Ben T. Sather ‘Tanis M. Holm. FILED SATHER LAW, PLLC Carbon County District Court. 2301 Montana Avenue, Ste. 202 i Rochelle Loyning, Clerk j P.O. Box 1115 Billings, MT 59103 Phone: (406) 294-1700 FEB 01 2018 ben@satherlawfirm.com tanis@satherlawfirm.com ‘Attorneys for Defendant Mary Cameron MONTANA TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT CARBON COUNTY ‘Cause No.: DV-18-03 & JOEL W. TODD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Judge: Blair Jones ) v. ) ) DEFENDANT MARY CAMERON’S MARY CAMERON and DIANE T. DIMICH, ) ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, ) COUNTERCLAIM, AND DEMAND Defendants, ) FOR JURY TRIAL ) Defendant Mary Cameron (“Defendant Cameron”), and in response to Plaintiff's Complaint, answers, alleges, and states as follows: 1. Based upon information and belicf, Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph'No. 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 2. Based upon information and belief, Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. __Inresponse to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 3 of Plaintiff's, Complaint, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained therein, Based only on information and belief, Defendant Cameron admits only that Todd acted as the city prosecutor for the City of Red Lodge -L Sather Law, PLLCfrom about January of 2015 to about June 30, 2017; Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations, 4. Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 5. Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 6, Defendant Cameron admits that she and Defendant Dimich are sisters, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint, 7. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, and based on information and belief, Defendant Cameron admits that Defendant Dimich published a letter in the Carbon County paper on February 15, 2016, and authored a separate Facebook post on February 17, 2016, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 8. Theallegations contained in Paragraph No. 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron responds that the letter speaks for itself, Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 9. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Carieron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron responds that the letter speaks for itself. Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 2 Sather Law, PLLC10. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint. ll. Defendant Cameron admits she made an oral statement at the council meeting that day which she also submitted in writing. Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 11. 12. Inresponse to Paragraph 12 of PlaintifPs Complaint, Defendant Cameron states that the letter speaks for itself. Defendant Cameron denies that the letter demands anti-crime enforcement actions, but admits that it asks for police reports. Remaining allcgations in Paragraph No. 12 are denied. 13, The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 13 are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron admits that Plaintiff sent a letter and avers the letter speaks for itself. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient knowledge or information to respond to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 13, and therefore denies the same. 4. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required, To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No, [4, and therefore denies the same. Defendant Cameron avers thatthe writen and oral statements speak for themselves. 15. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a Sather Law, PLLCa response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same, Defendant Cameron avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself. 16. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 17. Defendant Cameron admits she presented a written request around June 30, 2016. Defendant Cameron avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself and denies the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintif?’s Complaint. 18, Inresponse to Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Cameron denies that she made false statements in the written request and that the written request speaks for itself. Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint, 19. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintif?’s Complaint as stated and avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself. 20. In response to Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Cameron admits she presented a written request around July 13, 2016 but denies that she made false statements and avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself. Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintif?’s Complaint as stated and avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself. 22. Defendant Cameron admits that around September 13, 2016 she submitted a written response to Plaintiff's interim report, but denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 4 Sather Law, PLLCof Plaintiff's Complaint as stated, Defendant Cameron avers that the referenced writing speaks for itself. 23. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint as stated. Defendant Cameron affirmatively avers that the referenced writing was a response to Plaintiff's interim report, and that the writing speaks for itself. 24. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint as stated. Defendant Cameron avers that the referenced writing speaks for itself. 25. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not, directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 26. Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of Plointif’s Complaint, 27. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint, 28. Defendant Cameron admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 29. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’'s Complaint as stated. 30. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 as stated. Defendant Cameron admits that she completed a “survey” around December 8, 2016, that was conducted by the Red Lodge Police Ad Hoe Department from December 8, 2016, through April 5, 2016. By way of further answer, Defendant Cameron states that the public was informed that Se Sather Law, PLLCthe identity of those who completed surveys would be confidential and thus, she put her name on the survey. 31. Defendant Cameron admits that the data from the December 12, 2016, survey stated “I think that Joel Todd has too much influence over the Police in Red Lodge. He needs to g0. He confuses everyone when he steps in to speak or explain things related to the RLPD. He mekes the RLPD look bad.” Cameron denies this information was sent in an email. 32. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron admits that Carbon County News published a Request for Qualifications in January of 2017, but lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to either admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph No. 32 of Plaintif’s Complaint and therefore denies the same, 33. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 34. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph No, 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 35, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 6 Sather Law, PLLC36. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph No, 36 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 37. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 37 of Plaintiff" Complaint, and therefore denies the same, 38. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 38 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required, To the oxtent response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same, Defendant Cameron avers that the ordinance proposed by Todd speaks for itself, Defendant Dimich’s letter speaks for itself, and denies Plaintiff's allegations to the extent they are inconsistent with these documents. 39. Theallegations contained in Paragraph No. 39 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. ‘To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 40. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. Defendant Cameron avers that the referenced letter speaks for itself. 41. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 41 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a 7 Sather Law, PLLCresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same, Defendant Cameron vers that the email speaks for itself. 42. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same, 43. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. Defendant Cameron avers that the email speaks for itself. 44, To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint are directed at Defendant Cameron, Defendant Cameron denies the same. To the extent the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Cameron, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same, 45. The ellegations contained in Paragraph No. 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required, To the extent aresponse is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 46. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 8 Sather Law, PLLC47. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 47 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 48. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 48 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to either admit or deny the allegations regarding the applicants for the position of Red Lodge City Attorney or their qualifications, Defendant Cameron admits that Plaintiff was not appointed as Red Lodge City Attomey. Defendant Cameron denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 48 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 49. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 49 of Plaintif’s Complaint. 50. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to either admit or deny allegations regarding the Request for Qualifications and what is proposed, and therefore denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 50 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 51. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 51 of Pleintif?’s Complaint, 52. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to either admit o deny allegations regarding the qualifications of Rebecca Narmore, and therefore denies the allegetions contained in Paragraph No. 52 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 53. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 53 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 54. Defendant Cameron admits she posted to Facebook on or about May 10, 2017, but denies Plaintiff's characterization of her post. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal o Sather Law, PLLCknowledge or information as to the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiff's ‘Complaint and, therefore denies the same. 55. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations of Paragraph $5 of Plaintiff's Complaint as stated. Defendant Cameron avers that the Facebook post speaks for itself. 56. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 57. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 57 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 58. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 58 of Plaintif?'s Complaint are not, directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 59, The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 60. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 60 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not, directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. -10- Sather Law, PLLC61. The allegations contained in Paragraph No, 61 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required, To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 62. Im response to Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Cameron admits she posted on Facebook in September of 2017 “...set up a Drug Forfeiture account with. restricted funds From capital improvements (saved from resort tax) and then continued to put other funds in the DF accounts that was in no way drug forfeiture money.” Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and specifically denies any posts were false. 63. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 63 of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed at Defendant Cameron, and therefore no responsive pleading is required, To the extent response is required, Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to respond to the allegations contained therein, and therefore denies the same. 64. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 64 of Plaintif?’s Complaint. 65. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 65 of Pleintif?’s Complaint. 66. Defendant Cameron admits she made a post on Facebook on or about November 5, 2017, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 66 and specifically denies that any post made by herself were false. 67. _Inresponse to the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Cameron admits she posted “They had this attitude that the city couldn’t look good, ole Sather Law, PLLCunless they made the county look bad. That was all on Todd-a sore loser carpet bagger who tried, unlawfully to run for county attomey and was exposed.” Defendant Cameron denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs Complaint, and specifically denies that any post made by herself was false. 68. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 68 of Plaintif’s Complaint. 69. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 69 of Plointif?’s Complaint. 70. — Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 70 of Pleintif?s Complaint. COUNT ONE ~ CONSPIRACY 71. Defendant Cameron incorporates Paragraph Nos. 1-70 as if set forth fully herein. 72. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 72 of Plaintif?’s Complaint, 73. The allegations contained in Paragraph No. 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint call for a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained therein. 74, Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 74 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 75. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in paragraph No. 75 of Plaintif?’s Complaint. COUNT TWO - SLANDER 76. Defendant Cameron incorporates Paragraph Nos. 1-75 as if set forth fully herein. 12. Sather Law, PLLC77. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in paragraph No. 77 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements. 78. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in paragraph No. 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements, 79. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in paragraph No. 79 of Pleintif?'s Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements. 80. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal knowledge or information to admit cr deny the allegations contained in paragraph No. 80 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same. Defendant Cameron denies making false statements of any nature regarding Plaintiff. 81. Defendant Cameron lacks sufficient personal information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph No. 81 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore denies the same, Defendant Cameron denies making false oral statements, Defendant Cameron denies that Plaintiff is entitled to damages. COUNT THREE - LIBEL 82, Defendant Cameron incorporates Paragraph Nos, 1-81 as if set forth fully herein. 83. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 83 of Plaintif's Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements. 84. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 84 of Plaintifi’s Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements. 85. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 85 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and specifically denies making false statements. 13 Sather Law, PLLCCOUNT FOUR - INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 86. Defendant Cameron incorporates Paragraph Nos. 1-85 as if set forth fully herein, 87. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 87 of Plaintif?’s Complaint. 88, Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 88 of Plaintif?’s Complaint. 89. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 89 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 90. Defendant Cameron denies the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 90 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 91. Defendant Cameron denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein, FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State a Clai Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant Cameron upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘No Agreement No agreement existed between Defendant Cameron and Defendant Dimich, and therefore the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-4-102(1) have not been met. \ v N “Me Sather Law, PLLCTHIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Mont, Code Ann, § 45-1-102 Plaintiff cannot establish the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-1-102. Duffy Butte Teachers’ Union, No. 332, AFL-CIO, 168 Mont. 246, 251, 541 P.2d 1199,1201-1202 (1975). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, ‘Statements not False The statements Plaintiff alleges were made by Defendant Cameron were not false as. defined by Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-802 and 803. FIRTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Belief in Truth Defendant Cameron believed the statements she made were true. Mont. Code. Ann § 27- 1-804, SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff is a Public Figure Plaintiff is a public figure and must prove actual malice to succeed on a defamation claim. Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418, § 51. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘No Malice Defeadant Cameron did not possess the requisite level of malice for Plaintiff to succeed on his defamation claims. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Communications Privileged The alleged communications made by Defendant Cameron were privileged publications pursuant to Mont. Code. Ann § 27-1-804, \ -15- Sather Law, PLLCNINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Constitutional Defenses Defendant Cameron has a constitutional right to free speech. U.S. Const. Amend. I; Mont. Const, Art. II; See also Williams v. Pasma, 202 Mont. 66, 72 (1982) (citing New York Times y. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).). TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘No Tort Action Piaintiff’s allegations of intentional torts committed by Defendant Cameron fails, and therefore he cannot sustain a civil conspiracy action. Hughes v. Pullman, 2001 MT 216, 4126, 306 Mont. 420, 426, 36 P.3d 339, ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ‘Statements Justifiably Comumunicated The statements communicated by Defendant Cameron were done so with justification. Mont. Code. Ann. § 45-8-212(3). TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE No Intent Defendant Cameron lacked the requisite intent to cause damages to Plaintiff in his ‘business. THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENS ‘Actions Justified Defendant Cameron’s actions at all times were justified. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Proximate Cause Defendant Cameron’s actions or inactions, if any, were not the proximate cause of PlaintifP’s claimed damages. \ -16- ‘Sather Law, PLLCFIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Intervening and Independent Acts The damages complained of by Plaintiff, in whole orin part, were the result of superseding, intervening and/or independent acts of persons or events other than Defendant Cameron, SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Damages Beyond Legal Responsibility of Defendants ‘The injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff were not caused by the conduct of Defendant Cameron, but are attributable to conditions beyond the control and legal responsibility of Defendant Cameron. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Damages Unrelated Some or all of Plaintif?’s alleged damages may have been caused by other events, conditions or incidents unrelated to any actions taken by Defendant Cameron, including Pleintif?’s own actions. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Not Entitled to Damages Plaintiff is not entitled to the damages he seeks. APPLICABILITY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant Cameron raises the above claims and defenses so that they will not be waived. Defendant Cameron reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses throughout the course of discovery, Some of Defendant Cameron’s affirmative defenses may not apply when this case proceeds to trial. At the Final Pretrial Conference, Defendant Cameron will dismiss any affirmative defense which does not appear to be reasonably based and supported by the facts and/or law. <7 Sather Law, PLLCCOUNTERCLAIM For her Counterclaim against Joc! W. Todd, Mary Cameron (“Mary”) states as follows: 1. Mary is an individual residing in Carbon County, Montana, 2. Joel W. Todd is an individual residing in Carbon County, Montana, 3. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Mont, Code Ann. § 3-5- 302(1).. 4, Verue is proper in Carbon County, Montana pursuant to the provision of Mont, Code Ana. § 25-2-122. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 5. Upon information and belief, Joel W. Todd was the City Prosecutor for the City of Red Lodge, MT from January of 2015 to June 30, 2017. 6. Todd submitted an application in response to the City of Red Lodge’s Request for Qualifications in January of 2017. 7. While the Red Lodge City Proseentor, and while an applicant for Red Lodge City Attorney, Todd was a public official, and therefore a public figure, 8 Todd continues to hold himself out as a public figure, through his words and actions, today. 9. Mary had concems and beliefs regarding Todd’s actions in his capacity as the Red Lodge City Prosecutor. 10. Mary communicated her concerns and beliefs to others through public forums such as Facebook, as well as via personal communications and comments at City Couneil meetings. -18 Sather Law, PLLC11. On January 8, 2018, Todd filed this baseless lawsuit with an ulterior purpose of, harassing and intimidating Mary Cameron and silencing her and ostensibly seeking damages 10 which he is not entitled, 12. Todd has no valid legal claim against Mary Cameron and he knows it. 13, His actions in filing this lawsuit puts the legal process to a use perverted beyond its intended purpose. 14, Based upon information and belief, Todd seeks to both punish Mary Cameron for and silence her from expressing her beliefs regarding Todd, a public figure, something she cannot legally be compelled to do. 15. Todd’s filing of this lawsuit has caused Mary Cameron damages, for which she is entitled to compensation. 16. Todd knew that his actions created a high probability of injury to Mary Cameron but he filed this lawsuit in conscious and intentional disregard of that high probability of injury, or perhaps because of it, 17. Todd acted with actual malice against Mary Cameron, and she is therefore catitled to recover punitive damages. COUNT ONE — ABUSE OF PROCESS. 18. Mary re-alleges Paragraph Nos. 1-17 of her Counterclaim. 19. Counterdefendant Todd has willfully used this litigation for an ulterior purpose. 20. Counterdefendant Todd seeks to put the legal process to a use perverted beyond its intended purpose. 21. Counterdefendant Todd’s abuse of process has proximately caused damages to Mary. <1 Sather Law, PLLC22. Mary is entitled to punitive damages for Todd’s actions. WHEREFORE, Defendant Mary. Cameron prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by his Complaint; 2. For judgment in Defendant Cameron’s favor on all counts of Plaintiff's ‘Complaint and Defendant Cameron’s Counterclaim; 3. For compensatory and punitive damages as allowed by law; 4. Forattomey’s fees and costs of suit; and 5. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND DEFENDANT MARY CAMERON DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL. DATED this 30 day of Taauary 52018. SATHER LAW, PLLC ay Kye Be ither Tenis M. Holm Attorney for Defendant Mary Cameron -20- Sather Law, PLLCCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on the 30 day of Tonic, 2018, a copy of the foregoing + document was served on the following persons by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid: Joel W. Todd Attomey at Law P.O. Box 1614 Red Lodge, MT 59068-1614 Brooke B. Murphy Talia G. Damrow Matovich, Keller & Murphy, P.C. 2812 I" Ave. N,, Ste. 225 P.O. Box 1098 Billings, MT 59103-1098 Crystal iGie -21- Sather Law, PLLC