Monthly Archives: November 2011

Clark Baker Makes Outrageous Claim Against Doctor in Andre Davis Case

November 29, 2011 Leave a comment

Clark Baker is displaying his inability to lose gracefully.  He has written a post at his OMSJ site of his unrealistic review of the Andre Davis Case.  He repeated all the lies I detailed in my previous post with one additional statement that some might call a gargantuan lie about the doctor who diagnosed Andre Davis and was not called to testify, Dr. Donohue.  Of course Baker does not stop with Dr. Donohue.  He goes onto libel and defame others in his practice.  Because the statement is so defamatory, libelous and without a shred of evidence, some might call it a lie.  (But not me, I don’t want to get sued).

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.

The “kickback” Baker talks about is nothing more than a dinner for the American Heart Association sponsored by those pharmaceutical companies listed above.  Baker does not link to one, single source to back up his libelous claim of a “kickback.”   But why should Baker care?  Perhaps Attorney Coleman will care when I alert him to the type of person he is associating with.

Andre Davis Case: Clark Baker’s Biggest Loser

November 24, 2011 Leave a comment

Case: State of Ohio vs. Andre Davis

Case Number: /11/CRA/10435

Common Please Case Number: B 1102382

This is the first case Clark Baker claims to be heavily involved with that is playing out in a very public way.  It is also the only case out of 34 that has gone to trial.  Maybe this is why Mr. Baker has finally been vocal regarding a case: he does not have a choice.  With such a public case, one would think that Mr. Baker would not simply make specious, unsupported claims.  But one would be wrong.

The courtroom drama unfolded via a “Live blog” with a blogger sharing the details in real time as well as conversing with on-line spectators. Baker has been right there every day making ridiculous remarks about HIV tests, HIV science and completely bungling the law in this case.  This is strange when you consider that an Ex-Cop should be able to understand laws.  He was also veering wildly off topic and making the most ridiculous analogies.

First let’s discuss how Baker kept claiming that the person(s) who “tested and diagnosed” Andre Davis is/are not in court to testify and therefore Davis can not “confront his accusers”.  He also keeps saying that the “persons” (Medical Technologists) who performed the HIV tests at Quest are Davis ’ accusers.  This is ridiculous.  According to the law, the women that Davis slept with and who are part of this lawsuit are his accusers.  They are in court to testify and therefore Davis can “confront his accusers.”  The following comments are representative of his lack of understanding and/or intentional obfuscation:

  • Unless the mother is a virologist or medical doctor, she cannot diagnose the defendant… all she can report is what other unknown and untested third parties told him…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 4:41:59 PM November 15 at 10:41 AM

  • Unless prosecutors deliver the witnesses who collected, packaged, transported, opened, and tested the biological samples, the evidence is meaningless. It’s like a Cincinnati cop testifying about a Pittsburg drunk driving arrest… the records are hearsay

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 4:42:12 PM November 15 at 10:42 AM

  •  So she received a text from Davis … who received word from an untested and unknown third party…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 4:43:23 PM November 15 at 10:43 AM

These statements are not accurate and the comparisons are illogical.  Also, Baker tried to destroy the credibility of the lab and its personnel by making specious claims about the testing procedures, the lab and the personnel and calling them “an unknown third party”.  The persons involved in the blood draws, packaging, shipping and actual testing are trained, certified, experienced professionals.  Also, the laboratory (and therefore all personnel, including those above) is certified through outside sources, it is not self regulated.  Quest Diagnostics must abide by:

1.   CLIA: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. U.S Gov’t.

2.   CAP: College of American Pathologists. This body ensures accurate testing through blinded tests submitted twice per year.

3.   ASCP: American Society for Clinical Pathology. Medical Technologists who perform the tests are certified through this professional body after 4 years of university and acquiring a B.S. degree and attending special training at Med Tech School for one and a half years.

4.   Medical Technologists, again, the ones who run the tests, are also required to perform Continuing Education through ASCP as well as through their employer, in this instance, Quest Diagnostics.

These are well trained, certified specialists.  Is there still a chance for error?  Of course there is a chance.  Is there a chance that Baker is wrong about the science of HIV?  I think you get my point.

  •  Did the social worker test and diagnose Davis ?

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 4:48:14 PM November 15 at 10:48 AM

Again, this is irrelevant and way off topic.  And it is also stupid.  The Social Worker did not testify about diagnosing Davis .  Her testimony was part of the prosecution’s proof that Davis knew his HIV+ status.  She testified that Davis came to Stop AIDS where she worked as a counselor for help with his newly discovered HIV+ status.  There Davis signed a form stating that he had tested HIV+ and that he was aware of this fact.  That was a condition for him receiving help at that facility.

Second let’s discuss how Clark Baker refuses to remember/acknowledge the actual law behind this case.  Under the law in Ohio , anyone with knowledge they had a positive HIV test must inform their partners; period.  The law does not care if it was a false positive or if there was an error during testing.  If the person is under the belief that they are HIV+, then they are required to disclose that information before sexual intercourse with another person or face the legal repercussions.  (I will discuss later how the prosecution proved this when I discuss Baker’s “Weekend Bombshell Proclamation” for Monday’s testimony.)  Baker continually ignores the law:

  • If the prosecutor admitted that she doesn’t plan to call anyone who can prove Davis ‘ alleged infection, the jury could go back to work and wouldn’t have to waste their time listening to all of this irrelevant drivel… Unless he’s actually infected, THERE ARE NO VICTIMS… except Davis, of course, who is falsely accused of being infected with HIV…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 5:30:19 PM November 15 at 11:30 AM

  • Despite marketing claims, HIV tests don’t detect HIV… they never have… so it doesn’t matter how many HIV tests he takes…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 6:22:23 PM November 15 at 12:22 PM

  • That’s right… a flu shot… or pregnancy is known to cause false positives… there are DOZENS of causes for false positives… including hard exercise… There’s no evidence that doctors ever ruled out false positives…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 6:24:21 PM November 15 at 12:24 PM

Per Baker’s own words, he understands the law, even though he continually argues against that law and contradicts himself.  Why is that?

  • Travis is correct – the statute only requires knowledge of test results – it doesn’t matter if the test is a false positive and he is healthy and uninfected.

by OMSJ 11/17/2011 6:15:15 PM November 17 at 12:15 PM

Third let’s discuss Baker’s confusion with the defendant’s “accusers”.  Baker continually claims the accusers to be the “persons” i.e. Medical Technologists who performed the HIV ELISA screening test and Western Blot confirmatory test.  (Although Baker never admits there is a confirmatory test which is a completely different methodology from the screening test.)

  • There is a basic 6th Amendment issue here… defendants have a right to cross-examine their accusers… In this case, his accusers are those who allege he’s infected with HIV. Even if Davis ADMITS his infection, it’s not like a stump he can point to to declare he’s missing his left leg…

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 5:35:42 PM November 15 at 11:35 AM

  • Sounds like hearsay… The prosecutor had six months to prepare this case… any idea why she couldn’t find the doctor and techs who performed the tests?

by OMSJ 11/15/2011 7:45:34 PM November 15 at 1:45 PM

  •  As a retired LAPD officer who arrested several thousand felons, I’m still required to assume Davis ‘ innocence until his doctor proves that he’s actually infected.

by OMSJ 11/17/2011 6:43:18 PM November 17 at 12:43 PM

Let me just say that is completely irrelevant and not true.  First of all UNDER OHIO LAW, Davis does not have to actually be infected.  Second of all, it is also not relevant that Baker was a retired or even DISGRACED LAPD officer who allegedly arrested several thousand felons.  As a Motorcycle Cop, how does he expect anyone to believe he arrested any FELONS, much less “several thousand”? And lest we forget, as Baker continually did, Davis ’ accusers were the women; the victims.  They were in court to testify, be cross examined and therefore satisfied Davis ’ 6th Amendment Rights.

Fourth, I would like to discuss the supposed “Bombshell” for Monday that Baker teased about over the weekend.  He wrote these at RA Facebook as well as his own sites:

Clark Baker

A major break is expected in OMSJ’s Cincinnati trial this Monday. If convicted, Andre Davis faces 120 years in prison. Monday will be the final day of testimony with NEW revelations. Follow the story and reports

Clark Baker

The final day of the Andre Davis trial will begin shortly… Big day today…

The “major break” and “NEW revelations” and “big day” Baker teased never happened.  Well, the defense tried something, but it was so irrelevant and ridiculous the judge shot it down very quickly.

The defense asked for a Rule 29 Decision to dismiss the case.  Rule 29 states the prosecution did not prove their case.  The evidence the defense put forth to support the Rule 29 request was that the prosecution did not adequately prove that Davis knew he had tested HIV+.  Why?  Because the defense did not feel the prosecution adequately proved that Davis ever physically held the “piece of paper” that was his actual test result!

Prosecution Attorney Amy Tranter laid out several reasons proving that Davis knew he has tested HIV+:

  1. WWE notified Davis that they would not hire him because he failed his physical by testing HIV+.
  2. The actual test result was in the home Davis shared for at least a year with his girlfriend and mother of his children.
  3. Davis sent a text confirming he was HIV+ to one of the victims.
  4. Police had a recorded phone conversation (approved by one party/victim) in which Davis admitted to knowing he was HIV+ for at least a year.
  5. Several of the witnesses confirmed Davis himself told them he was HIV+ after they confronted him.
  6. Davis admitted to police in an interview that he was HIV+.
  7. Davis signed a form at Stop AIDS admitting he had tested HIV+.

Obviously the judge refused to dismiss under Rule 29 since the Prosecution proved that Davis was aware he has a positive HIV result.  That was the “Major Break” and “NEW revelations” and “big day” Baker had promised.

Lastly, Baker showed what a spoiled sport and lousy loser he is.  He attempts to justify the guilty verdict (14 out of 15 counts) with mean, nasty, childish slaps at the prosecutor and judge:

  • Cops are taught to look at the law and enforce it as written. It was Tranter’s job to track down the evidence or dismiss the charges… She put on an incredibly weak case and relied on the inexperienced judge to punt to the jury…

by OMSJ 11/23/2011 6:44:40 PM 12:44 PM

  •  I doubt that Judge Metz wants to be known as the judge who released a black AIDS-infected man to defile Cincinnati ‘s white womenfolk… His opponents in the next election would have a field day!

by OMSJ 11/23/2011 6:48:23 PM 12:48 PM

Conclusion: How can a person who supposedly prides himself on being an Ex-Cop know so little about the justice system?  Or, more importantly, how can he show so little disregard and disdain for the justice system?  Mr. Baker has shown in this live blog over several days that he distorts the facts, twists the truth, can not stay on topic and shows complete lack of integrity and credibility as I have shown here via his very own words.

Baker has claimed all along that this was all for show.  Baker claims at RA Facebook they have just laid the foundation for an appeal:

“From the beginning, our objective was to gather sufficient evidence to secure an appeal and get a reversal based upon 1) the unconstitutional nature of the law AND 2) the failures by the court to protect the defendant’s civil rights.”

From this statement of admission, it would seem that Mr. Baker has joined the rest of the AIDS Activists, along with President Obama and the U.S. Government in acknowledging that these HIV Laws are archaic and need to be changed.  However, from what I saw of the Andre Davis case, the only grounds for an appeal would be that Davis’ attorneys did not put on a vigorous defense.   Hell, they did not put on a defense at all.  Perhaps Mr. Davis can get an appeal based on crappy counsel

Judge In Celia Farber Defamation Suit Discredits Clark Baker Affidavit

November 19, 2011 Leave a comment

At first glance this particular defamation suit may seem out of place at this site.  After all, this site is dedicated to proving the claims Clark Baker makes about his involvement in HIV Criminalization cases and subsequent positive outcomes in those cases are exaggerations and outright lies.  When I make such accusations about Mr. Baker I am making certain assumptions about his credibility, integrity and truthfulness.  Of course, I am also providing solid proof and verifiable facts to back up my position.  That is why Mr. Baker has not followed thru on his hollow threat to take down this site.

The Farber Defamation suit is relevant to this web site because Ms. Farber presented an affidavit by Mr. Baker as part of her suit.  Judge York’ s decision   provides two full pages (starting on page 28) discussing exactly why Mr. Baker does not have the qualifications to render help in this case when he succinctly writes: “None of these qualifications makes him particularly suited to evaluate the issues at hand.”  Although the judge calls Mr. Baker “Peters” for some reason, it is obvious it is Baker since Judge York calls him “founder and principal investigator of The Office of Medical & Scientific Justice.”
The judge even states Mr. Baker is completely wrong on a major point, and in doing so, discredits Baker’s assertion that he is an “expert”.
Peters holds himself out as an expert in evaluating Farber’s integrity based on his “more than 2500 interviews and physical examinations of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine addicts,” adding – incorrectly and in a conclusory fashion – (emphasis mine) that courts generally “take judicial notice that drug addicts are pathological liars.”
But that is not all.  In the next paragraph Judge York slaps Baker 4 times by dismissing every single point Baker tries to prove.
Peters’ comments…are not directly pertinent…
Peters presents no evidence…
His observation…has no bearing…
His comments…are not pertinent…
 
Not only does Judge York show that Mr. Baker provided nothing to support Ms. Farber’s lawsuit, Judge York does say that Mr. Baker inadvertently supported the defendant Mr. Jefferys.
The quotes Peters ascribes to Jefferys in his affidavit, if accurate,
suggest that Jefferys sincerely believed in the truth of what he was saying.
 
The judge’s conclusion regarding Mr. Baker’s affidavit is definitive and clearly states that Mr. Baker provided zero help on Ms. Farber’s behalf.
Peters has not presented any data which supports his claim that “Jefferys’ intent was . . . part of a sustained and coordinated effort among the pharmaceutically-funded activists” to silence Farber and Duesberg although he knew he was uttering lies about them.   Other comments by Peters also do nothing to enhance Farber’s argument. 
 
If Clark Baker is such a dismal failure in this case where his objective was simple, clear cut and unambiguous, how can he justifiably claim to have won the 34 difficult and intricate cases he lists at his OMSJ site?   Sheer audacity to make unsubstantiated claims is not enough.  Mr. Baker has proven with this affidavit that he is a beginner with absolutely no clue as to how the judicial system works.

Darren Chiacchia Case

November 2, 2011 Leave a comment
State: Florida
File Date: 01/21/2010
Judge: HALE R STANCIL
This is another Florida Case that was dismissed due to Legal Precedent set by a previous case. Clark Baker and OMSJ had no bearing on the outcome of this case whatsoever.  Of course this does not stop Clark Baker from making overt, obvious lies about this case.  Also, the court records show that the attorney of record was very afraid of the science of HIV coming into play.  On several occassions Attorney Coleman tried to suppress the medical records and or blood records, but each time it was denied.
On 4-11-2011 Defense Attorney filed a motion to suppress the medical records and or blood records.  This motion was denied on 4-15-2011.  But I have to ask, if Baker and OMSJ is all about proving HIV tests are fraudulent and flawed, why so gung ho to suppress this information?  They tried several more times and every time the motion was denied.  It seems if Baker really has a leg to stand on here, he would be doing everything in his power to get this information introduced, not suppress it.
Attorney Coleman Discusses Legal Strategy/Admits “Technical Win”
In this article, the attorney for Chiacchia discusses the legal precedent set in previous case and how he used that case to get these charges dismissed.
The motion to dismiss, made by Chiacchia’s attorney, Baron Coleman of Alabama, was largely based on the definition of sexual intercourse.  The statute under which Chiacchia, 47, was charged, uses the term sexual intercourse as a basis for the charge. In Florida, sexual intercourse is defined as a union of male and female sexual organs. Since the incident for which Chiacchia was arrested involved two men, Stancil ruled it did not qualify as sexual intercourse.  A similar case, which was recently dismissed by the Florida Second District Court of Appeals in Lakeland, was used in arguments for dismissal in Chiacchia’s case.  In that case, which involved two women, the court of appeals found the definition of sexual intercourse was narrowly defined as sex between a man and a woman. The June 10 decision overturned a lower court’s denial of a motion to dismiss.
This is just one more case that Baker is trying desperately to use to further his credibility.  But like every other case I have listed at this site, it further proves his desperation not his credibility.