Posted on 02/10/2007 8:30:23 AM PST by CounterCounterCulture
(02-10) 04:00 PST Sacramento -- A Superior Court judge tossed out a lawsuit Friday claiming Jerry Brown was not qualified to serve as state attorney general because he had not practiced law for all of the five years prior to his election in November.
Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian rejected the lawsuit, saying that while Brown had chosen to let his membership in the State Bar of California be "inactive" from 1997 through April 2003, he was still eligible to practice law and had been eligible since his admission to the bar more than 40 years ago.
"The intent of this law was not to prevent someone in the circumstances of this candidate to be excluded from office," Ohanesian told lawyers for the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
A judge on Friday denied a long-shot bid by GOP operatives to have state Attorney General Jerry Brown declared ineligible for office.
In a lawsuit first brought during Brown's campaign last fall, several Republican Party officials claimed that Brown did not meet the qualification that an attorney general be an "uninterrupted, active member" of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office. Brown, a Democrat, was admitted to the California State Bar in 1965. But he went on "inactive" status in January 1997 and did not reactivate until May 1, 2003, allowing him to pay lower bar dues.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the change in status is "purely ministerial" and that "active status" is not a requirement.
Yesterday, the trial court heard argument in what was the first round of a series of hearings in the Brown case. The Court deemed that keeping an "active" license was merely a "ministerial" act and therefore Brown is qualified to be Atty General. The Court did so eventhough our Supreme Court has held that no one is "entitled" to practice law with an inactive license. Brown is ineligible, in our view, because the law requires that he be "actually entitled to practice law" for the last 5 years. Brown was only able to do so 3 of the last 5 years.
As a practical matter, the Court gave a wide opening for appeal because she expanded existing law by going beyond the Johnson case (see below). She limited the Johnson case holding to cases involving only "involuntary" suspensions- thereby making new law. The Johnson case, however, made no such limitation and therefore there are clear grounds to appeal this case.
A new yacht will show up at the judge's slip this summer...
How can you be eligible to practice law when your Bar admittance is inactive?
What are the chances at the Calif. Supreme Ct level? It is supposedly more conservative, but by how much relative to the circuit courts?
Brown could have represented himself in court without a license, in pro per.
Further evidence that a law is whatever an activist judge wants it to be, regardless of what it actually says. Ever since the Florida Supreme Court called deadlines for certifying elections, "hypertechnical reliance upon statutory provision," I knew we were doomed.
Correction:
"The intent of this law was not to prevent someone in the circumstances of this Democrat candidate to be excluded from office," Ohanesian told lawyers for the case.
In other words, the law wasn't meant for him. Typical Dem attitude.
Anyone can -- that is not the practice of law.
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.