Think that’s a sensationalistic headline?
I think not.
I received a slate mailer today. For those of you who aren’t clued in on what these are– they’re paid political advertisements. Candidates buy space on these ads, which float around using official sounding names to trick voters into believing they carry some sort of legitimacy. Believe me, they don’t.
“Protects his Right to Blame Victims” is more like it.
Here’s what Judge Johnson had to say about himself (my emphasis): “Exceptional Judge For Over 14 Years. Protects The Rights of Victims. Former Prosecutor. Endorsed by DA Tony Rackauckas and Police.”
Really?
Judge Johnson made national headlines, including a brief spot here, with this statement in 2012 while “protecting” the rights of victims:
I’m not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something . . . If someone doesn’t want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage in inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case. . . That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn’t necessarily willing, she didn’t put up a fight.
Offended yet? You’re not the only one. The California Commission on Judicial Performance was none too happy either. They disciplined Johnson and ordered a Public Admonishment placed in his record stating: “In the commission’s view, the judge’s remarks reflected outdated, biased and insensitive views about sexual assault victims who do not ‘put up a fight’. Such comments cannot help but diminish public confidence and trust in the impartiality of the judiciary . . .”
Good to know that our District Attorney, Tony Rackauckas, thinks this jackass is suitable to try his rape cases. Judge Johnson says he’s for protecting the rights of victims. Well, you’ve seen what he has to say about a woman who was threatened with a knife, was threatened to have her vagina and face branded with a glowing red-hot screwdriver, who was beaten about the breast with a metal baton, had her tires slashed, and was threatened with death before being raped. Her attacker didn’t deserve sixteen years in jail. Judge Johnson only gave him six . . .because her vagina didn’t try hard enough.
Yes Orange County, these are the people who want to represent you and your values. A judge who blames vaginas for being raped and a District Attorney who thinks that’s just fantastic.
They’re both running for re-election . . . right now. If either receives a majority of votes in the June primary, they get to keep their jobs.
Tell them both to find something else to do. We don’t have the time for this.
It’s not that he thinks that her vagina didn’t “fight hard enough,” Ryan. It’s more of an idea like:
“If your vag didn’t tear then you didn’t really care.”
Yeah, his highlighting a Rackauckas endorsement isn’t really endearing himself to me — unless maybe it was a Republican-oriented mailer, in which case I understand it but I dislike it..
You mean, you are STILL some distance from feeling this jerk is worth voting AGAINST?
I know how I’m voting. My endorsement is a different matter.
It’s a big deal for an attorney to endorse the removal of a sitting judge of the Superior Court where he practices. And then there’s the fact that I’d probably agree with most of his rulings more than I would Hayden’s. But — well, I have a piece in progress on my soul-searching on this race; you’ll see it soon. (The current draft already needs revision.)
Gotcha.
Hey Greg –
Please know, I’ve never said how, if elected, I would “rule” on anything. To do so would violate the judicial cannons of ethics. And, I am very careful not to do so because I would never want to create an appearance of bias or impartiality which was the basis for the public admonishment against Judge Johnson.
So to be clear, I vow to follow the law, as written, not as I believe it should be written. The public admonishment against Johnson suggests that he does otherwise. For example he appears to have sentenced the defendant based on what he described as a “technical” rape. There is no crime in the penal code called “technical” rape. So to say that you’d likely agree with more of his rulings than mine is silly since mine would be consistently based on the law; and his might come from anywhere – perhaps even a Seinfeld episode.
Gong back to the “technical” rape issue which Johnson’s public admonishment brought to our attention, here is my perspective on it: When a person offers up the proverbial, “the defendant got off on a technicality”, what they are really saying is that they believe the defendant would have been found guilty but for some obscure, irrelevant, law (usually the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure or some other constitutional protection). So I think it is reasonable to conclude that when Johnson found that the defendant’s rape was not like a “real” rape but more like a “technical” rape or a “crim law test”- what he seemed to be saying is that he didn’t believe it was really a rape at all, except for some obscure, irrelevant law that mandated a conviction. He wasn’t publicly admonished because he misspoke – he was admonished because he demonstrated bias against rape victims who didn’t have serious bodily injury (“shredded vaginas”.)
Lastly, please know that while I may not agree with you, particularly with your respect to your reluctance to vote for me, I nevertheless admire your writings. You, Dan, and Ryan (haven’t read much by Vern), make me laugh and are truly gifted writers. I admire what you do and your passion for doing it.
Best,
Helen Hayden
Someone advised me that he didn’t get that I was being sarcastic when I called the 4th amendment an obscure law – I was making fun of people who don’t realize that there are no technicalities.
While it may not yet be time to yell “Trifecta!”, it “came over(somebody else’s) transom” yesterday that our hopefully-soon-to-be-Ex DA was headlining a fundraiser for our most colorful (by press account, I’m no fashion expert) Anaheim Mayoral hopeful Kring. He sure can pick ’em! Could the DA be a ‘Festivus’ observer (Johnson’s other famous decision)? Will we see either ‘airing of differences’ (in a debate), or a ‘feat of strength’?
Whenever a man starts a sentence with “I’m not a gynecologist, but…” you can be sure the sentence won’t end well.
I’m not a gynecologist, but I play one from the bench.
I wish I had thought of that – may I quote you?
That dude should get his own vagina and see how that works for him/her.
This guy and so many other “Judges” need to be replaced.
Based on over 17 years of experience, I can assure you that the criminal cop/DA/judiciary component in Orange County, CA are as misogynist as they are racist. The two social pathologies exist close to each other.
The main example that comes to mind is how Orange County, CA law enforcement leadership rarely using female cops to violate my rights through the years. These “men of integrity” basically don’t trust women to keep their dirty little oath violating secrets.
But you have only a few bad apples correct Mrs. Kring , Mrs. Murray and Mrs. Eastman? You should think about women’s future in America councilwomen.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/confirms-police-revenue-collection/
Our judicial system is corrupt to the core. What this likely is is a judge giving a break to a defendant – not because of an overriding legal issue or some sense of “justice” – but rather a payoff to the defending attorney with whom the judge has some sort of relationship – sick, sick shit.
Are you going to comment on this Diamond? Am I wrong? Are you part of the problem? Do I have my head up my ass?
Diamond as a practicing attorney is wise not to offend a powerful sitting judge who is likely to win and in front of whom he is likely to argue. I know how he’s voting. You, sir, can just guess.
I call bullshit on this.
Ask Helen Hayden about it. She and I have discussed it. She and I are probably tied for who in OC is taking the biggest career risk in running for office in this primary. And, any political differences aside, we respect each other for being willing to do so.
In any event, I do plan to write about the race this weekend.
[Edited to add:] I don’t actually think that Vern knows how I’m voting, because while I know that I’m not voting for Johnson — I simply can’t, for reasons I’ll explain — I still haven’t decided 100% on whether or not I’ll vote for Helen and will probably keep it confidential (as is my right as a citizen.) If you think that it’s “bullshit” that a practicing attorney is courting trouble with potentially all Superior Court Judges — none of whom want to face electoral challenges when it’s their turn to run — by running against or advocating for the removal of a sitting judge, you ought to reconsider that.
But I will tell you that when my 23-year-old daughter voted for the first time last week, it was the only race where I didn’t offer a recommendation — but I did review for her, as fairly and explicitly and dispassionately as I could, both their respective qualifications and the precise basis for the controversy (including the differences between a trial and a sentencing hearing — as well as their similarities.)
Her ballot is also secret, of course, but you can draw your own conclusions.
I second that motion – it’s a racket.
Justice is not blind – it is bought and paid for by a conspiracy of attorneys (judges are attorneys).
Diamond could comment “in general” about my accusation of the “justice” system – he won’t.
OK, skally, here goes — your view is an oversimplification. (Coming from you, it would pretty much have to be.) Great and important challenges to power happen in court that could hardly happen anywhere else.
However — and this may surprise you as much as it distresses me — an attorney seriously can get disciplined for blithely stating something like “justice … is bought and paid for by a conspiracy of attorneys (judges are attorneys).” I don’t like that, and my sense is that it’s not often enforced against attorneys, but it can be — and that has a chilling effect.
Why is this? We’re called “officers of the court,” as you may know, and that is taken to imply some responsibility to preserve (and perhaps boost) public confidence in the court system — at least its potential.
I think that boosting public confidence in the system is exactly what I do with my practice. (Others would disagree there, I’m sure.) But as someone without the courage even to use your own name when you write, you’re in a very poor position to criticize me about my willingness to face consequences for my public stances. Have some dignity, sir.
“She and I are probably tied for who in OC is taking the biggest career risk in running for office in this primary…”
You mean she has nothing to lose either? Your career is exactly what you’re doing.
Strong words from the crevice between the rocks!
Yes, yes, no … and don’t tempt me.
GD: “OK, skally, here goes — your view is an oversimplification.”
Ahhh … vindication! I am not “wrong.”
Thanks GD.