Time: Sun Oct 19 10:55:31 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA17546; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:39:39 -0700 (MST) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02697; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:33:10 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 10:34:10 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: J.J. Johnson "Reaks" about Roby (fwd) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <snip> > >Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:23:23 -0600 >From: EAGLEFLT <eagleflt@thumb.net> >Date: Saturday, October 18, 1997 7:40 PM >Subject: JJ Johnson "Reaks" about Roby > >This bulldung is getting deep folks! >I don't trust this guy and neither should >you. He is an egotistical maniac and >serves Satan and Baal. He does not >and will not speak for the Patriot & >Militia movements, and anyone thinking >he does, should suffer his fate to come. > >This man divides people and movements >to further his own needs. He is not interested >in Patriotic Duty or living in the Right with >GOD. > >========================== > Heaven's Messenger 777 >========================== > For GOD, Life, Liberty and the > Pursuit of Happiness ! > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >WEBTODAY Update > >Copyright free news communiqué > >courtesy of WebToday "Daily News on the Web" > ><http://www.tv-u.com/webtoday.html>http://www.tv-u.com/webtoday.html > >616-924-1000 > > >WebToday Feature Story: > > >J.J. Johnson's Full "Confession" of Why He and Jack McLamb >Defended Police Actions During Roby, Illinois Rally for Shirley Allen > >By J.J. Johnson > >Thursday, October 16, 1997 > > >Before going over the details to the best of my knowledge, I must first cast my vote of disagreement with my "retired law enforcement" associate as well as the Illinois State Police tactics in Roby, Illinois. In this report, I will try to give the *whole* story, followed by my recommendations. Although it is long, please bear with me... > >Upon arrival to Illinois, I had to drive directly to the State Capitol for the noon press conference, which from the reports I had heard went pretty well. Yes, I did imply that State Police Director Terrance Gainer was a terrorist-and I have not (and will not) retracted that statement. I was disturbed that someone had come to the press conference wearing a cammo jacket, but later found out that person was an undercover IL state police officer. > >One-Eyed Jack (Don Jackson) picked up Jack McLamb from the airport. One-Eye then received a call from State Police requesting the McLamb, and McLamb only, stop in to have a talk with the State Police Administration. At about 4:00 p.m., he did. One Eye and myself waited outside for about 2 hours (That's when I saw the cammo wearing guy from the press conference again- walking out of the Police Station). > >Later at a restaurant, McLamb sat with One-Eye Jack, a lawyer who was to be retained for the matter, a police friend of One Eye, and myself and explained what happened in that meeting. McLamb stated that it he had seen the letter that Shirley Allen had written (he verified that she had signed it), and that this woman may have problems. He went on to state the police were doing everything they can to keep her alive, and that they sounded *believable*. > >The lawyer didn't believe it. Neither did the cop. The reason: Terrance Gainer wasn't in the room with McLamb. Frankly, neither did I. I wanted more proof. I took McLamb at his word because he had been involved in two major standoffs in the past. But I did say that, "There is no way we can sell this to the public in Taylorville tomorrow. They won't buy it, and frankly, I can't blame them". I considered cancelling the Taylorville rally and having one statehouse rally at 5. It was agreed that it was too late for that. We then agreed that we would give the police the "benefit of the doubt" so we could continue the dialogue tomorrow, including a personal discussion with Terrance Gainer and myself, which I demanded. > >======================================== MY COMMENT: > >This was a judgement call. Looking back, I could have and should have vetoed this. After all, I had not talked to the police yet, nor saw any proof backing up what they were saying. I trusted McLamb. > >========================================= > >The next morning, McLamb, Clay Douglas and I went on One-Eyed Jack morning talkshow to explained in a general sense what McLamb had learned in his meeting. >From there, we extended a "covert olive branch" to law enforcement. I went on to work out the details for the Taylorville rally, including securing a permit. This led to me talking to a Capt. Brown of the IL state Police (at about 11:15) who stated in his phone call that Gainer wanted to speak to McLamb and myself after the noon rally at 2:00. I relayed this message to McLamb. I thought we were making progress since I would have a chance to "push the issues" myself. I remember pacing outside waiting or McLamb to get ready for the rally. We were running late. > >En route to Taylorville, McLamb stated that he would address the crowd (and the press) while I parked the vehicle. This was a mistake. I should have went to the press first. What McLamb said to the media while I was parking was what most people read in the papers the next morning. > >As soon as I arrived, I was told that snipers had been seen on the rooftops of the bank across the street. I then found the deputy in charge in Christian County and ask him, "Are those your men on the rooftops?". He responded with a confused look and stated that he wasn't sure who they were... > >Stop right here. > >After hearing reports all but confirming federal provocateurs in the area, getting a call that the state police "Armada" was en route to Roby earlier that morning, coupled with a State Police officer handing me about 100 copies of directions to Shirley Allen's home at the rally, and that fact the no one was sure who was on the roof at that time made me a bit nervous... make that-very nervous. > >I grabbed a megaphone and explained that we had established a line of communication with law-enforcement on this matter and that we would have some answers later that day. McLamb then began going over what he had told us the night before to the crowd. > >My prediction came true. > >The Taylorville crowd wasn't buying it, and I couldn't blame them. I wasn't buying it either. I was then pulled away by Scott Slinkard who gave me a copy of a very important taped conversation between him a an IL state police officer. I then found out the police had taken my brief case which change my priorities immediately. My airline ticket an other personal information was in there. A Deputy had moved it to protect it, knew who it belonged to, and had not opened it. > >In that short moment when I was away from center stage, I noticed the crowd getting hostile toward McLamb. The "I would have taken the shot myself" comment by McLamb all but started a riot. Someone (I can't remember who) grabbed me a said, "J.J., get McLamb off that stage...NOW before we have a incident out here!". I quickly remembered that constitutionalists have a perfect record of never having a incident at a public rally. After noticing suspicious movements within the crowd, I grabbed the megaphone out of McLamb's hand and moved him into the clear. There are some who say I should have "let him have it". After all, this was *unverified info* going out to the national press- exactly what Gainer & Co. wanted. I admit, I was too caught up in the confusion to realize this at that time. I kept thinking to myself "something's wrong with this picture." > >I then got up a stated that the police needed to provide proof of their claims and that I would DEMAND answers in my meeting later. > >The most touching moment occurred while McLamb was speaking. A local resident approached me and said, "J.J., we have 200 people here ready to storm the perimeter when you are". I actually considered it, but then thought to myself, "So are the police, J.J....So are the police." > >Those in the Taylorville crowd may remember when I paused in my second presentation. That's what I was thinking -- of simply walking through the perimeter with the crowd. After seeing the sniper on the roof now in position, and knowing that the State Police were waiting for us, I though to myself, "Johnson, That's exactly what the "bad boys" want- a blood bath...Starting in Taylorville and ending with the next American Civil War with public opinion on their side. > >It was a judgement call. Knowing the facts and public opinion was on our side, we could at least deal with the police from a position of strength. > > > >THE MEETING (part 2 of "J.J.'s Confession on Roby) > >McLamb and I were escorted to the State Police Headquarters by two friends of mine who were justifiably concerned for our safety. We met with the following: > >Colonel Larry D. Drager - ISP Division of Operations Master Sergeant Michael R. Snyders - ISP Chief of Staff Master Sergeant Chuck Brueggemann - ISP Executive Assistant > >Terrence Gainer made his appearance later in the meeting. > >After law enforcement repeatedly stated that they did not wish to kill Shirley Allen, I began pressing the issues. I informed them that the public has not and will not believe anything that they tell McLamb or myself, and that documented evidence was needed by the public...fast. I also stated directly to the police: > >"...If Shirley Allen dies, even if she falls down the stairs and breaks her neck, they (the people) will come after me first, then Jack (McLamb), then the rest of you." > >They assured me that they understood that message. ====================================================== I first asked for the media to be allowed in to show proof of their claims. > >Ans. Denied. It's too dangerous. > >Q: Put the media at a safe range from Shirley's shotgun and use a telescopic lens. > >Ans: Denied. That might give out the position of their people on the ground. > >Q: Put the media in the air to get aerial proof. > >Ans: Denied. Shirley Allen gets nervous and paranoid when aircraft are flying overhead. > >===================================================== > >I'm still kicking myself for not pressing this issue further. After all, modern technology allows a orbiting satellites to count nasal hairs on the ground at any given moment. Certainly a high flying aircraft could get quality photos. > >We then moved to the subject of legal counsel for Shirley. Their response: > >They had told Shirley that if she just picks up the phone, she would have any lawyer she wanted, but she won't pick up the phone. They said that she has unplugged the phone from the wall. I told them that our people say her line is out of service when they tried to call. As an expert on phone (and electrical) installations, I explained that a phone; unplugged from the home would simply ring with no answer. They then explained that they had the phone routed to them. > >They also stated that they had contacted family members and neighbors of Shirley Allen to try and help negotiate her release. I asked to have these people go "public" with those claims. > >Denied. The people have made statements to that effect, but would rather not go on the air. > >If you're getting the feeling that I'm being "stonewalled" here, so did I. > >We asked about those sealed court documents. They stated that medical privacy laws prevent the release of those records and they had no control over that. > >They were right. I'll give them that one. > >They stated that a quick review of the IL state laws about property insures that Shirley Allen will retain her property. > >I ask them the key question: > >"Was there any record of Shirley Allen being violent or dangerous in the past that would justify this much force surrounding her?" > >Their only answer was the 23 page letter in their possession, which by the way, I NEVER saw. Excerpts were released to the media the next day, but only excerpts. They did not want to violate the privacy laws in this matter. > >They then gave me details of how all this began: > >Shirley was approached by the Christian County deputies about the court order. She refused to come out of her house. After about a two-hour discussion with the deputies, Shirley raised her shotgun to "port arms", which was followed by a man behind a shield firing a bean bag from a 12 gauge and a tear gas grenade being delivered into her home. This was expected to disabled Shirley but it did not. She was wearing layers of clothing. In a reflex reaction, Shirley fired a round from her shotgun. At that point, the two snipers out side could have killed Shirley under *their* rules of engagement. There was also two other occasions where Shirley fired at men in her garage, once sending a deer slug through both garage walls. I demanded photo proof of this. They said they would provide it. > >Here's what we can conclude from their statements: > >1. Sometime between the first encounter and the first shots being fired, a SWAT team somehow appeared on the scene. 2. The Police Fired First. > >3. There was no historical reason to assume that Shirley Allen would use force, but she was surrounded by *deadly force* BEFORE she ever raised her weapon. > >============================================== > >As the conversations continued, I began to feel that I was the *only* person in the room who was NOT law enforcement. Please read that last sentence very carefully. We were being told about the situation from a law enforcement stand point- not a constitutional one. Because to them (all in the room but me), the safety of law-enforcement officers is more important than the Constitution or even the statute law. > >I asked: If you have justification to kill her, why haven't you done so? > >Ans: They don't want to. They want her to get help. In fact under their "rules of engagement", they could have "taken the shot" three different times. > >Remember: those are THEIR Rules of Engagement...not mine. > >Q: Why don't you get a warrant? It seems like she has fired upon officers which would lead to criminal charges, also. > >Ans: They do not consider this a criminal matter. > >I pressed on the restoration of utilites issue...hard. > >Ans: Denied. Thier tatical policies call for that. Even McLamb admitted later that those tactics rarely ever work. > >I then brought up the McLaren case in TX when Mrs McLaren was promised freedom if she came out peacefully, followed by the U.S. Justice Department slapping her with a possible 135 years in jail. McLamb brought up the Montana case in which those similar promises were broken. Idaho, Texas, and Montana were mentioned frequenly. > >This led to the *only* guarantee I felt I received from the police. It was when I stated: > >"You can tell your State Attorney General that whatever crimes they try to charge Shirley Allen with, you'll never get a jury in this state to convict her." > >I believe they understood this. They heard the tone of my voice. > >This led to my bringing up the statement from Gainer stating that "...he would keep his men in place even if the judge rescinded the order". They stated that's exactly what they would do, and are prepared to face the civil litigation that would follow if that were to happen. > >POLICE TRANSLATION: "WE KNOW WE MIGHT BE BREAKING THE LAW" > >Terrance Gainer had to leave after a phone call, and never returned to the meeting. His reason: He had to say something to the press. I learned later that what he said was "McLamb and I were in agreement with what they were doing". He said this while I was in the meeting "raking them over the coals" for what they were doing. > >The conversations led to them repeating (over and over again) that they did not want to kill Shirley, but any action on our part could jeopardize the officers' safety, or Shirley's safety. I now realize what has been bothering me so much. I know the IL State Police will deny this claim, but: > >I now believe I was being sub-consciously given a covert message by the police: > >"Johnson, tell your people to back off, or Shirley Allen dies..." > >======================================================= IMPORTANT NOTE: > >Part of my Proof of this lies in the details about weapons and tactics in use reported to me from the police. I have agreed not to disclose these details to the public. As I am writing this, I have been told that "My Word is My word"; even if given to the police, And I should not violate my trust. Only full compliance of my request for full disclosure to the public will keep me from breaking my promise. WEAPONS AND TACTICS were just some of the details. > >======================================================= > >A word about federal involvement: > >The Police stated that they asked the FBI on advice about "non-lethal" hostage negotiations. The FBI's answer: > >"We don't do non-lethal..." > >Surprised ? > >I felt sick at that 5 o'clock rally when I went on stage and said that "I believe that it is in the best interest of both sides that Shirley Allen remains alive... The reason this standoff has lasted this long is because the police do not want to kill Shirley... They want to end the standoff peacefully...". Why did I say this? Because I knew that I was being watched by the State Police, and from the meeting I had with them I got the impression that saying anything else may have gotten Shirley Allen killed by midnight. > >I made another important statement in that speech which did not make the news. I'll explain that in part 3. > >McLamb then took the stage giving all the details he could about what was said at the afternoon meeting. I didn't hear any of his speech. I believe that Jack McLamb felt like a police officer again when we were inside that meeting. For me, maybe it was the uniforms and badges that intimidated me. Maybe it was the fact that they were willing to talk that caused me to believe (or want to believe) that the police were on the right side, and believing that Shirley Allen wasn't "crazy" was a big gamble. But the fact was: > >I HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN ONE SHRED OF PROOF THAT'S THEY WERE TELLING THE TRUTH. > >The only thing placed on the table was a coffee cup bearing the Illinois State Police Logo, and a pin bearing the same. A "gift" for our services, I guess. > >I had talked to some people who came from Indiana to the rally in the restaurant that night. All of us, all in the restaurant smelled a "rat". None of us were happy about what had transpired. But I hadn't figured out the covert message I was given yet. Thankfully, confessing my true feelings to Oral Dekard of IN and Johnny Johnson of TX helped. Thank you Oral and Johnny. > >I said a prayer that night before bed, knowing (without checking) that I was receiving the same treatment on shortwave and the internet that McLamb got at noon that day. I deserved it. It was hard to sleep. I kept waking up from nightmares - of me walking up to Shirley Allen's home... and killing her myself by my own statements. > >I woke up the next morning with a grave suspicion. I grabbed two local newspapers and saw what I feared the most. The headline read: > >"MCLAMB: POLICE OK" > >My statements, and my name had been all but removed from the news wires. My opinions, the opinions of thousands were removed from existence. Some of my statements were clearly taken out of context. > >We were already being called by One-eyed Jack to be on his morning program. I stated that I would be driving to the radio station myself (alone) for an important announcement. McLamb was already in his hotel room preparing for the One-Eyed Jack show via phone. The last time I saw Jack McLamb, I dropped the Springfield Journal-Register on his bed and said: > >"Jack, our names are mud right now. This woman is going to die, and I can't deal with this. I'm outta here." > >I don't think McLamb heard me...he was busy on the phone. > >I then drove to the radio station to tell the public the truth. One-Eyed Jack kept McLamb on for over two hours. I left word to the people in studio that I did not want McLamb to know that I was standing by ready to go on the air. Everyone, I mean everyone in the studio agreed with me. We had been fed a "bill of goods", and the truth was being suppressed. > >I barely had time to make my statement. I told the locals that I would not leave their state knowing that I might have signed Shirley Allen's death warrant. I told them the truth. I told them that I disagreed with McLamb and that the people should not let down their guard for any reason. I was "suckered". I was naive. I have no idea how many people heard it. And of course...None of it made the news. > >When I checked out of my room, a local woman walked up to me and asked: > >"Mr. Johnson, what should we do? What's going to happen to that poor woman in Roby? Is there any hope left?" > >My Answer: > >"I'm afraid that Mrs. Allen is going to die... unless the people prevent it from happening." > >She nodded her head...in sad and reluctant agreement. > >When I arrived back at Chicago's O'hare airport, I broke the Illinois State Police coffee mug on the ground in disgust, and vowed to tell the world what I didn't have the "guts" to say earlier... > >...the truth. > > > >MY CONCLUSION: (part 3 of 3 of J.J. Johnson's "Confession on Roby") > >Until the Illinois Police give FULL DISCLOSURE of their reasons, activity, and the justification of such to the public via independent sources, I must, with sound mind and body, conclude the following: > >Mrs. Shirley Allen of Roby, Illinois is being held HOSTAGE for an unknown reason and for an unknown ransom by the Illinois State Police. The *only logical* reason she hasn't been killed to this point is because their are too many eyes (neighbors) watching. She is now surrounded by an all but military police force, who is surrounded by a justifiably angry public at large. > >The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are NOT subservient to alleged mental capacity. The rights of Shirley Allen *are* being violated as we speak. In my opinion, there are two heroes in this crisis. Shirley Allen of Roby and Shirley Boluch of Litchfield. Both have shown their courage and resolve that should be a lesson to all of us. > >To Clarify what I stated on the Illinois capital Steps on Tuesday October 14, 1997: > >============================================================== This was a First Amendment Operation to resolve this issue peacefully. The First Amendment reads: > >"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Prayers have been said both publicly and privately for Shirley Ann Allen and all others involved. > >"Or abridging the freedom of speech..." > >We have spoken out across the nation to bring focus to the plight of Shirley Ann Allen. > >"Or of the Press..." > >The issue of Shirley Ann Allen is now receiving national attention via the press. > >"Or of the right of people to peaceably assemble..." There were two public rallies on behalf of Shirley Ann Allen, both without incident, while surrounded by an armed opposing force. > >"And to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." I, J.J. Johnson did so to the best of my ability in person, as did many other via phone calls, letters, faxes, and e-mail. ===================================================== THEREFORE, > >Let these facts be known to a candid world: > >We have broken no laws. I have, beyond any reasonable doubt, taken the First Amendment as far as it is written to no avail. I cannot and will not go any further. I now urge a respectful reading and adherence to the remaining Bill of Rights as they are written; and that the "authorities" must now operate under the pleasure of the citizens they are sworn serve... whatever "pleasure" remains. > >As I wash my hands of this matter with a clear conscious, I can now say that if any harm comes to Shirley Ann Allen of Roby Illinois, who I my opinion has broken no law, it will not be the fault of Shirley Allen. It will be the fault of the law abiding citizens... > >...Who failed to do anything to prevent it. > >...Any may God Almighty watch over and have mercy on all of us. Amen. > >--J.J. Johnson > > > >To correspond with Mr. Johnson contact: > >J.J. Johnson > >500 N. Rainbow Blvd. > >Suite 300 > >Las Vegas, Nevada 89107 > >citizen@mindspring.com > >Pager: 888.779.3347 > ><<<< =========================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01 B.A.: Political Science, UCLA; M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02 tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03 email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04 website: http://supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05 ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best 06 Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone 07 Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this 08 _____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09 As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall 10 not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11 ======================================================================== 12 [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail