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

Ed SNOOK Case No: 14CV0835 Counter Defendant

vs.

DEBORAH SWAN COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWANS Counter Plaintiff REPLY TO COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER DEFEDNANT SNOOKS MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER PLAINITFF SWANS COUNTERCLAIMS

Counter Plaintiff Swan requests a Telephonic Oral Argument with 1

1 hour to present her argument. The number is 361-557-7379.

COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN REPLYS TO COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS DECLERATION IN SUPPORT MOTION

TO STIKE COUNTER CLAIM 31.150

31.150 Special motion to strike; when available; burden of proof. (1) A de-fendant may make a special motion to strike against a claim in a civil action de-scribed in subsection (2) of this section. The court shall grant the motion unless the plaintiff establishes in the manner provided by subsection (3) of this section that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. The special

Counter Plaintiff is Deborah Swan through out this document.1

Page of 1 30

motion to strike shall be treated as a motion to dismiss under ORCP 21 A but shall not be subject to ORCP 21 F. Upon granting the special motion to strike, the court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice. If the court denies a special motion to strike, the court shall enter a limited judgment denying the motion.

A. Pursuant to the Counter Defendant Snooks DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2

MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTER CLAIM, Counter Defendant Snook has not met

his burden of proof that is required. 3

B. Pursuant to ORS 31.150 (3) Plaintiff Snook must first must meet initial burden of

making a prima facie showing that the claims against which the motion is made, arises

out of a statement, document or conduct described in subsection (2).

C. If the Counter Defendant Snook meets this burden, then the burden shifts to the

Counter Plaintiff Swan, in the action to establish that there is a probability that the she

will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie

case.

D. Counter Plaintiff Swan can meet this burden of proof with substantial evidence.\

E. Counter Defendant Snook has not presented substantial evidence to meet his initial

burden of proof.

Counter Defendant is Ed Snook and US Observer through out this document.2

PROOF: Evidence that tends to establish the existence or truth of a fact at issue in a case.3

Page of 2 30

F. Counter Defendant Snook has only offered hearsay which is not admissible evidence.

COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWANS DEMAND AND RETRACT NOTICE WAS TIMELY SENT TO THE COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK

A. Pursuant to page 1, lines 19 - 22, the Counter Defendant Snook has claimed the de-

mand and retraction notice that was sent by the Counter Plaintiff Swan was not timely.

B. Counter Defendant Snook is stating a false fact of law, regarding the Counter Plaintiff

Swan demand and retraction notice.

C. May 17, 2014, Counter Plaintiff Swan did follow the Oregon Statute 31.150 by send-

ing a timely demand to retraction notice to Counter Defendant Ed Snook, US Observ-

er, who is the author publisher, and distributor of the defamatory article.

D. Counter Defendant Snook ignored the Counter Plaintiff Swans Demand to Retract no-

tice and did not remove the defamatory article.

E. June 26, 2014, Counter Defendant Snook retaliated again against Counter Plaintiff

Swan, by filing a frivolous law suit against Deborah Swan.

F. Counter Defendant Snook has made numerous public and private threats against

Counter Plaintiff Deborah Swan.

G. Counter Defendant Snook continued to publish the defamatory article from March

2013, up to the month of January 2015.

Page of 3 30

H. Counter Defendant has intentionally caused substantial harm to Counter Plaintiff

Swan.

I. Counter Defendant Snook defamatory article is published on the US Observer web

page found at http://www.usobserver.com/archive/march-13/deborah-swan.htm,

J. Counter Defendant Snooks defamatory article has published unauthorized pictures of

the Counter Plaintiff Swan, to intentionally cause damage to Counter Plaintiff and

cast her in a false light.

Page of 4 30

http://www.usobserver.com/archive/march-13/deborah-swan.htm

Page of 5 30

COUNTER DEFENDANT Ed SNOOK KNOWINGLY PUBLISHED FALSE STATEMENTS AS FACTS WITH MALICIOUS INTENT TO CAUSE HARM

AGAISNT COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN

A. Pursuant to page 2, lines 1 through 4, Counter Defendant Snook has committed per-

jury by claiming he did not know his statements he published about Counter Plaintiff

Swan were false.

B. Counter Plaintiff Swan has substantial evidence to prove Counter Defendant Ed Snook

knowingly published false statements which he knew were false about the Defendant

Swan with malicious intent.

C. Counter Plaintiff Swan has substantial evidence to prove the Counter Defendant

Snook acted in actual malice when he published and spoke the defamatory material,

with disregard on whether the statements were true or false.

D. Counter Defendant Snook published the article to intentionally to cause humiliation,

damage and harm to the Counter Plaintiff Swan life, character and reputation.

STANDARDS AND PRACTICES OF GATHERING NEWS

A. Pursuant to page 2, lines 5 and 6, Counter Plaintiff Swan agrees with Snook about

being a reporter for 28 years, and he is familiar with standards and practices for gath-

ering news.

B. Therefore this is self evident that Counter Defendant Edward Snook, the US Observ-

er, is knowledgable about the laws and rules of Media Publishing in Oregon.

Page of 6 30

C. Counter Defendant Snook has been around the business long enough to understand his

behaviors are NOT protected speech.

COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOKS INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO THE DEFAMATORY ARTICLE HE PUBLISHED, DISTRIBUTED, AND AUTHORED.

A. Pursuant to page 2, line 5 to 9, Counter Defendant Snook claims he took the following

steps to determine the statements were true:

B. Page 2, Line 10 Counter Defendant Snook spoke to Charles Dyers family.

This is hearsay, which is not admissible evidence. Counter Plaintiff Swan informed

Counter Defendant at the beginning of their business agreement, about the issues that

Charles Dyers mother, and family had with her.

C. Page 2 line 14 - 17 Counter plaintiff agrees with Counter Defendant, that that Lorne

Dey did gather information from Counter Plaintiff Swan.

D. Page 2, 18 - 19 Counter Defendant Snook spoke with 3 people who had bad encoun-

ters with Deborah Swan. This is not admissible evidence.

E. Page 2, lines 20 - 21 Counter Defendant Snook received and read emails with people

about Deborah Swan. Receiving emails is not admissible evidence, it is hearsay.

F. Page 2, Line 22 - 25, Counter Defendant Snook states he spoke with the wife of Chris

Mortenson, and she told him all the things Deborah has done to her. This is hearsay,

not admissible evidence.

Page of 7 30

G. Page 2, line 25, Counter Defendant states Mrs. Mortensons statements about the

Counter Plaintiff Swan are consistent with other people. This is hearsay within

hearsay and is not admissible evidence.

OUTRAGEOUS BEHAVIOR AND HEARSAY BY COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK

H. Page 3, lines 1-3 Counter Plaintiff Swan denies this false claim of having 20 phone

calls about accusations against the US Government. This is hearsay and is not ad-

missible. Demand strict proof.

I. Page 3, lines 3 - 7, Counter Plaintiff denies ever discussing the OKC Bombing and the

Twin Towers with the Counter Defendant Snook.

Counter Defendant Snook is attempting to prejudice the court, and intentionally

create false claims in order to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is

hearsay and is not admissible.

J. Page 3, Line 8 - 11 Counter Plaintiff denies this conversations has ever taken place.

This is hearsay and is not admissible.

K. Page 3, line 12 - 14 Counter Plaintiff denies having this conversation about the US

Government, which never took place and demands proof of this false allegation.

This is another false malicious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false

light. This is hearsay and is not admissible.

L. Page 3, line 17 and 18, Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and is not a mem-

ber of any anti government group. This is called profiling and is another false mali-

Page of 8 30

cious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay

and is not admissible.

M. Page 3, lines 18 - 20 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and is not an active

member of any militia groups. This is called profiling and is another false malicious

attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay and is

not admissible.

N. Page 3, lines 19 - 20 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation and demands proof

of these alleged postings on Youtube . This is called profiling and is another false ma-

licious attempt to try and paint Counter Plaintiff Swan in a false light. This is hearsay

and is not admissible.

O. Page 3, lines 21 - 25 Counter Plaintiff denies this false allegation of illegally possess-

ing a firearm. Defendant Snook has published this unauthorized picture with malicious

intent to cause harm and trouble in Counter Plaintiffs life, which proves another false

malicious intent.

P. Page 4, lines 1 - 2 Counter Defendant Snook has used hearsay from the same people

Counter Plaintiff first warned him about when he was hired by Chris Mortenson.

Q. Page 4, lines 3 and 4, Counter Plaintiff denies this was ever said and demand strike

proof.

R. Page 4 lines 5 Counter Plaintiff denies this was ever said and demand strict proof.

Page of 9 30

S. Page 4, line 6 Counter Plaintiff Swan denies this false claim and demand strict proof.

Counter Plaintiff does not own a fire arm. Counter Defendant Snook is using this court

to paint Deborah in a false light.

T. Page 4, line 10 - 14 Counter Plaintiff Swan did not file false claims against Counter

Defendant Snook with the OJD, and the BBB. The claims filed are valid claims. (See

Attached EXHIBIT A and B)

U. Page 4, lines - 15 Counter Plaintiff denies this and demands strike proof.

V. Page 4, lines 17, Counter Defendant Snook has only questioned people with whom are

the enemies of Counter Plaintiff . This is not admissible evidence .

W.Page 4, line 19 Counter Plaintiff denies the complaints are not false and demand

strict proof.

X. Page 4, Line 21 Counter Plaintiff Swans criminal record is public information. This is

being used to prejudice the court against Deborah Swan.

Y. Page 4, line 25 Counter Plaintiff Swan was never contacted by Defendant Snook or

Ron Lee, and asked for any information to confirm. Plaintiff Swans federal probation

was completed in 2007.

Z. Pursuant to page 5, lines 1 - 4 The substantial proof that everything Counter Defendant

has both said and has written about Deborah Swan is to attack and to discredit.

COUNTER DEFENDANT SNOOK HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF

Page of 10 30

Counter Defendant Ed Snook has not given any reliable or relevant substantial evidence

to prove what he has published in the article is based from factual evidence.

Counter Defendant Ed Snook has not given any reliable or relevant substantial evidence

to prove what he has spoke orally about Deborah Swan is based from factual evidence.

Counter Defendant Snooks statements are based on hearsay.

COUNTER Ed SNOOKS HYPOCRITICAL CONTRADICTIONS OF FALSE PROFILING COUNTER PLAINTIFF SWAN AS A

911 CONSPIRACY LUNATIC INSANE

A. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has made the false claim that Counter Plaintiff Swan is

a 911 Conspiracy Lunatic.

B. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has used this conspiracy lunatic title against Counter

Plaintiff Swan, while Defendant Ed Snook, the US Observers web page, found at

www.usobserver.com, works with investigative journalists who have been reporting on

the 911 and OCK Bombing as far back as 2002.

C. The following is from Counter Defendants, Ed Snook, The US Observers web page:

D. Devvy is a 911 Truth Seeker, and an investigative reporter and writer, who work with

Counter Defendant Ed Snook, the US Observer.

E. The picture below is a screen shot of the US Observer web page:

F. Counter Defendant Ed Snook has a link to Devvys web site.

Page of 11 30

http://www.usobserver.com

Devvys articles are all about 911 being orchestrated by the US Government .

Page of 12 30

Article below is one of hundreds. The banner at the top is the US Observers banner.

Page of 13 30

The article below was published May 2014, and Devvy speaks about the New World Or-

der and 911 being an inside job

Page of 14 30

The screen shot below is the Counter Defendant Snooks web page, and on the right side

Devvy is listed as a feature writer.

Page of 15 30

3. PLAINTIFF Ed SNOOKS

CONTRADICTIONS OKC BOMBING

Pursuant to page 3, lines 4 to 7, lines 12, 14, The Plaintiff has made the false claim that

all the Defendant would talk about is the OKC Bombings.

This is outrageous to see the false claim, which the Counter Defendant Snook is trying to

use certain controversial topics, that have never been discussed with the Counter Plaintiff

Swan, to prejudice the court and paint Deborah Swan in a false light.

Devvy has been reporting on the OKC longer than 911:

Page of 16 30

\

Page of 17 30

Pursuant to page 3, lines 17 to 20, this is the same investigator, Ron Lee, who Defendant

Ed Snook hired to investigate Deborah Swan. Ron Lee has declared Deborah Swan a

government conspiracy lunatic.

Ron Lee is publishing articles about the Demise of America being a government Inside

Job.

Page of 18 30

Defendant Ed Snook also has writers that support the ides of an armed militia, but yet

Defendant Snook used the idea of militias against Deborah swan.

Page of 19 30

DEFENDANT SNOOK HAS NOT MET BURDEN OF PROOF

A defendant making a special motion to strike under the provisions of this sec-tion has the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the claim against which the motion is made arises out of a statement, document or conduct described in subsection (2) of this section. If the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff in the action to establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the court shall deny the motion.

A.Plaintiff and his attorney have not produced any substantial evidence or control-

ling statues or law, to prove any of what they claim is lawful or is true.

B. Both the Counter Defendant Ed Snook, and his attorney James Leuenberger have

committed fraud upon this court and against Deborah Swan since August 2014.

C. Defendant Snook has made complete false claims and used his own controversial top-

ics found on his web site, yet he uses against Deborah.

D. Defendant Ed Snooks claims of Defendant Swan being a lunatic, by profiling her as a

conspiracy theorist who is connected to anti government conspiracy, has given the

substantial evidence to prove Ed Snook intent and his true character.

E. Plaintiff has made the false claims that the Defendant has stolen donation money.

F. Plaintiff has accused me of crimes which Deborah Swan has never committed.

G. Defendant Snook has contradict himself by the proof of his own actions.

Page of 20 30

H. This court is being used to harass and to cause more harm against Deborah Swan,

with the proof of malicious false accusations in his declaration

I. The evidence of Leuenberger and Snook committing perjury are in record in

both the audio record of the Objection Hearing on November 12, 2014, held in

Judge Thomas Hull's court room.

J. The court documents which have been filed by James Leuenberger in the court

record, is self evident that the crimes of fraud and perjury have been committed

on every one of the motions and affidavits filed in this case. This has become a 4

concerning pattern by the Plaintiff and his attorney Leuenberger.

Counter Defendant Snook has not answered any of the affirmative defense nor has

there been any response to the question in the counter complaint, therefore all are

considered admitted too.

PENTALTY OF PERJURY

According to Oregon Statute 162.065, a person commits the crime of perjury if the

person makes a false sworn statement or a false unsworn declaration in regard to a mater-

ial issue, knowing it to be false.

Where defendant was not administered formal oath, but signed construction lien notice falsely attesting to knowledge and belief of facts assert4 -ed, defendant was guilty of perjury. State v. Carr, 125 Or App 270, 863 P2d 1316 (1993), affd 319 Or 408, 877 P2d 1192 (1994)

Page of 21 30

To prove perjury, state must show that defendant knew that statement was false, not that

defendant was uncertain about truthfulness of statement. State v. Park, 120 Or App 294,

852 P2d 872 (1993), Sup Ct review denied.

Plaintiff Ed Snook has committed perjury under the laws of Oregon by declaring that his

declaration is true and correct.

Plaintiff and his attorney James Leuenberger continue to attempt to prejudice this court

against the Defendant by their false claims, and outrageous behavior.

There is nothing within the Oregon Rules, Statutes, or in the Oregon Constitution that

allows perjury to fall under First Amendment protected speech. The type of speech Ed-

ward Snook has used in his Declaration is perjury, which is a crime.

Counter Plaintiff requests an award of the same bill of cost an Oregon attorney

would receive in fees for the cost of this motion . Dated January 26, 2015

/s/ Deborah Swan

Deborah Kay Swan, pro se

Page of 22 30

Page of 23 30

COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE BBB

Page of 24 30

EXHIBIT B

Page of 25 30

EXHIBIT C

Page of 26 30

Page of 27 30

I, Deborah Swan, certify that the certifications are true and correct based on my

reasonable knowledge, information, after making of such inquiry as is reasonable

under the circumstances. I certify that this document is not being presented for any

improper purpose. I certify that all allegations or other factual assertions so identi-

fied are supported by evidence.

Deborah KaySwan

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING / SERVICE

I Hereby certify that on 26th day of January, the following parties have been faxed, and mailed a

true copy of this record.

JOSEPHINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT500 NW 6th STREETGRANTS PASS, OR 97526-2037Attn: LISA

JAMES E LUENBERGER5200 SW MEADOWS LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97035

Page of 28 30

Page of 29 30

Page of 30 30