Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have offered no memorandum of law nor any statement of points and authorities of any relevant authorities to support their contentions that any allegations in Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim are irrelevant to her Claim of Defamation, but have simply made unsupported statements that their contention is so, and for this reason the Motions to Strike and Dismiss should be denied.

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed numerous portions of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim to be stricken, which are essential to a just adjudication of this case.

In the most egregious examples, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken their own published statements about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, which are clearly defamatory and which were clearly published by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Kristich, and in others, the entire claim is bracketed to be stricken.

In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraphs 67(N), 68 (K), 68 (N), 68 (O), and 68 (Z), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the entire claim. This is clearly a cheap attempt to avoid being brought to account for maliciously, knowingly and recklessly damaging Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s previously good reputation.

In other portions of this document which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraphs 66 (A) and 67(Q), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken their own published statements, which they made about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Linda Kristich.

In another such example found in paragraph 68 (G) of the same document, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed their own published statements, which they published on the internet and offered as proof to support their defamatory allegations against Linda Kristich, and which clearly and unambiguously identify Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Linda Kristich and which falsely suggests that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have in their possession a sworn statement of Kristich’s ex-husband which would tend to bolster Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants allegations. (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 15)

This is plainly another clumsy attempt to deceive the Court and to avoid being brought to account for willfully, maliciously and recklessly damaging Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s previously good reputation.

These portions of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended

Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim are clearly relevant to the case and should not be stricken.

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have never denied publishing the statements contained in paragraphs 67(N), 67(Q), 68 (K), 68 (N), 68 (O), and 68 (Z)

which clearly insinuate that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is vengeful, vindictive, and Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants unambiguously state in the published statements, that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff is a threatening individual,(Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17) and for these reasons they should not be stricken.

IC 1. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, Paragraphs 66 (a) (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements were "made in retaliation for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s decision to cease from supporting Plaintiff/Counter Defendants financially" (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 16)which is required to show retaliatory malice of the part of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants Defamatory behavior, and for this reason, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff/Counter Defendants statements were "made in retaliation for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s decision to cease from supporting Plaintiff/Counter Defendants financially" should not be stricken.

Further, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have not denied that the publication of these statements were motivated in part by a malicious desire to retaliate " (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17)for Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s decision to cease from supporting Plaintiff/Counter Defendants financially.

IC 2. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 66 (a), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s published the article while of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was involved in a custody dispute with Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s husband.

This claim is required to show malice of the part of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants Defamatory behavior that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements were timed to coincide with a custody dispute in which Defendant/Counter Plaintiff fought for custody of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s children, (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 18), and for this reason, the statement that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s published the article while of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was involved in a custody dispute with Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s husband should not be stricken.

IC 3. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraphs 66 (C), 66 (G), 67(D) 67(F), 67(O), 67(U), 68(S) and 68(W), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that certain of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements were made to "make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to be avaricious and greedy", which the pertinent portions of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s published articles clearly suggest (Linda Kristich Affidavit¶ 16) .

This is a clear attempt to "gut" Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim.

These portions of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim are required to show malice of the part of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants Defamatory behavior, and for this reason, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s claims in Paragraphs 66 (C), 66 (G), 67(D) 67(F), 67(O), 67(U), 68(S) and 68(W), that the pertinent portions of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s published articles to "make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to be avaricious and greedy" should not be stricken.

IC 4. In Paragraphs 66 (A) 66(B) 66(C) 66(D)66 (e) 66(f) 66(g) Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that certain of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements were made in part because Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was believed to be offering comfort to Craig Portwood (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 16)

(whom Plaintiff/Counter Defendants have also defamed)", which is necessary to show a malicious desire on the part of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants to retaliate against Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Kristich, for kindness shown by Kristich toward Craig Portwood, and for this reason, the claim that certain of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements were made in part because Defendant/Counter Plaintiff was believed to be offering comfort to Craig Portwood should not be stricken.

This is the same Craig Portwood mentioned in Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s Complaint, paragraphs 6, 7, 8 9, 11 (B), (E), (I), (J), (O), (P), 12 (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), (N), (O), (P), (Q), (R), (S), (T), (U), (V), (W), (X), (Y), (Z), (AA), (BB), (CC), (DD), (EE), (FF), (GG), (HH), (II), (JJ), (KK), (LL), (MM), (OO), (PP), (QQ), (RR), (SS), (TT), (UU), (VV), (WW), (XX), (ZZ), (AAA), (BBB), (CCC), (DDD), (EEE), (FFF), (HHH), (III), and (KKK), 13, 14, 16, 17, as well as numerous other paragraphs therein.

IC 5. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(B), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements in Paragraph 9 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" were made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to have planned to abandon her husband and children to have a live in relationship a man she had not even met, which is clearly implied by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 15)

and for this reason, Kristich’s claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements in Paragraph 9 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" were made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to have planned to abandon her husband and children to have a live in relationship a man she had not even met should not be stricken.

IC 6. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(C), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements in Paragraph 9 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 15) were made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to "be obsessed with Plaintiff/Counter Defendants, and was appear to be stalking Plaintiff/Counter Defendants".

This allegation has been made on a continuing basis by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Lloyd on the against Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, and Plaintiff/Counter Defendants have never denied this, and for this reason the allegation in question should not be stricken.

IC 7. In Paragraph 67(E), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements published in Paragraph 15 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" were made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear be a mentally unbalanced, scheming individual, with delusions of grandiosity.

The very word "grandiose" (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17)

was used in Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s own article, which suggests a mental imbalance and or sociopathic personality, and for this reason this statement should not be stricken.

IC 8. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(G), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements published in Paragraph 18 of the October 25, 2004 version of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" were made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to be a bigamist, lascivious and immoral. The statements in question which state that Kristich "just become separated from her Michigan Based Husband" to be with another man (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17) have been made with clearly malicious intent to portray Kristich in just such a light, and for that reason Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s claims made in Paragraph 67(G), should not be stricken.

IC 9. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(I), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that at no time during the conference did any individual approach any other individual suggesting that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff behaved improperly towards Craig Portwood. This claim directly contradicts Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements published in Paragraph 15 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" wherein Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants claim that an unnamed individual approached Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s representatives, suggesting that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff behaved improperly towards Craig Portwood (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶¶ 15, 17), and illustrates the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s reckless disregard for the ascertaining the truth before publishing this Defamatory statement and for this reason, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s claim in Paragraph 67(I) that at no time during the conference did any individual approach any other individual suggesting that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff behaved improperly towards Craig Portwood, should not be stricken.

IC 10. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(I), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that no witness has come forward to corroborate such an allegation of improper behavior between Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and any other individual at any restaurant. (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17)

This claim directly contradicts Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17), published in Paragraph 15 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Portwood" and illustrates the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s reckless disregard for the ascertaining the truth before publishing this Defamatory statement, and for this reason, Kristich’s claim that no witness has come forward to corroborate such an allegation of improper behavior between Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and any other individual at any restaurant should not be stricken.

In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(N), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the entire claim.

Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have never denied that in Paragraph 23 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Craig Portwood", Plaintiffs published the statement about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and Craig Portwood: "…I had quietly dropped Craig’s program from our schedule as soon as I learned of the looming scandal…"

The characterization of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff being involved in a "scandal" is plainly Defamatory on its face, and Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have not denied that this statement more than suggests that Defendant/Counter Plaintiff engaged in scandalous behavior.

This malicious statement could only have been made to make Defendant/Counter Plaintiff appear to be immoral, lewd and lascivious, and illustrates the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants callous and reckless disregard for ascertaining the true facts and represent irresponsible responsible journalism, which they knowingly used to damage Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s previously good reputation (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶¶ 15, 17, 19) and for this reason, Paragraph 67(N) should not be stricken.

IC 11. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(R), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant’s statements about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff published in Paragraph 53 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Craig Portwood", were made to make her appear to be threatening, manipulative, vengeful and vindictive.

The very word "manipulate" was used by the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants (Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶¶ 15, 17) in the very paragraph of their article in question, and for this reason the bracketed portions of paragraph 67(R)should not be stricken.

IC 12. In the copy of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have submitted to the Court, in Paragraph 67(U), Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have bracketed to be stricken the claim that Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have attempted to justify previous false, unprivileged and defamatory statements made about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff by Plaintiff/Counter Defendants in Paragraph 105 of the article "The Rise and Fall of Craig Portwood".

This is a clear attempt on the part of Plaintiff/Counter Defendants to avoid culpability for their previous reckless defamatory statements about Defendant/Counter Plaintiff and illustrates the willful practices of deceit(Linda Kristich Affidavit ¶ 17) with which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have defamed Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, and for this reason Paragraph 67 (U) of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counter-Claim should not be stricken.

The allegations contained in that paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 47 48, 50, 51, 53, and 54 of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim are clearly and unambiguously stated to be FACTS COMMON TO CLAIM FOR RELIEF and have not been represented to be claims against Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants or otherwise, and as such are not subject to ORCP RULE 21 (a) (9), nor ORS 12.120.

Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Kristich has made no claims against Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants which are barred by the one year statute of limitations for defamation in her Counter-Claim. Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s claims are based upon the continuing and repeated tortuous acts of Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants.

A copy of article published by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants and titled "The Hidden Things of Dishonesty" and referenced in Paragraph 66 of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim is attached to the Counter Complaint as Exhibit "101" and has been incorporated into the Complaint. The date shown on Exhibit "101" clearly indicates that this article existed in the same form well past the May 24, 2004 date and Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants have not denied that this article existed on their website as of the date of filing of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim.

Plaintiffs Counter Defendants do not deny that the article published by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants and titled "The Wrath of Mr. Wormwood" and referenced in Paragraph 68 of Defendant/Counter Plaintiff’s Counter-Claim represent a tortuous act which occurred before May 24, 2004.

Thus, the Counter Complaint is not subject to a successful attack based on the Oregon statutes of limitations and for this PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT LINDA KRISTICH'S COUNTER-CLAIM FOR DEFAMATION based upon ORCP 21(A)(9) should be denied.

For a SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff alleges: Any economic injury sustained by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants since 2003 was caused by the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants mass publication of the Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants predictions to their listeners, clients, customers, hosts, financial supporters, and associates, which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants claimed were the product of Prophetic "gifts" from God which Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants portrayed as "Bible Prophecy" delivered by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant James Lloyd who claims to utter these predictions as a "Prophet of the Lord" and which clearly failed to come to pass as uttered.