Did the USPTO Institute Procedural Obstacles to Block Patents for a Particular Applicant?

By Kate Gaudry
July 6, 2021

“Sometimes, anomalous results are merely a result of unusual ‘inputs’ or a result of noise. Other times, anomalous results are due to (inadvertent or intentional) bias at an institutional or individual level.”

Hyatt - https://depositphotos.com/37866505/stock-photo-something-in-your-way-barrier.htmlGilbert Hyatt filed hundreds of patent applications across fields such as machine control, audio and image processing, and computer technology. While many such applicants can similarly claim to have filed at least so many applications in these areas, Hyatt is perhaps somewhat unique in that: (1) he is a pro-se inventor; (2) he filed the vast majority of the applications shortly before the 1995 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) transition date when patent terms transitioned from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from filing; and (3) his applications are long with complex and extended priority chains. Hyatt has been characterized by some (e.g., Judge TS Ellis) as a “prolific inventor”. For others, Hyatt brings “submarine patents” to mind.

The Hyatt Cases

Regardless, the fact remains that Hyatt filed and paid for many patent applications decades ago, and nearly all of them are still pending. Hyatt asserts that the USPTO is to blame for the delay, and the agency asserts that Hyatt is to blame for at least some of the delay. Hyatt v. Hirshfeld (CAFC, June 1, 2020).

In Hyatt v. Iancu, No 1:20-cv-00990 (E.D. Va.), Hyatt’s legal team (from Baker & Hostetler LLP) filed multiple Declarations and Affidavits from former employees of the USPTO. These former employees included (for example) a former Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner, former Directors of Technology Centers, former Supervisory Patent Examiners (SPEs), and a former Director of Patent Publications.

Content from these Declarations and Affidavits is quoted or summarized below, as are responses from the USPTO.

Procedures are at the heart of all of the documents. The Declarations and Affidavits include allegations that the USPTO followed improper procedures while examining Hyatt’s applications, while the USPTO’s response refute the allegations and assert that procedures should have prevented the former USPTO employees from ever having provided such statements.

[[Advertisement]]

Kazenske Declaration

Edward Kazenske was employed at the USPTO from 1972 until 2005. Kazenske was the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patents from 1994 until 1997. He served Bruce Lehman (who was the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks) from 1995 until 1998. From 1998-2005, Kazenske was a Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning and was responsible for all patent budget and financial management, operations, and business technology utilization.

According to Kazenske’s Declaration:

  • “Commissioner Lehman and [Kezenske] decided that no patents should issue to Mr. Hyatt while [the HR 400] legislation was pending and until all of Mr. Hyatt[‘s] patent applications could be consolidated for further examination.” (Page 4.)
  • “In 1994 through 1998, I was Commissioner Lehman’s Chief conduit to the entire PTO. … During this time, I was aware Mr. Hyatt had won Board reversals at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences … and I ordered PTO Group Directors to ‘defer’ issuing Mr. Hyatt patents on the appealed applications with these reversal. I was concerned about issuing submarine patents during the debate over important patent legislation in Congress where, among other things, submarine patents were to be addressed.” (Page 5; emphasis added.)
  • “In order to make sure that patents would not be issued to Mr. Hyatt inadvertently, I made sure that Board decisions favoring Mr. Hyatt would be deferred from issuing and I arranged for Group Director Nicholas Godici and Mr. Rolla to detect any of Mr. Hyatt’s issuing patents that reached the Office of Patent Publication to be withdrawn from issuance.” (Page 6.)
  • “In early 1997, I briefed then-Commissioner Lehman about my plan [not to issue any patents to Mr. Hyatt until all of his patent applications were consolidated and until all issues could be fully coordinated and resolved]. He liked the idea. … With Commissioner Lehman’s consent, I ordered the Examining Corps not to issue any more patents to Mr. Hyatt without my approval. … I never approved issuing any of Mr. Hyatt’s patent applications and I never rescinded that order to the Examining Corps.” (Page 9; emphasis added.)
  • “I did not and do not know of even a single allowable claim that Mr. Hyatt has received since 1998. I find that striking, given that I was aware of Board reversals and briefings on allowable subject matter in Mr. Hyatt’s patent applications.” (Page 12.)

Razavi Declaration

Michael Razavi was employed at the USPTO from 1985 until 2018. Some of the roles held by Razavi included: SPE between 1992 until 2010 and Administration Manager from 2010 until 2014.

According to Razavi’s Declaration:

  • He and SPE Richard Hjerpe managed examination of Hyatt’s applications from 1997 until 2010. (Page 2.)
  • “In 1997, [Group Director Nicholas] Godici told Mr. Hjerpe and me that we would not be issuing any more patents to Mr. Hyatt until all issues within each Hyatt family of patent applications was resolved. However, we at the PTO never resolved these issues and in fact did not even try to resolve these issues, we let Mr. Hyatt’s patent applications sit ‘on hold’ for the majority of the times throughout the 2000s and beyond.” (Page 2; emphasis added.)
  • “The PTO policy not to issue any more patents to Mr. Hyatt grew to be an even stricter ‘no patents’ policy throughout at least 2010 when my involvement … ended. … We often placed Mr. Hyatt’s applications on hold meaning no examination for years at a time, we stopped issuing examiner answers to his many appeal briefs so that Mr. Hyatt could not get to the Board of Appeals, and we dismissed his many petitions to provide examination so that he could not get to court to question a petition denial.” (Pages 2-3.)
  • “It is a fact that the PTO had Mr. Hyatt trapped.” (Page 3; emphasis added.)

Wong Affidavit

Peter Wong was employed at the USPTO from 1977 until 2007. Some of the roles held by Wong include: SPE in Technology Center 2800 from 1995 until 2000; SPE in Technology Center 2100 from 2000 until 2002; and Director of Technology Center 2100 from 2002 until 2007.

According to Wong’s Affidavit:

  • “There were meetings, memos, training, and much information about reporting patent applications for SAWS evaluation. SAWS was part of the PTO internal culture and it involved the whole PTO for decades. … The SAWS program main objective was not to issue any controversial patents that would create embarrassment to the PTO.” (Page 2.)
  • “The SAWS program was at times being abused and used as a political process that secretly delayed and poisoned-the-well for perceived undesirable patent applications. It gave the PTO upper senior staff the ability to prevent patentable patent applications from issuing …. It appeared to be arbitrary and at the discretion of the PTO upper senior staff ….” (Page 3.)
  • “These SAWS-flagged applications were repeatedly re-examined [causing] significant delays and examiner prejudice.” (Page 3.)
  • “Mr. Hyatt’s name was on the applicant Look-Out list. Patent applications of applicants whose names were on the applicant Look-Out list were taken out of the normal prosecution stream, which resulted in significant delays and examiner prejudice.” (Page 5.)
  • [T]he Commissioner’s Office would not allow ‘the Hyatt cases’ to issue simply because it had an ad hoc rule that – no more patents were to issue to Mr. Hyatt.” (Page 6; emphasis added.)

LeGuyader Declaration

John LeGuyader was employed at the USPTO from 1990 until 2020. Some of the roles held by LeGuyader included: Chief of Staff to John Doll (who was the Commissioner of Patents) in 2005, Director of Technology Center 2600 from 2009-2020, and managing the USPTO’s Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) program from 2006-2015.

LeGuyder’s Declaration is not part of the case history, though the USPTO’s response (in its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum and Declaration) is. This response includes quotations from LeGuyader’s Declaration.

According to the Motion:

  • “Mr. LeGuyader contends that the USPTO’s Solicitor’s Office is the real mastermind behind the USPTO’s supposed ‘no patents-for-Hyatt’ policy. However, even if that were true (it is not), there is nothing improper about the Solicitor’s Office providing legal advice to the patent examiners about proper course of conduct in a given situation.” (Page 5, citation omitted.)
  • “While Mr. LeGuyader admits that he signed ‘suspension in some of Mr. Hyatt’s applications,’ he conveniently omits that he signed suspensions of prosecution in both the ‘213 and ‘173 applications. Whether he was ‘uneasy about doing so’ or not, while convenient, is beside the point.” (Pages 8-9, citation omitted.)

“[Mr. LeGuyader testified that]: … In addition to personal bias against Mr. Hyatt, the USPTO’s policies evidence a kind of institutional bias against Mr. Hyatt.” (Pages 9-10, citations omitted.)

USPTO Response

The USPTO has objected to each of these Declarations/Affidavits. According to these objections, the USPTO asserted that:

  • The party signing the Declaration or Affidavit did not have the right to do so. Specifically, the USPTO asserts that such testimony implicates privilege (of USPTO attorney-client privilege and of federal law prohibiting certain testimony by former federal employees.) (LeGuyader, page 6.) Further, the USPTO submits that while each Declarant is “certainly entitled to [his/her] opinions, [he/she] is not permitted to offer them in a matter in which [he/she] was directly involved, particularly not in an effort to undermine the same actions he endorsed while at the agency.” (USPTO’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum and Declaration filed on 5/19/21 – hereafter referred to as the “May 2021 Declaration Opposition” – page 10, citing 18 U.S.C. 207(j)(6)(A); USPTO’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum and Declaration filed on 3/23/21 – hereinafter referred to as the “Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition” – pages 1, 18-19, 24).
  • Hyatt is barred from obtaining information that indicates the intentions of the USPTO. (Others, page 17.)
  • Actual or potential payment to the signors of the Declarations/Affidavits was improper, citing United States v. Anty, 203 F.3d 305, 311–12 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Legitimizing the payment of money to witnesses can be a risky business, particularly when the payment greatly outstrips any anticipated expense.”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 201. (May 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 11. Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 4.)
  • A previous district court decision that that USPTO had no de facto policy of denying patents to Hyatt (Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition pages 8, 14)

In response to Kazenske’s Declaration specifically, the USPTO asserted:

  • “It should come as no surprise that the ‘politicals’ within the USPTO were concerned about the optics of issuing a patent with a 1970s priority date given all of the talk of ‘submarine patents’” (Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 24.)

In response to Razavi’s Declaration specifically, the USPTO asserted:

  • During previous testimonies from past depositions, Razavi contended that the USPTO “wanted to make sure we can … do the best possible examination”.
  • “Even if the Court fully credits Mr. Razavi’s current recollection of events, … it … merely confirms [that] … the USPTO was not in a position to handle Mr. Hyatt’s unprecedented filings.” (Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 26.)
  • It was “not surprising that additional checks or approvals were necessary in Mr. Hyatt’s cases” and suspensions were a “perfectly reasonable administrative decision”. (Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 27.) The agency referred to the number of applications that faced written-description rejections and the overlap of issues facing Hyatt’s applications to exemplify the complexity of the applications. (Mar. 2021 Declaration Opposition, pages 27-28.)

In response to LeGuyader’s Declaration specifically, the USPTO asserted:

  • It “defies logic to think the Solicitor’s Office would not be involved in Mr. Hyatt’s case given his litigious history” and that communications between the Solicitor’s Office and the USPTO are protected via privileged. (May 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 6.)
  • LeGuyader bases his opinions on the specialized knowledge, training and experience he acquired working at the USPTO on these very applications. While he is certainly entitled to those opinions, he is not permitted to offer them in a matter in which he was directly involved, particularly not in an effort to undermine the same actions he endorsed while at the agency.” (May 2021 Declaration Opposition, page 10.)

Final Thoughts

Sometimes, anomalous results are merely a result of unusual “inputs” or a result of noise. Other times, anomalous results are due to (inadvertent or intentional) bias at an institutional or individual level. Our judicial system is now tasked with evaluating the above circumstances (and additional evidence and argument) to opine as to whether the delays of Hyatt’s cases is due to unusual circumstances or institutional prejudice.

 

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID:37866505
Copyright:alexmillos 

The Author

Kate Gaudry

Kate Gaudry , Ph.D., is a partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. She focuses her practice on patent prosecution, with an emphasis on software, computer systems, and quantitative biology technologies. Dr. Gaudry also routinely performs statistical analysis of clients’ patent portfolios to identify effective prosecution strategies. Her research and data focus was recognized when she was one of five attorneys across all practice areas to be selected for LexMachina’s and Law360’s Data-Driven Lawyer award in its inaugural year of 2018.

For more information, or to contact Dr. Gaudry, please visit her firm profile page.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 57 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. ipguy July 6, 2021 8:59 pm

    These things may very well have happened, but the USPTO is arguing that, even if true, the declarants are forbidden from disclosing this confidential information. When I left the Office, I vaguely recall someone telling me that if I was ever contacted in regards to a dispute involving a patent issued from an application I allowed, I should immediately contact the solicitor’s office because I was not allowed to discuss the internal deliberations involving my decision to allow the application.
    As I’ve previously said, this Hyatt hullabaloo all goes away if inequitable conduct by Hyatt occurred in one of his earlier application as any child application claiming priority would be a fruit of that poisonous tree.
    Did Hyatt game the system? I suppose it depends on how you look at things. As far as I know, he followed the rules as they then-existed. Someone mentioned to me that they thought Hyatt’s largely responsible for the US adopting publication at 18 months, and patent terms being adjusted to only 20 years from the earliest priority date. There may be some validity to that.

  2. Paul Morinville July 6, 2021 10:01 pm

    Thanks Kate. Well laid out and easy to understand. It’s your trademark.

    Ipguy, The SAWS program, in which my patents involuntarily participate, destroys all moral authority the USPTO once had to cast a shadow on Hyatt or his patents. That secret program is intended to ensure the patents never issue. That is what the witnesses are saying too. If the USPTO is never going to issue it and goes so far as to submarine Hyatt with a secret illegal program, they will say whatever they need to in order to justify their unjustifiable position.

    These people are corrupt and must be removed.

  3. Julie Burke July 6, 2021 11:47 pm

    Thank you, Kate, for the update.

    If the USPTO can do this sort of thing to Gil Hyatt, what’s to stop them from doing this to all of us?

  4. Paul Morinville July 7, 2021 1:23 am

    Julie, there are hundreds of people being crushed by the corrupt and illegal program called SAWS. It is truly hostile to fairness and fairplay, and a taking of the property of the small to give to huge multinationals with no allegiance to the United States.

    This conduct by unelected bureaucrats is reprehensible and should be criminal.

    At minimum those engaged in it must be fired to salvage what little credibility the USPTO has left..

  5. ipguy July 7, 2021 4:22 am

    “These people are corrupt and must be removed.”

    There are a lot of parallels between PTO Management and my HOA’s Board. If you’ve ever lived in an HOA, you know exactly what I mean.

  6. Primary Examiner July 7, 2021 6:05 am

    Very informative (non-biased) write-up, Kate. Thank you.

  7. Stephen Potter July 7, 2021 6:19 am

    Did Mr Hyatt make any attempt to prosecute his applications in any jurisdictions other than the US? – if so, what have been the results?

  8. Concerned July 7, 2021 6:52 am

    I strongly feel the USPTO has not fairly treated my application.

    My first examiner specifically told me in our phone interview that the higher ups were denying my application. Then a second examiner mysteriously is assigned.

  9. AAA JJ July 7, 2021 8:38 am

    “If the USPTO can do this sort of thing to Gil Hyatt, what’s to stop them from doing this to all of us?”

    Nothing. But if you think that the PTO isn’t already doing it to others I have some prime beach front property in Omaha I’d like to sell you.

    There are, always has been, and always will be applications that the PTO will not allow regardless of any credible legal reasons to deny issuance. It’s rather hard for me to believe that you worked at the PTO as long as you did and you don’t know this already.

    Many of the lifers in the “management” ranks “grew up” at the PTO during John Doll’s and John Love’s reign of “quality = reject, reject, reject” and “second pair of eyes review.” They believe, because those two individuals taught them, that the law is not the law, instead the law is whatever they say it is.

  10. TFCFM July 7, 2021 9:43 am

    Just as the federal government hopefully (and probably) takes steps to deny ransomware attackers opportunities to exploit legitimate government communication channels for improper purposes, so should this particular part of the government (the USPTO) take steps to inhibit misuse of legitimate government communication channels for other improper purposes.

    Whether the federal government oversteps the bounds of legality in implementing this wise practice is — rightly — a call for courts to make when the practice be disputed.

  11. Pro Say July 7, 2021 10:16 am

    Thanks Kate. Great investigative reporting as usual.

    Say what you will about Gil taking full legal advantage of the rules and regulations which are and were available to all, the one conclusion which can be drawn from the disgusting, abhorrent, and indeed immoral and unconstitutional way the Patent Office has treated one of America’s greatest inventors is this:

    Gil can’t live forever. But we — Patent Office — will.

    Until then it’s: “No patents for you!”

  12. Curious July 7, 2021 11:07 am

    My take on the USPTO-Gill Hyatt battle has long been that both sides are losers. Hyatt has gamed the system. More so, Hyatt has gamed the system so much that the USPTO feels that they have a right to break the system to counter Hyatt.

    The USPTO should have bitten the bullet and issued Hyatt’s patents long ago. That being said, there is zero justification for their ‘star chamber-ish’ approach to patent examination — either for Gil Hyatt or for anybody else for that matter. It destroys public confidence in the entire patent system as a whole and it utterly reprehensible.

    The USPTO’s actions are so bad that it is making Hyatt look like the good guy in comparison.

  13. Paul F Morgan July 7, 2021 11:21 am

    Thanks for the exposure of some of the PTO “SAWS” program affidavit evidence submitted from former PTO personnel in the mandamus suit Hyatt v. Iancu, No 1:20-cv-00990 (E.D. Va.), appealed by the PTO in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld (CAFC, June 1, 2020), and presumably still ongoing. This article should have also noted that the PTO did finally to set up, some time ago, presumably in response to a prior Hyatt suit, a special PTO examination group with examination time allowances for the difficult examinations of the many still pending Hyatt applications, which, besides the noted priority chains requiring 112 support examinations, have thousands of new claims added by numerous amendments to the many original claims.

  14. Paul F Morgan July 7, 2021 11:33 am

    Did the D.C. Judge Ellas order or allow the entry of those affidavits from former PTO employees in that case [even from a Hyatt application examiner]? Did the PTO agree to that evidence being entered for this case, or will the PTO OED or the PTO Solicitor take any action against those former employees, and on what basis?

  15. PTO-indentured July 7, 2021 1:08 pm

    We came, We SAWS, we conquered.

    Oh … and we didn’t tell anybody about this.

  16. PTO-indentured July 7, 2021 1:22 pm

    Kate and/or any other readers here — how does one go about confirming if their application was given ‘The Secret Society’ SAWS treatment?

  17. Anon July 7, 2021 1:23 pm

    Why am I not surprised to see TFCFM defend the Office attempts to squelch its plainly illicit activities?

    To even attempt to draw as a parallel legitimate protections against misuse of authority with the sections of quotes in this article is beyond the pale, and clearly shows that TFCFM is no obtainer or protector of innovation.

  18. June July 7, 2021 1:42 pm

    I believe that the USPTO IS being bullird by certain members due to greed.
    I was called an actual theif, because a of interference.

  19. Paul F Morgan July 7, 2021 2:31 pm

    Re “PTO-indentured’s” question, if the PTO has not acted on your application in far more than the normal time for that art unit, and has not responded to your case status inquiry letters, then you may need to take further action. For example, if Hyatt had filed an APA suit years ago for his long application delays, before its statute of limitations ran, he would not have had to use the subject more difficult mandamus suit.

  20. Benny July 7, 2021 3:10 pm

    Stephen @ 7 ,
    A quick search shows that Hyatt did not file for patent protection outside the US, essentially granting his IP to us Europeans, Brits, Aussies and assorted tribes and pagans free, gratis and for naught.

  21. Paul Morinville July 7, 2021 3:44 pm

    PTO-indentured @16. The secret SAWS society is… well… secret. I am proudly (might be the wrong word) one of two people on the planet that the USPTO has been forced to recognize as an unwilling SAWS participant. Me and Hyatt.

    However, you can take the futile step of filing a FOIA request, which the USPTO will deny, as they did mine and dozens of others.

    Other than forcing them to admit it in court, there is not much way to know for sure. As a result, the USPTO feels protected in continuing to operate an illegal program – one that they falsely claimed in 2015 to have discontinued.

    This is nothing short of corruption and must be dealt with as corruption.

  22. Gary July 7, 2021 6:29 pm

    My patent lawyer once did an interview with the examiner. The examiner was about to leave for a job in the private sector and told my lawyer that “I can’t find a reason to reject it, my supervisor has told me that this application cannot be allowed to issue because it is too politically sensitive, so you’re just going to need to appeal.” Refreshingly honest. The delay in issuing the patent was well over 10 years, and by the time the patent issued, the value of the underlying technology had dropped quite a bit. So yes, applications have been targeted in the past for reasons having nothing to do with allowability.

    Of course, since then examiners have been given the Alice Uncertainty Principle to work with, allowing them to reject nearly anything (even an improved vehicle axle) saying that it is too abstract. If the same call happened today, I suspect my lawyer would have just been told “my supervisor says it is unpatentable subject matter”.

  23. anonymous insider 1990s July 8, 2021 7:47 am

    SAWS was very real, but, as I understand it, is no longer in existence. It did impact more than Hyatt, however.

  24. concerned July 8, 2021 9:29 am

    Gary:

    As I posted above, my first examiner said that the higher ups were blocking my application and the examiner did specifically referred to the Alice matter as the reason. The examiner said 3 times in the phone interview my application had patentability. Then the first examiner was replaced by a second examiner, not by our request.

    Even if the examiner did not says why my application was being blocked, the “official” rejection reasons were clearly designed to reject at all costs. The rejections were totally illogical and not supported by law or the official record. Even the PTAB rejected the both examiners’ reasons, however, the PTAB rejection reasons were even more illogical reasons. At the CAFC now.

    I have no faith in the alleged patent process.

  25. TFCFM July 8, 2021 10:00 am

    Anon@#17: “Why am I not surprised to see TFCFM defend the Office attempts to squelch its plainly illicit activities?

    Why am I not remotely surprised to see Anon mischaracterize what I plainly wrote and hurl attempted-insult in place of counter-argument?

    As anyone can verify, I wrote the following at #10:

    TFCFM@#10: “Whether the federal government oversteps the bounds of legality in implementing this wise practice is — rightly — a call for courts to make when the practice be disputed.

    Calling for a court to assess legality of a practice is hardly “defend the Office attempts to squelch its plainly illicit activities.”

    Likewise, the idea that the federal government ought to take steps to prevent abuse of federal government programs and facilities is not remotely invalidated by the suggestion that one applauding the idea is a doody-head.

  26. Gene July 8, 2021 3:34 pm

    ipguy: “Someone mentioned to me that they thought Hyatt’s largely responsible for the US adopting publication at 18 months . . .”

    That would be Jerome Lemelson. Mr. Submarine Patent billionaire.

  27. Anon July 8, 2021 3:55 pm

    There is no mischaracterization on my part TFCFM, as it is you that attempts to equate the plainly P00R Office practices listed in THIS article with some other legitimate practice.

    Your attempt here to merely repeat the FALSE supposition of “implementing this wise practice” does not change the false supposition to a correct one.

    Whether or not a court is called to assess is clearly NOT the point of my calling out your attempt at a bogus correlation.

    Likewise, this has nothing at all to do with any tangent of “taking steps to prevent abuse of federal government programs.” That “Ends” does not – and cannot – justify the Means “as anyone can verify” in the article itself.

    Are you sure that you are an attorney? You do not seem to handle points put to you so well.

  28. Primary Examiner July 8, 2021 4:18 pm

    Anon, I will write what almost everyone else on here is (most likely) thinking: give it a break, dude!
    I’ve seen some of your various comments (on different threads), and most of them are personal attacks.
    Most people come to this forum for knowledge and idea sharing, not to indulge in silly and childish personal attacks.
    May I recommend some yoga, or perhaps a nature retreat?
    I personally find it easier to ignore you rather to respond to you, but please just hear me out this time: save your personal attacks for another medium, you’ll be doing all of us, and yourself too, a favor.
    Namaste

  29. Pro Say July 8, 2021 8:14 pm

    Primary: “give it a break, dude!”

    That.

    (ease off the pedal, my friend)

  30. ipguy July 8, 2021 8:14 pm

    @26 “That would be Jerome Lemelson.”

    Good point, Gene.

  31. Anon-noyed July 9, 2021 10:52 am

    @28

    I nominate that for Post of the Year, PE. Well said.

  32. Anon July 9, 2021 4:09 pm

    I love the fact that those with whom I take issue with want me to be quiet.

    Thank you all for confirming that my aim is true, and my targets well chosen.

    Of course, the better path would be to engage and best me in the dialogue.

    Clearly, that does not happen for reasons quite evident.

  33. RTFMPEP July 9, 2021 6:55 pm

    @33

    People don’t want you to shut up because you’re right, they want you to shut up because you’re a fascist A-hole constantly whining about how you’re being victimized by the Political Left and everyone is conspiring against you, you paranoid lunatic fringe fascist.

  34. RTFMPEP July 9, 2021 6:56 pm

    @28

    I second that nomination.

  35. RTFMPEP July 9, 2021 7:03 pm

    @37

    You are obviously quite delusional from all that crystal meth you’ve been smoking, you rascist hairy-palmed degenerate.

  36. Anon July 9, 2021 8:15 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    You are a “gem.”

    A real study in parody. Magnificent in the most opposite of senses.

    I eagerly await your very first cogent post on a point of law.

  37. RTFMPEP July 9, 2021 10:03 pm

    My post at 36 was precognition.

  38. Primary examiner July 10, 2021 10:19 am

    Anon: bless your heart.

    P.s. please seek help. Professional help maybe.

  39. Anon July 10, 2021 1:55 pm

    Primary examiner,

    Thank you, but your concern is misplaced. I simply do not need help. That you might think so only reflects on your own misguided state.

  40. RTFMPEP July 10, 2021 5:33 pm

    “I simply do not need help”

    Proof that denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

  41. Anon July 10, 2021 6:55 pm

    LOL – look in the mirror first there, RTFMPEP.

    Then find within yourself the fortitude (and intellect) to actually make a cogent comment on the law.

    Such would be a first for you.

  42. RTFMPEP July 12, 2021 4:07 pm

    Unlike you, Anon, I can look in a mirror without it cracking.

  43. Anon July 12, 2021 7:22 pm

    RTFMPEP,

    I have no idea what put-down you think that you are making.

  44. RTFMPEP July 13, 2021 1:48 pm

    Anon,
    Of course you don’t since your poor reading comprehension skills are well-known, you degenerate America-hating fascist filth.

  45. Anon July 13, 2021 5:03 pm

    You complain about my supposed poor reading skills, while repeating a denigration known to be false?

    Are you trying to be that stupid?

  46. RTFMPEP July 14, 2021 1:56 pm

    The domain of stupidity is your undisputed realm, you degenerate America-hating fascist swine!

  47. Anon July 15, 2021 10:36 am

    There you go again, RTFMPEP, employing your default tactic of projecting.

    Your posts are — as typical — empty of any actual content or point.

    How sad.

  48. RTFMPEP July 15, 2021 4:42 pm

    There you go again, Anon, showing the world that I pull your strings and you dance, like the America-hating treasonous rightist degenerate you are. You lose…..again!

  49. Anon July 15, 2021 10:17 pm

    Except not.

    You are in love with your fallacies.

    I wonder if I should start up a type of fund-me campaign here…

  50. RTFMPEP July 16, 2021 2:41 pm

    Anon’s desperate protestations demonstrate once again that denial ain’t just a river in Egypt with the brass knuckles of truth having once again shattering his jaw of ignorance!

  51. Anon July 16, 2021 3:33 pm

    Your string of words simply miss reality.

    That you like that string and merely repeat it places it no closer to reality.

    How much should I seek for each of the various types of your non-substantive posts?

  52. RTFMPEP July 17, 2021 3:03 pm

    Once again, the sharpened serrated blade of reason and truth has sliced off the scrotum of your fascist treason, anon.

  53. Anon July 17, 2021 6:01 pm

    Colorful, but bland due to their disassociation with reality.

    You need a new meme.

  54. RTFMPEP July 18, 2021 3:48 pm

    Thank you for proving my point.

  55. Anon July 18, 2021 5:57 pm

    Except not.

    You still need a new meme.

  56. Anon July 19, 2021 9:12 pm

    You just have the largest mental trophy case of all time.

    I am overjoyed for you.

    Stay a bit longer on this planet the next time you come for a visit.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website