Clark Baker & Office of Medical and Scientific Justice Found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

After nearly one year of silence, I am finally able to disclose the extreme lengths and outrageous untruths Clark Baker used in his futile attempt to silence this website and deprive me of my First Amendment Rights.
**FULL DISCLOSURE: I began operating my two websites anonymously because I, as well as my elderly mother, have been the target of systematic harassment for two years by Clark Baker and other AIDS Denialists. (Five years ago Mr. Baker called my then 68 year old mother on the phone and threatened to take her house away from her in some bizarre lawsuit as well as telling her that I would murder her in her sleep.)  Although readers may be able to research my identity, (I feel a kinship with fellow truth-blogger ORAC in that respect) I am still not comfortable disclosing my identity publicly on this website.
In September of 2012 I received an email from Domains By Proxy (DBP), the service that I used to register my websites. DBP stated that Clark Baker was attempting to learn the identity of the owner of my two sites. First Mr. Baker claimed to DBP that I was guilty of Tradename Infringement via the two sites. This claim was a stretch of the truth at best and I would prove it to be wholly untrue via UDRP Dispute Resolution (non-binding arbitration) in the coming months. Second, Mr. Baker made an outright false statement: Mr. Baker claimed that under the “Purpose of this Site” I admitted that both websites were set up with the sole intent of “discrediting me, OMSJ and our associates”.  As you can see for yourself by reading the section entitled “Purpose of This Site”, that statement is neither wholly truthful nor accurate. This would be one of the many untruths that would prove fatal to Mr. Baker during dispute resolution.
When I received the email from DBP that Mr. Baker was attempting to gain my identity, I responded truthfully that because of Mr. Baker’s history of violence with the LAPD, as well as his history of threats and intimidation to me and my family, I was physically afraid of him and what he might do to me and my family if he gained my identity. As a Good Faith Gesture, I took both sites off-line from the general public and notified DBP and Mr. Baker of my gesture. I next asked Mr. Baker to specifically show how I was guilty of Tradename Infringement. Mr. Baker responded with an incredibly ludicrous email that was obviously meant to confuse and intimidate me. Mr. Baker supplied several links to “legal” sites that were nothing more than what he has called a “document dump” with the sole purpose of confusing and intimidating me with legalese.  Mr. Baker also made several outrageous demands that were obviously ridiculous and went way beyond the original untruths he had made to DBP.
Example: As I stated above, Mr. Baker wrote to DBP that my sole intent, as stated in the” Purpose of This Site” section of my websites, was to “discredit me, OMSJ and our associates.” In the email specifically sent to me, Mr. Baker’s untruth is even more exaggerated: “…you admit that you created both websites with the specific purpose to libel, defame and attack the credibility and operations of OMSJ and the HIV Innocence GroupTM, its membership and its fundraising efforts.” Emphasis Baker.
I won’t go into each specific untruth and extreme exaggeration, as that would take way too long. The crux of his argument was that I had provided “DBP a false name and false registration information.”  This actually never made sense to me because if I had provided this false information how was it that DBP knew who I was and was able to contact me? Not only had I provided my email address which consists of my last name, I had also paid for both sites with a credit card in my full and legal name, with my physical address, bank information and telephone number.  As we know, logic is not an impediment for Clark Baker. Mr. Baker may have been alluding to the fact that I was using a pseudonym, but he was not explicit. But this is not a crime nor even against DBP Rules. He went on to make some rather outrageous and ridiculous demands:
Based upon these facts, we have requested that DBP provide all of your private registration information to OMSJ for further investigation and legal action. 
Additionally, we demand that you or DBP:
A.    immediately transfer ownership of both domain names to OMSJ;
B.    provide an accounting of all profits received from your associates, friends and employers as a result of the unauthorized use of these marks;
C.    provide an accounting of all web pages, comments, documents left bearing our marks, and;
D.   provide two verifiable forms of government issued identification (i.e. passport, driver license, etc.) AND a recent utility bill that contains your name and residential address.
You have until the end of the business day tomorrow (10 Sep 2012) to comply.
Needless to say this was not only an over reach, but also a blatant intimidation tactic. Despite the fact that I knew he had no grounds or justification for “legal action” I knew that Mr. Baker is capable of making life hell for those who dare to disagree with him. For that reason, as well as the fact that I felt I had already proven Mr. Baker to be less than truthful about his record of achievement with HIV Innocence Group, I contacted Mr. Baker with the proposal of leaving both sites off-line to the general public (as they had been since this started). Mr. Baker could then procure both sites from DBP for less than $40 dollars total when they lapsed in July 2013. Mr. Baker did not respond to this offer and my identity was disclosed to him by DBP.
Six months later, I received notification that Mr. Baker had filed a UDRP Dispute Resolution Complaint that cost him $1,300.00 to file, not to mention the money it cost for him to hire a law firm that specialized in Copyright/Trademakr Law to write the Complaint. I had two choices;
1.   I could blow off this arbitration and not respond and the Arbitration Panel would rule without my input.
2.   I could stand up for myself and respond and see what happened.
Because the Original Complaint was so full of blatant untruths I decided to file a Response. I would also like to make clear that I wrote the Response completely on my own, with no help from an attorney. Also, it was free for me to file a Response. Although I feared that if I did not win Mr. Baker would sue me for any monies he spent on this proceeding, I decided the truth was worth the potential risk of losing this money.
I only had three weeks to sift through a 15 page Complaint that listed 9 Court Cases in support of said Complaint. I met that deadline with two days to spare. Mr. Baker was allowed to file one Additional Submission which cost him another $400 to file. This Additional Submission was simply more untruths. One major untruth in the Additional Submission that did NOT appear in the Original Complaint was Mr. Baker’s claim that my sites were meant to libel and slander him. I was allowed one Additional Response (that was also free for me to file) and I used it to point out the obvious: If indeed Mr. Baker thought my two sites were meant to libel and slander him, why would something so egregious not be in his Original Complaint?
Mr. Baker spent a total of $1,700.00 plus unknown attorney fees to not only lose arbitration on ALL 3 POINTS, but to also be found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. If Mr. Baker had just accepted my offer six months prior to wait until July 2013, he could have had both sites for less than $40. Instead he chose a very expensive path in which he not only lost, but he found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
This final paragraph by the Arbitration Panel sums it up nicely:
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
“The Panel finds Complainant has engaged in reverse domain name hijacking because it was clear Respondent was legitimately using Complainant’s mark to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.  Complainant clearly knew this before it began this proceeding.  Complainant did not disclose this obvious fact in its Complaint.”
Bolding and underlining is mine to highlight that when put to an unbiased 3rd party, it is obvious that Mr. Baker is neither wholly truthful nor accurate.
Here is a link that discusses this proceeding in detail by another unbiased 3rd party:
My next post will detail the outrageous untruths in Mr. Baker’s Original Complaint and Additional Submission as well as his Tradename Applications.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: