Interior Design Protection Consulting

April 17, 2010

Florida interior designer names to be expunged!

“Interior Designer” names to be expunged! 

As you know, over the last several years hundreds of interior designers’ constitutional rights were violated by Florida’s ruthlessly prosecuted interior design law for alleged title violations which prohibited interior designers from truthfully using a title which accurately described the services they were legally performing.

Hundreds of interior designers were disciplined and prosecuted, received Cease & Desist letters and/or fines, and their names were put on the Smith Thompson website where Google and other Internet search engines had a field day, resulting in lost business and damaged reputations.

On February 4, 2010, Judge Robert Hinkle declared that the Florida restrictions on the title “interior designer” and other, unspecified “words to that effect” are unconstitutional and enjoined any enforcement of that provision.

Subsequent to the judge’s decision, IDPC sent a letter to the DBPR requesting that they take prompt, corrective action in instructing the Board and the Smith Thompson law firm to remove the alleged title violation names from their website.

Click here to read IDPC letter to DBPR:

On April 15th, IDPC learned that the Board has agreed to REMOVE these names and has instructed Board prosecutor David Minacci of the Smith Thompson law firm to begin the process.




However, we have not been supplied with a date for completion, and even though Mr. Minacci should have precious little to do for the Board now that he can’t prosecute people for using the title “interior designer” or for providing commercial decorating work (, we have no reason to believe that he will grant this matter the urgency it deserves.


1.  Send an email to Tony Spivey, the Executive Director of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design at and request that the names of alleged title violators be removed immediately! Their constitutional rights were violated — this is a very serious matter that deserves PROMPT action!

  • If you were the recipient of a Cease and Desist, state that up front in your email.
  • Even if you were not disciplined at all, as an outraged citizen and member of the Florida interior design community, you have a right to have your voice heard about a serious matter that impacts your profession and your state.

2.  Copy on the email!  We want to keep track and a paper trail for all emails sent to the Board.  It would be nice if they were honest and up-front about your requests, but frankly, that’s not their M.O.  If they do nothing, IDPC will send a follow-up request on your behalf to the DBPR which will include copies of all your requests to Mr. Spivey.

3.  Forward this email to your colleagues – ESPECIALLY anyone you know who was disciplined for an alleged title violation.

4.  Please support  IDPC’s ongoing efforts to protect the Florida design community’s rights and livelihoods by becoming a member or by making a donation of your choice.  We are a team, and you support enables us to continue to fight on your behalf. Click here for new payment options:

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.”    ~Albert Einstein


March 27, 2010

Florida’s Interior Design Licensing Cartel Gets Hung Out to Dry


Spin Cycle

Florida’s Interior Design Licensing Cartel Gets Hung Out to Dry

Load Florida. Set to spin. Press start.

That’s what ASID, IIDA and their Florida-based puppet-coalition, IDAF, are doing to try and wash the truth out of the recent Florida court decision.

In the past several weeks, we have seen concerted efforts to mislead the design community by misrepresenting the recent court ruling in which a judge struck down the title provision of Florida’s interior design law and created significant new opportunities for nonlicensees to work in commercial settings by rewriting the law’s practice restrictions.

That’s supposed to be a “victory” for the pro-regulation cartel?  Sorry ASID, IIDA, and IDAF—that just doesn’t wash.  Here are the FACTS:

1.  Title Restriction Struck Down—Period.

Before the court’s ruling on February 4, 2010, only state-licensed interior designers were allowed to use the terms “interior design,” “interior designer,” “space planning,” and other “words to that effect.”  Federal District Judge Robert Hinkle declared that provision unconstitutional and ordered the state not to enforce it any longer.  How significant was that ruling?

Alleged title violations have always made up the vast majority of enforcement actions brought by the State Board of Architecture and Interior Design under Florida’s interior design law—about 80-90% since 2002.  These cases usually involved a nonlicensee who was lawfully practicing residential interior design (which is specifically exempted from the practice act) and simply advertising that fact, accurately, on their business cards, on their website, or in the yellow pages.  The State Board even went after nonlicensees for being identified—again, accurately—as “interior designers” in newspaper articles and in magazine profiles over which they had no control!  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it was a modern-day witch hunt.  Of course, the effect of the title law (the very deliberate effect, I might add) was to make it as difficult as possible for potential clients to identify these unlicensed residential designers.  No Google search for “interior designer” or “space planning” would find them, and they could not be listed under the “interior design” heading in the yellow pages.

But now they can.  The cartel’s censorship of the terms “interior design,” “interior designer,” “space planning,” etc. is OVER.  The public will now be able to find both licensed and unlicensed interior designers in Florida when they go online, or look in the yellow pages, or drive by a designer’s business.

Given the almost single-minded zeal with which the Board has been going after alleged title violations over the past eight years, the significance of that ruling cannot be overstated.  And because the state decided not to file an appeal, that ruling is FINAL.

2.  Florida’s Practice Restriction Judicially Rewritten—Nonlicensees May Now Perform Substantial Work in Commercial Settings.

As written, Florida’s interior design law says you must have a license to perform interior design work—including space plans, designs, consultations, studies, or specifications—in any nonresidential setting.  The sweep of that law is staggering.  Indeed, it is reminiscent of Alabama’s practice act, declared unconstitutional by the Alabama Supreme Court in 2007, which made it a crime for nonlicensees to offer advice about such mundane things as paint colors and throw pillows.

In order to avoid the “substantial constitutional issues” (those are Judge Hinkle’s words, not mine) that arise from a literal reading of the statute, the Board of Architecture and Interior Design abandoned its earlier interpretations of the law and asked the judge to simply rewrite the practice act however he thought necessary in order to uphold it.  The result was an incomprehensible new definition of “interior design” in Florida that no one can understand and that will be virtually impossible for the State Board to enforce.

According to the new definition invented by the Board’s lawyers and the judge, “interior design” in Florida no longer includes spaces plans and other services relating to “stand-alone furniture” (whatever that means exactly—the court decision uses the term but never defines it) in commercial settings and apparently does not include surface materials, window treatments, wall coverings, paint, floor coverings, surface-mounted lighting, or surface-mounted fixtures in commercial settings either.

So what, if anything, remains covered by Florida’s commercial practice restriction?  The only thing that remains covered for sure based on the judge’s ruling is “fixtures,” typically defined as “personal property that is attached to land or a building and that is regarded as an irremovable part of the real property”—things like non-load-bearing walls, ceilings, and HVAC materials.

As to everything else—well, it’s anybody’s guess what remains covered and what does not.  As specifically noted in the court ruling, this pulled-from-thin-air definition of “interior design” represents a new and “limited construction” invented by the State Board’s lawyers “to obtain a favorable ruling in this case.”  Moreover, the judge specifically admonished the State Board that it would not be allowed to “revert to incorrect positions [read: correct but constitutionally problematic] it has taken earlier” and “will not be free in later cases to disavow the limited construction it has successfully advocated here.”

Here is what the Board’s prosecuting attorney David Minacci said in an email to IDAF president Janice Young four days after the ruling came down:

“I do not agree with the Judge’s ruling and I cannot defend it.  All I’m doing is telling you what I think it says.  Bottom line, the practice act was saved but really had the legs cut out from underneath it.”

Does that sound like “victory?”  Hardly.

3.  The Cartel’s “Victory” Celebration Is Not Only Misplaced But Premature.

Besides having precious little to celebrate after seeing the practice act’s “legs cut out from underneath it” in order to save it, the cartel’s victory dance is premature because an appeal has been filed challenging Judge Hinkle’s decision to save even a legless version of Florida’s interior design practice act.

Two important issues on appeal will be the facts that: (1) no one can make heads or tails of the court’s new definition of “interior design”; and (2) besides being incomprehensible, that new definition of “interior design” is utterly unrecognizable to anyone in the industry.  As Brad Powell put it in an article in the February edition of Office Insight Magazine (which ASID ballyhooed to its members in a recent email):

“‘Oh, nooo!’  I hear many say.  ‘The Florida court’s interpretation of interior design does not make any sense, and certainly does not correctly characterize the interior design profession.’  This objection is most certainly correct.”


The Board’s prosecuting attorney David Minacci was even more succinct.  As he said in an email to IDAF president Janice Young one week after the ruling came down:

“I think things are more confusing after this opinion than before.”

Amen again.

And Board Chair Joyce Shore’s reaction when she was told that the Institute for Justice had appealed Judge Hinkle’s decision?

“I am terribly disappointed but I am not surprised.”

Again, does that sound like victory?  As usual, the cartel’s rhetoric is totally at odds with the facts.

So stay tuned, more of the cartel’s dirty laundry will be cleaned.

March 22, 2010

IDPC: Interior design licensing advocate admits long-term plan to regulate YOU out of business!

Copied below is an excerpt of a message received from Florida cartel member, Jan Merle.  Merle admits what we’ve been trying to tell the design community all along, i.e. that ASID and their minions have a patient, long-term agenda to REGULATE YOU OUT OF BUSINESS.  He is referring to a NATIONAL effort, not just Florida.

Read his message and then join our crusade without delay.  Click here to become a member of IDPC and the Freedom Movement:  We can’t stop them without your support!

Note: what is most interesting is that it appears that Mr. Merle just received a degree in interior design in 2009, which seems to indicate he was grandfathered at or shortly after the time the law was enacted.  This is the typical hypocrisy we see time and time again — designers who do not meet the criteria in the proposed law, but are grandfathered in order to squelch their opposition, and once they are inducted into the elitist little club, they are all too willing to lock the door behind them so that no one else can enter.  This is nothing less than consumer fraud!

From Merle:

“IDPC, you and your free-of-charge, politically motivated libertarian legal team won the little battle.  However, as a dedicated, longtime member of the interior design profession (or “Cartel”, as IDPC seems to prefer) I choose to take the long view:

Precisely 100 years ago, the architectural profession in the United States was going through the very same controversial, agonizing, state-by-state licensure process that interior designers are now undergoing. It created quite a stir in California in 1907 when, apparently for the first time, an architect was prosecuted for practicing architecture without a license!

I find it ironic that some of the very same chapters of the American Institute of Architects (with less than 800 members nationally at the time!) who so vociferously fight licensure of interior designers today were the very folks to eagerly promote licensure of their own profession then. Of course, the fact that a large part of San Francisco had recently burned to the ground likely had much to do with the push for architectural licensure then.

Even so, the publishers of the “American Architect” magazine (which later became “Architectural Record”) were comparable to the IDPC and Institute for Justice of 1907. They decried the financially-motivated, exclusionist and entirely unjustified evil of such a “trade-union” tactic as to subject the lofty architect to mere government oversight of any kind.

We now know the end result of that story, and, given sufficient time it will be the same for the profession of interior design — constitutionally protected professional licensure in every state — regardless of what the short-sighted naysayers of this era and their 100 years-too-late anti-government-regulation-at-all-costs lawyers think or do.”

Jan Merle, ASID, Florida Registered Interior Designer ID0000085.   Boca Raton, FL

March 3, 2010

IDPC: “Freedom Reigns in Minnesota!”

As you know, a hearing was held yesterday on SB 2591, a bill which would have expanded the current “Certified Interior Designer” title act into full occupational licensing — and would have become the most restrictive practice law in the country.   Senator Linda Scheid, Chair of the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection scheduled the hearing based on the proponent’s claim that they had enough votes to pass it out of committee.

Good news, my friends, that did NOT happen!

Due to the large opposition turnout and testimonies, and rather than allow another overwhelming vote to kill the bill, Chair Scheid graciously granted that the bill be “tabled” (according to our sources, at the request of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Dibble), which means the practice act is dead — at least for this year.    Professor Caren Martin testified on behalf of interior designers who support the bill.  You may remember Professor Martin as the author of the failed attempt to discredit Dick Carpenter, Ph.D.’s highly acclaimed and meticulously researched Designing Cartels, and her efforts yesterday met a similar fate.

Click here to read details, including a link to the audio recording of the hearing.

Click here to support the Freedom Movement:


February 18, 2010

IDPC: “Get rid of AL title law”

SUNSET Alabama interior design title law!

Alabama designers have another opportunity to remove the title act from the books completely, but time is of the essence.  Click here for details:

February 7, 2010

IDPC: “Florida Interior Design Law Struck Down!”


On February 4th, Judge Robert Hinkle issued a ruling on the Institute for Justice’s legal challenge to Florida’s restrictive, anti-competitive, and unconstitutional interior design law. His decision will benefit the Florida design community in TWO very important ways:

  1. TITLE.  The statute barring a person who provides lawful residential interior-design services without a license from advertising [him]herself as an “interior designer” violates the First Amendment.  Accordingly, it is declared that § 481.223(1)(c) and the proviso in § 481.229(6)(a) prohibiting advertising or representing oneself as an interior designer are unconstitutional.  You are now permanently and legally able to use the title or to otherwise market yourself as “Interior Designer” and to use terms such as “interior design,” “space planning,” and any other term that accurately describes work you are lawfully performing without restraint or fear of prosecution.
  2. PRACTICE.  In his written decision, Judge Hinkle proclaims that the statue “is not a model of clarity.” In order to save the practice act from the “substantial constitutional issues” it would otherwise raise, both Judge Hinkle and the BOAID significantly narrowed the meaning of the term “interior design” as it is normally understood (and as it had been interpreted by the Board before the legal challenge). Although it is still far from clear exactly what “interior design” under the law is as reinterpreted in the judge’s legal ruling, the BOAID has been forced to substantially limit its definition of interior design and to (apparently) admit that anything that could be construed as “interior decorator services” in a commercial setting (and this would include the specification of and floor plans depicting ALL “surface materials, window treatments, wallcoverings, paint, floor coverings, surface-mounted lighting, surface-mounted fixtures, and loose furnishings not subject to regulation under applicable building codes) may now be done by nonlicensees.  According to the judge’s ruling, the only thing that remains covered by the practice act is “an unlicensed person from providing design services to a client relating to nonstructural interior elements of a nonresidential building or structure.”  A key question that will have to be clarified is exactly what constitute the “nonstructural interior elements” of a building, but Judge Hinkle’s ruling makes clear that it does NOT include loose furniture and probably does NOT include such things as lighting, window treatments, wallcoverings, floor coverings, and other similar items.

Click here to read Judge Hinkle’s full decision:


The fight in Florida is not over.  The Institute for Justice plans to file an appeal seeking to have the entire practice act struck down; at a minimum, they will seek further clarification regarding exactly what work nonlicensees may now perform in commercial settings

IDPC applauds IJ’s wisdom and determination and will continue to support their future challenges to unjust and unconstitutional interior design laws.  IDPC will continue to monitor all of the Florida cartel’s legislative efforts, and bring false information and conflict of interest issues to public awareness, as we have successfully done in the past.

To support IDPC’s ongoing efforts, please encourage your colleagues to  join IDPC ( as we continue our mission to protect the rights and livelihoods of all in the design community.


January 6, 2010

IDPC: “All agree, FL interior design law does NOT protect the public.”

Does Florida’s interior design practice act protect the public?

Under oath, advocates say “no”!

When questioned under oath, not a single proponent of the Florida licensing law was able to cite any benefits to consumers from licensing interior designers or harm that had occurred to the public in the 47 states that do not license interior designers:

  • When asked under oath if she had any information, or some empirical or quantifiable way that the Florida licensing law protects the public health, safety or welfare, Lisa Waxman Ph.D., Interior Design Faculty at Florida State University, BOAID expert witness, was unable to provide any substantiation for the law.[1]
  • When asked whether the quantifiable costs of Florida’s interior design law exceed the quantifiable benefits, Professor Waxman was not able to provide any data to support of the law.[2]
  • When asked if she had any factual evidence that at least one state that regulates interior designers did it not by enlisting a legislator to “ram it through” but on the basis of an actual study concluding that regulation was needed, Professor Waxman’s answer was, “no.”[3] (Note: 12 states have studied whether interior design profession needs to be regulated, and all concluded that regulation would add absolutely nothing to protect the public beyond measures already in place.[4])
  • In her November 24, 2009 deposition, When asked under oath[5] whether she was aware of any evidence that Florida licensing requirements have in fact (not could, which is an important distinction) benefited the public with respect to health, safety or welfare, Joyce Shore, Chair of the Board of Architecture and Interior Design, State of Florida’s representative to the NCIDQ, past president of IDAF, past president of ASID Florida South, licensed designer (grandfathered), answer was the same as given in the Board’s sworn answers to written interrogatories, i.e. “the Board has no specific information.”[6]
  • When asked under oath if he was aware of any evidence that the licensing of interior designers in Florida has benefited the public in any documentable way, Emery Johnson, self-proclaimed author of the current practice act and former BOAID enforcement expert, testified that he could not give any written evidence[7] (nor did he offer any verbal evidence).

And perhaps even more importantly, the Board of Architecture and Interior Design responded to IJ’s Written Discovery that they are unaware of any bona fide public welfare concerns.[8]

[1] Deposition of Lisa Kinch Waxman, Ph.D. taken by Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, in Tallahassee , Florida, November 12, 2009

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] Government Reports, IDPC website,

[5] Deposition of Joyce Shore taken by Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs, in Dania, Florida, November 24, 2009

[6] Answer no. 7, Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Served: 8/14/09; Unsworn Resp. Rec’d 9/17/09) Verified Resp. Rec’d 10/6/09)

[7] Deposition of J. Emory Johnson taken by Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs in Glynn County, November 23, 2009


FSU retracts disemmination of inaccurate information about IDPC

January 5, 2010

Dear Professors Butler and Wiedegreen,

We wish to gratefully acknowledge your retractions. Much as we appreciate them, these admissions are unfortunately insufficient because there is no indication that you have shared them with the parties to whom the misrepresentations were originally disseminated, as we have requested.  I cannot think of any reason why you would be unwilling to set the record straight, particularly in light of the admissions and retractions you have made in your most recent letter to me.

In addition, your latest correspondence contains a number of new errors, which we will once again endeavor to correct in the attached letter:



May 21, 2009


Click here to download rally flyer:

Florida interior designers victimized by restrictive law to get relief

Lawsuit, press conference and rally on May 27th in Tallahassee

Concord, NH – On Wednesday, May 27th, a public rally will be held at Waller Park in Tallahassee to coincide with a legal challenge filed against Florida’s interior design practice law.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is filing suit in Florida on behalf of several small business entrepreneurs whose basic Constitutional rights have been violated by the most restrictive interior design law in the country.  At issue is a Florida law that restricts residential interior designers from advertising themselves as “interior designers” and prevents them from legally practicing any type of commercial design.  The law also prohibits industries such as office furniture and restaurant equipment dealers from doing furniture or equipment layouts, an essential practice needed to succeed in those fields.

“Interior designers are already struggling with this difficult economy,” said Patti Morrow, executive director of the Interior Design Protection Council (IDPC), the national grassroots voice for independent designers.  “The last thing they need is a completely unnecessary law that places an additional burden on their ability to earn a living.”

The proponents of the law, the Interior Design Associations Foundation (IDAF) and the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) maintain that Florida Statute 481 – and licensing in general – is needed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, a claim that remains unsubstantiated even after the 30-year pursuit to impose interior design licensing in all 50 states.  Yet, since 2003 more than 600 unreasonable disciplinary actions have been brought against members of the Florida design community, none of which had anything to do with public safety.  When asked about the aggressive disciplinary actions and increased fines imposed by the regulatory board, Janice Young, spokesperson for IDAF responded, “We do it [penalize unlicensed design] by making the punishment more painful and significant.”

“Florida’s restraint of trade and censorship of interior designers is blatantly unconstitutional and represents a deliberate attempt by a tiny faction within the interior design industry to (1) eliminate their competition by restricting the type of services they would be free to provide in nearly every other state, (2) silence competitors by preventing people from truthfully advertising the services they do provide, and (3) improperly burden and discriminate against interstate commerce,” said Clark Neily, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice.  “This law has come from a minority of elitist insiders within the design industry itself, not as a result of public demand or legislative determinations that such regulation is necessary for the public good.  They are clearly abusing government power to drive thousands of hard-working small businessmen and women out of business. This law cannot stand.”

Over the last year, IDPC spearheaded the effort to raise awareness of this issue in Florida, by conducting town hall meetings, lobbying the legislative and executive branches to deregulate the law, supporting amendments to FS 481, opposing changes to the Florida Building Code, exposing blatantly false statements made by IDAF, investigating conflicts of interest within the Dept. of Business and Professional Regulations, revealing the ruthlessly aggressive actions of the law firm retained to prosecute designers, and by publicizing the devastating effects on the lives of these victims. IDPC’s widespread grassroots support will mobilize to support the IJ legal challenge.

“We value the innovation, creativity and diversity as well as the multiple methods of entry that have been the cornerstone of this dynamic profession, serving the public without harm.  Florida’s once-size-fits-all licensing scheme for interior designers could not be more contrary to those values,” explained Morrow.  “Protectionism, censorship, cartel, monopoly, domination, control, special interests – you name, it’s all here, and it’s having a devastating effect on the lives of Florida designers.  It’s time to pull the curtains on the interior design cartel.”

April 7, 2009


Neily and Morrow take on the Florida cartel


Douglas Feldman, ASID, IDAF board member representing South Florida, recently spoke at a meeting in Ft. Myers in an effort to protect the Florida licensing cartel.  In bleak contrast to the two vibrant February town hall meetings conducted jointly by Patti Morrow of IDPC and Clark Neily of IJ – which were packed to standing room only – the interest generated for what is being called the “Save the Monopoly” meeting through multiple emails only managed to draw a meager dozen or so designers, some of whom attended because they actually support IDPC’s mission to deregulate Florida’s interior design law – the most restrictive in the country – spearheaded by Patti Morrow.


Perhaps you’ll remember Douglas… his uninformed ranting was unsuccessful in derailing the IDPC/IJ town hall meeting in Dania.  It is noteworthy to report that his boorish behavior actually brought some designers who were on the fence over to the pro-freedom movement.


According to an eye-witness account, no factual information was delivered at the Save the Monopoly meeting (Feldman had “deer in the headlights” reactions to unanticipated comments and/or questions) and no new call to action was given.  It appears the only purpose for the meeting was for Douglas Feldman to announce and endorse their new website and blog


Feeling a little heat in Florida, licensed designers?  Read their [barely literate] blog posting (below). Douglas – did you write this?  It’s hilarious!  Is that the best you can do?  MY BABYSISTTER HITS HARDERTHAN THAT!   Did you think this would hurt my feelings and make me go away?  Guess again, little man. 


Excerpts from attack blog:


 Patti Morrow with the IDPC is a very desperate but you have to admit a creative individual.  She had no decorating work.   Therefore she did have time on her hands.  And by getting $285,000 in upfront funding from the Institute for Justice,….one big fat check…. she got a reason to get up in the morning.

If you have seen her in person, you begin to realize how pathetic. . .please Patti…..Take a class and learn how to speak professionally.  Then Patti,….get your facts straight and stop with the out and out lies.  

The way she is telling it now, ASID might has [sic] well close up shop and sell the building in DC.  She really should be a fiction writer.  

If I were Clark Nelly[sic], the ultra conservative, very straight-laced litigator with the Institute for Justice…. I’d be just a little bit embarrassed to be on the same stage repeatedly with such an unprofessional appearance and demeanor.  Maybe there is something going on between them that is more than “justice.”

From what anyone can tell, she works out of her home basement and occasionally comes up for air from that dark hole in the ground.  This blonde airhead with pink boxing gloves DOES NOT represent anyone except herself. . . dresses straight out of J.C. Penny… And where did she get that bleach blonde locks?   Must be Airhead Blonde from Clairol.”

Note that the blog does not dispute even ONE word uttered by Patti at the town hall meetings.  That’s because you can’t disprove the TRUTH! Patti’s presentation was based solely on facts, and they cannot invalidate a single one.   


“If you can’t answer a man’s arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

(Elbert Hubbard)


The negative publicity IDPC has created surrounding Florida’s anti-competitive, anti-consumer monopoly is obviously the catalyst for this pure, unadulterated act of frustration and desperation.  This tirade so full of lies, and so mindlessly venomous that any remotely decent person would be mortified to be associated with it in any way.  Oh, and did I mention… their website is anonymously registered and blog post unsigned.  It appears that no one but Feldman is willing to go out on a limb to be linked with it.  Who can blame them?


I’ll leave you with two last thoughts:


1.      Being licensed obviously does not make you a professional.  Thanks so much for proving our point.


2.      “It is better to keep your mouth [computer] closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”  (Twain)


To Douglas and Florida licensed designers:  anytime you’d like to have a public debate over the issue of Florida’s anti-competitive and unconstitutional law, my colleague Clark Neily and I would be happy to participate. 


But do try to bring more intellect to the table.  Thus far, it’s been like having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.



« Previous Page

Blog at