July 29, 2006
Bogus Supreme Court Candidate has criminal file

Michael Leonard Johnson, the Seattle trial lawyer who filed a transparently bogus Supreme Court candidacy for the sole purpose of confusing voters, in likely violation of state law, already has an interesting criminal file.

The intrepid Richard Pope obtained this set of records from Seattle Municipal Court.

On September 16 last year, Michael Johnson was arrested on 1 charge of Theft. The victim was identified as Gurbhag Singh. The circumstances are not explicitly stated in these documents, but I infer from the details that Mr. Singh must have been a cab driver whom Michael Johnson ripped off while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The charge was "Dismissed with Prejudice". But as a condition for dismissal, Michael Johnson was required to pay court costs, pay $16.50 restitution to Mr. Singh, avoid further contact with Mr. Singh and the Orange Cab Co., complete an 8-hour "alcohol/drug information school" program, and complete 9 hours of community service, which he fulfilled at the Seattle LGBT center.

Michael Johnson is not a viable Supreme Court candidate. He even makes Bobbe Bridge look like a model citizen. But I have to give Michael Johnson a kind of credit for his cynical dirty trick. As this story gets out (and it would get out, even without Richard Pope and me), those who are only paying slight attention to this race may associate this sleazy behavior only with the surname Johnson and fail to differentiate between low-life shyster Michael Johnson and the distinguished jurist Sen. Stephen Johnson and just vote against both Johnsons. But those who are paying full attention should recognize this below-the-belt ploy for what it is -- and hang it on Susan Owens, Mrs. Gregoire and their special interest friends who will do anything, no matter how unprincipled, to protect the judicial seat which they seem to feel is their own private property.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 29, 2006 05:45 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Do you have even the slightest evidence that Owens, Gregoire or anyone other than Micheal Johnson has any involvement in this? Even a shred? You seem to be skipping from suspicion to established fact without any proof to bridge the gap.

Posted by: wayne on July 29, 2006 07:34 PM
2. Speaking of lack of evidence, do you have any evidence tht Mr. Johnson "filed a transparently bogus Supreme Court candidacy for the sole purpose of confusing voters."

I know you made your name by never having evidence Mr. Sharansky, but don't you think you should have some before you post charges. Or is this another tranparently bogus scheme of yours to cary the BIAW's water again?

Posted by: JDB on July 29, 2006 07:50 PM
3. The King County Journal reports that Michael Johnson does not plan to raise any money or seek any endorsements. Some campaign. BS alert!!!!! This is clearly liberal dirty-tricksterism. I'm getting my Stephen Johnson sign this week, and sending out an email alert to like-minded friends who vote but don't necessarily follow politics as closely as I do to alert them and suggest they forward the email to other like-minded friends.

I urge all SP readers to do the same.

I also would like to ask, who is responsible for enforcing the law Richard Pope brought to our attention about it being a felony to pull a stunt like this??

Posted by: Michele on July 29, 2006 08:01 PM
4. He needs to get that Judge Bridges to drop the charges for him; i mean that's the go to guy if you have an elections problem

Posted by: righton on July 29, 2006 08:07 PM
5. JDB: You forgot the ', moonbat' suffix after your initials: Michael Leonard Johnson is OBVIOUSLY not a serious candidate 4 the Supremes. Everything Stefan has already noted and the footnote Michele posted above should be MORE than enough proof even for a rational liberal (if there are any left).

Also: Good suggestion, Michele: I have John Groen signs up in a couple places, but somehow did not get away from the GOP convention with a Stephen Johnson sign... I plan to rectify that oversight directly.

As far as responsibility for enforcement of the RCW Stefan pointed to: I would think the AG's office or the prosecutor in Michael Leonard Johnson's county of residence would be prime candidates.

Posted by: Methow Ken on July 29, 2006 08:13 PM
6. I am astounded, no wait, I'm not. It's just more politics as usual in Washington State.

Posted by: SGMMAC on July 29, 2006 08:20 PM
7. JDB, the Times reported that Michael Johnson called the Owens campaign to let them know what he was doing before he filed. WHY would he do that???? Do you think Stephen Johnson called up the Owens campaign to do same? I'm CERTAIN he didn't. Because he's clearly not running the kind of unserious campaign that Michael is attempting to pull. Grow up and admit what's going on. Even a public school graduate like me can see what's going on here!

Posted by: Michele on July 29, 2006 09:00 PM
8. Actually, Richard Pope, "intrepid" legal gadfly and now candidate for district court judge, was the one to point out the statute. However, as Richard also pointed out, it is unlikely Michael Johnson could be prosecuted. Of course, it is a dirty trick if you are Stephen Johnson, and I don't think there is any question Michael hoped to cause problems for a candidate he does not agree with. However, I see no evidence that anyone other than Michael Johnson was behind this. The solution for Stephen Johnson will be to make sure the public becomes aware of this so that voters can differentiate between the two in September.

Posted by: wayne on July 29, 2006 09:08 PM
9. Stephen Johnson probably needs some money to campaign and get the word out.

Maybe the State GOP should run ads telling the public about Mr Johnson.

Or Michele Malkin could give it some press as to the bogus attempt to derail a great candidate by the looney left...........

Posted by: sgmmac on July 29, 2006 09:26 PM
10. And jdb/biteme/blowjob comes out from under his rock again to cast stones. You'd probably be more effective if you weren't trying to cast them out of your arse...

Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2006 09:27 PM
11. Come on, libs. Anyone with a functioning synapse can see what is going on here. The guy is wildly unqualified to run for this position. He also has a dubious legal history. Now, you libs here will argue that the case against him was dismissed- but leave out the "with prejudice" part. And if you want to present your argument with any hint of logic, you must include that.

Furthermore, why would this ambulance chaser bother to call a political opponent (at least on paper) and inform said opponent that he was running for the same position? Sportsmanship? You frequent-poster libs out there might be naive enough to belive that, but I don't think so. I think you know as well as the rest of us that this thing stinks, but you are willing to put up with it so long as it keeps a champion the liberal cause on the bench.

Why do you waste metabolism defending this (theoretically) penis-equipped Darcy Burner? Don't you have any better candidates? Or is the ability to create fog on a cold mirror the sole qualification for running with a (D) behind your name these days? I mean, if you have to put up a guy with questionable ethics for a position that merits the highest fidelity to the law, and then have to spend all this bandwidth defending him (with the usual snide insults and intentional misspelling of names), it tells the rest of us that you are simply trying to put yet another bum nag in the gate for the sole purpose of making it more difficult for voters to make an informed choice.

Evidently, that's what it takes to get your people elected these days.

Posted by: ERNurse on July 29, 2006 09:42 PM
12. Stephan,

As much as I hate Owens and her liberal/socialist associates, That statute seems to be unconstitutional on its face.

When Charles Johnson was elected, he was an unknown and he did not put much of an effort into his campaign. He beat out what seemed to be a very well respected sitting justice who had an unusual last name.

Posted by: Don on July 29, 2006 10:08 PM
13. Here is a law that will definitely apply to the Johnson & Johnson situation. It was used back in 1996, when Brad Owen & Bob Owen both sought the Democrat nomination for Lieutenant Governor (although the RCW & WAC numbers were different back then). The Secretary of State has also adopted WAC rules to implement this law.

RCW 29A.04.611
Rules by secretary of state.

The secretary of state as chief election officer shall make reasonable rules in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW not inconsistent with the federal and state election laws to effectuate any provision of this title and to facilitate the execution of its provisions in an orderly, timely, and uniform manner relating to any federal, state, county, city, town, and district elections. To that end the secretary shall assist local election officers by devising uniform forms and procedures.

In addition to the rule-making authority granted otherwise by this section, the secretary of state shall make rules governing the following provisions: ...

(26) Procedures for the circumstance in which two or more candidates have a name similar in sound or spelling so as to cause confusion for the voter;

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.04.611

WAC 434-215-060
Duplication of names.

Whenever, in the judgment of the filing officer, two or more candidates have filed for the same office whose names are so similar as to be confusing to voters, he or she shall differentiate between the candidates by the inclusion of additional information in connection with the name as it appears on the ballot. Such differentiation may be made by the inclusion of the candidate's occupation, status as incumbent or challenger, or by any other means which, in the judgment of the filing officer, fairly and impartially distinguishes the candidates. The filing officer may solicit suggestions and input from the candidates involved in order to resolve the situation.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=434-215-060

Posted by: Richard Pope on July 29, 2006 10:37 PM
14. I would strongly support Sen. Johnson for Supreme Court, and I would like to see Owen, Fairhurst, Bridge and Chambers off the court. Moreover, I imagine that Michael L. Johnson filed for the specific purpose of creating confusion. But as they say in politics, it depends whose ox is being gored. No reason to get your panties in a knot over this. It is politics, and from an objective standpoint, it's a good ploy.

I remember some years ago a conservative Republican former legislator asking me if I knew someone named Hatfield who could run in Vancouver so his advertising might confuse the Oregon voters regarding their former not-so-conservative Senator of the same name.

Stop whining like liberals and Democrats. Get to work and get the job done electing Stephen Johnson.

Posted by: Alan on July 30, 2006 12:27 AM
15. I would strongly support Sen. Johnson for Supreme Court, and I would like to see Owen, Fairhurst, Bridge and Chambers off the court. Moreover, I imagine that Michael L. Johnson filed for the specific purpose of creating confusion. But as they say in politics, it depends whose ox is being gored. No reason to get your panties in a knot over this. It is politics, and from an objective standpoint, it's a good ploy.

I remember some years ago a conservative Republican former legislator asking me if I knew someone named Hatfield who could run in Vancouver so his advertising might confuse the Oregon voters regarding their former not-so-conservative Senator of the same name.

Stop whining like liberals and Democrats. Get to work and get the job done electing Stephen Johnson.

Posted by: Alan on July 30, 2006 12:27 AM
16. Alan, anecdotal accounts mean nothing. you have proof of this conversation?

Posted by: ERNurse on July 30, 2006 10:31 AM
17. A tactic perceived is a tactic. End of story.

Posted by: KS on July 30, 2006 01:33 PM
18. This is interesting. Michael Leonard Johnson specializes in "Guardianship and Elder Law":

http://www.lawyers.com/Washington/Seattle/Hardman-and-Johnson-4431818-f.html

The September 16, 2005 theft arrest certainly cannot be helpful to M.Johnson's practice. Why would be file a quixotic candidacy and risk getting all this publicized?

I will also check tomorrow and see if M.Johnson is on any registries for court-appointed guardian ad litems. If so, the court officials who maintain these registries need to be supplied with a copy of M.Johnson's case file from Seattle Municipal Court.

Posted by: Richard Pope on July 30, 2006 03:45 PM
19. Will that scrupulously objective PI political bloviator Joel Connelly write about this blatantly unethical if not illegal filing? We shall see. But if I'm betting the farm, I'd say he won't except to defend the coincidentally-surnamed Johnson and his co-conspirator Ms. Owens.
In the meantime may I suggest subpoened depositions as to exactly what went on in Johnson's conversation with Owens' office? Maybe that would jog the conveniently foggy memories that are afflicting both sides. I would also recommend a subpoena of phone records from Ms. Owens office to see about any other contacts there have been.

Posted by: Brian on July 31, 2006 04:31 PM
20. PS Kudos to Richard Pope for sterling reportage.

Posted by: Brian on July 31, 2006 04:34 PM
21. Way back ten to fifteen years ago, another Johnson - Charles, a Gig Harbor attorney - filed against the then Chief Justice Callow, and spent not a dime promoting himself.

He won, on the strength of his name.

Deal with it guys. Repubnuts are the biggest crybabies on earth.

Posted by: CrazyWingNuts on August 1, 2006 08:07 AM
22. I agree. Second only to mouth-breathing, addlepated, bed-wetter Dhimmicrats, of course...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 1, 2006 08:48 PM
23. GET OUT OF THE SANDBOX RIGHT NOW!!!

ALL OF YOU!!!

Posted by: platypus on August 3, 2006 08:05 PM
24. All about <a>xanax</a>

Posted by: Azazello on August 11, 2006 05:14 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?