Winning Criminal HIV Cases
Shortly after I completed my first pharmaceutical corruption investigation in 2008, I learned of the Parenzee Case, which some activists called a landmark HIV case. Upon closer review, I discovered that it represented something closer to a bad case of ineffective counsel.
This is not a slur against the attorney involved – indeed, until OMSJ became involved in HIV-related criminal and civil cases, most attorneys didn’t have much more than pharmaceutical marketing propaganda to rely on for information.
OMSJ has changed that.
In 2006, an Australian court found Andre Parenzee guilty of exposing three women to the alleged HIV virus. Despite the celebratory noise produced by a small group of pharmaceutical reps in this South African blog, it became clear that Parenzee was convicted not because he was HIV+ but because his attorney didn’t understand how to wage a competent HIV defense. I found similar problems with Nushawn “Notorious HIV” Williams (1997), Willie Campbell (2008) and Philippe Padieu (2009). In each case, defense lawyers quietly accepted the word of junk scientists.
HIV research is comprised largely of incoherent gibberish that can only be explained by other virologists who, upon careful review, have more in common with the astrologers of Rome’s geocentric universe than real scientists. Once I understood who they were, I started to look at HIV as something akin to a typical drunk driving case. When pharmaceutical reps attacked me for my blasphemy, I created the HIV Innocence Group. In every case where defense attorneys worked with OMSJ during the past year, all HIV charges have been dismissed by prosecutors.
Winning HIV cases does not require a PhD or even a medical degree. Except for voir dire and the cross examination of expert witnesses, most criminal HIV defendants can be well-served by an experienced DUI attorney who understands the fundamentals of gas chromatography (GCI): When the equipment requires calibration, how calibration samples and standards are produced and how to question the lab techs and manufacturers who invented and service the devices. Furthermore, courts can no longer force defendants to stipulate that tests were competently conducted.
When the journal Science published Robert Gallo’s HIV theories in 1984, researchers soon discovered that they could demand millions of dollars if they didn’t question his dubious reports. As a result, thousands – perhaps millions – of pages of HIV gibberish were published – all peer reviewed by cohorts who also receive millions of dollars in research funding. Although Gallo never explained how he proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS, subsequent researchers who accepted his opinions on faith received research funding, while those who questioned it were defunded and ridiculed. In this way, the profiteers of HIV (researchers, drug companies and the politicians they support) have turned HIV into a de facto religion.
Because all HIV research is based upon Robert Gallo’s unproven assumptions, all research based upon those assumptions is also unsupported. As a result, HIV has divided two factions – the well-funded researchers and pharmaceutical reps whobelieve the HIV causes AIDS, thousands of meth trannies who enforce the religion, and heretics who question those religious beliefs.
“WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHO proved that HIV attacks cells and causes AIDS?”
When I posed the question last year, a behavioral consultant responded with something akin to the Nicene Creed. Simply stated, those who study HIV are comprised of a well-funded group of clerics and enforcers and disciples who believe that HIV=AIDS=DEATH and 2) a larger number of unfunded skeptics who do not.
Criminal HIV Cases
When someone is charged with being HIV+, the first question is whether they are actually infected with HIV. It’s not enough for someone to admit they’re HIV+ – no one – not even the so-called experts – have the training or expertise to competently diagnose an HIV infection. To do so requires HIV tests that are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.
So if a defendant admits having acquired HIV, it only means that an unknown and unqualified third-party might have used a test that cannot detect the HIV virus to diagnose a disease that was never proven to cause AIDS. Until those unknown third parties are identified and cross examined – along with their notes and information related to their diagnosis, the admission is nothing more than unqualified hearsay.
Defense attorneys who accept HIV cases should demand all medical and scientific evidence that prosecutors plan to use against the defendant. Generally speaking, prosecutors either provide a few pages of HIV test results or may produce boxes of documents in what is called a document dump. OMSJ sifts through the gibberish and distills the contents – usually in the form of an affidavit – into a readable report. Based upon the results of that document, defense attorneys can quickly assess the merits of the case.
Conflicts of Interest
Generally speaking, most self-described “AIDS experts” have serious conflicts of interest that prevent them from assisting HIV defendants. Medical doctors who might question current HIV theology face serious consequences in the form of peer review, suspension and the loss of their careers. Hospitals and universities that receive NIH funding risk the loss of funding unless they take action against heretical doctor.
This isn’t generally a problem for prosecutors, whose cases are based upon theology. So when Professor Michael Metzkertestified for prosecutors in the Phillippe Padeau case (2009), he never revealed the $4.8 million he received from the NIHsince 2003 or the $billions Baylor has received since 2002 from the NIH. Disclosing the HIV scam would not have been good for Baylor or Professor Metzker – a fact that was probably never raised during Padieu’s high profile trial. Unfortunately for him, OMSJ was not yet ready to assist in that case.
Why would the NIH pay Baylor and Metzker millions? It probably has to do with the fact that infectious disease became statistically irrelevant in the US by 1955 (and that HIV has never been statistically relevant in Europe, Australia or South Africa ) despite the marketing of AIDS. At the same time, preventable deaths due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) kill and injure millions each year in America alone, while the drug industry that promotes HIV tests and treatment has paid $8 billion since 2004 to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints – also related to the illegal marketing of drugs.
Criminal HIV cases are not about crime or infection – they are about the marketing of AIDS. Without cases like Padeau, HIV would be entirely irrelevant.
Medical experts and PhDs found on websites like this are generally comprised of physicians who face retaliation if they deviate from the theology.
But when OMSJ is involved, defense attorneys have experts who do not fear retaliation. This is why prosecutors who initially threaten defendants like Eneydi Torres with decades in prison offer face-saving pleas of five days of unsupervised probation for admissions of “disturbing the peace.” When OMSJ is involved, HIV experts suddenly behave like vampire who awaken in church.
Every HIV case is challenged by competing objectives:
- Baylor University and college professors do not want their exorbitant funding to be interrupted;
- Prosecutors don’t want to suffer the humiliating loss of a high profile case;
- Defense attorneys want the best deal for their clients;
- Defendants want their freedom.
OMSJ’s subordinate objective is simply to identify one high profile trial that includes, 1) an intellectually curious attorney, 2) a defendant with a lot to lose and shares a significant stake in society and 3) a community that pressures a prosecutor to not offer a plea bargain.
During the past year, OMSJ’s objectives have been quashed by prosecutors who surrender, defense attorneys who make deals and defendants whose character and criminal records make them unsympathetic, at best. The good news is that, despite President Obama’s recent request to stop HIV prosecutions, new cases continue to be filed.
OMSJ is currently involved in dozens of active criminal and civil cases throughout the US and Canada. Sooner or later, a sympathetic citizen with much to lose will hire an intellectually curious attorney in a jurisdiction where prosecutors want a trial. When that happens, OMSJ plans to deliver medical, scientific and legal experts who are already prepared for the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century.
Clark Baker served 20 years with the LAPD and 13 years as a licensed private investigator. He is the current Director and Founder of OMSJ.