Plaintiff's Oral Arguments, Affidavits and Supporting Declarations

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

Abby Jo Ovitsky * Case No. C153663 CVPine Ridge Park *

6900 SW 195th Avenue 133 * PLAINTIFF'S ORAL ARGUMENTSAloha, Oregon 97007 * AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING

* DECLARATIONSPlaintiff, *

* Hon. Andrew R. Erwin, Presidingv. * * Jim Ryan, Regional Manager *Commonwealth Real Estate Services *Adam Cook, representative *

*18150 SW Boones Ferry Road *Portland, OR 97224 *

*And *

*Claudia Lopez, Community Manager *

Pine Ridge Park 214 *

6900 SW 195th Avenue *Aloha, OR 97007 *

*Defendants. *

Pursuant to the October 5, 2015 Order of the Hon. Andrew R. Erwin (Exhibit A), plaintiff submits her

oral arguments, supporting affidavits and declarations. That Order addresses two issues to be adjudicated on

October 26, 2015, namely: 1. Plaintiff's motions to enter defaults of defendants Ryan and Lopez; 2. Motion of

defendants to dismiss complaint for insufficiency of facts. Accordingly, plaintiff addresses these two issues in the

two sections that follow. The first section addresses sufficiency of facts and the second section addresses the

failure of defendants Ryan and Lopez to appear and defend pursuant to Rule 7. Plaintiff notes herein that the

motion to dismiss defendant Lopez was properly filed on September 28, 2015. The last day for any

PLAINTIFF'S ORAL ARGUMENTS, AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS

opposition to be filed was October 13, 2015. Plaintiff was not served with any such opposition. Defendants did file an

opposition to the motion to default Jim Ryan even though they were not served with the motion itself, pursuant to Rule 9

that service is not required when default is sought for non-appearance. Thus we know that defendants are aware they must

check the docket on a regular basis, to not do so would be a breach of their duty to vigorously defend their clients.

Defendants have online access1 to the court dockets and they have professional clerical staff. Plaintiff has no such access or

staff, she has to call on operator assisted relay, or she has to physically drive to the court to discover what is occurring in her

case. Even though defense counsel knew they had to check the docket and even though they have convenient access to do

so, they evidently did not bother to do so, and plaintiff points out that the motion for entry of default of defendant Lopez is

therefore unopposed, her default should be entered automatically as no good cause was given for her failure to appear until

2 days after her deadline of September 21st. Ryan's “appearance” was 10 days late as described herein.

Plaintiff respectfully points out that a main purpose of the rules of court is to promote efficient justice. With all due

respect, the manner in which defense attorneys have handled this lawsuit is inefficient. They have ignored the settlement

offer. After more than 70 days of time to consider plaintiff's complaint, they have produced a mound of paper which still has

not addressed more than 14% of the issues presented in the original complaint. They have had at least four lawyers “work”

on this case. The last one wanted plaintiff to focus on a re-write her complaint, threatening to “attack” it if she does not hop

to re-writing it in October for the benefit of counsel. It appears to plaintiff that these actions are calculated to delay plaintiff,

deny her justice all the while increasing lawyer's billable hours at the expense of efficient administration of justice. That this

is so is illustrated by Mr. Bennett's demand that this indigent plaintiff , who subsists on a small social security check only

and who has no assets other than the residence she lives in, pay his fee for filing the motion to dismiss because she would

not automatically dismiss her complaint without further discussion as he demanded in their “meet and confer” last month.

Had this court not issued its “equal footing” order on October 5, 2015, counsel no doubt would be continuing to bully

plaintiff at the expense of his client and whilst ignoring an obvious solution: the lawyers fees are getting close to the amount

of damages requested in the complaint. Plaintiff is not suing to get rich, she is suing to protect her home. She only wants a

safe, quiet, private place to live. The same efforts that have been focused on “defending” against plaintiff could have been

used to help her leave defendant's land, to help her sell her home and move on. Defendants are after all licensed real estate

1Access to Oregon Cases Online - Oregon Judicial Case Information Network (OJCIN) , not available at this time to plaintiff. Upon information and belief, at this time it is only available in Washington County to paying subscribers or bar members. http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/OnlineServices/OJIN/Pages/index.aspx

Page 2 of 43PLAINTIFF'S ORAL ARGUMENTS, AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS

agents and they were informed over four years ago that this plaintiff has special needs. Defendants failed to act ethically in

2011, when Kevin Mapes with Keller Williams Realty2 (her real estate agent in 2011) told them she has special needs and

they tried to prevent her from buying in then. However, in 2011, she and Mapes both pointed out her rights and defendants

did allow her in and she did buy in. Now she owns her home free and clear. She offered to sell it to them at fair market

value, they ignored her. Granting these two default entries will efficiently dispose of 2/3 of the case, allow her the

injunctive relief she needs along with modest compensation for her damages and costs of suit. It will protect her from future

harassment and give her a down payment for a more private home, to protect her health, and to begin moving away from

defendants.

ORCP 23 states in pertinent part, “...as to all parties who are in default or against whom a default previously has

been entered, judgment may be rendered in accordance with the prayer of the original pleading served upon them ;

and neither the amended pleading nor the process thereon need be served upon such parties in default unless the amended

pleading asks for additional relief against the parties in default.” (Emphasis added). No additional relief is in fact being

requested from 2/3 of the defendants: Jim Ryan, Regional Manager and Claudia Lopez, Residential Manager, both of whom

are still in their positions at Commonwealth. Therefore if trier of fact finds that plaintiff has fully complied with ORCP

Rules 7, 9 and 69, there is no need to seek amendment of the complaint for insufficiency.

If trier of fact does not enter the requested defaults based on insufficiency, then plaintiff prays for leave of court to

correct the insufficiency, as determined by trier of fact. The insufficiency argument was not presented to this court until

after the deadline for defendants Ryan and Lopez to appear and defend, therefore this plaintiff argues the facts are sufficient

for the defaults and also for the civil complaint to stand on its own for the purposes of removing “inaccessible by design”

barriers that continue to prevent disabled homeowners and RV tenants from equal access to the Commonwealth's resources.3

///

///

2 http://www.kw.com/kw/agent/kevinmapes3 Reserved disabled parking that is constantly blocked due to inadequate signage. Questionable sewage repairs resulting in

“plumbing emergencies” requiring unannounced water shut off; unexplained interruptions in electricity; inaccessible incoming mail due to inaccessible mailbox location (uphill out of reach of homeowners with mobility issues), no mailbox lighting, unstable ground next to the mailbox, no outgoing mailbox; no child recreation area, ongoing non-compliance to read door signs asking for no talking or use of written notes and email; unlawful evictions and/or retaliatory warning letters sent which are based on hearsay or unfair and inequitable enforcement of very vague rules seeking to prevent “obnoxious” behavior without defining that behavior which targets anyone taking initiative to protect their own financial investments, to improve property, or to organize a tenant union, in violation of ORS and federal law.


The purpose of this lawsuit is to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the parties to one another and to the

community, to hold those who have caused harm responsible for harm caused, to prevent future harm and to make plaintiff

whole.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF FACTS

Defendants claim, in their September 23, 2015 motion to dismiss, that plaintiff has not alleged enough “ultimate

facts” to sustain her complaint. This section will examine these claims. Ultimate facts are not alleged in a complaint, they

are conclusions based on evidence after discovery. This case has not proceeded to a discovery phase yet.

A. DEFENDANTS' LAWYER MISLED THE COURT

Ryan and his lawyers' misleading statements add up to contempt of court. Defendants never claim that what they

have written, either in their July 27, 2015 “warning letter” or in their late-filed motion to dismiss is true. Unlike plaintiff, the

lawyers do not sign anything under penalty of perjury. Is the June 30, 2015 sheriff's report (Exhibit C) quoting

“management” as “looking at evicting Abby” true? Yet Mr. Ryan refers to this letter as “innocuous.” There are many

examples of defendants misrepresenting facts to this court:

1. Jim Ryan claims that the information in his July 27, 2015 “warning letter” was not published to any

third party. Ryan contradicts his own statement as he himself also claims “the health department was

called” after which it created a written public record with a public file number and he gives the number.

That is publication.

2. It was not the “Health Department” that was called, it was the Sheriff, namely Deputy Tim Maleski,

who created a written “mental” report on June 30, 2015 in which he states “management” “is looking into

evicting Abby.” Ryan's July 27, 2015 communication to plaintiff (Exhibit B) says clearly it is “notice”

meaning it purports to be legal notice that she has violated CC&R, quoting sections he alleges were

violated. The clear threat under state law is that if there is another alleged breach within six months, her

landlord will attempt to throw her out of her private property. Yet Ryan's lawyer is telling you this letter is

“innocuous and private” after they shared the contents of it with Deputy Maleski, created a public record

out of that report and effectively shared it with Washington County and anyone who reads the court record

now, the “mental” report is cited by number, anyone can get a copy of it, just as plaintiff did.

3. The “mental” report cited above and by defendants is published libel, itself is a false report, violating


ORS§162.375, initiating false report. Management knew on the date they spoke to Deputy Maleski that

they had not summoned him, someone else had. That someone was plaintiff, for traffic enforcement at

approximately 2:30-2:40 pm, which is the responsibility of defendants who had neglected this

responsibility despite numerous written requests from this plaintiff throughout early 2015 after numerous

parking violations by the same two neighbors (Exhibit H). In retaliation for plaintiff summoning sheriff to

enforce parking laws, and for her posts about the sewer and violation of ORS§90.322, defendants made a

false, misleading and malicious “mental” report for the sole purpose of discrediting plaintiff. The

“mental” report authored by Maleski was sent to Washington DC to the Department of Justice (USDOJ)

so they can look into non compliance with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) by the Washington County

Sheriff's Department. DOJ assigned this matter the file number ADA complaint 100007501.

4. Defendants state in their arguments they had no idea what plaintiff wanted to communicate that

day. Yet Deputy Maleski's report dated June 30, 2015 states management showed him photos they

received from plaintiff of the rose bush being destroyed, clearly showing a large drill being inserted into

the ground through the pavement, a large heavy piece of noise-making equipment. That photo clearly

shows two rose bushes on plaintiff's lawn. Mention of this photo, taken and emailed June 30, 2015 to

Claudia Lopez also clearly shows that management has no problem receiving emailed photographs from

plaintiff and that they did get her complaint that day that her parking space had been blocked and one

of the rose bushes destroyed. This is evidence of actual malice4. Management knew what was going

on, disregarded this knowledge and with Deputy Maleski's help, created a false record to discredit

plaintiff and use her complaint against her to throw her out of her own home. Actual malice was pled

in the original complaint on page 8, paragraphs 32 and 39.

5. Plaintiff most certainly alleged on (pages 6, 7, 8 for example of her complaint) that defendants and each of

them maliciously, intentionally disturbed her and failed to protect her, treating her with deliberate

indifference all summer creschendoing in the “warning letter” of July 27, 2015, and which continued with

the “plumbing emergency” of September 8, 2015 and blocking of the carport again in October.

4"Actual malice” in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." [wikipedia, actual malice]. This lawsuit does involve publication of libel to sheriff, a public official but he is not a defendant in this lawsuit, he's a witness that plaintiff has the right to cross-examine.


6. Defendants rely on sheriff for their “public good” argument when in fact defendants used sheriff's

appearance, after he was called by plaintiff, in order to create a false report. Sheriff was called for a

non-emergency to look into the parking situation which Lopez repeatedly failed to attend to after

numerous email requests over a period of several months. Deputy Tim Maleski arrived the afternoon of

June 30, 2015 to find that plaintiff was in her house minding her own business. Maleski got an earful from

“management” who is after six months on the job, “looking into evicting Abby,” a law abiding

homeowner who has never breached her rental agreement in over four years. Upon information and belief,

this new manager is supervised by a regional manager who has been on his job less than one year. Instead

of writing a report that is based on his personal observation, Maleski only recorded what he heard other

people say, that is, hearsay. The entire report is 100% hearsay. It is not admissible in court as evidence of

anything. Dismissal now would preclude cross examination of a key witness relied upon by defendants

whose integrity is highly questionable.

7. The “mental” report now appears in retaliation for her complaint on June 30 th about parking. She has been

in the same house on the same defendants' land for 50 months. She has been home more or less 24/7 that

entire time, every night, never any trips away, no parties. She has used email for communication with all

managers that entire time and defendants accepted email as the primary means of communication with her

as a reasonable accommodation for her disclosed disability. In fact, many of her emails contain a legal

notice that written language is her primary language (Exhibit H). Each email plaintiff sent contains links

where readers can quickly see that she spends most of her time writing and advocating for equal language

rights. There were no reported problems requiring “notice” alleging breach of CC&R for “loud” or

“obnoxious” “reporting” behavior for over four years even though plaintiff did make many reports.

Plaintiff has mowed the lawn for four summers now by herself, wearing a swim suit each summer on hot

days. There were no complaints and rent was paid and accepted as usual. No comment was ever received

from the same still unidentified neighbor who is quoted herein by Deputy Maleski in June 2015 suddenly

complaining about her attire. Plaintiff began complaining to “management” about him in 2013 (Exhibit H)

about his violating her personal privacy by looking through her windows and photographing her in her

bedroom. Upon information and belief, he's a former classmate of plaintiff's son. The son is 20, she


believes this man is about 19 years old.

8. Immediately after asking about unresolved sewage issues accompanied by an interruption in

utilities directly caused by defendants' guests, tenants, contractors, agents, workers, employees, or

invitees, plaintiff was targeted for retaliatory eviction which caused her extreme financial loss and

hardship, physical stress, mental stress, and other associated damages as pled in the complaint.

9. Commonwealth Real Estate Services v. Rick Padilla (Washington Court of Appeals)(2009)5 is a case

about six years ago, in which the same landlord targeted a mobile home owner after 14 peaceful years,

by threatening him with allegedly retaliatory eviction after he did something that was not a CC&R

violation but simply something they did not subjectively like, something the landlord or one of his

“managers” unilaterally and suddenly decided was “obnoxious6.” Rick Padilla was punished by

Commonwealth because he had taken initiative to buy a second house in the park and fix it up. The

appellate court ruled therein that the “warning letters” were void since Commonwealth continued to

accept full rent from Padilla throughout the litigation, they were not only prohibited from re-using those

warning letters as “good cause,” but they could not try to use those same excuses in the future as “good

cause” to evict homeowner Padilla. Plaintiff asks this court to take judicial notice of the Padilla ruling.

10. Jeff Bennett blindly claims ex post facto privilege after defendants knowingly, maliciously and willingly

published the contents of the July 27, 2015 letter to Washington County. The Sheriff representing

Washington County in turn notified MHRT (Exhibit C). The Sheriff and the mental health response team

(MHRT) are two third parties for the purpose of proving publication of libel.

11. Defendants have completely ignored in their late filing the six other statutory violations clearly pled such

as ongoing blocking of the disabled parking space due to inadequate signage not attended to until mid-

October. They attempt to mitigate damage at the same time they do not admit to this court damage

exists. Exhibit I shows examples of compliant signs and specific rules about the size, text and placement

5 Padilla was represented by Northwest Justice Project, Wenatchee, WA. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1248528.html#sthash.w7gtiQIz.dpuf

6 What appears to be objectionable here is the idea of a homeowner making profit from his own work on defendants' land. Defendants appear to be threatened by competition from homeowners who sell houses “FSBO” because defendants are licensed real estate agents making a living on commissions. Homeowners who acquire additional properties on defendants' land then improve the existing homes will often make a profit when they sell FSBO, excluding agents. If this theory is true, defendant is also engaging in unfair competition.


of the sign. Yet defendants' actions show that a non-compliant sign was placed on October 12, 2015 in the

same parking space and new signs have been placed at the park entrance and at the park “totem pole” area

(Exhibit E). While they tell the court there is no triable issue of fact and argue about how a

deliberately published damaging untruth about plaintiff being “mental” is not libel “per se,” they

go about quietly putting up new parking signs as had been requested by this plaintiff all this year to

reduce street congestion and blocking of exits.

12. Defendants continue to ignore door signs (Exhibit F) which is ongoing housing discrimination on the

basis of ignoring written warnings about trespassing as well as refusing to continue to make a reasonable

accommodation for language of severely hearing impaired homeowner.

13. Plaintiff notified defendants repeatedly in writing that she is hyperacute and that defendants must give 24

hours written notice per ORS§90.322, before they intrude in any way that would make noise.

14. There are no doorbells, telephones, televisions or intercoms on or in plaintiff's mobile home. The few

guests are invited by email and given appointments. NO TRESSPASSING door signs have been on both

doors since 2011. This plaintiff has asked the ADA Enforcement Division, Department of Justice,

Washington, DC, to look into the legal effect of a “deaf” door sign on private property. Plaintiffs door

signs say in effect, no physical contact is wanted and the only means of communication for all uninvited

guests are email or written notes. The latter is directed to officials such as management, census or law

enforcement who need to communicate directly with plaintiff. This is why the email is freely given

although it is a private secured email. DOJ has assigned this new door sign complaint a number which is

ADA complaint 100007501. The door signs themselves constitute notice of hyperacusis. The carport

and home are private property. The carport door used by Deputy Maleski on June 30th does have a sign

explaining hyperacusis, asks for use of email for all communication, provides the address for email

communication and explains that all trespassers will be prosecuted for trespassing as well as for

intentional harassment after reading the notice if they disregard it. Deputy Tim Maleski intentionally and

at the request of “management” who told him on June 30, 2015 they are “looking to evict Abby”

disregarded this door sign.

15. When Deputy Maleski appeared that day without invitation, he initially refused to read the signs, he


refused to give plaintiff a business card with his Washington County public email address, even though he

is a civil servant paid by her Washington County property taxes. When he refused to leave upon request,

she called the station again on relay and asked for his immediate removal after notifying him she will be

enforcing the rights articulated in the written door notice. She has sent his supervisor, Ron Medlock, three

emails asking for Maleski to be investigated for harassment. She sent a copy of his report to DOJ in

Washington.

16. Both doors have signs asking for no knocking (Exhibit F). One of the many signs is in various languages,

reflecting awareness of the people that live in the park and in the nearby community. Maleski's report

notes the various languages, but omits having read the words “no trespassing” and “hearing impaired” in

English.

17. Plaintiff opened her door on the afternoon of June 30, 2015 to let her dog out and found to her surprise a

very tall, broad-shouldered beefy, bald uniformed man with a gun and no displayed badge or ID tag, who

was standing inside her private carport. He refused to give her a name or a reason for being there and she

could not hear him talk. She only learned his name months later after many hours of research. Plaintiff

repeatedly told Deputy Maleski she cannot hear and he continued to talk at her and she could not

hear what he said. He misreported this as her not wanting to talk to him, which was obviously not

the case as she did talk to him and pointed to the signs. She asked him for ID, he refused. She asked

him for a business card, he refused. She told him to use email, pointing to the sign, he stared at her. She

asked him to leave, he refused at first, coming toward her. She went into the house, locked the door and

notified his supervisor that he is harassing her and asked to make a formal complaint about him, the

supervisor, Ron Medlock, refused because she cannot do it by talking. She was given Ron Medlock's

email and she sent her complaint to him via email, three times, he ignored it.

18. Mr. Bennett claims, “...nor has Plaintiff alleged Defendants believed the contents of the letter were (or

were likely to be) false, or outside the scope of Plaintiff’s landlord/tenant relationship with Defendants.”

Plaintiff did say in her complaint, that the contents and allegations of that letter are false. She in fact

said so 14 times. Mr. Bennett cannot say to this court that the contents are true, or he would have in

his client's defense, the truth is there is no defense.


19. Mr. Bennett states falsely that plaintiff is not employable, implying her time or her life are without value,

a worthless human being cannot have “damages.” Bottom of page 4: “Plaintiff has not alleged, nor is she

able to allege, any “special harm” (i.e. damage to her employability) because Plaintiff admits she is 100%

disabled and not employed. The Complaint alleges she does not work and prefers to be left alone in her

dwelling. No special harm is possible in this case.” This plaintiff never, ever stated she is

unemployable, in fact she is employed part-time. Plaintiff did in fact state she is 100% disabled due to a

severe hearing impairment. In fact, she has never refused to work, she has stated only she needs to use

100% written language in order to do that work and/or to telecommute. Mr. Bennett is assuming facts

not in evidence. This is precisely the type of discrimination that Congress addressed when it passed the

Americans With Disabilities Act, and which the State of Oregon adopted when it enacted the anti-

discrimination statutes including ORS§ 659A.145 pled in plaintiff's complaint. The Disabilities Act thus

balances a State's legitimate operation interests against the right of a person with a disability to be

judged "by his or her own merit and essential qualities." Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 496 (2000).

Congress also concluded that, by reducing stereotypes and misconceptions, integration reduces the

likelihood that constitutional violations will recur. Cf. Olmstead v. L. C. (98-536) 527 U.S. 581 (1999) at

600 (isolation "perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or

unworthy of participating in community life.")

20. Plaintiff has pled in her complaint that she works as a writer, blogger and ordained minister. She works

from home. She is published on over a dozen websites, some of which pay her royalties and all of which

display her name and credentials, which include a UC Berkeley degree and roughly three decades of paid

professional experience. She estimates she has at the time of this writing roughly 400 followers and

roughly 1.5 million views per year, based on 3 sites reporting over 150,000 views in six months since

April 20157.

21. Harm is injury as defined herein. Future harm of being homeless in her old age, like neighbor JoAnne

Ford, because of undisclosed sewage issues is a very real credible fear. Ford lost her life savings and her

home16 months ago as of this writing, and upon information and belief, the matter is not resolved.

7 Subscribers: Google+–127, twitter– 44, FaceBook–28, Pinterest– 2, Tumbler—28, WikiNut—28, Pandora—3, YouTube—10, LinkedIn—32, Academia–49, 3tags–7; =378 (10/24/15)


Plaintiff has no other family to bunk with, unlike Ford, plaintiff would be on the street but for the home

she made for herself on defendant's land.

22. Mr. Bennett's statements on page 3, lines 15-25 are false and mislead the court. Plaintiff pled numerous

causes of action: libel, blocking, notice, discrimination, harassment, invasion, linguisicsm, plead on pages

1, 9 and 11 of plaintiff's complaint.

23. Plaintiff called Mr. Bennett via relay on September 11 to ask him what he does not understand, he failed

to ask any questions. She emailed him the same day to again ask him what he does not understand, he

asked no questions. Then only 12 days later he tells this court that he does not understand 86% of the

complaint and expects this court to take him seriously.

24. Mr. Bennett falsely claims there is no concise statement of damages. A concise statement—is given in the

complaint in all caps “SUMMARY OF STATE VIOLATIONS JUNE-AUGUST 2015” beginning on page

9, numbered paragraph 41. There are six state violations not including the federal violation of

discrimination based on deaf language choice. Bennett's motion to dismiss only addresses libel, even

though the complaint repeatedly discusses six violations, with examples and detailed evidence.

25. Mr. Bennett writes to the court, “Plaintiff’s Complaint mentions a variety of utility trucks, unknown

people, a “peeping Tom,” traffic code violations by unknown persons, and random occurrences which are

(a) irrelevant, and (b) subjectively offensive8. Plaintiff does not allege that any such persons, vehicles, or

activities were undertaken at the behest of Defendants, were acts of any agent for Defendants, or were

intended by Defendants to cause Plaintiff alarm.” All of these statements made by Mr. Bennett are

completely false. The “trucks” were photographed at the time and photos with license plate numbers sent

to Claudia Lopez (Exhibit H), who did nothing until mid-October when she caused a “reserved parking”

sign to be placed on plaintiff's front lawn after it was blocked four times in less than four months this year.

The alleged peeping tom is known to sheriff based on the text of the June 30, 2015 “mental” report

prepared by Deputy Maleski. Plaintiff first reported this same peeping tom in 2013 to the defendants. The

8 “subjectively offensive” is about the same as “loud” “obnoxious” “profane” and also describes comments about summer lawn mowing attire, which are not objective complaints about actual harm. One prior email criticized her for getting water on a neighbor's car that was parked on top of her lawn. She was asked not to use a sprinkler to water the front lawn (but also criticized for not watering) and to water by hand because that neighbor wanted to sit next to the sprinkler without getting wet. Defendants have a double standard.


events are not random nor are they irrelevant because they illustrate a pattern of intentional interference

with plaintiff in her private home.

B. FACTS

Plaintiff's association with defendants began in July 2011, when she met with Kevin Mapes, realtor, and Marilyn

Gross, former residential manager, to buy her mobile home. Mapes represented plaintiff and Gross at the time represented

Commonwealth. Plaintiff, in July 2011, disclosed hyperacusis to both of them (Exhibit H). There was at that time a

discussion of her credit score (FICO) why it was low. She explained: she does not use credit at all. Mapes explained her

income is guaranteed by Social Security and that she has zero debt. Those facts are the same today, she has no taxable

earned income. Her main income is Social Security, she still has zero debt and uses no credit. She paid cash for the house,

owns it free & clear and she has invested a total of $55,000 in the house in a four year period. It is her primary residence

and only home. This investment represents her life savings. She is 57 years old, the only child of a WW2 holocaust survivor

from Poland. Plaintiff lives alone.

Defendant Commonwealth initially refused to let her pay cash for her home because of low FICO (Exhibit H)

then finally acquiesced. At that time, Gross agreed, as a reasonable accommodation (her words witnessed by Mapes in

2011) to use email to communicate with plaintiff, acknowledging there is no telephone or doorbell and that plaintiff is

severely hearing impaired. There are many emails to management July 2011-present repeatedly reminding them she is not a

talker, all communication must be via email. Most of these emails contain a language disclaimer reminding recipient that

she has no telephone, some have a deaf symbol on them. Upon reaching this agreement, plaintiff and her then teenage son

moved into the home in space 133 at Pine Ridge Park, 6900 SW 195 th Avenue, Aloha, Oregon, in August 2011. Plaintiff now

spends nearly all of her time at home either gardening, praying or writing. Plaintiff notes the value of the home has

dramatically increased9 as a direct result of her hundreds of hours of work on it during the time she has been there.

Defendants own the land and maintain sewers and roads, they have no right of entry onto her private premises, her

carport or her yards, unless they give 24 hour written notice via email that they are maintaining the road or

landscaping. This has been custom and practice from August 2011-June 30, 2015 . Plaintiff pays for all utilities except

water and sewer. Plaintiff pays Washington County property taxes. Plaintiff did put up notices on her doors that she cannot

9 126% according to Zillow for the time period 2011-2015 for this house and continuing to rise 4.8% per year, http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6900-Sw-195th-Avenue-133-Aloha-OR-97007/2101320857_zpid/


http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6900-Sw-195th-Avenue-133-Aloha-OR-97007/2101320857_zpid/

listen to talk or open her door for uninvited guests, due to hyperacusis (Exhibit F). Her email address is posted on the

door since 2011. She has asked defendants a few times not to knock on her door or post newsletters on her door. Door signs

advise all people to use email. Plaintiff rarely talks to anyone due to the fact that she cannot hear normally. When she is

forced to talk, she is not as easily understood as she is in writing. Deputy Maleski did not understand everything she did say,

some of what he quoted is erroneous, but obviously misheard by him. She did not hear anything deputy Maleski spoke.

Ryan's letter says she “caused” the disturbances. She states clearly in her complaint she did not “cause” but

she reported, therefore Ryan's allegations are false and so is the assertion of his lawyer on September 23 that she did

not dispute the veracity of his letter when she did as to causation . The disturbances occurred; she did not cause any of

them, she reported, then was warned to stop reporting, in violation of ORS§90.322 and ORS§90.385. The complaint itself

states 14 times that the contents of Ryan's letter are false and she told Ryan before filing this lawsuit that all she wanted him

to do in August was verify that parking was the main issue and to destroy the letter. Ryan refused and hung up on her not

once but multiple times then hired Mr. Bennett to “defend” him.

Some time in late 2014 or early 2015, plaintiff discovered from reading old news stories on the internet, that her

neighbor, another older woman living alone in the park, Jo Anne Ford, was forced out of her home due to a plumbing

emergency which involved maintenance of landlord's sewer and that she was never paid for her home despite having spent a

lifetime working and paying for it. Since plaintiff also has spent a lifetime working, she began to ask about this case. She

discovered she needed more insurance and got it. There was no warning about “sewage overflow” insurance being available

nor did she know until 2014 that she could get it easily. Until 2014, she had no disclosure of the dangerous condition and no

insurance to protect her investment from the dangerous condition. Other than the news stories, nobody would discuss it but

all the people she asked knew about it. She then discovered the residential managers had been replaced in the same period

of time, late 2014-early 2015. She has never been introduced to the new residential managers, Claudia and Jose Lopez.

On June 30, 2015, plaintiff called a non emergency number for Washington County Sheriff at about 2:30 pm,

to report a rig blocking her disabled spot in violation of ORS§811.617, and another truck with a worker, digging up her

rosebush and making a lot of noise and dust, without prior written warnings given in violation of ORS§90.322. Before

calling the sheriff, plaintiff attempted to call the resident manager's office, but there was no answer. She also emailed

Claudia Lopez and got no response (Exhibit H, two emails that afternoon). When she called the sheriff she used the non

emergency number using relay (same service referred to in Judge Erwin's October 5, 2015 order) for sheriff and she asked


for traffic or parking enforcement. One call asks for someone to remove the obstruction from her disabled parking space,

and asks for the work permit for the road construction, as required by Washington County, since the road is owned by

Commonwealth, she asked to see a posted County permit. Plaintiff lived in California most of her life. There, when road

work with large rigs and orange cones closes a road even temporarily the permits explaining what is going on are issued by

the County and are posted in public, usually on a lamp post. Here, no permits were posted. No warning was given. Plaintiff

called a non-emergency number (Exhibit E) to report blocked driveway, loud noise, shaking of her home, destruction

of one of the two rose bushes and electricity being partially turned off in her home. Electricity problems are

mentioned in the email to Lopez as well as in a FaceBook post on the Pine Ridge Park page Lopez told plaintiff to

make. Plaintiff requested that deputy ask to see permits, but deputy did not ask to see permits, he heard the workers

say they had permission. No proper permits were ever produced to justify tearing the road up for two hours on June

30, 2015, destroying half of plaintiff's rose bushes (see photo in her original complaint), on her lawn and interrupting

her electrical service.

A few hours went by and the next thing plaintiff experienced, when she opened her door to take her dog out was

a big bald uniformed man with a gun standing in her private carport who refused to leave and refused to show ID, refused to

give her his business card and wore no visible name tag or badge. Defendants refused to provide her with a copy of his

report although they refer to it in their July 27, 2015 “warning letter” which is the reason for this lawsuit. It has taken

plaintiff over 90 days to identify him and find out what he was doing there that day. It was Washington County Sheriff

Deputy Tim Maleski, who wrote the attached report (Exhibit C).

C. SHERIFF REPORT DATED JUNE 30, 2015

Plaintiff gathers from Tim Maleski's word choices that he does not like lawyers. The main error in this report

is that it assumes plaintiff can hear, that she talks on a telephone, both are wrong. She repeatedly stated, “I am

legally deaf, I cannot hear anyone talk.” Deputy Maleski misquotes her as saying she does not want to talk, that's not

what she said, she repeatedly said she cannot hear normally, she cannot read lips. Deputy Maleski states that

plaintiff was “talking” on a “phone” with records, she has no phone and she was not talking at all, she was typing

using the same TRS system which this court and its staff are now familiar with. Sheriff has been apprised of this TRS

system since 2012 but still does not understand it is not talking but a deaf service in which there are always three parties on

each call and there is overlap without intention in all the calls which are also legally recorded in text. Plaintiff repeatedly


told Deputy Maleski she cannot hear anything he says and he continued to talk at her and she had no idea what he

heard until she read his report in mid-October 2015. There are other minor inaccuracies in this report but what is clear is

that Deputy Maleski recorded what he heard other people say, he did not rely on eyes but on ears. Unfortunately the only

admissible court testimony is eye-witness testimony, what he heard is hear-say. For example, from his report, page one: "I

spoke to the mobile home management and they stated they are looking at evicting Abby..." is also hearsay but the fact

that he wrote it down in the course and scope of an official investigation makes it published libel per se. There was no good

cause on June 30, 2015 nor is there now for an eviction. The phrase “looking at evicting” is evidence of a conspiracy to

evict someone whom they subjectively find distasteful in violation of ORS 659A.145.

Had Tim Maleski just listened to “management” “vent” it would be gossip, expression of a personal opinion,

nothing more. Many people tell officers their opinion when they are confronted with law enforcement unexpectedly.

Deputy Maleski's report states he responded to a noise report about something going on in the road. It was only

after he arrived that he responded to management's “call” to invade plaintiff's privacy by seeing firsthand if she is “mental”

or not. Had Deputy Maleski taken this remark for what it's worth, an opinion, it would be harmless. The problem is he wrote

it down and filed it as part of an official sheriff report. Because he used his authority to include this statement of opinion in

his official “mental” report, it becomes presumptive fact, and now it is future damage, it is potentially very harmful to

homeowner who has never breached CC&R, who has been law abiding and whose personal hard work has increased the

value of the house and of the surrounding houses and land. Moreover, she does not use any medical services other than

OMMP.10 “Looking to evict Abby” is an unnecessary gratuitous comment from management to sheriff made June 30, 2015 11

by someone plaintiff has never met who had been manager at that point for roughly six months. It implies to all the deputies

reading this report that “Abby” is about to be evicted when plaintiff in 57 years has never been evicted.

Maleski states he spoke to “several of the neighbors” yet there were no signed witness statements, no names of

the alleged “neighbors,” no photos or videotapes of the allegations made about attire but Deputy Maleski knows who he

talked to. If the two defaults are not entered this month and this case continues on, Maleski must be subpoenaed to testify

to this court as to the sources of his information for the June 30, 2015 , report relied upon by defendants as “cause” for

the “warning letter” which triggered the filing of this complaint. If plaintiff cannot cross-examine the only authority relied

10 Plaintiff saw the OMMP licensed medical doctor last month and he noted she has a hearing impairment.11 Plaintiff argues: this statement made on June 30 2015 to Sheriff is 1. publication of libel and 2. actual malice of evicting

someone without good cause in retaliation for an attempt to enforce ORS§811.617.


upon by her landlord to evict her from the only home she has, his entire report must be disregarded as hearsay and she

asks the court to exclude it as hearsay now that the court has a copy of it. The same deputy continues by identifying the

alleged peeping tom, “I had actually contacted this male,” from page 2 of his narrative, commenting on a photo of the

neighbor who was invading plaintiff's privacy repeatedly. Plaintiff made an August 10 th sheriff report about this same man,

who is the alleged peeping tom and that report has not been produced herein because the alleged peeping tom has never

denied that he spends a lot of his time watching plaintiff, observing how she is dressed, looking in her windows, and making

comments about her, yet nobody holds him accountable despite three harassment complaints about him from this plaintiff.

Plaintiff notes that in the 30 page rental agreement between her and defendants, there exists no community

covenant code or restrictive rule about summer lawn mowing attire. Plaintiff was not mowing her lawn on June 30, 2015.

Deputy Maleski never said he observed her mowing a lawn or that he observed her not clothed. He therefore reported

hearsay from “neighbors” after walking around the area and collecting gossip. The lawn is private property. Plaintiff

called Maleski for traffic enforcement, and somehow this was twisted around with the help of “management” into a

“mental” exam of her which she consented to under duress by opening the door and talking to him at all so that he would

not break the door down or use his weapon12. Lawn mowing attire is not regulated by Oregon Revised Statute nor by

the Commonwealth CC&R. Defendants invented a new rule on June 30, 2015 for the sole purpose of defaming

plaintiff and giving Deputy Maleski something to write about in his report. If her attire was so memorable and

offensive as to trigger a sheriff's report and an eviction warning why is there no photograph of it? After Deputy Maleski

spent the 94°F afternoon gossiping about plaintiff with all of her neighbors, many of whom are often outdoors without pants

in summer, the worst he could say about her is she does not wear pants in 94°F weather to mow her lawn. He declines to

name any source of this comment, and chooses to ignore her complaints about blocked disabled carport, unwanted attention

from a peeping tom and absence of any county permit to tear up her rosebush resulting also in an interruption to her utilities.

In addition to the door sign notice, plaintiff sent email dated June 30, 2015 to Lopez (Exhibit H) re

hyperacusis. On July 22, 2015 a tree trimmer came without prior warning, blocked the same driveway again, and used a

buzz saw a few feet from plaintiff's bed, where she was napping. She was awakened again by dog barking to find the rig

blocking her carport, making it impossible to escape loud and for her painful noise, so she took a photo posted the photo on

12 The same deputies shot and killed a newly retired neighbor in 2012, making plaintiff the third targeted retired person in three years including Ford. http://www.oregonlive.com/aloha/index.ssf/2012/12/washington_county_sheriffs_ser.html


http://www.oregonlive.com/aloha/index.ssf/2012/12/washington_county_sheriffs_ser.html

Face Book, also emailed it to Lopez. She then called (Exhibit D) to the number printed on the truck and asked them to

tell the driver to stop blocking the driveway. It was 1-3 pm, she simply wanted the carport unblocked and for it not to

continue to happen every few weeks. She notified “management” of this incident at the same time, that a truck had come

without notice and blocked her driveway. There was no response from management until she received the “warning letter”

telling her that if she did not stop “reporting” she would be homeless.

During the first week of August 2015, the alleged peeping tom made a 911 call resulting in plaintiff's carport

being blocked again, without any actual emergency. Plaintiff notes the same man allegedly has made most of the false

accusations about her volume, her lawn mowing attire, and he is always believed (because he is not deaf? Because he is a

man?) whilst plaintiff is forced to litigate in order for anyone to even look at her evidence (because she is deaf? Because she

is a woman?)

September 8, 2015, defendants shut off plaintiff's water without warning for four hours and without any

explanation thereafter;

October 8, 2015, plaintiff's carport is again blocked, this time by same neighbor warned last year by sheriff not

to block it (Exhibit H also has a photograph of that neighbor reading the written warning not to keep blocking her carport).

October 12, 2015, defendants give notice of intrusion and put up non-conforming sign on plaintiff's lawn

regarding her carport being “reserved.” There are still no visible signs on defendant's private roads as required by

Washington County Community Development Code, §4141.

October 15, 2015, defendants again trespass without giving notice of intrusion, onto plaintiff's lawn to adjust

sign which is still non-conforming because County signs are smaller, on the road not on private lawns, and they cite the

ORS authority for the sign giving clear written warning of the current fine, which is upon information and belief, $450, see

attached (Exhibit G).

Plaintiff counts a total of eight (8) unannounced intrusions in less than four months, including two on June 30 th

one in the form of Deputy Maleski who tried to force himself on her for “mental” exam requested by Lopez who has never

met plaintiff, on the same day she asked for parking enforcement to remove the first intrusion (blocked driveway, ruckus in

the road, tearing up of the rosebush). Plaintiff notes there were no such intrusions until she began asking questions about

sewage, plumbing and specifically about Jo Anne Ford's case. These intrusions became worse when she posted on

1 http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/LongRangePlanning/Publications/upload/CDC_090315_Web.pdf


FaceBook about the Ford case. Plaintiff has continued to post because 175 homeowners have a right to know if their homes

are sitting on unclean land with ongoing sewage issues. These issues appear to be unresolved and defendants appear to be

covering up the facts by refusing to answer direct questions such as, “Why was my water shut off for four hours today?

How do I know it's fixed now?” Claudia Lopez asked plaintiff to remove these posts. Plaintiff refused, a few weeks later,

these events ensued.

Homeowners in the park pay for electricity, cable and garbage. Homeowners also pay County property taxes 13

for police, traffic maintenance and enforcement of ORS statutes, including ORS§811.617 and ORS§659A.145. The Oregon

Dept. of Justice has recorded three recent public complaints against this same landlord for various reasons which appear to

boil down to homeowners not getting what they paid for. Commonwealth has changed its regional manager and its

residential manager both within the past year. It is has filed numerous name changes with the Secretary of State. It has

refused to answer multiple written inquiries about the plumbing and sewage maintenance. Plaintiff has invested her life

savings in her residence and has a vested financial interest in ensuring that the land her residence sits on is not polluted

and that sewage is reasonably maintained.

D. JIM RYAN, COMMONWEALTH REGIONAL MANAGER

Jim Ryan is a licensed real estate agent with the title of “Regional Manager” for Commonwealth Real Estate

Services. He works for a housing corporation that has been in operation for decades. He enjoys a full clerical staff, offices in

Portland and the benefit of licensed attorneys offering legal counsel whenever his job requires it. Ryan did not dispute any

of the facts presented in this complaint. Ryan never stated the facts are true. He never stated any of these facts were checked

by him before he sent out his “warning letter” to multiple persons. He has no defense to offer other than the further false

allegation that this document (“Exhibit B”) is confidential when it clearly has no such stamp or mark on it and plaintiff did

not delete or redact any such stamp or mark. Despite the fact that plaintiff has made it clear for three months that the letter

and its contents are extremely damaging if presumed true, Ryan's lawyer continues to claim it is “innocuous.” Plaintiff has

had no personal interaction to date with Mr. Ryan. They have never met face to face. They have never heard one another

speak. The only contact between them was after the receipt of the “warning letter” signed by Ryan, warning deaf not to be

“so loud.”

Because individual noise perception is so subjective, Washington County has a Noise Abatement Law. Noise

13 $367.16 per year at present based on bill received from Washington County in October 2015.


abatement or “quiet time” is in effect from 10 pm until 7 am. The noise in question was at 2:30 pm and at 12:59 pm, the

times were both early afternoon. If defendants do not threaten other homeowners with eviction because they allegedly

made noise at 1-3pm, then they cannot threaten plaintiff either. If they cannot enforce existing laws equally, they can buy

her out and she will move as soon as she can find what she told them she needed in 2011, which needs have not and will not

change. This woman physically requires private, quiet seclusion without intrusions or talking and she will continue to

enforce her right to privacy because it is a matter for her of health and well-being. She needs quiet to survive. She is home

24/7, she needs quiet. For these reasons, all trespassers will continue to be prosecuted. Every individual who forces

themselves or their language upon this plaintiff will be sued until she is treated in the community as an equal. This is exactly

what she was doing when she moved to defendants' land, she has not changed at all. Defendants did a background check on

her before selling her a home they now try to force her out of unlawfully. Ryan did not know plaintiff is deaf until after he

sent the warning letter. By his own admission, sheriff “was called” (not “health department”) on June 30, 2015 to intrude

upon plaintiff who has repeatedly in writing rejected all proffered services. This is what an English court recently called a

“malicious anonymous tip.14” Also by his own admission, Ryan did not know plaintiff by name, he said in the recorded call

that he could only identify her by social security number and by space number: numbers, not words, faces or voices.

Defendants and each of them have treated plaintiff as a non-human. If he did not know who she was how could he be sure

she was loud, obnoxious or profane? Ryan has no personal knowledge of anything in the “warning letter.” The letter is

therefore 100% hearsay and has no legal merit, it was arguably sent to plaintiff to bully, harass, intimidate and silence her

“reporting” particularly of land use and sewer issues, in short to silence a whistle-blower. This hearsay remains in the

plaintiff's active tenant file and the “mental” report remains in the sheriff's file even though no objective factual

evidence of any of these false claims exists. It is therefore legitimate cause for concern about future injury discussed at

length by federal courts as “harm” for purposes of this action. The credible future harm is that any administrative

employee who sees a warning letter in tenant's file is not going to question the veracity of it if the letter is still in the file.

Plaintiff has not violated CC&R and should not be “on probation” for something she did not do but merely reported.

How many people are in charge of the park's land? How many more managers will be examining plaintiff's

tenant file between now and the time she sells her house and moves? She seeks to restore her good name by removing this

offensive document from her file by declaring it false since Ryan refused to do so without the lawsuit. She seeks an order to

14 http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/14/couple-accused-of-child-abuse-win-damages


remove any offensive false reports created by Lopez. In August 2015 when plaintiff first learned of this document, she

conferred with Ryan that it is not true, it needs to be verified, she told him how to verify it is not true and asked him to

withdraw it until he could do so. Instead of checking facts, Ryan hung up on her, refused her emails and gave this matter to

his attorney, on or before September 3, 2015.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint “discrimination against individual with disability in real property transactions

prohibited [by] ORS§659A.145(g)” (page 1, complaint). Do defendants send other homeowners warning letters for

“making reports” regarding land use? For mowing lawns during 94°F weather dressed in swim suits? For essentially

expressing their First Amendment rights? For enforcing State parking regulations that protect disabled? For pointing out

that the park is not accessible by design and does not comply with ADA requirements in that roads not plowed in winter;

roads are routinely blocked without any notice to tenants restricting travel, movement and causing unsafe conditions; there

is no road signage to tell visitors where to park and where not to park, even though cars are routinely towed. There is no

outgoing mail receptacle, mailbox lighting is inadequate at the existing mailboxes, there is unstable ground at those

mailboxes and they are not convenient for anyone with a mobility challenge. There is no child recreation area. It appears

more likely than not that a dangerous sewage condition still exists on the property affecting the health, safety and well-

being of the people that live in all 175 houses, not just the one house that was flooded with sewage a few months ago.

Defendants were given notice plaintiff is disabled and specifically suffers from a severe hearing impairment and

a back condition. She gave defendants notice in 2011, when she bought the house with her life savings. (Exhibit H). The

defendants knowingly allowed her to spend all her money on a house in their park after being told in writing she needs a

reasonable accommodation for her disability which is hyperacusis. Federal records so state also. OMMP also so states, each

year she has participated in it, a licensed Oregon MD has noted in her medical record (which is public record) that she is

hearing impaired and that the OMMP participation is for chronic back pain. Accommodations requested and received from

July 2011-June 30, 2015 are written language only (no talking) and enforcement of all existing laws, mainly the protection

of her premises where she spends 95% of her time. She lives alone as a hermit. She does not often leave her home. She is

protecting her only financial asset, her residence, from unlawful and invasive noise intrusions. She is asking for

enforcement by this court of the existing law protecting her and her only home, to enter default so she can get injunctive

relief and compensation. There is no unjust enrichment here. She has paid her dues and suffered long. She does not deserve

the treatment she is getting from these defendants.


Commonwealth is located at 18150 SW Boones Ferry Road. Although they advertise as “real estate

management services” they themselves are licensed realtors. Shortly after plaintiff filed this case, she received, in

September 2015, advertising from Brian Denne and Stace Schiefelbein offering to sell her house within 90 days. Their

address is 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. In other words, they are the next-door neighbors of defendants. Plaintiff

sees these events as being related...she bought a house in 2011, improved it, it's worth 126% more now, and defendants are

pressuring her to sell, even though she still can't get her investment back now. Rhoda Buckley from Crown Homes

appraised her house in August 2015 and said at this point it is worth $43,500. The realtors want $4000-$5000 to handle the

sale. Plaintiff cannot afford to pay a large commission. Accordingly and to mitigate her damages, plaintiff has listed her

house on zillow for sale by owner for $55,000 since August 2015, where by the time of this writing it has had over two

thousand views and 7 shoppers have saved it on their list of desirable properties. A house the same size and age as plaintiff's

house on the same street as her house sold a few months ago for $69,999 on zillow. Plaintiff also offered to settle with

defendants, who are licensed realtors (Adam W. Cook and Jim Ryan) for $55,000 to move out of their park if they will buy

her house and help her to buy a smaller more private house for herself in her retirement, or to build a tiny house on a small

piece of private, secluded quiet land. She cannot easily locate a comparable property for a contingent sale without help as

she cannot use a telephone. So far defendants have ignored her settlement offer even though it was communicated three

times and once through Mr. Bennett who was unaware of it. The zillow advertisement is here:


Defendants repeatedly discriminate against plaintiff on account of her disability by failing to use written English

effectively to protect her to the same extent they protect themselves and/or the hearing tenants who listen to them talk. They

treat her differently and worse due to a physical disability, or more specifically because of the language choices this

disability necessitates, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §42 USC §12182(b) (2) (A) (iii) as pled on page one of her complaint. This

is evidenced as late as September 2015 in emails between plaintiff and Claudia Lopez, whose preferred means of

communication is going door to door and talking.

E. SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN PINE RIDGE PARK

Plaintiff explained in her Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that she has a credible fear of losing her

residence and the life savings invested in it based on the experiences of neighbors Jo Anne Ford and Rick Padilla, who both

had similar recent experiences with the same landlord. The June 30, 2015 Sheriff's report quotes “management” which



admitted on that date they are “looking into evicting Abby” even though there was then and is now no good cause to do so.

Mr. Bennett claims secrecy of his so called “warning letters” serves some public good. The opposite is true.

Hiding the “plumbing” repairs from homeowners on defendant's land only serves the landlord in insulating him from a class

action. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the sewer is not fixed, that it can back up and that this could potentially

harm health, safety and the home itself, as Ms. Ford was prevented by the Health Department from living in her own home

in February 2014, according to the news stories already published on the internet.15 Plaintiff alleges Ford lost her home

because of non-disclosed sewage or “plumbing issues,” which are evidently ongoing as evidenced by the September 8,

2015 unexplained water shutoff. If the “plumbing issues” leading to Ford's fiasco are in fact resolved then why does

defendant Commonwealth refuse to tell all 175 homeowners, starting with plaintiff, precisely how this plumbing problem

was resolved? Why the silence? Why the refusal to discuss? And why does Bennett vehemently argue repeatedly that all

communications between Commonwealth and plaintiff are confidential when they are not marked confidential, and she

never agreed to keep them confidential, particularly when the issues appear to be ongoing and threatening the health, safety

and life savings of 175 homeowners? Plaintiff believes there is an unsafe condition on the land that defendants failed to

disclose to her in 2011 when she bought her home with her life savings . Plaintiff believes that absent discovery and this

court's supervision, Commonwealth will continue to act in secret, cover-up, lie about, threaten, and bully anyone that

asks, including herself in the future and that this is “an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable

conduct” to quote Mr. Bennett, as well as a breach of the CC&R and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Unless

this court intervenes and orders discovery and disclosure the unsafe, unhealthy conditions will continue, seriously

affecting the health, safety and fiscal welfare of the 175 homeowners at Pine Ridge Park, in many cases destroying the

life savings of those who bought houses in the park, paying and trusting Commonwealth to maintain the sewer.

F. CASE LAW REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

"For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must

accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining

party."(emphasis added) Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975) . "At the pleading stage, general factual allegations

of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss [the court] "presum[es] that

15 https://www.facebook.com/koin6/posts/271961413004776 , http://koin.com/2014/08/05/sewage-spill-causes-woman-to-lose-her-mobile-home/


http://koin.com/2014/08/05/sewage-spill-causes-woman-to-lose-her-mobile-home/

http://koin.com/2014/08/05/sewage-spill-causes-woman-to-lose-her-mobile-home/

https://www.facebook.com/koin6/posts/271961413004776

general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (quoting Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S.

871, 889 (1990)); see also Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014 n.3 (1992) (cautioning that while at the

summary judgment stage, the court "require[s] specific facts to be adduced by sworn testimony," a "challenge to a

generalized allegation of injury in fact made at the pleading stage . . . would have been unsuccessful"). (emphasis

added). Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. 544 (2007) requires pleading enough facts to prove the alleged claims.

Plaintiff has alleged seven statutory violations, six State violations and one federal violation. Defendants have not

even bothered to comment on much less dispute six of the seven claims which are presented with illustrative facts,

photographs, and law enforcement reports to prove the violations occurred. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662 (2009)

—the Supreme Court “retired . . . the no-set-of-facts test” and replaced it with the plausibility test. Under this “retooled”

test, as one court has called it, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.”(emphasis added). Plaintiff has given detailed facts, photographs, dates she made two

reports to law enforcement, transcripts of those calls, emails, all unedited, to prove her claims against defendant: land

mismanagement, failure to disclose dangerous sewer and ongoing unresolved “plumbing” issues, singling her out for

special punishments (complaining about volume of hearing impaired between 1-3 pm; complaining about her lawn

mowing attire); allowing neighbors to invade her personal privacy repeatedly, allowing her disabled parking space to

be blocked four times in less than four months by failing to provide any signage on their private road; calling for

unwanted unnecessary “mental” reports and failing to give her written warnings that her quiet enjoyment would be limited

by maintenance of defendant's road with a jack hammer (June 30) which destroyed her rose bush and by maintenance of

defendant's trees with a buzz saw (July 22). During all this time, defendants and each of them treated plaintiff as a non-

human, while continuing not only to collect full rent but while also raising the rent effective January 2016.

Plaintiff has been hearing impaired since 2006 and for the entire 52 months she has been residing on defendants'

land. Yet defendants did not complain about her volume or her lawn mowing attire until July 27, 2015, four years after

plaintiff moved onto defendants' land and immediately after plaintiff began publicly asking about the sewer

maintenance. The July 27, 2015 warning letter was sent in direct retaliation for “reports” made to authorities that concern

defendants' intrusive, abusive, sexist, discriminatory and harassing treatment of her. Plaintiff pled that all these actions


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/544/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports

caused extreme physical pain and suffering to her to the extent she could not eat16 or sleep normally until she gets justice

and resolution in this matter because she has been treated by defendants as a non-human and made to feel like a prisoner in

her own home. According to defendants, plaintiff lacks standing because she has not suffered any “physical injury " and

alleges only "emotional distress." This incorrect as plaintiff has enumerated harm caused includes financial harm past and

future, lost writing opportunities, the threatened loss of her only home due to defendants alleged ongoing bullying.

Defendants have created false, misleading documents questioning her “mental” state that have been placed in her housing

files and sheriff indicates making and circulating his report to at least two others. Plaintiff alleges a credible threat of future

injury from lack of appropriate signage, and from the refusal of defendants, their assigns, tenants, guests, invitees, workers,

agents and others to read signs, particularly a door sign that says “no talking, no uninvited guests, no trespassing and please

use email.” Plaintiff has a credible fear that without injunctive relief, defendants will continue to fail to provide equally

meaningful communication, and will refuse to make a reasonable accommodation as agreed by using text and emails

equally as effectively as defendants use talk, and lastly from the unresolved matter of the sewer, future water shutoffs and

ongoing damages to health, welfare, peace of mind and finances as all her life savings are invested in the home standing on

defendant's murky land.

Plaintiff makes seven different allegations, alleging violation of seven statutes, six Oregon statutes and one federal

statute, enumerated on page 1 of her complaint herein and discussed in more detail on page 9. She asks for compensatory,

punitive and injunctive relief for: 1. defamation, 2. parking, 3. privacy, 4. notice, 5. discrimination, 6. harassment, 7.

linguicisim17 Defendants knew plaintiff is severely hyperacute, that she is home 24/7, based on information given to them

repeatedly and dating back to 2011 which plaintiff has produced herein in part as Exhibit H. Defendants have a duty to warn

her of intrusions that prevent her quiet enjoyment per ORS§90.322 and they each failed to warn; in fact they encouraged

more intrusions by making a false report to sheriff on June 30, 2015.

Plaintiff can establish standing under Article III in one of two ways: (1) by demonstrating that she is realistically

threatened by a repetition of the violation; or (2) by showing a credible threat of future injury. Ibraham v. Dep't of

Homeland 669 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, plaintiff pleads the following facts that demonstrate a credible threat of

future injury: She continues to reside in Pine Ridge Park, on defendants' land, in a home she owns free and clear and she

has documented that defendants repeatedly allow blockage of her access to her disabled parking spot on a regular basis; they

16 Plaintiff has lost forty (44) pounds in the past four years, most of it this summer.17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_discrimination , edited 10.15.15


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_discrimination

refuse to improve signs to prevent future blocking of her disabled spot; they allow other tenants to use buzz saws, pile

drivers, leaf blowers so that the use violates her quiet enjoyment and the CC&R. Plaintiff has shown that defendant's agents,

assigns, or employees, to wit, Jim Ryan and Claudia Lopez have falsely reported and accused plaintiff as “causing”

disturbances, defamed her character further by telling sheriff she is “mental,” without any objective factual evidence, based

entirely on hearsay and rules made up solely to punish plaintiff because she happens to be different by reason of her physical

disability. This particular woman has experienced similar retaliation for most of her 57 years. This is because she has a

speech processing disorder, which affects the way she communicates, as this court well knows. Many people who have

never met her associate her with mediocre federal deaf telecom services.

Interestingly the false allegations are always based on nothing more than hearsay. She cannot and does not pretend

to listen. Those with their own need to be heard for their own personal reasons misinterpret her request for “writing” as

disrespect “she does not want to...” which is what Deputy Maleski repeatedly misreported when he said that plaintiff

repeatedly stated she did not want to talk, she in fact never said that at all. She in fact repeated that she cannot hear

because he kept talking at her, since he was not understanding her, not hearing her and/or both. This prejudice is

typical and potentially dangerous for her so she avoids all physical contact with all people for all reasons which is the only

way she has been able to have peace. She was forced to practice disability law to represent herself in order to survive and

hoped that the federal ruling of 2009 would suffice, yet people that do not know her, who have had no direct contact with her

at all continue to defame, misdirect, gossip about, heckle, discredit and otherwise meddle in her life for no reason other than

she is different. Claudia Lopez has been at Pine Ridge Park less than one year and has never met plaintiff who has been at

Pine Ridge Park for over four years. Plaintiff paid for her home, Ms. Lopez did not. Lopez is the newbie living in

Commonwealth's “manager” house, until her employment terminates. Jim Ryan has never met plaintiff either. Upon

information and belief, Jim Ryan has been with Commonwealth less than one year. Yet these two individuals purport to

judge plaintiff. Plaintiff begs this court to see defendants for what they are: intolerant. This is the reason we have the

Americans With Disabilities Act in the first place, to “put on equal footing” all citizens as they stand before the trier of fact

and the administrator of justice. These defendants have done everything humanly possible to make plaintiff unequal.

The Ninth Circuit has held that an injury is "actual or imminent" where there is a "credible threat" that a

"probabilistic harm" will materialize. Natural Resources Defense Council v. US. E.P.A.,735 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2013).

(emphasis added). In NRDC, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs carried their burden to demonstrate that there was a


credible threat that their members would be exposed to a toxic product as a consequence of the EPA's decision to

conditionally register a product. Id. Because it was nearly impossible for the NRDC's members to eliminate the product

from their children's lives, it was likely that the threat would materialize. Id. At 878-79.

Plaintiff continues to live in defendant's park. Her entire life savings is invested in the house on defendant's land. It

is highly likely and very credible that unless defendants are restrained now they will continue to harass, censor, intrude

upon, defame, discriminate against, block her driveway/carport and make noise. Defendants will continue without court

supervision to get her to move out of her privately owned residence simply because they are themselves intolerant as

evidenced by word choices such as “obnoxious” “loud” and “profane” in their memo of July 27, 2015 to describe an

individual known to them only as hearing impaired. Moreover, it is likely to continue if the “plumbing” issues are not

resolved openly and publicly, holding defendant Commonwealth to its full contractual, legal and ethical obligations to all

tenants in the park, not just to plaintiff.

If any portion of pleading states cause of action, it is not subject to general demurrer. Baker v. City of

Milwaukie, 17 Or App 89, 520 P2d 479 (1974), as modified by §271 Or 500, 533 P2d 772 (1975). (emphasis added).

Defendants completely ignore plaintiff's allegations about parking, privacy, notice, discrimination, harassment and

linguicisim. A motion to dismiss under this section for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim is

equivalent to a demurrer and a granting of the motion and dismissal of the action is an appealable order. Paddack v.

McDonald, 294 Or 667, 661 P2d 545 (1983), (emphasis added) which plaintiff can and will appeal if need be to protect her

rights. She did appeal two other similar cases to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Defendants run a lucrative for profit corporate housing business. Defendants had the actual complaint on August

14, 2015 by hand service, yet incongruously and without any good cause being shown did not bother to file any substantive

response or appear to defend until 40 days had passed, knowing full well that the deadline for all responses is 30 days.

Disputed factual issues cannot be decided on motion to dismiss for failure to state claim nor can effect of arbitrator’s

subsequent decision of factually related claim be raised in support of that motion. Melvin v. Kim’s Restaurant, 308 Or 177,

776 P2d 1286 (1989) (emphasis added).

G. DEFENDANTS MISREPRESENTED THE SOURCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL REPORT

The July 27, 2015 letter references a file number and states the agency that “was called” and presumably which

issued the number is the “Health Department.” This proved after many hours of fruitless research to be false. Upon


information and belief, defendants and each of them intentionally misrepresented to plaintiff and to this court that the

report was a “health” report when in fact it was a law enforcement report regarding mental health. This is presumed

to be malicious as no request was ever made by plaintiff for “help” or assistance other than traffic enforcement. The

“mental” report was made at the same time and day plaintiff asked for traffic enforcement.

Obviously there are disputed factual issues since the only “authority” for the July 27, 2015 “warning letter”

to plaintiff given by defendants is Deputy Tim Maleski's June 30, 2015 report which plaintiff claims is 100% hearsay,

since he did not observe anything himself other than the “do not talk” and “no trespassing” signs on plaintiff's door

which he ignored. This court has an obligation to ask Tim Maleski how he came upon the information included in his two

page narrative, if he heard it or saw it, what he saw, and so on. That is what discovery is for. Absent examination of the only

authority, sheriff, there remains a factual dispute. Defendants claim that plaintiff has done something wrong but there is no

proof of it. They point to Tim Maleski's report which proves nothing other than that Maleski is a gossip, he admits he

walked around collecting gossip then summarized this gossip in his report, which is obvious upon reading the report. He did

not observe plaintiff unclothed or mowing her lawn. He was told the rose bush is not hers when it is. He was told there

was a permit for placing fiber optic cables but he did not see a permit nor did he ask to see a permit. He was asked to

ticket the vehicles photographed by plaintiff that blocked plaintiff's driveway June 30, 2015 and he fails to mention

anybody blocking the driveway at all. He was told by plaintiff repeatedly to read the signs because she cannot hear,

he instead reported she does not want to talk. The signs clearly state she cannot hear. She told him to leave, he refused.

She called his station on relay using only a computer and asked them to remove him, he falsely reports she talked on a

telephone when she has no such device. Of course, there is no mention at all of her repeated sex harassment

complaint against him. This June 30, 2015 report is misleading, confusing, discriminatory and potentially dangerous for

plaintiff, who has been 100% disabled due to severe hearing impairment since 2006 and whose only source of income is

disability insurance since 2009. This public sheriff report attempts to contradict a federal judge (Alexander Weir III, 2009)

without any evidence other than hearsay, supposition, personal distaste of lawyers, assumptions, ignorance and

retaliation. Plaintiff begs this court to instruct defendants and each of them to notify sheriff that the report is defamation

and should be redacted, shredded or expunged because it is based on misinformation given to the sheriff by the residential

managers. Plaintiff's allegations plausibly demonstrate a credible threat of future harm to her that is neither hypothetical

nor conjectural. Therefore, she has standing under Article III to pursue this action against the Commonwealth, and renews


her request that this court grant the motions to default defendants Ryan and Lopez for failure to appear within 30 days

without asking for any extension of time or showing of good cause for the late appearance.

The claim that the July 27, 2015 letter represents a “routine” communication supports plaintiff's argument that the

Commonwealth as a matter of policy engages in using vague hearsay to scare and bully loyal tenants they disagree with or

cannot tolerate for their own personal reasons just as they could not tolerate JoAnne Ford or Rick Padilla.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) shall be denied where the

complaint sets forth "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544,570 (2007). The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement. Id. at 556; Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The only requirement is that the factual allegations and reasonable inferences

must be "plausibly suggestive" of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969

(9th Cir. 2009). For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the complaint must be construed liberally in favor of the

plaintiff, and the complaint's allegations accepted as true, even if "doubtful in fact." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 551 see

also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) ("Rule l2(b)(6) does not countenance . . . dismissals based on a judge's

disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations.") (emphasis added).

Plaintiff attached to her original complaint the full text of each Oregon statute that was violated as follows: ORS

§659A.145 states, in relevant part: “2) A person may not discriminate because of a disability of a purchaser, a disability

of an individual residing in or intending to reside in a dwelling after it is sold , rented or made available or a disability of

any individual associated with a purchaser by doing any of the following:

(a) Refusing to sell, lease, rent or otherwise make available any real property to a purchaser.

(b) Expelling a purchaser.”

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Commonwealth having attempted to refuse to sell in 2011 because of a disability, now tries

to expel plaintiff because of the same disability, violating the same statute.

(c) Making any distinction or restriction against a purchaser in the price, terms, conditions or privileges

relating to the sale, rental, lease or occupancy of real property or the furnishing of any facilities or services in

connection with the real property. (emphasis added). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Commonwealth has treated her

differently and worse because of her disability since she began asking questions about the sewage and plumbing issues

that are landowners' sole responsibility by sending her “warning letters” not reasonably sent to anyone else, for reasons


not enforced against anyone else and which are vague, ambiguous and based solely on hearsay and ignorance about

deaf using words such as “loud,” “profane,” “obnoxious,” “reporting” and “mental,” as complaints about plaintiff not

reasonably made or enforced as to any other tenant in the park.

(g) Refusing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when the

accommodations may be necessary to afford the individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a

dwelling. Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that defendants agreed as a condition of the lease agreement, by and between

herself, represented by Kevin Mapes and their agent, Marilyn Gross, that they would not talk at her because they know she

cannot hear; they would respond to her emails in the same manner and time they respond to other tenants' telephone calls or

personal 1:1 requests, they would not knock on her door or encourage others to talk at her and knock on her door, as it was

explained to them in detail and proof given of a severe hearing impairment. It was also disclosed at that time that she uses a

companion dog which is nearly always by her side, that she has a blue disabled placard for her car, that her only source of

income is Social Security Disability (SSDI) that she uses no credit, no bank loans, has no liquid assets, etc. In fact,

defendants did a background check on plaintiff before allowing her to pay cash for her home in 2011. Defendants, from

August 2011 and until June 30, 2015 did limit their contact with plaintiff to written language for the most part, then they

abruptly and without any explanation or consent, began to knock on her door, talk at her, bother her, intrude upon her with

unannounced noise and retaliate against her for being hearing impaired.

(7) A person may not assist, induce, incite or coerce another person to commit an act or engage in a practice

that violates this section. “management” is quoted by Tim Maleski deputy sheriff as “looking to evict” on June 30, 2015

based only on hearsay, gossip, suppositions and prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that defendants and each of them did assist,

induce, incite and coerce one another to engage in discriminatory practices that violate this section as outlined above

and and as evidenced by the two page narrative filed as a public report by Deputy Sheriff Tim Maleski. (emphasis

added). This is not a new allegation. This statute was pled in the original complaint. Maleski's report was raised by

defendants as authority for their “warning letter,” as if to say, “see even law enforcement agrees with us.” His name was

unknown because he refused to ID himself. His report was referenced by number, it was not attached to the warning letter.

The agency the report came from was disguised by defendants. As soon as plaintiff did some research, she located the

deputy's name and the report, read it and now defends her good name based on that same report offered by defendants as

“proof” because it is clearly based on hear-say.


(8) A person may not coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with any individual in the exercise or

enjoyment of, or on account of having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of having aided or encouraged any other

individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this section.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants and each of them did coerce, intimidate, threaten and interfere with plaintiff's

normal quiet enjoyment of her home that she owns on account of her work for the past several months to disclose the

ongoing plumbing emergencies and unresolved sewage issues at the property which threaten her hard-earned retirement as

well as the health, safety and well-being of her neighbors and each of them. Plaintiff alleges that defendants' actions are

malicious and calculated to censor her from writing and from investigating further the ongoing plumbing problems, even

though she is lawfully doing so inside her own home making no noise at all. Plaintiff alleges that defendants and each of

them or their tenants, guests, workers, contractors, subcontractors, invitees, officers, managers or others under their control

caused noisy, disruptive intrusions into plaintiff's private premises for the purposes of making her stop doing what she is

doing and forcing her to sell before she is ready to sell. Any violation of this section is an unlawful practice. [Formerly

659.430; 2007 c.70 §298; 2007 c.903 §3a; 2008 c.36 §5; 2009 c.109 §1; 2009 c.508 §16].

Plaintiff pled ORS§166.065 which states in pertinent part: “(c) Subjects another to alarm by conveying a

telephonic, electronic or written threat to inflict serious physical injury on that person or to commit a felony involving the

person or property of that person or any member of that person's family, which threat reasonably would be expected to

cause alarm.” Plaintiff has explained at length that normal amounts of noise cause her extreme physical pain due to a

disability called “hyperacusis” disclosed to defendants in 2011. She explained this is why she lives alone, avoids talking and

it is the reason she is retired at the age of 57 and since the age of 51. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants after receiving

repeatedly the same written notice regarding her sensitivities to sound, intentionally proximately and with malice invaded

her personal space, with noise that was calculated to cause pain, frustration, stress, suffering and to encourage plaintiff to

sell her house and leave defendants' park, at a financial loss to her. Plaintiff has alleged defendants harassed her with noise

repeatedly and with full knowledge of her condition and after receiving numerous written reminders from her of her

extreme sensitivity to noise, they made as much noise as they humanly could employing buzz-saws and pile drivers a few

feet from her private premises. Given what defendants were told about plaintiff's sound sensitivities, it is reasonable

that these intrusions would be expected to cause her alarm and more so because they are continuing without any

awareness or warning on an almost weekly basis from June 30, 2015-present, making her home virtually uninhabitable for


http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659.430

her. It is a well-established legal doctrine that frailty of plaintiff is not a valid defense 18. Harassment goes hand in hand with

ORS§163.700 (invasion of personal privacy, reports of the same peeping tom repeatedly attempting to prevent her sun

bathing, staring in the windows, bringing a camera over to her bedroom to take pictures of her in 2013, all reported to

“management” (see Exhibit H). This is on top of repeatedly violating ORS§90.322, repeated and ongoing failure of the

landlord to communicate as agreed to warn plaintiff in writing of a planned intrusion causing noise or limiting her use of her

own property such as shutting off water after landlord schedules plumbing maintenance and claiming everything is “an

emergency” when it is not. If it is not planned, then it represents a dangerous undisclosed condition on the property directly

and proximately affecting the health, welfare, safety and financial well-being of all of the 175 homeowner tenants in

defendant's park.

Plaintiff has begged this court for injunctive relief in the form of stay-away orders for defendant, his employees,

agents, assigns, family, friends, guests, invitees, contractors and/or anyone having or wishing to conduct business with

plaintiff at home, or wishing to encroach upon plaintiff's privately owned premises in order to maintain defendant's roads,

sewers, and landscaping, that they stay 100 feet away from her at all times and use only written language to

communicate with her, that they cease and desist knocking on her door, talking at her, following her, accosting her,

sending her “notices” not reasonably sent to other tenants and otherwise threatening her in her own home. This must now

include an order to prevent management from talking about her to third parties and from calling the sheriff unless

there is a life-threatening emergency or crime in progress that constitutes probable cause. Plaintiff never calls 911.

Plaintiff has no criminal record. Plaintiff has had the same door sign since 2011 with the same email and no telephone since

2009. Washington County Sheriff has communicated with this woman since 2012 via email and to the same email.

DAMAGES

Compensatory Damages: Plaintiff has out of pocket damages for defending her good name so far for approximately

75 hours of work. This includes many hours spent obtaining the June 30, 2015 sheriff's report defendants rely on but which

they refused to provide her with after she requested it in writing from them. Plaintiff has prepared six required pleadings:

the complaint, two motions for default, opposition to defense motion to dismiss for insufficient facts; reply to defense

opposition to default for failure to appear; and this summary. Her expenses include six round trips to court so far, her filing

fee of $153; her service fee of $72; postage; toner; faxes; paper and damages are continuing until the case is over or

18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull


equitably settled. The complaint asks for $10,000 as a total estimate of these costs. The complaint also asks for punitive

damages and “any and all other relief to which she may appear entitled.”

Punitive Damages: Normally the fine for blocking a disabled person's reserved parking space in violation of

ORS§811.617 is $450 per incident. So far this year the disabled space plaintiff rents from defendants has been blocked four

times. The fine for failing to give tenants 24 hours written notice of future intrusions for routine maintenance such as using

a jack hammer to dig up her front lawn causing unannounced interruptions to electricity service to her home on June 30 th

(Exhibit H), and such as using a buzz saw on July 22nd to trim a large Oak tree a few feet from her bedroom is one month of

rent per ORS§90.385 and §90.322 both say not less than one month's rent19 ($510) for repeated unwanted intrusions after

notice is given to stop. There were two such intrusions on June 30th including the false report to sheriff about a “mental”

condition in retaliation for her routine request for traffic enforcement; one incident July 22 nd, another September 8th when

water was shut off, and again an unannounced intrusion to fix defendants' non compliant no parking sign, for a total of five

such unannounced intrusions long after notice was requested. The total so far is $4350 for minimal statutory fines, the fines

that would have been ticketed had the sheriff done as she asked June 30th.

Injunctive relief: is also requested in the complaint to protect plaintiff until she can sell her home to at least get her

money back, as follows: Order that all further communication be via email, that all persons cease and desist from knocking

on the door (which is what both signs on both doors state), stop approaching her, stop talking to or at her for any reason and

that the alleged peeping tom who is known to defendants stay 100 feet away at all times, that the resident managers and Mr.

Ryan and/or Commonwealth use only email for communication. There were no previous warning letters from from July

2011-July 2015, nor any after July 2015, and she hopes to return to that state of equilibrium now. She asks for a public

ruling about hearsay, for the court to define it clearly “to whom it may concern20.” She also asks that the defendants shred

the “warning letter” of July 27, 2015 which is based on hearsay and that they ask sheriff to do the same with his version of

the same hearsay which they gave to sheriff. She asks that all defendants be ordered to restrict future contact to those

notices also reasonably sent to the other tenants and that they be estopped from making up extra new restrictive rules just for

her, such as they are allowed to make noise from 1-3 pm but she is not; they are allowed in the street or lawn areas without

19ORS§90.360 (Effect of landlord noncompliance with rental agreement or obligation to maintain premises)(1). In addition, the tenant may recover actual damages not less than an amount equal to one weeks rent in the case of a week-to-week tenancy or one months rent in all other cases. [Formerly§90.335; 1997 c.577 §18; 1999 c.603 §19; 1999 c.676 §12; 2005 c.391 §20] (emphasis added). 20 For the landlord and the sheriff who seem to need it.




pants but she is not.

The standard in any proceeding for imposition of a punitive sanction, proof of contempt shall be beyond a

reasonable doubt. [1991 c.724 §6; 2001 c.962 §78]. Commonwealth has not proven any contempt on plaintiff's part and

argues legal conclusions as if they were fact. Defendants are only entitled to fees and costs if they prevail. Plaintiff has

shown that defendants have so far failed to appear on time, failed to serve her properly, failed to meet & confer, failed to

offer substantive defense and they ignore 86% of the allegations listed on page 1 of her complaint. They also seem to have a

problem with factual evidence and with the truth. If trier of fact agrees that this is proof of contempt beyond a reasonable

doubt, she asks him to hold counsel in contempt and issue sanctions to counsel for intentionally, knowingly misrepresenting

facts to this court and concealing exculpatory evidence.

Contrary to defendants' false and misleading allegations, Plaintiff did include the request for punitive damages in

the original complaint, on pages 1, 8 and 13 of her complaint. Plaintiff begs this court to look at her entire complaint not

just the libel allegation, and if it finds reason to dismiss the libel, that it keep the statutory violations alleged. Moreover, she

has pled the underlying issue, which she had inquired about, sewage, is not fixed, is an undisclosed dangerous condition

and that taken together with talking at deaf, blocking driveway of disabled with blue placard, unannounced noisy intrusions

to her normally quiet private premises, is creating unsafe conditions for her. Plaintiff argues that defendants knowingly

maliciously and falsely blamed her for the events of 6/30 and 7/22 because they have a “routine” policy of discrimination

against older people and women (JoAnne Ford) and that the publication to Washington County Sheriff as a mental report is

also a routine effort to discredit whistle-blowers and constitutes publication to several third parties, making it libel per se, as

defined by Mr. Bennett.

Joint And Several Liability of Corporations, ORS§646.760 provides, in relevant part: "Any act or series of acts

by one or more individual persons (officers, agents or partners) on behalf of a corporation or other business entity

may be found to constitute a violation or violations by such individual person or persons as well as by the

corporation or other business entity, and separate penalties may be imposed against each of such individual

defendants and corporate or other business entity defendants for such a violation." (emphasis added). Jim Ryan, Regional

Manager and Claudia Lopez, Residential Manager acted on behalf of Commonwealth, an Oregon corporation, and thus

"separate penalties may be imposed against each of such individual defendants...."


TREBLE DAMAGES

ORS§105.810 provides treble damages for injury to or removal of produce, trees or shrubs. Defendants and each

of them do not deny that on June 30, 2015, they caused one of plaintiff's two rose bushes to be destroyed. They do not deny

it was done willfully. Plaintiff has provided detailed photographic evidence of who did the digging: Sonicom, subcontractor

of Frontier who, as the attached law enforcement report illustrates (Exhibit C), were placing two fiber optic cables in the

road with full knowledge of defendants and each of them. Defendants do not deny that on July 22, 2015, they removed a

large portion of an old Oak tree that provided shade and privacy to plaintiff, and she can provide before and after

photographs of the damaged tree.

Birchler v. Castello Land Co., Inc., 915 P.2d 564 (1996), 81 Wash. App. 603 is very similar to plaintiff's current

factual situation. Birchler involves a subcontractor who had no permission from the plaintiffs to do grading work which

damaged a garden. Those plaintiffs were awarded treble damages for intentional trespass, destruction of the garden and

resulting emotional distress. That award was upheld on appeal.

II. DEFAULTS FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR

Defendant Ryan, who is a Regional Manager of Commonwealth Real Estate Services, and defendant Lopez, who is

a Residential Manager of Pine Ridge Park, were both served in person by the sheriff with a Summons that was issued by a

Washington County Circuit Court Clerk. Defendant Ryan was personally served by sheriff 8/14, last day to appear and

offer substantive defense was 9/13. He did not appear until 9/23, ten (10) days late. Defendant Lopez was personally

served on 8/21 by the sheriff, the last day for her to appear and offer substantive defense was 9/20 she responded on 9/23,

three (3) days late. The Summons clearly says, “You must “appear” in this case or the other side will win automatically.

To “appear” you must file with the court a legal document called a “motion” or “answer.” The “motion” or “answer”

must be given to the court clerk or administrator within 30 days along with the required filing fee. It must be in proper form

and have proof of service on the plaintiff’s attorney or, if the plaintiff does not have an attorney, proof of service on the

plaintiff."

Neither defendant Ryan nor defendant Lopez responded within 30 days. Neither the “Notice of Intent to

Appear” which was not even filed with the clerk until the 11 th of September nor the late-filed motion to dismiss should

prevent the court's entry of defaults of Ryan and Lopez. Despite two written reminders no opposition at all was ever filed

or served to plaintiff's motion to enter default of defendant Lopez, filed in this court on September 28th, therefore the


default of Claudia Lopez should be entered and she should be ordered to pay damages for the trouble she caused, and only

since she arrived, there were no such problems before she arrived.

The defendants have had every opportunity to respond in time and did not do so until after the deadline passed for

two out of three plaintiffs who do not dispute factual evidence or damages they themselves caused by their own actions,

inaction, negligence and/or intentional malice. Defendants are large, wealthy housing corporations and their employees,

agents or assigns. Adam W. Cook and his family members have been in some incorporated form of Oregon business,

according to Oregon Secretary of State records, since at least 1972. They have competent legal representation. There is no

acceptable excuse for giving them more time absent any request for an extension of time.

Defendant's attorney, Mr. Bennett, quotes ORCP, so why didn't Bennett ask for extra time? Why didn't Bennett

circulate a stipulation for plaintiff to sign, granting extra time for good cause? She asked him on the 11 th of September how

much time he needed and he ignored her. He himself supplied evidence of this dialogue to this court in his September 23

filing. ORCP 69C(1)(b) requires that the party seeking default submit to the court, a motion containing a declaration

alleging the following facts, including, “that the party against whom the order of default is sought has failed to appear

by filing a motion or answer, or otherwise to defend as provided by these rules or applicable statute;” (emphasis added)

which she did. Plaintiff notified Mr. Bennett she would take Ryan's default in her courtesy call and follow up emails to him

on September 11th. Therefore, plaintiff did in fact and by his own admission, give defense counsel notice of her intent to

take his clients' defaults.

Mr. Bennett sent his “Notice of Intent” to plaintiff on September 3, 2015, not once but five times, each time

signing his own name. Not only that, he confirmed in the live recorded text relay call that the date he sent it out was the 3rd.

Plaintiff waited until the 15th before filing her motion to take default of Jim Ryan. This was more than the ten days required

by ORCP 69 from the date Bennett first sent her his “intent” but still had not acted on it.

ORCP 69 incorporates ORCP 7 and ORCP 9. ORCP 9 states in pertinent part: “No service need be made on

parties in default for failure to appear.” (emphasis added). Rule 9 is subject to strict compliance. “This Rule specifies

manner of service that is impervious to collateral attack and importance of strict compliance with Rule is not negated by

application of ORCP 12B” (defects not affecting substantial rights of adverse parties) (emphasis added). Murray v. Meyer,

81 Or App 432, 725 P2d 947 (1986), Sup Ct. review denied. Motion for extension of time that did not deny plaintiff’s

allegations and was not directed to sufficiency of the complaint did not constitute appearance . Charles Schwab & Co.


v. Pletz, 95 Or App 48, 768 P2d 407 (1989).

Defendants do not deny the allegations. They do not claim truth. They claim their words are neither true nor false

because of a contrived technically. Eighty Six percent of plaintiff's allegations are not addressed by defendants at all, who

failed to read all the words on pages 1 and 9. The motion to enter default of Lopez is not opposed. Mr. Bennett concludes by

claiming his client's warning letter is “innocuous,” essentially, “We sent her a letter. So what?” Clearly that is not all they

did. They attempted to create “cause” for eviction and said so. They published the contents, including intent to evict, to

Washington County Deputy Sheriff Tim Maleski. Tim Maleski, as a direct and proximate result of Ms. Lopez' actions,

then re-published, in writing, these hearsay allegations to his two supervisors and also to MHRT as stated in Exhibit C.

In Murray, even a formal motion for extension of time was found by the court not to prevent default, because

it was not directed to sufficiency of the complaint and did not constitute appearance. Here, Bennett did not bother to

file any motion to extend or enlarge response time. He did not bother to obtain plaintiff's stipulation. He simply demanded

it, ignoring the 30 day deadline and usurping 10 more days for himself for no good cause appearing. Even when he did

bother to file a proper motion, the motion was not directed to the sufficiency of the entire complaint, only one of seven

violations, libel. The other violations, parking, privacy, notice, discrimination, harassment, and linguicisim were ignored by

counsel. Mr. Bennett has so far blamed plaintiff twice for his own inability to understand even after she gave him her time in

a live call on the 11th of September to ask questions and she followed up with him in a series of emails, he still complains to

this court in his motion filed the 23rd of September that he does not understand “irrelevant” details.

Another attorney from Warren Allen, Anna S. McCormack, attempted with an email sent on the evening of October

5, 2015, to get plaintiff to agree to rewrite, refile and reserve her entire complaint with “UTCR guidelines” before this

court rules on these pending motions, trying to confuse and misinterpret to plaintiff that day's court ruling, Exhibit A.

Warren Allen, which failed to appear, defend, meet & confer or settle with plaintiff, now in effect is blaming her for their

own failure to read the first complaint. This is more evidence of wheel-spinning for capital gain in the form of attorneys'

fees. Who asked Ms. McCormack for her opinion about UTCR? Who requested that she draft a stipulation to re-write the

complaint using UTCR? Plaintiff submits to this court that Warren Allen's behavior as a legal services corporation is also

unethical, calculated to distract, confuse, manipulate and delay any settlement, still ignoring plaintiff's offer to sell her house

to defendants for $55,000, which offer has been repeated in writing every month since August 2015.

Obviously defendants do understand that plaintiff needs her carport unblocked, that she wants better signage,


because suddenly new and ever-changing signs have appeared (Exhibit E). So Mr. Bennett evidently read the complaint,

advised his client to mitigate by getting better signs for his private roads, then denied to this court that he understood

anything in the complaint other than the libel allegations. Oregon custom and practice regarding entry of default is clearly

illustrated by Yellow Book Sales and Distribution v. Joseph White, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

February 4, 2014. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062-

0.pdf

"Although White was personally served with process, he did not participate, appear, plead, or otherwise defend in any way from the date of service until after the entry of default. At that time, White provided no reason for his late submission or request for relief from the default. Accordingly, White's conduct is culpable."

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that the neglect of the attorney is to be treated as the neglect of the client ." Mayfield v. Vanguard S & L Ass'n, No. 88-0410, 1989 WL 106986, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 1989); see also Marlowe Patent Holdings LLC v. Dice Electronics, LLC, 293 F.R.D. 688, 700 (D.N.J. 2013). Moreover, the purpose of Rule 60(b) is not to give relief to clients who feel they did not choose the best lawyer for the job. Mayfield, 1989 WL 106986, at *2. Carelessness of a litigant or his attorney is not a ground for relief under Rule 60(b)." (emphasis added).

In Morrow Co. Sch. Dist. v. Oreg. Land and Water Co., 78 Or.App. 296, 300, 716 P.2d 766 (1986), the court held that the ORCP 69 A requirement that a defendant “plead or otherwise defend” means that “the defendant must either submit a pleading or a motion directed at the sufficiency of the complaint.” The court also noted:

“ORCP 69 is a combination of former ORS 18.080 (repealed by Or.Laws 1981, ch. 898 § 53), and FRCP 55. The relevant portions of ORCP 69 are, with minor modifications, identical to the comparable provisions of the federal rule. Accordingly, federal authorities may be persuasive in construing ORCP 69.” Id. at 300, n. 3. (citations omitted).

FRCP 55(a) provides:

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” (emphasis added).

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2) provides in part:

“If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he (or, if appearing by representative, his representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least 3 days prior to the hearing on such application.” (emphasis added).

Plaintiff called Jeff S. Bennett, Esq. on September 11 via relay, and sent email notice then that she will take the

defaults of his clients if he does not comply with ORCP, (Exhibit H). Thus she did actually comply with FRCP 55(a), by

giving an additional “heads-up” four days before filing the ORCP 69 motion for Jim Ryan. Not only that, Judge Erwin

gave counsel another month before hearing, if he has any good cause or not appearing now would be the time to let the

court know. If Ryan has no good cause after having what amounts to six weeks to come up with it and after being served in

person by a Sheriff with a properly issued Summons in August, this plaintiff prays that this court will enter his default now.

Accordingly, under the authority granted by ORCP 69C(3), this court may grant an order of default if “it appears the motion


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062-0.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-03062-0.pdf

and affidavit or declaration have been filed in good faith and good cause is shown that entry of such an order is proper.”

(emphasis added).

Mr. Bennett continues to point to his intent. Mr. Bennett told many people of this intent. That much is clear. He

served and re-served a lot of intent, he filed intent. That's not the same as doing what the State Bar licensed him to do and

what his client paid him to do: appear and defend within 30 days, with a substantive motion or answer that addresses

the entire sufficiency of the complaint, not 14% of it.

A notice of intent to appear is not equal to an appearance because it does not deny the allegations or address

the sufficiency of the complaint. Taxpayer’s courtesy e-mail to Department of Revenue of notice of intent to appeal

without prior written agreement to accept service by e-mail was not valid service because legislative intent to prohibit

service by e-mail absent certain conditions requires actual compliance with this section. Ann Sacks Tile and Stone, Inc. v.

Dept. of Revenue, 352 Or 380, 287 P3d 1062 (2012). There was no actual appearance by Ryan's attorney, Mr. Bennett, until

the 23rd (twenty third) day of September, or three weeks after he acknowledged receiving the complaint. Notices of intent

are not appearances. The taxpayer intended to pay, that's not the same as payment.

During the month of September 2015, Mr. Bennett sent and re-sent the same paper notices, duplicating everything

he purported to do so that his paper mailing filled up a small mail slot that is up a hill and not accessible to plaintiff because

of her scoliosis, she cannot easily get the mail. She told him this and he refused to stop until the state bar told him to stop.

Now he purports to this court that his work is for “the public good.” Nothing Mr. Ryan or his “managers” have done this

year is for any public good, being neither for the public nor for the good. Plaintiff begs this court to hold them each

responsible to pay for this harm caused either by neglect or by intentional malice in retaliation for plaintiff's reports to

authorities about land use issues.

Signs still do not conform to County guidelines. Plaintiff first asked for signs in Spring 2015 before filing this

lawsuit which might have been prevented by signs. Ongoing intrusions and invasions of the private property are caused by

lack of enforcement by defendants. Defendants must put up visible signs and then enforce the law instead of themselves

refusing to obey the law about blocking disabled parking spaces and refusing to give 24 written notice before making loud

noise, coming onto private premises, talking at deaf and/or asking others to talk at deaf.

Ryan does not deny that Commonwealth published hearsay about plaintiff to Deputy Maleski for purposes of an

allegedly retaliatory false County “mental” report to discredit and to retaliate against her for making reports about the sewer,


blogging about it and demanding some answers to protect her life savings and investment in her residence. In fact, Ryan

states this practice is “routine.” Ryan does not disclaim that he wanted to stop all of her reporting and to bully her into

submission with threats that he could throw her out in her old age of her own private residence that she owns, that he could

manipulate the sheriff into believing she must be “mental,” knowing full well no public good is served by these actions. The

problem is not plaintiff's health, it is the health of the land. It is the unhealthy policies of deception and secrecy that are

causing people to lose their homes and lose sleep worrying about it. There is no reassurance in the form of factual evidence

that any of the sewage issues are resolved. The more secretive defendants are about plumbing emergencies the more guilty

they appear to be.

The tone of the July 27, 2015 letter reads like a rebuke to a child. Plaintiff is 57 years old, a college graduate who

has raised a grown son. Her four years as a loyal tenant are not acknowledged. Someone she has never met who is new to

the corporation and who treats her as a non-human account has held her presumptuously guilty. She is being threatened with

homelessness and public ridicule and/or publicly labeled “mental” because and only because she dares to have an opinion

that defendants disagree with and she expresses it in writing. Defendants attempt to abuse their authority, the authority of

the local sheriff and MHRT services by threatening her with what they know she does not want in order to censor her.

Plaintiff prays this court not allow them to do it and make them pay for the pain and suffering they have caused her when all

she has done is exercise her First Amendment.

Attorney Bennett quotes ORCP, so why did Bennett not ask for extra time? Why did Bennett not circulate a

stipulation for plaintiff to sign, granting extra time for good cause? Plaintiff begs this court not to reward him for his

unprofessional conduct: failing to confer, hanging up on plaintiff, insulting her and ignoring the Summons and Rule 7 itself

which give his client 30, not 40 days. Normally Bennett is on the other side, suing tenants. Had tenant been late in appearing

even after notifying the court of an intent, without presenting any good reason for it, Bennett would be all over her arguing

that the appearance is late and that the default should be entered. Plaintiff respectfully requests equal footing from this court

when she faithfully followed all rules. Plaintiff is only trying to clear her good name, and prevent future unwanted

intrusions, invasions, harassment and abuse. She is only trying to protect herself and her own home from future damage.

Plaintiff is an orphan and an only child of a WW2 holocaust survivor. She is 100% disabled, has no taxable income and no

credit or liquid assets, is in several protected classes and she appears alone, without any of the many benefits and luxuries

that the defendants have access to. She relies on faith, truth, ethics, law and on her own integrity. She respectfully asks this


court to enter the default of Jim Ryan and Claudia Lopez without further delay.

Abby Jo Ovitsky states under penalty of perjury as follows: the facts stated herein are true and correct based on

factual or personal knowledge unless stated “upon information and belief,” in which case plaintiff sincerely believes them to

be true and correct. This statement was also made on the first page of her original complaint.

Respectfully submitted this ____ day of ________, 2015 in Aloha, Oregon.

__________________________________ Abby Jo Ovitsky, Plaintiff in Pro Se

Plaintiff'sOralArguments08:09:45 AM| 25.10.15


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

Abby Jo Ovitsky * Case No. C153663 CVPine Ridge Park *

6900 SW 195th Avenue 133 *Aloha, Oregon 97007 *

*

Plaintiff * * *

v. * *

Jim Ryan, Regional Manager *

Commonwealth Real Estate Services *

Adam Cook, representative *18150 SW Boones Ferry Road *Portland, OR 97224 *

*

And **

Claudia Lopez, Community Manager *

Pine Ridge Park 214 *

6900 SW 195th Avenue *Aloha, OR 97007 *

*Defendants. *

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied;

(2) The defaults of defendants Lopez and Ryan are granted, the Court Clerk is directed to enter them;

(3) Plaintiff is awarded $_________ and/or is directed to file a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of Court by __________;

(4) Defendant Commonwealth is ordered to answer by _________ ;

(5) Defendants and each of them are restrained from sending out any new warning letters to plaintiff unless it also

sends the same letter to other homeowners for the same reasons

(6) Defendants and each of them are ordered not to threaten plaintiff with eviction unless it is truly for documented


good cause.

(7) Per Commonwealth v. Padilla, these defendants may not again complain about this plaintiff's volume unless it is

documented by a County Noise Abatement Report. They may not complain again about her lawn-mowing attire unless it

violates existing CC&R or Oregon Revised Statutes.

(8) Defendants and each of them are ordered to give 24 hours written notice as required by ORS§90.322, via email in

advance of any future utility shut-offs, interruptions in utilities, noise-making intrusions or digging up of her yards.

(9) Defendants will enforce ORS§811.617 regardless of what type of sign (or any sign) is on her lawn.

(10) Defendants will replace all non-compliant signs (a sign on a lawn is not compliant) with compliant road signs.

(11) Defendants and their guests, tenants, assigns, agents, employees, family, friends, coworkers, co-owners and

invitees will respect all door signs that ask for no knocking, no intrusions, and use of written language via email not talking,

particularly signs that clearly state NO TRESPASSING.

(12) Defendants will not call 911, sheriff or county to impose any “service” contact on plaintiff unless there is an actual

life-threatening emergency or crime in progress.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE

(13) Plaintiff is granted leave of court to file her First Amended Complaint [FAC] as outlined in her Opposition to

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, namely to add ORS§90.385 [landlord retaliation], factual allegations about Deputy Tim

Maleski that were just discovered in October because defendants intentionally withheld this report after plaintiff asked for it,

causing a delay of several months because they misrepresented it as a “Health Department well-check” which caused her to

ask for the report by number from the wrong agency; the water shut off this month and how it relates back to the case of

previous tenant JoAnne Ford and to supply any more detail to flesh out or clarify the previously pled allegations, such as

patterns of “routine” corporate discrimination; County authority for residential parking signs, copies of two more 2015 law

enforcement reports, photographs of signs, copies of emails, and any further detail that would allow the court or its staff to

verify what she is saying in her pleadings but no more than what has been reported to date. The FAC will be due on

___________, 2015.

Dated this ____ day of _____, 2015

________________________________________ Hon. Andrew R. Erwin


Case No: C153663CV

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; ORCP 7D (2)

Ovitsky v. Commonwealth Real Estate Services, Adam W. Cook agent for service, sued herein as Adam Cook, Jim Ryan, Claudia Lopez

□ (a) Personal Service □ (b) Substitute Service □ (c) Office Service X (d) Service by Mail

On this 26thth day of October, 2015, I personally deposited a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S ORAL

ARGUMENTS, AFFIDAVITS AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, including Exhibits A-I, to be served by USPS

mail, in a sealed envelope, first class postage pre-paid, addressed to:

Jeffrey S. Bennett850 NE 122 AvenuePortland, Oregon 97230

attorney of record for Commonwealth Real Estate Services, Jim Ryan, Adam W. Cook and Claudia Lopez,

defendants. I did so by delivering this document to the United States Postal Service (USPS) Station at 17675 SW

Farmington Rd, Aloha, OR 97007 during normal business hours.

_________________________________Abby Jo

Ovitsky, Plaintiff


Documents

Plaintiff's Oral Arguments, Affidavits and Supporting Declarations