Comments about ‘Wife's website could get Jeremy Johnson thrown in jail’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 13 2013 3:20 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jsf
Centerville, UT

U.S. District Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner said utahfedwatch.com, which federal prosecutors say Sharla Johnson operates, violates a gag order he issued May 9. Warner said if she persists, Jeremy Johnson would "find the sanctions not to his liking." The gag order was against Mr. Johnson. Is this then an attempt to bridle free speech?

It sounds to me Mr. Johnson has a lot to answer for but threats against critical speech?

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

How does putting Jeremy Johnson in jail stop his wife's website?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I say she should take her website down once Swallow has been fired and sent to jail. Until then, keep the website up.

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

I remember as a child the story of Wolf, Wolf, I think Johnson is hoping to distract the media and the public crying Wolf about John Swallow in hopes to take away the heat and attention he is facing. John Swallow is innocent until proven guilty. There has been no trial. Seems like some think he is guilty until proven innocent. This story furthers the depth of misdeeds lined up against Jeremy Johnson.

Interloper
Portland, OR

There's no free speech issue. Johnson surrendered his right to untrammeled expression when the judge issued the gag order in the case. Now, by continuing to verbally assault everyone involved in prosecuting him he is attempting to poison the pool of people from which juries trying him and his associates will be drawn. The pretext that his wife is running the sites will not prevent Johnson from being sanctioned. In fact, there may be grounds to indict her.

dwayne
Provo, UT

1conservative,

"How does putting Jeremy Johnson in jail stop his wife's website?"

The judge is dropping hints for Jeremy Johnson to treat his wife the way the judge treats his family. They do what the judge says or they get beat down. Imagine what this judge does when his wife disobeys his gag orders or one of his children decides to disobey one of his rulings in family council. If this judge could get away with it he would go right after this mans wife but he cant so the head of the Warner family decides to go crazy on Johnson and threaten him with jail if he doesn't get control of his wife.

Of course Johnson always has the option of divorcing his wife. since this judge is intent on personalizing it and suggesting that johnson should divorce his wife than it is clear that Mrs. Warner is no longer off limits. if her hubby is going around telling people who are married to those who disagree with her hubby to divorce their wives then Mrs. Warner's choice is simple. If her personal life is not up for public consumption she can divorce Paul.

Terrie Bittner
Warminster, PA

The article mentions that he was an administrator, but when he got called on it, he took his name off. This could mean he is simply continuing to run it under his wife's name. If she had started it independently, his argument would hold more validity. His lawyer says he has done "virtually" nothing with the site since removing his name. As a writer, I can tell you that "virtually", which technically means "practically nothing" is used as a weasel word. In writing, especially in advertising, it is used to mean "it could be, but might not be." In other words, it means nothing. Having done "virtually" nothing with it may be meant to deceive listeners into believing he is not involved when he is.

If it truly is his wife's site, then the judge is wrong to order him to make her stop or to divorce her. That is immoral--she has a right to speak her own mind. The question is whether it really is her mind, or if it is just her name on his thoughts.

BeththeOkie
Edmond, OK

If the judge's jurisdiction is limited to the accused himself, he has no authority to gag the wife. Under what law will he punish a man innocent until proven guilty for somebody else's behavior? If he has the authority to gag the wife, then he should do so legally, and then legally punish her if she violates it. By making threats to overreach his power, it seems he lends credibility to the accusations made on the site. Isn't the judge supposed to be unbiased?
Federal prosecutors don't charge people until they feel they have enough evidence to prove a case. If he's guilty, I hope they keep him in orange jumpsuits for a good long time. Most people who have been scammed (and that's a lot of us) will slant against him, no matter what he accuses the govt of doing.

JMT
Springville, UT

If I read the article correctly the judge stated he had no authority over her. That should be the end of the matter right there. It is not, the judge is now acting to coerce speech he does not like. The !st Amendment is not about protecting happy talk, but offensive speech. This seems a classic example of it.

I say sanction the judge. I've all but run out of tolerance for Federal mischief.

Republitarian
SAINT GEORGE, UT

Let's have a gag order against Swallow in the form of him not being allowed to hold his job until he is cleared of the accusations against him. Johnson has not been convicted, and this overzealous judge and federal government impose unreasonable sanctions against him, such as STEALING his property.

Do the same to Swallow. There is more evidence of his wrong doing than the feds have against Johnson.

This is nothing but more abuse by the federal government, that has run wildly out of control with power. Anyone that supports this action by the feds belongs in prison, because ultimately that is the only means by which they will learn what liberty is.

Aggielove
Cache county, USA

Free speech is something both sides of the isle stand together on.

mocottle
SHERWOOD, OR

So a Wife loses her first amendment rights because her husband is under a gag Order. Hasn't the Judge disqualified himself under the rules of professional conduct, by threatening someone within his jurisdiction, for conduct of someone he has no jurisdiction? Isn't that evidence of exactly what they say is wrong with the federal government? Hasn't he made a decision without evidence as to the defendant's control over his wife. Or is he showing his gender bias that the man controls the women.

You do not give up your first amendment rights when you marry, or your spouse is charged with a crime. Perhaps the Judge should focus on the conditions of release, rather than stomping all over someone's constitutional rights.

AlanSutton
Salt Lake City, UT

Jeremy Johnson did business outside the rules. Now he wants to go through the court system outside the rules. That won't work.

Chieftess
Ivins, UT

This is another example of Mr. Johnson finding loopholes. Trying to pretend that he has nothing to do with the websites that he started is disingenuous. Putting something in his wife's name so he can't be held accountable is so typical of these types of criminals who justify their behavior and think they are above the law.

dan76
san antonio, TX

"There's no free speech issue. Johnson surrendered his right to untrammeled expression when the judge issued the gag order in the case."

Interloper: Certainly this is a free speech issue. Johnson did not surrender his right to free speech, it was taken from him when the judge issued the gag order.

I suggest you learn the difference.

I wish to know what he has to say and prefer to draw my conclusions.

Lyle
Springville, UT

Apparently, the judge assumes that Mrs. Johnson is completely under Mr. Johnson's control. That wouldn't be cool even if he were inviting the Johnsons over for dinner. But the threats he's making sound like something you'd hear in a medieval courtroom. "Control your wife!"

Oh my heck.

Interloper
Portland, OR

Clearly, Jeremy Johnson has many supporters. That tends to be true of con men. They are masters of manipulation.

As I said before, the gag order takes precedence over Johnson's right to free expression. The purpose of the order is to protect everyone's interest in the trials being fair, including his. Allowing him to poison the jury pool by using his wife as a cat's paw is to malign the prosecution is against the public interest. The judge may have no current power over Mrs. Johnson, but that doesn't mean she cannot be charged if she continues to interfere.

To me, this seems to be of a piece with Johnson selling basically nothing to consumers and claiming he is somehow benefitting them by taking their money. He uses language to obfuscate what he is really up to.

Perhaps Johnson doesn't realize his abuses of the system will be taken into account when he is sentenced. Defendants who have been combative get longer sentences.

jimhale
Eugene, OR

What's with the feds? I know nothing of this man, this case or even the rules for gag orders. But all gag orders should be suspect. Silencing a wife should not be an option for the judge - unless she was a co-conspirator in the alleged crime.
Why should defending yourself in the public square be subject to a gag order? Are jurors thought to be idiots?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments