Preface: Clark Baker has an issue with the truth; it eludes him. Nowhere is that more evident than in the documents he has provided in his Federal lawsuit against me. Personally I find that to be ironic and perversely funny considering part of the suit accuses me of defamation for calling Mr. Baker a liar. (NOTE: I have learned “liar” is potentially a legally actionable word and I have not used that word in conjunction with Mr. Baker since this lawsuit began and I am not using that word to describe Mr. Baker now.) I will, however, provide many instances in this post and future posts that will highlight Mr. Baker’s conclusory errors and I will use Mr. Baker’s own documentation to do so.

A major bonus to this heinous lawsuit is that I have become privy to a flood of documents that give me a crystal clear picture of Mr. Baker on many levels. I will be sharing that insight with the readers and this will be the first in a series of posts that should prove to be quite fun as well as educational regarding the character of Mr. Baker.

Blogs & Conspiracies

Throughout much of this lawsuit Mr. Baker is trying to convince the judge there is a huge conspiracy against him by Big Pharma and major scientists. Mr. Baker wants desperately to convince himself the judge that his work is so important that he is perceived as a threat to the income and credibility of those out to get him. Strangest of all, Mr. Baker claims they are using me of all people to accomplish this nefarious task and save the “HIV Complex”. Mr. Baker raises this conspiracy notion several times in his 38 page affidavit with the hopes that the court will find this credible and allows him to get to the discovery phase. Unfortunately, Mr. Baker draws some creative conclusions and provides documentation that clearly prove his conclusions are erroneous.

One glaring example is in Mr. Baker’s second affidavit. He tries to tie myself and Seth Kalichman together by making the completely erroneous claim that Dr. Kalichman and I started our blogs within hours of each other. In paragraph 3 and 4 Baker explicitly states that Kalichman and I started blogs on the very same day: Kalichman with Denying AIDS & Other Oddities and me with Dissidents4Dumbees.

Paragraph 3: On 30 December 2008 at 1232 AM, University of Connecticut social psychology Prof. Seth Kalichman Ph.D created a blog he calls “Denying AIDS and Other Oddities”. His first post was a cynical tribute following the death of mother and author Christine Maggiore. (ATTACHMENT 1)

Paragraph 4: Later that same day, J. Todd DeShong (DeShong) created a blog he called Dissidents4Dumbees and posted similar false claims about Maggiore…(ATTACHMENT 2)

Perhaps Baker’s “proof” of this conspiracy is flimsy because he is not as adroit an investigator as he thinks. Attachments 1 and 2 supplied by Baker to establish the date the blogs were created (and suspiciously within hours of each other…cue ominous music) actually and very clearly refute Baker’s statements.

Both attachments display the archives of each blog. Attachment 1 clearly shows Kalichman had written three posts before the Maggiore post with the first post 8 days before her death. So, not only was Baker wrong about the date the blog was created but he was also wrong about it being the very first post.

Attachment 2 regarding Dissidents4Dumbees actually proves that I wrote 18 posts before the Maggiore post. It also shows that my first post was in October about two months before Ms. Maggiore died.

Because of the egregious and obvious error I wonder why Baker chose to claim that both of our first posts were about Ms. Maggiore’s death. It can only be because of the way Baker characterized the posts. He called Seth’s post “cynical” and said that I had “posted similar false claims about Maggiore.” Aside from collusion, Baker is clearly trying to establish that we are both bad people for writing such things about a woman who had just died as well as opportunists to seize on this tragedy. It actually proves the opposite and is one more peek into the lack of soul of Baker himself.

First of all the post at Kalichman’s site was not written by him as Baker claims. There were actually two posts, both by the LA Times. One was an article immediately after her death written factually as a newspaper would when a person in the public eye dies. I believe it is called an obituary. The second was an editorial about 5 days later. I also would not characterize it as “cynical” but that is my opinion.

What I really take issue with, however, is Baker’s attempt to impugn my integrity. The post I wrote was very respectful. I wrote many very nice things about Ms. Maggiore as well as respectfully noting our difference on the subject of HIV. But I guess it would not play into this strange narrative Mr. Baker is weaving to allow me even a smidgen of humanity.

I cannot say that Baker specifically knew that the statements he made to the court were not accurate, but it definitely shows that he is sloppy and not detailed in his work as you would expect a private investigator with over 25 years’ experience to be.