Daniel Allen Case – Macomb County , Michigan
Case Number: 2009-004960-FH PEOPLE vs. ALLEN, DANIEL PJM
Daniel Allen was charged with Bioterrorism after allegedly biting his neighbor during an altercation. Clark Baker claimed that his organization was“instrumental in getting bioterrorism charges dropped” in this case. (See comment #21) However, there is not one shred of evidence supporting this statement. It is also outlandish when you consider the caliber and expertise of the organizations that were involved in this case along with the defense attorney James Galen.
- American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU
- Lambda Legal Defense
- Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services
- Michigan Positive Action Coalition
- Community AIDS Resource and Education Services (CARES)
The ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the defendant. Lambda Legal also filed an amicus brief along with the other three agencies listed above. Neither OMSJ nor HIV Innocence Project/Group filed any such brief, affidavit or legal instrument of any type. No where in any of the court documents was there any mention of Baker or his representative groups.
It’s also interesting to note that the amicus briefs filed by ACLU and Lambda Legal underscored the misinformation of HIV transmission and HIV stigmatization including the supporting science. Baker has repeated time and again that his organizations focus on the science of HIV as fraudulent, faulty and worthless. How can Baker even attempt to claim to have been “instrumental” in this case when his agenda clearly conflicts with the briefs which actually accomplished the charges being dropped? Baker’s entire philosophy behind OMSJ and HIP/HIG not only conflicts with the science that won the case, it is truly antithetical.
“We are glad the Court ruled with science. Being HIV-positive does not make a person a bioterrorist,” said Bebe Anderson, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project Director. “Discrimination and stigma remain problems for people living with HIV because of the misinformation about HIV. A court has to make decisions, as it did here, based on facts not fear.”
Attorney James Galen – http://email@example.com
I have contacted Attorney James Galen twice via email asking for him to provide me with information regarding Clark Baker’s statements that he was“instrumental” in this case. Mr. Galen has not responded. What I gather from his non-response is that Mr. Baker was not “instrumental” and it further leads me to believe he was not involved at all. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Baker was not involved 6 other cases that I have detailed at this site. Logic, along with the information provided above and Mr. Galen’s deafening silence, dictate that Mr. Baker is once again exaggerating his services and attaching himself to a case simply for credibility.
Please feel free to contact Attorney Galen at the above email address. Perhaps someone else will have more luck. I would love to have verification regarding this matter.