Has Clark Baker Stalked or Harassed You?

Clark Baker, pedophile and sex offender, has a history of stalking, pinging and harassing people on line and in their private lives. His history is much more extensive than previously thought according to this newly discovered website.

If you have had any problems with Clark Baker, please leave a comment on this site and I can get you in touch with attorneys currently suing him.

 

 

 

Clark Baker: No Contest to Child Porn Possession & Officially a Sex Offender

From NBC Los Angeles

A 61-year-old retired Los Angeles police officer was sentenced Thursday to five years of formal probation for possessing child pornography, and was ordered to register as a sex offender for life.

Clark Warren Baker must also attend 52 weeks of sex offender counseling, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert C. Vanderettold the defendant he will be subject to search and seizure conditions, including for electronic data and devices.

Baker could have faced up to three years in prison. He made an open no contest plea to the court on May 13 and did not negotiate a sentence with prosecutors, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

Prosecutors said images of child pornography were discovered on an external hard drive during a search of Baker’s Los Angeles home last Nov. 28.

He was arrested at that time and released on $20,000 bail. The case was investigated by the LAPD Juvenile Division’s Internet Crimes Against Children Unit.

From LA Times

A former Los Angeles police officer was sentenced to five years of probation on Thursday after pleading no contest to possessing child pornography.

Clark Warren Baker, 61, must also attend 52 weeks of counseling and register as a sex offender for life, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said in a news release.

Baker was arrested in April after a prior search of his Hollywood Hills home turned up an external hard drive that contained child pornography, investigators said. He pleaded no contest to one felony count of possession of child pornography in May and had faced up to three years in prison.

Baker was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1980 to 2000, a department spokeswoman previously told The Times.

The former officer was convicted of battery in 1992 after he was accused of slapping, kicking and dragging a 21-year-old Salvadoran immigrant while assigned to the Valley’s traffic division. An internal LAPD review board had previously cleared him of misconduct charges stemming from the case.

Baker’s conviction was later overturned by an appeals panel, which ruled a prosecutor improperly made reference to the Rodney King trial and turned Baker’s case into a referendum on police reform at the time.

Times staff writer James Queally contributed to this report.

Clark Baker To Be Sentenced June 21 on Possession of Child Porn

Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey News Release

Media Contact:
Paul Eakins
Public Information Officer
213-257-2000
PEakins@da.lacounty.gov
Twitter: @LADAOffice
May 13, 2019
Man Pleads No Contest to Possessing Child Pornography
A Los Angeles man pleaded no contest today to one felony count of possessing child or youth
pornography, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office announced.
Clark Warren Baker (dob 8/26/57) entered an open plea to the court, which means a sentence was not
negotiated with the District Attorney’s Office.
Sentencing is scheduled on June 21 in Department 31 of the Foltz Criminal Justice Center. Baker, who
is a retired Los Angeles Police Department officer, faces a possible maximum sentence of three years in
state prison.
Deputy District Attorney Angela Brunson of the Cyber Crime Division prosecuted case BA476751.
On Nov. 28, 2018, images of child pornography were discovered on an external hard drive during a
search of Baker’s home, the prosecutor said. The case was filed for arrest warrant on April 8.
The case was investigated by the LAPD Juvenile Division, Internet Crimes Against Children Unit.
About the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey leads the largest local prosecutorial office in the nation. Her
staff of nearly 1,000 attorneys, 300 investigators and 800 support staff members is dedicated to protecting our
community through the fair and ethical pursuit of justice and the safeguarding of crime victims’ rights.

 

 

Clark Baker, Accused Pedophile on NBC News Los Angeles

Just for fun, watch this news clip from May 1 about Clark Baker thinking he was leaving his arraignment on Child Porn possession and then re-arrested for Contempt of Court issues in Murtagh V. Baker.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Former-LAPD-Officer-Charged-in-Child-Porn-Case_Los-Angeles-509353162.html

This arrest relates to my post of August 24, 2018. Justice is slow but eventual!

 

 

Clark Baker Arrested for Child Pornography

This should rock the AIDS Denialists’ World! Their one time Golden Boy appears to have a thing for little boys…or girls. The article doesn’t specify but I’m sure all the sordid details will come out soon! This could not have happened to a nicer guy!! LOL!!!

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-former-lapd-officer-child-porn-charge-20190424-story.html

Former LAPD officer accused of possessing child pornography

A former Los Angeles police officer has been accused of possessing child pornography, court records show.

Clark Warren Baker, 61, was arrested this month and charged with one count of possession of child pornography, roughly six months after police searched a residence associated with him in the Hollywood Hills, officials said.

Los Angeles police officers arrested Baker on April 10, according to online jail records. He posted $20,000 bond and was released the same day, records show.

Attempts to contact Baker were not successful Wednesday, and it was not clear if he had an attorney.

An LAPD spokesman previously told The Times that detectives had searched Baker’s home on Greenvalley Road and “taken possession of some computer equipment” in November 2018.

Baker was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1980 to 2000, according to a department spokeswoman. She declined to comment further about the investigation into Baker or his work history, and a spokesman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office could not provide additional information on the charge.

Baker is set to make his first appearance in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom May 1.

The former officer was convicted of battery in 1992 after he was accused of slapping, kicking and dragging a 21-year-old Salvadoran immigrant while assigned to the Valley’s traffic division. An internal LAPD panel had previously cleared him of wrongdoing.

Baker’s conviction was later overturned by an appeals panel, which ruled a prosecutor improperly made reference to the Rodney King trial and turned Baker’s case into a referendum on police reform at the time.

 

Clark Baker May be Going to Jail for at Least 90 Days

The case of Murtagh V Baker is coming to a close and the judge, Sheri Bluebond is considering filing Civil and Criminal Contempt charges against Clark Baker:

September 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1539: Hearing to: 1) determine Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees & costs in connection w/ multiple Motions; 2) conduct hearing on whether to impose upon Baker any of the additional sanctions referenced in paragraph 4 of the June 26 Order (collectively, the “Continued Matters”), namely whether to:

  • a. hold Baker in civil contempt and issue additional orders intended to compel compliance with its orders;
  • b. refer Baker to the United States Attorney for criminal prosecution for the Data Reduction, as defined in the June 26 Order; and/or
  • c. issue a report and recommendation to the District Court that Baker defendant be held in criminal contempt and incarcerated for a period of not less than 90 days as punishment for his failure to comply with this Court’s orders.

The September 27, 2018 hearing will be a holding date; the Court will schedule further briefing and hearing on the Continued Matters after it has received and reviewed the report of the neutral expert.

Second Joan Shenton Documentary, Testing Times, Should Be Called Testing Truth

In my previous post I was highly critical of a documentary by Joan Shenton,  a writer and filmmaker focusing on AIDS Denial propaganda. As I said in the previous post, I am utterly shocked at the level of deception and lack of truth in her films. And this latest film is more duplicitous than the last.

The film is called Testing Times and the focus is stated by narrator Joan Shenton:

“Is the HIV test reliable? Or, is the science behind it desperately flawed?” ( mmmm, smell the bias)

Ms. Shenton breaks the film down into three parts:

  1. The Thinkers
  2. The Scientists
  3. The Lawyers

1. According to the film, The Thinkers are Robert Crumb, “internationally renowned cartoonist” and Martin Barnes, “a thinker, writer and member of ReThinking AIDS.” These are not exactly the credentials one expects in a film dealing with such a complicated issue. However, it doesn’t really matter here because neither man offers anything to substantiate their baseless opinion:

“There’s no such thing as a positive test, really. Because they don’t know what the protein components on the virus are because they have never isolated the virus.”

2. The section of the film entitled The Scientists is a master class in contradictions as well as duplicity. Ms. Shenton states:

“Our two thinkers were first influenced by the scientists who originally challenged HIV as the cause of AIDS.”

The scientists who Ms. Shenton highlight in the film, Peter Duesberg and The Perth Group (Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Valender Turner) contradict each other in the way they “challenged HIV as the cause of AIDS.” Duesberg believes HIV exists but it is not pathogenic whereas Perth Group do not believe HIV has been proven to exist at all. However, the film never broaches this profound difference and leads the viewer to believe the scientists are on the same page.

Furthermore, Peter Duesberg contradicts the entire premise of the film because Dr. Duesberg does claim that HIV has been properly isolated as well as  genetically sequenced “by the most rigorous method science has to offer”. Ironically, this opinion was in response to Perth Group claiming HIV had not been properly isolated. Therefore, Dr. Duesberg’s belief would validate orthodox science that the protein components of HIV are known and that HIV tests are not deficient for this reason as the “thinkers” stated.

The fact that Ms. Sheton never addresses this glaring dichotomy between her “scientists” is proof that this film is straight up propaganda.

3. The last section, titled The Lawyers, is so egregiously deceptive and untruthful that it is further proof that this film is nothing but propaganda and Ms. Shenton has zero credibility.

Ms. Shenton presents three people who supposedly all received False Positive HIV tests:

  • Terry Hedgepeth
  • Audrey Serrano
  • Jenn Morson

Out of these three people, Hedgepeth and Serrano sued and won multi-million dollar settlements. Ms. Shenton emphasizes these two stories hoping to drive home the severity of receiving a false positive test. However, none of these stories live up to scrutiny.

Terry Hedgepeth was not the victim of a false positive HIV test:

According to court records and interviews with attorney Jonathan C. Dailey,  Hedgepeth went to Whitman-Walker after his then-girlfriend, with whom he had been sexually active, told him that she had AIDS and feared that she had infected him.

The test at the clinic, he would later discover, was negative. But a clinic employee mistakenly wrote in Hedgepeth’s files that he had taken two tests at the clinic and that one of them was positive. Then, a doctor at the clinic failed to carefully review Hedgepeth’s chart and instead began counseling him about the virus.

Here is another source:

In the underlying case, Terry Hedgepeth went for an HIV test in late 2000 at the Whitman-Walker Clinic, now called Whitman-Walker Health, because he had just learned his girlfriend was HIV-positive. A blood test showed Hedgepeth was not HIV-positive but, due to a “human error,” the lab results form was filled out to mistakenly list him as positive.

Clearly the example of Mr. Hedgepeth should not have been in this film as his predicament had nothing to do with the quality of the HIV test nor the science behind it. Remember, in the beginning of the film, Ms. Shenton stated the purpose of her propaganda film:

“Is the HIV test reliable? Or, is the science behind it desperately flawed?”

To further emphasize the false narrative horrible predicament of this man, the film shows a clip of Hedgepeth’s attorney, Jonathan C. Dailey, railing angrily against HIV tests, package inserts and laying the ultimate blame on Big, Bad, Stingy Pharma. Dailey ends his harangue by claiming that a huge class action lawsuit is the only remedy to stop these false positive HIV tests. Again, Mr. Dailey’s client was not the victim of a faulty HIV test.

The story of Audrey Serrano is not as cut and dried as that of Mr. Hedgepeth, but it is equally dubious (as well as suspicious). Ms. Serrano did not sue the clinic where she got the initial HIV test, she only sued Dr. Lai, the doctor who treated her. Dr. Lai did not work at the clinic that administered the initial HIV test:

Serrano’s ordeal began in 1994 after an anonymous test at a clinic in Fitchburg showed that she was HIV positive. Serrano and her attorney, David Angueira, say they are unsure whether the initial test was a false positive, or if it was a record mix-up.

A doctor at the clinic in Fitchburg put Serrano on medication intended to contain the virus without conducting separate tests to confirm the diagnosis, said Angueira.

The entire story is worth reading because it is complicated and very suspicious. Adding to the intrigue is this:

Under cross examination, Lai said she never saw a document that proved conclusively that Serrano was HIV positive. Serrano refused to permit her to contact her former physician directly for more information and never signed a form that would allow other doctors to release medical records to her, Lai said.

Why would Serrano refuse to let Dr. Lai contact her former physician or get any past medical history? Despite the complicated nature of Ms. Serrano’s ordeal, it is certain that this should not have been included in a documentary questioning the validity of HIV tests. This was added simply because of the legal aspect and the amount of money awarded to Ms. Serrano. Adding this to the film is duplicitous at best.

Lastly we have Jenn Morson. A woman who tested false positive (9 times…I’ll get to this later) on her initial screening test. Ms. Morson was pregnant at the time. This is important because it is widely known that pregnancy is the #1 cause of false positive HIV tests. However, even this is not very common:

According to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, about 1 in every 20,000 HIV tests renders a false positive. 

There are three issues in Ms. Morson’s story that prove her OB/GYN was a bad doctor and is really the one to blame for her patients’ problems:

1. Pregnancy is known to cause false positives on the initial screening test. Her OB/GYN should have known this, but did not.

2. The test result was for HIV2 which is not even found in North America. The OB/GYN should have known this, but did not.

3. The OB/GYN never ordered a confirmatory test.

A follow-up visit with my OB only ratcheted up my anxiety. I told her my research had turned up cases of false-positives in pregnant women, but she was fixated on my failure to disclose my status. When I asked about HIV-2 — the type I supposedly had — she didn’t even know what it was. Instead she handed me a prescription for antianxiety pills and sent me away.

Ms. Morson had to contact another healthcare professional to get the proper confirmatory test which proved she was HIV negative. That is what all AIDS Denialists ignore when they talk about false positives; the confirmatory test. And Ms. Shenton ignored that bit of the story as well. Also, I believe Ms. Sheton chose this story because of the hyperbolic article written by Ms. Morson herself. The title alone is hyperbolic as well as misleading:
How I Tested Positive – Nine Times – While Pregnant
Of course Ms. Shenton’s narration in the film emphasized the “nine times” to make it even more ominous and scary. However, upon reading the article, it is obvious that Ms. Morson’s blood was not drawn nine, separate times as Ms. Shenton would have the viewer believe. Instead, Ms. Morson means that her original blood draw was tested nine times:

“It must be a mistake,” I told the doctor, confident there had been a mix-up at the lab.

“The test was run nine times,” she declared.

The lab had repeated my HIV test nine times, and my new obstetrician was lecturing me for endangering her by not disclosing my HIV status.

This must be a misunderstanding or an outright exaggeration by the OB/GYN because this is not proper protocol at all. I know. This is what I do for a living. After the first positive result, the original specimen would have been re-centrifuged and run again. If it was still positive, the original specimen would have been subjected to a different testing modality for confirmation. No lab in America would just keep running the same specimen over and over and over again.

It is clear that all three of these people were the victims of medical negligence from their doctors not from a faulty HIV test.

In conclusion, this film is either a bad documentary by an incompetent filmmaker or just straight up propaganda. From “thinkers” with laughable credentials, to “scientists” who contradict each other and one who contradicts the entire premise of the film, to “lawyers” who represent victims of desperately flawed doctors, not desperately flawed science.