Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Paul Fraughton | Tribune file photo) Jeremy Johnson, left, leaves the federal court building in Salt Lake City with his lawyer Nathan Crane on Friday, January 11, 2013.
Jeremy Johnson case may force regulators to show their hand
Courts » Defense attorneys dispute Federal Trade Commission’s evidence, tactics in I Works lawsuit.
First Published Jan 28 2014 01:01 am • Last Updated Jan 28 2014 06:49 pm

Just as their lawsuit against Jeremy Johnson reaches a critical stage, federal regulators are being challenged on the evidence and tactics they used to shut down the St. George businessman’s online-marketing machine and seize most of his assets.

In the first evidence-laden response to a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit filed more than three years ago, attorneys for Johnson’s I Works company and his family say the agency ignored or lost evidence potentially unfavorable to its case. Regulators have few witnesses who can support their allegations, which are refuted by evidence gathered in the case, the attorneys argue.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Beyond allegations specific to the I Works case being heard in Las Vegas, lawyers say they have uncovered a strategy that FTC attorneys use against online marketers that are smaller than giants such as Amazon.com but still have substantial assets. The strategy calls for swooping in to deprive these targets of resources for attorneys, so regulators then can quickly win the case with little challenge to the evidence.

In addition the FTC lawsuit, Johnson — who is at the center of a scandal that forced former Utah Attorney General John Swallow from office — and four other I Works employees face 86 criminal charges in Salt Lake City’s federal court related to I Works, a case separate from the civil suit but reliant on some of the same evidence.

The FTC sued Johnson, I Works and others in December 2010, alleging they bilked consumers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by getting them to bite on "free" offers of information about how to obtain government grants and make money while working at home as well as other products. Consumers’ credit cards or bank accounts then were assessed large monthly or one-time fees that weren’t adequately disclosed, the agency asserts.

Shortly after the lawsuit’s filing, the FTC persuaded a federal judge to order the seizure of the assets of Johnson, I Works and other defendants.

Now federal attorneys have asked U.S. District Judge Miranda Du to rule in their favor without a trial. FTC attorneys argue the evidence of wrongdoing the agency gathered is substantial and without adequate challenge. They want the defendants held liable for $280 million in restitution.

"Defendants’ violations of [federal laws] are documented in voluminous irrefutable evidence," the FTC argued, "including defendants’ pleadings, discovery responses, deposition testimony, business records and the testimony of defendants’ former employees."

Not so fast, counter Salt Lake City attorney Karra Porter and other lawyers who represent I Works, Johnson’s wife and parents and other related businesses. (Jeremy Johnson is acting as his own counsel in the FTC suit because he said he cannot afford one after the feds seized his assets).

"We would like to go to trial," Porter said. "We think there are issues on just about everything the FTC has raised."


story continues below
story continues below

Jeremy Johnson declined to comment for this story, saying he would like to address the issues but a gag order in the criminal case prevents him from doing so. He filed his own opposition to the FTC’s motion and asked for a trial.

The FTC also declined to comment, noting the lawsuit is still pending.

The judge has yet to set a date for a hearing on the FTC motion and counterarguments.

Johnson had been waging an online war with the agency by creating websites and gathering evidence he maintained showed the agency bullied witnesses and doctored their statements.

For her part, Porter takes exception to FTC statements such as the evidence "unequivocally demonstrates" I Works was defrauding consumers out of millions of dollars.

"To a great extent, the FTC conflates hyperbole with undisputed evidence," her memo to the court said. "Dismissive pronouncements that the defendants ‘bilked’ or ‘duped’ consumers add nothing to the debate."

Agency investigators acknowledged in depositions they were selective in their evidence, Porter’s memo says, "the main criterion appearing to be whether it supported the FTC’s allegations."

In one instance, investigators digitally recorded "undercover" online buys of I Works products, but didn’t disclose the effort until recently. They then conceded the recordings were lost, the memo says.

Investigators also used software to capture I Works Web pages that substantially reduced their size, making them appear more faded and harder to read when printed out.

The FTC case originally included statements from 16 out of 10 million customers, or 0.00016 percent, Porter and other attorneys note. Of those 16, three have since been dropped and three were discovered to have made their purchases from a non-I Works website. Fewer than half the remaining complainants said they were inadequately informed of the credit card or bank charges.

In the case of an I Works product that purports to show consumers how to make money online using Google AdWords, Porter said, the agency does not name any defrauded consumers.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.