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, jamesmurtaghmd.com 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”.

Conclusion

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.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: