Judge Albright Identifies Outcome-Determinative Discrepancies in Federal Circuit Interpretations of Fifth Circuit Law Under 1404(a)

by David Hricik, Mercer Law School

Judge Albright granted Google’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California in an opinion in Motion Offense LLC v. Google, LLC (here).  Transfer is governed by regional circuit law, and so here, the law of the Fifth Circuit. What is interesting is the judge noting that the only reason transfer was granted is that the Federal Circuit had reached conclusions different from the Fifth Circuit on what Fifth Circuit law was.

First, one factor in determining whether the transferee venue is more convenient is whether process will be needed to compel testimony and so, if a witness is more than 100 miles from the courthouse, the witness is beyond subpoena power. Thus, if transfer makes it easier to compel more witnesses to testify, that indicates the transferee forum is more convenient.   Judge Albright noted that under Fifth Circuit precedent, the party seeking to transfer has the burden to show there are witnesses and they are unwilling and so transfer will aid in compelling testimony; but unpublished Federal Circuit cases “applying” Fifth Circuit law, say the opposite: unless there is a showing a witness is willing to testify, the court presumes they are not.

Second, the location of documents and volume of them in the transferee district indicates the transferee district is more convenient.  Under Fifth Circuit precedent, the party seeking to transfer has the burden to show the presence of documents, not just that it’s likely they exist, but under the Federal Circuit’s approach, there is a presumption the accused infringer has more relevant documents.

Third, the Fifth Circuit uses a 100 mile rule to determine convenience of the parties and witnesses for trial: the more such people within 100 miles of the transferee courthouse, the more likely it is more convenient.  But, the Federal Circuit instructed not to follow this approach, according to Judge Albright.

The opinion is interesting for a variety of reasons, and I haven’t done my independent look at the cases to see if the opinion fairly characterizes the difference between the Fifth Circuit’s precedent and what the Federal Circuit says is the Fifth Circuit’s precedent, but, plainly, unpublished decisions by the Federal Circuit about Fifth Circuit law can not bind a district court in the Fifth Circuit when it is bound to follow regional circuit law, just as those opinions cannot bind a panel of the Federal Circuit.

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

64 thoughts on “Judge Albright Identifies Outcome-Determinative Discrepancies in Federal Circuit Interpretations of Fifth Circuit Law Under 1404(a)

  1. 9

    Another interesting (precedential) mandamus decision today from Judge Albright’s denial of a motion to transfer in In re Monolithic Power Systems. Monolithic alleged that venue was improper in the WD Tex because it had no established place of business there. Judge Albright found that four employees who lived in the district were enough to constitute “a regular and established place of business.”

    The CAFC denied mandamus—without holding that the four employees homes qualify as a place of business—because Judges Chen & Stark considered that this is a matter that could be addressed after final judgment, so mandamus was not warranted. Judge Lourie dissented, opining that this case was just like In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and should—therefore—warrant mandamus relief.

    I mostly mention this because judgments where Albright is overturned on mandamus attract a lot of attention. I do not want selection bias in coverage to obscure the fact that—even in close cases—Judge Albright is actually affirmed by the CAFC more often than he is overturned. The cases where he is overturned really are egregious, which is why he gets overturned in those cases.

    1. 9.1

      He has been overturned in plenty of “non-egregious” cases – cases which would be less than the status of egregious for this case that the dissenting judge has so indicated.

  2. 8

    Ha! This is a poison pill the CAFC has no choice but to swallow.

    May they choke on it.

    Just as they’ve 101-choked inventors.

    Just as.

  3. 7

    Sincere question…

    “plainly, unpublished decisions by the Federal Circuit about Fifth Circuit law can not bind a district court in the Fifth Circuit when it is bound to follow regional circuit law”

    How can this be so plainly correct when Albright expressly asserts the opposite? I’ve not been a fan of his, but I wouldn’t have guessed that he would make any obvious mistake either accidentally or deliberately.

    So is this more ambiguous an issue then presented, or is it a bizarre error on his part?

    1. 7.1

      “ I wouldn’t have guessed that he would make any obvious mistake either accidentally or deliberately.”

      LOL! Seriously? Are we talking about the same guy? A rightwing judge from Texas who actively courted the worst attorneys on earth to file junk patent cases in his courtroom?

      Funny stuff.

        1. 7.1.1.1

          Derp derp both sides derp!

          My goodness I didn’t think defenses of Texas crudball judges like Albright could get more pathetic. Then again, I am on a “#1 patent blog” (lol) so I shouldn’t be surprised anymore.

          1. 7.1.1.1.1

            Malcolm and his “Derp” response — translation: “Malcolm has nothing meaningful to say.”

            And yes, you would be correct if you took this as a universal translation of most anything that Malcolm has ever said

    2. 7.2

      How can this be so plainly correct when Albright expressly asserts the opposite?

      Are you reading Judge Albright’s pg. 1 lament that “[t]his Court cannot ignore or overrule cases from the Federal Circuit. But-for those Federal Circuit cases, this Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Transfer,” as sincere? I read this as more of a passive-aggressive whine.

      I do not believe that this is a “bizarre error on his part.” He knows exactly what he is doing. He is trying to set up a case to get the CAFC to take one of these cases en banc and clear away some of the precedents that he does not like. This putative confusion is all feigned, not real.

      1. 7.2.1

        Yes, I thought it was sincere.

        I don’t see why he needs to grant the motion to get the case before the CAFC. Plenty of movants were happy to appeal when he denied their transfer motions.

        1. 7.2.1.1

          The overwhelming majority of district court decisions that are appealed are affirmed. The majority of appellate decisions that are appealed to the SCOTUS or an en banc reconsideration, however, are reversed. That is to say, if you want to get to a higher level of appeal than the first appellate panel decision, then (statistically) you are better off starting with a wrong decision at the district court level. He is coyly getting it “wrong” as a means to set it up for some higher level review.

    3. 7.3

      Non-prec decisions can’t be cited by a court, or any party (other than the parties to the appeal later), so I think what the judge is saying is: the CAFC is reversing me based on non-prec opinions, so I have to follow them or I am wasting my and the parties’ time.

  4. 6

    O.k., now that I have reviewed Judge Albright’s order, there seems to be far less here than is advertised. Judge Albright cites non-precedential cases as establishing the movant’s burden to identify witnesses. Needless to say, non-precedential cases are not actually law, so one can hardly fault the CAFC for not following them (although I am still curious to know whether any of these cases were even briefed to the CAFC in their previous decisions).

    Meanwhile, Albright cites a very recent precedential CA5 decision (Apr 2022) for the proposition that the movant has the burden of establishing the existence of records in the transferee venue. Obviously, the CAFC could not have taken account of an Apr 2022 CA5 decision when deciding its own precedential decisions last year. Judge Albright makes a great show of saying “I am only doing this because I am bound by CAFC precedent,” but that is nonsense when there is actual CA5 precedent that supersedes the CAFC decisions. Where the CA5 has spoken, its word actually rules now on this point—even in a patent case.

    1. 6.1

      I think you made his point: he’s getting reversed by the CAFC in non-prec opinions that differ from Fifth Circuit law, so: should he ignore the non-prec opinions and get reversed, wasting everyone’s time?

  5. 5

    The Fifth Circuit is a judicial sewer packed with fascist psychos. Probably the CAFC is taking that into account.

    1. 5.1

      “Everyone I don’t like is a fascist.” When I read your comments, I cannot tell if you are being provocative, or really believe what you type. Some people only like precedent when they agree with it.

      1. 5.1.1

        Because you were apparently born yesterday and criticizing the Fifth Circuit as fascist is just not acceptable. It’s so mean! How dare anyone do that while the Fifth Circuit actively Carrie’s water for fascists.

        Okay, “Mom”.

      2. 5.1.2

        “Everyone I don’t like is a fascist.”

        Only a fascist would charactize his comment like that.

        Just kidding!

        I suspect these people (and this site alone has multiple) are sincere. But whether their comments are good faith or bad, there is really no point in responding. As the saying goes: never argue with a pig on the internet, you get dirty and the pig likes it.

        Welcome to the thunderdome patently-O> the internet.

        1. 5.1.2.1

          “As the saying goes: never suggest that a bunch of glibertarian patent maximalist bros on the Internet are okay with fascism because the river of tears will drown the entire world”

        2. 5.1.2.2

          Did you just assume The Prophet’s gender, or do you know? From the posts, I was assuming differently.

          1. 5.1.2.2.1

            I didn’t think about it at the time of my comment, but I guess I have some vague impression developed prior to me learning to ignore his, and certain others’, comments.

            1. 5.1.2.2.1.1

              Of course, none of us can really ever know who is typing on the keyboard at the other side of the internet. “The Prophet,” however, used to go by the moniker “Malcolm” (a man’s name), so I do not think that you are making too many unjustified assumptions in using “his.”

          2. 5.1.2.2.2

            No need to presume anyone’s gender (and Ben is being disingenuous in his response, due to the following):

            “The Prophet” is a known entity, and is merely the latest incarnation of the original Malcolm Mooney (aka Malcolm, aka MM, aka a whole host of “so ck pupp ets” notably At Patents Docs — at the same time he was whining endlessly that such were “the worst thing ever” on this blog).

            Quite in fact, Malcolm’s undeniable fingerprints have marred this blog all the way back to the blog’s early days of commenting some 17 years ago (well before my time, but verified by a web crawl during the DISQUS days — the same timeframe in which Ben was upvoting nearly every single post by Malcolm.

            Malcolm celebrated a 15 year anniversary before abruptly disappearing for just over a year (even prompting speculation of his passing) but did make a comeback with a number of different monikers before settling on “The Prophet.”

            His return did not go unnoticed (and yes the same person that outed him at Patent Docs provided notice of his return, namely me).

      3. 5.1.3

        “or really believe what you type.”

        Oh you better believe it. He really is that dum. It’s because he’s afraid of them because of his ID. His fear makes him dum on these issues as he is otherwise at least half intelligent.

        “It’s so mean!”

        I don’t think they said that it’s mean to call them fascist. I think they’re saying that it is absurd. Which, of course, it is. But, this goes over your head since you’re fearful.

        “Carrie’s water for fascists”

        “If anyone sides with those I deem fascist in any way they’re “carrying waterlololol” for “fascistslol”” – MM

        1. 5.1.3.2

          I was going to ask who Carrie is and what is so special about her water. Again, not sure if it was a poor attempt at humor, or a typo.

          1. 5.1.3.2.1

            It was “artificial intelligence” changing the correct words that I typed.

            Meanwhile, there is a judge on the 5th Circuit who conducts prayers (p u k e) before every hearing and those who don’t want to participate are locked out until the prayers are over. Sure, that’s normal and totally not some stunt a Christian fascist would pull.

              1. 5.1.3.2.1.1.1

                Well PM, I am sure that you realize that by now that Malcolm (“The Prophet”) uses terms quite inappropriately when he is having his emotional rants about anything that he happens to disagree with (so often throwing ALL such things into a “degenerate” ‘One-Bucket.’

  6. 4

    Haven’t the courts heard of video conferencing over the Internet?

    Why should witnesses have to physically travel anywhere?

    Have people forgotten about the Covid-19 pandemic when everyone with any sense was doing video conferencing? And the courts were doing it, too.

    And the Covid-19 pandemic is not over.

    As of September 21, 2022, a total of 1,049,864 COVID-19 deaths have been reported in the United States.
    link to cdc.gov

    People are still dying from it and many more are left with brain fog.

    That would explain many court decisions at all levels.

    And now there is MonkeyPox.

    And Ebola is making a comeback.

    No problem. Putin is going to start a nuclear war and then everyone’s going to die and there won’t be any more lawsuits. Or courts.

    Have a nice day, everyone.

    1. 4.1

      Well, if the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged, not sure you can say Putin started it. That is, unless you believe that he would destroy his own pipelines he spent billions building to do so. I know most of the media embraces that theory.

      But, since the competitor pipeline was serendipitously ready to go a day later, and considering what both Biden and Nuland said about said pipelines if Russia invaded Ukraine, and Poland thanking the US after the leak was known, and Blinken saying it needs to be investigated and no one benefitted from it (except those wanting green energy, those with the competing pipeline, and those wanting the war to escalate), color me skeptical.

      Cue the accusations of fascist Putin lover/Russian sympathizer.

      1. 4.1.1

        Some people don’t know how to evaluate which flag was truly behind whatever incident and don’t understand “false flags” and “ambiguous flags” when attacks occur.

    2. 4.2

      “And the Covid-19 pandemic is not over.”

      You wish. The Wuhan virus “pandemic” is done. Anyone who wanted to be vaccinated has been; most people, vaccinated or not, have contracted it in some form and either lived and thus have at least heightened immunity, or died and no longer figure in the calculus.

      But if you like Big Brother telling you what to do, keep pretending that there’s a pandemic out there, wear your mask, and let your electric car sit in your driveway in LA while you don’t charge it b/c Governor Gruesome told you there’s not electricity available for that.

      Either way, try sticking to the issues.

      1. 4.2.1

        “The Wuhan virus “pandemic” is done.”

        So that’s why they won’t let me in my doc office without a mask on. I did hear that Pres biden declared it over tho.

        “But if you like Big Brother telling you what to do, keep pretending that there’s a pandemic out there, ”

        You should tell that to the feds in the federal circuit building lol.

        1. 4.2.1.1

          The pandemic is over.

          The fear is not.

          And the intoxicating power of controlling others’ behavior is not relinquished readily.

          1. 4.2.1.1.1

            I gather that our politics are 180 degrees apart from each other, but I agree with all three of those assertions. Hopefully that bipartisan consensus means that progress can be made along this one dimension of our shared civic life.

          2. 4.2.1.1.2

            PM,

            You may take note the “relief” in Greg’s (Dozen’s alter ego) views when it comes to the end of the pandemic — as this means that he no longer has to actually apply consistency politically — seeing as his Liberal Left “equity” views vanished when it came to his personal pocketbook views (Very ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ of him).

            1. 4.2.1.1.2.1

              I am amazed that someone could agree with my last point and still vote for the party currently in power. What is that about the definition of insanity?

              1. 4.2.1.1.2.1.1

                I hear you, but consistency (and lack of hypocrisy) as never been a strong suit of politicians.

                Across both sides of the aisle.

                1. I cannot disagree regarding consistency and hypocrisy. But I was surprised by the draconian mandates, which seemed to be implemented by one side more than the other, as well as the number of lawyers who supported them.

                2. One must remember that Most lawyers do not come from a formal undergrad of rigorous objective thought, but instead come from the (captured) Liberal upbringing.

                  Academia is pretty much a lost cause.

  7. 3

    Even aside from the fact that my prior posts presaged this very concept (that the CAFC was NOT applying law per the controlling 5th Circuit, but rather how they wanted the 5th Circuit to be), THIS action is guaranteed to bring ill repute to the judicial branch.

    To wit, in both cases of Judge Albright being correct AND being incorrect, the Judicial Branch suffers.

    In the event that Judge Albright is correct (and given his knowledge of both patent law and 5th Circuit law, I have no reason to pre-judge his views as incorrect), the very real shadow of Ends justify the Means (which the CAFC has ‘dutifully’ learned at the feet of the Supreme Court) explicitly tarnishes the Judicial Branch.

    Further, this specific action EVEN if Judge Albright is correct, would be legal error with Judge Albright plainly admitting that his decision is legally wrong, but only having been made due to the overt Social pressures having been made (both by members of Congress and comments by Justices of the Supreme Court).

    He has basically laid the trap of “accept this legal error and you [the anti-patentists] Lose by winning.”

    On the flip side, his actions here — if indeed he IS wrong — impugn the Judicial Branch BY his being wrong.

    To play with an analogy, one’s face IS marred when one cuts off their nose (even if doing so was done in spite).

    My view here is that Judge Albright has basically been driven to a point to which he feels that he may have nothing left to lose (professionally), and this type of “here, you win – but you lose if you take this win” decision cannot hurt him.

    1. 3.1

      Let’s take it a step further… assume the FedCir replies that Albright is wrong for [insert reason here]. What would be the appropriate action to resolve the conflict? Is there a writ that would allow the real 5th Circuit to weigh in? Can SCOTUS take a case to resolve what the “law of the 5th Circuit” really is?

      Both sound bizarre, imho. So perhaps shows the fatal flaw in the FedCir’s whole “apply local circuit precedent” line of cases.

      1. 3.1.1

        This appears to be the subject of one of the petitions for cert that was mentioned in a post by Dennis just yesterday:
        10. Mandamus Jurisdiction in CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 22-38

        This petition fascinated me for a couple of days as I tried to think through the scope of mandamus jurisdiction. We know that the Federal Circuit hears patent appeals, but the petition argues that the same court does not necessarily hear mandamus actions filed in patent cases. Rather, according to the petition, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction should depend upon whether the mandamus action itself arises under the patent laws. Here, the mandamus focused on transfer for inconvenient venue under Section 1404(a). Everyone agrees that issue is not patent law specific.

        In short, if the mandamus action doesn’t arise under patent law (as it is here), then the issue should be addressed by, for example, the 5th Circuit.

        1. 3.1.1.1

          In short, if the mandamus action doesn’t arise under patent law (as it is here), then the issue should be addressed by, for example, the 5th Circuit.

          I do not blame CPC for trying this argument (what have they got to lose?), but the whole idea is crazy. You cannot have different lines of appeals running to different courts. Congress has created one jurisdiction for patent cases—the CAFC—that is the only court who can point to a jurisdictional basis in a patent case to assert mandamus jurisdiction. There is no way that the SCOTUS is going to want to invent a system with multiple lines of mandamus jurisdiction.*

          * Especially because to do so would benefit the patentee here, and when have we ever seen the SCOTUS go to such lengths to benefit a patentee? To slight a patentee, maybe, but never to benefit a patentee.

          1. 3.1.1.1.1

            There is no way that the SCOTUS is going to want to invent a system with multiple lines of mandamus jurisdiction.
            Maybe the Supreme Court doesn’t like how the Federal Circuit has turned this extraordinary relief into common relief?

            When you look at the Courts involved instead of the parties, it doesn’t seem as heavy a lift for SCOTUS to get involved.

            1. 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Maybe the Supreme Court doesn’t like how the Federal Circuit has turned this extraordinary relief into common relief?

              Maybe, I suppose. I would not hold my breath. For one thing, the CAFC has not made mandamus “common.” While Judge Albright has been overturned on mandamus far more often than probably any other judge in U.S. history, the CAFC still affirms him on mandamus much more often than they reverse him.

              Second, the Chief Justice has expressed a concern about the evolution of specialty district courts. I do not share the Chief’s concern, but he is the head of the U.S. judicial conference and I am not. There is very little basis to expect that the SCOTUS wants to encourage Judge Albright’s efforts. All the evidence points the other way.

              1. 3.1.1.1.1.1.1

                For one thing, the CAFC has not made mandamus “common.
                Correct. They’ve made it exceedingly common.

                While Judge Albright has been overturned on mandamus far more often than probably any other judge in U.S. history, the CAFC still affirms him on mandamus much more often than they reverse him.
                That’s because the CAFC has inserted their own findings for Albright’s findings. This isn’t what Mandamus is about. In a normal court, Albright would be overturned at probably the same rate as other judges. However, the CAFC sees a problem (too many patents cases going to Albright) and have come up with a solution to that problem — that solution involving blazing new legal ground that conflicts with how Mandamus should be treated by the Courts. This is from the Department of Justice’s own website:
                Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance.
                Giving home-court advantage to big-tech companies does not, at least to me, constitute exceptional circumstances.

                he is the head of the U.S. judicial conference and I am not
                He doesn’t control the majority in the Supreme Court anymore.

                There is very little basis to expect that the SCOTUS wants to encourage Judge Albright’s efforts.
                Perhaps SCOTUS doesn’t like the Federal Circuit butting into the 5th Circuit? Ever think of that?

                Regardless, this is all speculation and conjecture. I can see a possible path. However, the fact that I see a possible path doesn’t mean that it is the likely path.

                1. I can see a possible path. However, the fact that I see a possible path doesn’t mean that it is the likely path.

                  We are in ~70% agreement here. I acknowledge that there is a possible path here to the outcome you want (I said as much in the first sentence of my 3.1.1.1.1.1). We both agree, however, that the fact that such an outcome is possible does not mean that it is likely. I gather that you think that it is more likely than I do, but that does not mean that either of us actually thinks such an outcome probable.

                  Perhaps I give the idea of success for CPC a 5% chance, while you give it a 30% chance. Either way it goes, then, we are both correct in any event. If CPC loses, then both of us can shrug and say “I expected as much.” If CPC wins, then both of us can say, “well, I knew it was possible.”

                2. Meh, it’s more like Greg and Wt are 10% in agreement (Ends) and 90% in disagreement (Means).

                  But Greg IS one of those Ends Justify the Means kind of guys…

      2. 3.1.2

        There is no writ that will give the CA5 jurisdiction to intervene (although the CAFC is always free to certify a question to the CA5, should the CAFC wish to do so). The lack of a writ to resolve this question, however, is not really significant.

        Nothing needs to be “resolved.” It is in the nature of choice-of-law rules that forum A will sometimes get forum B’s law wrong when forum A is forced to decide a case under forum B law. Forum A’s own precedents do not continue to bind future forum A courts when forum B later clarifies its own law.

        Just because CAFC panels in 2021 got points of CA5 law wrong does not mean that future CAFC panels are bound to follow those earlier CAFC panels (no more than a CAFC panel is bound to follow an earlier CAFC precedent after it is vacated by the SCOTUS). The right way to “settle” this matter is for future CAFC panels to take notice of contemporary CA5 law (insofar as the parties actually brief that contemporary CA5 law to the CAFC panels). Insofar as the CAFC still gets it “wrong” under CA5 law… well, that is just what happens sometimes. This side of the eschaton, one does not see perfect.

        1. 3.1.2.1

          >not mean that future CAFC panels are bound to follow those earlier CAFC panels

          but if Albright is right, then those panels aren’t bound to follow the 5th circuit either (i.e., there is no remedy if they don’t)

          >Nothing needs to be “resolved.”

          Thus, I respectfully disagree. Courts need to maintain a strict hierarchy, where there is one law … and deviations from it can be fixed.

      3. 3.1.3

        There’s a cert petition by someone raising the question of whether the CAFC has mandamus jurisdiction over 1404(a) petitions. The text of both 1338 and the all-writs act, and policy tells me it doesn’t and, in fact, allowing review that way thwarts the reason why there is mandamus review of transfer decisions — so the regional circuit can review whether the district courts in its circuit are properly applying the law.

        1. 3.1.3.1

          I really do not see how this is supposed to work. The All Writs Act provides (28 U.S.C. §1651(a)) that “all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” (emphasis added). So, who has jurisdiction in a patent case? 28 U.S.C. §1292(c)(1) provides that “[t]he United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree… in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal under section 1295 of this title,” and §1295(a)(1) provides that “[t]he United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States… in any civil action arising under… any Act of Congress relating to patents.” Meanwhile, §1294(1) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in section… 1292(c)… of this title, appeals from reviewable decisions of the district and territorial courts shall be taken… [f]rom a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district…” (emphasis added).

          In other words, Title 28 explicitly divests the CA5 of jurisdiction to hear such a mandamus appeal. I suppose that it might be philosophically tidy to give the CA5 the authority to hear mandamus on issues that are matters of CA5 law, even when appellate jurisdiction lies in the CAFC. That just is not, however, the provision made in Title 28.

  8. 2

    This is very interesting. I wonder how often the parties resisting transfer have cited the precedents that Judge Albright references in their briefs to the CAFC?

  9. 1

    I have not researched the veracity of Judge Albright’s statements either. Considering how many times the Federal Circuit has slapped him for not granting transfers, it does not matter if they are going counter to 5th Circuit precedent in unpublished opinions.

      1. 1.1.1

        lol – there is irony here in how this sounds in “Trust the Science — NO questioning allowed.”

        Malcolm has rendered his feelings and nothing else matters (to him).

Comments are closed.