SANCTIONS

JAMES LEUENBERGER ACCORDING TO RULE 8.3

COMPLAINT REGARDING ATTORNEY JAMES LEUENBERGER

I, Deborah Swan, hereby lodge an official response to the notice I received from

James Leuenberger.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

DR 1102 (A) (1) James Leuenberger knowingly assisted his client Ed Snook,

owner of the U.S.Observer,to procure a fraudulent default judgment for

$49,999.99.

DR 1102 (A) (1) James Leuenberger knowingly engaged in unethical and criminal

behavior against the Josephine County Circuit Court, Judge Thomas Hull, Judge

Linda Baker, Judge Daniel Simcoe, and Defendant Deborah Swan.

Page of 1 82

RESPONSE TO LEUENBERGERS LETTER IN REFERENCE TO

MY COMPLAINT

DR 1-102(A)(3)

A. I did not send a written notice of intent to appear to James Leuenberger

because of the fact that I did appear and I did answer to the original complaint.

B. Therefore there was no reason for a notice of intent to appear to be sent to

Leuenberger,

C. Leuenberger made this statement to mislead the facts in order to cover up his

violations.

D. The facts of my timely appearance and my timely answers can be found within

the self authenticated evidence, starting with the UPS tracking number.

Page of 2 82

1

E. This tracking information can be verified by clicking the UPS tracking link,

and entering the following tracking number: 1Z4E716V0121316819

F. UPS timely delivered my answers, affirmative defense, and counter claim to

Leuenbergers office, at 9:04 AM on August 11, 2014.

Page of 3 82

DR 1-102(A)(3)

A. August 11, 2014, was the 30TH day and the final day to answer and appear,

therefore I made my appearance and I answered to the complaint.

B. August 11, 2014, was not the 31st day after service.

C. August 11, 2014, was the 30th day, and the day I timely made service.

D. The calendar attached as EXHIBIT A1 AND A2 will prove Leuenbergers

claim of August 11, 2014, being the 31st day after service is false.

Page of 4 82

2

CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO RULE 10

A. Leuenberger is knowingly stating false claim, attempting to deceive the BAR

by stating he began to prepare the default judgment on the 31st day after

service.

B. August 11, 2014, is the 30th day, and is the same day Leuenberger began to

draft the premature order for the default judgment.

Page of 6 82

C. August 11, 2014, was the same day his office employee Michele Wilkinson, at

9:05AM, signed for my UPS proof of delivery.

Page of 7 82

D. August 11, 2014, is the same day Leuenberger had his employee Michelle

Wilkinson, notarize his sworn affidavit, claiming he had not received my

answers or any notice of any other appearance.

Page of 8 82

DR 1-102(A)(3) A. This statement by Leuenberger, shows his attempt to circumvent the truth

about the details of when he knowingly began to file for the default judgment.

B. The evidence can also be found in the court records, filed by James

Leuenberger the day after the Oral Argument, for the Objection Hearing on my

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT.

C. Leuenbergers document filed in this case is titled, RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS 2ND AMENDED JUDICIAL NOTICE which Leuenberger

filed Nov. 13, 2014.

D. The following clips are copied and pasted off of the record. The full copy is

attached as EXHIBIT B.

Page of 9 82

3

A. Pursuant to Leuenbergers response, page 2, lines 8-12, the first work he

started on the morning of August 11, 2014, was prepare the motion for order of

default and general judgment, the affidavit is support of the motion, the draft

order of default, and the general judgment and money award on default.

B. Once Leuenberger completed his default judgment papers, he executed the

motion and affidavit , and then mailed all four documents to the Josephine

County Clerk Cheryl Shonk.

Page of 10 82

C. Pursuant to page 2, lines 13 - 15, Around 12:00 Noon, on August 11, 2014,

After he mailed the above described documents, shortly after noon,

Leuenberger then opened his office mail box , and discovered the UPS parcel

which had my answers, affirmative defense and counter claim. DR 1-102(A)

(3)

D. Leuenberger made no effort to correct this. Leuenberger at this moment

should have contacted the clerk and told the clerk to hold off on the default when

the papers arrive at the court. DR 1-102(A)(3)

(1) Pursuant to page 2, line 16 - 17, the first action Leuenberger then takes, is he

scanned my answers, affirmative defense and counter claim, and emailed a

copy to Ed Snook, the Plaintiff.

Page of 11 82

(2) The attached email is the proof that Leuenberger and Snook had already made

the decision to enter this false default judgment against me, by claiming they

never received my answers or appearance. (EXHIBIT C)

(3) The email that Leuenberger sent to Ed snook , clearly proves that there was no

need to explain or discuss any details with Snook. (EXHIBIT C)

(4) This type of communication it is self evident that both Leuenberger and Snook

intentionally and knowingly began a default, before the legal time had expired.

DR 1-102(A)(3)

E. Pursuant to lines 18 - 22, Leuenberger acknowledges that his notary, on August

11, 2014, did in fact sign the UPS package, but she is not authorized to open

up the mail.

Page of 12 82

4

A. This above statement from Leuenberger is a complete false statement.

B. This statement is another attempt to deceive the BAR by false statements as

facts. DR 1-102(A)(3)

C. The Civil Clerk informed me of this default judgment on August 13, 2014.

D. The audio recorded conversation is from August 13, 2014, with Civil Clerk

Cheryl Shonk.

1 min 33 sec your case went into a default.

1 min 50 sec yes you did send answers and appeared, but its not

considered filed yet because there is no money on it yet

James Leuenberger planned to enter me into this false default judgment.

The substantial proof is found in this case file.

A. Leuenberger, Ed Snook and the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, knowingly pushed

this default through the court, knowing it was procured by fraud, deceit, false

facts, false sworn affidavit. DR 1-102(A)(3)

Page of 13 82

5

B. The court granted this motion due to the clerk Civil Shonk assisting with

pushing it through, knowing it was false. DR 1-102(A)(3)

C. The judges signed off on the default, due to the fraud and deception that has

been played against the court and judges without their full knowledge of the

true facts about my answers and appearance . DR 1-102(A)(3)

D. Leuenberger continued to file more fraudulent judgments upon the court, and

was awarded a supplemental judgment by Judge Baker, while knowing this

Supplemental was fraud. DR 1-102(A)(3)

E. Leuenberger also was awarded attorney fees by fraud, claiming he had been

following the rules ORCP68. DR 1-102(A)(3)

F. The judge added 9% interest, then placed a lien against me for $49,999.99.

DR 1-102(A)(3)

A. Leuenberger is attempting to deceive the BAR without the truth and the facts.

B. The motion I filed against this Default Judgment, was a MOTION TO

VACATE VOID DEFAULT ORDERS AND JUDGMENT .

C. This motion first was filed on September 7, 2014.

Page of 14 82

6

D. I received a Notice for an Objection Hearing to be held on November 12, 2014.

E. October 20, 2014, I filed for a Motion for Telephonic Appearance and it was

denied.

F. October 22, 2014, Judge Daniel Simcoe wrote on the Order why he denied my

motion for Telephonic appearance. This motion is attached as EXHIBIT D.

Page of 15 82

A. The note on the previous page, is from Judge Simcoe. Judge Simcoe wrote on

the order that the he denied my telephonic appearance for not sending a copy

to the opposing attorney. Leuenberger gave a false representation to the court,

he did not receive a copy of my MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC

APPEARANCE, and if or when he does he objects.

Page of 16 82

B. This is another false claim by Leuenberger, deceiving the court to believe he

never received my MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE

C. The following is the proof of shipping which was sent on October 18, 2014.

D. The office of James leuenberger received a copy of my MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE on October 20, 2014.

Page of 17 82

A. October 23, 2014, the very next day after Judge Simcoe denied my MOTION

FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, Leuenberger then contradict what he

had just told Judge Simcoe the day before, and now admits on court record that

he did receive my MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE.

B. On October 23, 2014, Leuenberger filed an OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, now

claiming that on October 20, 2014, he did receive my MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, claiming that I was intentionally deceiving

the court by filing a false certificates of service.

Page of 18 82

C. Leuenberger then went even a step further by attaching to his OPPOSITION

TO MY MOTION FOR A TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, a copy of my

criminal record from 20 years ago, accusing me of being a dishonest person.

D. Leuenberger stated in his OPPOSITION against my MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, that since I am a dishonest person, I should

be required to appear in person, regardless of my distance from the court.

E. Leuenberger also suggested to the court that I should be required to bring a

government issued ID to prove who I am.

F. This all was intentional by Leuenberger to prejudice the court against me.

G. October 26, 2014, Leuenberger filed a NOTICE TO THE COURT where he

accused me of filing a false certificate of service accusing and me of trying to

deceive the court.

Page of 19 82

7

Leuenberger has not addressed any of my motions. Leuenberger has only made

false claims, denys receiving some of my motions, files false Notices to the Court,

and contradicts himself without any fear of being in violation of the rules.

Leuenberger has continued to make false claims all through this case.

I was not aware of the fraud and the false representation made to the court by

Leuenberger until I received a copy of Leuenbergers NOTICE TO THE

COURT.

This is when I contacted a different clerk and requested a copy of the entire case

file.

I wanted to see every document that has been filed in this case by Leuenberger.

On October 31, 2014, I was sent a email with a copy of the whole case file, that

had a left side and a right side.

This is when I discovered that the false sworn affidavit, the false motions and

default judgment that was presented to the court by fraud, wrongfully claiming I

never appeared, or sent my answers to Leuenberger or to the court before the time

expired for me to appear.

Page of 20 82

The entire default filed by Leuenberger was procured by false statements, fraud,

and false representations, claiming I never appeared or sent my answers to the

clerk or to Leuenberger.

This current attempt of Leuenberger to deceive the BAR, by giving more false

representations about the facts around my appearance and answers, so the BAR

will not have the correct facts in an attempt to lead the BAR into the false

direction, is another violation pursuant to Rule 8.4.

This is self evidence that Leuenberger will do what ever he can to cover his

violations without any concern to how he is affecting the Judiciary in whole.

The record is the self authenticated evidence which proves that Leuenberger and

his client Ed Snook, knowingly used this court to commit the crime of extortion,

by fraud, perjury, concealing documents, filing false sworn affidavits, all of which

are crimes against the Tribunal, as well as Deborah Swan.

Page of 21 82

OBJECTION HEARING

ORAL ARGUMENT

During the November 12, 2014, Objection Hearing, I made an oral judicial notice

of the fraud, false sworn affidavits, and false representation made by James

Leuenebrger on each of the records he filed.

The following is on record, from the oral argument.

During the hearing, after I orally judicially noticed the court.

Leuenberger continued to make false statements as facts through

the entire hearing, and when Judge Hull asked him the direct

questions about my appearance and answers.

H. Leuenberger continued to tell Judge Hull false statements.

I. The following are the actual statements made between Judge Hull and

Leuenberger during the Objection Hearing on November 12, 2014.

J. Leuenberger denied numerous times receiving my answers and claimed to the

court that I did not make any appearance. The Objection Hearing was held in

Judge Hulls court.

Page of 22 82

K. James Leuenberger made the following statements which can be found in the

official court records of this oral argument:

19 min 45 sec. There was no misstatements, there was no violation of Rule17 regarding the sign a pleading for the motion that matter, that I was not saying anything misleading or asking in violation of the law or asking for something that Mr. Snook was not entitled to.

L. Ed Snook was not entitled too a $50,000.00 default judgment with attorney

fees.

M. By these false claims Leuenberger has violated DR 1-102(A)(3) (lawyer may

not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or

misrepresentation).

N. Leuenberger has a legal and ethical obligation, to correct the false facts which

he made by filing the default judgment.

O. Leuenberger continued to conceal my answers which he did received on time,

by making the following false claims to the court:

20 min 16 sec There are some vague allegations of fraud, including fraud by the court staff, and the clerks which Ms. Swan seems to elaborate today in court. Which there is nothing for me to respond to in writing? It would be hard to respond now.

Page of 23 82

A. Leuenberger had the opportunity to correct the false statements he made about my

answers and my appearance.

B. Leuenberger chose to continue with the false claims that I had not answered or

appeared at all.

20 min 38 m sec I prepared the motion and the affidavit in support of it, everything I said in it was true to the best of my knowledge, as far as I know to this day, there was nothing I said untruthful when I filed the motion and affidavit. In point in fact Ms. Swan has not appeared.

A. Leuenberger has a legal duty to the court, to not knowingly make false claims

as facts.

B. Leuenebrger and his client Ed Snook both are knowingly committing fraud

upon the court, by continuing to commit perjury.

C. Leuenberger did receive Deborah Swans answers and I did make my

appearance before the time expired.

Judge Hull then asked Leuenberger if Deborah Swan still had not made any

appearance or answered.

20 min 55 sec Had not or still not?

Page of 24 82

A. Leuenberger commits fraud upon the court by directly responding to Judge

Hulls question as follows.

B. Leuenberger knowingly and intentionally continues with this behavior and

fraud against the court.

Leuenberger states at 21:00 :

Well, she was allowed to file a motion, after the judgment was entered. No the 1 2answer was not filed and received by the court before the order of default judgment Well, She appeared when she was allowed to file a motion after the 3judgment was entered. No the answer was not filed and received by the court 4before the order of default or the judgment of default , so I believe Ms Swan

A. The entire above statement by Leuenberger was made to deceive the court.

B. Leuenberger did receive my answers and Leuenberger knew the clerk also

received my answers on August 11, 2014.

C. Therefore Leuenberger is making a false claim that my answers were not

filed or received before the order of default judgment, is another false

representation by Leuenberger, knowing it is false.

D. I made my appearance when the court was served my answers.

Leuenberger knowingly made a false statement. Leuenberger knows that he entered a default judgment 1after I had legally answered and appeared.

Yes, an answer was filed and received by the court before the order of default judgment was entered by 2Leuenberger.

I appeared on time before the judgment was entered.3

Yes the answer was filed and received by the court before the order of default or the judgment of default ,4

Page of 25 82

E. The UPS Proof of delivery tracking number 1Z4E716V0154650066 shows

Josephine Circuit Court received the UPS delivery on August 11, 2014, at

10:41 AM.

F. Leuenberger made the false claim upon the court as a fact, by stating I was

allowed to file a motion after the judgment was entered.

G. Judge Hull then interrupts Leuenberger and asks if Leuenberger disagrees with

what I had orally noticed the court about my answers and appearance.

Judge Hull states at 22 min 15 seconds:

So what youre saying is you disagree with what she is saying today?

A. Leuenberger continued to make the false representations, acting as if he

never received or knew anything about my answers and my appearance.

B. Leuenberger stated at 22 min 18 sec :

I think the record will reflect that.

C. Leuenberger is falsely directing the Judge to the court register, knowing what

he was telling the Judge was false, and knowing the register will assist

Leuenberger with falsely convincing the Judge that Deborah Swan never

timely answered or appeared.

Page of 26 82

D. Leuenberger already knew the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk did not officially

enter into the register when she received Deborah Swans answers.

E. This is aiding and abetting by the clerk Cheryl Shonk for not following her

duty which is to enter the time of day, the date of when the clerk was served

the answers by the defendant.

F. The date of filing service is upon the date of the mailing.

ORCP 9 says the following:

The filing of pleadings and other documents with the court as required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk of the court or the person exercising the duties of that office.

ORCP says the following: Appearance is made by filing with the clerk

ORCP 7 :Filing is made upon the date of mailing.

A. Judge Hull believed Leuenbergers false statements he made.

B. Since the OJIN court register did not have any entry of my answers, counter

claim, or affirmative defense, entered into the OJIN register.

C. Leuenberger and Snook were fully aware that both he and the civil clerk

received my answers, affirmative defenses and counter claims on August 11,

2014, before the time to appear had expired. VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)

Page of 27 82

D. On August 13, 2014, Leuenberger received a call from the civil clerk.

E. The clerk contacted Leuenberger when she received Leuenbergers documents

that he mailed to the court to file for the default order and judgment.

F. The civil clerk informed Leuenberger that on August 11, 2014, she did receive

my answers on time.

G. The civil clerk explained there was a delay with my fee waiver application.

H. Leuenberger told the clerk to continue with the default judgment anyway.

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)

I. Leuenberger attempts to prejudice the court against me again by bringing up

the false certificate of service, claiming I have been deceiving the court.

At 22 min 38 sec Leuenberger states:

Umm and as far as I know, the only deception that has engaged in, is that by Ms Swan by filing her false certificate of service on the motion for telephonic appearance , which I brought to this courts attention, but I have not made any mind statements and as far as I know neither has the court staff. So I ask this motion to be denied and this judgment set.

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) Leuenberger is making a total false statement, without any regard to the court, knowing his actions will inflict injury upon me.

Page of 28 82

A. Leuenbergers actions are clear violation of ethics and his duty to correct his

actions by not continuing to commit fraud upon the court, as well as not

continue to use the court to unlawfully extort money out of me.

B. In the above statement by Leuenberger, when he says, as far as I know,

Leuenberger did know that I was not trying to deceive the court and he knew

that certificate of service was a typographical mistake. Leuenberger and I had a

20 minute phone call a week before this hearing, that I made to him when I

received his NOTICE TO THE COURT, accusing me of deceiving the court.

We discussed this and worked it out. I corrected my mistake and he received a

copy of the corrected certificate of service. Leuenberger is trying to do

anything he can to paint a false light to prejudice the court against me, This is

not ethical and is a violation of Rules of Professional Misconduct.

Judge Hulls attitude becomes more indifferent towards me as this hearing

continues due to the constant false statements that Leuenberger continues to use

against me.

Judge Hull then asked me if I have any response to Leuenbergers testimony.

At 24 min 19 sec, I state:

Yes Sir. I would like to state there has deception on my side when it comes to the certificate of service. When I realized I had a typographical error, I immediately corrected it, and I actually called mr. Leuenberger on the phone,

Page of 29 82

and let him know it was a mistake. I immediately sent in a motion to correct it and add it to the case. It was just an error on my part, just a mistake. So that was corrected. The tone of voice by Judge Hull was obvious that the judge was not believing anything I was saying during this hearing.

HULL: Anything else?

I then attempted to explain and reintegrate the facts about my

answers and appearing before the time had expired.

At 25 min 09 sec I stated the following:

Um, yes if you look at the entire case file, I was able to get a copy of the entire thing. And there is 2 parts of the file, there is a left side for some reason, and a right side. And so when you have time to review the entire case file, I would hope that you do get both the left and the right. You will see in there, the fax I sent the clerk lisa, when I was having issues in the very beginning about the appearance. and she told me that they had my appearances, and as soon as this void order was ruled on, Im not sure what the hold up is with making my appearance, but bottom line. I made my appearance. I made my counter claim, my affirmative defenses, and my application to fee waiver, was all sent to both parties. but the application for fee waiver was not sent to Mr. Leuenberger, due to that is confidential information that is just between myself and the court. But he did get a copy of my answer, my affirmative defenses, and my counter claim. And I can show the proof of that by the signature, by an employee who works in his office by the name of Michelle Wilkinson She is the one who signed for it. So you will see it on my proof of delivery, And she is the one who signed the false sworn affidavit the same day, When he started to file for the default is the same day he received my answer.

Page of 30 82

HULL: Okay do you have a copy of the OJIN print out?

During this part of the hearing, Judge Hull discussed with the

court clerk Cameron, what was entered in the OJIN register.

Judge Hull stated at 28 min 33 sec:

I dont see anything about additional document including the application being filed. But I dont know. Are they usually done that way or is it just the waiver filed without the documents?

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) 4 Leuenberger is required to tell the truth about my answers and appearance. Leuenberger knew the clerk Cheryl Shonk also received my answers.

Judge Hull asked Leuenberger some more questions about my

answers, and appearance.

At 29:00 Judge Hull states :

Well, Mr Leuenberger, What I see here is she filed a waiver of fee deferral, prior to filing a motion for a default. Do you see that?

Leuenberger then agrees that he does see this listed in the OJIN register.

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) 4

Page of 31 82

Leuenberger continues to conceal the truth about my answer and appearance

Judge Hull then goes on by stating:

At 29 min 28 sec:

Have you already, and you may have already answered the question, Was it your intention when you were speaking just now, to indicate that you believe a filing a fee waiver is not a filing of an answer? Or a response required by statute?

VIOLATED RULE 3.4 (e) Leuenberger should not state a personal belief or opinion

The judge is clearly acting out of his position by speaking for

Leuenberger, and telling the court what Leuenbergers intention,

r what Leuenberger was meaning to say.

Judge Hull continues with this communication between him and

Leuenberger.

The following dialog is between Judge Hull and Leuenberger:

At 29 min 30 sec:

JIM: That is correct your honor.

HULL: But you did say that? Correct?

JIM : I dont know if I said that or not but that is the way feel.

HULL: Well I don't know if you implied that

JIM: What I said was I knew an answer had not

Page of 32 82

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (e)

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)

been filed with the clerk, and I believe that is reflected in OJIN, and I don't see an answer being

HULL: No there is no note and I think your right, I do not see an answer, at least the OJIN does not have an answer.

JIM: As I recall your Honor, OJIN is the official um, the official position of the court, as for what has been filed,

HULL:: Ok. I assume you dont have any case law to explain that to the court?

JIM: I dont.I have it on the tip of my tougne your honor. But I have had it come up repeatedly in cases of uh, timeliness of an appeal, as to what the court of appeals has repeatedly relied upon what OJIN says as what position to what uh.

HULL: Well what I am about it the , um the affidavit in motion to waive fees as not being a response as required by law within 30 days. Do you have case law to back that?

JIM: I, am sure, but my understanding pursuant to the rule, that uh, a first appearance is either the filing of a pleading, answer, or a motion. Neither of which are reflected in OJIN.

HULL: Specifically the language of the filing in all those things, correct? So to file an appearance is usually to file an answer a motion? Okay.

HULL: So I would look for case law that would say that a motion to waive fees would not qualify for that presumably, correct?

JIM: That is what I am aware of, but I have not researched that.

Page of 33 82

HULL: Okay.

HULL: Okay, Ms Swan is there anything you want to respond about that?

A. The dialog between Leuenberger and Judge Hull, is self

evident that Judge Hull does not believe that I turned in my

answers and made my appearance on time.

B. Leuenberger has influenced Judge Hull by not speaking the

facts about my answers and appearance being made timely to

both him and to the court.

C. Judge Hull is under the false impression that I only served to

the clerk my fee waiver application and the fee waiver

declaration.

D. James Leuenberger and the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, both

knew the truth.

E. Leuenberger continued to conceal this information and still

push forward for a default judgment. Judge Hull asked me if

I wanted to respond.

Page of 34 82

At 31 min 29 sec, Judge Hull and myself have the following

discussion:

SWAN: Yes I believe that I did file my answers on time, I have the proof of this, Cheryl the clerk ,Cheryl received

HULL Please stop. Please stop. Okay, What I am going by is the file. Okay. It says you filed your motion to waive fees, and supported it with an affidavit indicated before the default motion was filed by a day or so. Okay? And I see that on OJIN, all right. I have not gone through the this entire file to see exactly what was filed that day, Okay, all right, so I don't know. There is no indication in the OJIN records on docket that says you filed an answer. Okay? You did not answer do you understand that?

SWAN: That is what I am hearing and its very concerning to me.

HULL: Well, I dont know what you mean about proof..do you have a document filed with your material that there is proof that the clerk actually received something else?

SWAN: Yes sir if you look at the court, at the file, i don't know if its been entered, cause Im not their, but you can even ask your clerk cheryl yourself. i was told on the 11th she received my answers. i was told on the that the hold up for why my,i was under the impression, that she entered me as my appearance and I answered. The hold up, I was under that impression,and I have all this on recorded conversation, I record everything because this use all new to me, and because I am in Texas. Cheryl told me on the 12th that she has spoken to Mr Leuenberger.

Mr Leuenberger was informed that I did appear and they did receive my appearance and my answers, but the hold up was my fee waiver application. and Cheryl then asked Mr Leuenberger, what do you want me to do? Mr Leuenberger

Page of 35 82

told Cheryl to go ahead and enter a default. This is exactly what she told me. I've got the recorded conversation and the transcripts.

Judge Hull tried to stop me from speaking, and I then responded

by

stating: 34 min 07 sec:

Let me finish please sir. then she tells me on the 13th of August that my case was go into default. and i went into panic mode and i asked her why. and she said, well don't panic yet, its in the judges box, with a note on it and the hold up was the fee waiver application, and she told me herself,that when the judge sees an attempt to be made an attempt to appear, once the judge reads that little note that sure said she put on there, the he, that most likely the judge will not enter a default . this is what your clem cheryl told me. okay. and i have it on record, so then i calmed down, and i was required by Cheryl or some reason to get a notarized statement from my parents claiming that i have them helping me with my bills right now. so that took an unnecessary delay by the clerk. but this is what she told me i had to do in order to get my fee waiver approved . i asked her if i could fax this stuff into her, she told me no, it has to be sent over in the mail. Now its Thursday and i'm trying to find a way to send it over night to Oregon, because the first time when I ant my answers and appearance it cost 120.00 next day air ups to your court . i did not have the money, and i called her again. and i asked her can i please fax this to you, because i had just gotten done reading the rules of faxing, and records are allowed to be faxed. she tells me again you're not allowed to fax. her and i got into to a little confrontation on the phone, and she hangs up on me. I called back and I talked to Lisa. Lisa said Deborah, you are allowed to fax your proof of the bills and stuff, and I will take care of it. That is what Lisa told me. So there are a lot of dynamics that happened about this fee waiver, but my point it is that I sent and I appeared and I answered to this complaint, that was filed against me. I made my appearance and I made my answer All the other stuff is a complete violation of my due process and there is not supposed to be any kind of discrimination when it comes to the status or your income.

Page of 36 82

Im having finical issues in my life, and that should not be able to hold me back to step forward and defend myself from a claim against me. And that is what this whole thing has turned into,. This fee waiver application is restricting my rights to my own due process of law. and that is the right to be heard, and a right to appear. okay. and any appellate judges would side with me and the supreme court also has a lot of case law that there should never be any sort of price tag related your righted to the judicial process. and that is what Leuenberger did get my appearance and did get my answers. and if I have to appeal his I will, cause Ive got the proof to it. and I will file a suit affiant your clerk if I have to get her to speak honestly because Cheryl knows all the details involved here. Ands so does Lisa, and so does JUDY.

JIM Can I ask you a question?

SWAN Yes sir

JIM Um Ms Swan, have you subpoena any of these court clerk to appear in court?

SWAN No I did not subpoena any of them to appear today. But I can though. Can we have a continuance and have them appear?

The fact that Leuenberger challenged me about not subpoenaing the clerks, is self evidence that Leuenberger knew the clerk would not be allowed to testify.

HULL Okay, sounds like we are in the end I will have to review the file and I will let you know .No I am not giving you a continuance at this point.

SWAN: Okay thank you

Page of 37 82

HULL: Ill have to look at the file so I can answer the question today. All right otherwise that is all today.

SWAN: So we will I get a notice from anything?

HULL: Uh you will get something in writing. Yea you will.

SWAN: All right. Am I allowed too submit anything to court? At this point again?

HULL: Generally , no. this is the date and this is the time, I have your material already. Okay..

Judge Hull is now claiming he has my material already. This is a contradiction from the entire hearing. During the hearing I noticed the Judge of the UPS tracking and the prof that I had recorded conversations that would show the truth about my appearance.

SWAN So I am not allowed to submit anything else? After this hearing?

HULL: What is it you want to submit man?

SWAN: What ever I think is necessary to have my place in honorably ruled over.

HULL: Well I cant tell you what to do. I cant tell you what you need or don't need. This is your opportunity to a hearing. You obviously knew about the time for the hearing , this is the time to present the material. It does not keep going. We don't continue and continue ad continue, okay? So right now this is the hearing time and this is when you have the opportunity to present what you want to okay.

SWAN Okay.

Page of 38 82

SWAN So let me ask the opposing side one more question. Are you telling me today that you did not receive my answers?

JIM inaudible

HULL Just a minute, who are you asking this question of?

SWAN: Mr Leuenberger

JIM: Uh Ms Swan I did receive copies of an answer with an affirmative defense and counter claim, uh but that does not constitute an appearance.

SWAN Why does that not constitute an appearance? My appearance was made to the court?

HULL umm maam,

SWAN Yes sir

HULL Okay you can ask a question but you cant ask him what he thinks his opinion is of the law.

SWAN: Okay well that why, let me ask him one more question if you don't mind why then on all these orders

Page of 39 82

of default did you falsely state that you have not received any appearance or answers or my intent of my appearance?

JIM My affidavit was accurate.

CONTRADICTION FROM WHAT HE JUST ADMITTED! THE AFFIDAVIT HE IS REFERRING TOO IS BELOW:

Page of 40 82

PAGE 2 OF LEUENBERGERS AFFIDAVIT

Page of 41 82

SWAN Every order that you have filed states that you have not received any answer or any appearance from me or any intent of my appearance.

HULL Okay he is not responding to that.. Okay

Judge Hull interrupts and does not let Leuenberger answer my question about his contradictions and false claims he just now on record admitted to.

SWAN All right.

HULL His answer was he has not. So that is all today. So um I will review the material in the file and let you know what my decision is.

Judge Hull answered for Leuenberger and is now covering for Leuenberger, after Leuenberger just admitted to receiving my UPS, and then Leuenberger claims his AFFIDAVIT in support of the MOTION for A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT was accurate!

SWAN Thank you.

HULL Okay that is all today. So go ahead and please hang up the phone

END OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Page of 42 82

VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL STATUTES

1. 162.355 SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. 5

James Leuenberger and Ed Snook, knowingly committed the crime of simulating

legal process, with the malicious intent to harass, injure and defraud Deborah

Swan.

James Leuenberger knowingly issued and delivered to the Civil Clerk Cheryl

Shonk, in Josephine County Court, documents that in form and substance, falsely

simulated the action of entering a false default judgment against Deborah Swan for

$49,999.99.

2. 162.075 FALSE SWEARING.

(1) James Leuenberger knowingly committed the crime of false swearing by

making false sworn statements, and false unsworn declarations, knowing it to be

false.

(2) False swearing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 184; 2013 c.218 20]

5

Page of 43 82

3.

ORS 164.0 THEFT

Respondent James Leuenberger, knowingly has committed theft against Deborah

Swan, with the intent to deprive Deborah Swan of her property by appropriating

$49,999.99 from Deborah Swan.

James Leuenberger and Ed Snook both knowingly, used the Josephine County

Circuit Court for unlawful purpose.

164.085

THEFT BY DECEPTION

A. James Leuenberger and Edward Snook, committed theft by deception, through

their willful and deliberate intent of committing fraud, by making multiple

false representations to the Josephine County Court about Deborah Swan.

B. Defendant James Leuenberger procured a false default judgment against the

Plaintiff for $49,999.99.

C. James Leuenberger created a false impressions of law, value, intention and

State of mind, that he knew are not true.

Page of 44 82

D. Leuenberger and Ed Snook, have both failed to correct this false impression

about Deborah Swan, which they intentionally started on August 11, 2014.

E. James Leuenberger and Ed Snook, have continued with their deception,

fraud, and false impression, about Deborah Swan both during and after the

Oral Argument held on November 12, 2014, and have continued up to the

present day.

F. James Leuenberger has prevented Judge Thomas Hull, Judge Lynn Baker, and

Judge Daniel Simcoe, from acquiring the truthful information involving

Deborah Swans appearance, affirmative defenses, answers, and counter

claim, that Deborah Swan sent on time to James Leuenbergers office, on

August 11, 2014, at 9:05 A.M..

DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCURED BY

FRAUD, DECEIT AND FALSE REPRESENTATION

The proof of James Leuenberger receiving Deborah Swans appearance, answers,

and counter claim has been proven by the following irrefutable and self

authenticated evidence:

Page of 45 82

James Leuenbergers oral confession, during the objection hearing November 12,

2014.

James Leuenberger filed response to the Defendants Judicial Notices November

13, 2014.

Deborah Swans Proof of Delivery to James Leuenbergers office on August 11,

2014 by UPS and tracking number

Cheryl Shonk, the civil clerks statement to Deborah Swan, on August 12, 2014,

when Cheryl confirmed to Deborah that she spoke with James Leuenberger, and he

confirmed he did receive her answers, counter complaint, and affirmative defense

on time. (RECORDED PHONE CALL ATTACHED IN THE EMAIL)

(f) Leuenbergers email to Ed Snook on August 11, 2014. (EXHIBIT C)

JUDICIAL NOTICE TO JUDGE THOMAS HULL

DEBORAH SWAN

FRAUD, FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY LEUENBERGER TO PROCURE A FALSE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Page of 46 82

The following statements we're stated on court record in Judge Thomas Hulls

court room on November 12, 2014, as well as Leuenberger response he filed to the

court on November 13, 2014.

The following is from the response he filed.

November 12, 2014, During the oral argument, Deborah Swan judicially noticed

Judge Thomas Hull, of fraud, false representation, and misconduct.

The following is on record, from the oral argument.

SWAN Yes I would like to add to the record, a judicial notice of new evidence that I have discovered of fraud on all the

HULL Okay that did not just happen automatically. you have to tell me what is you're trying to admit, because here are rules.

SWAN It would be according to rule 60

HULL Im having trouble hearing you, you're missing point so go a little slower

SWAN Hang on, Im having trouble too, my phone is not doing very hang on one-second.

HULL Do you have a land line perhaps?

SWAN Well Im having trouble with my charger, it's giving me some issues, but I think it's okay now.

HULL Well what you just said was audible, yes

Page of 47 82

SWAN Okay what I would like to do for the record, is to give judicial notice of evidence that I have newly

Page of 48 82

discovered,by reviewing the docket, that has been filed, so this is self authenticated evidence of fraud and

misrepresentations, on these uh, on these records.

HULL Lets try this, what records are you talking about?

SWAN Um, I, am talking about the motion, hang on, the motion filed by mr James Leuenberger, the first motion he put in for a default judgment

HULL I understand there is a default judgment, yes, with an affidavit to support that goes along with the default judgment, yes

SWAN Right, yes sir, on page 1 lines 18 through 25, and on page 2, this motion for order of default, claims that I never appeared or answered.

Page of 49 82

Page of 50 82

And that is why he is filing for a default. But I did appear, and I did send answers to both the court clerk, as well asJames on time. So this default judgment is void.

The Judge then asked me:

HULL: When you say it was sent, does that mean the day you forwarded it here?

This question by the Judge shows me he had no clue about my situation. The clerk Cheryl informed me she put a noter in his box about my delay. This shows me Cheryl was knowingly helping the opposing side with the fraudulent default.

SWAN Yes sir,its on court record, I have the proof of my tracking, Cheryl the clerk is aware that I filed it on time, and it was received on time. And so is the other clerk, Michelle, I believe is her name, no Lisa. Because Lisa, as well as James Leuenberger, he also received a copy of it on time,on August 11, 2014.

HULL Okay, I am listening to what you have to say.

SWAN So when you go through this entire docket sheet, of all these records, on the affidavit that was filed by

Mr Leuenberger, on the 13th, he swears its a sworn affidavit. And he swears under oath, the he has not received any notice of my appearance or answers.

Page of 51 82

And he has not received any intent of me trying to appear. And that is completely not true.

Page of 52 82

HULL Are you going to tell me how you know he received these documents?

SWAN Because I have the tracking number of his assistant names Michelle Wilkinson, signing the UPS proof of delivery, at 9:05 am on the 11th.

Page of 53 82

HULL Is that with the material you filed?

SWAN Is it with the material I filed? umI have a recorded conversation, actually it is, because I sent it by fax to um, the other clerk, lisa, when all this was going on, I sent a fax to Lisa. Its there in your files. And I have the proof of the UPS tracking with his notary signing it. For the proof of delivery.

HULL Carry on

SWAN Well I can carry on, so from everything from that point, your Honor, would seem like it would be fraud and misrepresentation, this entire default judgment has been pushed through under the implication that I never appeared, or i never filed answers. I even have a counter claim that was filed with my answers as well. So, its just been put on a shelf. Its never been entered.

HULL What do you mean its been put on a shelf?

SWAN This is what Cheryl the clerk did. Because my application for fee waiver was delayed.

HULL Ms. Swan, Please understand that in regard to what you are saying about what a clerk did, its hearsay at this point.

SWAN Ive got a recorded conversation if that will help you.

HULL I did not ask you that.

SWAN Well Im just letting you know

HULL Do you have anything more?

Page of 54 82

SWAN I can answer any more question if you want me too.

HULL I just asked you do you have anything more you want to put on the record.

SWAN Is this my only opportunity to put things on the record, in this hearing?

HULL This is a hearing on the motion to set aside the default judgment, so I suspect you should look at it that way, yes.

SWAN All right your honor, just bare with me I have never done anything like this so I appreciate your patience. Umm let me see here, give me one second, if you dont mind I need to review and to look at my notes

On every one of these, let me just go down the list to show you how many times this has been false misrepresented about my non appearing. On page one affidavit for default judgment.

HULL I dont need you to repeat that, just tell me what else you have."

SWAN Default order and general judgment on August 13th. Um Cheryl accepted this false sworn affidavit, knowing it to be false. the clerk. Pursuant to page 2 line 6

Page of 55 82

Page of 56 82

HULL: Okay, just hold on a minute here what is it your saying? What the clerk did that was fraud?

SWAN: Every time these have been filed, on the top right these records, have her stamp on it, and Cheryl knew this entire time I made my appearance and I made my answer, and these records presented to the court, and she accepted them, knowing to be false. So thats fraud.

HULL: Okay, carry on

SWAN: Page 2 of the same order of default judgment, the clerk accepted it, page 2 line 1 - 4. Mr. Leuenberger, drafted this motion for default and general judgment on August 11, which was the exact same day he received my answers and my appearance. The same day he is drafting a motion for a default judgment is the same day he received my answers.

Page of 57 82

Page of 58 82

Page 1 line 21 - 23, Mr Leuenberger again made a false misrepresentation claiming I had not answered or made an appearance.

Page of 59 82

"On the DEFAULT ORDER AND GENERAL JUDGMENT, August 13, 2014, submits a misleading affidavit, which failed to disclose the facts regarding my appearance and my answers."

Page of 60 82

Page 2 line 11 - 15, Michelle Wilkinson, is the notary, she notarized the false sworn affidavit knowing it to be false,

Page of 61 82

Ms Wilkinson is the one who signed the UPS delivery on August 11,2014, so she knew that my answers and my appearances were sent to the office of Mr Leuenberger.

Page of 62 82

On August 14, on the um, the false ORDER OF DEFAULT that was filed by Mr Leuenberger, again the same thing he is claiming I did not appear, the clerk Cheryl accepted it knowing it to be false, and.. the Judge signed it.

Page of 63 82

I think it was uh, I believe it was actually you, judge who signed this false ORDER OF DEFAULT, due to fraud misrepresentation, and the opposing attorney, have all misrepresented this for this default judgment.

Page of 64 82

The GENERAL JUDGMENT MONEY AWARD, knowing all this to be false, was again filed by Mr Leuenberger, the court having entered a default judgment against myself, knowing it to be false, for $49,999.99 and 9% interest. This entire thing should be completely void, its a complete obstruction of justice

Page of 65 82

It says that ORCP 68 has been followed, and applied to this default judgement. it has not been followed. I dont see how they can even say that I owe any attorney fees for this void default judgment, It also says, lets see here. Im good. I will stop for a second.

silence in the court

Page of 66 82

SWAN Have I lost you guys?

HULL Nope, we are still waiting for you to finish.

SWAN I guess thats it. my closing statement, lets see here, let me get this on record, according to ummm, lets see here, a default judgement not pursuant to rule 60 of the federal rules of civil procedure, should be based upon facts. this default judgment has gone beyond the allegations in this complaint, and that the judgment is void. due to this large judgments of compensatory damages, without evidence to prove that I even owe Snook any damages at all, and the entire thing is based on fraud and mis representation of facts and, this entire thing should be void on its face, with prejudice. and thats it.

G. These facts are pertinent to the disposition of the courts for approving or

denying a motion for a default judgment.

FRAUD

A. The fraud, false representation, and misconduct, that has been perpetrated by

James Leuenberger, and Edward Snook, is how they were able to place the

$49,999.99 fraudulent default judgment against Deborah Swan.

B. August 11, 2014, James Leuenberger knowingly sent to the Josephine County

Court, a motion for a DEFAULT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT, with a false

supporting affidavit, for the intent to defraud and make false representation.

Page of 67 82

C. On August 13, 2014, James Leuenberger knowingly mis lead the court by filing

these false motions, where he stated as a fact, claiming that he had not received

Deborahs answers, and that he has no knowledge of Deborah Swan having any

intent to appear.

D. This information is pertinent to the disposition whether a default order and

judgment, attorney fees and money award would be allowed according to the

rules of default judgments to be granted. 6

E. Defendants Leuenberger knowingly committed fraud upon Judge Thomas

Hull, Deborah Swan, and Josephine County Circuit Court, by filing under oath

these false sworn affidavits, and false representations to the court, claiming

Deborah Swan had NOT appeared or filed her answers and had no knowledge

of the Deborah Swans intent to appear.

F. These mis representations, deceptions and fraud, caused Judge Hull to

unlawfully entered a $49,999.99 default judgment against Deborah Swan, with

a lien and 9% interest, with awarded attorney fees all to be paid.

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 165.205) 6The accused must have intended to defraud the injured party, made a false pretense, the latter must have relied on the false representation believing it to be true and must thereby have been induced to part with something of value. State v. Clermont, 9 Or App 141, 495 P2d 305 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Page of 68 82

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/165.205

165.102

OBTAINING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DECEPTION.

A. James Leuenberger and Edward Snook knowingly committed the crime of

obtaining, and the execution of documents by deception, with intent to

knowingly defraud and injure Deborah Swan, to acquire a substantial benefit

for himself, and Leuenbergers client Ed Snook.

B. James Leuenberger knowingly obtained by fraud, deceit and subterfuge, the

execution of written instruments which affected, and will end up purporting

the pecuniary interest of Deborah Swan.

C. Knowingly Obtaining execution of documents by deception is a Class A

misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 168]

ORS 164.095 THEFT BY RECEIVING.

A. James Leuenberger and Edward Snook knowingly have committed theft by

receiving, due to the default judgment was procured through fraud, deceit, 7

and false misrepresentation.

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 165.205)The accused must have intended to defraud the injured party, made a false pretense, 7the latter must have relied on the false representation believing it to be true and must thereby have been induced to part with something of value. State v. Clermont, 9 Or App 141, 495 P2d 305 (1972),

Page of 69 82

B. Leuenberger and Edward Snook, knowingly allowed the court to approve false

money awards and damages, at the expense of Deborah Swan, knowing the

judgments and money awards and damages were procured through fraud,

theft, false representations and deceit.

C. Leuenberger, the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, and Edward Snook both

knowingly concealed the facts about Deborah Swans answers, affirmative

defense, counterclaim, fee waiver application, and appearance, that Civil

Clerk Cheryl Shonk, James Leuenberger and Edward Snook all received on

time, before the time expired, to deceive the Josephine County Judges.

D. This criminal concealment was perpetrated by the Civil Clerk Cheryl Shonk,

Leuenberger and Ed Snook, to enter the false default judgment, order of a

money award, damages and attorney fees to be unlawfully forced to be paid

by Deborah Swan.

E. On August 11, 2014, James Leuenberger and Edward Snook, knowingly sent

false, fraudulent documents to the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk.

F. On August 15, 2015, James Leuenberger and his client Ed Snook, knowingly

deceived Judge Thomas Hull into signing a fraudulent General Judgment and

Money Award, with post judgment interest at 9% per annum, attorney fees

Page of 70 82

and cost disbursements which are falsely claimed to be in accordance with

ORCP 68.

G. On September 3, 2014, James Leuenberger and Edward Snook, knowingly

both deceived Judge Linda Baker, by claiming that the Default Judgment and

Money Award on Default, that was entered by James Leuenberger on August

15, 2014, was a valid default that has been entered. 8

H. Linda Baker then signed off of the fraudulent Supplemental Judgment.

I. October 20,2014, James Leuenberger knowingly lied to Judge Daniel Simcoe,

denying receiving the Defendants MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC

APPEARANCE.

OUJI-CR 3-19

PERJURY BY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

A. James Leuenberger knowingly has made contradictory statements, which have

been proven to be false, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the self authenticated

evidence found in the court records, Snook vs Swan, 14CV0835, in Josephine

An accused acts knowingly under the ABA Standards when he has "conscious awareness of the nature or attendant 8circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result." ABA Standards at 17. The Oregon criminal standard for a "knowing[]" mental state articulated in ORS 161.085(8) and the ABA standard for "knowing" conduct describe the same state of mind. Therefore, as to the convictions for false reporting and improper use of the emergency reporting system, the record establishes that the accused acted with at least a knowing state of mind.

Page of 71 82

County, Oregon.

James Leuenberger filed a false default

C. The records that have been filed in this case is the self authenticated

evidence of fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation.

D. The records show where Leuenberger has claimed that the Defendant did

not appear nor does he has any knowledge of the Defendant appearing.

E. The confession by James Leuenberger during the objection hearing, that he DID

receive the Defendants answers, affirmative defense and counter claim, clearly

proves this default judgment is not legal.

Annotated ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3; cf. DR 7-102(B)(1); see

also DR 1-102(A)(3) (lawyer may not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).

Leuenberger has admitted on court record, in his response to the Judicial Notice I

orally made during the Objection Hearing help on November 12, 2014, in Judge

Thomas Hulls courtroom.

Page of 72 82

TITLE 18 2071

CONCEALMENT, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY

A. On August 11, 2014, Deborah Swan filed, deposited with the civil clerk Cheryl

Shonk in Josephine County Circuit Court, and with employee Michelle

Wilkinson, at the office of James Leuenberger Fight 4 Rights, her answers,

affirmative defense and counter claim.

B. On August 11, 2014. James Leuenberger and Ed Snook knowingly concealed

Deborah Swans answers, affirmative defense and counter claim.

C. The purpose for concealing Deborah Swans answers, affirmative defense, and

counter claim Leuenberger received by UPS, was to present false facts to the

Josephine Circuit Court Judges, in order to be granted a $49,999.99 default

judgment against Deborah Swan.

D. Cheryl Shonk, the civil clerk knowingly concealed Deborah Swan's answers,

affirmative defense, and counter claim by refusing to enter into the court OJIN

register that Deborah Swan did make her appearance and did answer to the

complaint on August 11, 2014 before the legal time had expired.

Page of 73 82

VIOLATION OF EXPARTE COMMUNUCATIONS

WITH JUDGE HULL

A. January 28, 2015, James Leuenberger and his client Ed Snook had private

communication with Judge Hull.

B. On January 28, 2015, I filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Hull with a proposed

order.

C. Leuenberger was communicating with Judge Hull about my motion to change

a judge and the proposed order I filed.

D. During their communication, I was copied by mistake by Leuenberger when he

sent a email to Judge Hull.

E. Leuenberger thought he was emailing Judge Hull, but instead he sent the email

to Judge Hill out in Linn County.

F. When Judge Hill opened up the email and discovered what Jim was doing,

Judge Hill responded to Leuenberger by reminding Leuenberger that this type

of communications with a judge is not legal.

G. Leuenberger responded to Judge Hill by saying Sorry.

Page of 74 82

Page of 75 82

6.21

Page of 76 82

Page of 77 82

DO NOT COUNT THE DAY OF SERVICE. THE FOLLOWING DAY IS THE 1ST DAY AFTER

EXHIBIT A1

SERVED SUMMONS ON JULY 11, 2014

Page of 78 82

EXHIBIT A2

DO NOT COUNT THE 30TH DAY IF THE 30TH DAY FALLS ON A SUNDAY. YOU SKIP THE SUNDAT AND THE 30TH DAY IS MONDAY.

Page of 79 82

EXHIBIT B

Page of 80 82

EXHIBIT CLEUENBERGER SENT THIS EMAIL TO Ed SNOOK ON

AUGUST 11, 2014 AT 12:02 PM.

THIS PROVES LEUENBERGER AND SNOOKDID RECEIVE DEBORAH SWANS ANSWERS,

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND COUNTER CLAIM, BEFORE THE LEGAL TIME EXPIRED .

Page of 81 82

EXHIBIT DTHE PROOF THAT LEUENBERGER GAVE FALSE FACTS TO JUDGE SIMCOE BY CLAIMING HE DID NOT RECEIVE A COPY OF MY TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE.

Page of 82 82