20140808 sent to oregon 3.pdf

Deborah Swan pro se 1318 Chesterpoint Dr. Spring, TX 77386 debbyswan@liv(e)com 361-557-7379

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE

1. ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, DEBORAH SWAN answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Edward Snook as follows:

2. ANSWERS

1. Denied Plaintiff Snook has failed to allege the ultimate sufficient essential facts to establish that this court, in which he filed, has jurisdiction over the case.

Plaintiff name Edward D Snook vs. Defendant name Deborah Swan

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case : 14CV0835 ANSWER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COUNTER CLAIM

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM - !1

mailto:[email protected]

2. Denied Plaintiff Snook claimed the first alleged defamatory comments were 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 The alleged defamatory statement is the “opinion” of the Defendant Swan based from the actions by Plaintiff Snook toward the Defendant Swan.

4. Denied The statements concerning the Plaintiff Snook is the opinion of Defendant Swan based on her business relationship with Plaintiff Snook, which does not constitute defamation.

Oregon’s 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 plaintiff’s damages.


5. Denied Plaintiff Snook is only entitled to recover general damages if he sent a

correction or retraction as provided in Oregon’s Retraction Statute, ORS 30.150-

30.175. 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. An action for libel or slander shall be commenced within one year. [Amended by 1957 c.374 §2]

(a)An action for libel or slander must be filed within one year of the date of occurrence. (b) ORS 12.120(2).Plaintiff' Snook’s action is barred by the applicable statute of 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.

2nd AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE


FAILURE TO MEET CONDITIONS PRECEDENT Or.R.Civ.P.20

7. Oregon Rule 20 requires pre-suit notice prior to the commencement of any civil action.

(a)Oregon Law for libel or slander applies to all civil litigants, both public and private, in defamation actions.

(b) § 31.215¹ Publication of correction or retraction upon demand.

(c) Plaintiff Snook did not send the “pre suit notice” to Defendant Swan.

(d) Oregon Statute § 31.215¹ constitutes a release from liability since Plaintiff 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 be dismissed with prejudice

3rd AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: GOOD MOTIVE – FAIR COMMENT

8. All statements and comments made by Defendant about Plaintiff were made by the Defendant with good motive and were fair comments made as a private citizen exercising her right of free speech, discussing matters of public importance, as a concerned citizen of the community.


(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 motive’s 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). Defendant Swan claims the affirmative defense of fair comments/statements 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-conviction case of Charles Dyer.

(b) Plaintiff Snook and Defendant Swan’s conversation is of public interest and importance.


(c) Plaintiff Snook, owner of the U S Observer was hired by Defendant Swan to take on this high profile post-conviction case for her friend Charles Dyer. (EXHIBIT 2) (d)) Defendant Swan’s actions display a concerned citizen with rights to share with the public her truth of Plaintiff Snook’s behaviors against Defendant Swan.

(e) Plaintiff Snook’s malicious acts against the Defendant are self-evident within this YouTube video. (EXHIBIT 3)

5th Affirmative Defense THREATS

10. Plaintiff Snook has made threats towards Defendant Swan. (a) This conversations published in this YouTube Video proves the threats made by Plaintiff Snook.

(b) Defendant has a right to share this conversation as good and fair motives for the safety of Defendant Swan.

(c) 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 defendant’s statement in the alleged YouTube video titled “US Observer Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromise" is privileged.

(a) The alleged statement published in the YouTube video titled “US Observer Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromised” is the Defendant Swan's


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 Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromised” became an area of public concern of which affect the interest of the public supporters of Charles Dyer, the general public and the patriot community.

(d) This alleged You Tube Video conversation was uploaded on You Tube titled US Observer Hired to Expose Corruption has been Compromised” was made available to the public in good faith by the Defendant Swan.

(e) Defendant Swan’s action of informing the public of what she experienced with the Plaintiff Ed Snook is for the good of the public, the patriot community, the family and supporters of Charles Dyer.

(f) Plaintiff Snook’s 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 defendant’s 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


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) Defendant Swan's actions of making her opinion based on a business relationship with the Plaintiff are protected by “privilege”.

(k) The actions addressed by Defendant concerning Plaintiff’s business contract she had with the U S Observer, show irrefutable evidence of the Plaintiff Snook committing fraud against the Defendant Swan.

(l) Plaintiff’s Snook’s activities in the Charles Dyer post-conviction case are 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) Therefore the Defendant Swan’s statements are protected by privileged.

7th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

12. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should therefore be dismissed with prejudice.


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. No act or omission on the part of Defendant Swan either caused or 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.

10th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH

15. 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.


(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 public’s 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.

12th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NO PROVABLE FALSE ASSERTIONS OF FACT

17. The Defendant Swan’s statements are not properly subject to defamation 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.


(c) An opinion is not actionable if it discloses all the statements of fact on which 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.

13th AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE JURISDICTION

18. (a)Plaintiff Snook has failed to allege the ultimate sufficient essential facts to establish that this court has jurisdiction over the case.

(b)Defendant Swan is located in Texas.

14th AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE HARASSMENT

OREGON PENAL CODE 166.065

19. Plaintiff Snook has committed harassment against Defendant Swan. (a)Plaintiff has publically accused Defendant of crimes she has not committed. (EXHIBIT 9) (b) Plaintiff has spoken on public radio shows that he is working to have 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 commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally:


a. Harasses or annoys another person by:

b. Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact;

c. Publicly insulting such other person by abusive words or gestures in a manner intended and likely to provoke a violent response;

d. Subjects another to alarm by conveying a false report, known by the conveyor to be false, concerning death or serious physical injury to a person, which report reasonably would be expected to cause alarm; (EXHIBIT 10)

e. Subjects another to alarm by conveying a telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious harm

15th AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE THEFT BY DECEPTION

OREGON PENAL CODE 164.085

20. Plaintiff has committed theft by deception by deceptively entering a contract with the Defendant.

Once the Defendant paid the full retainer of $10,000.00, Plaintiff Snook denied having any contract with the Defendant. (EXHIBIT 11) The Oregon Penal Code 164.085 describes these acts by Plaintiff Snook against Defendant as being “theft by deception”.

A person, who obtains property of another thereby, commits theft by deception when, with intent to defraud, the person: Creates or confirms another's false


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


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


Deborah Swan pro se 1318 Chesterpoint Dr. Spring, TX 77386 debbyswan@liv(e)com 361-557-7379

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE


mailto:[email protected]

1 DEFENDNAT DEBORAH SWAN’S 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. This is an action for money damages.

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.

Plaintiff name Deborah K. Swan vs. Defendant name Edward Snook and U S Observer

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case:_______ DEFENDANT;S COUNTER-CLAIM


GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

a. Defendant, The Us Observer is owned by Ed Snook.

b. US~Observer is a privately owned investigative reports and commentary publication – newspaper.

c. The US~Observer has been in publication, under various names, since 1992.

d. The US Observer has successfully championed the causes of more than 4,200 cases of individuals who have been wronged by the “justice system” or another party.

e. The U S Observer, Ed Snook charges a 10,000.00 retainer which he claims is earned upon receiving.

f. Defendant Ed Snook has a web site where he publishes his archived newspaper.

g. Us Observer's current website archives date back to 2005 through 2014.

h. Defendant Ed Snook reports news involving corruption within our judicial courts and governments.

i. Defendant offers the following service's as part of his journalistic investigation into cases: Civil • Criminal • Theft • Blackmail • Stalkers • Surveillance • Defamation • Missing Persons • Fraud • Asset Search • Legal Malpractice

j. June and July of 2011 Plaintiff contacted Defendant Snook to see if he would take the case pro Bono but defendant refused.

k. August 12 2011 Plaintiff contacted Defendant again asking for help but defendant wanted a 10,000.00 retainer.

l. August 19, 2011 Plaintiff called Defendant for help and Defendant sent a contract to Plaintiff.


m.September 2011 Defendant came to his own conclusion that Deborah Swan was a lunatic.

n. September 2011 Defendant stopped taking any of Deborah Swan’s calls.

o. May 24, 2012 Plaintiff was contacted by a supporter named Chris Mortenson who offered to help with the unlawful conviction.

p. May 25, 2012 Chris Mortenson contacted defendant and introduced himself as Deborah Swan's friend.

q. May 25, 2012 Defendant never shared his personal view with Chris Mortenson during their phone conversation about Deborah Swan being a lunatic.

r. On 25 May 2012 Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contractual agreement with defendant.

s. Defendant was paid $10,000.00 by Chris Mortenson in two separate payments of 5,000.00 each.

t. June 26, 2012 Defendant Snook was working with the Plaintiff and complimented Swan's evidence.

u. Defendant asked Plaintiff to forward all her evidence to him and his lead investigator Loren Dey.

v. Plaintiff informed Defendant of the trouble she was having by the group of people who was working with Janet Dyer. (mother of Charles Dyer)

w. Defendant asked the Plaintiff to provide a list of the names and affiliations of "good and bad" parties involved with the support group.

x. May 2012 This group publicly accused Plaintiff of stealing U S Observer donation money .

y. Plaintiff contacted Defendant about the public ridicule.


z. Plaintiff was assured by Defendant that he would stop the rumors.

aa.June 26 2012 Defendant contacted Plaintiff and informed that all evidence has been gone through.

bb.Defendant told Plaintiff that his lead investigator was

impressed with her and even complimented Plaintiff's evidence.

cc.Defendant told Plaintiff he was looking forward to meeting her in Oklahoma.

dd.Defendant told Plaintiff he might need her to help their investigation when they go to Oklahoma.

ee.Defendant told Plaintiff some of her evidence is enough to get Charles Dyer free.

ff. Defendant told plaintiff there may be a conspiracy against Charles Dyer.

gg.Defendant told Plaintiff that some of her evidence they could use in a post-conviction case for Charles Dyer.

hh.Defendant told Plaintiff that they were 50 hours in the case.

ii. Defendant asked Plaintiff for the next 5,000.00 to go to Oklahoma.

jj. June 28, 2012 Defendant spoke with the supporter Chris

Mortenson that he refuses to work with Plaintiff.

kk.June 29, 2012 Defendant told Chris Mortenson that Plaintiff wasted all the money and was a lunatic.

ll. Defendant put Janet Dyer on Plaintiff's contract.

mm. July 2012 Plaintiff sent a email informing Defendant that she was canceling their contract.

nn.July 19, 2012 Defendant denied having any contract with Plaintiff.


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 doesn’t “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


1. 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.

2. Defendant Snook has committed defamation in the form of Libel per se. The Plaintiff has irrefutable evidence to prove actual malice by Defendant Snook.

3. Plainitff Swan has the evidence to show the proof of Defendant’s mental state toward Plaintff shows irrefutable evil intent.

4. Plaintiff recently learned that Defendant wrote a 2 page article about Plaintiff.

5. Defendant Snook published this article in the US Observer's newspaper.

6. Defendant distributed the article. 7. This article is still currently being spread all over the internet. 8. This article is also available from the US Observer's web site.

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:

(a)"Deborah Swan hinders the Charles Dye Investigation."

(b)."our investigation was literally ruined by Swan in that it became an impossibility to conduct investigation due to her use of the internet, where people being investigated were alerted about my work."


(c)"Deborah is a Paranoid schizophrenic."

(d)."Deborah Swan is a dangerous conspiracy theorist a lunatic."

(e)“Deborah Swan was serving time in prison and she was released early, well before she could legally be released - she must be working for the feds as a snitch."

(f)"I dropped Swan as a client because she is factually a liar who files

false charges against people, who refuses to buy into her conspiracy theories."

(g)"Swan continually raised money, alleged to help Dyer with legal fees, ect, however much of this was used to support her life on the

road as she traveled around the country allegedly infiltrating patriot groups and promoting her conspiracy theories. "

(h)"One witness recently stated," I discovered that Swan raised 1900.00 for Charles that he never received."

(i)"Deborah was serving time in prison and she was released early , well before she could legally be released she must be working for the feds as a snitch."

(j) "Her pattern throughout her roughly two years of allegedly "attempting to help Dyer has been to get next to his friends and family, start trouble by making false accusations against people and by attempting to make herself look important."


(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


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.


(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 it’s 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.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Deborah Swan demands judgment against Defendant Snook and the U S Observer for injunctive relief, actual, special, and compensatory damages in an amount 2 million dollars paid by Edward Snook and the U S Observer.

3rd CAUSE OF ACTION

EXTORTION 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.Defendant has made direct threats to the plaintiff with the requisite appearance to the plaintiff, that the Defendants threats he is working to carry out.

(a)Snook threatened the plaintiff about the complaints she filed to the Dept. of Justice.

(b)Defendant demanded plaintiff to “call the Department of Justice and tell them the truth or he would destroy her.

(c)Defendant threatened the plaintiff he is working to destroy her since she did to do what he demanded of her.

(d)Defendant threatened to destroy plaintiff if she doesn’t take down a You Tube video plaintiff uploaded on You Tube.

(e)Defendant has openly stated that he has a file on the plaintiff and an opened investigation.


(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)Defendant’s 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 Plaintiff’s 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.

Defendant’s 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


(a)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.

(b)Defendant's failure to deliver by breaching his fiduciary duties by the Defendants defamation, fraud, extortion, slander, intentional emotional stress, which caused a breach of contract.

(c)Plaintiff had a business agreement with the Defendant.

(d)July 19, 2011 Defendant denied having a contract with Plaintiff after the full retainer had been paid.

(e)Plaintiff paid the Defendant.

(f)Defendant violated his fiduciary duties of trust when he dropped Plaintiff without notifying the Plaintiff.

(g)Defendant breached his fiduciary duties when he threatened to "give Plaintiff a hard time"

(h)Defendant breached his fiduciary duties when slandered Plaintiff by accusing her of being a factual liar and a lunatic.

(i)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.

(j)Defendant contracted with Plaintiff by deceptive acts, misrepresentation, fraud, libel, slander, deceit, lies, verbal abuse, threats, and false accusation of Plaintiff committing crimes.

WHEREFORE As a proximate result of Defendant's breach his fiduciary

duties which caused Plaintiff to suffer substantial money damages.


Deborah Swan demands judgment for 2 million in money damages against Edward Snook, US Observer, Defendant, together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just.

5TH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD

(a)Defendant entered a contact with Swan by fraud.

(b)Defendant's failure to deliver by breaching his fiduciary duties by the Defendants defamation, fraud, extortion, slander, intentional emotional stress, which caused a breach of contract.

(c)Plaintiff had a business agreement with the Defendant.

(d)July 19, 2011 Defendant denied having a contract with Plaintiff after the full retainer had been paid.

(e)Plaintiff paid the Defendant.

(f)Defendant violated his fiduciary duties of trust when he dropped Plaintiff without notifying the Plaintiff.

(k)Defendant breached his fiduciary duties when he threatened to "give Plaintiff a hard time

(l)Defendant breached his fiduciary duties when slandered Plaintiff by accusing her of being a factual liar and a lunatic.


(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 Swan’s reputation is destroyed which has cost her everything. Defendant Swan’s massage therapy practice is destroyed and her ability to build another clientele in her community is not possible due to the public defamation. Deborah Swan’s 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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th August 2014.


_______________________________________________________

Deborah Swan, Plainitff


20140808 sent to oregon 3.pdf

Documents