Hon. Margaret Johnson See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Santa Clara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 6 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Margaret Johnson


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA28756
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Johnson is eligible to work in the Judicial Council's Assigned Judges Program and collect pay 2/3 of salary plus her pension. Judges in this program are not subject to discipline by the Commission on Judicial Performance and the JC does not have a disciplinary committee. She can now do unlimited damage without supervision for ten more years.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA28754
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Luckily for parents and families, she's retired, apparently except for guest appearances. What a shame that MJ continues to apply her strange concepts of the law and help destroy families, without any recourse by her victims. The CCJP is a joke, as any attorny will tell you.

Other

Comment #: CA28753
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Margaret Johnson is part of why we have so much child abuse, rape and killing. She came to the Monterey family superior court and handled my case. My daughters father at the time was very alcoholic throwing parties at home with all his friends while he had our daughter and I had evidence and I feared for my daughters safety and she said “I don’t care about your evidence whether you like it or not she will be spending nights with her father” I wanted supervised visitation and she refused it. I asked to change my case to another county because my daughters father was a security at the court office at the moment and I felt like she was not being fair at all. I asked to get the written reports of my case sent to me because I wanted to write a complaint and they NEVER sent them to me.

Other

Comment #: CA10098
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Is a shame hat she runs unopposed. She's an embarrassment to the system. The average college graduate could interpret the family law statutes with more fairness, concern for he children involved, and logic, then this judge has demonstrated - in her too many years as a family law jurist.

Litigant

Comment #: CA10095
Rating:1.0
Comments:
signed a draft of a settlement that violated the rules of a trust and Family Code 4065 and that I had rejected, failed to report the attorney who did this to the State Bar; it is fraud upon the court. Canon 3D, demonstrated bias against plaintiff trying to get this order vacated.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA7280
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
2003 she entered an order that is void for lack of jurisdiction (FC4065). In 2004, again she denied change of venue to county where parties lived so she could keep this void order under her control. 2006 she engaged in ex parte deal with same attorney to deny expedited hearing on child support in exchange for father paying tuition, same case.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6138
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Just sent Judge Johnson proof that attorney she endorsed and other attorney committed a fraud upon the court: Canon 3D (d) mandates that she take 'corrective action', and CCP 473 (d) gives her the power to set aside the order. Order violates California laws.

Litigant

Comment #: CA5358
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Please see the text of my comments elsewhere here, and feel free to contact me at sidneyorr@yahoo.com

Litigant

Comment #: CA4785
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Margaret Johnson denied spousal support to a disabled woman on public assistance. (This woman is also a survivor of domestic violence.) She enforced a waiver of spousal support for a woman who is a public charge. This is a clear violation of state and federal law.

To all victims of Judge Margaret Johnson:

Register your complaints with:

State of California Commission on Judicial Performance

455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: 415-557-1200
FAX: 415-557-1266

Litigant

Comment #: CA4765
Rating:1.0
Comments:
In 2003, Judge Johnson entered an order that violated the law on trusts for minors and lacked the mandatory stipulations of FC 4065. A few years later, she stated before a hearing that she would again deny guideline child support in this case. After my complaint, she transferred to juvenile court, but she clearly acts without regard to a child's best interests.

Litigant

Comment #: CA4558
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Johnson signed into an order a settlement clearly lacking the mandatory waiver of child support and in violation of the terms of a trust fund, then refused a few years later to increase child support, and denied a motion for change of venue to where the parties lived, in order to keep the case under her control.