STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. PORSC-CV-2011-549 OccupyMaine, Frederick Deese Hamilton, Heather Linnet Curtis, Harold Joseph Brown, Jr., and Palma E. Ryan, Plaintiffs ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES City of Portland, Maine, Defendant NOW COMES Defendant City of Portland ("City"), and answers the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows: NOTE: The Complaint improperly contains many paragraphs with multiple allegations within each, often containing conclusions, opinions, arguments and statements irrelevant to the legal issues presented. THE PARTIES 1. Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not appear to require an answer of the City. To the extent it does, paragraph 1 is denied. 2. City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies same. The remainder of does not appear to require an answer of the City. To the extent it does, the remainder of paragraph 2 is denied * «city! in thls Answer refers to the administration of the City of Portland led by the City Manager and not to the City Couneil except where specifically identified3. City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies same. The remainder of does not appear to require an answer of the City. To the extent it does, the remainder of paragraph 3 is denied. 4, City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies same. The remainder of does not appear to require an answer of the City. To the extent it does, the remainder of paragraph 3 is denied. 5. City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations in the first two sentences of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies same. The remainder of does not appear to require an answer of the City. To the extent it does, the remainder of paragraph 4 is denied 6. City admits the allegations of paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. JURISDICTION & VENUE 7. City admits that the Cumberland County Superior Court is an appropriate court to decide this claim 8. City admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 9, Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains legal conclusions, incorrect statement of facts and those are denied. City does not contest that facts sufficient to confer standing were alleged as of the date of Plaintiffs’ filing of the Complaint. 10. City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and so the allegations are denied.FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11, Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint appears merely to restate the contents of a declaration and so does not require an answer of the City. To the extent an answer is required, the City denies any implication that the camping activities of OccupyMaine, including, but not limited to, the residential use of tents and other structures on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis, as, presently constituted in Lincoln Park, is constitutionally protected. 12. City has insufficient information as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies same. 13. City admits that part of paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint which gives the dates of the presence of Plaintiffs in Portland. The remainder of paragraph 13 is a combination of conclusions and arguments which do not require an answer of the City, To the extent an answer is required, the remainder of paragraph 13 is denied. 14, City admits that part of paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint which gives the date and that Lincoln Park was suggested. The remainder of paragraph 14 contains conclusions and arguments about the gathering and so is denied. The City specifically denies that it agreed to waive the provision of the Code of Ordinances cited (emphasis added) 15, City denies the allegations of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 16. City denies that there was an “invitation” as alleged in Plaintiffs’ paragraph 16. The remainder of the first sentence of paragraph 16 is a combination of argument and conclusion, which does not require an answer of the City. To the extent an answer is required, those allegations are denied. The City admits the second full sentence of paragraph 16. The