FLASHREPORT

I believe Tom Del Becarro must be a great guy, and a strong conservative leader, because Jon Fleischman, Steve Frank, and so many others have told me so, and the majority of delegates at the recent California Republican Party convention seem to have validated that feeling, when Tom was elected State GOP Vice-Chairman.  I admire leadership, and people willing to take a stand, and a risk for a good cause.  I've known Mike Schroeder to be just such a person for many years.  I can tell you that Mike Schroeder's contributions to the cause have truly made a difference for the cause of freedom and liberty, and I have heard the same about Tom Del Becarro.
 
So it is with that in mind that I have to still come to question the wisdom of Del Becarro and a group of northern California GOP activists, and their lawyer Mike Schroeder, in their (now losing) lawsuit to remove Jerry Brown as Attorney General because he changed his bar dues status to "inactive" for a couple years while he was Mayor of Oakland.  Brown, a former Governor and Secretary of State, has been a lawyer in California for over 40 years.  He is clearly qualified to be Attorney General, despite his politics.  But because he was listed as "inactive" on the state bar rolls for a couple years (a common action for lawyers who periodically wish to reduce their high bar dues payments while they are not actively practicing law, such as during government service) he has been unsuccessfully attacked in the courts as "unqualified" to serve as Atttorney General.

I asked my attorney service to fax me the tentative and final ruling of Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail D. Ohanesian made last Friday in Del Becarro v. Brown, throwing the case out of court, and there are a few details that did not get reported about this case that I believe readers following this case might be interested in.

Ohanesian issued a tentative ruling just before the hearing last Friday, dismissing the case, and then after oral arguments reconfirmed her tentative decision.  In her final ruling, she awarded Jerry Brown and the Defendants court costs against the Plaintiffs for filing fees and sevice of process under California Government Code Section 6103.5.  In her tentative ruling, upheld in the final ruling, the Judge squarely addressed  the Plaintiffs reliance on a 70 year old case, Johnson v. State Bar, 10 Cal.2d 212.  Plaintiffs had argued that the Johnson case establishes that Brown must have continuously been an "active" member of the state bar for five years prior to filing, to be considered qualified to be Attorney General.  But Judge Ohanesian disagreed, on a couple very important points.  In the Johnson case, the attorney, who wanted to run for a Judgeship, had been suspended from practice by the California Supreme Court during the five year period.  The Judge further stated that the Johnson case was not an election contest, such as the Brown case, but a disbarment proceeding involving a person who filed a false declaration of candidacy, because in fact his license to practice had been suspended by the Supreme Court.

In contrast, in the Del Becarro v. Brown case, Jerry Brown was indeed a licensed attorney for five continuous years and had never been suspended.  His bar dues status was voluntarily placed on "inactive" status while he was serving as Mayor of Oakland, but he was still continuously a member of the bar (though on "inactive" status) and could change his status back to active at any time.  Thus, the court found that the question of actual admission to practice law for five continuous years before an election, was different from the question of whether the admitted person was "active" or "inactive" during the five continuous years requirement to be qualified for the office of Attorney General.  The Johnson case is highly distinguishable, because Johnson was certainly not a licensed attorney for five years, and not "admitted"; but Brown was "admitted" for five years -- his change in status was "purely ministerial" to his admission.

One of Ohanesian's other important findings of law, which has not been discussed much, and which deserves some focus, is her supporting conclusion that "the right to hold public office is a fundamental right of citizenship, and the statute must be construed in a manner that favors eligibility," citing to Helena Rubenstein v. Younger, (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 406.  Jerry Brown is clearly a person who is qualified to be Attorney General, and turning him out of office on such technical grounds would indeed violate a fundamental right of citizenship.

Interestingly, the Court found the case was not barred by the "doctrine of laches," as a result of the case being heard after Brown had already won the election.   But that victory for Plaintiffs had no effect on the final ruling.
 
In closing, as you can tell, I don't see eye to eye with the Plaintiffs on this issue, but then again, everyone doesn't always agree with me either.  Regardless, I continue to believe that this is a losing case and I urge the Plaintiffs to drop the idea of an appeal and move on to issues that can make a much bigger difference for our conservative cause.