1. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ORGEON
ABBY JO OVITSKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JIM RYAN and CLAUDIA LOPEZ,
Defendants,
and
COMMONWEALTH REAL ESTATE SERVICES and WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Respondents.
Washington County Circuit Court
C153663CV
A161503
APPELLANTS' DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF
RECORD
Appeal from the Judgment of Dismissal of
the Circuit Court for Washington County
dated January 27, 2016
The Honorable Andrew R. Erwin
Abby Jo Ovitsky
6900 SW 195th Avenue #133
Aloha, Oregon 97007
abby@parentadvocate.org
There is no telephone
6/2016

2. 1
DECLARATION OF ABBY JO OVITSKY IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF
My legal name is Abby Jo Ovitsky. I am the Appellant in this matter. I make this
declaration in support of the contemporaneously filed Reply Brief in this matter. All
statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. As for those statements
whose veracity is unknown to me, I believe them to be true and correct after extensive
investigation and research. No statements of opinion are offered here, no emotions are
expressed, just facts and supportive legal authority.
INTRODUCTION
Neither lawyer supplied any factual evidence, or new legal arguments, they only repeated
personal opinions. The case law cited is off-point, archaic and superseded/over-ruled by the
case law I cited. No new legal arguments were made. This first person declaration will go
through the points that counsel did make, page by page. While no new factual evidence is
being introduced, there are follow-up facts that were not in the First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) which are related, relevant, support the FAC and which were omitted only because
they occurred in 2016, after the filing of the 2015 FAC. One such fact is that the sewer was
not repaired until February 2016 when defendants finally shut the water off for three
consecutive days, again without any notice, but did fix the problem without admitting there
was a problem.
This was a key issue as although we rent land, we own our homes. Many of the homes

3. 2
cannot be moved off defendants' land. I did argue in the FAC that defendants' sewer
backed up in February 2014, leaving one homeowner, JoAnne Ford, homeless and as far
as I know without remedy or compensation. My life savings is now invested in the house I
own free and clear on defendants' land. I also argue now and argued last year that the
entire June 30, 2015 episode was retaliation for my public posts about neighbor Ford and
the plumbing, because defendants did not want to repair the sewer they are contractually
obligated to maintain and which posed a health and safety threat as well as a financial
threat to all 175 tenant-owners who pay for sewer maintenance they do not get and they did
not know they were not getting it until I began public posting a year ago. The water was
constantly turned off without notice for “plumbing emergencies” until it was finally fixed in
February 2016, just three months before the date of this writing.
Meanwhile, in typically wasteful manner defendants' lawyers reproduced in October 2015 to
the Oregon Real Estate Agency, a total of 155 pages, not only the false MHRT report (ER-3
to Reply) they themselves initiated, but a photo of the “Peeping Tom,” and photos of the
trucks that were illegally blocking my driveway and tearing up the rose bush, recall that
lawyers told the Hillsboro court they have no idea which trucks were involved that day. 19
pages are in a separate section marked “Various Complainants and Negative Social Media
Posts by Complainant,” marked “Exhibit F.” This section reproduces a collection of 19
pages that defendants subjectively do not like, and purports to justify the wrongful eviction

4. 3
they attempted last June. This is not “new” evidence, it was brought to the Hillsboro Court's
attention in my opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Nothing they submitted either to
the state regulatory agency or to this court is evidence of anything, it's merely old
correspondence, and perhaps a tactic the defendants continue to repeat: they pay lawyers
to xerox, not to argue or do research. No legal justification for maintaining a false
defamatory and retaliatory MHRT report was ever submitted to any court. 155 pages of
xeroxed correspondence they don't personally like is proof only of their attempt to censor
me, proof of wastefulness and disrespect for trees. It certainly does not justify any of their
actions. What they described as “negative” posts all proved to be true by the subsequent
“plumbing emergencies” I tried to prevent in my early warnings. I myself have never
breached the lease, my rent is paid on time, my checks don't bounce, I am always here
maintaining the property in person. I have always been quiet and law-abiding. Defendants
have never had good cause to even consider an eviction and the only reason they
considered it last year was to suppress publication of what they themselves decided was
“negative” in their opinion only, other readers and neighbors certainly did not and do not
now share that opinion.
On appeal, I have made it clear that the main issue is not what Commonwealth is doing
now but what led up to a false, misleading, defamatory report being maintained at

5. 4
taxpayer expense. I am a taxpayer paying County property tax, I do not want to pay to
maintain, for 10 years, a report that is neither a law enforcement report nor a medical
report. Absolutely no legal authority was ever cited by Mr. Dickens to justify the
County's maintenance of a completely false, retaliatory document. Not one word of the
report (ER3 to Reply) is true. No “investigation” was done. Deputy Tim Mateski lied, abused
me and got away with it because County can't be bothered to investigate their own
employee's crimes in the course and scope of employment, on the job he is paid for by my
property taxes. Sheriff is a public entity, subject to tort lawsuits and to federal ADA
laws. I filed a tort suit with a request to fully enforce the ADA as to Washington County
which has no appropriate written public policy regarding effective communication with
hearing impaired citizens. I submit herein as ER2, legal precedent in the form of model
policy and this was previously submitted to the same public entity, Washington County
Sheriff, previously by me in other similar lawsuits. Sheriff continues to ignore it. Mr. Dickens
also ignored it, in violation of his ethical duties to the people of the County, namely
taxpayers who need equal access to Sheriff's public services. This is not a new claim or
issue, it was discussed at length in the previous court. All I wanted then was for Sheriff to
shred the erroneous report and discipline the deputy that harassed me. When that did not
happen, damages began to accrue in the form of my time working on these lawsuits, so far
we are up to $50,000 for my work. This is in addition to the credible threat of future harm

6. 5
from the maintenance of a false, misleading and defamatory County report about my health,
which aside from a permanent unchangeable severe hearing impairment, is quite good
now.
This is important because the report was kept secret. It only came to my attention when my
landlord tried to wrongfully evict me for retaliatory reasons, referencing a numbered report
but not providing the report itself. I only received the report some time after filing the
complaint, after submitting a FOIA request and waiting for weeks. When I finally received
and read the MHRT report, the tone and focus of the FAC did change to include the report
as the target of the lawsuit. The report assumes I am “mental” and about to get evicted. I
was never “mental,” and I did not get evicted, I am still here. I received, needed and want
no “mental” no “health” and no county “services.” I have never used any Washington
County services and do not intend to. I requested traffic enforcement, not mental health
services. I informed sheriff four years before this incident in writing he is to use email only.
Tim Mateski has no excuse for not knowing that deaf do not listen. Tim Mateski is not a
doctor. Tim Mateski did not bother consulting with a doctor, he simply wrote down his
personal judgments, did not investigate anything and filed the personal opinion as an official
report in violation of my civil rights and without any cited authority for doing so.

7. 6
As a direct and proximate result of Tim Mateski's abuse of me, now I do not open my door
for anyone unless they have my written invitation and an appointment from me and only me.
That is for my safety because I am an older single hearing impaired woman. I do not talk to
people that do not identify themselves. My email is posted on the door and freely available
on at least 20 websites with a simple google search. I am very well-known on the internet. I
do not owe anybody anything, certainly not listening to strangers talk when they are in the
middle of trespass and harassment. There has never been any telephone in this house, nor
cell phone in my name in Oregon, contrary to what Tim Mateski reports, I was not talking on
a telephone, I was typing on a computer, an operator at Sprint IP Relay does the talking
reading the words I type. This was not only explained four years before the incident it was
demonstrated repeatedly.
IP Relay, text chat online (“messenger”) and email are my language preferences, not a
“mental illness,” and in maintaining a report that assumes that it is “mental illness”
for hearing impaired to ask for written instead of spoken language, Washington
County violates existing federal law cited in the FAC. Each and every communication
with everyone who receives email from me is states, “There is no telephone. Under
42 USC §12182(b) (2) (A) (iii), Deaf Choice Of Primary Language, my primary
language is written English. I avoid talking because I cannot hear normally. There

8. 7
will be no "face-to-face" follow up by talk. Discrimination on the basis of a physical
disability is illegal under state and federal law. ORS 659A, et seq.” including emails
sent to the same Sheriff, since 2011, they were informed in writing of my rights and they
knowingly, intentionally and with malice abused those rights.
The writing and maintenance, at taxpayers' expense, of fake “mental health” reports
designed to violate the property and civil rights of disabled citizens defendants personally
find to be “negative” and resulting from retaliatory actions is illegal, unethical and must be
publicized and stopped, it is an "important public duty” to do so, it serves the needs of
many similarly situated citizens, be they hearing impaired, non-native speakers, brain
damaged or simply people who prefer text to talk.
My goal has not changed. Washington County requires a consistent written policy that does
not lump hearing impaired who prefer text to talk with “mentally ill” in order to put all its
citizens on the “equal footing” the Hillsboro Court articulated in October 5, 2015. (ER-1). A
sample policy has been repeatedly provided to County (ER-2) which continues to ignore the
obvious solution, to adopt the sample policy that other Sheriff's departments have adopted
in similar situations. County requires written policy with regard to deaf and hearing impaired
that sign, text, read lips, because some sign some do not, few read lips and existing DOJ
guides are out of date.

9. 8
I do not sign. I read and speak four languages at this point: English, Hebrew, French and
Italian. I type at least 80 wpm. I read at least as fast as people normally listen. I am
hyperacute, means I am super-sensitive to sound, in order to “listen” I need a lowering of
volume, and Tim Mateski shouted at me even though a sign right in front of his face that
day asks him to lower volume. That's intentional abuse, a tort usually called “harassment.”
Tim Mateski was informed of the nature of the disability in writing and he purposely did the
opposite of what is required of a public servant as a public accommodation to a hearing
impaired citizen upon written request. Moreover, Tim Mateski refused to show me ID. He
had no badge. He refused to use written communication, give me his email, use my email
and when I asked him to stand back and leave, he refused and charged at me. That's
abuse. I slammed the door, went right inside, used deaf telecom and reported his sexual
abuse of me. I want him investigated. Sheriff refuses to investigate him and I consider
him to be a credible threat of future harm, as I still live in his jurisdiction and as far
as I know he still works for the local Sheriff's Department. I believe he should be
removed from Sheriff's Department because of the way he abused me and the matter was
tossed aside simply because of Tim Mateski's opinion that hearing impaired and “mental”
are the same because he likes talk and I do not. That's not a law enforcement
investigation and it's not a report that is protected by existing authority nor did Mr. Dickens
offer any authority or even argue that any of it is true. He merely states there was an

10. 9
investigation. There was not. He states procedures were followed. They were not. If Sheriff
is the wrong party, then County will be sued until this matter is resolved by the deputy being
investigated for his harassment and abuse of me last June and his report shredded. The
Hillsboro court also pointed out that Tim Mateski's knowing filing of a false report is itself a
crime. One would think that deputies that commit crimes would be disciplined, yet because
the victim is deaf apparently Sheriff does not bother to equally enforce the law he is paid by
victim to enforce. That's disparate treatment, it violates section 20 of the Oregon
Constitution (2015), Article I, “Bill of Rights,” “equality of privileges and immunities of
citizens,” and constitutes a violation of 42 USC §12182(b) (2) (A) (iii), Deaf Choice Of
Primary Language, which he must be held as equally accountable for as any other person
who victimizes deaf women in their own homes for no reason. There was no crime
committed by me. I have no criminal record. I simply wanted my driveway unblocked and
the terrible noise and destruction of my rose bushes to stop. My neighbor, Ryan Redlich
has a similar complaint about noise and we are now in the process of circulating a petition
to the landlord to form a Tenant Union to stop landlord abuse of tenants at Pine Ridge Park.
I will be meeting soon with the Portland Tenants Union to organize support for the Pine
Ridge Park Tenants Union and fear retaliation since this has been the practice to date at
Pine Ridge Park: any tenant communication directed at improvement is met with illegal,
immoral and unconscionable retaliation.

11. 10
What follows is a page by page analysis of Ms. McCormack's 12 page pleading filed June
6, 2016. I note herein that Ms. McCormack was never properly substituted in as counsel of
record, she is not proper counsel, Jeffrey Bennett is the only properly named counsel.
Title Page:
The title is wrong, it is not a “Response,” but an “Answer.” What I am doing now is the
response called “Reply.” The court pointed this confusing error out on June 6, 2016 and
issued a “fix it” order for this and other mistakes of Ms. McCormack (re-pagination of
voluminous unnecessary and arguably completely irrelevant excerpts previously submitted).
If is not done within two weeks the court has already said that her pleadings will be rejected.
I informally move to strike both Ms. McCormack's non-compliant brief as well as Mr.
Dickens' brief which I believe was late-filed. I have not seen any corrective efforts made as
of the date of this writing, June 12, 2016, six days from the date of the erroneous filing of
Ms. McCormack's document, which itself is only 12 pages of text. The document was
emailed that day but only after I complained to the court around noon after they notified me
by email of an e-filing. I have no e-filing access to the document only to the notice, because
I am not a lawyer, the lawyers know this. I did not get email with the pleading Ms.
McCormack sent on June 6 until 3:24 pm that day, four hours after she e-filed it. Her proof
of service is therefore technically correct, but only because she corrected the service the
same day, delaying for several hours before serving me, giving the lawyers a time

12. 11
advantage over me, putting me on “unequal” footing.
Elmer Dickens allegedly served and filed his separate 2.5 page pleading on June 1, 2016,
but I see no evidence it was ever filed (no e-notice on June 6) and I did not receive any
email at all from him despite a standing agreement by the SAME counsel to use email
service with me as a matter of courtesy. There is an accessibility issue at my location, the
first class mail is not delivered to me directly. It is only available if I walk up a hill to get it.
This is difficult for me because I have a bad back due to a permanent condition called
scoliosis, which counsel is aware of because it has come up before when I explained the
USPS mail is not equally accessible at defendants' location. Email is available to
lawyers but not to me unless they bother to send email. This gives them an unfair
advantage. Mr. Dickens' brief arrived only on June 8th
in my mailbox, not by email. I did
check, so I question his compliance with court rules, as I have in the past, he tends to do
last-minute work, not reading what he's signing, in my experience, but the form of his
pleading is basically correct.
Page 1:
I. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
C. Statutory Basis for Appellate Jurisdiction
1. The claim that I have “failed to identify the statutory basis for appellate
jurisdiction is due to a typo similar to that naming “Sheriff's Department”

13. 12
2. instead of naming “Washington County.” This is not a substantive argument,
the ORS section 19.010(1) was repealed in 2013 and simply renumbered as
ORS 19.205(1), this is completely irrelevant to the issues presented, but it
implies I did not bother to conform to the same rules that Ms. McCormack
also failed to completely conform to. All it proves is we are both human and
fallible.
Page 2:
E. Questions Presented on Appeal
1. “To the extent that the Court wishes to consider issues not raised in
Plaintiff’s opening brief, the question presented on appeal is:
1) Did the trial court err in ruling the Amended Complaint failed to state
ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief?” (emphasis added)
is wrong. The clear questions presented on appeal appearing on page 4 of
the Appellant's Opening Brief (“AOB”) are:
a. Did the trial court err in ruling that as a matter of law defendant did not
have a duty to prevent the filing and maintenance for 10 (ten) years of a
completely false MHRT report?
///

14. 13
b. Did the trial court err in ruling that as a matter of law defendant did not
have a duty to prevent foreseeable future damages to deaf taxpayers in
Washington County caused by Sheriff's deputies on account of the
absence of any official deaf communication policy? An acceptable
example of a deaf communication policy for Sheriff is the Arapahoe
Sheriff's MOU previously submitted to County Counsel1 in 2014 and is a
public document, located on the Department of Justice website at
(http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/834201332117453273491.pdf.
Ms. McCormack is intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting material facts when she
misinforms this court that these are “new” issues. The very same issues were repeatedly
discussed in the FAC on page 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 29, 32, 37 and 39.
Moreover, these issues are questions of fact requiring the requested jury trial to
determine to what extent there was an “investigation,” and to what extent the MHRT
report is false. Dismissal with prejudice when there is clear evidence contradicting
the MHRT report is not appropriate legal procedure.
The legal basis for dismissal with prejudice is discussed on p. 18 of my opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss filed in the Hillsboro Court, to wit:

15. 14
“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.'” 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., 572F.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, see also Neitzke v.
Wìlliams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (emphasis added).
I submitted call transcripts, emails, facts, photographs, dates and times that I made reports
to law enforcement to prove my claims against defendant to wit, that defendants allegedly
failed to disclose dangerous sewer and ongoing unresolved “plumbing” issues, violated
CC&R and allowed a private reserved disabled parking space with a disabled tag displayed
in the car to be blocked three times within one month by failing to provide requested signs
on their private road; initiated a completely false, defamatory MHRT report, causing it to be
published for a decade, allowed planned noisy intrusions to private premises on June 30,
July 22 and several subsequent dates, failed to give written warnings that my quiet
enjoyment would be limited on those days or that water would be shut off for four full days,

16. 15
by scheduled maintenance of defendant's road with a jack hammer (June 30), by
maintenance of defendant's trees with a buzz saw (July 22), and a multitude of “plumbing
emergencies.”
Moreover, the MHRT report claims “facts” that obviously are wrong, there is and never was
any telephone in this home since 2011, I could not be talking on one as stated. I do not
weigh 200 pounds, I weigh 120 pounds. I was not mowing my lawn in my bra and
underwear, and nobody saw me do that. When I opened my door it was not an invitation for
Tim Mateski to harass me, it was to see why dog was barking and I was fully clothed, but he
had no ID, no badge and refused to identify himself. A man wearing khaki pants and shirt
could be anybody, how am I to know he's law enforcement without ID and how am I to listen
to him when I am severely hearing impaired? Moreover, the report states repeatedly that I
did not want to talk, which is not true, I did not ever tell him that. I told him repeatedly to
read the sign that says I am legally deaf and explains my rights and his responsibilities to
me. Those door signs were reproduced for the Hillsboro Court and ignored by all.
Page 3:
"...extraordinarily convoluted and utterly failed to state facts sufficient to state a claim
against any defendant" is Ms. McCormack's personal opinion, not legal authority or
argument and proves nothing but that her own personal prejudice is interfering with her
ability to engage in rational thought or in professionally ethical behavior. If anything,

17. 16
defendants' behavior toward disabled is what is “extraordinarily convoluted and utterly fails”
to serve them as equally as those who are not disabled.
Page 4:
“On November 2, 2015, the trial court ordered Plaintiff to amend her complaint to conform to
the pleading requirements of ORCP 16C and eliminate the convoluted and confusing nature
of Plaintiff’s pleadings. Supp ER 56.” While this may be true, it only demonstrates that the
Hillsboro Court has the same personal prejudice which somehow prevents their ability to
read plain English text. The court did not define at any time counsel's phrase of “convoluted
and confusing,” which are counsel's words not the court's words. The court did not tell me
what to amend or reformat. The FAC is clearly a request to redact or shred a false report
that is neither a law enforcement report nor a medical report because there is no authority
to retain at taxpayer expense what boils down to Tim Mateski's personally ignorant and
prejudiced opinion of deaf who don't listen to unidentified men who suddenly appear
uninvited on the doorstep of old ladies to sexually harass them.
ORCP 16C requires a prayer, which was included in the FAC on pages 35-38, specific
relief from the Hillsboro Court is requested there as: punitive damages, injunctive relief,
mutual respect, treble damages. As noted above, the “claim for relief” was completely and
clearly defined in the FAC on the pages enumerated above pursuant to accepted 2009 legal

18. 17
precedent. ORCP 16C states in pertinent part:
“ORCP 16C. Any pleading that contains a claim for relief shall state the ultimate facts
constituting that claim, without unnecessary repetition, and must include a demand for
the relief called the prayer. The prayer for relief is the request for the relief to which
plaintiff thinks it is entitled. The purpose of the prayer is to advise defendant of the
precise nature of the demand, in order that the party may be prepared to meet it.
Kerschner v. Smith, 121 Or 469, 473, 236 P 272 (1925), 121 Or 469, 256 P 195 (1927).
The prayer is not part of the claim, although it may explain or qualify other parts of the
pleading. Finch v. Miller, 271 Or 271, 275, 531 P2d 892 (1975); Chapter 1—Oregon
Pleadings and Parties Practicing Law in Oregon 1–3 Green v. Cox, 44 Or App 183, 186,
605 P2d 1198 (1980). If recovery of money or damages is sought, the amount thereof must
be stated.” I stated $50,000.
II. THE CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED TO HILLSBORO COURT
FOR DETERMINATION OF THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BOTH IN THE
FAC AND IN THE AOB,
1. "On review of a motion under ORCP 21, the Court reviews for errors of law,
assuming the truth of the facts alleged and giving to the nonmoving party the
benefit of all inferences that can reasonably be drawn from those facts.
Hornbuckle v. Harris, 69 Or App 272, 686 P2nd 418 (1984), McCormack Brief, p. 5.

19. 18
2. "Whether the complaint states a claim is a question of law." Hansen v. Anderson,
113 Or App 216, 218, 831 P2d 717 (1992). "In considering the sufficiency of
plaintiffs' complaint, we accept all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as
true and give plaintiffs the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be
drawn from the facts alleged." Stringer v. Car Data Systems, Inc., 314 Or 576,
584, 841 P2d 1183 (1992). (emphasis added). AOB, p. 11
3. In Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987), the
Oregon Supreme Court said that, "unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship,
or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant's
duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant's conduct
properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a
foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the
plaintiff. The role of the court is what it ordinarily is in cases involving the
evaluation of particular situations under broad and imprecise standards: to
determine whether upon the facts alleged * * * no reasonable fact finder could
decide one or more elements of liability for one or the other party." (emphasis
added).
4. "The general allegations of the complaint require this court first to analyze whether a
special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is alleged to exist due to

20. 19
5. 'a status, a relationship, or a particular conduct which creates, defines or limits the
defendant's duty.' Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, supra, 303 Or at 19. 5
6. Public bodies are ordinarily liable for the torts of employees acting within the scope
of employment under ORS 30.265(1). I certainly named Sheriff's Deputy Tim
Mateski as employee of County (ER2-1). Defendant County erroneously sued
herein as Sheriff's Department in responding to this complaint never invoked
any special relationship, status, or conduct which creates, defines, or limits
defendant County's duty to plaintiff as taxpayer to defendant County. I asked
for no special treatment, only enforcement of existing federal ADA law for hearing
impaired and deaf by adopting the model policy published by the United States
Department of Justice, ADA Enforcement Division which has already been adopted
by other Sheriff's Departments. The trial court in this case did not invoke a special
relationship, status, or conduct which creates, defines, or limits defendant's duty. I
am unaware of special rules defining how a public body must go about attempting to
tell the truth when they file MHRT reports. I could not in fact hear Deputy Mateski
and repeatedly told him I cannot hear and pointed to door signs that explain this
hearing impairment pp. 11-12 AOB.
B. Plaintiff Has Not Assigned Error to the Trial Court’s Dismissal of Her Claim(s) Against
the Commonwealth Defendants.

21. 20
1. I assigned error to defendants and each of them for knowingly initiating a false report,
which they all know is a crime. I sued for harassment and damages for the foreseeable
future harm stemming from the lies they have now memorialized for a decade. I don't
know which one initiated it, if Tim Mateski made it all up by himself or if the other
defendants asked him to write those lies down and conspired with him to do so. This is
a question of fact for a fact-finder, in this case, a jury trial was requested. We
won't know who to assign error to until after civil discovery and possibly not until the
finder of fact hears live testimony and cross-examination at trial, that's how our system
works. If I knew who was to blame, I would have named them. Obviously none will admit
error, so I sued all of the individuals who had contact with Tim Mateski that I know of. I
can still sue Tim Mateski since he filed the report which is neither law enforcement nor
health calling it health without any justification or medical authority for doing so. If
someone else not named, Karen Harding, for example is to blame, then she will be sued
along with County and the other defendants-respondents in the next round of lawsuits
should that become necessary to determine who is to be held responsible for this
disgrace.
Page 8:
“No foundation” is without any legal merit. I am a property taxpayer and pay County
property tax which directly funds defendants' public entity, Sheriff's Department.

22. 21
Unlike and in contrast to recreational vehicles in a “trailer park,” we at Pine Ridge Park pay
property taxes. There is more recent legal precedent on this matter, completely ignored by
counsel: Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case
holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional
use of taxpayer funds.
Flast Test
The Court developed a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
First, because a taxpayer alleges injury only by virtue of his liability for taxes, the Court held
that "a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of
congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution."
*479 Id., at 102, 88 S.Ct., at 1954. Second, the Court required the taxpayer to "show that
the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of
the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the
powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8." Id., at 102-103, 88 S.Ct., at 1954."
I have therefore have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or policy, if a
policy exists and would otherwise deprive me of a right or a privilege even if the statute or
policy itself would not apply to them. See also, Martin v. Ziherl 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005)
Page 9:
Facts are pled as to accessibility of the mailboxes, absence of any outgoing mailbox, failure

23. 22
of defendants to communicate with deaf homeowners in a manner that is equally
meaningful to the manner in which they communicate with hearing homeowner. The main
facts alleged are on pp. 4 and 5 of The First Amended complaint:
"It is inaccessible by design violation of Title II if I have practically speaking no access to
sheriff and to emergency services because all they can do is talk and not read or write
because they refuse. Mateski refused ID. Mateski refused to use written text. He refused to
give me a business card with his Washington County public email address, even though he
is a civil servant paid by my Washington County property taxes. When he refused to leave
upon request, I called the station again on deaf telecom (TRS) and asked for his immediate
removal after notifying the station I will be enforcing the rights articulated in the written door
notice. I have sent his supervisor, Ron Medlock, three emails asking for Mateski to be
investigated for harassment, and when Medlock failed I sent the same request to his
supervisor, Albert Roque and to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Department (CRT)
in Washington, DC which responded on November 30, 2015 with a request for more
information for my complaint. Mateski refused to read signs until after I closed the door,
went to my room and called his supervisor to report his harassment of me."
Washington County Sheriff is a public entity. Pine Ridge Park is open to the public and is
liable for failure to make reasonable accommodations for written language upon request of
deaf. Commonwealth provides housing to the public, it is liable as an Oregon corporation
for any housing discrimination on the basis of disability. The court erred when it applied an
RV or trailer park standard to real estate that is owned by private taxpayers who pay county
property taxes. Many of the older homes which are large manufactured houses exceeding
1200 square feet plus exterior decks cannot be moved.
Page 10:
Sheriff knowingly, maliciously and with the active "help" of the Commonwealth Defendants

24. 23
and each of them wrote, filed and maintains, at taxpayer expense, a completely fictitious
false report. Notwithstanding counsel's 1916 "authority" appellant begs to differ with
counsel's personal opinions repeatedly offered as legal arguments which are of no
consequence, because they are not relevant at all to the issue: Sheriff/County maintains
at taxpayer expense a report purporting to be medical which is no such thing, it's a pack of
lies and was never proven to be anything but fiction invented by the defendants and each of
them.
Page 11:
The only reason sheriff was at appellant's private property trespassing and sexually
harassing her was because she called on deaf telecom (Sprint IP Relay) on June 30 to
remove a car blocking her driveway. These facts are most certainly relevant as when sheriff
found no blocking car (vehicle was a truck which moved before deputy Mateski arrived) he
invented a new excuse to write up a report, but the report is retaliatory, fictional and cannot
be justified as a "mental health" or "medical" report to be kept at taxpayer expense for 9
more years as it is without any validity, is false and nobody has ever argued that any part of
it is in fact true, because it is not true. I provided photos of the blocking vehicles along with
names of the company (Sonicom) which sent the vehicles, license plate numbers and
phone numbers.
///

25. 24
Page 12:
The peeping Tom was identified and removed by the landlord after multiple reports to
Sheriff and his address was given, his name is still unknown but equally discoverable by
defendants who already know his name.
Undisclosed dangerous sewage issues were the subject of complaints dated February 2014
(Joanne Ford); and by me September 2015 (water off without notice) and February 2016
(water off for three days in a row without notice on two of those days). The neglected sewer
was a danger to my financial investment in Pine Ridge Park, a health hazard for the 175
homeowners that live in the park and it was a key issue in the First Amended Complaint
that was repeated on almost every page, but specially on pages: 6, 10, 14, 19, 21, 23, 24,
25, 26 and 34. The main discussion is on page 19: "5. Retaliatory invasion of privacy
prohibited by ORS §90.322. In retaliation for summoning sheriff to enforce parking laws,
and for 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 me and in
retaliation for my consistent objective written reports to authorities supported by
photographic evidence as well as ongoing efforts on FaceBook to establish a tenant union
at Pine Ridge Park." Ms. McCormack misrepresents facts and consistently lies to this court
about the relevant facts pled properly. Moreover, Commonwealth continued to spread the
same malicious lies when it responded to the Oregon Real Estate Department with copies
of the "negative" (their adjective) "posts" on "social media," admitting and demonstrating

26. 25
their ongoing retaliatory behavior to me for reporting their failure to maintain their own
sewer in violation of our lease agreement, health laws and common sense. "the trial court
found it "highly confusing" and "impossible to decipher." these are not at all the words of the
court, but merely the personal opinions of prejudiced counsel. In the FAC, I wrote on p. 25
that §42 USC §12182(b) (2) (A) (iii) protects me from linguicsm. Defendants repeatedly
discriminate against me on account of my disability by failing to use written English as
effectively as they use spoken English to protect me to the same extent they protect
themselves and/or the hearing tenants who listen to them talk. They treat me 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). This
is evidenced as late as September 2015 in emails between me and Claudia Lopez, whose
preferred means of communication is going door to door and talking. The resident manager
continues to talk at me now and uses perfume in the office after having been informed in
writing multiple times that I am extremely allergic to scent. She shows no consideration or
awareness at all even today of disabilities or the law preventing abuse of disabled. My
efforts to establish a tenants union at Pine Ridge Park are supported by other tenants who
have similar complaints about noise and a petition to form a tenants union is now being
circulated to address at least eight mutual grievances shared by tenant-owners at Pine
Ridge Park.

27. 26
concerning: noise, parking, dog exercise area, child play area, swimming pool, mailbox
access/outgoing mail, rent increases and retaliatory actions taken toward tenants.
Respectfully Submitted and dated this 12th
day of June in Aloha, Oregon
_________________________________
Rev. Abby Jo Ovitsky
Declaration Of Appellant in Support of Reply Brief
due 6.27.16-Oregon Ct. of Appeal

28. PROOF OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 13th
day of June, 2016 the original foregoing APPELLANTS' REPLY
BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD was deposited in the United States Post Office at
Aloha, Oregon, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed to:
Appellate Court Administrator
Appellate Courts Records Section Records Section
1163 State Street
Salem OR 97301-2563
I certify that on the 13th
day of June, 2016 the original foregoing APPELLANTS' REPLY
BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD and APPELLANTS' DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
OF REPLY BRIEF AND EXCERPT OF RECORD were deposited in the United States Post
Office at Aloha, Oregon, with first class postage prepaid thereon addressed to:
Jeffrey S. Bennett
850 NE 122 Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97230
Phone: 503-255-8795
Attorney for Commonwealth, Jim Ryan and Claudia Lopez, “The Commonwealth
Defendants”
Elmer M. Dickens Jr.
Sr. Assistant County Counsel
155 N First Avenue, Suite: 340
Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: 503-846-8747
Attorney for Washington Counsel, erroneously sued herein as “Sheriff's Department”
________________________________________
Abby Jo Ovitsky
6900 SW 195th Avenue #133
Aloha, Oregon 97007abby@parentadvocate.org
There is no telephone