Investigation of Justice Johnson began with a petition to the court

LOS ANGELES -- An investigation into the behavior of Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson began with a petition bearing 100 names that asked for a working group to review the sexual harassment policies of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, Justice Elwood Lui testified Monday.

Merete Rietveld, an appellate court attorney, gave Lui the petition and mentioned there was an attorney who had problems with Johnson, Lui testified.

One of the first women Lui interviewed was Johnson's former research attorney, Kathleen Wohn, who testified Monday she complained about Johnson to the court's then-chief executive officer/clerk, Joseph Lane. She said he thanked her for not taking the matter further. When she made clear she wanted to take it further and have an investigation, nothing was done, she said.

Lui said he had a duty as administrative presiding justice of the court to investigate such allegations. He testified that he did not seek out any accusers, but emailed Johnson requesting a meeting.

Johnson ignored him, Lui said. So he approached Johnson in a common area of the court and told him privately the nature of the inquiry.

"He said, 'This is bullshit.' He was angry and upset," Lui testified.

His testimony started off the second week of a Commission on Judicial Performance hearing expected to last 19 days and could end with Johnson's removal from the bench. Seventeen women have described a range of misbehavior by Johnson from bullying to groping.

Johnson, 58, has denied most of the allegations and said others were taken out of context. His lawyers have said he is a victim of the #metoo movement run amok.

The preliminary investigation into Johnson's behavior began around June 5, 2018, Lui testified.

Much of the testimony Monday centered on whether Lui or another person actively recruited women to report misbehavior by Johnson. Lui denied seeking out accusers or encouraging others, but spoke to those who approached him.

The chronology of how many accusers he may have interviewed before advising Johnson of the matter was unclear from his testimony.

The bulk of the witnesses came forward after the Daily Journal reported that Lui sent an email to the court's 10,000 employees detailing allegations made against Johnson by a California Highway Patrol officer assigned to protect the justice, Lui testified. The July 2, 2018 email was a mistake, Lui testified.

"I felt embarrassed ... horrible for all the people involved," Lui said.

Johnson and the CHP officer are both suing the court over the email.

Lui testified that earlier, after Rietveld gave him the petition in May 2018 requesting a review of the court's sexual harassment policy, several women came forward and detailed instances in which they believed Johnson acted inappropriately. Among them were Justice Victoria Chaney, who testified last week that Johnson propositioned and groped her over a nine-year period, and Justice Tricia Bigelow, who testified last week that Johnson twice complimented Justice Beth Grimes' backside. Grimes testified she did not remember those instances but believes Bigelow is telling the truth.

One of the women who came forward was Wohn, Johnson's research attorney, who said the justice made comments about her smell and demeanor and eventually took her to a meeting outside the courthouse where Johnson allegedly told Wohn, "If you had gone to high school with me, I would have been in love with you."

Wohn said she urged Johnson to leave, telling the panel, "It was a boundary which I did not wish to have to cross." She said she later signed the sexual harassment petition in an effort to put a policy in place that "had some teeth in it."

In addition to seeing Johnson drunk and seeing alcohol containers in his chambers, Wohn testified she found in her office a floral cosmetic bag with an open box of condoms, tube of lubricant, lip balm and a convenience store receipt.

When Wohn returned to work to find the bag was gone, she said she alerted executive clerk Lane who told her, "Thank you for not taking this further." Wohn said she responded she did in fact want the matter investigated, up to retrieving the logs of swipe cards and cameras.

Wohn testified Lane told her there were no cameras, which she claims was a lie.

"His loyalty was to them and no one else," Wohn said, speaking to her impression clerk staff were there strictly to serve the wishes of the justices.

Last week, a custodian testified Johnson brought women to his chambers after hours.

After that incident, Johnson cut half of her work-from-home days, Wohn testified.

Wohn also told Lui she believed Johnson regularly positioned his chair so he could see into her office and leer at her, Lui testified.

Justice Steven Z. Perren disclosed to Lui that Johnson was asked to officiate a friend's wedding but was ejected from the function when he acted inappropriately with guests, Lui testified.

However, that testimony was contradicted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julian Andre, who testified near the end of the day that it was his wedding being referred to.

Called to the stand by Commission on Judicial Performance examiner Mark A. Lizarraga, Andre said he could not recall Johnson misbehaving at his wedding, nor did he remember telling anyone that happened.

In his cross examination of Lui, Johnson's attorney, Paul S. Meyer, focused on the behavior of Rietveld, whom he characterized as an operative bent on building a case against Johnson.

Meyer asked Lui about an email sent to him by Rietveld with a subject line he said read, "Five judges are aware of sexual misconduct by Justice Johnson."

Meyer said this email was based on her suspicions and was not fact. He asked Lui if he ever sent Rietveld out on an explicit mission to approach witnesses and get them to talk about negative interaction they had with Johnson. Lui said he had not.

Meyer then asked whether he knew if Rietveld approached witnesses in the guise of operating under a mandate from Lui or ever used phrases like, "Justice Lui wants corroboration" when interviewing alleged victims. Lui again said he knew about no such behavior.