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 ...
that's what they should have done with Strickland in Ohio.
You owe me a new keyboard.
You really think he will be disqualified? I'd be very surprised if he is prevented from taking office. (assuming he wins)
Rules don't apply here. Refer to NJ and Lautenberg as precedent.
For example, from the Johnson Case (My emphasis):
It may be admitted that, if the statement of petitioner with reference to his occupation be taken away from the context in which it was used, and entirely divorced from the purpose for which it was uttered and the result intended to be accomplished by its use, then the argument may seem plausible that the sworn statement was not a misstatement. But when said statement is considered in connection with the surrounding situation, and in conjunction with the fact that it was made in a sworn declaration of candidacy for nomination to the position of a judge of the superior court of this state, it is obvious that the statement was deceptive, dishonest, and untruthful, and was deliberately made with the intention of giving an impression which was not correct. Article VI, section 23, of the California Constitution provides that, "No person shall be eligible to the office of ... a judge of a superior court ... 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." It follows that no one is eligible to hold the office of superior judge who has not been an admitted practitioner before the Supreme Court of this state for a period of five consecutive years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office. Certainly an attorney who has been suspended from the practice of law during this period cannot successfully claim to be eligible. (State v. Monfort, 93 Wash. 4 [L.R.A. 1917B, 801, ].) It is self-evident, we think, that said provision requires as a fundamental qualification for the office of superior judge, that the candidate for such position be qualified as an attorney actually entitled to practice in the state courts, and when petitioner in his sworn declaration of candidacy for such position made under oath the statement that his occupation was that of "lawyer" and his occupation for the three years immediately preceding was that of "lawyer, practicing, and admitted to practice since 1927", there cannot be the slightest doubt that he intended thereby to convey the idea that he was in fact a lawyer legally entitled to practice in the state courts. These statements of petitioner, considered in their context as they necessarily must be, were false and were undoubtedly made with the intent to deceive. Clearly, the local administrative committee was justified in so finding.I'm a believer!
Correction. It was 1937.
Oh really? Uh, I mean, yeah, right! It's good this came out a couple weeks before the election despite their stupidity.
I thought about that, but I think he could probably afford the $500/year to keep his membership active. What he didn't want to do was spend 36 hours in continuing education. One of those two is clearly the reason; there is no other reason why he would not have stayed active.
To the moderates who might have voted for Poochigian, IMO this just makes him look bad. If they wanted to keep the Moonbeam off the ballot, the time to point it out was late in the primary and then let the Democrats vote for an illegal candidate.
As it is, although the legal case is pretty cut and dry, I think this will backfire politically.
I'm fearing the backfire differently ~
that it might ignite the DNC
~ vociferously ~
A lawyer could argue that if the legislature meant anything but "immediately preceding", they would have phrased it "for a period of at least five years preceding his or her election " rather than "immediately preceding"
You mean you expect moderates to vote for Brown knowing he will be ineligble to serve? Well, maybe CA moderates are just that stupid.
No, they'll vote against what they'll perceive as a Republican dirty trick on the expectation that the courts will let the election stand in violation of the letter of the law, for which there is ample precedent.
Maybe they aren't that dumb, unlike the GOP leadership.
The responsibility is the Candidates, not someone else.
He just disqualified himself the way they say other Republicans have over technicalities of law.
Id rather have Rod Pachecho of Riverside appointed.
I'd rather have my fingernails pulled off with pliers than see that arrogant blow-hard RINO liberal puke Rod Pacheco's career in Sacramento resurrected.
Then those voters will be disappointed. I don't think we're in such a parlous state yet that a court will ignore a law that clearly written.
Ever hear of Mariana Pfaelzer? (think Prop 187)
The courts never cease to amaze me.
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.