It has officially been one year since Clark Baker posted a case to his website for the HIV Innocence Group. For all intents and purposes the HIV Innocence Group is dead. Mr. Baker is trying to convince a Federal Appeals judge in Texas that it is 100% my fault. According to court documents, my sole intention when I started this blog was the “economic destruction of Clark Baker and OMSJ.” The proof that Baker offers is weak at best and hinges on two things from this blog:
- One sentence taken out of context
- One word improperly defined
Seriously; that’s his entire case. In this post I will not delve into conspiracy theory non-sense to explain the failings of Mr. Baker’s logic. In this post I will provide solid evidence and facts as to why Mr. Baker is solely responsible for killing his own career and the HIV Innocence Group.
Clark Baker is his own worst enemy. His ambition, ego and aversion to the truth are what put him out of business. Mr. Baker padded his resume with cases that he never worked on. He falsely claimed success based on an anti-science strategy that HIV tests are worthless because they test for antibodies and not the virus itself and that HIV science is “junk science”.
Mr. Baker lists 56 cases at his website and according to Mr. Baker he was successful in all 56 cases, or 100%:
“Since its inception in 2009 the HIV INNOCENCE GROUP has successfully provided investigatory and expert support in over fifty cases resulting in the acquittal, dismissal or significantly reduced plea bargain of HIV related charges.”
And there is this statement from Winning Criminal HIV Cases:
“In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ since 2009, all HIV charges have been dismissed or aggressively plea-bargained by prosecutors.”
I was able to definitively prove both statements are neither truthful nor accurate in 14 cases, or 25%. And those are just the cases that I was able to adequately investigate to the level that I felt comfortable reporting. Those 14 cases do not include 4 of the 5 cases that went to trial. When I include those 4 cases it jumps to 18 cases, or 32%. I cannot say Mr. Baker’s statement above is a lie (one can get sued for that) but in my opinion it is hogwash.
However, Mr. Baker does have a 100% perfect record at trial; for losing. Every single case that has gone to trial has resulted in long prison sentences for Mr. Baker’s clients. That is probably the reason no defense attorneys want to use Baker’s services. His strategy is a loser at trial and if there is one thing that an attorney hates, it is to lose.
There is one military case that went to trial that Baker won. However, I do not consider it to be a legitimate win. According to other sources the case of Tarence C. Dixon was not won using Baker’s “junk science” strategy and Mr. Baker has never presented any evidence contradicting these sources. Even journalist Terry Michaels who identifies with the AIDS deniers reported that Mr. Dixon wore condoms and none of the women disputed that fact at trial. Mr. Michaels also reported that none of the women tested HIV positive. Lastly, Mr. Michaels reported that Mr. Dixon tested HIV positive twice on rapid tests, twice on the ELISA and was twice confirmed HIV positive with the Western Blot as well as two positive viral loads by PCR. It is highly doubtful that a judge dismissed the accuracy of 8 positive tests via 4 different methodologies. It is more likely that a reasonable judge realized there was no intent in this case and ruled accordingly.
Then there are the three cases where the charges were dropped because the defendants tested negative on the very tests Mr. Baker claims are worthless. These three cases are the antithesis of Mr. Baker’s strategy. It is the height of arrogance to claim to have been involved in the cases of Jose Alex Perez, Daniel Hay Lewis and Lenny Love.
How about the two cases where the charges were dropped due to a legal precedent set in a previous case? Shan Ortiz and Darren Chiacchia. These cases hinged on the definition of intercourse not on a bogus anti-science strategy. It is also interesting to note that the State of Florida appealed the Chiacchia case and neither Baron Coleman nor Clark Baker are involved in that appeal. I have confirmed the newspaper article directly with Mr. Chiacchia via a telephone conversation on two occasions. Mr. Chiacchia also confirmed his defense will have nothing to do with AIDS Denial. This is further proof that the HIV Innocence Group is no longer active.
In my opinion, the most disturbing, egregious and obvious reason that no attorneys want to use Mr. Baker’s service is because he has padded his resume with cases that he has never worked on in any capacity. I have 5 emails from 5 different attorneys on 5 different cases confirming that they did not utilize Mr. Baker’s service. And yet their case is listed on Baker’s website as “wins” for his HIV Innocence Group. The only work Mr. Baker did was make a phone call and offer his service. Each attorney declined his offer. However, each attorney made the mistake of sending an email to Baker as a professional courtesy advising him of the outcome of the case. Mr. Baker used that courtesy email as “proof” that he was involved in the outcome of each case. You can read the emails below:
One. ~ Two. ~ Three. ~ Four. ~ Five.
What brought about the swift decline of a group that Baker claimed was solely responsible for initiating the change in HIV Criminalization Laws throughout the entire world? How could a group that was so successful that it had a 100% success rate from its very inception be gone overnight? I believe it is obvious. Mr. Baker claimed to have been involved in cases when he wasn’t, his anti-science strategy is a proven loser in court and he lists cases that had nothing to do with said strategy. How can the HIV Innocence Group be dead when it didn’t really exist in the first place?
Leave a Reply