock a politician to learn that one or more of his or her supporters has a skeleton or two buried in the guest-house closet.
 
In addition, I refuse to assign blame or credit to this group or that group for any particular case.  It is my office’s firm policy to not comment on the support from outside groups.  Some groups prefer to advertise their support and some groups prefer that it not be known they are assisting with these types of criminal cases.  Since Mr. Baker apparently does not mind voicing his support for a few of my firm’s cases, I will say Mr. Baker has provided some assistance on at least three of my cases in the past.  On two of the cases, his support was accompanied by several other HIV advocacy organizations, including local and national groups that are very much respected, mainstream, and anti-dissident.  The level of support from each group varied on each case.  On at least one case, Mr. Baker was the most helpful outside group.  On at least one case, he provided minimal support, while another outside group provided a great deal of support in the area of legal strategy and financing.
 
I do all I can to best represent each client in my practice.  I do not take a political position on the issue of HIV science or medicine, just as I do not take a political position on a personal injury or murder case in my practice.  Political positions are for others to champion.  My sole concern is my client.  If there is an effective defense I can set forth, an expert I can put up, or a source of financing I can use to further my client’s defense, I see it as my solemn and grave duty to pursue it.  To do less would jeopardize my oath and make a mockery of my practice. 
 
If you are interested in assisting with the defense of one or more of my HIV-related criminal cases, I would be glad to meet for a teleconference.  My primary needs are the development of defense theories sufficient to get to reasonable doubt, experts who can provide testimony to counter the medical and scientific experts used by prosecutors, and financing to help coordinate and pay for all of these costly matters.
 
I hope this helps provide a basic explanation of what I do.  As I have stated, it is not a political or personal matter for me.  It is only a professional matter.  Please feel free to give me a call at your convenience, if you would like to discuss this matter further.  You can reach me at 334.832.1001.  My assistant is Christopher, and if I am not available when you call, ask for him and he can schedule a time for us to meet by phone.
 
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.
 
Thanks for contacting me with your concerns,

Baron Coleman
 
G. Baron Coleman
Hubbard Coleman, P.C.
418 Scott St.
Post Office Box 781
Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0781
334.832.1001
baron@hubbardcoleman.com
 
—-Original Message—–
From: Jack Night <kckow@aol.com>
To: baron <baron@hubbardcoleman.com>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 6:47 am
Subject: Re: darren chiacchia
Dear Mr. Coleman,
Thank you so much for taking time to explain this situation.  It was a very big help.
Sincerely,
Jack
  
—–Original Message—–
From: Jack Night <kckow@aol.com>
To: baron <baron@hubbardcoleman.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 6:44 pm
Subject: Clark Baker Libel and Defamation
Dear Mr. Coleman,
I thought, as an attorney and associate of Clark Baker, you might be interested to know he is making public statements that are libelous and defamatory about Dr. Donohue (from the Andre Davis case) and Dr. Donohue’s associates.  This is from his OMSJ site:
 
Clinicians who have received thousands of dollars in “speaking fees” include Donohue Cardiology associates Christopher Allen MD, Linda Gordon and Dr. Donohue, whose practice has accepted kickbacks from Abbott Labs, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck, Reliant, Sankyo, and Schering Plough.  This month alone, GSK paid a $3 billion settlement for illegally marketing a deadly drug.
 
Making claims of “kickbacks” with nothing more than a link to a fundraiser for the American Heart Association could be consider as libel and slander.  I feel it necessary to alert Dr. Donohue and his associates.
 
Sincerely,
JK

 

 

Sudden Death of HIV Innocence Group: Baron Coleman Eulogy

It has now been nine months since Mr. Baker abruptly stopped posting cases at his website. I know the success of my website put a major dent in his case load. Attorneys are less than keen to work with people who are not completely forthright with their intentions, capabilities or results. Padding a resume with fabricated cases and outcomes is an obvious detriment for gainful employment. I have more than proven that statement is true: See this summarized post.

But I could never figure out why November 2013 was the magic month when Mr. Baker abruptly ended his supposed prolific winning streak. Now I know: Baron Coleman is no longer practicing law. Coleman was the only attorney actually affiliated with OMSJ/HIV Innocence Group.  Can you guess when Coleman stopped practicing law? If you said November 2013 you are correct. That is the date when Coleman joined with a partner to form a political consulting business called Spot On Strategies: (NOTE: all bolding mine)

Spot On Strategies Group, LLC was formed in 2013 by longtime Republican operatives Jack Campbell and Baron Coleman. Campbell, formerly a founding partner at Republican campaign and lobbying group Public Strategy Associates, decided to found Spot On so that he could focus 100% on what he loves best: electing quality candidates to office. Coleman, an expert opposition researcher, campaign strategist and lobbyist joined together with Campbell in November, 2013 and the firm has since grown into a new office and hired three associates.

And this specifically about Mr. Coleman:

Baron Coleman is a native Hoosier who moved to Alabama to attend Auburn University and has spent most of the past twenty years in Alabama. A graduate of Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, Ind., Baron has significant nationwide trial experience and has tried cases in state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Baron now devotes his full efforts to campaigns and government affairs. He approaches campaigns like a lawyer preparing for a trial. He depends on meticulous and thorough research and zealously pursues victory for his clients. He develops a message and a plan to stay on message and get the message out.

Baron teamed with Jack Campbell and formed Spot On Strategies Group to be one of the most creative and aggressive campaign consulting groups in the area. They quickly expanded to five employees in a matter of weeks. Within a month of their founding, they already had become one of the largest political consulting groups in Alabama.

Mr. Coleman is also part of a local TV talk show.

Mr. Coleman has moved up to bigger fish. It’s obvious that his new careers give him little time to play fool-the-court with his old buddy. Whether the split was amicable and to what extent it had on Baker’s swift decline is still a mystery. I have sent Mr. Coleman three email requests to discuss his departure from Mr. Baker. Mr. Coleman did not respond.

Mr. Coleman filed an affidavit on Baker’s behalf in our current lawsuit falsely claiming that I misrepresented our one and only correspondence. I was going to discuss why Mr. Coleman is wrong but I decided it was so important that I would devote my next post completely to proving that Mr. Coleman is mistaken. After reading the full email exchange and the post where I  copy/pasted 50% of Coleman’s email verbatim, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that I absolutely did not misrepresent our correspondence. That post is written and will be up in two days. For Coleman to supply an affidavit whose truthfulness will fall apart under careful scrutiny must mean that he and Baker were close at one point. In light of our difference of opinion regarding our previous correspondence, I do not hold out much hope for Mr. Coleman to respond.

However, it is hard to deny the link between Mr. Coleman’s new business venture in November 2013 and the abrupt end to Baker’s pet project at the same time. Perhaps Mr. Coleman took a closer look at the meticulous detail of this blog and realized it would be better to no longer be associated with a man perpetuating a fringe theory when you are trying to get people elected to a conservative office. Of course the way the Republican Party and the Tea Party are going, it might behoove Mr. Coleman to get back into business with Mr. Baker.

The Effect on Other Cases

When I found out Coleman was no longer practicing law I decided to look into the case of Olympic Equestrian Darren Chiacchia. This is probably the most high profile case for Baker and his group. It is also a great case that proves Baker’s anti-HIV science strategy is more hype than reality. Baron Coleman originally won due to a precedent set in a previous case interpreting a specific Florida statute that “intercourse is between a man and a woman”. It had absolutely nothing to do with challenging the science of HIV or the testing methodologies which is the hallmark of Baker’s strategy. Of course Baker never advertised the real reason behind the acquittal.

As I reported in February, the State of Florida appealed the Chiacchia case and it is set to be retried this Fall. Of course Mr. Baker never reported the appeal loss nor has he mentioned that neither Coleman nor Baker himself is part of the new defense team. I have been in contact with Mr. Chiacchia and when his trial is over I will be able to report on some very interesting details. The fact that Coleman is not part of the new defense team could be attributed to his new business venture. However, Baker’s absence is because Chiacchia’s defense will go in another direction to put it mildly.

The Chiacchia case is not the only case Mr. Baker claimed he would appeal. Most notably there is the case of Sgt David Guiterrez. In that case Mr. Baker accused the US Air Force of incompetence and worse. Mr. Baker has bragged a great deal about this appeal in the past but there have been no updates for months. There are also the cases of Nushawn Williams and Craig Lamar Davis. Mr. Davis was even supposed to be tried in a second county but Mr. Baker seems to not be involved with that case either. In both the Williams and Davis cases Mr. Coleman was second chair.

Is it possible that the novelty of this little group has worn off and the narcissists have moved on to another shiny object? If so, their clients are much better off. But what does that say about Baker’s little exercise in futility and the expectations one should put into his future endeavors? After all, his Project Letterhead sure went over like a lead balloon. ($1,500.00…just to start the process is pretty steep. I will have more about this later.) For now, we all need to ask ourselves is what happened to Baker’s pet project?

 

Clark Baker Files Appeal in Wrong Jurisdiction: Loses Murtagh Website

The last few posts I discussed how Clark Baker lost arbitration for a website that seemed to be a venue meant to cast aspersions upon the character of Dr. James Murtagh. Of course Mr. Baker did not want to abide by the ruling and filed an appeal. But he got sloppy and filed in the wrong jurisdiction. That has got to be more than a little embarrassing for a man with such a stellar legal background. It is also understandable given the stress Mr. Baker must be under at the moment. He lost the case against me and is now fighting to not have to pay my legal fees (which will increase his own legal fees.) He lost several battles against Murtagh already and now this. The silence from Mr. Baker is deafening.

Here is the email:

Subject: RE: (TR) D2014-0711 <jamesmurtaghmd.com> Notification of Decision [tkt:1089759]
Date: July 29, 2014 at 10:39:57 AM CDT
To: Domain.Disputes@wipo.int, redacted, redacted, redacted.
Hello All,
Please be advised that our legal team has reviewed the received complaint regarding the court proceedings recently submitted to Networksolutions.comand they have been detemined to be invalid due to it lacks the proper venue/jurisdiction where the complaint would have needed to be filed  — Pennsylvania or  Florida.
The domain name has been transferred to the complainant pursuant to the standing UDRP arbitration board’s decision.
Please let us know if you have any additional quesitons or concerns regarding the transfer.
Sincerely,
Timothy Last name redacted
Fraud and Abuse Agent
12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West  |  Jacksonville, FL 32258
Office: (404) redacted  | FAX: (904) redacted

Clark Baker Loses Domain Arbitration – 2 Mirror Sites Appear UPDATE: Email from David Pardo

UPDATE: Soon after this post appeared I received an email from David Pardo. He is mentioned as the owner of one of the mirrored sites. Mr. Pardo took issue with a few things that I said. In the spirit of fairness and to show that I am not reticent to considering other view points, I have copy/pasted the second email from Mr. Pardo. In the first email Mr. Pardo made his objections. I responded by asking him to state specifically what was inaccurate and to supply the corresponding documentation. I was impressed with his response and professionalism. I also see that I could have said things a bit differently. Instead of changing what I wrote, I thought it would be good to leave the original and to supply Mr. Pardo’s response in full at the bottom of this post. (I apologize for the formatting of Mr. Pardo’s email. It did not paste to this site with the formatting with which he wrote it.)

Original Post

This is an outrageous development and is indicative of Mr. Baker’s pathology. In my previous post I detailed the domain name arbitration of Murtagh V Baker. In that case Baker was the defendant and he lost on every count. Because Mr. Baker does not know how to lose graciously he has filed an appeal. The appeal allows Baker to legally retain control of the domain name for a little bit longer.

Baker knows from personal and past experience that the appeal is a definite loser. (Maybe that is why he is desperately using the same arguments and case laws my attorneys used to beat the pants off of him.) There is one problem with Baker’s strategy of using my defense as a template for his: Baker is on the wrong side of the law. Trust me on this. I have dealt with this particular issue twice and won both times. I have studied the ruling of Murtagh V Baker. I am quite familiar with the law at this point. But Baker obviously likes to learn things the hard, expensive way. It is not quite clear whose money he is wasting, however.

Mirror Site One

Mr. Baker may be a sore-loser but he is not short-sighted. That is where this sad tale becomes outrageous. Mr. Baker can see the writing on the wall and once all of his appeals are played out, Baker will have no choice but to surrender the website. That is why there are now two mirror sites with the same old documents that tell the same old one-sided tale.  And this tale has one goal: The annihilation of Dr. Murtagh’s credibility and employment. Why else would Baker have gathered all these Public Records in one place and made a website with Murtagh’s full name and Medical Doctor Credentials? Quite simply: Baker wanted potential employers to find the site when doing a background check. Murtagh also alleges that Mr. Baker contacts his employers. I have no reason to doubt this accusation because Mr. Baker has contacted my employer on several occasions and has even bragged about it on-line.

The website that Baker operates is a smear site masquerading as a “Public Service”. It is obvious that the site amounts to nothing more than a childish personal vendetta: That is if the child is a 62 year old ego-driven ex-cop with more money than integrity. Unfortunately this is not child’s play.

Baker’s new site is called Propagandists.org and is obviously a Baker site. This is at the bottom of every page:

An OMSJ Public Service © Copyright 2014

The site also has a lofty objective:

Propagandists.org is a public service blog. Our intent is to identify the corporate influence between the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, and the social marketers, thought leaders, politicians, celebrities, bureaucrats, and academics they own and control.

That is quite an endeavor for a one-man show. What makes it even more ridiculous is when you start browsing the site. Take for example the “Propagandists” that Mr. Baker has prioritized as the 5 most important/diabolical:

  • Magic Johnson
  • Dr. Lokesh Vuyyuru
  • David Bender aka Kevin Kuritzky (B/K)
  • Jon Entine
  • Dr. James Murtagh

Besides Magic Johnson, those are some of the most notoriously influential people the world has never heard of. Maybe that is why they are so sinister! You would also think that each person would have a huge, detailed dossier explaining why they are so terrible. You would be wrong.

  • Johnson and Vuyyuru each have only a few paragraphs.
  • B/K has only IV Roman Numerals. That is surprising because Baker seems to hate B/K as much or more than he hates Dr. Murtagh. Baker probably does not focus on B/K because there is nothing Baker can do to him. B/K has ruined his own life all by himself: There is no meat on that carcass for Mr. Baker to enjoy.
  • Etine has only VII Roman Numerals that do not add up to much evil.
  • Murtagh is the star Propagandist for sure. There are pages and pages of court documents and wild allegations, but very little is actually substantiated. What really stood out to me and highlights why Baker is sorely lacking in credibility, truthfulness and integrity is that none of Murtagh’s wins are listed. Not one, single win. Painting such a one-sided picture of Dr. Murtagh is further proof that this is just a personal vendetta.

But Baker is not one to post anything that contradicts with his carefully constructed (false) narrative. You will not find any of Murtagh’s wins such as the sanctions or arbitration or Baker’s humiliation by the Texas Medical Board. Nor will you be able to find any defeats against the HIV Innocence Group. (And Baker has lost every, single time at trial). You will not find my two wins or Richard Jefferys’ win against Celia Farber. To this day, this is still posted at Baker’s OMSJ and HIV Innocence Group sites:

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Farber Libel Suit:  Case Continues

Well, guess what, the case is over and Farber suffered a humiliating defeat. And Baker’s affidavit was also a major source of ridicule for the judge. But you will not find a factual update any where on any of Baker’s many sites. The above post at Baker’s site is from November 2010. One year later in November 2011 the NY Supreme Court ruled against Farber. But that information is noticeably absent from any of Baker’s sites.

Mirror Site Two

And Baker is not alone in this little adventure. David Pardo proudly acknowledges being the owner and operator of the second mirror site:

Welcome to Murtagh v. Baker, a website chronicling a 2013 lawsuit filed in California by Dr. James Murtagh, a doctor and former Emory University professor, against Clark Baker, an honorably-retired USMC sergeant, LAPD officer, and licensed private investigator . This site is owned and operated by David Pardo, a lawyer and advocate for whistleblower rights based in New Mexico. David has interacted with both Dr. Murtagh and Mr. Baker and is a witness in the lawsuit. He has no financial or attorney/client ties to either party,* and his interest is in ensuring that the truth emerges and an honest record is preserved.

Mr. Pardo sounds like a real stand-up guy. He is a witness and only wants the truth and an honest record of the events. I can’t argue with that. But what is that tiny, little asterisk for?

*The California court tentatively ruled on July 10, 2014 that preliminary inquiries by Dr. Murtagh formed the basis of a consultation with David over a few days in June 2012. David was not a party to the litigation and would challenge this finding if he were. Nevertheless, none of the evidence presented or linked in this site stems from the June 2012 discussions.

Well damn it, David, you just lost me. You see, that is not exactly the whole truth. What Mr. Pardo neglects to fully explain is the “tentative rule” by the California State Court. In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned. When Pardo says “he has no attorney/client ties to either party” he is also being misleading. In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.

I mentioned the sanction in my previous post but left out the name of Pardo. It was not relevant at the time. This new mirror site operated proudly by Mr. Pardo has changed my mind. It is highly relevant. Here is what the court had to say in granting the sanctions. Notice Mr. Pardo is named three times in a very short document: (NOTE: The Court of California refers to this person as “PRado” and the correct name is “PaRdo”.)

“Defense counsel Mr. Lorant will return the CD produced by Mr. Prado no later than 5/29/2014. The letter to Prado must be copies to plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel Mr. Lorant and Mr. Weitz are not allowed to open the CD, share it  with their client or use any email communication contained in the CD, unless these emails were already in the possession of defendant  and the burden is on defendant to prove to the Court that any of the Prado emails that defendant intends to uses were already in the possession of the defendants.”

In other words, the Court of California says that Pardo/Prado, whether he admits it or not, is subjected to Attorney/Client Privilege with Dr. Murtagh. In the eyes of the Court of California, Pardo/Prado did represent himself to Dr. Murtagh as an attorney when Dr. Murtagh asked for the help of Pardo/Prado. Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker. In my humble opinion, this gives me pause regarding Pardo/Prado’s intentions and credibility.

Pardo also said in the asterisked comment above, “David was not a party to the litigation and would challenge this finding if he were.”  But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events. And as the judgment above makes clear, the California State Court believed Murtagh’s version leading the Court to sanction Baker. That is a big deal! Furthermore, if Mr. Pardo provides another affidavit in the appeal; he will indeed be challenging the “finding” even though he is not an actual “party to the litigation”.

Perhaps Mr. Pardo is a neutral witness who is only interested “in ensuring that the truth emerges and an honest record is preserved.” After all, those are his words. But his other words below seem to expose a darker, more sinister interest:

As a witness to the lawsuit, David can attest that Dr. Murtagh fabricated evidence by impersonating Mr. Baker and defaming himself, planting the evidence, and then capitalizing on this to harass Baker and file suit against him.  

That single sentence is the best, most succinct description of a one-man conspiracy theory that I have ever read. Pardo missed his calling as a pulp fiction/film noir style writer. It is obvious from this statement that perhaps Mr. Pardo is slightly biased.

The following sentence is a vague promise to provide proof:

A detailed breakdown of Dr. Murtagh’s extortionist methods leading to this lawsuit will be made available here.

The problem is, when you click on the link, it takes you to multiple, rambling posts that the reader must sift through to find the supporting proof. I would think that if Mr. Pardo was going to make such a serious accusation he would want to provide a few, specific examples. He should not require the reader to sift through mountains of poorly organized posts. I believe he does it because he has no definitive proof. Mr. Pardo admits as much in his very first sentence of the section dedicated to Murtagh’s “extortionist methods”: (bolding is mine)

The following post is one example of strong circumstantial evidence showing that Dr. James Murtagh engages in a pernicious habit of planting evidence by impersonating others, defaming himself, and then trying to use that evidence in subsequent lawsuits to shake down his targets.

All of this “circumstantial evidence” hinges on emails sent from an address similar to Mr. Baker’s own address. I have no idea if what Mr. Pardo accuses Dr. Murtagh of is true. But I do find it curious that he has gone to such lengths to target Dr. Murtagh I find it even more curious that Pardo uses the same tactics as Baker. Hell, his website even uses the same template.

These are some very, very strong accusations. Why would Mr. Baker, an incredibly talented Private Investigator with 30 years of experience and 1000’s of felony arrests and prosecutions, (as Baker himself loves to extol) not be able to prove that Murtagh sent emails from a bogus address? Instead Mr. Baker puts up a website full of accusations.

Where is the proof? Why can’t Mr. Baker write one single expose carefully detailing his accusations and supply the proof? If Mr. Baker were such a great PI and Dr. Murtagh were so evil, all these different innuendo laden websites would not be necessary. If Baker put as much time, effort and work into investigating as he puts into making these websites, then he might have some actual evidence.

Loyalty or Shill?

Why is Pardo so concerned with all of this when he is not “part of the litigation”? Why has he taken it on himself to put up a mirror site? Why doesn’t Mr. Baker just turn the original site over to Murtagh and make an entire new site? Maybe Baker is not even a part of this site. Maybe Baker is tired of the fighting and non-sense and wants nothing to do with this mirror site. After all, Pardo readily admits, “this site is owned and operated by David Pardo.” Naturally Mr. Baker’s fingerprints are all over this mirror site. Every article has a hyper link to Propagandists.org and has this qualifying statement:

Reposted with permission from www.propagandists.org:

As I wrote above, this is posted at the bottom of every page of the Propagandist site:

An OMSJ Public Service © Copyright 2014

It’s obvious that Baker is involved in both mirror sites. It’s obvious that Baker has a personal vendetta against Dr. Murtagh that has gotten way out of control. It’s obvious that this all needs to stop and people need to get on with their lives and do something productive for society. Or focus on your own family. But stop this personal bullshit. Grow up.

UPDATE: Email from David Pardo in it’s entirety. 

Dear Mr. DeShong,
I would say the offending statements of fact are as follows:
Statement #1: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned.”
Statement #2: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.”
Statement #3: “Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker.”
Statement #4: “But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events.”
Statement #1: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned.”
The problem with Statement #1 is that it’s a mischaracterization of what happened. On May 27, 2014, the court sanctioned one of Mr. Baker’s attorneys $1,000 for issuing subpoenas to witnesses without providing a copy to the side. The attorney said that a change in clerical staff was the source of the inadvertent mistake. When I received the subpoena, I complied with it insofar as I did not send to Baker any documents that stemmed from a purported consultation period in June 2012, but I provided documents that were not otherwise privileged. I am not a member of the California bar. Was I supposed to know California’s unique rules of civil procedure better than Baker’s attorney? So you can see why I might find your statement misleading.
Sources: Dr. Murtagh’s May 2, 2014 motion for sanctions, Baker’s May 14, 2014 response, Dr. Murtagh’s May 19, 2014 reply, and the court’s May 27, 2014 order.
Statement #2: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.”
On July 10, 2014, the Court tentatively ruled that I owed an attorney/client privilege duty to Dr. Murtagh. It did not rule that I broke this duty to him, or that I gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.
If your argument is that the judge ruled this on May 27, 2014, when she sanctioned Baker’s attorney, that makes no sense. Why would she rule that a duty was violated weeks before finding that the duty existed?
Further, Dr. Murtagh’s attorneys have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths for months about this issue: that (1) I gave to Baker Dr. Murtagh’s “entire litigation file,” including privileged documents, but (2) that I also withheld privileged documents and created  a “privilege log.” (They argued the latter when trying to prove that a duty existed.) So which is it? Did I disclose everything or not? The burden here is actually on Dr. Murtagh to prove that I gave confidential information. The burden on you is to substantiate that assertion of fact, if you’re going to make it in public. That burden stands even if it requires you to pore over the litigation record. I can’t prove a negative (that I did not violate the duty), Mr. DeShong, but you need to prove the positive if you’re going to make it.
Sources: the July 10, 2014 tentative ruling in your possession; my June 27, 2014 declarations; Dr. Murtagh’s June 17, 2014 motion for protective order and his attorney’s declaration
Statement #3: “Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker.”
See response to Statement #2
Statement #4: “But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events.”
This is why I asked you if I discussed what I could and could not talk about in my declaration to the court. If I am only allowed to discuss my conduct related to the representation “to the extent reasonably necessary” to defend myself, it follows that it’s not necessary to talk about it online – only in court. You need to know the rules of professional conduct to make sense of this, specifically Rule 1.6. But this is the reason why only some documents appear online and not others. Believe it or not, it’s to protect Dr. Murtagh’s rights and to abstain from violating my duties. I take my attorney ethics seriously, even in this adversarial context. I would disclose everything I filed if it was permitted. I don’t have anything to hide.
Sources: my June 27, 2014 declarations
Add-on statement #5: “Furthermore, if Mr. Pardo provides another affidavit in the appeal; he will indeed be challenging the “finding” even though he is not an actual “party to the litigation”.”
This statement is incorrect as a matter of law and is likely opinion, so I am not challenging it. It’s just an FYI that some of your opinions related to legal issues can be easily corrected with research or, I don’t know, reaching out and asking questions. You have my email address now.
That’s all. It would be an upstanding thing to correct your post in light of this new information. You don’t need to worry about a defamation lawsuit, although I think the legal grounds exist. It would be a waste of time all around. Do whatever your conscience compels you to do.
Best,
David

 

Re-Thinking AIDS Denialists Celebrate Deaths of AIDS Researchers on Downed Malaysian Flight

This post is way off topic for this site. However, I am so disgusted by this that I had to show just what these people are really like. When an AIDS Denier dies they accuse the orthodox of “dancing on their graves”. The thread posted below was taken directly from the Re-Thinking AIDS facebook page the day after the crash and shows the hypocrisy of such accusations. I should also note that anytime an AIDS Denier dies, their fellow denialists invariably attribute their deceased comrades death to illegal drug use such as heroine and crystal meth. But that is a post for another time.

There is also a different thread discussing the possibility/probability that the plane was shot down because these researchers were going to blow the whistle on the AIDS Fraud.  I don’t have enough space for that amount of crazy.

Prepare yourselves. This will make you cry for humanity.

The Malaysia Airlines plane crash in Ukraine has reportedly claimed the lives of some of the world’s top medical researchers, who were heading to Melbourne.
SMH.COM.AU
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.