Michael Leonard Johnson, who filed a bogus candidacy in an apparent attempt to confuse voters in the Supreme Court race between Susan Owens and Sen. Stephen Johnson, is profiled in today's The Olympian: "Court candidate breaks silence"
[Michael Leonard Johnson] says he is running because he wants to be a justice.He also claims to have a "quarrel" with Susan Owens because
she, too, accepts endorsements and contributions and support from PACs"His story is utterly implausible. First, he must know that there is no way he would be elected Justice after he was arrested and required to perform community service after stiffing a cab driver and breaking the driver's cell phone. And if he were campaigning in earnest to be a Justice, why did he wait a month after filing to break his silence? Michael Leonard Johnson is also a hypocrite about PAC money -- He donated $900 in recent years to a lawyer's PAC called "Victims Advocates" [I wonder if this PAC has advocated for the cab driver whom Michael Leonard Johnson victimized? -- Ed.] Victims Advocates has donated $1,400 to Susan Owens' campaign.
The entire story is implausible except for this quote:
I am not a politician," he wrote. "Because my last name is Johnson, I can uniquely raise public awareness that Sen. Johnson is a pawn of special interests seeking unfair advantage because of his own familiar name."Here he essentially admits that he is in the race to confuse the voters, in apparent violation of state law.
Sounds good, though.
Posted by: MJC on August 28, 2006 04:22 PM
Any person who with intent to mislead or confuse the electors conspires with another person who has a surname similar to an incumbent seeking reelection to the same office, or to an opponent for the same office whose political reputation has been well established, by persuading such other person to file for such office with no intention of being elected, but to defeat the incumbent or the well known opponent, is guilty of a class B felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW. In addition, all conspirators are subject to a suit for civil damages, the amount of which may not exceed the salary that the injured person would have received had he or she been elected or reelected.
My opponent for Northeast District Court, Mary Ann Ottinger, was convicted twice of the misdemeanor traffic offense of driving without a valid drivers license in Seattle Municipal Court for offenses committed in February 1988 and again in March 1988. This offense isn't as serious as theft, of course. However, Ottinger was 39 years old at the time she committed criminal offenses and had been practicing law for over 14 years.
Four years later in 1992, a vacancy occurred on the King County District Court in what was then the Issaquah District. Ottinger thought it would be nice to become a judge, even though she had tried only four cases in the 19 years since she had been admitted to the Bar -- and had merely been assistant counsel on two of those cases.
Unfortunately, the King County Code, Chapter 2.70, requires that the County Council fill vacancies in the District Court from the top three candidates recommended by the so-called "King County Bar Association". The KCBA is a voluntary organization, to which less than 1/3 of the lawyers in King County belong to. Most of the KCBA members tend to be liberals.
The KCBA has a judicial candidate questionnaire, which they ask to be signed under penalty of perjury. The KCBA asks both public questions -- which they will release to the public -- and private questions, which they only want their screening committee to see. One public question is whether the person has been convicted of any criminal offense since their admission to the Bar. A private question is whether the person was convicted of any criminal offense prior to their admission to the Bar.
Ottinger evidently answered "No" in 1992 to the criminal conviction question pertaining to the period after her admission to the Bar. Had she said "Yes", she probably wouldn't have received the KCBA's highest ranking. Had she said "No" and been caught, the KCBA would presumably not have wanted to recommend an evident perjurer as a qualified candidate for judge.
All this, of course, assumes that the KCBA values honesty and integrity in judicial candidates. The KCBA may very well consider these qualities to be less important than their goal of putting liberal lawyers into judicial positions.
In any event, Ottinger has completed another KCBA questionnaire in 2006, since she has opposition for re-election this year. This time, Ottinger has answered "No" to Question No. 21, which asks if she has been convicted of any criminal offenses since her admission to the Bar (which was on 10/18/1973).
Frankly, I don't think the KCBA bothers to check whether or not judicial candidates have any criminal history. However, it is very easy to check this on anyone, and I found Ottinger's criminal conviction record in less than 5 minutes looking on-line at the state court database and the Seattle Municipal Court database.
I have informed the KCBA Judicial Screening Committee of Ottinger's criminal conviction history, and more importanly, her evident perjury for falsely answering the question regarding criminal conviction history.
It is also pretty well-known that Ottinger has been censured twice by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, and was suspended without pay by the Washington Supreme Court on July 20, 2006. To be sure, I have also provided this information to the KCBA Judicial Screening Committee.
The KCBA Judicial Screening Committee is chaired by Ken Masters, who has donated nearly $10,000 to Democrat candidates and liberal PAC's. Masters' law partner is Charles Wiggins, who is one of the leaders of FAIRPAC d/b/a "Citizens to Uphold the Constitution" -- a PAC which has raised nearly $250,000 to support the liberal Supreme Court incumbents in this year's election.
I am willing to bet that the KCBA Judicial Screening Committee will give Mary Ann Ottinger some rating other than the "NOT QUALIFIED" rating which she richly deserves for the misconduct for which she has already been disciplined -- without considering the evident perjury in trying to lie about her criminal conviction record.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 28, 2006 06:49 PMfunny-when a teen gets pinched for stealing a bottle of pop, he gets put away; yet--a judge (who knows better) can slide around with impunity;
all I can say is--hey voters--remember the names !
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 28, 2006 07:31 PM"DON'T FORGET ! MICHAEL JOHNSON IS A DORK..
STEPHEN JOHNSON IS FAR AND AWAY THE BEST CHOICE FOR SUPREME COURT POS. NO. __"
Who thinks this stuff up? The great "Johnson" confusion?....The fake status elevation of Darcy Burner? It's all an illusion - just as everything else is about the Democrats......
People have no time for this childish nonsense anymore.....and it will show at the polls..
Posted by: Deborah on August 28, 2006 10:20 PMBefore Mr. Pope starts ranting again about the liberal partisanship of the KCBA, note that Stephen Johnson won a higher rating (Well Qualified) than Justice Owens (Qualified), an accomplishment that Johnson has been quite happy to trumpet.
Posted by: Law&EconChick on September 2, 2006 05:04 PM