Posted on 10/20/2006 7:57:45 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
CAMPAIGN 2006: Attorney General Republicans file lawsuit seeking to disqualify Brown as candidate Filing says he's not active member of bar -- mayor's spokesman calls action 'dirty trick'
10-20) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- A lawsuit filed Thursday by two GOP party activists claims Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown's failure to maintain an active membership in the state bar for two of the past five years disqualifies him from holding the office of attorney general.
State law says candidates for attorney general must have been admitted to practice before the California Supreme Court for "at least five years immediately preceding" election.
Brown's status with the State Bar was "inactive" from 1997 to 2003, which prevented him not only from practicing law in California but from reaching the five-year minimum, the lawsuit says.
"It would be as serious miscarriage of justice for us to elect an attorney general who isn't eligible," said Tom Del Beccaro, the lead plaintiff and chair of the Contra Costa County Republican Party at a press conference outside Sacramento Superior Court, where the issue will be decided. "When you go inactive, you are no longer able to practice. That makes him ineligible."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
As an attorney, I would side with Brown on this one. There is a big difference between being "admitted to practice" and being "allowed to practice." Even though he has not kept his membership current, that doesn't change the fact that he has been admitted to the bar.
How come laws only apply to Republicans? /R
Also an attorney here in California. Alas, I agree. I see this as going nowhere.
Damn.
I was hoping it was SHERROD Brown here in Ohio.
This is a tempest in a tea-pot. If the opposition really wants to go after Brown, they ought to focus on his storied past, (they didn't call him "moonbeam" for nothing). For example, his appointment of Rose Bird to Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, the endorsement of black panther, Elaine Brown, to the Oakland City Council, and his opposition to the death penaly come to mind. The Litany is endless. He has the endorsement of some Law Enforcement, which reminds me of Aesop's parable about the scorpion and the frog. Here's a web-site, which details some of his history; much of which, if not all, can be substantiated.
http://www.moveonjerry.org
A tip of the hat to you. This shows the value of FR -- a surprisingly but plausible story comes out, people pound the table in outrage, but we quickly (almost immediately) find out that there's much less to the story than apparently is desired.
Hurray, looks like we got this piece of XXXX. Brown is a stone nut and about as left as can get.
thanks for the link
what's the story on Poochigian?
Not that I give a big rat's butt, there is indeed a difference between being''admitted'' and ''allowed.'' A laywer who chooses to become inactive for any reason; travel, illness, sabbatical or any other, can become active simply upon notifying the State Bar and paying his dues. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have the distinction. This is a tempest in a teapot.
I am inclined to agree with you, but with one caveat. If all Brown has to do to become active is say he wants to be active again and pay a fee, then I think he will win. However, some states (and I don't know if California is one of them) require a lawyer who has been inactive for a period of time to petition for readmission and demonstrate to a court that he has kept up on his knowledge of the law and remains competent to practice. If he has to jump through these or similar hoops before he can get readmitted, then I don't think his case is any slam dunk. Courts will tend to overlook requirements that are simply ministerial, but they are less apt to overlook requirements that have real substance.
True, but the issue has been litigated--precedent is not on Brown's side.
Complaint
Ping to another one.
I'm also an attorney in California. I actually think this case has merit, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts after you read these links.
http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_sections_generic.jsp?cid=13726&id=1029
http://politicalvanguard.com/
Do you think Michael Savage will ask for his money back? He gave $5600 to Moonbeam's campaign.
I was a skeptic too, until reading politicalvanguard and the actual complaint (links posted above).
Now I think they have a solid argument!
Not that I'm voting for him, but it could be a lot worse. He has matured on law and order. He may be a liberal, but at least he thinks and acts independently and isn't going to be a pawn in the Democrat machine.
There is a distinction in the use of the term "practice." When you go on inactive status, you are not supposed to practice law. True. However, that is not the same thing as saying "admitted to practice" which is the basic term used to indicate that a lawyer has passed the bar and met the membership requirements of the state bar - nothing more. Same term, different usage.
Further, in the Republicans' complaint, there is a serious error in the cases that they cite. Nowhere does it actually say what they claim. Once again, they cite Johnson for the proposition that an "attorney actually be entitled to practice before the state courts." It says nothing about active membership, but that's what the plaintiffs think it says. I'm not trying to be a spoil-sport here, but this is a sham lawsuit done with some clever case editing and questionable interpretation of case 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.