Please do not let Jeremy Johnson file this for the Court to read... Please

SALT LAKE CITY — Government lawyers want a federal judge to disallow indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson's latest court filing because he did not follow judicial rules.

Assistant U.S. Attorney for Utah Jeannette Swent argues that the court had already received all the responses to its motion to stay the Federal Trade Commission lawsuit against Johnson. Also, Johnson and three others who act as their own attorneys in the case failed to seek the court's permission to file an additional memorandum, she contends.

The government wants to limit evidence gathering in the civil FTC case against Johnson pending the outcome of the criminal case against him and four others. Johnson is fighting the motion because he says it will hinder his ability to interview witnesses, some of whom would be involved in both cases.

Johnson filed an initial response in mid-May and another Thursday that raised new questions about Utah Attorney General John Swallow's dealings with Johnson and his Internet marketing company, iWorks.

Swent asked the court Friday to strike the last response because it doesn't comply with court rules and procedures.

A hearing on the motion to stay the FTC case is scheduled for Monday

LOYD JOHNSTON
Phone: (435) 253-0534
2988 Kings Court Lane
Washington, UT 84780
Email: johnstonloyd@gmail.com
Pro se
ANDY JOHNSON
3641 Vista View Circle
Santa Clara, UT 84765
Phone: (435) 313-7935
Email: notguiltyyourhonor@gmail.com
Pro se
RYAN RIDDLE
446 East 1410 South
Washington, UT 84780
Phone: (435) 256-2855
Email: rockitryan@gmail.com
Pro se
JEREMY JOHNSON
529 South Woods View Circle
St. George, UT 84770
Phone: (435) 817-8299
Email: documentcollection02203@gmail.com
pro se
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Plaintiff
v.
JEREMY JOHNSON Etc., Et Al.,
Defendants
OBJECTION TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA’S EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR A LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY
Case No.: 2:10-CV-02203-MMD-GWF
COMES NOW Pro se Defendants, Loyd Johnston, Andy Johnson, Ryan Riddle, and
Jeremy Johnson, and respectfully ask this Court to deny the Emergency Motion for a Limited Stay
of Discovery filed by the United States of America dated April 15, 2013. If the Court is inclined
to grant the motion, we respectfully ask that the Court to revisit the restrictions of the Preliminary

Injunction in order to level the playing field as our lives are being adversely affected each day this
civil case drags out.
We remind the Court that we are pro se defendants and do not have legal training. We
apologize in advance for any errors we have made that fall outside the rules established by this
Court and we have faith that the Court will look past these mistakes and gain a solid understanding
of the arguments that we have prepared in this response.

THE COURT IS ASKED TO CONSIDER THE VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS INVARIABLY CAUSED BY THE EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THIS CASE FILED BY THE UNITED STATES.
Specifically, it is important for the court to have full understanding of the following:
I. A
“LEVEL
PLAYING
FIELD”
IS
CENTRAL
TO
DUE
PROCESS
IN
THESE
PECULIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES
II. THE
GOVERNMENTS
BASIS
FOR
LAWSUIT
AND
ASSET
SEIZURE-­‐AND
CONSEQUENT
DENIAL
OF
FOURTH
AMENDMENT
DUE
PROCESS
III. DUE
PROCESS
NOT
ONLY
IS
BEING
DENIED
WHEN
DISCOVERY
IS
DENIED, BUT
FINDING OF MISCONDUCT AMONG MORE THAN ONE GOVERNMENT
AGENCY AMOUNTS TO A CONSPIRACY OF MISCONDUCT:
I. A “LEVEL PLAYING FIELD” IS CENTRAL TO DUE PROCESS IN THESE
PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES
The United States has made numerous failed attempts in both this court and the court
handling the criminal case in Utah to stop discovery efforts. This issue was previously brought
before Judge Hunt and ruled on over a year ago on January 26, 2012.

In that hearing Judge Hunt stated the following related to the governments arguments to
stay this case:
“the Court is not going to hold the civil case hostage to the criminal case” (See
Exhibit A: Jan 26 hearing Page 11 line 9-10)
“While the Government has the right to use the civil case to obtain information
regarding Mr. Johnson, which may well be used in the criminal case,
notwithstanding the fact that they have the right to do so, they don't have the right
to have the Court help them in doing it and so, I'm not going to limit further the stay
for those reasons” (See Exhibit A: Jan 26 hearing Page 11 line 17-23)
In line with Judge Hunt’s ruling over a year ago, Judge Foley recently has granted the
United States the ability to attend any depositions and object to any questions it finds not relevant
to the civil case. Judge Foley surmised that if the parties cannot agree on the relevance of a certain
question the government can call him and he can decide if the witness can answer the question.
This ruling is right in line with Judge Hunts concerns that the government does not just come to
the court (as they have done in this case) with vague allegations of the possibility that discovery
might be used to help the defense in the criminal case.
Judge Hunt also stated:
“I will demand more than just the statement that this is intended to obtain discovery
in the criminal case. I need to have something more specific about how that
particular evidence is involved in the criminal case and the charges that are there”
(See Exhibit A: Jan 26 hearing Page 12 line 13-17)
In the same hearing Judge Hunt also recognized that there are discoverable facts in the civil
case that may be relevant in both cases.
“But I recognize also that there may be some things that are -- some documents that
may relate to both and the fact that they relate to both does not preclude their being
disclosed or obtained”. (See Exhibit A: Jan 26 hearing Page 29 line 6-9)

Judge Foley has already granted the United States the ability to object to discovery which
the United States feels is unfair to their case. The current arrangement will allow the United States
to protect its interests while allowing the defendants in this case their right to due process.
A. The government’s desire to stay discovery should not outweigh the right of
defendants due process:
Both the court in Utah and this court have seen near non-stop attempts by the government
to stop, limit, and prevent discovery in this case. Their argument is that a person who is put under
oath in a deposition may give testimony, which will be harmful to their criminal case against some
of the defendants in this case. Certainly the FTC, who has spent untold amounts of money and
man-hours on this case, would for their own reasons support a strategy of haulting discovery.
It seems the government’s main concern involves the taking of depositions of people on the
ever-evolving list of witnesses that have been labeled “no-contact”
The facts about these witnesses are as follows:
1. 31 people on the governments no-contact list were previously identified as witnesses for
the defense in the defendants initial disclosures filed in this case in May, 2011. They were
identified before any criminal case was filed and long before any no-contact list was ever
authorized.
2. Many of the witnesses on the no-contact list have already had their declarations used by the
FTC in this case.
3. Both the FTC and the United States will be able to attend the depositions and object to any
questioning that they feel is not applicable to this case.
4. These witnesses will be under oath and required to give truthful testimony.

With these straightforward and simple parameters regarding the witnesses in question, the
court may ask itself the question “What is the government so worried about being discovered?”
The answer, which will be detailed below, is summed up here: After more than two years
since the civil lawsuit was filed and assets of the defendants seized, not only is the government
having a hard time proving the defendants broke the law, witnesses on whose testimony they relied
to seize those assets have stated for this court that government officials falsified their testimony
and/or used “threats and intimidation.” As will be documented in this filing, specific government
attorneys and agents have engaged in egregious misconduct that jeopardizes our very system of
justice. To limit discovery in any way at this point in the civil case, based on the facts here, is to
both permit unlawful behavior and put defendants in this case at a clear and continuing
disadvantage that violates the right of due process.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S BASIS FOR LAWSUIT AND ASSET SEIZURE--AND
CONSEQUENT DENIAL OF FOURTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
The FTC did not expect they would ever go to trial in this case. When speaking about this
courts order to seize the defendants assets and shut down iWorks, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill
stated in her interview with C-SPAN “Well I am really happy to report we definitely got the out in
this case” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_CS3n1TQ8 Starting at: 10:27)
The “out” commissioner Brill was referring to was the shortcut victory for the FTC created
by the Preliminary Injunction Order. The court may well ask itself another question: Why does the
FTC need an “out” in this case? Why can’t they just present their evidence at a trial like any other
case? In effect, the order immediately created that which nobody can deny is unfair litigation for
the defendants in this case.

It is our objective to show why the basis for granting that Preliminary Injunction Order was
flawed – in fact, tainted by unlawful misconduct including witness tampering and the falsification
of affidavits by select government agents that we believe were key to the Court’s decision to
assume that presumption of guilt.
To be specific, the Preliminary Injunction Order has stripped the defendants of basic
constitutional rights in the following ways:
A. Denies the defendants their constitutional rights to their property.
B. Denies the defendants their most sacred and basic right of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness by restricting them from seeking gainful
employment, or to conduct legal business in the industry of their choosing.
C. Forces the defendants to cooperate with the courts receiver (without the
benefit of an attorney) who is also working as an agent of attorneys for the
United States in the criminal prosecution, thereby forcing by court order the
defendants to forgo their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
D. Denies the defendants their right to hire an attorney to defend against the
government’s allegations in this case.
E. Denies defendants who are charged in the criminal case their 6th
amendment right to counsel of choice. Even though the defendants have
millions of dollars and could easily hire the counsel of their choice, they are
instead forced to take an attorney chosen by, and paid for by the
government, thereby putting the defendants defense at least on that point in
the control of the government.
Stripped of their rights and forced to try and navigate a legal system with which they have
no knowledge or experience, the defendants in this case are certainly disadvantaged. The FTC by
contrast has endless resources, teams of experienced attorney’s and investigators from multiple
government agencies. They also have the courts receiver spending millions of dollars of the
defendant’s money to help both the FTC and the DOJ in both this case and the parallel criminal
case.

To be sure, most might expect in the face of such obstacles, Commissioner Brill’s
confidence in a quick settlement and/or conviction in this case was well-placed. But most, don’t
know the facts.
A. Falsified Evidence and its role in securing the Preliminary Injunction Order to
Freeze Defendants’ Assets
As stated above, in the FTC’s quest for an “out” in this case they knew they would need
compelling evidence to convince this court to allow the government to seize the defendants’ assets
and deny them the use of their own money to hire attorneys to mount a defense.
One of the central witnesses used in that effort was former iWorks employee Devan
Partridge. In this filing you will find and affidavit as well as video testimony by Mr. Partridge of
the circumstances by which he says FTC attorney Collot Guerard knowingly falsified his original
affidavit and in fact, wrote it for him.
Mr. Partridge spells out in clear and convincing language the threats Collot Guerard (FTC
lead counsel on this case) and other FTC attorneys used to get his signature on the document the
FTC wanted this court to see.
“Collot and the other attorneys were very intimidating and threatened me with legal
problems if I did not cooperate with them. Collot made multiple attempts to induce
me to say things in my affidavit which were not true.” (See Exhibit B: Declaration
of Devan Partridge Page 1 Number 5)
“After several interviews, Collot told me over the phone exactly what she wanted
me to say in my affidavit. She twisted what I told her into something very different
than what was truthful. In addition, she completely made things up which I never
said.” (See Exhibit B: Declaration of Devan Partridge Page 1 Number 6)
Mr. Partridge no states by affidavit:
“I did not then, and I do not now believe that I Works was a fraudulent business”
(See Exhibit B: Declaration of Devan Partridge Page 2 Number 14)

“It is clear to me that Collot and the other attorneys at the Federal Trade
Commission only wanted to present information to the judge that was designed to
mislead him into believing that I Works was a fraudulent enterprise” (See Exhibit
B: Declaration of Devan Partridge Page 2 Number 15)
Mr. Partridge states in a video interview about the affidavit the FTC submitted to this court:
“ The testimony that the FTC wrote for me and gave to the judge was not the
testimony that I would have written or that I would have given had I been speaking
with the judge one on one” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_CS3n1TQ8
Starting at 4:30)
In another instance also central to the FTC’s efforts to secure the Preliminary Injunctive
Order, they submitted to this Court a declaration, which appears to be signed by Natasha Lee, a
former iWorks customer. In her own words, Lee recounts her experience of intimidation by FTC
lawyers who were attempting to get her to say what they needed her to say. (See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ_CS3n1TQ8 Starting at 1:00)
This declaration was very important to both the FTC and DOJ as it was the only evidence
the government had that iWorks had used false testimonials in their advertising. It was important
to the FTC that they had at least one of the persons whose testimonial was used in the marketing of
iWorks sites say that it was not a truthful testimonial. All the rest were just as iWorks had
represented: true testimonials.
The FTC attempted to get Natasha Lee to sign a document making such a statement by
offering her money:
“The agents told me that they were working on a very important case for the
government and that they needed my help. They told me about a man named
Jeremy Johnson who they described as a very bad man with a lot of money. They
told me that they needed my help to take his money and if I would help them I
would be entitled to 10% of everything they were able to seize from him.” (See
Exhibit C: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 1 Item 2)
Lee also stated:
9

“The agents for the government are very intimidating and constantly tell me how
evil Jeremy Johnson is. They also know I am in the witness protection program and
make threats to kick me out if I don’t agree to lie for them. This is very difficult for
me as I have children and we need the governments support to pay our bills.” (See
Exhibit B: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 3 line 16-20)
Finally, when that did not even convince Natasha to sign the falsified declaration, the FTC
simply resorted to fraud and forged Natasha’s signature without her knowledge onto an affidavit
written by FTC attorneys and submitted it to this court as evidence.
“The affidavit the government is using with what appears to be my signature is not
my affidavit. I did not sign it and those are not my statements. The information in
the affidavit is not truthful and should not be considered by any court as evidence.”
(See Exhibit B: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 4 Item 14)
Natasha Lee even though she is still scared and intimidated and feels the government will
retaliate against her for speaking the truth wants nothing more than to give a full and accurate
statement for this court of her truthful testimony without the threat of harm to herself or her family
by the government for doing so.
“I have been threatened multiple times by the FTC and other government agents
that I better testify they way they want and say the things they want me to say. I am
very scared of what the government will do to me for telling the truth but I am also
very upset that the government is forcing me to lie or in their words “stretch the
truth” and that the government has used me to harm innocent people” (See Exhibit
B: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 4 Item 16)
“I am willing to testify and tell the truth. All I ask is that I am protected from the
FTC and the other government agents who have made threats to harm me and my
family.” (See Exhibit B: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 4 Item 17)
From day one in this case the Government has taken a “shoot first and ask questions later”
approach. Individuals have misused their undeniable power. The sworn testimony given by both
Natasha Lee and Devan Partridge in this case and included in this filing clearly show the

government attorneys and agents involved in those interviews have violated at least a dozen
Federal and State statutes including:
18 USC § 872 - Extortion by officers or employees of the United States
18 USC § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
18 USC § 73- Obstruction Of Justice
18 USC § 25-Counterfeiting and Forgery
18 USC § 241- Conspiracy against rights
18 USC § 47- Fraud and False Statements
18 USC § 1028- Fraud and related activity in connection with documents
18 USC § 1621 Perjury
Utah Title 76 § 8.508- Tampering with a witness
Utah Title 76 § 6.406- Theft by Extortion
Utah Title 76§ 8.306-Obstruction of Justice in criminal investigations or proceedings
Utah Title 76§ 6.501- Forgery and producing false identification
The ripple effect from the falsified evidence submitted to this Court is devastating. In the
last hearing with this Court several of the defendants watched in disbelief as people with whom
they had never done any business and did not personally know, broke down in tears as this Court
allowed the receiver to seize their assets, and literally kick them out of their homes.
Natasha Lee and Devan Partridge were added to the governments no-contact list for
obvious reasons. And for obvious reasons the defendants in this case felt it was critical for the
Court to be aware of the circumstances surrounding these individuals. It certainly speaks to the
importance, but also the dangers inherent to any plan regarding discovery that is not both
transparent and fair to all parties. The stakes, as all are aware, are simply too high.
As the famous quote goes, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. That is the beauty of the
American way, that it relies on a system of checks and balances. The defendants have faith that
this court perceives the gravity of any individual within government who senses for him or herself
an immunity from prosecution based on a power advantage. It is the defendants hope and belief

that this Court understands the importance of protecting the defendants’ ability to pursue discovery
in this Case within appropriate confines, based on the experiences to date.
III. DUE PROCESS NOT ONLY IS BEING DENIED WHEN DISCOVERY IS
DENIED BUT FINDING OF MISCONDUCT AMONG MORE THAN ONE
GOVERNMENT AGENCY AMOUNTS TO A CONSPIRACY OF
MISCONDUCT:
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion implying that
government attorneys must practice a higher standard of ethics than private attorneys. Following
this decision, the Ethical Rules of the Federal Bar Association and the judiciary embraced this
implication by expressly requiring government attorneys to adhere to higher ethical standards.
Whereas private attorneys represent only their client's interest, government attorneys have the
additional responsibility of promoting justice and the public interest. Thus, courts utilize a
heightened ethical standard in civil actions and criminal prosecutions to facilitate the performance
of this commendable, additional obligation. Specifically, a government attorney must not use the
enormous power behind his position to (1) harass parties, (2) continue unfair litigation, or (3)
pursue a result contrary to justice and the public interest.
Government attorneys, unlike those in private practice, have the potential to wield the
enormous resources behind their positions in order to influence litigation. In response to this
potentially hazardous situation, EC 7-14 states in pertinent part:
“A government lawyer who has discretionary power relative to litigation should
refrain from instituting or continuing litigation that is obviously unfair . . . A
government lawyer in a civil action or administrative proceeding has the
responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record, and he should not
use his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to
bring about unjust settlements or results.”

In Berger v. United States, a prosecuting attorney during cross-examination misstated facts,
accused a witness of saying things that the prosecution knew were never said, assumed prejudicial
facts which were not in evidence, and bullied the witnesses. The Court appropriately found that
these actions constitute misconduct, which improperly influenced the jury. More importantly, the
Supreme Court implied the existence of a heightened standard with the following passage:
“The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore in a
criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done”
A conspiracy of misconduct:
A. Improper Collusion Between FTC and IRS Representatives and False
Representation to a Judge re: arrest warrant
In early 2011, after the Preliminary injunction Order had been granted, the FTC was well
aware that Mr. Johnson was flying back and forth from Costa Rica. Mr. Johnson made numerous
trips in his attempts to earn a living within the confines of the Preliminary Injunction Order by
setting up a helicopter tour business in that country. The FTC was monitoring Mr. Johnson’s
flights and knew when he was coming and going.
In June 2011, a plan to arrest Jeremy Johnson was set in motion with the coordinated help
of FTC attorney Collot Guerard, IRS Special Agent Jamie Hipwell and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Brent Ward, who is one of the lead attorneys on the criminal case for which Johnson was being
arrested. At the behest of his FTC colleagues including Ms. Guerard, Agent Hipwell filled out an
affidavit and swore under oath to U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Warner that everything in his
affidavit was truthful. Judge Warner signed the arrest warrant.
The following day, Mr. Johnson was arrested in a high-profile manner, handcuffed by
agents as he walked off the plane in Phoenix, which- it’s important to note - had just come from

Las Vegas, Johnson’s airport of choice as it is the closest major airport to his home. Media
headlines certainly seemed to perceive from the government accounts of the arrest that Johnson
was fleeing the country.
Critical for this court to understand, is the reality of the circumstances surrounding the
arrest, and the incestuous relationship between the FTC and the persons responsible for the
criminal case who are asking this court for a stay. This relationship is detailed during testimony
subsequently given by Agent Jamie Hipwell regarding the basis and manner of Johnson’s arrest.
In Mr. Johnson’s detention hearing when speaking about where he got the information he
used to get an arrest warrant for Mr. Johnson Agent Hipwell Testified:
Q. So if you're unaware of that information and didn't do anything to verify this
information, where did you get it from?
A. The FTC's information.
Q. Where did they get it from?
A. I don't know.
Q. So you were attesting to things in that affidavit to the judge that you had no idea
about?
A. Based on the FTC's information, yes.
Q. But you relied upon them and you didn't do anything to corroborate that
information prior to submitting it to Judge Warner to get an arrest warrant for my
client?
A. Correct. (See Exhibit D: Testimony of IRS Agent Jamie Hipwell Page 78 Line 9-
21)
Agent Hipwell then admits he did not so much as interview the single victim listed in the
complaint he had presented to the Judge.
Q. In the current complaint that you signed and then also now the indictment, it lists
an individual by the name of S.J. Have you interviewed this person?
A. No (See Exhibit D Testimony of IRS Agent Jamie Hipwell Page 78 Line 2-5)
In another hearing nearly 2 months after he had arrested Jeremy Johnson Agent Hipwell
had still not talked to the single victim he had arrested Mr. Johnson for allegedly defrauding.

Q. Agent Hipwell, Mr. Hipwell, my name is Mike Hansen. Your last occasion you
testified to the Court I believe that you testified you had never spoken with the one
victim named in the indictment in this case. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you spoken with him since then?
A. No, I have not, sir. (See Exhibit E: 7-28-11 Detention Hearing Transcript Page
233 Line: 21-25 and Page 234 Line: 1-3)
Mr. Hipwell also concedes that he knew Johnson was not a flight risk. And yet he was
willing to do the FTC’s bidding and participate in an orchestrated high-profile arrest that was
likely to sway public opinion and, it was hoped by the agents involved, intimidate Johnson into
agreeing to settle the case or admit guilt. 1
Q. Isn't it, in fact, he was not fleeing to Costa Rica on that date?
A. In my opinion?
Q. Yeah.
A. I do not believe he was fleeing that day, no. (See Exhibit D: Testimony of Jamie
Hipwell Page 80 Line 18-22)
As it turns out even the information provided by the FTC was not enough to obtain an
arrest warrant for Johnson. However, so eager was Agent Hipwell to do the FTC’s bidding and
secure an arrest warrant for Jeremy Johnson that he was even willing to alter the information the
FTC gave him to make it seem more like a criminal offense.
This is demonstrated in clear and convincing evidence in the affidavit Mr. Hipwell signed
to obtain the arrest warrant:
“Forced up-sells are up-sells that are automatically sold and charged to consumers
credit cards without their knowledge or consent” (See Exhibit F: Jamie Hipwell
Arrest Warrant Page 4 Item 5)
The last line in that statement was added by Mr. Hipwell to make Judge Warner think that a
Forced Upsell was something done without a consumers knowledge or consent.
1 Arresting Jeremy Johnson at his house in Saint George when he got the arrest warrant would have meant that Mr.
Johnson would be in court right away, and the scheme to make him look like a flight risk would be nearly impossible
to prove given his significant ties to the community. On the contrary arresting him in Phoenix would entail a lengthy
month long extradition process and make it easy to convince the media and the courts that Mr. Johnson was trying to
flee the country.

After falsely defining what a forced upsell was for Judge Warner, Agent Hipwell goes on
in his affidavit to talk about forced upsells 14 times! Each time Judge Warner falsely thinking it
was a criminal act.
Here is the definition the FTC gives for a Forced Upsell:
“Forced Upsells are products Defendants automatically bundled with the core
product and from which consumers cannot opt-out when signing up for the core
product.” (See FTC v. Jeremy Johnson, et al. Page 8: Line 6-7)
Nowhere even in the FTC’s skewed definition of a Forced Upsell do they even allege that a
forced upsell is something charged to a consumers credit card without their knowledge or consent.
Since Agent Hipwell has already testified that all the information in his affidavit used to get the
arrest warrant for Jeremy Johnson came from the FTC and that he did nothing to verify the
information, its pretty obvious that he had to make some of his own changes to the FTC’s
information so he could trick Judge Warner into thinking Mr. Johnson had committed a criminal
act and thereby obtain an arrest warrant for him.
This is further evident with the superseding indictment filed after Jeremy Johnson was
arrested. There Agent Hipwell’s falsified definition of a Forced Upsell is changed back to
something much closer to the FTC’s definition.
The indictment states:
“Forced up-sells are products that the defendants automatically bundled with the
core product and from which consumers could opt out when signing up for the core
product.” (See Exhibit G: 6-15-11 Indictment Page 3 Item 5)
You will notice that this is nearly the exact same language the FTC uses in their complaint
in this case except that in the indictment the government actually accurately states that in fact
consumers could opt out of the Forced Upsell.

The point of showing all this to the court is to prove that Agent Hipwell acting as a stooge
for both the FTC and AUSA Brent Ward in the criminal case, has absolutely no problem being put
under oath and then intentionally lying to, and falsifying documents to Judge Warner if that is
what he needs to do to trick the judge into doing the bidding of the FTC. Of course after they got
Judge Warner to sign off on the falsified arrest warrant and Mr. Johnson was safely tucked away in
jail there was no need to falsify any documents or make up fake definitions and so we see that the
indictment that came after Mr. Johnson is arrested is more in line with Mr. Hipwell’s testimony
that “all the information came from the FTC.”2
This example is only one of many reasons why this court should find good cause not to
trust the agents and attorneys for the government in this case. If an IRS Agent at the beginning of
his career in law enforcement is willing to lie to a Federal Judge and falsify documents which he
knows will cause irreparable harm to a defendant in this case, it begs the question…What else are
they willing to do when nobody is looking and there is no record of their actions? This is precisely
the reason why this court should not consider staying discovery in this case as it will only
embolden these government actors to engage in more actions like Agent Hipwell did in obtaining
an arrest warrant for Jeremy Johnson.
The constitution guarantees us all the right to equal treatment under the law. But in this
case Mr. Hipwell was pressured by Collot Guerard and AUSA Brent Ward to ignore not just the
due process required by the constitution to obtain an arrest warrant, but to bypass his own agency’s
rules regarding how investigations are conducted. The IRS clearly states on their website how
criminal investigations are to be conducted and the necessary steps taken before an arrest warrant
is obtained (which Mr. Hipwell has admitted under oath he did not do). (See
2 Agent Hipwell also used numerous other examples of falsified information to obtain the arrest
warrant for Johnson such as the affidavit submitted to this court with a forged signature from
Natasha Lee, etc.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/How-Criminal-Investigations-Are-Initiated or Exhibit H: Screen shot of
IRS Website)
Despite the flawed basis and manner of arrest, Johnson spent 94 days in jail. Its probably
also worth noting here that the governments superseding indictment contains 85 charges and 5 new
defendants. Despite the dramatic increase in the number of charges not a single person was
arrested and Mr. Ward did not even ask the court for any of the new defendants to post bail. This is
in stark contrast to the single charge that kept Johnson in jail for 94 days.
B. While Jeremy Johnson was in custody, FTC attorney Collot Guerard forces him
into direct settlement negotiations without his attorney:
Lead FTC Prosecutor Collot Guerard, knowing full well Jeremy Johnson had an attorney
representing him, attempted to circumvent justice. Ms. Guerard contacted Davis County Jail
where Mr. Johnson was being held and convinced them that they should force Mr. Johnson to
speak with her directly. (See Exhibit I: Davis County Jail Email)
Mr. Johnson initially refused to speak to her and told the guards that she should call his
attorney. However the guards insisted and threatened Mr. Johnson with being placed in
segregation if he would not take the call. With the threat of harsh punishment and isolation in jail
Mr. Johnson reluctantly agreed. (See Exhibit J: Statement of D Simpson at Davis County Jail
pursuant to subpoena)
Johnson’s court appointed attorney, Nathan Crane brought up the matter with Judge Nuffer
the following day. Brent Ward acknowledged what had happened, and promised the Judge that it
would not happen again.
“I did receive a call this morning from Ms. Guerard in Washington alerting me to
the fact that she had this conversation. Her version of the incident is quite different
from the one represented by Mr. Crane just now. But I agree, Your Honor, that was

improper – wholly improper. I have assured Mr. Crane I'll see to it it does not
happen again.” (See Exhibit K: 9-9-2011 Status Conference Transcript Page 23
Line 2-8)
Collot Guerard for her part denies that she even wanted to talk to Mr. Johnson. In an email
to Mr. Johnson after the incident she states:
“I was certainly not expecting to be speaking with you. I did not want to speak with
you.” (See Exhibit L: Collot Guerard email).
This statement by Mrs. Guerard flies in the face of all the evidence provided by the Jail as
well as her own cover letter she sent to Mr. Johnson with the settlement offer she demanded he
sign. In her cover letter she sent to the jail the next day she states:
“As we discussed briefly by telephone today, I am enclosing the FTC’s settlement
offer. If you are willing to discuss it, please contact me or my colleague, Ron
Brooke, 202-326-3484.” (See Exhibit M: Collot Guerard cover letter)
Clearly Mrs. Guerard is lying in her email when she says she did not want to talk to Mr.
Johnson as she put her phone number in the follow up letter wanting him to call her again only a
day after the call Mr. Johnson was forced to have with her.
On that phone call, Ms. Guerard threatened Mr. Johnson with having his family and
friends arrested and thrown in jail with him if he refused to sign the proposed settlement. Mr.
Johnson did not agree.
It should be noted, shortly after the call Mr. Johnson was released from jail and he issued a
subpoena to the jail to gather information about the call. The government tried in vain to keep Mr.
Johnson from obtaining evidence about the call from Davis County Jail. They filed a motion to
quash Mr. Johnson’s subpoena. By that time, Mr. Johnson already had the documents now
provided in this filing.

C. AUSA Brent Ward is forced to release Jeremy Johnson from jail to avoid having
a trial:
Even though Mr. Johnson was in jail and not granted access to any of the information he
needed for his defense, he insisted on a speedy trial—asking prosecutors to produce evidence that
he was guilty of a crime. Because his attorney was newly appointed to his case and had millions
of pages of documents to go through, he refused to pursue a speedy trial because he simply
couldn’t be ready in time. Instead, Mr. Johnson filed his own hand written motion from jail
demanding his right to a speedy trial without his attorney if necessary.
This created a massive problem for Mr. Ward, as he didn’t have his ducks in line. The
“shoot first, ask questions later” approach had put him in a quandry. Now, he needed to produce
his case against the defendant, and yet he had no case built.
He appealed to Johnson’s attorney, hoping he too would want Johnson to drop his demand
for a speedy trial. When Mr. Crane could not convince Mr. Johnson to give up his right to a
speedy trial, Mr. Ward reluctantly agreed to release Mr. Johnson from jail in exchange for him
dropping his right to a speedy trial.
Generally a government prosecutor would love to have a trial against a defendant under
these circumstances. Despite the overwhelming odds against Mr. Johnson having to prepare for
trial from jail, with no access to evidence for his defense, and having to defend himself without an
attorney, Mr. Ward simply could not allow a trial.
There was certainly a presumption in the public opinion that Mr. Johnson and the other
defendants were guilty of the massive fraud the government had alleged. However just like the
discovery process in this case would expose the truth about the governments misdeeds, and the
truth that the defendants in this case did not commit any fraud, a trial in the criminal case would do
the same, and that is something that Mr. Ward simply could not have on his record.

The judge seemed perplexed, as Mr. Ward had just spent so much energy, time, and
government resources to convince the court that Mr. Johnson was a flight risk. Indeed Mr. Ward
speaking on behalf of the United States stated to the judge just a few short weeks before:
“Your Honor, the government has requested that the defendant be detained pending
trial because we believe there is no combination of conditions that will reasonably
ensure his appearance as required” (See Exhibit N: 7-11-11 Detention hearing Page
7 Line 20-23)
Yet despite all that, Mr. Ward was so desperate to avoid a trial, and the ensuing truth that
would follow, he agreed to the immediate release of Mr. Johnson from jail.
D. More conspiracies are hatched and the same government agents find clever
ways to manipulate the judge in the criminal case to seize assets for the FTC in the
civil case:
Mr. Ward, Mr. Hipwell, and others were determined to protect their reputations and extract
punishment on defendants in this case embarked on a bold mission to cause misery and havoc for
anyone who dared stand up for the defendants in this case. Using the enormous power and
resources of the United States Government, attorneys for both the FTC and the United States
spared no expense or resource in scheming was to harm the defendants in this case.
A clear example of this is the government’s use of search warrants in the criminal case to
benefit the civil case. Mr. Hipwell filled out yet more affidavits and obtained search warrants to
search and seize property at multiple locations of Mr. Johnson’s family and friends. In doing so
they were able to seize assets for the receiver, which Judge Hunt had not allowed the receiver to
take in the civil case. Most notably was a gift of silver coins Mr. Johnson had given his parents
long before any investigation of iWorks.
Mr. Johnson had disclosed the gift as required by the Preliminary Injunction Order as well
as on his tax return many years before. The receiver and the FTC were obviously incensed at this

gift and realized that perhaps Mr. Johnson’s parents might use some of the money to hire an
attorney to defend their son..
Knowing that Judge Hunt would not modify his Preliminary Injunction Order and allow
them to seize the assets, Collot Guerard again relied on Agent Jamie Hipwell to fill out another
affidavit and obtain a search warrant in the criminal case to seize the silver coins from Mr.
Johnson’s parents.
Mr. Hipwell being a little confused as to how he was going to convince the judge in the
criminal case to allow him to seize assets for the receiver and the FTC in the civil case decided he
needed to throw in a few new charges into the search warrant and try to convince Judge Warner
that he needed to seize the assets in relation to these new charges.
Mr. Hipwell stated in his warrant:
“This search is related to a violation of:
26 U.S.C Section 7201 Tax Evasion
18 U.S.C. Section 1341 Mail Fraud
18 U.S.C. Section 1509 Obstruction Of Justice” (See Exhibit O: Kerry Johnson
Search Warrant)
While Mr. Hipwell told Judge Warner he needed the search warrant the to seize assets
related to charges in the criminal case, this has once again proved to be another ruse by Mr.
Hipwell and his minders used to trick Judge Warner into signing yet another warrant based only on
the falsified affidavit of Mr. Hipwell.
The court may notice that on the search warrant nowhere does it mention anything about
the FTC, the receiver in this case, or that the assets being seized were going to be immediately
turned over to the FTC in the civil case. If Mr. Hipwell had been truthful with Judge Warner and

told him that his plan was to hand the assets over to the FTC in the civil case it’s likely the judge
would not have signed the warrant allowing the seizure.
However, after obtaining the search warrant with yet another false affidavit to Judge
Warner. Agent Hipwell executed the warrant on the parents of Jeremy Johnson and took their life
savings and near entire retirement of approximately $500,000 in silver coins from their home.
Immediately after the seizure Mr. Ward handed over the booty over to Robb Evans the courts
receiver in this case. The court should also note that not a single one of the fabricated charges Mr.
Hipwell put on the warrant were actually charged in the governments superseding indictment (See
Exhibit P: 03/06/13 Superseding Indictment). Yet still to this day Kerry Johnson and Barbara
Johnson are without their retirement and have no remedy to get it back.
The court may also take notice that the governments superseding indictment lacks any
charges related to defrauding consumers. While they still allege such in their indictment they were
more careful this time to make sure that no charge would actually carry the burden of the
government having to prove any consumer was defrauded. Instead the indictment while grand in
the number of charges, is centered on a “Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud”. What is ironic is that
the alleged conspiracy did not produce any actual fraud as no bank lost any money, and no bank
claims to be a victim.
Its curious as to why these agents of the United States go to so much effort to harm the
defendants and their families in this case. Certainly if the FTC or the receiver felt they had a
legitimate right to seize the assets of Kerry and Barbara Johnson they could have come to this
court with a motion asking to do so.
We don’t speak for Judge Warner but we assume he does not like being lied to and tricked
into signing warrants whose sole purpose is to benefit another party in another case. Likewise we
assume this court too would not want to be tricked into signing orders where the petitioner’s real

intent is something very different than what is presented to the court. Just based on the examples
above this court should look with a suspicious eye at what the real intent is of the United States in
asking this court to stay discovery.
E. The United States threatens to imprison friends and family of Jeremy Johnson if
he does not agree to plead guilty:
In June of 2012 AUSA Carlos A. Esqueda Section Chief of National Security was speaking
with Mr. Nathan Crane and trying negotiating a proffer agreement to get Jeremy Johnson’s help in
the governments investigation of then Republican nominee for Utah Attorney General John
Swallow.3 (See Exhibit Q: June 19, 2012 Proffer agreement)
Despite repeated efforts and promises of relief by Mr. Esqueda, Mr. Crane could not
convince Mr. Johnson to help the government, Jeremy refused to sign their agreement or do
anything to help them with their investigation of John Swallow. Instead Mr. Johnson instructed his
attorney to see what he could do to move along with a trial (it had been over a year since the
government had arrested him at this point).
Mr. Crane had at this point been able to review enough evidence that he was also confident
that his client Mr. Johnson had done no wrong. Accordingly he approached Mr. Ward and let him
know that he wanted to schedule a trial date. Angry again at the prospect of being embarrassed by
a trial, Mr. Ward lashed out at Mr. Crane and told him that Mr. Johnson had better come in and
plead guilty to something or he was going to arrest his parents, wife, friends, etc. Mr. Cranes video
testimony about this meeting can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBe74UCWA5I
Starting at 1:26).
3 It’s
important
to
note
that
the
department
investigating
John
Swallow
as
different
than
the
one
who
was
prosecuting
Mr.
Johnson.
In
fact
Mr.
Ward
was
friends
with
John
Swallow
and
even
decide
not
to
run
for
Attorney
General
himself
so
he
could
endorse
John
Swallow.
As
will
be
shown
later
on
in
this
brief,
Mr.
Ward
(unbeknownst
to
his
superiors)
even
agreed
to
give
John
Swallow
immunity
in
exchange
for
Jeremy
Johnson’s
guilty
plea.
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Crane questioned Mr. Ward as to what on earth he would arrest Jeremy Johnson’s
mother for? Mr. Ward said that in 2008 Jeremy had given his parents some money and that in the
same year Jeremy’s mother had withdrawn $2,500 from her bank account in cash and that the
government was going to call that Money Laundering.
Mr. Crane shot back at Mr. Ward and said that in 2008 Jeremy was making millions of
dollars and there was no investigation of Jeremy Johnson or iWorks and absolutely no reason why
Jeremy would need to launder any amount of money let alone a measly $2,500. Mr. Crane told Mr.
Ward that his threat was meaningless as no jury in the world was going to convict his mother of
Money Laundering.
Mr. Ward admitted that he knew he would never win a trial against any of Jeremy’s family.
But he pointed out that he certainly could arrest them, keep them in jail, take their home, etc, and
make their life a living hell for years to come. He instructed Mr. Crane to tell Mr. Johnson he
better come in and plead guilty to something or he was going to make good on his threats and
arrest Mr. Johnson’s parents.
Mr. Ward knew enough about Jeremy Johnson at this point to know he would never do
anything to put the people he cared about in harms way. While cynical and dirty it was an effective
strategy plotted by Mr. Ward.
Mr. Crane passed the information on to Mr. Johnson and told him that Mr. Ward was
serious about the threat and admitted that even though it was wrong, Mr. Ward had the power to
arrest his family and destroy their lives.
A few days later Mr. Johnson instructed his attorney Mr. Crane to set up a meeting with
Mr. Ward to make the deal. Subsequently on September 18, 2012 a meeting was held at the U.S
Attorneys office in Salt Lake City. Present in the meeting were Brent Ward, Rob Lunen, Jamie
Hipwell, Jeremy Johnson, Nathan Crane, and two other IRS agents including Mr. Hipwell’s boss.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Hipwell and Mr. Ward spent the bulk of the meeting explaining to Mr. Johnson what they
wanted him to plead guilty to and how they were going to get arrest warrants for his friends and
family and destroy their lives if he didn’t. Mr. Ward even produced a hit list of sorts for Mr.
Johnson to think about in case he was having any doubts. (See Exhibit R: Brent Ward Hit list)
On Mr. Wards list were Mr. Johnson’s mother, his father, his wife, his brother, his uncle,
former employees, friends, etc. Mr. Ward also made it clear that he could and would arrest other
people who where not on the list including Jeremy Johnson’s father in law Dean Losee (an
educator of 33 years) and basically anyone who had ever gotten any money from Mr. Johnson
could be charged with Money Laundering and arrested at Mr. Wards discretion.
Mr. Johnson stated firmly in the meeting that Mr. Ward would never convince him that he
was guilty, but he conceded that he knew Mr. Ward had the power to harm his friends and family
and was willing to plead guilty to whatever Mr. Ward wanted in return for a promise from the
government that nobody else would be harmed.
Mr. Ward agreed and promised that he would not prosecute or harm anyone else. Mr. Ward
and Mr. Lunen then told Mr. Johnson that he must tell the Judge that he was indeed guilty of
everything they put in the agreement or there would be no deal. Mr. Johnson although broken
down in tears promised he would sign whatever the government wrote in the plea agreement and
would tell the judge he was guilty of whatever they wanted as long as he was guaranteed that his
family and friends were going to be spared by the deal. Mr. Ward repeatedly assured Mr. Johnson
that indeed that was the case, and assured him the government was not going to harm anyone else
he cared about.
After the meeting Mr. Crane tried in vain to get his client Mr. Johnson to stand up and fight
the government as he had not seen one shred of evidence that the government could use to get a
conviction against Mr. Johnson let alone his friends and family. Mr. Johnson refused wanting to
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
spare his friends and family the wrath he knew very well Mr. Ward could and would bring on them
if he dared to exert his right to a trial. Initially Mr. Crane refused to file the change of plea notice
and only did so some time later after Mr. Johnson threatened to do it himself.
Shortly after the meeting with Mr. Ward and others at the U.S. Attorneys office. Mr.
Johnson emailed his attorney Mr. Crane with a list of people he wanted included in Mr. Wards
promise not to prosecute or harm (See Exhibit S: Nathan Crane email). Mr. Ward responded to the
email that he could not include their actual names in the plea deal document but that he had
provided language in the plea deal which covered everyone Mr. Johnson was concerned about
(including John Swallow).
In the plea agreement Mr. Ward stated:
“The government has determined that this statement in advance of plea and the
prison sentence contemplated thereby conclude the investigation and prosecution of
the IW enterprise and those persons connected with it by the U.S. Attorney for the
district of Utah” (See Exhibit T: Brent Ward plea deal Page 12: Item 13.)
Initially Mr. Johnson was uncomfortable with seemingly vague language and the prospect
that perhaps this was all another ruse devised by Mr. Ward and others to get him to plead guilty
and then arrest his family anyway. Mr. Ward had not been so forthright about his promises not to
prosecute Mr. Johnson’s family in the actual plea agreement as he was in the meeting in his office
where he convinced Mr. Johnson that signing the plea deal was the only way to save his friends
and family.
Eventually Mr. Johnson relented as Mr. Ward provided a way for Mr. Johnson to get both
Mr. Wards hit list and the list of persons Mr. Johnson had given to Mr. Ward all to be on the
record as part of the plea deal. Mr. Ward added language in the plea deal so Mr. Johnson could
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
submit the list in the plea hearing and have them added to the record in the court as being protected
from prosecution.
“This statement in advance contains all terms of the agreements between me and
the government; if there are exceptions, the court will be specifically advised, on
the record, at the time of my guilty plea of the additional terms. I understand the
government and I cannot have terms of this plea agreement that are not disclosed to
the court.” (See Exhibit T: Brent Ward plea deal Page 12: Item 2.)
With this language added into the plea agreement Mr. Johnson was satisfied that during the
hearing he would be able to enter the lists of people Mr. Ward had threatened to arrest on the
courts record, and have the courts assurance that the government could not harm them in anyway.
True to his word Mr. Johnson did not ask Mr. Ward to change anything he had written in the plea
agreement even though it made his blood boil to read it.
During the change of plea hearing Mr. Johnson presented the court with the list of people
Mr. Ward had threatened to prosecute as well as Mr. Johnson’s supplemental list provided to Mr.
Ward after their meeting. Mr. Ward agreed that they were not going to prosecute anyone else and
allowed the judge to put his list on the record.
However, it became immediately clear that Mr. Ward had not let his bosses know about the
threats and the lists he used to extort Mr. Johnson and force him to plead guilty. When the lists
were being entered as evidence Mr. Phil Viti head of the criminal division (and also Brent Wards
boss) jumped up from the audience and snatched the list from Mr. Ward. It was obvious that Mr.
Viti had no idea Mr. Ward had granted immunity to the people on the list. Mr. Viti was especially
disturbed by Mr. Wards promise to give immunity to Mr. Wards friend he had endorsed for
Attorney General, Mr. John Swallow. Mr. Viti knew very well that there was an active
investigation going on against Mr. Swallow by another division of the Department of Justice.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judge Nuffer seeing that there was clearly disagreement with the promised immunity
between the two United States attorneys called a recess and gave time for the issues to be worked
out.
Behind closed doors in the jury room of the courthouse both Mr. Ward and Mr. Viti told
Mr. Johnson that he must go forward with the plea deal without a guarantee that the government
was not going arrest his friends and family. They told Mr. Johnson he was just going to have to
trust them and despite the promises made by Mr. Ward previously and that was the best they were
going to do.
After hours of back and forth negotiations trying to find a way to protect his family and
friends Mr. Johnson finally realized that there could only be one reason attorneys for the
government would work so hard to convince him they would not make good on their threats and
yet refuse to have anything that would actually bind them to that promise. Obviously they had
plans to get Mr. Johnson in prison and start their assault on his friends and family at which point
Mr. Johnson would have nothing on the courts record to stop them, and would be helpless to do
anything about it. This of course was not acceptable to Mr. Johnson and he insisted that their
promises be made a part of the record so he could get judges assurance that his family would be
safe.
At that point the plea deal fell apart and the government demanded their hit list be taken off
the courts record.
Outside the courthouse after the hearing Mr. David Barlow (U.S. Attorney for the District
of Utah) when being questioned by reporters, stated when speaking about the hit list that:
“No threats were made” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBe74UCWA5I
Starting at 0:44)
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mr. Barlow was clearly not aware of the threats Mr. Ward had made to Nathan Crane and
also directly to Mr. Johnson in the meeting, or the list Mr. Ward made for Mr. Johnson with his
friends and family and what Mr. Ward was going to charge them with.
F. The government has deprived the defendants their First amendment right to free
speech with a one sided gag order:
As the controversy grew increasingly embarrassing for the U.S. Attorneys office, Mr. Ward
filed a motion for a gag order to prevent the public from finding out anymore about the
conspiracies and misdeeds committed by himself and others at the U.S. Attorneys office.
In contrast even today the FTC continues to promote numerous false and misleading press
releases about the defendants in this case on their website, including allegations of the defendants
using false testimonials in their marketing efforts which has long ago been proven beyond any
doubt was completely fabricated by attorneys at the FTC. Defendants in this case are banned from
speaking to the media or even defending themselves against the lies, which are still being spread to
the public by the FTC.
What is interesting is that the very government who had spent so much time and effort in
crafting press releases and doing interviews with C-SPAN, etc in an effort to turn public opinion
against the defendants in this case, are now doing everything they can to prevent the same
defendants from speaking to the media about any of the facts which are now coming to light about
the conduct of the governments attorneys, or speaking about anything which might harm the
reputation of the government.
This court should be offended by the twisted double standard, fraud, deceit, and unfair
litigation which is being actively promoted by attorneys for both the FTC in this case and attorneys
representing the United Stated in the criminal case. We plead with the court not to allow the
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
government to manipulate their way into yet another crushing defeat for justice and the due
process afforded to every citizen of this country.
When speaking about government officials using illegal wire taps to gather evidence in
another criminal case the supreme court said it best:
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be
subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a
government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to
observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent
teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is
contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it
invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that,
in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare
that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a
private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine
this Court should resolutely set its face. (See 277 U.S. 438 Olmstead v. United
States)
So serious is the conduct and reputation of a government attorney that just recently the
longest serving U.S. Attorney in the United States resigned from his post as the U.S. Attorney in
the District of New Orleans solely over allegations of misconduct by two of his senior prosecutors
(See Exhibit U: New York Times article).
In this case the misconduct was a pittance compared to well-documented crimes the
government attorneys have committed in this case. In the District of New Orleans the only wrongs
committed were that the attorneys were posting negative comments about a defendant on the
Internet. A far cry from the threats, extortion, witness tampering, fraud, forgery, wrongful
imprisonment, and other illegal activities being employed by the government attorneys in this case.
We plead with this court to not turn a blind eye to the wrongs committed against us by
these agents for the government. What has been presented in this response is just the tip of the
iceberg. We need the ability to conduct real discovery in this case so we can get the testimony
necessary to show this court the truth about our innocence. It is the only way justice can be had.
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Granting the governments motion and staying discovery in this case will ensure that there will be
no hope for the defendants to ever see justice. It will extend for years the punishment of not being
able to work in the legal business of our choice, being deprived of our property and left helpless to
stand by as the receiver sells our property and uses the money to enrich himself while we struggle
to survive.
At times it seems that this court, like the government is also annoyed that we continue to
fight and assert our innocence. The court assumes that we are guilty and gives the government the
presumption that it will win at trial. However, the court only believes this because it assumes the
government comes to it as a good actor and honest broker and one who comes in the interests of
justice. The court assumes that the evidence submitted by the government is truthful. Today it has
been proven that this court has been lied to and manipulated in order to deprive the defendants of
their rights and to make it impossible for justice to be done or in the FTC’s words “give them the
out in this case”.
If the court could for just a moment put a blindfold on as lady justice has, and imagine the
possibility we have done no wrong. Now in that mindset imagine the enormous liability the
government has created in this case. They have destroyed a company valued at well over $100m,
they have seized and sold the assets of the defendants and now the assets of persons not related to
the case in any way, reputations have been destroyed and lives have been forever altered, they
have wrongfully imprisoned Mr. Johnson, they have lied to this court and the American people,
and violated the very laws they are charged with upholding, and disgraced their role as the
protector of the rule of law.
Can the court honestly say that justice has been done in this case for the defendants?
Despite threats and numerous other efforts on the part of the government not one defendant has
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
taken a settlement in this case. We assumed like every other citizen that justice is blind, and we
long to see the day when justice will be done and our names will be cleared.
With all the damage that has been done, there can be no doubt that the actors in the
government who have done this will stop at nothing to ensure that justice will never be had? Their
reputations and careers are at stake. Can there be any doubt as to the reason why it would ask this
court to take the extraordinary measure and force a stay on this case to deny us yet another right?
This is why the framers of law created the judiciary. Like a referee in a game to make sure
the teams are playing fair and neither side is disadvantaged, to be the uninterested party and to
hold accountable the bad actors whoever they may be. The concept of a court assuming defendants
are guilty at the beginning of a lawsuit and prior to a trial and thereby depriving them of the rights
guaranteed to every other man, is not one that was in the minds of the framers of our country. Can
you imagine what would become of a sport if the referees decided at the beginning of each game
who was going to win? And likewise if the courts decide on a defendant’s guilt based only on the
reputation of the filer of the lawsuit? Is there any circumstance where we could sue the
government and ask this court to freeze their assets and deny them the use of their money to have
attorneys represent them upon the filing of our lawsuit? I think we can safely say there is
absolutely no chance that will ever happen; yet it is exactly what has been done to us in this
lawsuit.
Indeed the authors of our constitution demanded the very opposite, that the defendant is
presumed innocent until he is found guilty by a jury of his peers even in a civil case. That the
rights afforded him by the constitution are his even if the government does not want him to have
them. The courts were established to ensure that the government is not able to do exactly what it
has done in this case.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Over the many years since these protections were put in place, certain actors in our
government cloaked with the robes of immunity and the reputation of the United States, and
having at their fingertips the power, and endless resources of the United States government, have
found ways to manipulate the courts, and the protections which were meant to be absolute for
every citizen have slowly been reverted to protections reserved for persons who the government
allows to have them.
The government is worried that allowing us to move forward with the civil case will
“wreak havoc with the government’s criminal case”. Words cannot even begin to describe the
havoc that has been brought on our lives because of the actions of the very government agents who
are asking this court for a stay.
iWORKS’ SIDE OF THE STORY
It was about this time three years ago that the defendants received notice that the FTC was
investigating the company. Assuming the lines of communication to the government were open,
iWorks owner Jeremy Johnson gave them everything they asked for. For over ten months company
employees produced millions of documents, including all the information on every customer that
had ever bought anything from the company. FTC investigators were given internal
communications and emails amounting to millions of documents. They were given access to the
company servers with all the statistics and information about marketing and the customer
acquisition process. Johnson and his employees gave the FTC every item they asked for. When
the lawsuit happened, it was unfathomable to the company employees who had worked so hard to
build up the company the right way, in compliance and as a leader in an industry where leadership
can be hard to come by.
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fast forward, the FTC still maintains to this court that iWorks committed fraud to the tune
of $300M. If that were true, that would be every single penny of revenue the company ever made
over ten years. The FTC has convinced this court that nobody knew they would be billed for
iWorks products when they entered their credit card info on iWorks websites. They were able to
convince this court of all this using witness declarations obtained from 15 customers, out of 7
million people who bought iWorks products..
What the FTC does not tell this court is that over 230 Million people visited iWorks
websites. 223 Million of those people who visited an iWorks website clearly saw and understood
the terms of the trial offer and elected not to enter their credit card information and try the offer.
There can be no dispute that these 223 Million people understood the terms of the offer as they
were interested enough in iWorks products to visit the website, yet when they were there and saw
the terms they left without buying anything. Of the 7 Million people who did decide to try one of
iWorks risk free trials nearly a 3rd of them called iWorks during their trial period BEFORE they
were billed and canceled their trial membership. The only way a person would know to call and
cancel their trial membership is if they understood the terms and conditions of the trial offer .
The FTC has ignored all these facts, which they were well aware of long before this lawsuit
was filed. Instead they have convinced this court that iWorks websites were deceptive and nobody
knew they would be billed. It defies reason to think that the hundreds of millions of people who
visited iWorks websites and decided not to buy anything, did not understand they would be billed.
If they really thought it was completely free and there was no obligation as the FTC alleges, then
why didn’t they opt-in for the offer? The answer is a simple one…They knew that they would be
billed if they opted into the offer and did not cancel during the trial period and decided against
trying the iWorks product and left the site without committing to anything. There are also the
millions of more customers who did opt-in to try an iWorks product but then after agreeing to the
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
terms of the trial, called to cancel during their trial period so they would not be billed. How can the
government seriously make the argument that the websites were deceptive and “nobody knew they
would be billed?’ Why would millions of iWorks customers call in and cancel a trial during the
trial period if they really didn’t know they would be billed as the FTC has convinced this court is
the case?
Out of the remainder of the iWorks customers who did keep the product after the trial
period the FTC was only able to find 15 who would sign declarations for them supporting the
government’s allegations. Those 15 people represent a total potential loss of $1,500. And now the
United States is asking this court to not allow us to talk to these 15 people or anyone else who will
give testimony about the business dealings of iWorks.
G. The United States has not met the burden necessary to stay discovery:
The United States must prove the following to stay this case:
1. The stay will not Prejudice the Parties or be unduly Burdensome
2. The stay will create Judicial efficiency and Judicial Economy
3. The stay will serve the interests of the United States, Potential Witnesses, and The
Public
1. The United States actually has the audacity in their motion to suggest the stay will not prejudice
or be unduly burdensome but instead will actually benefit the defendants in this case somehow.
“While Defendants may argue that keeping the receivership in place is an undue
burden, the assets in the receivership are being preserved and are earning interest
where possible.” (See Document 946 Page 16: Line 3-4)
This statement is almost laughable, as the government knows very well that receiver is not
preserving any assets and it certainly is not earning any interest. Were it not for the millions of
dollars he was just allowed to seize from parties unrelated to this case, the receiver would not have
any money left at all. While it has certainly been a wonderful opportunity for the receiver to line
his pockets with millions of dollars of the defendant’s money, it is under no circumstances good
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for any of the defendants in this case. How about if this court freezes the assets of the attorneys
who think this is such a good idea? Then they can feel the same joys the defendants feel and move
forward with their prosecution while their assets are “being preserved and earning interest where
possible.”
Likewise the United States makes the argument that:
“The Preliminary Injunction prohibits Defendants from engaging in specified
business activities and making specified types of misrepresentations, and it requires
them to make certain specified disclosures (See Doc. No. 130 at 11-14). However,
it does not prohibit any defendant from otherwise conducting a lawful business,
earning a living, or providing for family.” (See Document 946 Page 16: Line 10-13)
The specified business activity the defendants are prohibited from is a lot more than just
the business which we all know and are competent in. We could not get a job at the phone
company if we wanted to as they bill people monthly for phone service because of the restrictions
placed on us.
2. The government makes the argument that the stay will serve judicial efficiency and economy
because some of the defendants who are charged in the criminal case might get found guilty and
that would help the court in the civil case automatically find them guilty in the civil case.
There are too 3 major problems with this argument:
None of the defendants in the criminal case will be found guilty if they are ever allowed to
have a trial with a jury of their peers.
Even if they were found guilty, the civil case is centered on the FTC allegations that
consumers were defrauded. The United Stated knowing full well that they could not prove that any
consumer was defrauded dropped the only charge that required them to prove a consumer was
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defrauded (Initial charge of mail fraud against Jeremy Johnson). Instead they are focused on the
victimless Bank Fraud Conspiracy theory, which is not a count against the defendants in this case.
Most importantly is that absolutely none of their arguments apply to all the other
defendants who are not charged in the criminal case.
There simply is no Judicial Economy or Efficiency in staying this case and having it drag
on using the resources of both courts for years to come. Judicial Economy and Efficiency will be
achieved by moving this case forward so we can all (including the courts) move on with our lives.
3. The government makes the argument they need the stay to serve the interests of the criminal
case. The truth of the matter is they need the stay to make sure that their bad acts are not
discovered. It is not the interests of the United States which they seek to protect with the stay it is
the individual interests of the attorneys and investigators who work for the United States which
they are seemingly most worried about. The witnesses which the United States is trying to stop
from giving testimony are crying for justice and the chance to be heard.
Natasha Lee states in her declaration:
“I am willing to testify and tell the truth. All I ask is that I am protected from the
FTC and the other government agents who have made threats to harm me and my
family” (See Exhibit C: Declaration of Natasha Lee Page 4: Item 17)
And Devan Partridge states in his declaration:
“It is my desire to be able to give truthful testimony about my knowledge of I
Works without fear of government agents causing me harm if my testimony is not
helpful to their case.” (See Exhibit B: Declaration of Devan Partridge Page 3: Item
21)
The witnesses deserve to be able to set the record straight and remove the stain that has
been placed upon them by the corrupt government agents who falsified their testimony. The
defendants in this case likewise deserve to have these witnesses truthful testimony on the record.
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Most importantly the publics interest demand that they be heard. The integrity of our justice
system is at stake.
As children in public school we have all recited these words thousands of times “One
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” If this court allows falsified
testimony to remain a part of the record, while simultaneously denying both the witnesses and the
defendants the ability to have that record reflect the truth, the public will loose faith in the very
system charged with ensuring that “liberty and justice for all” is not something that can be taken
away by a few bad actors within our government. The Publics Interest could not be greater.
We plead with this court not to grant the government’s motion for a stay, or if it does to
return to the defendants the rights which have been stripped from them by the Preliminary
Injunction Order.
Dated this 2nd Day of May, 2013.
Respectfully Submitted By,
/s/ Loyd Johnston
LOYD JOHNSTON
Pro se
/s/ Andy Johnson
ANDY JOHNSON
Pro se
/s/ Ryan Riddle
RYAN RIDDLE
Pro se
/s/ Jeremy Johnson
JEREMY JOHNSON
Pro se
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28