20140808 sent to oregon 3.pdf

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 32
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 4 | Pages: 32

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
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 ulti
Tags
Transcript
  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  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. 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 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: 1 st  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. 2 nd  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 3 rd  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
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks