Monthly Archives: August 2014

Clark Baker Misses Deadline to Refile State Defamation Claims Against Me

After the Texas Federal Court dismissed Baker’s frivolous trademark claims against me (holding that the complaint had not even alleged a tenable claim for infringement), it did so upon jurisdictional grounds such that it did not have to deal with the State claims. The Federal Court allowed Plaintiff Baker to refile those claims in State Court where they were “more proper”. Baker’s attorney Weitz verbally told my attorneys they planned to refile. However, the deadline passed as of August 25, 2014.

Personally I was hoping he would refile. It would not have meant more work for either side. The Federal Court explicitly said the same documents could be filed in State Court that had been filed in Federal Court.  I know there was no way for me to lose as I have done nothing wrong and I was hoping to see how badly the State Court judge would humiliate Baker. But Baker’s counsel must have finally been able to talk some sense into him regarding those claims as I am sure they knew their case had no legal standing.

So why did Baker blow off the State charges and appeal the trademark claim to the Circuit Court? One big, fat reason is that Baker cannot let go of his Conspiracy Theory that I am working with and being paid by Big Pharma and scientists such as Dr. Gallo. As I have written about before, Baker thinks he can use my lawsuit as a vehicle to depose Dr. Gallo. Or perhaps Mr. Baker needs to strike out three times to learn his lesson:

Strike 1: Arbitraton

Baker not only lost UDRP arbitration (which is notoriously favorable to trademark holders), he was also found Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking; the UDRP equivalent of bad faith.

“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.”

Strike 2: Federal Lawsuit

As I said above, this case barely made it out of the gate before it was dismissed for the same basic reasons he lost arbitration. But this is even more pathetic because Baker knew I have exceptional attorneys. These attorneys schooled plaintiff counsel on the case laws in two different responses: Original and First Amended Complaint. Despite this Law School 101 they still refused to admit their case was a loser.

Strike 3: Withdrawing Appeal from the Circuit Court

I am betting that once Baker loses the current fight against paying my attorney fees he will reconsider the appeal. But on one hand, I am hoping he does not withdraw the case because I am interested to see what the Circuit Court judge would say. But on the other hand, my attorneys are working pro-bono and I don’t want them to have to do more work. But on the third hand, after they are awarded fees out of Baker’s pockets, perhaps they will be motivated. Just think how sweet it must be as an attorney to win a case and then have the losing side pay your fees! And now that Baker has missed the deadline for refiling the State Claims, my attorneys are going to file a motion for award of attorney fees under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.

Clark Baker Issues Press Release on HIV Appeal Case via Office of Medical and Scientific Justice/OMSJ: Neglects to Mention HIV Innocence Group: UPDATE

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

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.

Baron Coleman Affidavit: Erroneous Timeline & Facts Leads to Absurd Conclusion

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.

The only thing that is accurate in Mr. Coleman’s affidavit is the date he received the original email.
Here is what happened succinctly:
1.    September 26, 2011: I sent Mr. Coleman an email asking for information about his and Mr. Baker’s working relationship. That email was unambiguous regarding my feelings about Mr. Baker’s credibility. I gave specific examples.
2.    September 26, 2011: Mr. Coleman replied.
3.    September 27, 2011: I sent Mr. Coleman a short, two sentence email to thank him for his help.
4.    September 25/26, 2011: I wrote this post where I copy/pasted 50% of Mr. Coleman’s email verbatim. The entire point of the post was to be honest and report on cases where Mr. Baker was actually involved and his involvement was beneficial. And that is what I did. It was important for me to do so because my credibility and integrity is actually important to me.
5.    November 28, 2011: I sent an email to Mr. Coleman NOT ASKING FOR INFORMATION, but giving him information about possible defamation made by Mr. Baker about an opposing witness in the Andre Davis Case. Mr. Coleman was an attorney in that case and from my previous correspondence with Mr. Coleman I thought he was a stand-up guy and would want to know of such egregious behavior.
The timeline is important when you read Mr. Coleman’s affidavit below.
                1. My name is Baron Coleman. I over the age of 19 years and have personal knowledge of all matters contained in this affidavit.
                2. On or about September 26, 2011, “Jack Knight” sent an email addressed to me.
                3. The email stated in its entirety: (I have copy/pasted all emails below in chronological order)
                4. I sent a response email to the address used by “Jack Knight” indicating that I had indeed worked with Clark Baker on at least 3 cases, with Mr. Baker providing various levels of support on each of the cases.
5. “Jack Knight” sent a reply email to me seeking additional information in response to my response to him, but I did not reply to it. The two emails from “Jack Knight” to me and the response from me to “Jack Knight” are the only contact I am aware that I had with “Jack Knight”.
(**WRONG** the second email was only a professional, very short email thanking Coleman. The only other email I sent to Coleman was 2 months and two days later and that was only information for Coleman. I was not “seeking additional information”.)
                6.  Within a few days Mr. Baker contacted me to let me know “Jack Knight” had posted correspondence from me on a website. I followed a link provided to me from Mr. Baker and read the post from “Jack Knight”.
                7. The post contained an edited version of my email response to him and made only a passing reference of his first email to me. It did not reference the follow-up email from “Jack Knight” to me. The result was a mischaracterization of our conversation and a total absence of any reference to his negative comments to me about Mr. Baker and his profession.
(**WRONG**the post contained 50% of his email verbatim. The Coleman email was 8 paragraphs: 2 introductory paragraphs and 2 closing paragraphs with just professional niceties in those 4 paragraphs. The 4 paragraphs with the important, pertinent information were copy/pasted verbatim.  And why would I have to mention “negative comments about Mr. Baker and his profession” when my entire website is about Baker and his untruthfulness and duplicity? And I did not mention the follow-up email because that was 2 months in the future from when I wrote the post. And that email was not a request for information about Baker from Coleman.)
                8. The characterization of our brief email exchange was so poor that I concluded “Jack Knight” was not interested in learning the truth about my working relationship with Mr. Baker. Rather I concluded “Jack Knight” was interested in destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession by presenting a portion of my reply to him out of context.
(**WRONG**that is laughable and not even believable, especially when in proper context. I never presented anything out of context, but Mr. Coleman certainly has. Mr. Coleman should have supplied the post and his full email to the court along with his affidavit to give full context. But that would defeat his affidavit. Even if Mr. Coleman was confused about the timeline of events, his conclusion that my intention was “in destroying Mr. Baker’s reputation and profession” is beyond absurd. What I can conclude from Mr. Coleman’s utterly dubious affidavit is that birds of a feather…)
Email chain. I have not redacted or changed anything. Coleman’s email I have BOLDED the paragraphs that I copy/pasted verbatim.
 ——– Original Message ——–
Subject: darren chiacchia
From: Jack Night <>
Date: Mon, September 26, 2011 7:36 am

Dear Mr. Coleman,
Congratulations on the Darren Chiacchia case.  I am an AIDS Activist and I am hoping you can help me regarding a man named Mr. Clark Baker of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice and the HIV Innocence Project.  Mr. Baker has publicly claimed that he and his organizations helped you and your office in getting the HIV Charges dropped in this case.  
Mr. Baker is an AIDS Dissident.  He asserts that his organizations get charges dropped in HIV Criminalization Cases by proving that HIV does not exist and that HIV Science is fraudulent and that HIV Scientists are in the pocket of “Big Pharma”.  Mr. Baker calls them “Pharma Sluts”.  That is the caliber of man who is using your hard work to increase his credibility.  
I would be incredibly grateful if you could confirm or deny Mr. Baker’s assertions regarding his help in this case. If he was indeed helpful, could you please give an example or two of the help that he provided?
I have spent the last few months investigating other cases where Mr. Baker has made similar claims.  My research has found that Mr. Baker is greatly exaggerating his assistance in these cases.  I have received confirmation from Attorney James Galen in Michigan that Mr. Baker was not helpful as he had claimed in a very prominent case regarding a Bio Terrorism Charge against Daniel Allen.  I have also confirmed that 3 other cases were dropped when the defendant actually tested negative (this would not be consistent with the “Fraudulent/Faulty Science” angle Mr. Baker asserts.)  There was also another case in Florida, Shan Ortiz, in which the charges were dropped due to the same precedent that helped in the Darren Chiacchia Case.
Thank you for you time, and I would greatly appreciate your help in this very important matter.
Jack Night
—–Original Message—–
From: baron <>
To: Jack Night <>
Sent: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 7:08 am
Subject: RE: darren chiacchia
Dear Mr. Knight,
Thank you for your interest in the Darren Chiacchia case.  My office has handled a number of criminal cases involving HIV-related charges, including the Chiacchia case, and we have received help from a number of different organizations and individuals concerning these cases.  As you know, HIV is a hot-button political issue, and there are a number of entities involved in different capacities, each pushing their side when it comes to these issues.

I am a lawyer.  As such, my sole concern is doing what is in the best interest of my client.  At times, my clients benefit from resources from one or more outside groups to help further my clients’ interests.  These resources include access to financing, medical experts, assistance tracking down documents, and encouragement and support groups for the clients.  The groups range from local HIV support groups to entities that bill themselves as national interest groups.
In my line of work, I would have a difficult time turning down assistance in any area that could help generate a positive outcome in a criminal case.  Indeed, our national model of criminal justice depends on an attorney seeking every ethical and legal measure at his or her disposal to assist in getting a positive outcome for each client.
My office does not view the support from a particular individual or group as an endorsement of every aspect of that individual’s or group’s private and professional life.  That one or more of our past supporters may have said or done something less than desirable is not shocking, just as it would not shock a politician to learn that one or more of his or her supporters has a skeleton or two buried in the guest-house closet.
In addition, I refuse to assign blame or credit to this group or that group for any particular case.  It is my office’s firm policy to not comment on the support from outside groups.  Some groups prefer to advertise their support and some groups prefer that it not be known they are assisting with these types of criminal cases.  Since Mr. Baker apparently does not mind voicing his support for a few of my firm’s cases, I will say Mr. Baker has provided some assistance on at least three of my cases in the past.  On two of the cases, his support was accompanied by several other HIV advocacy organizations, including local and national groups that are very much respected, mainstream, and anti-dissident.  The level of support from each group varied on each case.  On at least one case, Mr. Baker was the most helpful outside group.  On at least one case, he provided minimal support, while another outside group provided a great deal of support in the area of legal strategy and financing.
I do all I can to best represent each client in my practice.  I do not take a political position on the issue of HIV science or medicine, just as I do not take a political position on a personal injury or murder case in my practice.  Political positions are for others to champion.  My sole concern is my client.  If there is an effective defense I can set forth, an expert I can put up, or a source of financing I can use to further my client’s defense, I see it as my solemn and grave duty to pursue it.  To do less would jeopardize my oath and make a mockery of my practice. 
If you are interested in assisting with the defense of one or more of my HIV-related criminal cases, I would be glad to meet for a teleconference.  My primary needs are the development of defense theories sufficient to get to reasonable doubt, experts who can provide testimony to counter the medical and scientific experts used by prosecutors, and financing to help coordinate and pay for all of these costly matters.
I hope this helps provide a basic explanation of what I do.  As I have stated, it is not a political or personal matter for me.  It is only a professional matter.  Please feel free to give me a call at your convenience, if you would like to discuss this matter further.  You can reach me at 334.832.1001.  My assistant is Christopher, and if I am not available when you call, ask for him and he can schedule a time for us to meet by phone.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Thanks for contacting me with your concerns,

Baron Coleman
G. Baron Coleman
Hubbard Coleman, P.C.
418 Scott St.
Post Office Box 781
Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0781
—-Original Message—–
From: Jack Night <>
To: baron <>
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 6:47 am
Subject: Re: darren chiacchia
Dear Mr. Coleman,
Thank you so much for taking time to explain this situation.  It was a very big help.
—–Original Message—–
From: Jack Night <>
To: baron <>
Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 6:44 pm
Subject: Clark Baker Libel and Defamation
Dear Mr. Coleman,
I thought, as an attorney and associate of Clark Baker, you might be interested to know he is making public statements that are libelous and defamatory about Dr. Donohue (from the Andre Davis case) and Dr. Donohue’s associates.  This is from his OMSJ site:
Clinicians who have received thousands of dollars in “speaking fees” include Donohue Cardiology associates Christopher Allen MD, Linda Gordon and Dr. Donohue, whose practice has accepted kickbacks from Abbott Labs, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck, Reliant, Sankyo, and Schering Plough.  This month alone, GSK paid a $3 billion settlement for illegally marketing a deadly drug.
Making claims of “kickbacks” with nothing more than a link to a fundraiser for the American Heart Association could be consider as libel and slander.  I feel it necessary to alert Dr. Donohue and his associates.



Sudden Death of HIV Innocence Group: Baron Coleman Eulogy

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?


Clark Baker Files Appeal in Wrong Jurisdiction: Loses Murtagh Website

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:

Subject: RE: (TR) D2014-0711 <> Notification of Decision [tkt:1089759]
Date: July 29, 2014 at 10:39:57 AM CDT
To:, redacted, redacted, redacted.
Hello All,
Please be advised that our legal team has reviewed the received complaint regarding the court proceedings recently submitted to Networksolutions.comand they have been detemined to be invalid due to it lacks the proper venue/jurisdiction where the complaint would have needed to be filed  — Pennsylvania or  Florida.
The domain name has been transferred to the complainant pursuant to the standing UDRP arbitration board’s decision.
Please let us know if you have any additional quesitons or concerns regarding the transfer.
Timothy Last name redacted
Fraud and Abuse Agent
12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West  |  Jacksonville, FL 32258
Office: (404) redacted  | FAX: (904) redacted