Monthly Archives: July 2014

Clark Baker Loses Domain Arbitration – 2 Mirror Sites Appear UPDATE: Email from David Pardo

UPDATE: Soon after this post appeared I received an email from David Pardo. He is mentioned as the owner of one of the mirrored sites. Mr. Pardo took issue with a few things that I said. In the spirit of fairness and to show that I am not reticent to considering other view points, I have copy/pasted the second email from Mr. Pardo. In the first email Mr. Pardo made his objections. I responded by asking him to state specifically what was inaccurate and to supply the corresponding documentation. I was impressed with his response and professionalism. I also see that I could have said things a bit differently. Instead of changing what I wrote, I thought it would be good to leave the original and to supply Mr. Pardo’s response in full at the bottom of this post. (I apologize for the formatting of Mr. Pardo’s email. It did not paste to this site with the formatting with which he wrote it.)

Original Post

This is an outrageous development and is indicative of Mr. Baker’s pathology. In my previous post I detailed the domain name arbitration of Murtagh V Baker. In that case Baker was the defendant and he lost on every count. Because Mr. Baker does not know how to lose graciously he has filed an appeal. The appeal allows Baker to legally retain control of the domain name for a little bit longer.

Baker knows from personal and past experience that the appeal is a definite loser. (Maybe that is why he is desperately using the same arguments and case laws my attorneys used to beat the pants off of him.) There is one problem with Baker’s strategy of using my defense as a template for his: Baker is on the wrong side of the law. Trust me on this. I have dealt with this particular issue twice and won both times. I have studied the ruling of Murtagh V Baker. I am quite familiar with the law at this point. But Baker obviously likes to learn things the hard, expensive way. It is not quite clear whose money he is wasting, however.

Mirror Site One

Mr. Baker may be a sore-loser but he is not short-sighted. That is where this sad tale becomes outrageous. Mr. Baker can see the writing on the wall and once all of his appeals are played out, Baker will have no choice but to surrender the website. That is why there are now two mirror sites with the same old documents that tell the same old one-sided tale.  And this tale has one goal: The annihilation of Dr. Murtagh’s credibility and employment. Why else would Baker have gathered all these Public Records in one place and made a website with Murtagh’s full name and Medical Doctor Credentials? Quite simply: Baker wanted potential employers to find the site when doing a background check. Murtagh also alleges that Mr. Baker contacts his employers. I have no reason to doubt this accusation because Mr. Baker has contacted my employer on several occasions and has even bragged about it on-line.

The website that Baker operates is a smear site masquerading as a “Public Service”. It is obvious that the site amounts to nothing more than a childish personal vendetta: That is if the child is a 62 year old ego-driven ex-cop with more money than integrity. Unfortunately this is not child’s play.

Baker’s new site is called and is obviously a Baker site. This is at the bottom of every page:

An OMSJ Public Service © Copyright 2014

The site also has a lofty objective: is a public service blog. Our intent is to identify the corporate influence between the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, and the social marketers, thought leaders, politicians, celebrities, bureaucrats, and academics they own and control.

That is quite an endeavor for a one-man show. What makes it even more ridiculous is when you start browsing the site. Take for example the “Propagandists” that Mr. Baker has prioritized as the 5 most important/diabolical:

  • Magic Johnson
  • Dr. Lokesh Vuyyuru
  • David Bender aka Kevin Kuritzky (B/K)
  • Jon Entine
  • Dr. James Murtagh

Besides Magic Johnson, those are some of the most notoriously influential people the world has never heard of. Maybe that is why they are so sinister! You would also think that each person would have a huge, detailed dossier explaining why they are so terrible. You would be wrong.

  • Johnson and Vuyyuru each have only a few paragraphs.
  • B/K has only IV Roman Numerals. That is surprising because Baker seems to hate B/K as much or more than he hates Dr. Murtagh. Baker probably does not focus on B/K because there is nothing Baker can do to him. B/K has ruined his own life all by himself: There is no meat on that carcass for Mr. Baker to enjoy.
  • Etine has only VII Roman Numerals that do not add up to much evil.
  • Murtagh is the star Propagandist for sure. There are pages and pages of court documents and wild allegations, but very little is actually substantiated. What really stood out to me and highlights why Baker is sorely lacking in credibility, truthfulness and integrity is that none of Murtagh’s wins are listed. Not one, single win. Painting such a one-sided picture of Dr. Murtagh is further proof that this is just a personal vendetta.

But Baker is not one to post anything that contradicts with his carefully constructed (false) narrative. You will not find any of Murtagh’s wins such as the sanctions or arbitration or Baker’s humiliation by the Texas Medical Board. Nor will you be able to find any defeats against the HIV Innocence Group. (And Baker has lost every, single time at trial). You will not find my two wins or Richard Jefferys’ win against Celia Farber. To this day, this is still posted at Baker’s OMSJ and HIV Innocence Group sites:

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Farber Libel Suit:  Case Continues

Well, guess what, the case is over and Farber suffered a humiliating defeat. And Baker’s affidavit was also a major source of ridicule for the judge. But you will not find a factual update any where on any of Baker’s many sites. The above post at Baker’s site is from November 2010. One year later in November 2011 the NY Supreme Court ruled against Farber. But that information is noticeably absent from any of Baker’s sites.

Mirror Site Two

And Baker is not alone in this little adventure. David Pardo proudly acknowledges being the owner and operator of the second mirror site:

Welcome to Murtagh v. Baker, a website chronicling a 2013 lawsuit filed in California by Dr. James Murtagh, a doctor and former Emory University professor, against Clark Baker, an honorably-retired USMC sergeant, LAPD officer, and licensed private investigator . This site is owned and operated by David Pardo, a lawyer and advocate for whistleblower rights based in New Mexico. David has interacted with both Dr. Murtagh and Mr. Baker and is a witness in the lawsuit. He has no financial or attorney/client ties to either party,* and his interest is in ensuring that the truth emerges and an honest record is preserved.

Mr. Pardo sounds like a real stand-up guy. He is a witness and only wants the truth and an honest record of the events. I can’t argue with that. But what is that tiny, little asterisk for?

*The California court tentatively ruled on July 10, 2014 that preliminary inquiries by Dr. Murtagh formed the basis of a consultation with David over a few days in June 2012. David was not a party to the litigation and would challenge this finding if he were. Nevertheless, none of the evidence presented or linked in this site stems from the June 2012 discussions.

Well damn it, David, you just lost me. You see, that is not exactly the whole truth. What Mr. Pardo neglects to fully explain is the “tentative rule” by the California State Court. In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned. When Pardo says “he has no attorney/client ties to either party” he is also being misleading. In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.

I mentioned the sanction in my previous post but left out the name of Pardo. It was not relevant at the time. This new mirror site operated proudly by Mr. Pardo has changed my mind. It is highly relevant. Here is what the court had to say in granting the sanctions. Notice Mr. Pardo is named three times in a very short document: (NOTE: The Court of California refers to this person as “PRado” and the correct name is “PaRdo”.)

“Defense counsel Mr. Lorant will return the CD produced by Mr. Prado no later than 5/29/2014. The letter to Prado must be copies to plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel Mr. Lorant and Mr. Weitz are not allowed to open the CD, share it  with their client or use any email communication contained in the CD, unless these emails were already in the possession of defendant  and the burden is on defendant to prove to the Court that any of the Prado emails that defendant intends to uses were already in the possession of the defendants.”

In other words, the Court of California says that Pardo/Prado, whether he admits it or not, is subjected to Attorney/Client Privilege with Dr. Murtagh. In the eyes of the Court of California, Pardo/Prado did represent himself to Dr. Murtagh as an attorney when Dr. Murtagh asked for the help of Pardo/Prado. Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker. In my humble opinion, this gives me pause regarding Pardo/Prado’s intentions and credibility.

Pardo also said in the asterisked comment above, “David was not a party to the litigation and would challenge this finding if he were.”  But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events. And as the judgment above makes clear, the California State Court believed Murtagh’s version leading the Court to sanction Baker. That is a big deal! Furthermore, if Mr. Pardo provides another affidavit in the appeal; he will indeed be challenging the “finding” even though he is not an actual “party to the litigation”.

Perhaps Mr. Pardo is a neutral witness who is only interested “in ensuring that the truth emerges and an honest record is preserved.” After all, those are his words. But his other words below seem to expose a darker, more sinister interest:

As a witness to the lawsuit, David can attest that Dr. Murtagh fabricated evidence by impersonating Mr. Baker and defaming himself, planting the evidence, and then capitalizing on this to harass Baker and file suit against him.  

That single sentence is the best, most succinct description of a one-man conspiracy theory that I have ever read. Pardo missed his calling as a pulp fiction/film noir style writer. It is obvious from this statement that perhaps Mr. Pardo is slightly biased.

The following sentence is a vague promise to provide proof:

A detailed breakdown of Dr. Murtagh’s extortionist methods leading to this lawsuit will be made available here.

The problem is, when you click on the link, it takes you to multiple, rambling posts that the reader must sift through to find the supporting proof. I would think that if Mr. Pardo was going to make such a serious accusation he would want to provide a few, specific examples. He should not require the reader to sift through mountains of poorly organized posts. I believe he does it because he has no definitive proof. Mr. Pardo admits as much in his very first sentence of the section dedicated to Murtagh’s “extortionist methods”: (bolding is mine)

The following post is one example of strong circumstantial evidence showing that Dr. James Murtagh engages in a pernicious habit of planting evidence by impersonating others, defaming himself, and then trying to use that evidence in subsequent lawsuits to shake down his targets.

All of this “circumstantial evidence” hinges on emails sent from an address similar to Mr. Baker’s own address. I have no idea if what Mr. Pardo accuses Dr. Murtagh of is true. But I do find it curious that he has gone to such lengths to target Dr. Murtagh I find it even more curious that Pardo uses the same tactics as Baker. Hell, his website even uses the same template.

These are some very, very strong accusations. Why would Mr. Baker, an incredibly talented Private Investigator with 30 years of experience and 1000’s of felony arrests and prosecutions, (as Baker himself loves to extol) not be able to prove that Murtagh sent emails from a bogus address? Instead Mr. Baker puts up a website full of accusations.

Where is the proof? Why can’t Mr. Baker write one single expose carefully detailing his accusations and supply the proof? If Mr. Baker were such a great PI and Dr. Murtagh were so evil, all these different innuendo laden websites would not be necessary. If Baker put as much time, effort and work into investigating as he puts into making these websites, then he might have some actual evidence.

Loyalty or Shill?

Why is Pardo so concerned with all of this when he is not “part of the litigation”? Why has he taken it on himself to put up a mirror site? Why doesn’t Mr. Baker just turn the original site over to Murtagh and make an entire new site? Maybe Baker is not even a part of this site. Maybe Baker is tired of the fighting and non-sense and wants nothing to do with this mirror site. After all, Pardo readily admits, “this site is owned and operated by David Pardo.” Naturally Mr. Baker’s fingerprints are all over this mirror site. Every article has a hyper link to and has this qualifying statement:

Reposted with permission from

As I wrote above, this is posted at the bottom of every page of the Propagandist site:

An OMSJ Public Service © Copyright 2014

It’s obvious that Baker is involved in both mirror sites. It’s obvious that Baker has a personal vendetta against Dr. Murtagh that has gotten way out of control. It’s obvious that this all needs to stop and people need to get on with their lives and do something productive for society. Or focus on your own family. But stop this personal bullshit. Grow up.

UPDATE: Email from David Pardo in it’s entirety. 

Dear Mr. DeShong,
I would say the offending statements of fact are as follows:
Statement #1: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned.”
Statement #2: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.”
Statement #3: “Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker.”
Statement #4: “But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events.”
Statement #1: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo is the reason that Baker and his attorneys were sanctioned.”
The problem with Statement #1 is that it’s a mischaracterization of what happened. On May 27, 2014, the court sanctioned one of Mr. Baker’s attorneys $1,000 for issuing subpoenas to witnesses without providing a copy to the side. The attorney said that a change in clerical staff was the source of the inadvertent mistake. When I received the subpoena, I complied with it insofar as I did not send to Baker any documents that stemmed from a purported consultation period in June 2012, but I provided documents that were not otherwise privileged. I am not a member of the California bar. Was I supposed to know California’s unique rules of civil procedure better than Baker’s attorney? So you can see why I might find your statement misleading.
Sources: Dr. Murtagh’s May 2, 2014 motion for sanctions, Baker’s May 14, 2014 response, Dr. Murtagh’s May 19, 2014 reply, and the court’s May 27, 2014 order.
Statement #2: “In the eyes of the Court, Mr. Pardo broke his attorney/client privilege with Dr. Murtagh and gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.”
On July 10, 2014, the Court tentatively ruled that I owed an attorney/client privilege duty to Dr. Murtagh. It did not rule that I broke this duty to him, or that I gave confidential information to Mr. Baker.
If your argument is that the judge ruled this on May 27, 2014, when she sanctioned Baker’s attorney, that makes no sense. Why would she rule that a duty was violated weeks before finding that the duty existed?
Further, Dr. Murtagh’s attorneys have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths for months about this issue: that (1) I gave to Baker Dr. Murtagh’s “entire litigation file,” including privileged documents, but (2) that I also withheld privileged documents and created  a “privilege log.” (They argued the latter when trying to prove that a duty existed.) So which is it? Did I disclose everything or not? The burden here is actually on Dr. Murtagh to prove that I gave confidential information. The burden on you is to substantiate that assertion of fact, if you’re going to make it in public. That burden stands even if it requires you to pore over the litigation record. I can’t prove a negative (that I did not violate the duty), Mr. DeShong, but you need to prove the positive if you’re going to make it.
Sources: the July 10, 2014 tentative ruling in your possession; my June 27, 2014 declarations; Dr. Murtagh’s June 17, 2014 motion for protective order and his attorney’s declaration
Statement #3: “Therefore, Pardo/Prado was being duplicitous in turning over confidential information to Baker.”
See response to Statement #2
Statement #4: “But that is not the whole truth, either. Pardo neglects to say that he provided an affidavit on Baker’s behalf where he challenged Murtagh’s version of the events.”
This is why I asked you if I discussed what I could and could not talk about in my declaration to the court. If I am only allowed to discuss my conduct related to the representation “to the extent reasonably necessary” to defend myself, it follows that it’s not necessary to talk about it online – only in court. You need to know the rules of professional conduct to make sense of this, specifically Rule 1.6. But this is the reason why only some documents appear online and not others. Believe it or not, it’s to protect Dr. Murtagh’s rights and to abstain from violating my duties. I take my attorney ethics seriously, even in this adversarial context. I would disclose everything I filed if it was permitted. I don’t have anything to hide.
Sources: my June 27, 2014 declarations
Add-on statement #5: “Furthermore, if Mr. Pardo provides another affidavit in the appeal; he will indeed be challenging the “finding” even though he is not an actual “party to the litigation”.”
This statement is incorrect as a matter of law and is likely opinion, so I am not challenging it. It’s just an FYI that some of your opinions related to legal issues can be easily corrected with research or, I don’t know, reaching out and asking questions. You have my email address now.
That’s all. It would be an upstanding thing to correct your post in light of this new information. You don’t need to worry about a defamation lawsuit, although I think the legal grounds exist. It would be a waste of time all around. Do whatever your conscience compels you to do.


Re-Thinking AIDS Denialists Celebrate Deaths of AIDS Researchers on Downed Malaysian Flight

This post is way off topic for this site. However, I am so disgusted by this that I had to show just what these people are really like. When an AIDS Denier dies they accuse the orthodox of “dancing on their graves”. The thread posted below was taken directly from the Re-Thinking AIDS facebook page the day after the crash and shows the hypocrisy of such accusations. I should also note that anytime an AIDS Denier dies, their fellow denialists invariably attribute their deceased comrades death to illegal drug use such as heroine and crystal meth. But that is a post for another time.

There is also a different thread discussing the possibility/probability that the plane was shot down because these researchers were going to blow the whistle on the AIDS Fraud.  I don’t have enough space for that amount of crazy.

Prepare yourselves. This will make you cry for humanity.

The Malaysia Airlines plane crash in Ukraine has reportedly claimed the lives of some of the world’s top medical researchers, who were heading to Melbourne.

3 Major Losses for Clark Baker in Yet Another Lawsuit

Clark Baker is involved in another lawsuit that I have not discussed out of respect for the Plaintiff, Dr. James Murtagh. But now I have permission to discuss three major, well deserved losses for Mr. Baker.  This lawsuit shows the depths to which Mr. Baker will sink when he arbitrarily picks a foe. Baker is the defendant in this suit and he has suffered three crushing blows in the past 6 months. In other words, his ass has been handed to him on a silver platter.

Dr. Murtagh and I have become kindred spirits because we are both the subjects of Mr. Baker’s irrational ire. We have bonded over actions that display a hateful pattern of harassment; telephone calls to our elderly parents and attempts to get us fired. In both instances Dr. Murtagh has suffered much worse. When Baker called my mother on the phone to tell her he was going to take her house away in some bizarre lawsuit and that I would kill her in her sleep, he did not know he was tangling with a momma lion. Baker reached Murtagh’s father on his deathbed.

Baker also called my employer several times over a two year period. He did not succeed in getting me fired. Again, Dr. Murtagh suffered much worse. Baker has reached out to many of Dr. Murtagh’s employers over many more years and many different states. And you may be astounded by the sheer hypocrisy of Mr. Bakers chosen form of harassment: An infringing website.

I. Website Arbitration

Yes, Mr. Baker sued me over my website because it has a similar name to Mr. Baker’s group. However, at the same time he was operating a site with Dr. Murtagh’s identical full name and credentials. (I will not provide a link to the site.) The content of that site is pathetic with an obviously nefarious purpose:

WELCOME to the unofficial page of James J. Murtagh, MD.  Its purpose is not to defame the former Emory University professor, but to provide hospitals and “locum tenens” staffing agencies easy access to publicly-available court documents about Dr. Murtagh’s ongoing conduct and behavior.  Visitors are encouraged to verify the authenticity of all documents with the appropriate judicial jurisdictions before making any hiring decisions based upon these court records.

Mr. Baker has lost arbitration and must surrender the site to Dr. Murtagh.

This arbitration win is awesome for Dr. Murtgah. Yet it shows a troubling side of Mr. Baker and his questionable motives to go to such lengths. It is also troubling because it puts Baker’s hypocrisy and untruthfulness on full display. First let’s look at Baker’s unfortunate problem with the truth. Baker claims that Murtagh did not even mention there was pending litigation in his Complaint. I love the way the panel sets him straight:

 After taking the Complainant to task for not disclosing the lawsuit in the Complaint…The Panel may quickly dispense with one of the Respondent’s assertions.  As required by paragraph 3(b)(xi) of the Rules, the Complaint does include a reference to the California lawsuit.

Baker also has truthfulness issues about the (lack of) importance of the arbitration outcome. The arbitration panel sets Baker straight again:

First, the gravamen of the court complaint turns on the truth or falsity of the statements allegedly made by the Respondent and his right (or not) to make them.  None of this is at issue here; all the Policy addresses is the Respondent’s entitlement (or not) to the disputed domain name.  Second, there is no claim in court regarding ownership of or entitlement to the disputed domain name.  The website at the disputed domain name is but one of several venues for the Respondent’s statements.  A court decree awarding the injunction sought by the Complainant will not take the disputed domain name away from the Respondent, though of course it will preclude his stated reason for registering and using it.  In this respect the court case and this proceeding are complementary, not overlapping.  Third, “Complainant has carefully limited this case to transfer of the . . . disputed domain name []… The Policy determination does not depend upon an issue disputed in litigation [].  The record does not show that ownership of the disputed domain names is at issue in any other legal proceedings.”  

The true hypocrisy of Baker’s website comes when I compare my legitimate and legal website, with Baker’s website of disparagement and harassment against Dr. Murtagh.  Everything that Baker accused me of in our arbitration and subsequent Federal Lawsuit (both of which I won, BTW, in case I have never mentioned it) Baker himself feigned innocence of when he was on the ropes. As a matter of fact, Baker should be ashamed and embarrassed by his transparent duplicity.

Baker as Respondent:

  • Confusingly Similar/Identical: The Complainant has never registered his name as a trademark or service mark, or even as a business name and so lacks any enforceable rights in it.   In summary, the name is not in any way confusing because, although it is Complainant’s name, it is not being confused with anything the Complainant has or does.
  • Rights or Legitimate Interest: Informational site about Complainant…critic to protect public…non-economic/income generating.
  • Bad Faith: Site is non-commercial. Not a competitor of Complainant. No likelihood of confusion.

Baker loses on each and every count (just like in my arbitration and lawsuit…in case I have never mentioned it)

Panel: (All bolding is mine)

  • The domain name, is not only similar; it is identical to James Murtagh MD.  Dr. Murtagh has Common Law Rights to his own name and does not have to register it.
  • Whether the Respondent’s content at the disputed domain name is truly criticism and not at least in part commercial is a serious issue…the site does include a link to the Respondent’s professional (and unquestionably commercial) site, and the linked page offers a “confidential consultation.”  The topic options at the linked page do not relate to the Complainant but to subjects about which the Respondent offers his investigative services.
  • Confusion is likely and undeniably was intended, strictly to increase readership of the criticism.  This is deception and does not make out a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
  • …the Respondent’s intentionally misleading the public by holding himself out via the disputed domain name as the Complainant constitutes bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name…

To me it is absolutely astounding and disgusting that Mr. Baker would go to such lengths. But then again, I have integrity and honor. You have to seriously ask yourself “Why?” What is Mr. Baker’s true motivation for putting up such a site?

Mr. Baker’s site is filled with half-truths and innuendos. Baker supplies plenty of court documents but they do not tell the whole story. There is not one single win attributed to Dr. Murtagh. Then again, Mr. Baker is not particularly well known for providing balance. Besides suffering a humiliating defeat in arbitration, here are two more Baker Beat Downs.

II. Baker sanctioned by the Court

In the actual lawsuit of Murtagh V Baker, Mr. Baker and his counsel were actually sanctioned by the judge.  That is a huge deal and reflects very poorly on Mr. Baker and his legal team. But you will not find that anywhere on Mr. Baker’s site. The intentional absence of this information from Baker’s site reflects very poorly on his credibility and integrity.

III. Texas Medical Board

I have saved the best for last. This is something else Mr. Baker neglects to post at his site. Oh, he posts the accusations of course; an accusation made by Mr. Baker himself. But where is the decision? The decision is quite humiliating for Mr. Baker. Here is the first paragraph: (Bolding is mine)

Dear Mr. Baker:

The investigation referenced above has been dismissed because the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to prove that a violation of Medical Practice Act occurred. Specifically, the Board found that there was not sufficient evidence that Respondent engaged in unprofessional or dishonorable conduct that is likely to deceive or defraud the public, or injure the public. Outside of bare allegations in the complaint and selected legal pleadings, there were no peer review documents, complaints, affidavits, or any documentary evidence supporting such allegations.  Accordingly, this case was dismissed on February 7, 2014.

I love that letter so much because it succinctly describes 99% of all the allegations Mr. Baker makes about everyone he does not like. Every post about Pharma Sluts and incompetent scientists and fraudulent doctors have nothing to back them up. They are filled with “not sufficient evidence…bare allegations…selected legal pleadings” and other fantasy-garbage from Baker’s mind. Baker never actually supplies what we scientists and real professionals involved in the legal world call “evidence”.


It is obvious that Mr. Baker has a personal vendetta against Dr. Murtagh. He operates a site with a domain name identical to Dr. Murtagh’s own name and credentials with the sole purpose to wreak havoc with Dr. Murtagh’s personal life and employment. But then Baker gets in a litigious tizzy when I have a website that is not identical nor even “confusingly similar” to his group. And then there are the obvious missing documents that would contradict this horrible picture he is trying to paint of Dr. Murtagh. Do not get on Mr. Baker’s bad side. He is so ego-driven and blinded by emotion that he might go after you, too. And he is obviously very well funded by people who either do not know he is wasting their money, or they are just as nefarious as Baker. Perhaps Baker is their shill.


Clark Baker Loses In Federal Court: AIDS Denialists Continue 100% Losing Streak

HIV/AIDS Denialists have an abysmal track record with the legal system. Whether they are using the courts to silence their critics (see cases below) or using anti-science tactics as a defense strategy in criminal exposure cases, they are losing every time. I know this from personal experience on both fronts. In September of 2013 Clark Baker, creator of the HIV Innocence Group, filed a lawsuit against me in a Texas Federal Court. Mr. Baker did not like that I had a created a website, HIV Innocence Group Truth, providing detailed documentation that his “group” is not what he presented to the public.

Mr. Baker has been firmly planted on the denialist side in the pseudo-debate against the established HIV science since at least 2008. At that time he published Gallo’s Egg, a report he considers “the most important criminal racketeering case of my investigative career.” Baker goes on:

“The investigation I call Gallo’s Egg took me from America’s “War on Cancer” (1971-1981) to the early history of HIV and AIDS. It reaches from the cities of West Hollywood and San Francisco to the continents of Africa, Asia, and Australia. It led me to the steps of the National Institutes of Health, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and some of America’s most prestigious universities and research centers. It involves hundreds of billions of dollars of misdirected tax-supported funding and some of the most financially successful pharmaceutical companies in the world.”

Baker immediately insinuated himself in the upper echelon of the denialist camp with that report. As you can see, Baker is a prolific writer with a flair for melodrama. He operates many websites and does not try to hide his disdain for anyone in the orthodox camp. You can experience some of his vitriol here, here and this one about me.

Baker is also a 20 year veteran of the LAPD (with a dubious past) and is now a private investigator. Always the self-promoter, at one time he even billed himself as Christine Maggiore’s personal private investigator.

In 2009 Mr. Baker put his law enforcement experience to use and created The HIV Innocence Project supposedly to help people accused of HIV related crimes. Mr. Baker chose the name HIV Innocence Project in a wily attempt to gain credibility via name recognition with the legitimate Innocence Project. When the Innocence Project found out they informed Mr. Baker he was infringing on their name and asked him to change the name. After two requests Mr. Baker finally complied and thus the HIV Innocence Group was born.

Baker’s HIV Innocence Group has a unique Winning Strategy:  He employs tactics based on denialist belief and pseudo-science.  Denialists do not believe that HIV has ever been properly isolated and therefore the tests cannot detect antibodies specific to HIV. Baker calls HIV science “incoherent gibberish” and says “no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection.  To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease”. Because of this dubious “strategy” and outrageously biased comments, I felt that Mr. Baker was not trying to help people as he claims, but rather manipulating the courts to further his AIDS Denialist agenda.

HIV Criminalization laws are so heinous that if Mr. Baker’s unique strategy was indeed a winning strategy, I might be inclined to keep my thoughts to myself. But that is just not the reality of this so called strategy. Mr. Baker has lost all 5 cases that have actually gone to trial and 4 of those losses resulted in lengthy prison sentences for the defendant.

Andre Davis: 32 year sentence

Nushawn Williams: remains confined indefinitely

Craig Lamar Davis: 10 year sentence

Lt Colonel Kenneth Pinkela: 272 days in prison

Sgt Tarence Dixon: case dismissed for technical reasons having nothing to do with denialist testimony

In addition, there was The Parenzee Case that went all the way to the Australian Supreme Court. AIDS Denialist tactics and “experts” were used as a defense in that case as well. The presiding Justice John Sulan was less than impressed with the denialist “experts” and shot down all the pseudo-science brought by the defense.

 Dr. Seth Kalichman, editor of the peer reviewed journal AIDS and Behavior and author of Denying AIDS says: “There is not a single case where AIDS Denialists actually accounted for an acquittal or dismissal. Despite their trying, AIDS denialists in courts have failed in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia.”

Not only is this a losing strategy, it also flies in the face of the strategy used by legitimate advocacy groups working diligently to overturn these antiquated laws.  Alison Yager with the HIV Law Project put it very succinctly:

These laws are frequently based on outdated understandings and unfounded fears of HIV transmission risks. They do not prevent HIV transmission or promote public health, but instead foster environments of hostility and brutality toward people living with HIV.

The REPEAL Act of the U.S. Congress also relies on the current science of HIV to change these laws.

Despite the fact that advocates have been fighting to change these laws for two decades, Mr. Baker makes the outrageous claim that his efforts are the only motivating factor to change these laws. And he did it all in nine months.

My Legal Troubles

I began following Mr. Baker’s group in 2010 and was immediately skeptical. Mr. Baker was listing half a dozen cases each month at his website and claiming a 100% success rate. I did not believe it was possible to have 100% success rate with such a high volume of cases right out of the gate so I began looking into the cases specifically. I will not go through the cases here. I have written a summary of cases documenting the ways that Mr. Baker was deceiving the public about his services:

·               Charges dropped due to defendant testing negative with the very tests Mr. Baker claims are                    worthless

·               Cases won by legal precedent that had nothing to do with the science of HIV

·               Direct emails from attorneys verifying that Mr. Baker was not involved in their case at all

I have documented 25% of the cases showing Mr. Baker is being less than truthful or even telling outright fabrications. My site is so successful that Mr. Baker took notice and began a systematic attempt to shut me down.

I was writing my blog under a pseudonym. I had learned some years back that using my real name opened me up for all forms of harassment. I had a previous blog where I took AIDS Denialists to task. I wrote that blog under my real name. Soon my employer was receiving phone calls trying to get me fired. My mother also received a caller who said he was going to sue me and take away her house in the process. This caller also told my mother that I was psychotic and would kill her in her sleep. These calls came from Clark Baker. I knew that I would have to protect myself in the future so I wrote my new blog under a pseudonym. It did not work. Mr. Baker petitioned the domain service, Domains by Proxy and discovered my identity.

In September 2012 Mr. Baker filed arbitration against me claiming Trade Name Infringement because my site, HIV Innocence Group Truth, incorporated the name of his copyrighted group. I represented myself in that arbitration and won. Not only did I win, Baker was also found guilty of 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.”

Here are the rest of the findings of the Panel:

(1)                       the domain name registered by Respondent is not  identical or confusingly similar to a                            trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights

(2)                       Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

(3)                       the domain name has been registered and is not  being used in bad faith.

When the ruling came down and Mr. Baker had lost so resoundingly, I knew he would be angry. I waited about three weeks and called him on the telephone. I had hoped we could resolve this like mature adults and move forward. That phone call did not turn out as I had hoped. Mr. Baker was still very angry and told me that because the ruling was not binding he was planning on a lawsuit. As a matter of fact he told me his attorneys were already preparing the paperwork. At one point during this short phone call Mr. Baker said something I am sure he now regrets. He told me that he was suing me so he could depose Dr. Robert Gallo. I actually laughed at that point, prompting Baker to spew a few expletives and hang up on me.

The part about deposing Dr. Gallo seemed to be a very strange comment that I thought about quite a bit. I soon found evidence showing that perhaps Mr. Baker was using me to get to Dr. Gallo. In a radio interview on The Robert Scott Bell Show dated July 14, 2011 Mr. Baker said the following:

1:22:56 CB: Actually Robert Gallo received a subpoena on one of our cases as well as last year. As did Sam Broder who is behind the AZT debacle and both of them basically forwarded their subpoenas to the NIH. The NIH stonewalls such subpoenas they don’t listen to State subpoenas. They simply ignore them. And it cost so much time and energy we basically learned in our future subpoenas to them they will be Federal Subpoenas. And Federal Courts don’t let the NIH ignore such things.

Sure enough Mr. Baker made good on his promise to sue me, and in Federal Court, no less. From Mr. Baker’s direct comment to me on the telephone as well as this interview quote, I am certain this lawsuit was meant not only shut to me up, but to also play out his wild conspiracy-theory-fantasy of deposing Dr. Gallo. This fantasy may have been fermenting since 2008 when Baker first wrote Gallo’s Egg.

In that same radio interview Mr. Baker also made a statement that confirmed my original belief: He did not start the HIV Innocence Group to help people, but rather to further his AIDS Denialist agenda via the courts:

1:19:42: CB: When I first got involved in this, I had a bunch of MDs and PhDs who are Shills for the Pharmaceutical Industry tell me that I don’t know what I am talking about and refused to answer my questions. So I figured if we got involved in criminal cases we can force prosecutors to prove that HIV tests detect HIV and we can force prosecutors to prove HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS.

Getting an Attorney

I must admit that I was somewhat shocked to be served with a lawsuit. But I had to recover quickly and figure out what to do. I only had three weeks to find a pro-bono attorney and file a reply. This did not seem fair. After all, Baker and his attorneys had all the time in the world to craft a suit. They even had the benefit of just having gone through the arbitration. Well, not really when you consider that Baker hired new attorneys. He must have fired the law firm that specialized in Trade Name Infringement Law, The Trademark Company, LLC, Virginia, USA.  I am sure Baker blamed the law firm for losing to a Lab Tech with no training or experience in law. I doubt it even crossed Baker’s mind that his case simply had no legal ground to stand on.

I made many inquiries to attorneys but they either wanted a large retainer or were simply too busy. My time was running out fast. Then an anonymous savior suggested I write to Ken White at I did and within 36 hours Mr. White had fired up the PopeHat Signal. Very quickly a coterie of attorneys had come to my rescue! I was amazed and humbled that many attorneys and legal students had volunteered to take on this bully of free speech.  My Legal Dream Team is headed up by Paul A. Levy and Gill Sperlein.  Neal Hoffman and Gary Krupkin are local counsel.

The team got together and quickly replied to Baker’s suit and beat the deadline. Baker’s suit was nothing special and our reply lead to his defeat. (All our documents and Ruling can be found here.) But it was not as simple as that. After we filed our reply, Baker filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). This does not seem fair either. To me, if someone is going to initiate a lawsuit, their original documents should be solid. But Baker not only “amended” his complaint, it was like a whole other suit. Originally he cried about trade name infringement and business disparagement with many of the same case laws that did not support his arbitration complaint. But the “amended” complaint veered sharply into conspiracy theory territory. (Not to mention that he went from claiming I had cost him $100K to a cool One Million Dollars in less than two months!)

The Conspiracy Theory

Baker’s FAC suggested a deep conspiracy theory and he decided to try the case in the court of public opinion on his blog:

“…it may come as a surprise to know who Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV, is friends with. His circle includes a convicted embezzler, a perjurer and identify thief, and two profs detractors for decades. And in every situation, they attack the individuals, not the questions they raise. The revelations surfaced in an email that connects the academic and corporate ties related to a defamation lawsuit brought by Clark Baker, founder of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ), against Jeffery Todd DeShong, an AIDS activist in Texas. DeShong denies working with anyone else in these endeavors and claims he works for free. But it’s simply not true. Supporting documents in the lawsuit show that DeShong works with this group of people – all funded directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The evidence illustrates how this multi-billion dollar industry and government agencies fund proxies like DeShong to ruin the lives and reputations of scientists, journalists and private citizens whose only “sin” is to question the industry views about HIV, AIDS and antiviral drugs.” 

As ridiculous (and creepy) as that sounds to you and me that is the way these denialists truly think. That was just a smidgen. The FAC contained about 180 supplemental pages of unsubstantiated ramblings. But this belief in a secret cabal jibes perfectly with what Celia Farber wrote about the suit she filed against one of her critics, Richard Jefferys of Treatment Action Group:

“By persisting, we want to lay bare the embedded attack machinery that is used against those who expose the pharmaceutical empire.  It operates like a shadow state, fully equipped to destroy the professional as well as private lives of citizens doing their jobs—journalists, scientists, doctors, or academics. These are professional, well paid squads that never rest, never let up, and are accountable to nobody. “ 

Of course there is no orchestrated take down of Clark Baker and I am not a shill programmed by others for such a ridiculously nefarious purpose. The truth is Clark Baker is just not that important.

The Judgment

Here is the Federal dismissal. In this document, the judge dismissed the trade name infringement for several reasons most notably that Baker failed to allege facts demonstrating a plausible likelihood of confusion. Hence formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements do not satisfy Rule 8.

·               The marks are not confusingly similar

·               The word “truth” differentiates the sites

·               Defendant has not created a site attempting to fool readers into believing the sites are                           affiliated

·               DeShong has made no effort to create a website that could pass as Bakers

·               Baker and DeShong do not offer similar goods or services

·               Baker’s allegations of actual confusion pertain to a hypothetical potential client instead of                       recounting any actual experience of a potential client

Those are just some of the highlights and many of them are almost identical to how I defended myself in the arbitration. The arbitration panel agreed with me as a matter of law. You would think Baker would have learned from his past mistakes. But seeing as he has already filed his intent to appeal this decision, it seems learning is not Mr. Bakers strong suit. The judge also left the other points for a State Court to decide saying they would be better served there. However, this judgment came down on a Friday and Baker filed the intent to appeal the very next Monday. To me, that is further proof that Baker still has the fantasy of deposing Dr. Gallo. Who has laid the real egg, Mr. Baker?


Here are a few other examples of AIDS Denialists trying to silence their critics and losing.

 Farber V Jefferys

Rath V Goldacre & The Guardian

Rath V Treatment Action Campaign

Rath V Rees

Ruggiero V Anonymous

Myles Power and false DMCA by House of Numbers producers

I Beat Clark Baker In Federal Court: OMSJ/HIV Innocence Group Continue AIDS Denialists Legal Losing Streak

The ruling came down Friday June 27, 2014. By Monday June 30, Baker had already filed a Notice of Appeal. Despite losing on the same legal grounds he lost the Arbitration on back in May 2013, Baker can not seem to let go. Just as the arbitration panel found that I was legitimately and legally using the name HIV Innocence Group Truth, so did a Federal Judge. That’s OK, because every time he loses in this lawsuit he is just piling up the fees he will have to pay my attorneys who are generously working pro-bono. And maybe a little more humiliation will be good for Mr. Baker’s ego. I have been very busy but I am currently working on a detailed post that will include the judges’ ruling. It should be ready in a day or so.