Last February I agreed to represent three pro se Petitioners—people without attorneys—in Bloomstein, et v Pence, et al, SCOTUS docket 16-907    .
   Immediately I was attacked by bloggers on a website that touts itself as a place where scams on the public are exposed. Most prominently, the website ripped into the “birther” movement—those (such as Trump) who claimed President Obama was ineligible for the office he held because he was not born on U.S. soil.
   I visited the website after someone told me about the personal and vicious attacks leveled at me by people who hid behind pseudonyms, most of whom implied they were lawyers. I visited the website, fogbow, and read.
   There was little to be gained by engagement in conversation with any of them.
   These are bloggers devoted to a premise that their target of a given moment is a hoax or scam. When Bloomstein was dismissed without comment, the pseudonymous entities on the website congratulated one another. Trump still was in office.
   I learned several things from that episode. We all are familiar with the type of pettiness the people there displayed. That was not a new thing..
   I tried to address in the Petition now before SCOTUS in Bailey, docket 16-1464: (1) a sitting President can be removed from office in only two ways—impeachment (Art. II, sec. 4), and inability to discharge the duties of office (Amend. XXV); and (2) Petitioners in that case lacked standing.
   Yesterday I was attacked for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction.  I will go to that, and other, arguments in a moment.
   I tried to sign on to fogbow, but after several tries, gave up. The website rejected the password I had set only minutes before. I e-mailed the website administrator. I checked my e-mail again, as I type this, and still have received no response from that person or “bot.”
   I particularly wanted to see my personal financial information someone posted.
   Last March I spoke with one individual who posts there. In yesterday’s thread he questioned the money I said I had received in the effort to dislodge Trump from office, and why “air fare” would be an expense since there has been no hearing before SCOTUS. Answer? I flew to Massachusetts, where my clients in the first SCOTUS case reside, four times.
   Now I must correct any misunderstanding. I have received $13,200, total, in the Court challenge to the election—all of it for the Bloomstein case. I have received nothing—zero, zip zilch, nada—in Bailey.
   Let us now turn to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. 
   On my parents’ farm, Sunnybrook, we had the “woods.” Forests only were in national parks and fiction. Yesterday, in arguing subject matter jurisdiction I became lost in the woods because I focused on individual trees.
   In Bailey, we argue the relief sought in the Petition is not available in any other court because:
     -Trump has threatened to  disband the Ninth Circuit and and has disparaged a United States District Court Judge as a “so-called judge,” but has made no similar threat or statement of disregard for the United States Supreme Court;
     -The Framers foresaw the possibility of foreign intrigue in our “selection” of President, but thought the Electoral College would act as a deliberative body to protect against such interference ( e.g., in.The Federalist, No. 68);
     -The Framers could not have anticipated the speed of computer information, such as it is in the 21st century, or the vast wealth under the control of a single foreign despot;
     -The members of the Electoral College are not independently selected as The Framers had anticipated, but are chosen by the two (2) major political parties, entities loathed by Hamilton (“Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties” The Federalist, No. 1) and Madison (the ways in which history have “divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good” Federalist No. 10);
     -One reasonably may infer The Framers failed to see the defects in the Electoral College as a check on foreign intrigue in the election of the President;
   -Election of the President and Vice-President, members of the House of Representatives, and thirty-four U.S. Senators was a product of fraud, foreign intrigue or invasion, and the persons who otherwise are under a duty to investigate the 2016 election are the same persons whose removal from office would be sought, and have a distinct conflict of interest.  (Bailey Petition, pp. 16-20.)
   The U.S. has been invaded. Each day brings more news of how Russia used members of the Trump campaign, “bots,” ads on Facebook, accounts on Twitter, hacks of voting systems, and other means to “pick” our President.
   Charles Evans Hughes, later an Associate Justice and still later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, stated, in a 1907 speech: We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.
   The Court has subject matter in this instance because no other court can oppose an invasion that has captued one branch (Executive) and populated the branch (Legislative).
   The Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case because only it has sufficient stature. I would ask, though: if the Court dismisses this petition, will these same folks argue mandamus is inappropriate in a District Court? If that is true, then fine—do not cast me in the same light as a “birther” if, next week, we file in a District Court to seek the relief sought in Bailey. This is not serial filing.
   I now will post this. I also shall look at Twitter for the first time since yeserday afternoon. I think any “acceptance of terms” that I clicked for fogbow yesterday is void, since I was refused access to the website.
   Oh, and as to Orly_Licious, with whom I conversed on the phone last spring: you aren’t a lawyer? I thought you were. I change my request or suggestion that it is  appropriate you acknowledge your implicit label of me  a “scammer” and a “grifter” was inappropriate. I no longer suggest you apologize. You should retract those statements.