bktheirregular

If a judge gives an order that, for example, early voting in the State of Ohio is to be restored for all persons for the final three days prior to Election Day (in effect, the last weekend before the election), and states in the order that he "expects" the defendant in the case to take the appropriate steps to make it so, then it's a safe bet he won't be pleased to learn that the defendant has sent out a directive to his subordinates, ordering them not to take steps to carry out the judge's order, but to wait until the case has been heard on appeal.

Now, in law school, they taught us some lessons that weren't in the casebooks, one of which was: "Don't get the judge angry with you."

Because angry judges just might send out orders like this:

Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2012 @ 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Peter C Economus. The Court ORDERS that Defendant Secretary of State Jon Husted personally attend the hearing.

Now, if this were purely procedural, then the Secretary of State would be adequately represented by his legal counsel. That order for a personal appearance? It's a probable indication that the judge is thisclose to throwing the Secretary of State into the clink for contempt.

Now, imprisonment for contempt can be a nebulous thing. It can be a few hours, or days, or longer - the judge has a lot of discretion in that regard. I always figured that contempt sentences were basically "until the judge is satisfied you get the point".

So if I were the Ohio Secretary of State's counsel, I'd advise him to either prepare to set a new world record for groveling, or bring a toothbrush and several changes of underwear with him.

Learned yesterday that a parcel I'd ordered from England, which I'd been told to be patient about because it might take a month or more, was supposedly delivered to my apartment building on September 5, signed for by someone who claimed to be my secretary, and disappeared. Sender said to file a claim with Parcelforce, Parcelforce said I'd waited too long, and the Hellenic Post said this morning that they'd never heard of the tracking number I'd been given.

So I was already cheesed off when I turned onto Leoforos Panepestimiou and promptly almost got run over by some [censored by the Department of Homeland Security] on a scooter speeding down the sidewalk.

On the bright side, my absentee ballot is supposed to arrive today from New York, having been picked up by my parents and Fedexed overseas. (They claim the expense of overnighting it is an extra campaign contribution on their part.)

On the other hand, when the parents say "don't take it to the embassy; I don't know if the people there are trustworthy", that's a sad indicator of the state of the land of the (theoretically) free.

If I convinced an American ex-pat (and still a U.S. citizen) living in Sweden to look into casting an absentee ballot (she mistakenly thought that her right to vote had lapsed), and cast my own absentee ballot (if and when the damn thing ever comes), does that mean I've effectively voted twice?

I'll boil it down.

The right to habeas corpus - the right to challenge the validity of my detention by the government and have that challenge heard - is not my right as an American citizen.

It is my right as a human being.

The government does not owe such an explanation only to its own citizens; it owes it to anyone over whom it exercises power - and you'd better believe that detaining someone is an exercise of power.

Habeas corpus, at its core, is meant to hold the government accountable. And the last seven years have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that governments NEED to be held accountable.