You are on page 1of 6

6/15/2015 11:23:56 PM

14CV0835

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE STATE OF OREGON


FOR THE COUNTY OF JOSEPHINE

EDWARD SNOOK
Plaintiff
vs.
DEBORAH SWAN
Defendant

) Case : 14CV0835
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS


MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant estimated 1 hour will be necessary for telephonic oral argument
361-557-7379.
COUNTER COMPLAINT FILED WITHIN
STATUTORY TIME
Defendant OBJECTS and states the counter complaint is within statutory time.
Pursuant to the Plaintiffs motion, page 1 lines 22 - 23 and page 2, lines 12,
Defamation is a tort that is repeated as often as the statement is published.
Schenck v. Oregon Television, Inc., 146 Or App 430, 435 (1997).
Pursuant to the Complaint, page 20 Answer, Affirmative Defense and Counter
Claim that the Plaintiff published the article as identified is Exhibits A, B and C, to

Page 1

the Defendant Counter Claims some time in March of 2013, has been continually
publishing this article on the public US Observers web page at
www.usobserver.com. This article has been published on the public web page
www.newswithview.com, The article has been public from that time to the current
date. (EXHIBIT 1) The article is still made available to the public with
unauthorized photographs of the Defendant, falsely profiling the Defendant as if
she is dangerous. This article has been viewed at least one time from the states of
North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New York and Washington within the past 12
months of the date of the Defendants counter claim, and has been viewed as
recently as June 2015. The Plaintiff has not alleged any fact to contradict the facts
alleged in the counter claim.

OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFFS


CLAIM OF EXTORTION NOT BEING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Pursuant to page 2, lines 14 through 17, Extortion is supported by Oregon Law and
a valid cause of action.
The Defendant has relative and substantial evidence that proves the Plaintiff has
committed extortion against the Defendant.
The Plaintiff has made direct threats to the Defendant stating he will use his news
paper and the courts to destroy the Defendant if she does not do as he demanded.
These threats fall under the crime of EXTORTION
Page 2

Defendant moves this court to deny the Plaintiff dismissal of the Defendants 3rd
cause of action. There has not been any discover in this case. The Defendant
does have the evidence to support this cause of action and demands the chance to
show this evidence to the court.
OBJECTION TO THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM OF
THERE NOT BEING ANY BREECH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES OR
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT
Page 2, lines 18 through 24, the Plaintiff did have a fiduciary duty to the
Defendant.
A contract is a fiduciary duty and trust that the contract will be fulfilled.
The Plaintiff broke the contract and dropped the Defendant without ever contacting
the Defendant.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant and was originally working
directly with the Defendant.
The Defendant trusted the Plaintiff and entered a contract with the trust that he
would carry out his duties of the contract.
The Defendant trusted the Plaintiff would not turn on the Defendant.
The Plaintiff broke that fiduciary duty by committing slander and libel per se,
against the Defendant.
The Defendant moves this court to not dismiss the Defendants 4th cause of action.

Page 3

FRAUD
Page 3, lines 4 through 17, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant has failed to state a
claim.
The Defendant can prove the Plaintiff committed fraud.
The Plaintiff knowingly made a false representation to the Defendant when he
entered the contract.
The Plaintiff was paid the full $10,000.00 and then denied ever having a contract
with the Defendant.
The Plaintiff disclosed on the Public radio show, that in August 2011 when the
Defendant first contacted the Plaintiff, that he had determined the
Defendant was a lunatic.
May of 2012, the Plaintiff was contacted by Chris Mortenson who introduced
himself as a friend of the Defendant Deborah Swan.
Chris Mortenson agreed to hire the Plaintiff and sent by wire transfer the first
5,000.00
The Plaintiff agreed to put Defendant Swan on the contract and then accepted the
payment from Chris Mortenson.
The Plaintiff committed fraud by acting as if he would work with the Defendant,
and once was paid he then denied having a contract with the Defendant.
These details clearly prove that fraud was committed by the Plaintiff.

Page 4

The Defendant OBJECTS to the Plaintiff entire Motion to Dismiss.


The Defendant moves this court to allow a Oral Argument before granting this
motion.
The Defendant has the relevant evidence to prove the causes of actions in her
counter claim.
The Defendant has been damaged by the Plaintiff and has a right to present her
case and her case be judged on its merits.

Dated this 15th day of June 2015.


/s/ Deborah Swan
self represented litigant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ON JUNE 15, 2015, I sent by e file a true copy of this document to James
Leuenebrger at jim@fights4rights.com.

/s/ Deborah Swan


self represented litigant

Page 5

SCREEN SHOT ON
JUNE 15, 2015

Page 6

You might also like