For the past two years I have been requesting Clark Baker provide proof of his supposed involvement in all the HIV Criminal Cases he has been bragging about. That is all I have asked for; proof. Yet Mr. Baker has adamantly refused. That is why I began looking closer into the cases Mr. Baker has listed at his website. In the 10 cases I have had time to look into; I have found Mr. Baker to be outright lying in 90% and heftily exaggerating in the other 10%. Now it seems Mr. Baker is taking me seriously and somewhat appeasing my request for proof. But his attempt is half hearted and superficial. He is trying to throw me off his scent. But that stench is too strong.
In the past week Mr. Baker has provided much more information on two cases. Interestingly one case is a Military Case. I wonder if that’s because it is much harder for me to investigate claims made on Military Cases. Whether or not that is the reason, because Mr. Baker tends to hang himself with his own words, I did not have to do much investigation.
The two cases are those of Jason Alexander Young and Corporeal Ruben Leyva. Mr. Baker has now redacted the name of Mr. Leyva, but because Mr. Baker is sloppy, he originally posted the name and left it on the net for 4 days and it is now in Google Cache. For the purpose of this post however, I will only deal with the case of Mr. Young.
As usual Mr. Baker makes some very big statements. He starts off by claiming that the prosecution was ready to send Mr. Young away for 70 years:
“But as OMSJ prepared to cross-examine the prosecution’s four expert witnesses in a jury trial next week, Aiken’s top prosecutor offered a plea-deal that could set Young free by December.” (Emphasis Baker)
Mr. Baker escalates his bragging:
“Although prosecutors claimed they wanted to spare Young’s victims from the ordeal of a trial, (emphasis Baker) it now appears more likely that they wanted to spare Aiken’s top HIV experts, hospitals and clinics the ordeal of being discredited in a trial that would result in a flurry of malpractice lawsuits by hundreds of Aiken’s other misdiagnosed HIV patients – including the man Brisbin sent to prison in 2009.”
Those are some mighty big statements. Of course Mr. Baker provides zero proof that the possibility of OMSJ interrogating the prosecutions’ Medical Witnesses set a plea deal in motion “that could set Young free by December.” Of course this supposed plea is also a complete lie! I will get to the actual plea later and show how Mr. Baker not only lies about the plea at his website, but how he also contradicts that lie with a different lie at QuestioningAIDS.com.
Mr. Baker goes on to pad his story by recycling all his tired old fallacies about “Systemic Medical Incompetence” and “Pharmaceutical Marketing Propaganda” and “Misrepresented Medical Facts” and “Self Described HIV Experts.” Unfortunately, because Mr. Baker never supplies any proof or fact to back up these claims, he does not see how all this reads like a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist which strips him of any credibility.
But the real problem with Mr. Baker’s assertions is that they are obviously his fantasy assumptions. Mr. Baker claims that the mere threat of being cross examined by OMSJ forces the prosecution into a plea deal that would release Mr. Young by December. That is convenient because this way, Mr. Baker does not have to supply the transcript of these cross examinations. Mr. Baker does, however, give us an example of the incredibly hard hitting cross examination style of OMSJ. Mr. Baker gives us this example of how he would have cross examined a “self described HIV Expert” named Dr. Ball if he had had the chance:
“OMSJ planned to ask Dr. Ball if he recommended other equally-ineffective and unapproved methods – like Ouija boards and Tarot cards.”
Damn! That Dr. Ball is one lucky S.O.B. for not having to answer that!!
The Dreaded Plea Deal
That was a lot of fun. Now let’s get down to the real lies Mr. Baker tells. Remember Mr. Baker claimed that the mere threat of involvement by OMSJ forced the prosecutor into a plea deal “that could set Young free by December.” Mr. Baker left it at that. He left the reader with the impression that Mr. Young would be out of jail in a few months. But that is not true. Mr. Young plead guilty to two of the HIV counts and will spend 10 years in jail. Not only is the sentence 9 years and 9 months longer that Mr. Baker led us to believe, but the plea deal, an Alford Plea, is not at all as Mr. Baker described it:
“Young’s guilty plea was wholly unrelated to the medical evidence that undermined the prosecution’s case. Under North Carolina v. Alford (1970), his “guilty plea” was not an admission of guilt, but was but merely an admission that he wanted to benefit from the prosecutor’s plea agreement.”
That alone is a huge lie. That is not even close to an Alford Plea. Also, Mr. Baker completely changed from this lie to another lie when commenting at QA.com a few days ago (although he reiterates the lie that Young will be out of prison in a few months):
“Aiken’s top prosecutor Strom Thurmond Jr. offered Young a plea deal that involved several years in prison. Young refused and Thurmond eventually reduced his offer to two counts in an “Alford Plea,” which allows defendants to plead guilty without admitting that the charges had any scientific merit. Although Young faced 70 years (life), he’s out by Christmas!”
In North Carolina v Alford, the Supreme Court noted that:
“An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime *** when *** a defendant intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of actual guilt”.
In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge…defendant does not admit guilt but acknowledges that the state’s evidence against him is so strong that he is prepared to accept the entry of a guilty plea nevertheless. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty. One reason for making such a plea may be to avoid being convicted on a more serious charge.
An Alford Plea is simply legal jargon. Mr. Young may not verbally or even consciously admit his guilt, but legally, in the eyes of the law, he is absolutely guilty. He also admits that if he went to trial, the prosecution has enough evidence to prove him guilty in a court of law. Also, this Alford Plea has absolutely nothing to do with the “scientific merit” that Baker claimed at QA.com. Once again Mr. Baker makes very broad and bold claims that are completely unsubstantiated. I have proven Mr. Baker a liar once more.
Friday Oct 22, 2011
According to Aiken County Solicitor Strom Thurmond, Jason Young pleaded guilty to two counts of intentional exposure to HIV. Young was charged initially back in January, then other people came forward in South Carolina and Georgia.
Young was sentenced to five years incarceration on each charge to run concurrently.
That means Mr. Young will spend 10 years in prison, not a matter of two months as Mr. Baker claimed. Unless Mr. Baker meant he would be out of prison by Christmas of 2022!
Biggest Lie of All
Mr. Baker claimed: “After a careful review of Young’s medical records, OMSJ’s team found no evidence that Young was infected with HIV.”
Baker linked to an affidavit by Rodney Richards who has a PhD in Chemistry. The only related experience is that he claims to have supervised development of a technology “comparable” to PCR to detect “genetic material unique to HIV”. In this man’s opinion, which is what an affidavit amounts to, Mr. Young was not infected with HIV. This is the basis for Mr. Baker’s claims that brought about such a great “Plea Deal”.
However, if the court recognized this affidavit and admitted that Mr. Young was not infected with HIV, then why did he plead guilty to two counts of “Intentional Exposure of Other to HIV”? How could he be charged, plead guilty and be sentenced to 10 years on those two counts? Why are these two counts still valid after Mr. Baker and his crafty legal mind and minions of OMSJ proved that Mr. Young was not infected with HIV and that HIV Science and HIV Tests are fraudulent? How could Mr. Baker get the other counts dropped but these two charges, which were identical to the other 4, send Mr. Young to prison for 10 years?
I can answer that: Because Mr. Baker is intentionally misleading in this case just as he has done in all the other cases at this site. And I have more to come.