-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

FREEDOM BANC MORTGAGE : CASE: 2:11-cv-01073
SERVICES, INC. :
: DISTRICT JUDGE: GREGORY L. FROST
PLAINTIFF, : MAGISTRATE JUDGE: MARK R. ABLE
:
v. :
: DEFENDANT NORMA LYNN
NORMA LYNN OHARRA, et. al. : OHARRAS ANSWER TO
: PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND
DEFENDANTS. : JURY DEMAND



Now comes Defendant, Norma Lynn OHarra, by and through counsel, and for her
Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint states as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Defendant Norma Lynn OHarra, (hereinafter Defendant), denies any violation(s) of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, Electronics Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. 2701 et seq, and common law claims. Defendants Answers are based on personal
knowledge, information, and belief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
3. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
4. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4
of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 15
-2-

of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
PARTIES
6. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6
of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
7. Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint does not appear to require an answer; however, to
the extent an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
8. Defendant respectfully declines to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 8 of
Plaintiffs Complaint citing Defendants Civil Stalking Protection Order, 11CS2128, Warren
County Court of Common Pleas, filed June 21, 2011, expiring June 21, 2016, against Plaintiffs
president.
9. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 9
of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
10. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
10 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
11. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
12. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
13. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
14. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 16
-3-

15. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
16. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
16 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
17. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
18. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
18 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
19. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
20. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
21. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
21 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
22. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
23. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
24. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
25. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
25 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
26. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
27. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
28. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
29. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 17
-4-

30. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
31. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
32. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
33. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
34. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
35. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Computer Fraud and Abuse Act)
36. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein.
37. Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs Complaint does not appear to require an answer; however, to
the extent an answer is required, Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs
Complaint.
38. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
39. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
40. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
41. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
42. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
43. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
44. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Electronic Communications Privacy Act)
45. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein.
46. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
47. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 18
-5-

48. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
49. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass to Chattels)
50. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein.
51. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
52. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
53. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
54. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)
55. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein.
56. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
57. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conspiracy)
58. Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though full rewritten herein.
59. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
60. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
61. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
62. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Supervision and Discipline)
63. Defendant incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully rewritten herein.
64. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 19
-6-

64 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
65. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
66. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
67. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
68. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
68 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs Complaint.
69. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph
69 of Plaintiffs Complaint; however, to the extent and answer is required, Defendant denies the
allegations in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs Complaint.

70. Defendant denies each and every other allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint not expressly
admitted herein.
DEFENSES
71. Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 70 as if fully rewritten herein.
72. To further defend these matters, without admitting Defendant has the burden of proving
any of the following, Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure To State A Claim)
73. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.


Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 20
-7-

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations)
74. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred by statute of limitations.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiffs Acts)
75. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by Plaintiffs illegal and/or fraudulent acts.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Plaintiffs Negligence)
76. With Respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by Plaintiffs negligence which was a direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiffs alleged harms.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver / Estoppel)
77. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by waiver and/or estoppel.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Laches)
78. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by laches.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(License / Consent)
79. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by license and/or consent.

Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 21
-8-

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
80. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by Plaintiffs failure to mitigate alleged losses.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act)
81. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by Plaintiffs failure to comply with Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Ohio Consumer Protection)
82. With respect to Plaintiffs First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action,
Plaintiffs actions are barred or limited by Plaintiffs failure to comply with R.C. 1349.19.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(CFAA Inapplicable Computers)
83. With respect to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action, Plaintiffs computers were not protected
computers within the meaning of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C.
1030(e)(2).
TWELTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(CFAA Inapplicable Person)
84. With respect to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action, Plaintiff is not a person within the
meaning of CFAA, 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(12), and (g).
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(CFAA Inapplicable Damages)
85. With respect to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action, Plaintiff has not suffered actionable
damages within the meaning of CFAA, 18 U.S.C. 1030(g).
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 22
-9-

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(ECPA Inapplicable)
86. With respect to Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action, Plaintiff is not an entity permitted to
maintain a civil action within the meaning of Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Chattel)
87. With respect to Plaintiffs Third and Fourth Causes of Action, Plaintiff claims trespass
and conversion of amorphous property, not tangible personal property.
SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(No Conspiracy Without Underlying Claims)
88. With respect to Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs claim for conspiracy is barred
by the failure of Plaintiffs underlying claims to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Additional Defenses)
89. Defendant reserves the right to raise additional defenses which may become known
during further investigation and discovery in this matter.

WHEREFORE, Defendant having fully answered Plaintiffs Complaint, prays for the
following relief:
A. A judgment in favor of Defendant denying Plaintiff all relief requested in its Complaint
and dismissing Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice;
B. That the Defendant be awarded her costs of this action, including reasonable attorney
fees; and
C. That the Court award Defendant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 23
-10-

proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), demands a trial by jury on all issues.
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Bradley S. Nicodemus

Bradley S. Nicodemus (0085917)
BRADLEY S. NICODEMUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
109 North Broad Street, Suite 301
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
P: 740-422-9280
F: 800-293-1780
E:brad@nicodemuslaw.com
Attorney for Defendant OHarra



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Answer was electronically
filed on this, the 28th day of January, 2012, with the Clerk of the Court, using the CM/ECF
system which will send electronic notice of this filing to:
David T. Ball
395 North Pearl Street
Granville, OH 43023
dave.rblaw@gmail.com
No service via USPS is required with this filing.
/s/ Bradley S. Nicodemus
______________________________
Bradley S. Nicodemus (0085917)
BRADLEY S. NICODEMUS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
109 North Broad Street, Suite 301
Lancaster, Ohio 43130
P: 740-422-9280
F: 800-293-1780
E:brad@nicodemuslaw.com
Attorney for Defendant OHarra
Case: 2:11-cv-01073-GLF-EPD Doc #: 5 Filed: 01/28/12 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 24