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.”
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
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.