Monthly Archives: April 2014

Summary of OMSJ/HIV Innocence Group Dubious “Wins”: UPDATED Twice

Clark Baker began the HIV Innocence Group at the end of 2009 and immediately began listing cases that he claimed to have been successfully involved. I was immediately skeptical because of the sheer volume of cases and his 100% perfect track record. In his first year alone he listed 17 supposed wins. That is quite a bit for a one man show not to mention the fact that he had just started. No person or business is immediately 100% successful at any new venture especially at the volume Baker was claiming. It just did not make sense.**See below for further information on Track Record
Because of my skepticism about Baker’s immediate success and perfect track record I started this site to document any discrepancies I found. I also felt that Baker’s intentions were not so much about helping people, but more about using the courts to further his AIDS Denialist agenda. I was quite clear about my skepticism from the beginning. I have provided a summary of the cases documented at this site below. Many of the case outcomes had nothing to do with the science of HIV. Whatsmore, in several cases Baker had no involvement in the outcomes whatsoever despite listing the cases as “wins” at his site.

I. Charges dropped due to defendant testing negative:

II. Charges dropped due to legal precedent set in previous case:
B. Darren Chiacchia & Update here
III. Cases not resolved as Baker reported
A. Jerome Walker NOTE: Baker has since changed his website to reflect my reporting!
IV. Defense attorneys confirm Baker not involved at all: (To me this is the most damning)
E. Darren Garcia UPDATE
V. Cases Lost In Court Trial (A thru D not listed at Baker’s site)
E. Lt. Col. KP – Baker lost this case at trial but still lists it as win #43 at his site because the defendant “only got one year”. Baker does not discuss the fact that this defendant also was in the service for 26 years and lost all benefits, had to register as a sex offender and got his/her good name tarnished. I have not blogged about this case out of respect for the defendant who is appealing the verdict. But what does it say about Clark Baker that he lists this in his “win” column? 
Baker has 56 cases listed at his site. I have proven that at least 12 13 14 of those are not true wins OR Baker was not even involved in whatsoever. Expressed as a percentage that is 21% 23% 25%. In science we would call that statistically significant. 
How reliable and credible is an organization that pads its resume in this fashion? Perhaps one that is run by a man who claims that his supposed success in less than one year got the attention of every AIDS activist in the world and encouraged them to start working against HIV Criminalization Laws? 
**Track Record of Supposed Wins
2010 – 17
2011 – 19
2012 – 13
2013 – 06
2014 – ZERO
In July of 2011 I started this website and began demanding proof from Mr. Baker. Coincidentally Baker began providing what he considers proof at the end of 2011 and has done so in the last 18 of the 25 cases he listed. Unfortunately for Mr. Baker, some of my own documentation proving the opposite came from his sources. Unfortunately for ME, Baker has changed tactics and has moved on to mostly military cases which have been notoriously difficult for me to document. Once again I have to give him credit for his cunning strategy. It would look better for Mr. Baker to forgo cunning and strategy and opt for true transparency.

Clark Baker’s EM Problem May Sink OMSJ & HIV Innocence Group

For the first several years that the HIV Innocence Group was operating, their core strategy, as I have discussed before, was to attack the reliability of ELISA and Western Blot tests. Mr. Baker claims these tests can not accurately diagnose HIV infection because they test for antibodies to HIV and not the virus itself. Baker bases this “winning strategy” on his assertion that “HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish…” (inexplicably the link is to the HIV Sequence Database for some strange reason) and “evidence that is built on scientific misconduct (of Robert Gallo).” It is also worthy to note that Baker consistently ignores the fact that this evidence was also supplied by Luc Montagnier who not only won the Nobel Prize, but also was never charged with any wrongdoing whatsoever. In addition, the “scientific misconduct” had nothing to do with the accuracy nor the validity of Gallo’s work. It was concluded that Gallo tried to downplay the role of the French in the discovery of HIV and give himself more credit.  

NOTE: Some hyperlinks are not working. They are all to Baker’s sites. Is this a coincidence? You can see the url address, however, please google the urls and you will find the exact reference. 

Now it seems Mr. Baker has decided that Electron Microscopy (EM) is the “gold standard” and if HIV is not found in peripheral blood via EM then the defendant cannot possibly be infected. In essence, Mr. Baker is doing what he says real doctors can not do with ELISA and WB: He is diagnosing the defendant. By what authority does Mr. Baker make this pronouncement regarding EM being the “gold standard”That’s easy:  
OMSJ experts contend that, as the ‘gold standard,’ EM is the only reliable method that can identify the presence of the virus.” 
Unfortunately Mr. Baker does not expressly state who these “experts” are. I will introduce you to said “experts” in a moment, but for now it is necessary to provide the next paragraph where Mr. Baker hypocritically contradicts himself:
“OMSJ also contends that GBA’s military doctors and lab failed to abide by the legal FDA instructions, warnings and limitations that accompany serological (blood serum) HIV tests.”
Here Baker is holding the FDA up as an authority that should be heeded. However, Mr. Baker normally displays great derision and disdain for the FDA (as well as the NIH, CDC and any other agency that is corrupted by funding from Big Pharma or in cahoots with Big Pharma). But when it suits his needs, Baker has no issue with these authoritative bodies as is evidenced by this post about the supposed problems with ELISA and WB.
Mr. Baker contradicts himself again in a different post at his site where he once again proclaims EM to be the “gold standard”:
“There is only one gold-standard tool used for observing HIV — an electron microscope — but EM is completely off-limits to the public and has never been approved by the FDA to test for HIV.”
Baker admits that EM is not approved by the FDA, but this is OK because “OMSJ experts” have usurped the authority of the FDA in this instance. The same authority above that Baker chastises GBA’s military doctors for failing to abide. That seems to be Baker’s modus operandi; switching allegiance when it suits his agenda. (Relevant Side Note: Many times Baker has accused Seth Kalichman of being a “Pharma Slut” corrupted by grant money, among many other horrible accusations. But that does not stop Baker from using a Peer Reviewed article from AIDS and Behavior, the publication for which Dr. Kalichman is the editor, and using the article in an authoritative manner.)
“Criminal HIV statutes were passed to prosecute HIV-positive persons who knowingly expose others to the alleged virus through sexual activity.”
The hyper-link in the sentence takes the reader to the article from AIDS and Behavior. Why would Baker submit an article as an authority on a subject from a publication edited by a man whom Baker not only does not respect, but also seems to downright loathe? It could have something to do with character, integrity and credibility. But that is for you, dear reader, to decide for yourself. 
But I digress. Let’s get back to Baker’s proclamation of EM as the “gold standard tool for observing HIV”. Baker uses the word “observe” to mean visualize. The fact that Mr. Baker and his “experts” do not believe in anything they can not visualize or see with their own eyes, shows just how ignorant they are of science (and reality). But this clearly goes way beyond what they are saying. Who knows if Baker and his “experts” truly believe this, but they are clearly manipulating a legitimate technology to sew Reasonable Doubt. It would be like performing a Chest X-Ray to see if a patient has a broken leg. It is a completely inappropriate and misuse of an important technology. Also, not even a legitimate expert can just decide what is the “gold standard” for testing. It would require experiments conclusively confirming such a hypothesis published in Peer Reviewed literature. Then confirmation would be required by other scientists who duplicate said experiments and come up with the same results. Then that would need to published in Peer Reviewed literature. Gold Standards require the Scientific Method not the legal system.  
As for OMSJ “experts”, you can read Dr. Sheila Peel’s affidavit for a concise explanation of why they are not acceptable Expert Witnesses/Consultants. It is more than adequate as well to show why they do not have the requisite education, training nor experience to bestow EM as the “gold standard” for anything.
1. Dr. Nancy Banks MD – “Dr. Banks CV demonstrates absolutely no documented expertise or knowledge of serological or molecular HIV test methodologies, interpretation of HIV test results, diagnosis of HIV, nor documented expertise in the care and treatment of individuals infected with HIV.”
2. Dr. David Rasnick – “Has no documented expertise or knowledge of HIV test technologies.” She goes on to destroy his credibility by pointing out his perjury in his own affidavit claiming to be a visiting scholar at Berkley which the University denied as well as Rasnicks illegal and unethical clinical trials in South Africa with the Rath Foundation.
3. Dr. Rodney Richards – “He does not have current (since 1995) specific documented expertise in the development, application, or interpretation of serological and molecular HIV test methodologies and/or interpretation of HIV test results.” 
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I will soon post a follow up detailing the military case that exposed the misuse of the EM Facility and possible manipulation of the actual EM expert, Gregory Hendricks.

Strike 3: 3rd Defense Attorney Confirms Clark Baker NOT Involved In Case

Case: William S. Trout (Well, it is not actually a case because it never got past the Grand Jury)

Three days ago I posted about the Case of Robert Uballe. In that post, the defense attorney confirmed that Clark Baker and the HIV Innocence Group had nothing to do with that case despite being listed as a “win” at Baker’s site. Now a third attorney confirms that Mr. Baker was not involved in a case that is listed as “win” #45 at his website.

45. William T – all criminal charges dismissed (Aug 2012)

First I will post the email from Public Defender Lisa D. Collums in its entirety which can serve as factual in this post. Then I will follow up with my take on the email itself.

To: my email address redacted by me
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:57:35 -0500
Subject: RE: Case of William S. Trout

Mr. Trout’s case was no true billed by a Harrison County Grand Jury.  The only persons present during Grand Jury Hearings in this State are attorneys from the District Attorney’s Office, Law Enforcement Officers, the Grand Jurors, and any witnesses who appear to give testimony.  Once the D.A.’s Office is through presenting a particular case to the Grand Jury, that prosecutor steps out of the room and the Grand Jurors vote on whether to Indict the person, and what particular offense they should be indicted for.  These proceedings are not recorded, so there are no records as to what happens inside the Grand Jury room.

I do not recall sending any information to the District Attorney’s Office regarding Mr. Trout and/or the charges against him.

My interaction with Baker’s group was to acknowledge their interest and to advise them that the case had been dismissed.

I do not know what interaction Baker’s group may or may not have had directly with either law enforcement and/or the Harrison County District Attorney’s Office.

 Lisa Collums

In the first paragraph Ms. Collums states that the case was “no true billed” by the Grand Jury. This means there was insufficient evidence to prove that a crime had been committed and therefore the accused will not be indicted nor face trial. Ms. Collums also states:The only persons present during Grand Jury Hearings in this State are attorneys from the District Attorney’s Office, Law Enforcement Officers, the Grand Jurors, and any witnesses who appear to give testimony.”  

That is standard procedure for a Grand Jury which is convened to see if there is enough evidence supporting a criminal act to indict the accused and proceed to a trial:

“The grand jury’s accusatory function (emphasis mine) is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense within the venue of the district court.”

The threshold for indictment is low. “The burden of proof at the preliminary hearing is probable cause, an extraordinarily low threshold for the prosecution to meet…” There is an old saying; “you can indict a ham sandwich.”

The Grand Jury is only a function of the prosecution. The defense attorney is not even allowed inside. They may stand outside the court to offer advice to the witnesses only, and that is mostly to make sure they do not incriminate themselves in some way.

Ms. Collums even states that she does not remember sending any information to the DA’s office.

SO in my opinion, from the facts supplied by Ms. Collums and my knowledge (supported by research) about Grand Juries, Mr. Baker had no involvement in this case at all. Mr. Baker’s function is to support the DEFENSE. Because the defense has no part in the Grand Jury hearing, it is safe to conclude that he is once again being neither truthful nor accurate.

Lastly, I believe this statement by Ms. Collums speaks volumes:

“My interaction with Baker’s group was to acknowledge their interest and to advise them that the case had been dismissed.”     

How much actual work does Mr. Baker think he needs to do to be considered as part of a winning team?

That brings the total to 3: 3 separate attorneys in 3 separate cases. You know what they say: “Three is a pattern.” 3 things that come to my mind are:

Deceit, Deception and Duplicity.

Another Defense Attorney Confirms Clark Baker NOT Involved In Case

Case: Robert David Uballe – Odessa, TX

Case #: A-39,177

You will find the above case listed as win #48 at Clark Baker’s HIV Innocence Group website:

48. Robert U – all HIV-related charges dismissed (Sep 2012)

Baker’s hyperlinks should still be intact and functional. (If they are not, I have screen grabs for posterity.) And if you click on the date, you will find an email from the attorney, E. Jason Leach that raised my suspicions. It simply reads: 
“HIV related case rejected. Mr. Uballe pled on an unrelated case.”
Jason Leach
     Based on my suspicions and my experience spotting inconsistencies with Mr. Baker’s previous “wins”, I contacted the attorney, E. Jason Leach using the email address provided at Baker’s website. (emails listed below) After my 3rd and Final Request asking Mr. Leach to verify if Mr. Baker was or was not involved in the above case, Mr. Leach responded with three simple words:    He was not.
     This is the second time that an attorney has verified that Mr. Baker was not involved in a case that Mr. Baker counts among his “wins”. The first time was in the Case of Daniel Allen. Not only did Mr. Baker claim to have been involved and helpful in that case, he also claimed to have been “instrumental in getting bio-terrorism charges dropped.” The attorney in that case, James Galen, clearly states that is neither truthful nor accurate:
     “I never retained Mr. Baker’s services as an investigator or in any capacity. I tried to be gracious with Mr. Baker as he seemed to sincerely want to help with the Daniel Allen matter but the bottom line is that other than listen to his theories and review some materials that he sent to me Mr. Baker did no actual work on the Daniel Allen matter. I do not know what claims Mr. Baker has made about that case but I was lead counsel and the only attorney of record with the court. So, in short, Mr. Baker’s comments, theories and observations in regards to the People v. Daniel Allen case were not used by me or Mr. Allen in his defense.”
     Mr. Baker’s stated strategy with HIV Innocence Group is to show that defendants are not HIV+ by attacking the science of HIV generally and the HIV tests specifically. I have shown multiple times at this very site that many of the case outcomes that Mr. Baker claims to have been involved had nothing to do with the science of HIV nor the tests themselves. Being a generous person I can somewhat see how he could debate his involvement in those cases. But for Mr. Baker to list cases in which the very attorneys themselves dispute Baker’s involvement goes beyond the pale. And one must wonder why he would list such a case in the first place. Even further one must wonder why he would refuse to take a case off of his site once his duplicity has been exposed.
Email with E. Jason Leach below:
Subject: Re: 3rd and Final Request: Case: Robert David Uballe #A-39,177
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:03:46 -0500
To: my address redacted by me for this post
He was not.

On Apr 7, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Todd DeShong <my email address redacted by me> wrote:
Dear Mr. Leach,
I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a quick moment to verify if Mr. Clark Baker was or was not involved in the above case.
Thank you for your time,
J. Todd DeShong
From: my email address redacted by me
Subject: 2nd Request: Case: Robert David Uballe #A-39,177
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:19:50 +0000Dear
Dear Mr. Leach,I am an AIDS Activist, scientist and blogger. I have been following HIV Criminal cases for quite some time. Specifically I have been following and reporting on an organization called HIV Innocence Group (HIG) which is part of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice.My research has shown that the cases “won” by HIG has been greatly exaggerated and often untrue by its founder Clark Baker. Mr. Baker’s strategy is to show that HIV Science is”incoherent gibberish” and that HIV tests are fraudulent and worthless. I have a dedicated website where I document this exaggeration using court records, news reports and direct correspondence with the attorneys in specific cases. My website is: HIV Innocence Group Truth.I am writing to you because Mr. Baker has listed the above case as win #48 at his own website. I was hoping that you could tell me a little bit about the help that Mr. Baker offered and if you would verify if said help was indeed beneficial in resolving this case. Mr. Baker has posted an email from you that reads: “HIV related case rejected. Mr. Uballe pled on an unrelated case.”

Any help and clarification you could provided would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
J. Todd DeShong