Clark Baker & OMSJ Money Beg; What Happened?

On February 25 I wrote this post detailing Celia Farber’s request for donations to Clark Baker and OMSJ at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page to help with his legal battles. Farber’s post garnered lots of enthusiasm from the dissidents and promises to financially help Mr. Baker with the supposed legal onslaught against him. Here is how Ms. Farber hyperbolically described it:

OMSJ is under heavy heavy fire, meanwhile, from pharma-funded lawsuits and harassment.

They are trying to crush Clark. He can crush right back if he has the money. He needs lawyers to fight back against a barrage of bogus lawsuits.

Of course there is no “barrage of bogus lawsuits” against Baker (although he may be facing some deep shit and have to explain his questionable tactics and practices to multiple agencies, but I can’t discuss that at the moment.)

The legal battles that Mr. Baker is facing are not “pharma-funded” nor are they “harassment”. The only harassment suit is the one Mr. Baker filed against me. And there is no pharma money funding me; my attorneys worked pro-bono.

Nor does Mr. Baker “need lawyers to fight back.” Baker is well insulated with a coterie of attorneys. Baker also has a good friend, David Pardo, who is an attorney and has partnered with Mr. Baker in questionable websites to harass and defame Dr. James Murtagh, which I have discussed here. I believe Mr. Pardo would be glad to help Mr. Baker with his legal battles. (Pardo may even find himself to be a co-defendant at some point regarding those websites.)

I am not sure why Ms. Farber has such trouble telling the truth and why she feels the need to create details that do not exist. It would seem that if she is asking for money for a worthy cause she could do so on the merits of the cause.

Just a few days later Ms. Farber announced that she was moving swiftly toward launching a website dedicated solely to funding Clark Baker and OMSJ:

Celia Ingrid Farber The crowd funding page for OMSJ is underway. Likely to launch Monday.

February 28 at 1:40pm

Then there was no update for almost two weeks. The next time Farber updated the RA dissident crowd she said the site was being held up because they were working on a video. Unfortunately I did not screen grab that update when I read it and by that afternoon the update was gone and so was Farber’s personal facebook page. This seems to be a pattern with Ms. Farber. She gets excited about a project or a cause and hypes it, but nothing becomes of it. I do not know if this is just another example of this pattern or if other factors were involved, but the website has yet to materialize.

So what happened to this Crowd Funding Website that Ms. Farber was so excited about? Perhaps the fact that 9 days after Farber first announced this crowd funding idea the Fifth Circuit Court ruled in my favor and forever ended Mr. Baker’s frivolous lawsuit against me. Perhaps my short post announcing the ruling and detailing the exorbitant amount of money Mr. Baker wasted had some effect. I don’t know. But I do hope this post re-invigorates Ms. Farber and she will launch this site. I for one cannot wait to see if the RA dissident crowd steps up financially to help Mr. Baker. I know that Bobby Russell asked for money and in 8 months has received a whopping $705 from a total of 14 people.

I am dying to see if Mr. Baker has lost all credibility with the RA dissident crowd as he has with the legal community.


Clark Baker & OMSJ Lose Again; Fifth Circuit Affirms the Legality & Legitimacy of this Website

Clark Baker tried to steal my First Amendment Rights and my websites on three occasions and he lost all three times. It has cost him at least $200,000 and counting and the humiliation of 3 legal entities: Arbitration, Federal District Court and now the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which writes:

 While we accept all well-pleaded facts as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we do not accept “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions” as true.

     Based on a careful review of the record, the parties’ respective briefs, and the relevant district opinion, we conclude that the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was properly granted on Baker’s Lanham Act claims. Because the district court’s careful analysis thoroughly explains our reasoning, we need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result. We therefore AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons as the district court.

While this ruling exhausts all of Baker’s legal avenues against me, this is still not over. My attorneys are asking the court for fees of over $50,000 just for defending me against his original baseless suit.

I would like to thank my attorneys who worked very hard on this case and did all their work pro bono!

Paul Alan Levy

D. Gill Sperlein

Neal A. Hoffman

Gary Krupkin

These men all believe in Freedom of Speech and answered this Popehat Signal within hours without knowing me just because they believe in the First Amendment! I would not have been able to defend myself without this Dream Team and I can not thank them enough for their hours of hard work and patience while walking me through this stressful and lugubrious process!

As I wrote above, the request to have Clark Baker pay fees in this lawsuit is on-going. If you believe in justice, the First Amendment and want to see Clark Baker held financially responsible for bringing a suit that he knew was frivolous and baseless, please DONATE HERE!

Thank you!

Sgt David Gutierrez Appeal: Clark Baker’s Spin Machine

The ruling in the appeal of Sgt David Gutierrez came down February 23. I waited until now to write about the decision because I wanted to see how Clark Baker would spin it. I am actually a little surprised that most of the spin has come from other sources, most notably Henry Bauer and Elizabeth Ely, but I will get to that in a moment.

Mr. Baker’s Personal Spin

I. Mr. Baker only left one comment at each of the major outlets that reported this story. That comment was mostly to brag that OMSJ was responsible for bringing about this appeal. That is true and I reported that fact back in December when oral arguments where heard in this appeal. Baker’s original complaint was of legal incompetence against the defense team because they declined Baker’s offer of assistance. However, Mr. Baker has failed to mention that his accusations of legal incompetence were dismissed as being untrue as I also pointed out via this military document.

“The record clearly rebuts the appellant’s claim that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance. The convening authority appointed an HIV expert to assist the trial defense team, and the expert actively participated in pretrial interviews of the Government’s expert who, as a result of challenges by the defense expert, modified her opinions concerning the likelihood of transmission during various forms of sexual activity in favor of the appellant. A voucher shows payment to the named defense consultant for over 16 hours of consultation and records review. The specific error claimed by the appellant that his trial attorneys proceeded without expert assistance is simply incorrect. Rather, the appellant’s argument is essentially a request to try the case again with a different expert. Having considered the record of trial and the post-trial submissions of counsel, we find that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing that his counsel were in any way deficient under the standards of Strickland.”

Although the court dismissed this portion of the appeal request the appeal did go forward on the allegation of legal insufficiency of the evidence. So for that reason, OMSJ can be given credit. However, it must not be glossed over, although Baker and all his Spin Doctors have done so, that the appeal was won on the science and not any obfuscation of the science.

II. The major issue I have with Mr. Baker’s spin is one short sentence in Baker’s Press Release:

Testimony from OMSJ defense experts established that the likelihood of heterosexual HIV transmission is close to non-existent, while the military’s own medical expert admitted that HIV transmission is “unlikely to occur when there is only a 1-in-500 chance of occurrence.”

This is an outright fabrication. There was no “testimony from OMSJ defense experts”. The only evidence considered in the appeal was from the original trial and from oral arguments in the appeal. Don’t forget, as I just wrote above, this appeal came about because Baker’s offer of assistance was declined by the defense attorneys in the original trial. OMSJ’s pseudo-experts did not factor into this appeal or the decision. This is just shameful and one more example of what a fundamentally dishonest person Mr. Baker is.

The Spin Doctors – Ely and Bauer

That brings me to the rest of Baker’s Spin Machine; Elizabeth Ely and Henry Bauer. Ely did an interview with the defense attorney Kevin McDermott on her seldom heard podcast How Positive Are You? Mr. McDermott had some less than flattering comments about the original defense team and he said they put on a poor defense. However, McDermott contradicted his assessment of the original team by saying that they basically had no options. McDermott admitted that there was no way they could win. McDermott said the lower court was never going to overturn the precedents to clear Gutierrez and only the appeal court would do that.

McDermott also contradicted his opinion of the original defense team because he used much of their same strategy in his own oral arguments regarding transmission rates and Viral Load. In his oral argument McDermott quoted from the original transcript. If the original defense was so inept, why did he duplicate much of their strategy and work?

Legal Success Thanks to Science

This is a good place to definitively state that this appeal was a legal victory due to overturning shitty case law and it was all predicated on science. This appeal victory had nothing to do with Baker’s Denialist Strategy that “HIV tests are worthless ” or that “HIV science is incoherent gibberish”. The oral arguments can be heard here and they discuss Viral Load, transmission rates and the fact that HIV is now a chronic manageable disease thanks to HAART. The final decision is here and it is clearly based on transmission rates from HIV expert Donna Sweet and the CDC, footnote #4:

4 We note that Dr. Sweet’s testimony is consistent with information on HIV transmission risk published by the Centers for Disease Control. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (last updated July 1, 2014).

The decision also has this interesting and relevant footnote #3:

3 At the threshold, Appellant contends in his brief that he has never been validly diagnosed with HIV, and submits post-trial affidavits challenging his diagnosis. Appellant did not challenge the fact of his HIV diagnosis at trial, and is not entitled to relitigate an essential fact of the case before this Court, which is limited to reviewing “matters of law.” Article 67(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(c) (2012).

Although this is a great decision and a big step forward in bringing these laws into the 21st century, it should also be said that David Gutierrez acted irresponsibly, selfishly and with a complete disregard for his sexual partners. Just because the statistic risk of infection may be 1 in 500, that does not mean infection could not happen the first time or every time, for that matter.


This last little bit of spin is so ridiculous and over-the-top it should be easily dismissed. However, I thought it would be fun to end on Henry Bauer’s blog post. The title, while completely false and misleading, shows just how prone to hyperbole our favorite Loch Ness hunter can be:

HIV/AIDS Theory Cannot Stand Up In Court

The facts have been crystal clear for a long time, that HIV/AIDS theory is bankrupt and has done and continues to do enormous damage to innumerable people (The Case against HIV). But people cannot be forced to look at or admit facts — except (at least sometimes) in court, where HIV/AIDS experts can be cross-examined and their misguided beliefs exposed as such.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Celia Farber Makes Money Beg for Clark Baker & Gets Facts Wrong As Usual

Celia Farber has enlisted the supposed 8,000+ members of ReThinking AIDS facebook page to donate money for Clark Baker’s OMSJ. Unfortunately Ms. Farber is not being forthcoming with the facts. Farber writes:

OMSJ is under heavy heavy fire, meanwhile, from pharma-funded lawsuits and harassment.

They are trying to crush Clark. He can crush right back if he has the money. He needs lawyers to fight back against a barrage of bogus lawsuits.

Translation: Clark Baker has gotten himself into a legal pickle and needs your help to pay the piper.

In 2013 Clark Baker filed arbitration against me to steal my First Amendment Rights and my websites. He lost on all three counts and was found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, the UDRP equivalent of Bad Faith.

Because the arbitration was not binding, Baker was able to pursue a lawsuit which he did in Federal Court, no less. That suit was dismissed because it had no legal merit.

Because Mr. Baker has more guts than sense (or money) he appealed. Now Mr. Baker needs you to foot the bill; a bill of $98,000+ and counting. That figure was just for the original suit.

So please, do donate to Mr. Baker’s lost cause. OR if you want to save some time, just make your checks out directly to my Pro-Bono attorneys. You can find them in the previous link explaining how Mr. Baker’s Federal Lawsuit was dismissed.

Also, there is no “barrage of bogus lawsuits” and my attorneys are not “pharma funded”. They are working pro bono because they believe in justice and Freedom of Speech. I am the little man here and Baker is (or was) the heavily funded yet delusional conspiracy theorist chasing ghosts rather than defending himself with facts and proof.

Also, the case Farber listed is not an OMSJ case and it was won based on solid science. I will be writing about the case soon.

Celia Ingrid Farber

This was an OMSJ case. It sets a precedent and should go a long way toward decriminalizing HIV transmission cases, across the country. Hundreds are still in prison serving life sentences.

OMSJ is under heavy heavy fire, meanwhile, from pharma-funded lawsuits and harassment.

Open question: Can this community raise money to help OMSJ fight back legally? I asked Clark what would help and he said if 1,000 people could give $5 a month it would be VERY helpful.

Eduardo Mateo, are you interested in leading a fundraiser for OMSJ?

The highest U.S. military court’s reversal of a Kansas airman’s aggravated assault conviction for exposing multiple sex partners to HIV at swinger parties in Wichita…
  • Celia Ingrid Farber They are trying to crush Clark. He can crush right back if he has the money. He needs lawyers to fight back against a barrage of bogus lawsuits. If everybody can help, raise the energy, raise the money, he has a fighting chance.
  • 14 hrs · Like · 4

Celia Farber on Anecdotal Evidence and Scientific Literature

Celia Farber is using her facebook page to promote a platform that “anecdotal evidence” is just as worthy and valid as rigorous, peer reviewed scientific research. Unfortunately her attempt actually proves why anecdotal evidence is often unreliable. Ms. Farber accomplishes this by letting her emotions and bitter distrust of authority override the logic of her argument.

Celia Ingrid Farber

February 9 at 10:59am · Edited · 

Something’s not quite right with people who are totally rejecting of “anecdotal” evidence.

It smacks of such inferiority, when you say it like that, “anecdotal evidence.” It really sounds like the lesser form of evidence. Tinged with shame.

But in my work as an investigative journalist I have never found real people to be lying about what happened to them. How exactly can truth and history progress, if not through the lives and voices of people, the afflicted, the witnesses?

Those who want to boil it off and go straight to the “scientific literature,” surely you understand this is your anxiety about the truth and not a problem with the truth itself?

Truth emerges from people and voices.

You start there.

By the time the story appears in the “scientific literature” the truth is no longer raw or moving. So you have to merge these two, always (anecdote and literature.) But in a world of bought “science” and Lysenkoist “media,” no study can be quoted without first examining the soil of the study, that is to say, who and what funded it, and what were the impediments to it being purely “scientific?”

Do people realize that pharmaceutical companies exert such financial power that they not only own the doctors writing the papers, they may literally have hired the writers, as ghost writers, then paid doctors just to put their names to it, and in many cases, own or are buying the very publishing company that publishes these journals, as well as the “media” reporting on them, and even (now) the schools producing the new generations of “science journalists,” who understand, unlike previous generations, what the heinous term “responsible journalism” means.

(Accurate and inaccurate are the only valid terms for journalism. You’re not in charge of social life or mass behavior.)

Here Ms. Farber is really making two distinct, separate arguments. The top half of her comment is saying that people and families actually affected by trauma/vaccine injury/disease, “the afflicted, the witnesses”, deserve to be heard. That is a noble and true sentiment on the surface. Unfortunately Ms. Farber conflates this sentiment with her obvious distrust of science and authority thereby stripping her argument of credibility and revealing the truth behind her frustration in the bottom half of the comment.

The bottom half of Ms. Farber’s comment is just hysterical conspiracy theory. For her conspiracy theory to be reality would require not only Big Pharma to be omniscient and all powerful but it would also require the vast majority of scientists and doctors to be abhorrent, repellant human beings with no soul. According to Ms. Farber, these disgusting attributes would also be part and parcel of every reporter, journalist and publisher. Casting such a wide net of heinous aspersions means that this part of her argument can be dismissed as the tantrum of a bitter ex-journalist who ruined her own career and never attempted to reclaim it.

However, the top part of her comment is intriguing and worthy of discussion: Are anecdotal evidence and scientific literature equal?

I believe anecdotal evidence is often unreliable for several reasons. Most importantly correlation does not equal causation. When something bad happens in life we have a basic need to make sense of it and assign blame. When we are feeling emotional from the trauma of losing a loved one we try to rationalize it and reach for whatever makes sense to us and makes us feel better about the situation. But the reason we chose, the one that seems the most obvious, is not necessarily correct.

A great way to really delve into anecdotes versus science we need only look to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). This is a passive surveillance reporting system which means anyone can make a report and there is no one to vet the claim. I’ll let Moms Who Vax explain it:

VAERS is the place where doctors, patients, and really anyone else can report what they suspect to be side effect of a vaccination. The CDC and the FDA co-sponsor this data base, and they use it to monitor possible vaccine side effects. When certain patterns or clusters of similar reports appear, public health officials investigate these events and make appropriate recommendations. For example, in 1999, VAERS caught a higher than expected incidence of intussusception—a bowel disorder—following adminstration of RotaShield, a rotovirus vaccine. Epidemiological studies confirmed the heightened risk of this side effect, and the vaccine was pulled from the market.

(Please make note of that, anti-vaxxers. The U.S. Government actually pulled a money making vaccine from the market because it caused harm.)

Just from that description you might be able to see how this system could be misused. And I do not mean intentionally misused (although that may happen occasionally.) I do not believe that most people intentionally give false information. I have to agree with Ms. Farber when she wrote:

But in my work as an investigative journalist I have never found real people to be lying about what happened to them.

And that is why science is so important. Science strives to be impartial. Science is not about emotion. The purpose of science is to get to the facts devoid of emotion or any preconceived ideas. That is where Ms. Farber’s comparison falls apart. Ms. Farber is again correct when she writes:

By the time the story appears in the “scientific literature” the truth is no longer raw or moving.

The scientific literature is not like biographies or fiction; it is not meant to be “raw or moving”.

Here are some examples from the VAERS showing the anecdotal evidence reported and the subsequent results of the scientific investigation. Here is one from Moms Who Vax taken word for word from VAERS:

“Information has been received from a nurse practitioner concerning a patient’s nephew, a 17-year-old male consumer who she “thought” was vaccinated with a dose of GARDASIL (lot number not provided) in November 2010. The nurse practitioner stated that two weeks after the patient received the dose of GARDASIL, approximately November 2010 (also reported as “two weeks ago” on approximately 01-APR-2011), the patient died of sudden cardiac death on the lacrosse field. Unspecified medical treatment was given. It was unspecified if any lab diagnostic test were performed. The cause of death was sudden cardiac death. Sudden cardiac death was considered to be immediately life-threatening and disabling by the reporting nurse practitioner. Additional information has been requested.”

This example shows that the person making the initial report said the patient had recieved the vaccine “two weeks ago” when it was actually 5 months before death. The person who initially reported this did not intentionally give false information.

Here is another example from The Poxes Blog taken directly from the VAERS:

“”Brother states patient developed “”Transverse myelitis”” from the MMR vaccine then the patient “”Fell down and died””. Developed paralysis in legs one week after shot. 8/11/08-records received for DOS 12/12/07-1/6/08- DX: Paraparesis secondary to transverse myelitis. Death secondary to pulmonary embolism. Admitted for evaluation of lower extremity weakness for 2-3 weeks, with shooting pain in feet on 12/14/07-balance difficulties noted, tingling in left upper extremity prior to hospitalization Upgoing plantar reflex noted on right side, lower extremity reflex loss at ankles and left patella. Autopsy refused by family.”” “Lung cancer 2 years with chemotherapy 8/11/08-records received- NCV abnormal evidence of primary muscle disorder. Glucose elevated, AST and ALT elevation of 144 and 177. MRI normal. CSF leukocytosis. Culture negative. on 1/6/08 began hypo” (Report cuts off.)

Here we have a possibly distraught and grieving brother who claims his brother got an MMR and then he just “fell down and died.”  But the investigation shows the patient died months after the shot and had lung cancer and died of a lung embolism.

Those are just two examples and if you peruse those two blogs above or the VAERS you can find many more examples where the family made a claim that was drastically different from the investigation. But because Ms. Farber first got me thinking about this subject, let me close with a couple of examples that display Ms. Farber’s penchant for emotional hyperbole. Maybe this will shed light on why she is not the authority on why anecdotal evidence is on par with scientific research.

Celia Ingrid Farber

Yesterday at 12:49pm · Edited · 

You know who would have really understood what is happening to us here? How we are becoming desensitized barbarians amidst CDC generated measles scare propaganda (that they utterly failed to produce on behalf of those afflicted by brain damage or “autism” following vaccinations, or the thousands of dead babies (“SIDS”) or the hundreds of dead teenage girls after Gardisil, etc etc? (emphasis mine)

Celia Ingrid Farber

February 1 at 9:22pm · 

The vaccination based, Pharma-based, chemical-laden, fearful, nature hating, death focused industries (emphasis mine) are still functioning but they are not the future.

Life is the future and they are a parasite that humanity is shedding. (emphasis mine)

Lest you think I am being too hard on Ms. Farber, I will leave you with a taste of how she feels about those who disagree with her. And I will let her own superior, judgemental, condescending words speak for themselves:

Something’s not quite right with people who are totally rejecting of “anecdotal” evidence. Those who want to boil it off and go straight to the “scientific literature,” surely you understand this is your anxiety about the truth and not a problem with the truth itself?

Because Ms. Farber knows you better than you know yourself. And she’ll tell you so.

Article in Texas Lawyer About Baker V DeShong

This article discusses the potential for this case to set precedent regarding award of attorney fees to prevailing defendants in trademark cases. The article also discloses that Baker’s own attorney says Baker’s original lawsuit “is an off-the-planet bizarre set of facts.”

Sane Vs Crazy. Rational Vs Demented. My Conversation with Elizabeth Ely

It was with great reluctance and trepidation that I agreed to be interviewed by Elizabeth Ely for her podcast, How Positive Are You? Remember, this is the woman who in June of 2014 had a very emotional public meltdown because two people made a personal healthcare decision for themselves and their newborn baby. Her histrionics were so over the top and disturbing that a former dissident felt the need to discuss it.

Because of some recent outrageous and untrue comments she made about me, I requested that she have me on her show (where she had made the untrue statements) so we could clear this up. When she surprisingly invited me on, I made it clear that I only wanted to find common ground. I told her I thought it would be in the best interests of both dissidents and orthodox alike to stop perpetuating the myth that the other side were monsters and animals: I made it clear that we should acknowledge our common humanity.

Well, it went over like a fart in a space suit.

After about 40 minutes that slowly devolved into Ms. Ely going off topic and putting words in my mouth, she finally ripped off her mask to reveal her true self. And it was not pretty. As a matter of fact, she should be embarrassed and ashamed.

Ms. Ely called me a sociopath several times and doubled down on her horrendous accusation. She also said that my first blog, Dissidents4Dumbees, was solely a vehicle to disparage a dead woman and her dead baby; meaning Christine Maggiore and Eliza Jane Scovill.

At first I laughed at her ridiculous accusation that I was a sociopath. But after she continued with that assertion, doubled down and then said that completely horrendous lie about Christine Maggiore and EJ, I hung up on her.

Elizabeth Ely is one of the most prominent and vocal of the dissident group. How can anyone take a group seriously with such an emotionally unhinged and soulless person representing them?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.