SANCTIONS

JAMES LEUENBERGER ACCORDING TO RULE 8.3

COMPLAINT REGARDING ATTORNEY JAMES LEUENBERGER
I, Deborah Swan, hereby lodge an official response to the notice I received from
James Leuenberger.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

DR 1102 (A) (1) James Leuenberger knowingly assisted his client Ed Snook,
owner of the U.S.Observer,to procure a fraudulent default judgment for
$49,999.99.

DR 1102 (A) (1) James Leuenberger knowingly engaged in unethical and criminal
behavior against the Josephine County Circuit Court, Judge Thomas Hull, Judge
Linda Baker, Judge Daniel Simcoe, and Defendant Deborah Swan.

Page 1 of 77

RESPONSE TO LEUENBERGERS LETTER IN REFERENCE TO

MY COMPLAINT

1
DR 1-102(A)(3)
A. I did not send a written notice of intent to appear to James Leuenberger
because of the fact that I did appear and I did answer to the original complaint.

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

Leuenberger,

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

D. The facts of my timely appearance and my timely answers can be found within
the self authenticated evidence, starting with the UPS tracking number.

Page 2 of 77

E. This tracking information can be verified by clicking the UPS tracking link,
and entering the following tracking number: 1Z4E716V0121316819

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

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

Page 3 of 77

2
DR 1-102(A)(3)
A. August 11, 2014, was the 30TH day and the final day to answer and appear,
therefore I made my appearance and I answered to the complaint.

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

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

D. The calendar attached as EXHIBIT A will prove Leuenbergers claim of

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

Page 4 of 77

Page 5 of 77

CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO RULE 10

A. Leuenberger is knowingly stating false claim, attempting to deceive the BAR
by stating he began to prepare the default judgment on the 31st day after
service.

B. August 11, 2014, is the 30th day, and is the same day Leuenberger began to
draft the premature order for the default judgment.

Page 6 of 77

C. August 11, 2014, was the same day his office employee Michele Wilkinson, at
9:05AM, signed for my UPS proof of delivery.

Page 7 of 77

D. August 11, 2014, is the same day Leuenberger had his employee Michelle
Wilkinson, notarize his sworn affidavit, claiming he had not received my
answers or any notice of any other appearance.

Page 8 of 77

3
DR 1-102(A)(3)
A. This statement by Leuenberger, shows his attempt to circumvent the truth
about the details of when he knowingly began to file for the default judgment.

B. The evidence can also be found in the court records, filed by James
Leuenberger the day after the Oral Argument, for the Objection Hearing on my
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT ORDER AND JUDGMENT.

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

DEFENDANTS 2ND AMENDED JUDICIAL NOTICE which Leuenberger
filed Nov. 13, 2014.

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

Page 9 of 77

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

started on the morning of August 11, 2014, was prepare the motion for order of
default and general judgment, the affidavit is support of the motion, the draft
order of default, and the general judgment and money award on default.

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

motion and affidavit , and then mailed all four documents to the Josephine
County Clerk Cheryl Shonk.

Page 10 of 77

C. Pursuant to page 2, lines 13 - 15, Around 12:00 Noon, on August 11, 2014,
After he mailed the above described documents, shortly after noon,
Leuenberger then opened his office mail box , and discovered the UPS parcel
which had my answers, affirmative defense and counter claim. DR 1-102(A)
(3)

D.

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

should have contacted the clerk and told the clerk to hold off on the default when
the papers arrive at the court. DR 1-102(A)(3)

(1) Pursuant to page 2, line 16 - 17, the first action Leuenberger then takes, is he
scanned my answers, affirmative defense and counter claim, and emailed a
copy to Ed Snook, the Plaintiff.

Page 11 of 77

(2) The attached email is the proof that Leuenberger and Snook had already made
the decision to enter this false default judgment against me, by claiming they
never received my answers or appearance. (EXHIBIT C)
(3) The email that Leuenberger sent to Ed snook , clearly proves that there was no
need to explain or discuss any details with Snook. (EXHIBIT C)

(4) This type of communication it is self evident that both Leuenberger and Snook
intentionally and knowingly began a default, before the legal time had expired.
DR 1-102(A)(3)

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

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

4
Page 12 of 77

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

B. This statement is another attempt to deceive the BAR by false statements as
facts. DR 1-102(A)(3)
C. The Civil Clerk informed me of this default judgment on August 13, 2014.
D. The audio recorded conversation is from August 13, 2014, with Civil Clerk
Cheryl Shonk.
1 min 33 sec

your case went into a default.

1 min 50 sec

yes you did send answers and appeared, but its not
considered filed yet because there is no money on it yet

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

The substantial proof is found in this case file.

5
A. Leuenberger, Ed Snook and the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, knowingly pushed
this default through the court, knowing it was procured by fraud, deceit, false
facts, false sworn affidavit. DR 1-102(A)(3)

Page 13 of 77

B. The court granted this motion due to the clerk Civil Shonk assisting with
pushing it through, knowing it was false. DR 1-102(A)(3)
C. The judges signed off on the default, due to the fraud and deception that has
been played against the court and judges without their full knowledge of the
true facts about my answers and appearance . DR 1-102(A)(3)

Page 14 of 77

D. Leuenberger continued to file more fraudulent judgments upon the court, and
was awarded a supplemental judgment by Judge Baker, while knowing this
Supplemental was fraud. DR 1-102(A)(3)
E. Leuenberger also was awarded attorney fees by fraud, claiming he had been
following the rules ORCP68. DR 1-102(A)(3)
F. The judge added 9% interest, then placed a lien against me for $49,999.99.
DR 1-102(A)(3)

6
A. Leuenberger is attempting to deceive the BAR without the truth and the facts.
B. The motion I filed against this Default Judgment, was a MOTION TO
VACATE VOID DEFAULT ORDERS AND JUDGMENT .
C. This motion first was filed on September 7, 2014.
D. I received a Notice for an Objection Hearing to be held on November 12, 2014.
E. October 20, 2014, I filed for a Motion for Telephonic Appearance and it was
denied.
F. October 22, 2014, Judge Daniel Simcoe wrote on the Order why he denied my
motion for Telephonic appearance. This motion is attached as EXHIBIT D.

Page 15 of 77

Page 16 of 77

A. The note above from Judge Simcoe, claims that Leuenberger told the court he
did not receive a copy of my MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE,
and if or when he does he objects.

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

never received my MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE
C. The following is the proof of shipping which was sent on October 18, 2014.

D. The office of James leuenberger received it on October 20, 2014.

Page 17 of 77

A. October 23, 2014, The very next day, Leuenberger then contradict what he had
just told Judge Simcoe the day before, and now admits on court record that he
did receive my Motion for Telephonic Appearance.

B. Leuenberger filed an OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, now claiming that he did receive my
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, but claiming that I was
intentionally deceiving the court by filing a false certificates of service.

Page 18 of 77

C. Leuenberger then went even a step further by attaching a copy of my criminal

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

D. Leuenberger stated in his OPPOSITION against my MOTION FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE, that since I am a dishonest person, I should
be required to appear in person, regardless of my distance from the court.

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

government issued ID to prove who I am.

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

G. October 26, 2014, Leuenberger filed an Opposition for my Motion for a

Telephonic appearance, where he accused me of filing a false certificate of
service accusing and me of trying to deceive the court.

7
Page 19 of 77

Leuenberger has not addressed any of my motions. Leuenberger has only made
false claims, denys receiving some of my motions, and contradicts himself without
any fear of being in violation of the rules.
Leuenberger has continued to make false claims all through this case.

I was not aware of the fraud and the false representation made to the court, about
my answers and my appearance, until I received a copy of Leuenbergers
NOTICE TO THE COURT.

This is when I contacted another clerk who works in the archives, and requested a
copy of the entire case file.

I wanted to see every document that has been filed in this case by Leuenberger.
On October 31, 2014, I was sent a email with a left side and a right side.

This is when I discovered that the default judgment was presented to the court,
falsely claiming I never appeared, or sent my answers before the time expired for
me to appear.

Page 20 of 77

The entire default filed by Leuenberger was procured by false statements, fraud,
and false representations, claiming I never appeared or sent my answers to the
clerk or to Leuenberger.

This attempt of Leuenberger, to deceive the BAR, to believe false claims of facts in
his response to my complaint, is another violation pursuant to Rule 8.4.

The record is the self authenticated evidence which proves that Leuenberger and
his client Ed Snook, knowingly used this court to commit the crime of extortion,
by fraud, perjury, concealing documents, filing false sworn affidavits, all of which
are crimes
OBJECTION HEARING
ORAL ARGUMENT

During the November 12, 2014, Objection Hearing, I made an oral judicial notice
of the fraud, false sworn affidavits, and false representation made by James
Leuenebrger on each of the records he filed.
The following is on record, from the oral argument.

Page 21 of 77

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

Leuenberger continued to make false statements as facts when
Judge Hull asked him the direct questions about my appearance
and answers.
H. Leuenberger continued to tell Judge Hull false statements.
I.

The following are the actual statements made between Judge Hull and Leuenberger
during the Objection Hearing on November 12, 2014.

J.

Leuenberger denied numerous times receiving my answers and claimed to the court
that I did not make any appearance. The Objection Hearing was held in Judge Hulls
court.

K. James Leuenberger made the following statements which can be found in the official
court records of this oral argument:
19 min 45 sec. There was no misstatements, there was no violation of
Rule17 regarding the sign a pleading for the motion that
matter, that I was not saying anything misleading or asking in
violation of the law or asking for something that Mr. Snook
was not entitled to.
L.

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

Page 22 of 77

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

not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation).
N. Leuenberger has a legal and ethical obligation, to correct the false facts which
he made by filing the default judgment.
O. Leuenberger continued to conceal my answers which he did received on time, by
making the following false claims to the court:
20 min 16 sec

There are some vague allegations of fraud, including fraud

by the court staff, and the clerks which Ms. Swan seems to
elaborate today in court. Which there is nothing for me to
respond to in writing? It would be hard to respond now.

A. Leuenberger had the opportunity to correct the false statements he made about my
answers and my appearance.
B. Leuenberger chose to continue with the false claims that I had not answered or
appeared at all.
20 min 38 m sec

I prepared the motion and the affidavit in support of it,

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

Page 23 of 77

A. Leuenberger has a legal duty to the court, to not knowingly make false claims
as facts.
B. Leuenebrger and his client Ed Snook both are knowingly committing fraud
upon the court, by continuing to commit perjury.
C. Leuenberger did receive Deborah Swans answers and I did make my
appearance before the time expired.
Judge Hull then asked Leuenberger if Deborah Swan still had not made any
appearance or answered.
20 min 55 sec

Had not or still not?

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

Hulls question as follows.
B. Leuenberger knowingly and intentionally continues with this behavior and
fraud against the court.
Leuenberger states at 21:00 :
1Well,

she was allowed to file a motion,after the judgment was entered. 2No the
answer was not filed and received by the court before the order of default
1Leuenberger

knowingly made a false statement. Leuenberger knows that he entered a default judgment
after I had legally answered and appeared.
2Yes,

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

Page 24 of 77

judgment 3well, She appeared when she was allowed to file a motion after the
njudgment was entered. 4No the answer was not filed and received by the court
before the order of default or the judgment of default , so I believe Ms Swan
A. The entire above statement by Leuenberger was made to deceive the court.
B. Leuenberger did receive my answers and Leuenberger knew the clerk also
received my answers on August 11, 2014.
C. Therefore Leuenberger is making a false claim that my answers were not
filed or received before the order of default judgment, is another false
representation by Leuenberger, knowing it is false.
D. I made my appearance when the court was served my answers.
E. The UPS Proof of delivery tracking number 1Z4E716V0154650066 shows
Josephine Circuit Court received the UPS delivery on August 11, 2014, at
10:41 AM.
F. Leuenberger made the false claim upon the court as a fact, by stating I was
allowed to file a motion after the judgment was entered.
G. Judge Hull then interrupts Leuenberger and asks if Leuenberger disagrees with
what I had orally noticed the court about my answers and appearance.

3I

appeared on time before the judgment was entered.

4Yes

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

Page 25 of 77

Judge Hull states at 22 min 15 seconds:

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

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

never received or knew anything about my answers and my appearance.
B. Leuenberger stated at 22 min 18 sec :
I think the record will reflect that.
C. Leuenberger is falsely directing the Judge to the court register, knowing what
he was telling the Judge was false, and knowing the register will assist
Leuenberger with falsely convincing the Judge that Deborah Swan never
timely answered or appeared.
D. Leuenberger already knew the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk did not officially
enter into the register when she received Deborah Swans answers.
E. This is aiding and abetting, by the clerk Cheryl Shonk for not following her
duty which is to enter the time of day, the date of when the clerk was served
the answers by the defendant.
F.

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

ORCP 9 says the following:

Page 26 of 77

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

ORCP says the following: Appearance is made by filing with the clerk
ORCP 7 :Filing is made upon the date of mailing.
A. Judge Hull believed Leuenbergers false statements he made.
B. Since the OJIN court register did not have any entry of my answers, counter
claim, or affirmative defense, entered into the OJIN register.
C. Leuenberger and Snook were fully aware that both he and the civil clerk
received my answers, affirmative defenses and counter claims on August 11,
2014, before the time to appear had expired. VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)
D. On August 13, 2014, Leuenberger received a call from the civil clerk.
E. The clerk contacted Leuenberger when she received Leuenbergers documents
that he mailed to the court to file for the default order and judgment.
F. The civil clerk informed Leuenberger that on August 11, 2014, she did receive
my answers on time.
G. The civil clerk explained there was a delay with my fee waiver application.

Page 27 of 77

H.

Leuenberger told the clerk to continue with the default judgment anyway.
VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)

I.

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

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

At 22 min 38 sec Leuenberger states:

Umm and as far as I know, the only deception that has engaged in, is that by
Ms Swan by filing her false certificate of service on the motion for telephonic
appearance , which I brought to this courts attention, but I have not made any
mind statements and as far as I know neither has the court staff. So I ask this
motion to be denied and this judgment set.
VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a)
Leuenberger is making a total false

A. Leuenbergers actions are clear violation of ethics and his duty to correct his
actions by not continuing to commit fraud upon the court, as well as not
continue to use the court to unlawfully extort money out of me.
B. In the above statement by Leuenberger, when he says, as far as I know,
Leuenberger did know that I was not trying to deceive the court and he knew
that certificate of service was a typographical mistake. Leuenberger is trying to
do anything he can to paint a false light to prejudice the court against me, This
is not ethical and is a violation of Rules of Professional Misconduct.

Page 28 of 77

C. This mistake was already corrected, and Leuenberger and I already discussed
this mistake.
Judge Hulls attitude becomes more indifferent towards me as this hearing
continues to
due to the constant false statements that Leuenberger continues to use against me.
At 24 min 19 sec, I state:
Yes Sir. I would like to state there has deception on my side when it comes to
the certificate of service. When I realized I had a typographical error, I
immediately corrected it, and I actually called mr. Leuenberger on the phone,
and let him know it was a mistake. I immediately sent in a motion to correct it
and add it to the case. It was just an error on my part, just a mistake. So that was
corrected. The tone of voice by Judge Hull was obvious that the judge was not
believing anything I was saying during this hearing.
HULL:

Anything else?

I then responded to the Judge to attempts to explain and

reintegrate the facts about my answers and appearing before the
time had expired. At 25 min 09 sec I stated the following:
Um, yes if you look at the entire case file, I was able to get a
copy of the entire thing. And there is 2 parts of the file, there is
a left side for some reason, and a right side. And so when you
have time to review the entire case file, I would hope that you
do get both the left and the right. You will see in there, the fax I
sent the clerk lisa, when I was having issues in the very
beginning about the appearance. and she told me that they had
my appearances, and as soon as this void order was ruled on,
Im not sure what the hold up is with making my appearance,
but bottom line. I made my appearance. I made my counter

Page 29 of 77

claim, my affirmative defenses, and my application to fee

waiver, was all sent to both parties. but the application for fee
waiver was not sent to Mr. Leuenberger, due to that is
confidential information that is just between myself and the
court. But he did get a copy of my answer, my affirmative
defenses, and my counter claim. And I can show the proof of
that by the signature, by an employee who works in his office by
the name of Michelle Wilkinson She is the one who signed for
it. So you will see it on my proof of delivery, And she is the one
who signed the false sworn affidavit the same day, When he
started to file for the default is the same day he received my
answer.

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

Judge Hull discussed with the court clerk Cameron, what was
entered in the OJIN register.
Leuenberger should have requested the civil clerk Cheryl to be
called in to answer a couple of questions.
But instead Leuenberger had already swayed the judges opinion,
so when I requested to have the clerk called in, the Judge denied
me.
Judge Hull stated at 28 min 33 sec:
I dont see anything about additional document including the
application being filed. But I dont know. Are they

Page 30 of 77

usually done that way or is it just the waiver filed without the
documents?

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) 4 Leuenberger is required to tell

the truth about my answers and appearance. Leuenberger
knew the clerk Cheryl Shonk also received my answers.
There was more discussion but due to being on a speaker, I was
not able to hear what was being discussed.
Then Judge Hull asked Leuenberger some more questions about
my answers, and appearance.
At 29:00 Judge Hull states :
Well, Mr Leuenberger, What I see here is she filed a waiver of
fee deferral, prior to filing a motion for a default. Do you see that
?
Leuenberger then agrees that he does see this listed in the OJIN
register. VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) 4
Leuenberger continues to conceal the truth about my answer
and appearance
Judge Hull then goes on by stating:
At 29 min 28 sec:
Have you already, and you may have already answered the
question, Was it your intention when you were speaking just
know, to indicate that you believe a filing a fee waiver is not a
filing of an answer?
Or a response required by statute?

Page 31 of 77

VIOLATED RULE 3.4 (e) Leuenberger should not state a

personal belief or opinion
The judge is clearly acting out of his position by speaking for
Leuenberger, and telling the court what Leuenbergers intention
is
Judge Hull continues with this communication between him and
Leuenberger.
The following dialog is between Judge Hull and Leuenberger:
At 29 min 30 sec:
JIM:

That is correct your honor.

HULL:

But you did say that? Correct?

JIM :

I dont know if I said that or not but that is the

way feel.

HULL:

Well I don't know if you implied that

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (e)

JIM:

What I said was I knew an answer had not

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

No there is no note and I think your right, I do not

see an answer, at least the OJIN does not
have an answer.

JIM:

As I recall your Honor, OJIN is the official um,

the official position of the court, as for what has
been filed,

Page 32 of 77

VIOLATED RULE 3.2 (a) (b)

HULL::

Ok. I assume you dont have any case

law to explain that to the court?

JIM:

I dont.I have it on the tip of my tougne your honor.

But I have had it come up repeatedly in cases of uh,
timeliness of an appeal, as to what the court of
appeals has repeatedly relied upon what OJIN says
as what position to what uh.

HULL:

Well what I am about it the , um the

affidavit in motion to waive fees as not being a
response as required by law within 30 days. Do
you have case law to back that?

JIM:

I, am sure, but my understanding pursuant to the

rule, that uh, a first appearance is either the
filing of a pleading, answer, or a motion. Neither of
which are reflected in OJIN.

HULL:

Specifically the language of the filing in all those

things, correct? So to file an appearance is usually to
file an answer a motion? Okay.

HULL:

So I would look for case law that would say that a

motion to waive fees would not qualify for that
presumably, correct?

JIM:

That is what I am aware of, but I have not

researched that.

HULL:

Okay.

HULL:

Okay, Ms Swan is there anything you want to

respond about that?

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

evident that Judge Hull does not believe that I turned in my
answers and made my appearance on time.
Page 33 of 77

B. Leuenberger has influenced Judge Hull by not speaking the

facts about my answers and appearance being made timely to
both him and to the court.
C. Judge Hull is under the false impression that I only served to
the clerk my fee waiver application and the fee waiver
declaration.
D. James Leuenberger and the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, both
knew the truth.
E. Leuenberger continued to conceal this information and still
push forward for a default judgment. Judge Hull asked me if
I wanted to respond.
At 31 min 29 sec, Judge Hull and myself have the following
discussion:
SWAN: Yes I believe that I did file my answers on time, I have
the
proof of this, Cheryl the clerk ,Cheryl received
HULL

Please stop. Please stop. Okay, What I am going by is the

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

Page 34 of 77

records on docket that says you filed an answer.

Okay? You did not answer do you understand that?
SWAN: That is what I am hearing and its very concerning to me.

HULL:

Well, I dont know what you mean about proof..do you

have a document filed with your material that there is proof
that the clerk actually received something else?

SWAN: Yes sir if you look at the court, at the file, i don't know if
its been entered, cause Im not their, but you can even ask
your clerk cheryl yourself. i was told on the 11th she
received my answers. i was told on the that the hold up for
why my,i was under the impression, that she entered
me as my appearance and I answered. The hold up, I was
under that impression,and I have all this on recorded
conversation, I record everything because this use all new
to me, and because I am in Texas. Cheryl told me on the
12th that she has spoken to Mr Leuenberger.
Mr leuenberger was informed that I did appear and they did
receive my appearance and my answers, but the hold up was
my fee waiver application. and Cheryl then asked Mr
Leuenberger, what do you want me to do? Mr Leuenberger
told Cheryl to go ahead and enter a default. This is exactly
what she told me. I've got the recorded conversation and
the transcripts.

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

by
stating: 34 min 07 sec:
Let me finish please sir. then she tells me on the 13th of august
that my case was go into default. and i went into panic mode and
i asked her why. and she said, well don't panic yet, its in the judges
box,
with a note on it and the hold up was the fee waiver
application, and she told me herself,that when the judge sees an
attempt to be made an attempt to appear, once the judge reads that

Page 35 of 77

little note that sure said she put on there, the he, that most likely
the judge will not enter a default . this is what your clem cheryl told
me. okay. and i have it on record, so then i calmed down, and i was
required by cheryl or some reason to get a notarized statement from
my parents claiming that i have them helping me with my bills right
now. so that took an unnecessary delay by the clerk. but this is what
she told me i had to do in order to get my fee waiver approved . i
asked her if i could fax this stuff into her, she told me no, it has to be
sent over in the mail. Now its Thursday and i'm trying to find a way to
send it over night to Oregon, because the first time when I ant my
answers and appearance it cost 120.00 next day air ups to your court .
i did
not have the money, and i called her again. and i asked her
can i please fax this to you, because i had just gotten done reading the
rules of faxing, and records are allowed to be faxed. she tells me again
you're not
allowed to fax. her and i got into to a little
confritation on the phone. and she hangs up on me. i called back and i
talked to lisa. lisa said Deborah, you are allowed to fax your proof of
the bills and stuff, and i will take care of it. that is what lisa told me.
so there are a lot of dynamics that happened about this fee waiver, but
my point it is that i sent and I appeared and I answered to this
complaint, that was filed against me. I made my appearance and i
made my answer All the other stuff is a complete violation of my due
process and there is not suppose to be any kind of discrimination when
it comes to the status or your income. iIm having finical issues in my
life, and that should not be able to hold me back to step forward and
defend myself from a claim against me. and that is what this whole
thing has turned into,. this fee waiver application is restricting my
rights to my own due process of law. and that is the right to be heard,
and a right to appear. okay. and any appellate judges would side with
me and the supreme court also has a lot of case law that there

should never be any sort of price tag related your righted to the
judicial process. and that is what Leuenberger did get my
appearance and did get my answers. and if I have to appeal his I
will, cause Ive got the proof to it. and i will file a suit affiant you
r clerk if i haver to get her to speak honestly because cheryl
knows all the details involved here. ands so does lisa, and so does
JUDY.

Page 36 of 77

JIM

Can I ask you a question?

SWAN

Yes sir

JIM

Um Ms Swan, have you subpoena any

of these court clerk to appear in court?

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

Okay, sounds like we are in the end I will have to

review the file and I will let you know .No I am
not giving you a continuance at this point.

SWAN:

Okay thank you

HULL:
all

Ill have to look at the file so I can answer the

question today. All right otherwise that is
today.

SWAN:

So we will I get a notice from anything?

HULL:
will.

Uh you will get something in writing. Yea you

SWAN:
court?

All right. Am I allowed too submit anything to

at this point again?

HULL:
time, I

Generally , no. this is the date and this is the

have your material already. okay.

Judge Hull is now claiming he has my material already. This

is a contradiction from the entire hearing. During the hearing
I noticed the Judge of the UPS tracking and the prof that I
had recorded conversations that would show the truth about
my appearance.

SWAN

So I am not allowed to submit anything else? After

this hearing?

Page 37 of 77

HULL:

What is it you want to submit man?

SWAN:

What ever I think is necessary to have my place in

honorably ruled over.

HULL:

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

SWAN

Okay.

SWAN

So let me ask the opposing side one more question,

are you telling me today that you did not receive
my answers?

JIM

inaudible

HULL

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

SWAN:

Mr Leuenberger

JIM:

Uh Ms Swan I did receive copies of an answer with an

affirmative defense and counter claim, uh but that does not
constitute an appearance.

SWAN

Why does that not constitute an appearance? My

appearance was made to the court?

HULL

umm maam,

SWAN

Yes sir

HULL
he

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

I was not asking Leuenberger what his opinion is. I was asking
how does my sending my answers to the court, not constitute
making my appearance ass he just stated.

Page 38 of 77

SWAN: Okay well that why, let me ask him one more question if
you don't mind why then on all these orders
of default did you falsely state that you have not
received any appearance or answers or my intent of
my appearance?
JIM

My affidavit was accurate.

Leuenberger just admitted to receiving my answers counter claim

and affirmative defense. This proves he has been committing
fraud upon the court since August 11, 2014.
SWAN

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

HULL

Okay he is not responding to that.. Okay.

Judge Hull interrupts and does not let Leuenberger answer my

question about his contradictions and false claims he just now on
record admitted to.
SWAN

All right.

HULL

His answer was he has not, so that is all today. So um I

will review the material in the file and let you know
what the

Judge Hull now answers for Leuenberger, and states on court

record that he has not.
SWAN

Thank you.

HULL

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

the phone

Page 39 of 77

5162.355

SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.

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

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

James Leuenberger knowingly issued and delivered to the Civil Clerk Cheryl
Shonk, in Josephine County Court, documents that in form and substance, falsely
simulated the action of entering a false default judgment against Deborah Swan for
$49,999.99.

162.075 FALSE SWEARING.

(1)James Leuenberger knowingly committed the crime of false swearing by
making false sworn statements, and false unsworn declarations, knowing it to be
false.

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

ORS 164.0 THEFT

Page 40 of 77

Respondent James Leuenberger, knowingly has committed theft against Deborah

Swan, with the intent to deprive Deborah Swan of her property by appropriating
$49,999.99 from Deborah Swan.
1.

James Leuenberger and Ed Snook both knowingly, used the Josephine

County Circuit Court for unlawful purpose.
6ORS

164.085

THEFT BY DECEPTION
A. James Leuenberger and Edward Snook, committed theft by deception, through
their willful and deliberate intent of committing fraud, by making multiple
false representations to the Josephine County Court about Deborah Swan.
B. Defendant James Leuenberger procured a false default judgment against the
Plaintiff for $49,999.99.
C. James Leuenberger created a false impressions of law, value, intention and
State of mind, that he knew are not true.
D. Leuenberger and Ed Snook, have both failed to correct this false impression
about Deborah Swan, which they intentionally started on August 11, 2014.
Intent to defraud means that person acts with conscious objective to take property from another
person by deception. State v. Reynolds, 246 Or App 152, 265 P3d 22 (2011)
6

Page 41 of 77

E.

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

fraud, and false impression, about Deborah Swan both during and after the
Oral Argument held on November 12, 2014, and have continued up to the
present day.

F.

James Leuenberger has prevented Judge Thomas Hull, Judge Lynn Baker, and
Judge Daniel Simcoe, from acquiring the truthful information involving
Deborah Swans appearance, affirmative defenses, answers, and counter
claim, that Deborah Swan sent on time to James Leuenbergers office, on
August 11, 2014, at 9:05 A.M..

G. The proof of James Leuenberger receiving Deborah Swans appearance,

answers, and counter claim has been proven by the following irrefutable and
self authenticated evidence:
(a) James Leuenbergers oral confession, during the objection hearing November
12, 2014.
(b) James Leuenberger filed response to the Defendants Judicial Notices
November 13, 2014.
(c) Deborah Swans Proof of Delivery to James Leuenbergers office on August
11, 2014 by UPS and tracking number

Page 42 of 77

(d) Cheryl Shonk, the civil clerks statement to Deborah Swan, on August 12,
2014,`, when Cheryl confirmed to Deborah that she spoke with James
Leuenberger, and he confirmed he did receive her answers, counter complaint,
and affirmative defense on time.
(f) Leuenbergers email to Ed Snook on August 11, 2014.
E.

The following statements we're stated on court record in Judge Thomas Hulls
court room on November 12, 2014, as well as Leuenberger response he filed
to the court on November 13, 2014. The following is from the response he
filed.

F.

November 12, 2014, During the oral argument, Deborah Swan judicially
noticed Judge Thomas Hull, of this fraud, false representation, and
misconduct.

G. The following is on record, from the oral argument.

SWAN Yes I would like to add to the record, a judicial
notice of new evidence that I have discovered of fraud
on all the
HULL Okay that did not just happen automatically. you
have to tell me what is you're trying to admit, because
here are rules.
SWAN

It would be according to rule 60

Page 43 of 77

HULL

Im having trouble hearing you, you're missing point

so go a little slower

SWAN

Hang on, Im having trouble too, my phone is not

doing very hang on one-second.

HULL

Do you have a land line perhaps?

Page 44 of 77

SWAN

Well Im having trouble with my charger, it's giving

me some
issues, but I think it's okay now.

HULL

Well what you just said was audible, yes

SWAN

Okay what I would like to do for the record, is to give

judicial notice of evidence that I have newly
discovered,by reviewing the docket, that has been filed,
so this is self authenticated evidence of fraud and
misrepresentations, on these uh, on these records.

HULL

Lets try this, what records are you talking about?

Page 45 of 77

SWAN

Um, I, am talking about the motion, hang on, the

motion filed by mr James Leuenberger, the first
motion he put in for a default judgment

HULL

I understand there is a default judgment, yes, with an

affidavit to support that goes along with the default
judgment, yes

SWAN

Right, yes sir, on page 1 lines 18 through 25, and on

page 2, this motion for order of default, claims that I
never appeared or answered. And that is why he is
filing for a default. Bu I did appear, and I did send
answers to both the court clerk, as well asJames on
time. So this default judgment is void.

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

This question by the Judge shows me he had no clue about

my situation. The clerk Cheryl informed me she put a noter
in his box about my delay. This shows me Cheryl was
knowingly helping the opposing side with the fraudulent
default.

Page 46 of 77

SWAN

Yes sir,its on court record, I have the proof of my

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

HULL

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

SWAN

So when you go through this entire docket sheet, of

all these records, on the affidavit that was filed by Mr
Leuenberger, on the 13th, he swears its a sworn
affidavit. And he swears under oath, the he has not
received any notice of my appearance or answers. And
he has not received any intent of me trying to appear.
and that is completely not true.

Page 47 of 77

HULL

Are you going to tell me how you know he

received these documents?

SWAN

Because I have the tracking number of his

assistant names Michelle Wilkinson, signing the
UPS proof of delivery, at 9:05 am on the 11th.

HULL

Is that with the material you filed?

SWAN

Is it with the material I filed? umI have a

recorded conversation, actually it is, because I

Page 48 of 77

sent it by fax to um, the other clerk, lisa, when

all this was going on, I sent a fax to Lisa. Its
there in your files. And I have the proof of the
UPS tracking with his notary signing it. For the
proof of delivery.
HULL

Carry on

SWAN

Well I can carry on, so from everything from

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

HULL

What do you mean its been put on a shelf?

SWAN

This is what Cheryl the clerk did. Because my

application for fee waiver was delayed.

HULL

Ms. Swan, Please understand that in regard to

what you are saying about what a clerk did, its
hearsay at this point.

SWAN
help

Ive got a recorded conversation if that will

you.

HULL

I did not ask you that.

SWAN

Well Im just letting you know

HULL

Do you have anything more?

SWAN
me

I can answer any more question if you want

too.

HULL
you

I just asked you do you have anything more

want to put on the record.

Page 49 of 77

SWAN

Is this my only opportunity to put things on the

record, in this hearing?

HULL

This is a hearing on the motion to set aside the

default judgment, so I suspect you should look
that way, yes.

at it
SWAN

All right your honor, just bare with me I have

never done anything like this so I appreciate
your patience. Umm let me see here, give me
one second, if you dont mind I need to review
and to look at my notes
On every one of these, let me just go down the
list to show you how many times this has
been false misrepresented about my non
appearing. On page one affidavit for default
judgment.

HULL

I dont need you to repeat that, just tell me what

else you have."

SWAN

Default order and general judgment on August

13th. Um Cheryl accepted this false sworn
affidavit, knowing it to be false. the clerk.
Pursuant to page 2 line 6

Page 50 of 77

HULL:

Okay, just hold on a minute here what is it

your saying? What the clerk did that was
fraud?

SWAN:

Every time these have been filed, on the top

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

HULL:

Okay, carry on

SWAN:

Page 2 of the same order of default judgment,

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

Page 51 of 77

Page 1 line 21 - 23, Mr Leuenberger

again made a false misrepresentation claiming I had not
answered or made an appearance.

Page 52 of 77

"On the DEFAULT ORDER AND GENERAL JUDGMENT,

August 13, 2014, submits a misleading affidavit, which
failed to disclose the facts regarding my appearance and my
answers."

Page 53 of 77

Page 2 line 11 - 15, Michelle Wilkinson, is the notary, she

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

Page 54 of 77

On August 14, on the um, the false ORDER OF DEFAULT

that was filed by Mr Leuenberger, again the same thing he is
claiming I did not appear, the clerk Cheryl accepted it knowing
it to be false, and.. the Judge signed it.

Page 55 of 77

On August 14, on the um, the false ORDER OF DEFAULT

that was filed by Mr Leuenberger, again the same thing he is
claiming I did not appear, the clerk Cheryl accepted it knowing
it to be false, and the judge signed it. I think it was uh, I believe
it was actually you, judge who signed this false ORDER OF
DEFAULT, due to fraud misrepresentation, and the opposing
attorney, have all misrepresented this for this default
judgment.

Page 56 of 77

The GENERAL JUDGMENT MONEY AWARD, knowing all

this to be false, was again filed by Mr Leuenberger, the court
having entered a default judgment against myself, knowing it to
be false, for $50,000.00 and 9% interest. This entire thing
should be completely void, its a complete obstruction of
justice

Page 57 of 77

It says that ORCP 68 has been followed, and applied to this

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

silence in the court

SWAN

Have I lost you guys?

HULL

Nope, we are still waiting for you to finish.

SWAN I guess thats it. my closing statement, lets see here,

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

H. These facts are pertinent to the disposition of the courts for approving or
denying a motion for a default judgment.

Page 58 of 77

FRAUD
A. The fraud, false representation, and misconduct, that has been perpetrated by
James Leuenberger, and Edward Snook, is how they were able to place the
$49,999.99 fraudulent default judgment against Deborah Swan.
B. August 11, 2014, James Leuenberger knowingly sent to the Josephine County
Court, a motion for a DEFAULT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT, with a false
supporting affidavit, for the intent to defraud and make false representation.
C. On August 13, 2014, James Leuenberger knowingly mis lead the court by filing
these false motions, where he stated as a fact, claiming that he had not received
Deborahs answers, and that he has no knowledge of Deborah Swan having any
intent to appear.
D. This information is pertinent to the disposition whether a default order and
judgment, attorney fees and money award would be allowed according to the
rules of default judgments to be granted. 7

7Under

Former Similar Statute (Ors 165.205)

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

Page 59 of 77

E. Defendants Leuenberger knowingly committed fraud upon Judge Thomas

Hull, Deborah Swan, and Josephine County Circuit Court, by filing under oath
these false sworn affidavits, and false representations to the court, claiming
Deborah Swan had NOT appeared or filed her answers and had no knowledge
of the Deborah Swans intent to appear.
F. These mis representations, deceptions and fraud, caused Judge Hull to
unlawfully entered a $49,999.99 default judgment against Deborah Swan, with
a lien and 9% interest, with awarded attorney fees all to be paid.

165.102
OBTAINING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY DECEPTION.
A. James Leuenberger and Edward Snook knowingly committed the crime of
obtaining, and the execution of documents by deception, with intent to
knowingly defraud and injure Deborah Swan, to acquire a substantial benefit
for himself, and Leuenbergers client Ed Snook.

Page 60 of 77

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

execution of written instruments which affected, and will end up purporting
the pecuniary interest of Deborah Swan.
C. Knowingly Obtaining execution of documents by deception is a Class A
misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 168]
ORS 164.095 THEFT BY RECEIVING.
A.

James Leuenberger and Edward Snook knowingly have committed theft by

receiving, due to the default judgment was 8procured through fraud, deceit,
and false misrepresentation.

B. Leuenberger and Edward Snook, knowingly allowed the court to approve false
money awards and damages, at the expense of Deborah Swan, knowing the
judgments and money awards and damages were procured through fraud,
theft, false representations and deceit.
C. Leuenberger, the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk, and Edward Snook both
knowingly concealed the facts about Deborah Swans answers, affirmative
defense, counterclaim, fee waiver application, and appearance, that Civil

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

Page 61 of 77

Clerk Cheryl Shonk, James Leuenberger and Edward Snook all received on
time, before the time expired, to deceive the Josephine County Judges.
D. This criminal concealment was perpetrated by the Civil Clerk Cheryl Shonk,
Leuenberger and Ed Snook, to enter the false default judgment, order of a
money award, damages and attorney fees to be unlawfully forced to be paid
by Deborah Swan.
E.

On August 11, 2014, James Leuenberger and Edward Snook, knowingly sent
false, fraudulent documents to the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk.

F.

On August 15, 2015, James Leuenberger and his client Ed Snook, knowingly
deceived Judge Thomas Hull into signing a fraudulent General Judgment and
Money Award, with post judgment interest at 9% per annum, attorney fees
and cost disbursements which are falsely claimed to be in accordance with
ORCP 68.

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

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

Page 62 of 77

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

15, 2014, was a valid default that has been 9entered.
H. Linda Baker then signed off of the fraudulent Supplemental Judgment.
I.

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

denying receiving the Defendants MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC
APPEARANCE.
OUJI-CR 3-19
PERJURY BY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

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

been proven to be false, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the self authenticated
evidence found in the court records, Snook vs Swan, 14CV0835, in Josephine
County, Oregon.
James Leuenberger filed a false default

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

Page 63 of 77

C. The records that have been filed in this case is the self authenticated
evidence of fraud, misconduct and misrepresentation.
D. The records show where Leuenberger has claimed that the Defendant did
not appear nor does he has any knowledge of the Defendant appearing.
E. The confession by James Leuenberger during the objection hearing, that he DID
receive the Defendants answers, affirmative defense and counter claim, clearly
proves this default judgment is not legal.
Annotated ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3; cf. DR 7-102(B)(1); see
also DR 1-102(A)(3) (lawyer may not engage in conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
Leuenberger has admitted on court record, in his response to the Judicial Notice I
orally made during the Objection Hearing help on November 12, 2014, in Judge
Thomas Hulls courtroom.
TITLE 18
2071
Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
A. Deborah Swan filed and deposited with the civil clerk Cheryl Shonk in
Josephine County Circuit Court, and with employee Michelle Wilkinson, at the

Page 64 of 77

office of James LEuenberger Fight 4 Rights, her answers, affirmative defense

and counter claim.

B. James Leuenberger and Ed Snook knowingly concealed Deborah Swans

answers, affirmative defense and counter claim.
C. The purpose for concealing the answers, affirmative defense, and counter claim
was to be granted a $49,999.99 default judgment against Deborah.

D. Cheryl Shonk, the civil clerk knowingly concealed Deborah Swan's answers,
affirmative defense, counter claim and fee waiver application.

VIOLATION OF EXPARTE COMMUNUCATIONS

WITH JUDGE HULL
A. James Leuenberger and his client Ed Snook have been private communicating
with Judge Hull.
B. During the week of, I filed a Motion to Recuse jUdge with a proposed order.

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

a judge and the proposed order I filed.

Page 65 of 77

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

sent a email to Judge Hull.

E. Leuenberger thought he was emailing Judge Hull, but instead he sent the email
to Judge Hill out in Linn County.

F. When Judge Hill opened up the email and discovered what Jim was doing,
Judge Hill responded to Leuenberger by reminding Leuenberger that this type
of communications with a judge is not legal.

G. Leuenberger responded to Judge Hill by saying Sorry.

Page 66 of 77

6.21 Disbarment

Page 67 of 77

Page 69 of 77

EXHIBIT C

Page 70 of 77