Angry Patent Lawyer Still Angry, Claims PatentlyO's Dennis Crouch Is Both A 'Dickhead' And Violated CFAA

from the andrew-schroeder,-have-you-met-charles-carreon? dept

Fri, May 3rd 2013 3:03pm — Mike Masnick

Oh boy. Tim Cushing recently had a post here about a very angry patent lawyer, by the name of Andrew Schroeder. The story of his unbelievable rant filed with the patent office was originally highlighted over at PatentlyO, by Dennis Crouch, who most folks in the patent business are well aware of because of the blog and his regular commentary on patent-related issues. After Crouch published the rant, the story caught on in the press and it got a bit of coverage, including on our site as an example of how not to conduct business before the patent office. Everyone has bad days. And the best thing to do is to admit that you had a bad day and move on.

But that's apparently not how Andrew Schroeder rolls.

Our friends over at Above The Law have alerted us to the fact that Schroeder is back... and is he ever pissed off about people knowing just how pissed off he is. In what may be one of the worst-designed blogs ever made (and, warning, it's so badly designed that it doesn't even work at all if you have javascript turned off) Schroeder has announced that first, Dennis Crouch is the "Dickhead of the Year" for 2013 (I'm wondering who the past winners are) and (even better) that he believes Crouch violated the CFAA in finding and publishing his rant.

Both posts are filled with poorly designed graphics, mostly mocking Crouch, which Schroeder proudly takes credit for late in that first post. These aren't even "bad in an ironic way" graphics. They're just bad. In the way that someone is when they first discover how Photoshop works and suddenly thinks they're a master of design bad. But the rant is just as wacky. He never apologizes for the language he uses, beyond noting that it was "less than flattering." No, his focus is on the claim that his insane rant -- in which he accused a patent examiner of taking drugs, being drunk, not reading the patent application, of having to write with crayons and a variety of other euphemisms to suggest that the examiner has mental problems -- was a "confidential" communication between himself and the examiner, and revealing it involved both (a) illegal hacking into the USPTO site and (b) being a "dickhead" for thinking it might be entertaining to highlight his ranting.

One of the things I find fascinating about this whole ordeal is the fact that many of the articles written since Patentlyo’s blog post all assume that this was some sort of “PUBLIC” rant or tirade. Everyone assumes that this was some sort of “Open Letter” to the USPTO that I wrote to shame this particular Examiner (in fact, this was just between the Examiner, his Senior Examiner and me…and no one else). In fact, this was a confidential letter and anyone who tells you anything to the contrary is full of shit, I don’t give a fuck what they tell you.

Uh, no, it wasn't.

From there, Schroeder goes into a big rant about how terrible it is to use the USPTO's filing system. That may be true, but so what? That has nothing to do with the inappropriate nature of his rant. Schroeder, however, connects the dots to claim that because the USPTO site is so complicated, he would have thought that it would protect his "confidential" communications better (there's an assumption in there that's not quite true...). He also includes some totally gratuitous ad hominem attacks on Crouch, because no Schroeder rant is complete without resorting to sophomoric trash talking.

He further complains that Crouch appears to be "sympathizing with the Examiner!" because no one could possibly sympathize with a patent examiner. Now, we're generally no big fans of patent examiners around here, because we tend to think they approve all sorts of junk patents, but I think it's rather easy to sympathize with the recipient of Schroeder's rage rant. Of course, Schroeder hates examiners for the opposite reason we do. He insists they're not approving nearly enough patents, and that their default is to reject patents. In fact, he gives an anecdotal "side note" about some mythical patent examiner who has a 100% rejection rate. That's amusing, since (as we pointed out recently) in 2012, nearly 90% of all patent applications were eventually approved. And Schroeder thinks examiners are too quick to reject?

In the second post, Schroeder insists that as far as he can tell it's absolutely impossible that Crouch could have found his rant in the PAIR system, and therefore, he believes that Crouch hacked into the USPTO's computers and violated the CFAA.

I’m gonna have to crowdsource this one because I’ve been doing research and can’t seem to figure out how Dennis Crouch was able to access my account with the USPTO. It has always been my understanding that patent applications less than 18 months old and their office action responses are to remain confidential. I’m starting to think that Patentlyo’s Dennis Crouch just wants me to believe that it is common knowledge that you can access anyone’s records there at the USPTO. However, from my own research I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is possible. And more importantly, I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HIS ACTIONS WERE EVEN LEGAL!

The more I think about it, the more likely it is that Dennis Crouch may have broken a whole bunch of laws. When it comes to cyber crimes there are state laws (one for where he lives, possibly where I live, and that of Alexandria, Virginia (USPTO).

And then of course there are Federal laws as well such as the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act) which makes it a felony to hack and steal documents similar to what Dennis mother fucking menace may have done.

That one comes complete with a poorly executed graphic showing Crouch's head mixed in with the text "Computer Hacking is Cool" and pretending that this is a class that Crouch teaches at the University of Missouri Law School.

Randomly, at the end of the first blog post, Schroeder goes off on how proud he is of the hard work he puts into designing his websites:

You see, for the past several years I have taught myself how to build my own websites, everything…from A-Z. I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO. And I think that I can build one hell of a website. For the past several years, I have had countless people call me out of the blue and ask me who built my website. When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, “No, really, who actually built your website?”

I love building websites. I get absorbed in it, and I can’t tell you how many times I have looked up at the clock to see “3:AM”, and wonder where the past 12 hours went. Some guys have video games, girls have shoe hunting expeditions, I have the website munchies. So, if any of you have gotten this far and think you need a website, go ahead and give me a call, and I’ll hook you up!

The website has to be seen to be believed. Not only does it not function without javascript, but the layout is ridiculous and confusing, the graphics don't line up, and (as mentioned) the graphic design is awful. So, not only can you get a patent lawyer who might start cursing you out and rant at you for not approving the patent he wanted you to approve, but he might start advertising his awful web design skills in the middle of it all. Wow. Here's a screenshot of one of the blog posts (each has their own "background" image that distracts from, well, everything.

Schroeder might do well to consider taking a deep breath before writing any more angry rants and maybe, just maybe, taking a class on web an graphic design.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: andrew schroeder, patents, rant, uspto

52 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

out_of_the_blue, 3 May 2013 @ 3:07pm

OMG! Another of my idiot clones pops up!
"have had countless people call me out of the blue"!!!

I am NOT related in ANY known way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 3 May 2013 @ 3:16pm

I like Pop-Tarts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 3:17pm

(b) being a "dickhead" for thinking it might be entertaining to highlight his ranting.

Replace "dickhead" with "gentleman, scholar, and all-around great guy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 3:17pm

In the second post, Schroeder insists that as far as he can tell it's absolutely impossible that Crouch could have found his rant in the PAIR system, and therefore, he believes that Crouch hacked into the USPTO's computers and violated the CFAA.

Mikey--

You should get together with this guy. He's right on your wavelength. You can co-author posts about how President Clinton and Colbert violated the CFAA. Oh wait, you already did that one. Maybe the Dalai Lama did! Or Ghandi! Or the Pope! You guys could just pump out all kinds of FUD about random people violating the CFAA! It's a match made in heaven! I'm so happy for you two. Oh la la. I'm just so happy for ya.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 3:23pm

Re:
OMG! Maybe he can help you write more articles about how Aaron Swartz DIDN'T violate the CFAA! Lots of articles about how everyday people doing mundane things that are (SCARY!!!!!) felonies, and then LOTS and LOTS of articles about how Swartz didn't do anything wrong! Swartz couldn't violate the CFAA even if he tried, but people who are just checking their Twitter feed are felons! Yes! Oh, the possibilities! Accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse, and then DENY! Rinse and repeat. Common man = FELON!. Ooh, scary, scary stuff! Then purposeful hacker = saint!!! What felony? What hacking? What's that? It's awesome. This guy is so perfect for Team Techdirt. He'll fit right in with Marcus and Zachary and the Tims. What a brain trust you'll have. Yea!! You found your next hard-hitting TD FUD Packer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ferel (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:30pm

Re: Re:
Good God, man! Put that thing back in your pants. No one wants to see that in public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 3:38pm

The "confidential" application was in fact published by the USPTO on 11/15/2012. See: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fn etahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120286075%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120 286075&RS=DN/20120286075
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Akari Mizunashi (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:40pm

Re: OMG! Another of my idiot clones pops up!
Father and son. Reunited.

It's stories like this that bring a tear to my eye.

But to be serious, ootb, you are just like this guy.

To see you try and distance yourself makes me laugh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Akari Mizunashi (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:41pm

Re:
Careful now! You may be breaking imaginary CFAA laws and we wouldn't want you to be his next target.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
testcore (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:45pm

If he builds his own site(s)...
Why is this the second line of most of the html files?

"Delight is a Pixedelic work, by Consorzio Creativo on Wordpress platform | Manuel Masia (designer and developer)"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gweskoyen, 3 May 2013 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re:
Seek help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nigel (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 3:52pm

whoa
http://www.pixedelic.com/themes/delight/

That is what its supposed to be doing lol... I will fire off a note to that fellow and see if it was actually purchased. Typically, stuff doesn't go completely off the rails like that unless its nulled.

Its more work to screw that up that bad than it is to code it from scratch.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Goober, 3 May 2013 @ 3:53pm

Flabbergasted
I'm absolutely amazed that a patent attorney doesn't know that unless he requests otherwise, all patent applications become public after 18 months. Any patent prosecution (including office actions and their responses) after the 18 months are also public information and viewable within days of submission. How can a patent attorney not know this???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 3:57pm

Re: Re:
Just talking about the CFAA laws on a computer is a violation of the CFAA laws. You might want to delete your comment before the internet police arri
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 3 May 2013 @ 4:00pm

In his defense, Crouch probably has violated the CFAA because at this point, hell, who hasn't? It's like impossible not to violate it in some fashion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Brand, 3 May 2013 @ 4:01pm

Re: Flabbergasted
To be fair, he doesn't seem to talking about *after* 18 months:
"It has always been my understanding that patent applications less than 18 months old and their office action responses are to remain confidential."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CK20XX, 3 May 2013 @ 4:04pm

Thompson Effect? Carreon Effect? Schroeder Effect? There are too many possible names for what's at work here! How is anyone supposed to pick just one?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 4:04pm

Re: Re: Re:
I see what you d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
radarmonkey (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 4:04pm

Separated at birth?
I honestly wonder if Andrew Schroeder is in anyway related to Paul "I wwebsite as on the internet" Christoforo?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 4:08pm

What it is with people with strange names and this need to bully others?

Schroeder is shredding his options here.
He probably was a victim of bullies in his early years LoL

"echo "Schroeder" | festival --tts
echo "shredder" | festival --tts

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 4:13pm

Who needs a cat... Schroeder's box....
If we put Schroeder into a box with a poison pill with a variable release time, and we give him a cell phone with only web capabilities.

Even when the web ranting stops, we have to assume, until opening the box, that Schroeder is both (alive and a douche) and (dead and still a dickhead).

I propose we conduct this experiment at once just to be sure....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 4:16pm

Just a thought...
So, Schroeder publicly alleges that Crouch broke the law, hacked his account, etc... imagine the delicious irony if Crouch sued Schroeder for defamation and won.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 4:19pm

Re:
That is terribuhl man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 4:21pm

Re:
thank you, i was just paging down to ask where it had actually come from, i didn't see it in the story and it seemed like to easy a lay up to pass up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 3 May 2013 @ 4:37pm

Re:
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NoahVail (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 4:43pm

It's really mean to make fun of the mentally ill, even when it's not.

(You might have to squint really hard for that to make sense.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 4:55pm

If anyone wants to really violate the CFAA:
http://angelsharkwebsites.com/la-web-designer-blog-multimedia/wp-login.php

Simple Wordpress page probably without modification, I'd suggest wpscan first.

In all serious reality, I think WP is a great place to start but should be handled with care due to the massive holes which are fixed regularly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 3 May 2013 @ 5:17pm

Something Similar.
I remembered this from many years ago, and Googled for it. I didn't find it on Google, but I did find it on Bing (give credit where credit is due).While it was published in Harpers, it is of course a public record of the Australian courts, and I am therefore within my rights in reproducing it. One might add that one admired the quality of a jurist who can avoid losing his temper under those circumstances.

=============================================================
[court transcript]
contempt
of court

From the transcript of a pretrial hearing that took
place on May 5,in a criminal court in Adelaide,
Australia,before judge Roy Grubb.In the transcript
below,the prisoner is Yusuf Biyikli,a Turkish immi-
grant charged with "assault occasioning actual bodi-
ly harm";Mr. Smart is the attorney for the crown.

[The charge is read]
PRISONER:Shut up,fucking poofter.You poofter,
thank you.
HIS HONOR:You just keep quiet,we will have
a word with you in a moment.
PRISONER:Fuck to you.All right,you poofter.
All right,I fuck you.That is answer.
HIS HONOR:It is said that you assaulted-
PRISONER:Fuck the English,fuck the colony,
all right.
HIS HONOR:If you don't shut up-
PRISONER:Fuck the judge too.That is not true.
HIS HONOR:Do we assume this is a plea of not
guilty?
MR.SMART:Yes,I think wa can assume that.
PRISONER:I fuck you,answer you,stuff you,
poofter.Is that enough for you answer?
HIS HONOR:That is no answer,but I take it as
a plea of not guilty.Inview of the out-
rageous outburst from the accused,I assume that
the torrent of language from him is a plea of not
guilty to each count.Remand for trial.Has some-
one been imprudent enough to grant a bail
agreement?
MR. SMART:I hesitate to ask him
PRISONER:Fuck you.
HIS HONOR:Do you wish to ask for bail?
PRISONER:You ask yourself bail,poofter.
Now ask me.
HIS HONOR:I don't have to ask.
PRISONER:Fuck the bail,fuck Australia.
HIS HONOR:I take it ,then, you don't wish
to seek bail.
PRISONER:Stuff that.
HIS HONOR:No application for bail,the ac-
cused is remanded for trial in custody.
PRISONER:Fucking bastard,poofter,melon-arse.

from Harper's Magazine,December 1993.
#

http://roma.theoffside.com/team-news/roma-cagliari-postponed-due-to-death-of-lazio-fan.h tml
==============================================================
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom, 3 May 2013 @ 6:00pm

Re: Flabbergasted
You have just highlighted Schroeder's dilemma which was why was his patent application viewable before "less than 18 months old".

Oh, I know, it's because the patent office was tickled and released it early. NICE!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 6:11pm

[quote]When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, "No, really, who actually built your website?"[/quote]
Obviously the patent office dropped the ball on the new HTML 6 standard he invented.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John William Nelson, 3 May 2013 @ 7:20pm

Attorney's website; this is hilarious
Oh wow. A 2004 grad it seems from McGeorge. His firm's website is here: http://www.socalpatent.com/

The best part is trying to figure out why one Trademark fee is $450 and one is $500. However, he IS a Hollywood lawyer, as he points out on his website.

Looks like his "website" company is here: http://angelsharkwebsites.com/

Wow. Just. Wow.

As we say in the South, bless his heart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CJ, 3 May 2013 @ 7:36pm

Re: Re: Flabbergasted
His application was filed 5/12/11 and published 11/15/12. That's 18 months right there. The real issue is that he accuses the examiner of being retarded when he can't even do a simple addition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 7:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
15 - 12 = 3 months, plus 12 months for one year, gives 15 months only.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2013 @ 7:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
The comment system ate my pseudo-html tag, trying again:

15 - 12 = 3 months, plus 12 months for one year, gives 15 months only.

</confused_by_the_date_format>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 3 May 2013 @ 10:33pm

"You see, for the past several years I have taught myself how to build my own websites, everything�from A-Z. I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO. And I think that I can build one hell of a website. For the past several years, I have had countless people call me out of the blue and ask me who built my website. When I reveal to them that it was me, they usually respond with something like, �No, really, who actually built your website?� "

No, when people are asking who really built it, they're giving you an opportunity to dodge the bullet and say it was retarded chimp who only just discovered HTML. They're being polite and giving you the chance to save face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McCrea (profile), 4 May 2013 @ 1:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate numbers
Dude, there is no month #15. 15 would be the day field.

11 - 5 = 6 months. 6 + 12 = 18. Ta da.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2013 @ 1:38am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
Right. The US uses Month/Day/Year instead of the more logical Day/Month/Year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 May 2013 @ 4:17am

Re: Re: Flabbergasted
"It has always been my understanding"

Given his "understanding" of website design, I think we might have found the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher Weigel (profile), 4 May 2013 @ 6:55am

This guy just keeps vomiting out more, too...
Here he seems to be claiming that the law school Crouch works at is a scam? Not really sure, he just vomited numbers all over a page and called it a day.

and here he has a badly-spelled attempt at the "Glenn Beck" style of ad hominem.

Looks like there's still more amusement yet to come, if you're willing to brave his remarkably shitty website to find it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 5 May 2013 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
May 12th 2011 to November 15th 2012 is 18 months. 12-5=7 months to the end of 2011 and then 11 months into 2012 for the month of November.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ldne, 5 May 2013 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
There is a 12th in every month, but only one 12th month of the year. When looking through filing cabinets you go to the year for the drawer, then look by month and then day. That's where the format came from, stamping first the month, then day, then year in order of most useful. Year is last because you don't need it unless something is misfiled or out of the cabinet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2013 @ 11:45am

Didn't you mean
"But that's apparently not how Andrew Schroeder rolls."

But that's apparently not how Andrew Schroeder trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2013 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re:
Really AJ, your butt hurt is showing. Please do pull up your pants and waddle along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2013 @ 12:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
You're arguing Schroeder's cat type stuff here. I the month count dead or alive. Observation collapses the field and the yield is 18 months no matter the order of the imaginary time designations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2013 @ 12:45pm

Re:
Schroeder's cat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2013 @ 3:10pm

Re: Attorney's website; this is hilarious
Woah, I have seldom seen such a slow ass website. I have some slow internet anyway but this site is ridiculous. I gave up on it fully loading. Shame too because there looked to be a plethora of lulz to be had.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 6:06am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flabbergasted
Nah, Year-Month-Day is where the logic is really at!

- Seriously though. What is more "logical" depends on what the end goal is. See Idne's post above for what makes month/day/year logical.

Me? I tend to work with computer systems where year-month-day makes the automated sorting easier. Therefore, that format is more logical for that use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
5up Mushroom (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 8:01am

A computer security researcher...

However, from my own research I have found no evidence whatsoever that it is possible.

An SEO expert..

I can do HTML, the Videos, the graphics, the images, CSS, and even the SEO.

A Misogynist...

Some guys have video games, girls have shoe hunting expeditions, I have the website munchies.

Who doesn't give a fuck.

I don�t give a fuck what they tell you.

What an amazing man!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 6 May 2013 @ 2:28pm

Re:
What an amazing man!

I don't always web design, but when I do, I prefer it to be sucky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 May 2013 @ 5:35pm

Re:
Yeah, I accessed the file wrapper right away to try and check out the ridiculous filing, but it was removed by the USPTO. No trouble getting into the file wrapper, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Egregrious Villain, 7 May 2013 @ 4:53am

A few notes from Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights.

�1.3 Business to be conducted with decorum and courtesy.

Applicants and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct their business with the United States Patent and Trademark Office with decorum and courtesy.

�10.23 Misconduct
(a) A practitioner shall not engage in disreputable or gross misconduct.
(b) A practitioner shall not:
(4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
(6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the practitioner�s fitness to practice before the Office.

�10.77 Failing to act competently.
A practitioner shall not:
(a) Handle a legal matter which the practitioner knows or should know that the practitioner is not competent to handle, without associating with the practitioner another practitioner who is competent to handle it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J.Demers, 15 Jun 2013 @ 3:34am

Re: Just a thought...
"imagine the delicious irony if Crouch sued Schroeder for defamation and won."

You might nail Schroeder for "attempted" defamation, but Crouch's readers are unanimous in laughing at Schroeder's incompetence. Fortunately for him, Dennis is smart enough to recognize a lunatic, and classy enough to ignore him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]