3.2: Filter out wastes of time. In 2017, a case (“16-907") before SCOTUS challenged the legitimacy of the 2016 election for Pres/VP. [FN24] In late February, engaged as counsel, I filed a motion for a special master. On 3/27/17, 16-907 was dismissed. [FN25] 1/13

Over several weeks, I tried to correct shortcomings in 16-907's pro se [FN26] petition. That was filed. (“16-1404") In 16-907, the 3 petitioners were all from one, “blue” State; in 16-1404 the petitioners included a Clinton voter & a trump voter from each “swing” State. 2/13

16-907 was based on violation of the Constitution’s “Invasion clause” [FN27]; 16-1404 added a theory of fraud & a Bivens claim. Kirstin Elaine Martin was responsible for PR in both cases and had sought petitioners for 16-1404. After 16-1404 was filed, a person called, 3/13

said a reporter wanted to interview me, but Ms Martin had not returned their calls. I left Ms Martin a VM to say I’d call the reporter. Ms Martin got to the reporter first & said I had no authority to give an interview except through her. On 10/2/17, 16-1404 was dismissed. 4/13

Two months ago, in an email to Ms Martin, I wrote, in part: “Please do not call me anymore. You have referred to me by name [to show] you are working with someone with some category of credentials. Please stop that, too.” In her reply, Ms Martin told me to “grow up” & 5/13

said she’d call me “as often as I need to.” [FN28] I prefer to view 16-907 and 16-1404 as not doomed. PR could have saved them. One of my favorite quotes is from Lincoln: “Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe.” Other lawyers cribbed my work & 6/13

under SCOTUS dkt 17-857, filed a petition that mostly copied what I had written & re-written in 16-907 and 16-1404. Court filings are not protected by copyright, but it was a little much when the PR guy for that case bragged the lawyers were “pro bono.” I’d done the work. 7/13

Since the dismissal of 16-1404, I have received occasional calls or messages from Ms Martin. I am aware of no relief being granted or any action by a governmental occurring as a result of any of Ms Martin’s promotions to do something about elections of 2016 or after. 8/13

Insights to glean from the events I describe:
1) Few people knew what was happening in 2017, whereas a lot of people are aware today.
2) There are well-organized efforts (e.g., 5-0-5-0-1 and No Kings) with resources to do what needs done and people who know how to do them. 9/13

What we face is far too important to be bogged down in drama or by efforts of people with no real idea of how to proceed. 10/13

Footnotes:
FN24. Blumstein, et v Pence, et al, SCOTUS docket 16-907.
FN25. A Special Master can take evidence and issue rulings short of a final disposition. See, F.R. Civ. P. 53. 11/13

FN26. A pro se party is a party who represents herself in an action. Black’s Law Dictionary, New Pocket Edition (1996), p. 509.
FN27. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;” U.S. Const., Art. IV, sec. 4. 12/13

FN28. She also said that I am “the greatest Constitional scholar I know and you do have the facts. ... I will call you as often as I need to ...” Via that compliment to me, she put the “ass” in
13/13