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.



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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: