Posted on 10/23/2006 8:56:34 PM PDT by calcowgirl
October 23, 2006, 6:00 PM
Today we were contacted by the Attorney Generals Office and the Secretary of State. Each expressed that they would seek to join the lawsuit as nominal defendants in an effort to be heard in this matter. Although the Plaintiffs are skeptical of the motives of the existing AG Bill Lockyer, we felt that the interests of justice would dictate that we agree to allow them to join the suit without opposition.
We agree that they probably have an interest in the outcome of the suit given that it affects their offices. Further, we believe that this matter should be heard in an expedited fashion and without further delay. By agreeing to stipulate to adding those parties, we trust that it will expedite the case and they will not abuse our act of good faith.
That is in marked contrast to the Brown camp who has made it difficult to serve Mr. Brown and who apparently will be fighting to prevent any hearing occurring before the election.
We did not accept the request for the CA Democrat Party to join the lawsuit because we do not see the legal justification for that request. We believe that it is politically motivated and, although this suit is brought on the eve of an election and thus can’t help to be political in some sense, we believe this suit is about the rule of law, not a particular party – the reason the Republican Party did not join the suit at the outset. As such, we would like to keep the partisanship of this lawsuit to a minimum. We, therefore, turned down their request to stipulate to adding them to the suit. They apparently will seek to join anyway.
Finally, any suggestion by the Brown camp that this suit is not important or insubstantial should once and for all be cast aside given the interest of two of the constitutional offices of our state government.
Ping (to some who showed interest on prior threads)
Unfortunately, FR mandates that anything from Political Vanguard be posted in "bloggers" vs. "news."
I can't find any news source that has covered this, so here it is!
Why The 1980 Attorney General's Opinion Does NOT Help Jerry
by Thomas Del Beccaro
Attorney General Opinion This is the Attorney General Opinion that Jerry Brown claims provides all the authority he needs to meet the qualifications to be Attorney General.
Jerry is wrong because:
- Attorney General Opinions are not law. Even if they were . . .
- This advisory opinion relates to the qualifications for "Judges" Not Attorney General. That is important because . . .
- The standard for qualification for Judges is different than the standard for Attorney General in CA.
- Standard for Judges: [The person must be "member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State."
- Standard for Attorneys General: ["admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office”] - the right to practice law requires an "active" license which Jerry had only 3 of the needed 5 years.
- Finally, Jerry cites footnote language to the following effect: "inactive members are members of the State Bar." As we see from the above, that is meaningful with respect to judges but not attorneys general.
- In short, this opinion is unrelated to the qualifications for Attorney General. Sorry Jerry.
(snip)
Full AG Opinion and Analysis follows... too long to post.
And I love the way you scoop everybody else inspite of FR's protocalls!!! You go bigtime, calcowgirl!!! Herd them news nerds... rope 'em an ride 'em!!!
Pingin my memorized list in case you might have missed some of 'em... This is GOOD stuff!!!
Thanks for pingin' it--I'm sure I missed 1,000 or so! :-)
Wull, I cain't rememer no 1,000 pingees!!! Whateryew sayin?
1000 is indicative of about how many read the prior threads that were included in "news".
I don't know how many people will venture over to "bloggers"--I rarely do.
I hope he's sweatin'.
Great idea!!!
Has there been any news coverage of this?
You can bet your last dollar that "Vasco Road Blood Alley Beneficiary" Bill Lockyer is in this to pull Moonbeam's fat out of the fire.
We already understand his respect for law.
"I love it when a plan comes together"
With the exception of Tom McClintock, most, if not all, California politicians are pathetic. I held my nose and voted for Arnold. There was no other choice as Angelides is beyond pathetic. Angelides is the typical Liberal Democrat sleaze. How embarrassing for a state to have elected politicians as vile as Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and the list goes on. Makes one wonder if there is a brain cell working in this state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.