As most everyone in the political world now knows, ACORN is under investigation in many states, and by the federal government, for a host of crimes.  The same holds true in California – or does it?

Notwithstanding the purported investigation of ACORN by the California Attorney General’s Office, according to David Lagstein, ACORN’s chief organizer in the San Diego:  the Attorney General Jerry Brown is a “political animal” and that “certainly every bit of communication we have had with them has suggested that the fault will be found with the people that did the video — not with ACORN.”

So much for investigating the supposed target of the investigation – ACORN – not to mention that it should be well beyond suspicious that an investigative unit of the government would tell an entity under investigation, i.e. ACORN,  what will be found about others.

Perhaps, you say, the ACORN official was taking liberties with what was said to him and it can’t be attributed to the actions of Jerry Brown?  Unfortunately for Jerry Brown, his cavalier association with the rule of law precedes him and gives rise to real questions as to what really is going on with the ACORN investigation.

Consider, if you will, these brushes with the rule of law that Jerry Brown has had as Attorney General – the official charged with upholding our laws:

• Attorney General Brown’s “spokesman” recently was given the boot for illegally taping telephone conversations with reporters – ironic yes?  That Brown will find someone illegally taped ACORN while his office does the same?, or

• Brown’s blatant mischaracterization of Senator George Runner’s upcoming Voter ID initiative as the: LIMITS ON VOTING.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  [which] Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls, unless they present a government-issued photo identification card.  Under similar circumstances, Brown’s Democrat predecessor dubbed the Voter ID initiative he reviewed as “VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  Requires that voters present one of four types of picture ID before voting.”   Brown was sued by Senator Runner for such misconduct; or

• Attorney General Brown’s decision to file lawsuit against San Bernadino County for “failing to consider how growth and new development will impact climate change” – even though the regulations related to AB32 had yet to be written at the time of the lawsuit.

If that is not bad enough, we can go one step further back to note that Jerry Brown never should have been seated as Attorney General because he was not legally qualified to be Attorney General.

I was the lead Plaintiff in a lawsuit to stop the seating of Jerry Brown for Attorney General because California Government Code Section 12503 states that:  “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.”  Jerry Brown did not meet that requirement.  Prior to his election, Brown had an inactive law license for 10 out of the last 14 years, and his license has been active only for three and a half of the preceding five years.  As any attorney will tell you, an active license is required to practice before the Supreme Court of California.

Jerry Brown, however, was able to convince an activist Judge that he came close enough for government work and therefore the will of the people should not be thwarted.  And you thought our nation was founded on the rule of law not men?

In this day and age, it would rather appear that that antiquated notion is under more suspicion than Jerry Brown.  Sad as that is, it’s time that a formal investigation of Jerry Brown was undertaken.

I assure you Jerry Brown – the California Attorney General – does not.

Do the videos of ACORN exposed by BigGovernment.com concern you? How about facts like these:

In Washington state’s disputed 2004 governor’s race, which was won by 129 votes, the election superintendent in Seattle testified in state court that ineligible felons had voted and votes had been cast in the name of the dead. In Milwaukee, Wis., investigators found that, in the state’s close 2004 presidential election, more than 200 felons voted illegally and more than 100 people voted twice. In Florida, where the entire 2000 presidential election was decided by 547 votes, almost 65,000 dead people are still listed on the voter rolls–an engraved invitation to fraud. A New York Daily News investigation in 2006 found that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City had voted twice in at least one recent election.

Does voter fraud  like that concern you?

It doesn’t concern Jerry Brown.   How do I know?   It’s really quite simple.

Senator George Runner of California submitted a simple and straight forward Voter ID initiative which, in part, requires that California citizens show a government ID before they vote. Senator Runner fashioned his initiative on voter identification requirements upheld by the US Supreme Court.  In other words, Runner’s initiative is consistent with the law of the land.

Also, keep in mind, as John Fund of the Wall Street Journal points out – time and again- “members of a bipartisan federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements  . . . [in part because]  . . . Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights.”  

When faced with a similar Voter ID Initiative, in 2005, then California Attorney General Lockyer provided the following title and summary for the initiative:

“VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  Requires that voters present one of four types of picture ID before voting.” 

Why did Lockyer do that?  Because Attorney Generals are required by California law to clearly and truthfully state the “chief, purposes, and points” of such initiatives.

But all of that doesn’t matter at all to Jerry Brown.  For his part, Brown summarized the Runner Vote ID initiative as:

LIMITS ON VOTING.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls, unless they present a government-issued photo identification card.  Establishes provisional voting for citizens at the polls who fail to present government issued photo-identification card.

Why did Brown do it that way?  According to Brown’s office:

“Sen. Runner fails to acknowledge the troubled history of voting in our country where some have erected discriminatory barriers including poll taxes, literary tests and requirements that one own property in order to vote.  Sen. Runner justifies his new restrictions based on claims of widespread fraud, but empirical evidence is to the contrary; such cases are extraordinarily rare…These restrictions are all new, and they derive from Sen. Runner and his partisan allies…”

And you thought ACORN was the problem? 

Well,  Jerry Brown is part of the problem as well – which is why Senator Runner filed a lawsuit, on October 14, 2009, against Brown for his “unfair, partial, argumentative, confusing, and misleading” Ballot Title and Summary.

 Oh, and perhaps the best/scariest part?  Jerry Brown wants to be Governor of California again.  I am sure that ACORN cannot wait for that possibility.