20150126 EFILED DEF RESPONSE TO THE PLAINITFF DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER...
-
Upload
deborah-swan -
Category
Documents
-
view
4 -
download
0
Transcript of 20150126 EFILED DEF RESPONSE TO THE PLAINITFF DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER...
-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE
Ed SNOOK Case No: 14CV0835 Counter Defendant
vs.
DEBORAH SWAN COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWANS Counter Plaintiff REPLY TO COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER DEFEDNANT SNOOKS MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER PLAINITFF SWANS COUNTERCLAIMS
Counter Plaintiff Swan requests a Telephonic Oral Argument with 1
1 hour to present her argument. The number is 361-557-7379.
COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN REPLYS TO COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS DECLERATION IN SUPPORT MOTION
TO STIKE COUNTER CLAIM 31.150
31.150 Special motion to strike; when available; burden of proof. (1) A de-fendant may make a special motion to strike against a claim in a civil action de-scribed in subsection (2) of this section. The court shall grant the motion unless the plaintiff establishes in the manner provided by subsection (3) of this section that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. The special
Counter Plaintiff is Deborah Swan through out this document.1
Page of 1 29
1/26/2015 4:11:44 PM14CV0835
-
motion to strike shall be treated as a motion to dismiss under ORCP 21 A but shall not be subject to ORCP 21 F. Upon granting the special motion to strike, the court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice. If the court denies a special motion to strike, the court shall enter a limited judgment denying the motion.
A. Pursuant to the Counter Defendant Snooks DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2
MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER CLAIM, Counter Defendant Snook has not met
his burden of proof that is required. 3
B. Pursuant to ORS 31.150 (3) Plaintiff Snook must first must meet initial burden of
making a prima facie showing that the claims against which the motion is made, arises
out of a statement, document or conduct described in subsection (2).
C. If the Counter Defendant Snook meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the
Counter Plaintiff Swan, in the action to establish that there is a probability that the she
will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie
case.
D. Counter Plaintiff Swan can meet this burden of proof with substantial evidence.\
E. Counter Defendant Snook has not presented substantial evidence to meet his initial
burden of proof.
Counter Defendant is Ed Snook and US Observer through out this document.2
PROOF: Evidence that tends to establish the existence or truth of a fact at issue in a case.3
Page of 2 29
-
F. Counter Defendant Snook has only offered hearsay which is not admissible evidence.
COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWANS DEMAND AND RETRACT NOTICE WAS TIMELY SENT TO THE COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK
A. Pursuant to page 1, lines 19 - 22, the Counter Defendant Snook has claimed the de-
mand and retraction notice that was sent by the Counter Plaintiff Swan was not timely.
B. Counter Defendant Snook is stating a false fact of law, regarding the Counter Plaintiff
Swan demand and retraction notice.
C. May 17, 2014, Counter Plaintiff Swan did follow the Oregon Statute 31.150 by send-
ing a timely demand to retraction notice to Counter Defendant Ed Snook, US Observ-
er, who is the author publisher, and distributor of the defamatory article.
D. Counter Defendant Snook ignored the Counter Plaintiff Swans Demand to Retract no-
tice and did not remove the defamatory article.
E. June 26, 2014, Counter Defendant Snook retaliated again against Counter Plaintiff
Swan, by filing a frivolous law suit against Deborah Swan.
F. Counter Defendant Snook has made numerous public and private threats against
Counter Plaintiff Deborah Swan.
G. Counter Defendant Snook continued to publish the defamatory article from March
2013, up to the month of January 2015.
Page of 3 29
-
H. Counter Defendant has intentionally caused substantial harm to Counter Plaintiff
Swan.
I. Counter Defendant Snook defamatory article is published on the US Observer web
page found at http://www.usobserver.com/archive/march-13/deborah-swan.htm,
J. Counter Defendant Snooks defamatory article has published unauthorized pictures of
the Counter Plaintiff Swan, to intentionally cause damage to Counter Plaintiff and
cast her in a false light.
Page of 4 29
http://www.usobserver.com/archive/march-13/deborah-swan.htm
-
Page of 5 29
-
COUNTER DEFENDANT Ed SNOOK KNOWINGLY PUBLISHED FALSE STATEMENTS AS FACTS WITH MALICIOUS INTENT TO CAUSE HARM
AGAISNT COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN
A. Pursuant to page 2, lines 1 through 4, Counter Defendant Snook has committed per-
jury by claiming he did not know his statements he published about Counter Plaintiff
Swan were false.
B. Counter Plaintiff Swan has substantial evidence to prove Counter Defendant Ed Snook
knowingly published false statements which he knew were false about the Defendant
Swan with malicious intent.
C. Counter Plaintiff Swan has substantial evidence to prove the Counter Defendant
Snook acted in actual malice when he published and spoke the defamatory material,
with disregard on whether the statements were true or false.
D. Counter Defendant Snook published the article to intentionally to cause humiliation,
damage and harm to the Counter Plaintiff Swan life, character and reputation.
STANDARDS AND PRACTICES OF GATHERING NEWS
A. Pursuant to page 2, lines 5 and 6, Counter Plaintiff Swan agrees with Snook about
being a reporter for 28 years, and he is familiar with standards and practices for gath-
ering news.
B. Therefore this is self evident that Counter Defendant Edward Snook, the US Observ-
er, is knowledgable about the laws and rules of Media Publishing in Oregon.
Page of 6 29
-
C. Counter Defendant Snook has been around the business long enough to understand his
behaviors are NOT protected speech.
COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO THE DEFAMATORY ARTICLE HE PUBLISHED, DISTRIBUTED, AND AUTHORED.
A. Pursuant to page 2, line 5 to 9, Counter Defendant Snook claims he took the following
steps to determine the statements were true:
B. Page 2, Line 10 Counter Defendant Snook spoke to Charles Dyers family.
This is hearsay, which is not admissible evidence. Counter Plaintiff Swan informed
Counter Defendant at the beginning of their business agreement, about the issues that
Charles Dyers mother, and family had with her.
C. Page 2 line 14 - 17 Counter plaintiff agrees with Counter Defendant, that that Lorne
Dey did gather information from Counter Plaintiff Swan.
D. Page 2, 18 - 19 Counter Defendant Snook spoke with 3 people who had bad encoun-
ters with Deborah Swan. This is not admissible evidence.
E. Page 2, lines 20 - 21 Counter Defendant Snook received and read emails with people
about Deborah Swan. Receiving emails is not admissible evidence, it is hearsay.
F. Page 2, Line 22 - 25, Counter Defendant Snook states he spoke with the wife of Chris
Mortenson, and she told him all the things Deborah has done to her. This is hearsay,
not admissible evidence.
Page of 7 29
-
G. Page 2, line 25, Counter Defendant states Mrs. Mortensons statements about the
Counter Plaintiff Swan are consistent with other people. This is hearsay within
hearsay and is not admissible evidence.
OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR AND HEARSAY BY COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK
H. Page 3, lines 1-3 Counter Plaintiff Swan denies this false claim of having 20 phone
calls about accusations against the US Government. This is hearsay and is not ad-
missible. Demand strict proof.
I. Page 3, lines 3 - 7, Counter Plaintiff denies ever discussing the OKC Bombing and the
Twin Towers with the Counter Defendant Snook.
Counter Defendant Snook is attempting to prejudice the court, and intentionally
create false claims in order to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is
hearsay and is not admissible.
J. Page 3, Line 8 - 11 Counter Plaintiff denies this conversations has ever taken place.
This is hearsay and is not admissible.
K. Page 3, line 12 - 14 Counter Plaintiff denies having this conversation about the US
Government, which never took place and demands proof of this false allegation.
This is another false malicious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false
light. This is hearsay and is not admissible.
L. Page 3, line 17 and 18, Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and is not a mem-
ber of any anti government group. This is called profiling and is another false mali-
Page of 8 29
-
cious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay
and is not admissible.
M. Page 3, lines 18 - 20 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and is not an active
member of any militia groups. This is called profiling and is another false malicious
attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay and is
not admissible.
N. Page 3, lines 19 - 20 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and demands proof
of these alleged postings on Youtube . This is called profiling and is another false ma-
licious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay
and is not admissible.
O. Page 3, lines 21 - 25 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation of illegally possess-
ing a firearm. Defendant Snook has published this unauthorized picture with malicious
intent to cause harm and trouble in Counter Plaintiffs life, which proves another false
malicious intent.
P. Page 4, lines 1 - 2 Counter Defendant Snook has used hearsay from the same people
Counter Plaintiff first warned him about when he was hired by Chris Mortenson.
Q. Page 4, lines 3 and 4, Counter Plaintiff denies this was ever said and demand strike
proof.
R. Page 4 lines 5 Counter Plaintiff denies this was ever said and demand strict proof.
Page of 9 29
-
S. Page 4, line 6 Counter Plaintiff Swan denies this false claim and demand strict proof.
Counter Plaintiff does not own a fire arm. Counter Defendant Snook is using this court
to paint Deborah in a false light.
T. Page 4, line 10 - 14 Counter Plaintiff Swan did not file false claims against Counter
Defendant Snook with the OJD, and the BBB. The claims filed are valid claims. (See
Attached EXHIBIT A and B)
U. Page 4, lines - 15 Counter Plaintiff denies this and demands strike proof.
V. Page 4, lines 17, Counter Defendant Snook has only questioned people with whom are
the enemies of Counter Plaintiff . This is not admissible evidence .
W.Page 4, line 19 Counter Plaintiff denies the complaints are not false and demand
strict proof.
X. Page 4, Line 21 Counter Plaintiff Swans criminal record is public information. This is
being used to prejudice the court against Deborah Swan.
Y. Page 4, line 25 Counter Plaintiff Swan was never contacted by Defendant Snook or
Ron Lee, and asked for any information to confirm. Plaintiff Swans federal probation
was completed in 2007.
Z. Pursuant to page 5, lines 1 - 4 The substantial proof that everything Counter Defendant
has both said and has written about Deborah Swan is to attack and to discredit.
COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF
Page of 10 29
-
Counter Defendant Ed Snook has not given any reliable or relevant substantial evidence
to prove what he has published in the article is based from factual evidence.
Counter Defendant Ed Snook has not given any reliable or relevant substantial evidence
to prove what he has spoke orally about Deborah Swan is based from factual evidence.
Counter Defendant Snooks statements are based on hearsay.
COUNTER Ed SNOOKS HYPOCRITICAL CONTRADICTIONS OF FALSE PROFILING COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN AS A
911 CONSPIRACY LUNATIC INSANE
A. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has made the false claim that Counter Plaintiff Swan is
a 911 Conspiracy Lunatic.
B. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has used this conspiracy lunatic title against Counter
Plaintiff Swan, while Defendant Ed Snook, the US Observers web page, found at
www.usobserver.com, works with investigative journalists who have been reporting on
the 911 and OCK Bombing as far back as 2002.
C. The following is from Counter Defendants, Ed Snook, The US Observers web page:
D. Devvy is a 911 Truth Seeker, and an investigative reporter and writer, who work with
Counter Defendant Ed Snook, the US Observer.
E. The picture below is a screen shot of the US Observer web page:
F. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has a link to Devvys web site.
Page of 11 29
http://www.usobserver.com
-
Devvys articles are all about 911 being orchestrated by the US Government .
Page of 12 29
-
Article below is one of hundreds. The banner at the top is the US Observers banner.
Page of 13 29
-
The article below was published May 2014, and Devvy speaks about the New World Or-
der and 911 being an inside job
Page of 14 29
-
The screen shot below is the Counter Defendant Snooks web page, and on the right side
Devvy is listed as a feature writer.
Page of 15 29
-
3. PLAINTIFF Ed SNOOKS
CONTRADICTIONS OKC BOMBING
Pursuant to page 3, lines 4 to 7, lines 12, 14, The Plaintiff has made the false claim that
all the Defendant would talk about is the OKC Bombings.
This is outrageous to see the false claim, which the Counter Defendant Snook is trying to
use certain controversial topics, that have never been discussed with the Counter Plaintiff
Swan, to prejudice the court and paint Deborah Swan in a false light.
Devvy has been reporting on the OKC longer than 911:
Page of 16 29
-
\
Page of 17 29
-
Pursuant to page 3, lines 17 to 20, this is the same investigator, Ron Lee, who Defendant
Ed Snook hired to investigate Deborah Swan. Ron Lee has declared Deborah Swan a
government conspiracy lunatic.
Ron Lee is publishing articles about the Demise of America being a government Inside
Job.
Page of 18 29
-
Defendant Ed Snook also has writers that support the ides of an armed militia, but yet
Defendant Snook used the idea of militias against Deborah swan.
Page of 19 29
-
DEFENDANT SNOOK HAS NOT MET BURDEN OF PROOF
A defendant making a special motion to strike under the provisions of this sec-tion has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the claim against which the motion is made arises out of a statement, document or conduct described in subsection (2) of this section. If the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the court shall deny the motion.
A.Plaintiff and his attorney have not produced any substantial evidence or control-
ling statues or law, to prove any of what they claim is lawful or is true.
B. Both the Counter Defendant Ed Snook, and his attorney James Leuenberger have
committed fraud upon this court and against Deborah Swan since August 2014.
C. Defendant Snook has made complete false claims and used his own controversial top-
ics found on his web site, yet he uses against Deborah.
D. Defendant Ed Snooks claims of Defendant Swan being a lunatic, by profiling her as a
conspiracy theorist who is connected to anti government conspiracy, has given the
substantial evidence to prove Ed Snook intent and his true character.
E. Plaintiff has made the false claims that the Defendant has stolen donation money.
F. Plaintiff has accused me of crimes which Deborah Swan has never committed.
G. Defendant Snook has contradict himself by the proof of his own actions.
Page of 20 29
-
H. This court is being used to harass and to cause more harm against Deborah Swan,
with the proof of malicious false accusations in his declaration
I. The evidence of Leuenberger and Snook committing perjury are in record in
both the audio record of the Objection Hearing on November 12, 2014, held in
Judge Thomas Hull's court room.
J. The court documents which have been filed by James Leuenberger in the court
record, is self evident that the crimes of fraud and perjury have been committed
on every one of the motions and affidavits filed in this case. This has become a 4
concerning pattern by the Plaintiff and his attorney Leuenberger.
Counter Defendant Snook has not answered any of the affirmative defense nor has
there been any response to the question in the counter complaint, therefore all are
considered admitted too.
PENTALTY OF PERJURY
According to Oregon Statute 162.065, a person commits the crime of perjury if the
person makes a false sworn statement or a false unsworn declaration in regard to a mater-
ial issue, knowing it to be false.
Where defendant was not administered formal oath, but signed construction lien notice falsely attesting to knowledge and belief of facts assert4 -ed, defendant was guilty of perjury. State v. Carr, 125 Or App 270, 863 P2d 1316 (1993), affd 319 Or 408, 877 P2d 1192 (1994)
Page of 21 29
-
To prove perjury, state must show that defendant knew that statement was false, not that
defendant was uncertain about truthfulness of statement. State v. Park, 120 Or App 294,
852 P2d 872 (1993), Sup Ct review denied.
Plaintiff Ed Snook has committed perjury under the laws of Oregon by declaring that his
declaration is true and correct.
Plaintiff and his attorney James Leuenberger continue to attempt to prejudice this court
against the Defendant by their false claims, and outrageous behavior.
There is nothing within the Oregon Rules, Statutes, or in the Oregon Constitution that
allows perjury to fall under First Amendment protected speech. The type of speech Ed-
ward Snook has used in his Declaration is perjury, which is a crime.
Counter Plaintiff requests an award of the same bill of cost an Oregon attorney
would receive in fees for the cost of this motion . Dated January 26, 2015
/s/ Deborah Swan
Deborah Kay Swan, pro se
Page of 22 29
-
Page of 23 29
COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE BBB
EXHIBIT B
-
Page of 24 29
-
Page of 25 29
EXHIBIT C
-
Page of 26 29
-
I, Deborah Swan, certify that the certifications are true and correct based on my
reasonable knowledge, information, after making of such inquiry as is reasonable
under the circumstances. I certify that this document is not being presented for any
improper purpose. I certify that all allegations or other factual assertions so identi-
fied are supported by evidence.
Deborah KaySwan
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING / SERVICE
I Hereby certify that on 26th day of January, the following parties have been faxed, and mailed a
true copy of this record.
JOSEPHINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT500 NW 6th STREETGRANTS PASS, OR 97526-2037Attn: LISA
JAMES E LUENBERGER5200 SW MEADOWS LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035
Page of 27 29
-
Page of 28 29
-
Page of 29 29