Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff name
Edward D Snook
vs.
Defendant name
Deborah Swan
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case : 14CV0835
ANSWER
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COUNTER CLAIM
1.
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant, DEBORAH SWAN answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Edward
Snook as follows:
2.
ANSWERS
1. Denied
facts to establish that this court, in which he filed, has jurisdiction over the case.
- !1
2. Denied
found on June 2014. Defendant Swan can prove the alleged defamatory comment
was first found by the Plaintiff Snook as early as August 9, 2012.
3. Denied
Defendant Swan based from the actions by Plaintiff Snook toward the Defendant
Swan.
4. Denied
Defendant Swan based on her business relationship with Plaintiff Snook, which
does not constitute defamation.
Oregons Retraction Statute, ORS 30.150-30.175, provides that a plaintiff may not
recover so-called general damages (damages which are not measurable by proof of
a specific monetary loss. In the context of defamation, general damages are
designed to compensate the plaintiff for the harm to reputation -a harm which is
not measurable in a money loss.) unless a correction or retraction is demanded but
not published. Otherwise, the only way a plaintiff might recover general damages
is if he or she can prove that the media defendant actually intended to defame him
or her a very high standard to meet. Even in that situation, the publication of a
correction or retraction may be considered to mitigate the plaintiffs damages.
- !2
5. Denied
correction or retraction as provided in Oregons Retraction Statute, ORS 30.15030.175. Plaintiff Snook has not followed the Oregon Statue of proving
damages to this claim, therefore is not entitled to damages.
3.
AFFERMATIVE DEFENSES
Further the Defendant Swan asserts the following defenses and
states:
1st AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
STATUE OF LIMITATIONS
6.
limitations.
(c) The alleged statement complained of was published on You Tube in the video
titled, U S Observer Hired to Expose the Corruption involved in the Charles
Dyer case is Compromised took place more than 1 year prior to the filing of this
action and is, pursuant to Oregon Statue is barred.
- !3
Plaintiff Snook did not send the pre suit notice to Defendant Swan.
(d)
Snook did not follow Statue by sending a demand for correction or retraction to
Defendant Swan.
(e)
The conditions precedent has not been met and thus the complaint should
- !4
(a) The alleged defamatory statements contained in the video uploaded to You
Tube titled, US Observer Hired to Expose the Corruption in Charles Dyer is
Compromised are from the original recorded conversation between Defendant
Swan and Plaintiff Snook. (EXHIBIT 1)
(b)
Defendant Swan has only good motives to share this video US Observer
Hired to Expose the Corruption in Charles Dyer is Compromised with the public
due to the public interest
with this case.
(c).
that she published on YouTube, video called US Observer Hired to Expose the
Corruption in Charles Dyer is Compromised
(d)). Defendant Swan has a right to share this video with the conversations as good
and fair motives for the safety of Defendant Swan due to the numerous threats the
Plaintiff has made against her.
4th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FREE SPEECH
ORS 31.150(2)
9. Defendant Swan is a private citizen exercising her right of free speech.
(a)
The topics discussed in the alleged video are about the high profiled post-
importance.
- !5
(c)
take on this high profile post-conviction case for her friend Charles Dyer.
(EXHIBIT 2)
(d)) Defendant Swans actions display a concerned citizen with rights to share
with the public her truth of Plaintiff Snooks behaviors against Defendant Swan.
(e)
Defendant has a right to share this conversation as good and fair motives for
Defendant has a right to share these threats made by Plaintiff Snook this with
all people of interest, who have been following the Charles Dyer case.
6th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
PRIVILEGE
11. The defendants statement in the alleged YouTube video titled US Observer
Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromise" is privileged.
(a)
- !6
opinions and conclusions based on her review of the plaintiff's Snook's actions/
behaviors he acted out towards her during these conversations in the video.
(b) The YouTube video titled US Observer Hired to Expose Corruption has been
Compromised published by Defendant Swan with the alleged comments
concerning Plaintiff Snook are her opinion, which was based from the Plaintiff's
extreme actions, threats, and behaviors towards Defendant. (EXHIBIT 4)
(c)
The topics discussed in the alleged You Tube Video titled US Observer
This alleged You Tube Video conversation was uploaded on You Tube titled
with the Plaintiff Ed Snook is for the good of the public, the patriot community, the
family and supporters of Charles Dyer.
(f) Plaintiff Snooks proof of his actions and behaviors are displayed in the alleged
video, US Observer Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromised.
(EXHIBIT 5)
(g) This video shows the public irrefutable evidence of the events which took place
between the Plaintiff Snook and Defendant Swan that support the defendants
opinion.
(h)
The performance of Plaintiff Ed Snook, the direct threats, extortion, the lies
and slander which Plaintiff Ed Snook has participated against Defendant Swan, is
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM
- !7
why Defendant Swan made her opinion/conclusion of the Plaintiff Snook being a
Scam and a Fraud.
(EXHIBIT 6)
(i) Therefore the Defendant Swan's alleged defamatory statement is based on her
personal opinion/ conclusions.
(j)
she had with the U S Observer, show irrefutable evidence of the Plaintiff Snook
committing fraud against the Defendant Swan.
(l)
areas of concern which affect the interest of the general public and the supporters
of Charles Dyer.
(m)
These statements were made by the Defendant Swan in good faith with the
proper motives of informing the public to the behaviors of the Plaintiff Snook.
(n)
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
- !8
The requisite elements for the claim are not present and or have not been properly
pled by Plaintiff Snook. (EXHIBIT 7)
8th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
LACK OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY DEFENDANT
STATUE
13.
contributed to whatever injury (if any) the Plaintiff Snook may have sustained.
9th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO MITIGATE DAMAGES
STATUTE
14. Plaintiff Snook has failed to mitigate his damages.
SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH
Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
(a) Defamation law does not prevent Defendant Swan from publishing true
information about Plaintiff Snook.
(b) The alleged YouTube video is the truth of what Defendant Swan
experienced with Plaintiff Snook.
(c) The alleged comments made by Defendant Swan is based on the events which
took place between Plaintiff Snook and Swan.
- !9
(c) Defendant Swan affirmatively asserts that all statements and comments she
made about Plaintiff were true and based from her personal experience and thus,
cannot be the basis for a defamation action.
11th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
PLAINTIFF AS PUBLIC FIGURE
16. Plaintiff Snook, owner of the US Observer newspaper, webpage and
investigative services is a public figure.
(a) Plaintiff Snook has been in the publics view for over 20 years.
(EXHIBIT 8)
(b) Plaintiff Snook with being a public figure as such is unable to meet his
heightened burden of proof to sustain the claim.
suit.
(a) Plaintiff Snook's complaint contained no provability of Defendant Swan stating
a false assertion of fact. (EXHIBIT 9)
(b) Defendant Swan's opinions/conclusions are based on proven facts by the
Plaintiff's behaviors found within the alleged video.
- !10
(c)
the opinion is based and those statements are true. (Ruiz v. Harbor View
Community Assn. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1471 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133] (Ruiz)
(d) Therefore Defendant Swan's statements are not actionable since Defendant
Swan has factual basis for her opinion.
(a)Plaintiff has publically accused Defendant of crimes she has not committed.
(EXHIBIT 9)
(b)
Defendant Swan arrested since she did not obey his demands.
(EXHIBIT 10)
(c)
This falls under the Oregon Penal Code 166.065 which states: A person
- !11
- !12
impression of law, value, intention or state of mind which the actor does not
believe to be true;
Fails to correct a false impression which the person previously created or
confirmed; Prevents another from acquiring information pertinent to the
disposition of the property
(EXHIBIT 11)
ransfers or encumbers property, failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim or other
legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether such impediment is or
is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record;
Promises performance which the person does not intend to perform or knows will
not be performed "Deception" does not include falsity as to matters having no
pecuniary significance, or representations unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in
the group addressed.
In a prosecution for theft by deception, intention or belief that promise would not
be performed shall not be established by or inferred from the fact alone that such
promise was not performed.
WHEREFORE, now having fully answered said Complaint, Defendant request that
said Compliant be dismissed with prejudice and Defendant be awarded said cost of
this suit.
I, Deborah Swan, certify that the certifications are true and correct based on my
reasonable knowledge, information, and belief formed after making of such inquiry
as is reasonable under the circumstances. I certify that this document is not being
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM
- !13
presented for any improper purpose. I certify that all allegations factual assertions
so identified are supported by evidence .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th August 2014.
________________________________
Deborah Swan, Defendant
- !14
- !15
Plaintiff name
Deborah K. Swan
vs.
Defendant name
Edward Snook and
) Case:_______
)
) DEFENDANT;S
)
) COUNTER-CLAIM
)
)
)
)
)
U S Observer
1
DEFENDNAT DEBORAH SWANS VERIFIED COUNTER-COMPLAINT
DEMAND JURY TRIAL ON ALL COUNTS
Plaintiffs Deborah Swan is a victim of a vicious defamation campaign which
brings the following causes of actions to this court. Plaintiff Deborah Swan sues
defendants Edward Snook and the U S Observer for money damages and states:
2.
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1.
2.
At all times material to this lawsuit, Edward Snook was a resident of
Josephine County Oregon.
3.
At all times material to this lawsuit, Deborah Swan was a resident of
Montgomery County, Texas.
4.
At all times material to this lawsuit U S Observer is a business located
in Grants Pass Oregon.
5.
All acts by Defendant listed in this complaint, which are necessary or
precedent to the bringing of this lawsuit occurred or accrued in Josephine
County, Oregon.
3.
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM
- !16
- !17
- !18
- !19
oo. July 19, 2012 Defendant threatened to Plaintiff to give her a hard
time
pp. July 19, 2012 Defendant refused to speak with Plaintiff by
hanging up on her when she attempted to speak with him.
qq. August 4, 2012 Plaintiff uploaded on You Tube the
recorded conversations she had of Defendant threatening her.
rr. Plaintiff reported the US Observer, Ed Snook to the Department of
Justice Consumer Complaints.
ss. Plaintiff reported Defendant to the BBB.
tt. August 9, 2012 Defendant threatened Plaintiff with opening a file if
Swan doesnt stop filing false complaints.
uu.September 2012 Defendant contacted Charles Dyer and told him to
stay away from Plaintiff and she was hurting his investigation.
vv. April 2013 Plaintiff's friend Charles Dyer made a public
denouncement to his supporters against Plaintiff declaring her an
enemy.
ww. March 2013 Defendant published a 2 page article about Plaintiff
accusing her of crimes.
xx.April 2013 Defendant spoke 2 hours about Plaintiff on a blog talk
radio show accusing her of committing crimes, stealing money,
working with the FBI as a snitch, along with other false claims.
yy. May 2014 Plaintiff sent a "demand to retract" letter to Defendant.
(EXHIBIT 12)
zz. July 2014 Defendant filed a suit against Plaintiff.
1st
CAUSE OF ACTION
LIBEL PER SE
- !20
9. The link to this article is found on many public internet pages such as
Scribd.com, Facebook.com, Youtube.com, Blogtalkradio.com
10.This article has the following false and malicious statements which
were intended to impeach Plaintiff honesty, integrity, virtue. destroy
her reputation, and create a public hate for Deborah Swan.
11.The attached Exhibit A, B, C is the full article published by
Defendant.
12.The following statements are, but not limited to, the following:
- !21
- !22
(k)"while all the time claiming the feds were following her, that her
phone lines were tapped, and that there was a great conspiracy
against Dyer, being orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of
Investigations (FBI)"
(l)"According to one US Observer source, "An FBI Agent attempted
to file charges against Swan for illegally taping him and he couldn't
get charges filed. The only answer I could come up
with is that Swan has some substantial protection from the legal
system."
(m)"I have also been informed that her Pacer record has been sealed.
(electronic access to court documents) I soon will get to the bottom
of that."
(n)"Swan has filed false reports with the Oregon Department of
Justice and the Better Business Bureau against myself and the US
Observer."
(o)"She even filed complaints for Chris Mortenson against us with the
same entities."
(p)"as for myself I have opened an investigation regarding both Swan
and Mortenson, as I acquired the strong opinion that they are both
completely dangerous lunatics."
WHEREFORE Swan Plaintiff demands judgment for 2 million dollars in money
damages against Defendants, together with such other and further relief as the
Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances.
2nd
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM
- !23
CAUSE OF ACTION
SLANDER PER SE
Swan repeats and alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 5 above with the same force and effect as if herein set
forth.
1) Plaintiff Swan has recently discovered a public radio show where Defendant
Snook, U S Observer was a guest on.
2) This was a 2 hour broadcast where Defendant spoke lies about the Plaintiff,
accusing her of committing crimes, claiming she works as a snitch for the
FBI, with the goal of destroying Plaintiff.
3) Defendant Snook spoke about his involvement with the Charles Dyer case.
6. Defendant Snook spoke about his focus is to have Plaintiff put in prison.
7. Defendant spoke false malicious and slanderous statements about Plaintiff
8. The outrageous behavior of Defendant Snook shows malicious intent against
plaintiff to create a public hate against her.
9. The following are direct statements from the radio broadcast which is still
available to the public, and can be found on You Tube, Blog talk Radio,
Revolution Radio, and many other public links.
(EXHIBIT
(a) "Back to Swan and how she came in my world. She called me and told me a
similar story back in the end of 2011. She came back in 2011 and she said
she had to have my help. I was the only guy that could help Charles Dyer.
She was in Florida and said the FBI was following her, she said her phone
was bugged. "I told her, what I would say to you I want the FBI to hear, there
is no conspiracy here" and this went on and off for about 5 6 months. She
kept saying I need to get the money and she was trying to get me sucked into
to the case for pro Bono. She told me it was a huge deal and the FBI was out
to get Charles and pretty wild I finally concluded she was a lunatic"
(b)"I came to the conclusion with some bits of evidence that Deborah Swan in
my opinion and I'll know when I get done with looking into her, that she is in
fact working for the feds.
- !24
(c) "Paranoid schizophrenic I guarantee we are talking about the same gal."
(d) "So we just are in the process of dealing with people on Dyers case, which
should of happened a year ago if it had not of been from Swan, and before
its over Deb will be in prison and if not in prison then everyone will know
what they have done and they are dangerous. "
(e)"she works for the fed and she has been using the Dyer case to feed herself
and run around the country and whoever she is working for, giving them info
and got them on the hook like she has done Mortenson."
(f) "She has the feds on the hooks and she is using the Dyer case to promote
herself and feed herself."
(g)"I told her she should stay away from Swan and if Chris doesn't stay away
from Swan then she could kiss her marriage goodbye."
(h) "Swan has ruined them financially."
(i) "She has protection and I was told she had cocaine charges in Texas and she
got out of prison early."
The statements imputed by Defendant Snook about Plaintiff Swan, the slurs
on Swan's character by defendant, including her honesty, integrity, virtue, or
reputation.
The oral, written and spoken statements by Snook using Swan as his scapegoat.
accusing Swan of hindering his investigation, then accusing Swan of stealing
money, draining bank accounts, breaking up marriages, then openly admitting on
working to have "Swan put in prison because she is a dangerous lunatic."
These defamatory statements both spoken and written, are direct threats to Swan's
freedom as well as creating a public hate against Swan that could possibly cause
Swan to be physically harmed. Snook has caused a substantial liability to Swan.
- !25
(e)Defendant has openly stated that he has a file on the plaintiff and an opened
investigation.
- !26
(f)Defendant has threatened plaintiff to use his newspaper as his weapon against
her.
(g)Defendant has stated that he is working on exposing plaintiff to everyone in
the world to know what a dangerous lunatic she is.
(h)Defendant admits that since plaintiff did not do as he demanded, that he
published his first article about Plaintiff.
(i)Defendant has distributed this article to all of the supporters of Charles Dyer,
the Patriot Community, his subscribers located worldwide.
(j)Defendants actions are pure malice to create public hate for plaintiff
Defendant has accused plaintiff of crimes including, theft, chastity, while
claiming the plaintiff is working for the FBI as a snitch.
This outrageous behavior has ruined Plaintiffs reputation, her ability to
make a living, destroyed her friendship with Charles Dyer, has created a
public hate against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is being used as a scape goat for the defendants claiming she has
hindered his investigation.
Defendants outrageous malicious behaviors are self -evident of malicious
intent.
This is proven by the defendants own public statements.
WHEREFORE Swan Plaintiff demands judgment for 2 million dollars in money
damages against Defendants, together with such other and further relief as the
Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances.
4TH
CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF FIDICIARY DUTIES
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM
- !27
- !28
- !29
(m)May 26, 2012 Defendant breached his fiduciary duty be entering into a
contract under his predetermined conclusion that the Plaintiff was paranoid,
not telling the truth, and a lunatic.
(n)Defendant entered a contract by fraud, deceptive acts, misrepresentation,
deceit, and lies.
(o)As a proximate result of Defendant's breach his fiduciary duties which
caused Plaintiff to suffer substantial money damages.
WHEREFORE Deborah Swan This full amount of 8 million dollars is
justified and reasonable considering the irreparable damage and public
humiliation that has destroyed Swan's name, business, private and personal
life. Due to Defendants impact and his access to reach millions of people
through his newspaper, and web site, Deborah Swans reputation is
destroyed which has cost her everything. Defendant Swans massage therapy
practice is destroyed and her ability to build another clientele in her
community is not possible due to the public defamation. Deborah Swans
family has been influenced by this situation as well as the relationship Swan
had with Charles Dyer has been destroyed. Defendant has caused Charles
Dyer to believe that Swan is the reason he is still in prison. The mother of
Charles Dyer has used the U S Observer newspaper and article against
Deborah Swan and spreads the link all around to Charles supporters. This
situation will continue to grow with the continued public interest in the
Charles Dyer story.
I, Deborah Swan, certify that the certifications are true and correct based on my
reasonable knowledge, information, and belief formed 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 identified are supported by evidence and further investigation and
discovery.
- !30
____________________________________________
___________
Deborah Swan, Plainitff
- !31
- !32