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

>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 
>    Heaven's Messenger 777
>  For GOD, Life, Liberty and the 
>         Pursuit of Happiness ! 
>Copyright free news communiqué
>courtesy of WebToday "Daily News on the Web"
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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
>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. 
>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
>"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
>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
>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
>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: 
>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
>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
>"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
>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