Karra J. Porter, 5223

Scott T. Evans, 6218

CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.

257 East 200 South, Suite 1100

Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: (801) 323-5000

Karra.Porter@chrisjen.com

Scott.Evans@chrisjen.com

Attorneys for Defendant Jeremy Johnson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

JEREMY JOHNSON and JOHN SWALLOW, 

Defendants.

ANSWER OF JEREMY JOHNSON 

TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

Civil No. 2:15-cv-00439-DB

District Judge Dee Benson

Defendant, Jeremy Johnson, by and through counsel, answers plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint and responds as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

Much of the FEC’s complaint is stated in language that is conclusory and not statutory, 

such as the term “straw donor.” Further, the complaint fails to set forth any factual allegations 

that would support injunctive or other equitable relief. For these and other reasons, most or all of 

the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

Plaintiff has previously acknowledged and represented to the Court in court filings that 

its claims against this defendant encompass only the period of time beginning on or about 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 7
2

May 15, 2010. Based upon that representation, plaintiff’s claims may not be time barred under 

28 U.S.C. § 2462, which is cited herein only as a precaution.

THIRD DEFENSE

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 8(2) and (3), this Answer may set out two or more statements of a 

defense alternatively or hypothetically, and may state such alternative or hypothetical defenses 

regardless of perceived consistency.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 10(c), this defendant hereby adopts by reference the Third 

Defense, Fourth Defense, Seventh Defense, and Thirteenth Defenses set forth in Defendant John 

Swallow’s Answer to Amended Complaint (Doc. 45). Defendant also incorporates for 

preservation purposes the additional defenses set forth in this defendant’s answer to the initial 

complaint, but acknowledges that is ability to assert such defenses is subject to previously ruling 

of the Court (Doc. 34).

FIFTH DEFENSE

With respect to the specific paragraphs of plaintiff’s complaint, this defendant responds:

1. With respect to paragraphs 1-6, 11-12, 19-38, the third sentence of ¶ 39, ¶¶ 40-49, 

73, 75, and 77, upon advice of counsel, this defendant asserts his rights under the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I § 7 of the Utah Constitution not to 

respond to said paragraphs, as a result of which said paragraphs are denied. This defendant 

submits that requiring him to state specific factual bases for asserting these rights would require 

the defendant to divulge protected attorney-client communications and opinion work product, 

and would itself comprise a violation of the stated constitutional provisions. Subject to that 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 7
3

objection, defendant (through counsel) notes that the United States government has already 

expended extraordinary resources to obtain convictions against Mr. Johnson for alleged false 

statements (to a bank) without regard to whether such statements were made by Mr. Johnson, 

were intentional or material, etc. It seems likely that the government would be willing to go to 

similar lengths if given an opportunity to pursue Mr. Johnson for alleged violations of other 

“false statement” statutes, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Counsel’s concern is reinforced by the fact 

that they were unable to obtain an immunity commitment earlier this year that would address 

these concerns or place reasonable limitations on the government’s ability to pursue 

unreasonable charges. Additionally, all or nearly all of the plaintiff’s claims are based upon 

purported communications that, to the extent they were made, were made under representations 

of immunity by agents of the federal government, but were instead handed over to the 

government. The defendant also avers that, because he is incarcerated, because he is not 

permitted free (unmonitored) discussion with his attorneys, because the alleged events occurred 

many years ago, and because he does not have access to records or other potentially relevant 

material (and, in fact, e-mails and other material have been lost or destroyed by third parties), the 

likelihood of making an inadvertent misstatement herein, or erroneously subjecting himself to 

prosecution for prior events, is exacerbated.

2. With respect to ¶ 7, defendant states that the complaint speaks for itself and 

therefore no response is required. Defendant further states that the relief requested is not 

authorized by the Federal Election Campaign Act in this case.

3. With respect to ¶ 8, defendant states that the paragraph appears to contain 

conclusions of law or mixed conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 7
4

the extent that a response is required, defendant admits that the court would appear to have 

jurisdiction under the allegations as pled.

4. With respect to ¶ 9, defendant admits that venue would appear to lie in this 

district, but denies said paragraph to the extent it differs from this admission.

5. With respect to ¶ 10, defendant states that the paragraph appears to contain 

conclusions of law or mixed conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. To 

the extent that a response is required, defendant asserts that the cited statutes speak for 

themselves and that the plaintiff’s authority is limited to that granted in the statutes.

6. With respect to ¶¶ 13-18, defendant states that the paragraphs appear to contain 

(incomplete) characterizations of law to which no response is required. Defendant asserts that 

the statutes speak for themselves, and that the regulations cited are not authorized, but to the 

extent the regulations are binding authority, they speak for themselves.

7. With respect to ¶ 39, defendant does not know the meaning intended by plaintiff 

the phrase “the time relevant to this case,” and accordingly is unable to respond to the first 

sentence. Defendant denies the second sentence as inaccurately characterizing the FTC action. 

(For example, the FTC expressly denied in the IWorks matter that it was alleging “fraud.”) With 

respect to the fourth sentence, defendant admits that the FTC filed suit against him and other 

defendants, but denies the unspecified reference to “some of his associates and businesses”. 

Defendant denies the final sentence, which inaccurately characterizes the criminal indictment 

and matter.

8. With respect to ¶ 50, defendant has no personal knowledge of when the 

Commission received the alleged administrative complaint, which is not attached to the 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 7
5

Amended Complaint. Defendant states that the content of the so-called complaint would speak 

for itself, and accordingly denies the plaintiff’s characterization.

9. With respect to ¶ 51, defendant admits that the Commission sent a communication 

to Johnson regarding the so-called administrative complaint, and that Johnson did not submit a 

written response.

10. With respect to ¶ 52, defendant has no personal knowledge of when, how, or 

whether the Commission or members thereof voted, but admits that plaintiff sent a 

communication to Johnson in or around December 2014.

11. With respect to ¶ 53, denies that the FEC “conduct[ed] an investigation,” 

affirmatively alleges that the FEC was unlawfully provided by agents of the federal government 

with purported material that, to the extent it was authentic, was procured by various 

representations of immunity. Admits that the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel sent 

Mr. Johnson a letter dated March 11, 2015, which speaks for itself, and that Mr. Johnson did not 

submit a reply.

12. With respect to ¶ 54, denies for lack of knowledge, but affirmatively alleges that, 

if the “information then available” allegedly “review[ed]” by the Commission included 

unlawfully obtained, tainted, and/or inadmissible information or summaries thereof, members of 

the Commission should have disqualified themselves and any subsequent vote was unlawful.

13. With respect to ¶ 55, defendant admits that the FEC sent Mr. Johnson a letter 

dated April 20, 2015, which speaks for itself, and denies that the FEC “endeavored to correct 

Johnson’s [alleged] violations through informal methods of conference, conciliation, and 

persuasion, for a period of not less than 30 days.”

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 5 of 7
6

14. Defendant admits ¶ 56. Mr. Johnson did not waive any statute of limitations or 

related defenses that had already vested.

15. With respect to ¶ 57, defendant denies for lack of knowledge, and denies that the 

lawsuit was filed at that time because the FEC was “unable to secure an acceptable conciliation 

agreement[.]”

16. With respect to ¶ 58, defendant states that said paragraph appears to assert a 

conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, 

defendant lacks sufficient knowledge to admit said paragraph, and therefore denies the same.

17. ¶¶ 59-71 are directed solely at another defendant, and therefore no response is 

required from this defendant. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies said 

paragraphs for lack of knowledge.

18. With respect to ¶¶ 72, 74, and 76, defendant incorporates all responses set forth 

with respect to the states paragraphs 1-71.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Unless expressly and specifically admitted above or subject to defendant’s assertion of 

constitutional rights, the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are denied.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Mr. Johnson hereby prays for the following relief:

1. Dismissal of the complaint with prejudice;

2. An order requiring the FEC to return all illegally obtained evidence and to destroy 

all copies thereof;

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 7
7

3. An award of attorney fees, expenses, and costs against Plaintiff to the extent 

allowed by law, including under the Equal Access to Justice Act and F.R.Civ.P. 54(d);

4. All other relief, equitable and otherwise, deemed appropriate by the Court.

DATED this 27th day of April, 2017.

CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C. 

/s/ Karra J. Porter

Karra J. Porter

Scott T. Evans

Attorneys for Defendant Jeremy Johnson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 27th day of April, 2017, a copy of the foregoing ANSWER OF 

JEEREMY JOHNSON TO AMENDED COMPLAINT was electronically filed using the 

CM/ECF system and notification was sent to the following:

Daniel A. Petalas - depetalas@fec.gov

Lisa J. Stevenson – lstevenson@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley - kdeeley@fec.gov

Harry J. Summers – hsummers@fec.gov

Kevin P. Hancock - Khancock@fec.gov

Claudio J. Pavia - cpavia@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

/s/ Marilyn Grant

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB Document 74 Filed 04/27/17 Page 7 of 7