HIV Innocence Group Truth

The appealed case is that of Air Force Sgt David Gutierrez. Baker and his group were not even part of the original defense team.  As a matter of fact, Baker admits in his own words that the US Air Force considered him and his group “frauds”:

Gutierrez said that USAF Major James Dorman and Capt. Aaron Maness told him that Baker and OMSJ were frauds and that both attorneys would quit if Gutierrez accepted Baker’s assistance. 

Appeal Defense to use Science, Not Denial

The appeal will be interesting because the defense strategy will actually focus on the orthodox science of HIV. That strategy is the antithesis of Baker’s strategy of challenging the science as “incoherent gibberish” and that HIV tests are worthless. But you would not know that from Baker’s press release where he quotes lead attorney Kevin McDermott out of context:

“This one case has the potential to remap the entire landscape of HIV testing and prosecution in the United States military,” said Gutierrez attorney Kevin B. McDermott, “and to halt this national injustice.”

Here is the full context from KSN.com:

The attorney for David Gutierrez said Monday his case could potentially remap HIV testing and prosecution in the U.S. military. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is expected to hear arguments this year.
Attorney Kevin McDermott says existing case law reflects attitudes from the mid-1990s, and the hope is that the case will get the military up to speed on current issues with HIV.

UPDATED SOURCE: And this AP article published in Stars and Stripes clearly shows the defense strategy is to use the current and accepted science of HIV: (The link to the AP Article in Stars and Stripes is no longer available. You can find the same article HERE NOW)

Defense attorney Kevin McDermott said the military’s case was based on old attitudes about AIDS and the virus that causes it “and how infectious it was and how much of a death sentence it was at that particular time.” The virus isn’t as easily transmitted through heterosexual sex as once thought, he said, and people can now live a long time with it.
“Really what this case is hoping to do is to get the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and every other military panel up to speed with what is going on with HIV today and to perhaps change those attitudes and mores,” McDermott said.

This strategy also comports with every legitimate advocacy group as well as the US Government.  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.

Relying on science rather than denial is just a much more sound and winning strategy. 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.”

No matter what the outcome of this appeal is, it is obvious from the above statements by the lead attorney that they are going in the OPPOSITE direction from Baker and his strategy of challenging the science of HIV.  Whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see how Baker spins it.

I have contacted Mr. McDermott twice and have yet to hear back from him.

HIV Innocence Group Noticeably Absent from Press Release

This is really surprising to me. As I have been saying for months, Clark Baker has not posted any case wins or even an update at his HIV Innocence Group site since November 2013. When my google alert brought this Press Release, I thought that had come to an end. After all, Mr. Baker has been harping about this case for two years. But there is not a single mention. Not even in the “key words” section at the bottom:

KEYWORDS: HIV criminal cases, HIV tests, wrongful prrosecutions, (sic) criminal defense attorney, criminal investigation, private investigator, private investigation service

Here is my hunch: In the lawsuit Baker lost against me, he and his attorney are continuing to be less than truthful and say that my sole intention is to destroy Baker’s business. I believe Baker is intentionally trying to make it appear as though I have succeeded in their silly fantasy that I am hell bent on destroying Baker’s business. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

In my previous post I wrote about the departure of Baron Coleman from the HIV Innocence Group and the possible correlation of its sudden demise. In that post I said I tried to contact Mr. Coleman three times to discuss his departure and he did not reply. I also mentioned the probable reason for Mr. Coleman’s lack of reply: Mr. Coleman supplied an affidavit for the Plaintiff in the lawsuit I won against Mr. Baker. In that affidavit, Coleman not only claimed that I misrepresented our one and only correspondence, he went so far as to say that I did so with the intention of “destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession.” I was going to supply the email chain in that previous post but I decided this deserved proper attention and a post of its own.

It has now been nine months since Mr. Baker abruptly stopped posting cases at his website. I know the success of my website put a major dent in his case load. Attorneys are less than keen to work with people who are not completely forthright with their intentions, capabilities or results. Padding a resume with fabricated cases and outcomes is an obvious detriment for gainful employment. I have more than proven that statement is true: See this summarized post.

But I could never figure out why November 2013 was the magic month when Mr. Baker abruptly ended his supposed prolific winning streak. Now I know: Baron Coleman is no longer practicing law. Coleman was the only attorney actually affiliated with OMSJ/HIV Innocence Group.  Can you guess when Coleman stopped practicing law? If you said November 2013 you are correct. That is the date when Coleman joined with a partner to form a political consulting business called Spot On Strategies: (NOTE: all bolding mine)

Spot On Strategies Group, LLC was formed in 2013 by longtime Republican operatives Jack Campbell and Baron Coleman. Campbell, formerly a founding partner at Republican campaign and lobbying group Public Strategy Associates, decided to found Spot On so that he could focus 100% on what he loves best: electing quality candidates to office. Coleman, an expert opposition researcher, campaign strategist and lobbyist joined together with Campbell in November, 2013 and the firm has since grown into a new office and hired three associates.

And this specifically about Mr. Coleman:

Baron Coleman is a native Hoosier who moved to Alabama to attend Auburn University and has spent most of the past twenty years in Alabama. A graduate of Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington, Ind., Baron has significant nationwide trial experience and has tried cases in state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Baron now devotes his full efforts to campaigns and government affairs. He approaches campaigns like a lawyer preparing for a trial. He depends on meticulous and thorough research and zealously pursues victory for his clients. He develops a message and a plan to stay on message and get the message out.

Baron teamed with Jack Campbell and formed Spot On Strategies Group to be one of the most creative and aggressive campaign consulting groups in the area. They quickly expanded to five employees in a matter of weeks. Within a month of their founding, they already had become one of the largest political consulting groups in Alabama.

Mr. Coleman is also part of a local TV talk show.

Mr. Coleman has moved up to bigger fish. It’s obvious that his new careers give him little time to play fool-the-court with his old buddy. Whether the split was amicable and to what extent it had on Baker’s swift decline is still a mystery. I have sent Mr. Coleman three email requests to discuss his departure from Mr. Baker. Mr. Coleman did not respond.

Mr. Coleman filed an affidavit on Baker’s behalf in our current lawsuit falsely claiming that I misrepresented our one and only correspondence. I was going to discuss why Mr. Coleman is wrong but I decided it was so important that I would devote my next post completely to proving that Mr. Coleman is mistaken. After reading the full email exchange and the post where I  copy/pasted 50% of Coleman’s email verbatim, it should be obvious to any reasonable person that I absolutely did not misrepresent our correspondence. That post is written and will be up in two days. For Coleman to supply an affidavit whose truthfulness will fall apart under careful scrutiny must mean that he and Baker were close at one point. In light of our difference of opinion regarding our previous correspondence, I do not hold out much hope for Mr. Coleman to respond.

However, it is hard to deny the link between Mr. Coleman’s new business venture in November 2013 and the abrupt end to Baker’s pet project at the same time. Perhaps Mr. Coleman took a closer look at the meticulous detail of this blog and realized it would be better to no longer be associated with a man perpetuating a fringe theory when you are trying to get people elected to a conservative office. Of course the way the Republican Party and the Tea Party are going, it might behoove Mr. Coleman to get back into business with Mr. Baker.

The Effect on Other Cases

When I found out Coleman was no longer practicing law I decided to look into the case of Olympic Equestrian Darren Chiacchia. This is probably the most high profile case for Baker and his group. It is also a great case that proves Baker’s anti-HIV science strategy is more hype than reality. Baron Coleman originally won due to a precedent set in a previous case interpreting a specific Florida statute that “intercourse is between a man and a woman”. It had absolutely nothing to do with challenging the science of HIV or the testing methodologies which is the hallmark of Baker’s strategy. Of course Baker never advertised the real reason behind the acquittal.

As I reported in February, the State of Florida appealed the Chiacchia case and it is set to be retried this Fall. Of course Mr. Baker never reported the appeal loss nor has he mentioned that neither Coleman nor Baker himself is part of the new defense team. I have been in contact with Mr. Chiacchia and when his trial is over I will be able to report on some very interesting details. The fact that Coleman is not part of the new defense team could be attributed to his new business venture. However, Baker’s absence is because Chiacchia’s defense will go in another direction to put it mildly.

The Chiacchia case is not the only case Mr. Baker claimed he would appeal. Most notably there is the case of Sgt David Guiterrez. In that case Mr. Baker accused the US Air Force of incompetence and worse. Mr. Baker has bragged a great deal about this appeal in the past but there have been no updates for months. There are also the cases of Nushawn Williams and Craig Lamar Davis. Mr. Davis was even supposed to be tried in a second county but Mr. Baker seems to not be involved with that case either. In both the Williams and Davis cases Mr. Coleman was second chair.

Is it possible that the novelty of this little group has worn off and the narcissists have moved on to another shiny object? If so, their clients are much better off. But what does that say about Baker’s little exercise in futility and the expectations one should put into his future endeavors? After all, his Project Letterhead sure went over like a lead balloon. ($1,500.00…just to start the process is pretty steep. I will have more about this later.) For now, we all need to ask ourselves is what happened to Baker’s pet project?

The last few posts I discussed how Clark Baker lost arbitration for a website that seemed to be a venue meant to cast aspersions upon the character of Dr. James Murtagh. Of course Mr. Baker did not want to abide by the ruling and filed an appeal. But he got sloppy and filed in the wrong jurisdiction. That has got to be more than a little embarrassing for a man with such a stellar legal background. It is also understandable given the stress Mr. Baker must be under at the moment. He lost the case against me and is now fighting to not have to pay my legal fees (which will increase his own legal fees.) He lost several battles against Murtagh already and now this. The silence from Mr. Baker is deafening.

Here is the email: