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.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: