It was just a few weeks ago that Clark Baker set up two separate GoFundMe type money begs (1, 2) asking for a total of $210,000 in donations for his “cause”. I wrote two separate posts (1, 2) detailing and factually documenting the many outlandish untruths in those money begs proving that Mr. Baker is desperate. (In my non-legal opinion, I believe a good case could be made that asking people to give another person such a huge sum of money on less than truthful grounds might very well constitute fraud. A felony. But that is just an amateur’s opinion.)
Mr. Baker mislead people into thinking that he was the victim of several different lawsuits brought by “corrupt doctors” and it was all a “proxy war waged by Dr. Robert Gallo” and funded by the entire “pharmaceutical industry” with the sole and singular purpose of destroying Baker’s reputation and OMSJ. Let’s just say that the word “humble” has never been used to describe Clark Baker. And if you, dear reader, believe any of Baker’s hype, I suggest you read more of this blog with an open mind, check my sources and you can start with this debunking summary of Baker’s dubious claims.
As I have reported before, Baker is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by Dr. Murtagh but it has absolutely nothing to do with HIV or AIDS or Big Pharma or even science in general and definitely nothing to do with Dr. Gallo. Dr. James Murtagh filed a complaint against Baker for: (1) intentional interference with contractual relations; (2) inducing breach of contract; (3) intrusion into private affairs; (4) injunction; (5) unauthorized commercial use of name/likeness; and (6) Civ. Code 3344.
Mr. Baker claimed that Murtagh’s suit was a SLAPP suit or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation:
A lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics. Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims.
Therefore Mr. Baker countered with an anti-SLAPP suit. Thankfully a sane, rational judge in California has seen through Mr. Baker’s bullshit, conspiracy-theory claim that big money is out to silence him and has awarded Dr. Murtagh $60,000 in attorney fees. Here are some of the highlights from the ruling:
I. Defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion was Frivolous:
…defendant’s made no showing that the claims were based on protected conduct and have produced virtually no evidence to support their anti-SLAPP motion.
The court also notes that the vast majority of Defendants’ objections (>90%) have been overruled.
- Defendants’ Objections to Murtagh Declaration, overruled all 13 times.
- Defendants’ Objections to Exhibits, overruled all 6 times.
- Defendants’ Objections to Wallace Declaration, overruled 18 times, sustained 4 times.
- Defendants’ Objections to Hiraide Declaration, overruled 9 times, sustained 1 time.
On 1/27/15 the Court denied defendants’ special motion to strike plaintiff’s complaint. The Court found that, although the alleged statements were made in a public forum, they did not pertain to a matter of public interest. (bolding mine)
The ruling judge also hinted that the plaintiff, Dr. Murtagh, could consider filing contempt and sanctions against Baker. That is some strong stuff.
This ruling against Baker as well as the other 3 losses Baker suffered to Murtagh and the three losses Baker suffered to me not only continues Baker’s 100% losing streak, it also shows that Baker is not on the right side of the law. And maybe this explains why a desperate man is being less than truthful in his donation requests. But again, why should anyone help financially bail out a man whose own mad ego drove him to ruin?