Posted on 10/18/2006 11:06:17 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
OAKLAND - Republicans are set to file a lawsuit Thursday in Sacramento County Superior Court that seeks to disqualify Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown from holding the state attorney general's office.
The suit, to be filed by Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the Contra Costa County GOP, will assert that Brown, a Democrat, will run afoul of a state law if he wins next month because he reactivated his status in the State Bar in May 2003.
Government Code section 12503 declares that no person is eligible to be attorney general unless "he shall have been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the state for a period of at least five years immediately preceding his or her election to the office."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
It'll be an interesting post on http://electionlawblog.org/ I think in the afternoon. Going to have his feed head to my cell phone, because I'll really wonder what opinion he puts forward. Rick Hansen might be on the wrong side of the street, but he generally plays straight with the law if it is clear.
12503. No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been 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.California Bar - Member Search:
* I deleted the address/phone infoEdmund Gerald Brown Jr - #37100 Current Status: Active This member is active and may practice law in California. Profile Information Bar Number 37100 Address [deleted]* Phone Number [deleted]* Fax Number Not Available e-mail Not Available District District 3 County Alameda Undergraduate School Univ of California; CA Law School Yale Law School; New Haven CT Sections None Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Active 5/1/2003 Active 1/1/1997 Inactive 1/23/1996 Active 1/1/1992 Inactive 6/14/1965 Admitted to The State Bar of California Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Disciplinary and Related Actions: This member has no public record of discipline. Administrative Actions: This member has no public record of administrative actions. ---
Good posting. Someone needs to get this to the powers that be.
campaign@poochigian.com
If Del Beccaro is prepared to a lawsuit tomorrow, be assured, the powers that be already have it.
Unfortunately, I think this may backfire based on the language in the Constitution.
My guess is the focus of the ultimate argument will be on the word "admitted" (vs. active, licensed, etc.).
Active: 5/1/2003 to current 3 years, 5 months Active: 1/23/1996 to 1/1/1997 11 months Total since 1996 4 years, 4 months Active: 6/14/1965 to 1/1/1992 26 years, 6 monthsHowever, "admitted to practice before the Supreme Court" can be interpreted differently than "being an active member of the bar".
"6/14/1965 Admitted to The State Bar of California "
Since 1965 was 41 years ago... if they had meant "active" they could've used that term. They didn't. It is odd, however, and arguable they meant that because of the peculiar mention of "five years has to be immediately preceding."
The SOS didn't catch this, and neither party caught this until after voting has already begun.
The GOP waited to long to try this tactic, imho.
I seem to recall an old campaign slogan "If it's brown, flush it.".
If there IS such a thing as justice in this world, please let the Republicans win on this one!
The argument will probably come down to something like legislative intent. They'll argue that the law was meant to exclude someone who just graduated from law school and immediately wanted to file for A.G. without having the necessary experience as a lawyer. I can see how Brown will win this one. Bummer.
Marked for Thursday watch.
Can you be "unadmitted"? If not, then the words "immediately proceeding" wouldn't make sense in the context of "admitted" in this sense, because there would be no chance of not being "immediately proceeding".
If you CAN be "unadmitted", then I can see a court ruling that way.
However, if you were "active", it wouldn't be correct grammar to say "active to practice before the Supreme Court", that's the wrong use of the word "active". Admitted would be the correct term -- and "Admitted to" appear before the Supreme Court is different from "Admitted to the state bar", so this might not be the correct application.
12503. No person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General unless he shall have been 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.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 6 JUDICIAL
SEC. 9. The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding office as a judge of a court of record.
6002. The members of the State Bar are all persons admitted and licensed to practice law in this State except justices and judges of courts of record during their continuance in office.CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION(snip)
6003. Members of the State Bar are divided into two classes:
(a) Active members.
(b) Inactive members.6004. Every member of the State Bar is an active member until as in Section 6007 of this code provided or at his request, he is enrolled as an inactive member.
6005. Inactive members are those members who have requested that they be enrolled as inactive members or who have been enrolled as inactive members by action of the board of governors as in Section 6007 of this code provided.
6006. Active members who retire from practice shall be enrolled as inactive members at their request.
Inactive members are not entitled to hold office or vote or practice law. Those who are enrolled as inactive members at their request may, on application and payment of all fees required, become active members. Those who are or have been enrolled as inactive members at their request are members of the State Bar for purposes of Section 15 of Article VI of the California Constitution. Those who are enrolled as inactive members pursuant to Section 6007 may become active members as provided in that section.
Inactive members have such other privileges, not inconsistent with this chapter, as the board of governors provides.
SEC. 15. A person is ineligible to be a judge of a court of record unless for 10 years immediately preceding selection, the person has been a member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State.
It would only be a stink
if Brown were GOP, I think.
Pooch's loud bark up that tree
is sure to shake the DNC.
One can always hope and dream
of knocking out their Ol' Moonbeam ...
No kidding. Apparently the person who wrote the code had an apt sense of humor.
I found a few more things to question when considering Jerry Brown.
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
6060. To be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law, a person who has not been admitted to practice law in a sister state, United States jurisdiction, possession, territory, or dependency or in a foreign country shall:
(a) Be of the age of at least 18 years.
(b) Be of good moral character.
(snip)
6064.1. No person who advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, shall be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law.
Who you callin' a nerd? HUH?
ROFL!
The court will take into consideration that he had been admitted in the past, has had experience, and that there are no penalties or sanctions in his past.
He'll be allowed to run.
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.