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

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

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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !1

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.
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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !2

5. Denied

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

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.

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' Snooks 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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !3

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) 31.215 Publication of correction or retraction upon demand.
(c)

Plaintiff Snook did not send the pre suit notice to Defendant Swan.

(d)

Oregon Statute 31.215 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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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).

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 Swans conversation is of public interest and

importance.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !5

(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 Swans actions display a concerned citizen with rights to share
with the public her truth of Plaintiff Snooks behaviors against Defendant Swan.
(e)

Plaintiff Snooks 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 defendants 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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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

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 Swans 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 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)

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 Plaintiffs business contract

she had with the U S Observer, show irrefutable evidence of the Plaintiff Snook
committing fraud against the Defendant Swan.
(l)

Plaintiffs Snooks 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 Swans 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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

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

15.

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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

12th AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

NO PROVABLE FALSE ASSERTIONS OF FACT
17.

The Defendant Swans 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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !10

(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:

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !11

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
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !14

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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

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.
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !16

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.
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !17

m.September 2011 Defendant came to his own conclusion that

Deborah Swan was a lunatic.
n. September 2011 Defendant stopped taking any of Deborah Swans
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.
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !18

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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !20

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 Defendants
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."
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !21

(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."

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !25

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 doesnt 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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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

(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.
ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !28

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.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !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.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th August 2014.

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !30

____________________________________________
___________
Deborah Swan, Plainitff

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !31

ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTER CLAIM

- !32