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.
Judge In Celia Farber Defamation Suit Discredits Clark Baker Affidavit
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.