Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 10

STATE COURT AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (ASG, )

1

FILED

Michael E. Spreadbury

DEBBIE HA.RMON, CLERK

2

700 South Fourth St.

3

Hamilton, MT 59840

APR 05 2011

.~A"a'~
\j
DEPUTV

4

Tel. [phone]

5

mspread@hotmaiLcom

MONTANA 21 sT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

6

7

RAVALLI COUNTY

8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­

9

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

)

.,ePT· '+-

10

Plaintiff

)

11

v.

Ig

)

12

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

13

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

14

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

15

BOONE KARLBERG P.C.,

)

16

Defendants

Cause No: DV-11-184

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

This cause of action is for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED),

18

negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights

19

42 USCA § 1983, negligence in City of Hamilton, Ravalli County, State of Montana.

20

JURISDICTION:

21

The 21 st Montana Judicial District is the proper venue for this cause of action, due to actions and

22

deprivations of rights within the 21 st Judicial District, Ravalli County Montana. Case and

23

controversy is sufficient to make complaint before this Honorable Court.

Amended Complaint

'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a'

April 5, 2011

24

PARTIES:

25

1. Michael E. Spreadbury (hereafter "Spreadbury"), Plaintiff of 700 S. 4th Street, Hamilton

26

Montana, is a resident of Montana, and is considered a person in the State of Montana.

27

2. Dr. Robert Brophy, resident of Montana, acting under individual duties, Bitterroot Public

28

Library Chairman of the Trustee Board, responsible officer of the Bitterroot Public Library,

29

acting in color of law, considered a person in the state of Montana.

30

3. Trista Smith, resident of Montana, current director of the Bitterroot Public Library as a

31

replacement for Gloria Langstaff; acting in color of law, in individual duties, is considered

32

a person in Montana.

33
34

35

4. Nansu Roddy, resident of Montana, assistant director of the Bitterroot Public Library,
acting in color oflaw, in individual duties, is considered a person in the State of Montana.

5. The Bitterroot Public Library (hereafter "public library"), an independent district, bound by

36

the Interstate Compact as per Montana Code Annotated MCA§ 22-1-601. Under

37

subsection 3(e) of this compact, an independent district can sue and be sued; in this

38

jurisdiction an independent library district is considered a person in the State of Montana.

39
40

6. Jerry Steele, executive director of the City of Hamilton as elected Mayor, acting in color of
law, resident of Montana, is considered a person in the State of Montana.

41

7. Steve Snavely, Sergeant in the Hamilton Police Department, acting in color oflaw, and in

42

individual duties, resident of Montana, is considered a person in the State of Montana.

2

Amended Complaint

e

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. al.

AprilS, 2011

43

8. Detective Steven Bruner-Murphy, (hereafter: "Detective Murphy") resident of Montana,

44

employed by Hamilton Police Department, acting in color of law, in individual duties, is

45

considered a person in the State of Montana.

46

9. Hamilton Police Chief Ryan Oster, resident of Montana, acting in color of law, in

47

individual duties, and as official policymaker for the City of Hamilton, Montana; Chief

48

Oster is considered a person in the State of Montana.

49

10. Kenneth S. Bell, Hamilton City Attorney, acting in color of law, in individual duties, and

50

that as official policy maker of the City of Hamilton, resident of Montana, considered a

51

person in the State of Montana.

52

53

11. Jennifer B. Lint, resident of Montana, Deputy Hamilton City Attorney, acting in color of
law, in individual duties is considered a person in the State of Montana.

54

12. City of Hamilton, MT is considered a person in the State of Montana

55

13. Stacey Mueller, resident of Montana, publisher of The Missoulian newspaper, acting in

56

color oflaw, in individual duties, is responsible officer for Lee Enterprises Inc., considered

57

a person in the State of Montana.

58

14. Kristen Bounds, resident of Montana, acting in color of law, in individual duties, former

59

publisher of Ravalli Republic newspaper, is considered a person in the state of Montana.

60

15. Perry Backus, former editor Ravalli Republic newspaper, acting in color of law, resident of

61

Montana, is considered a person in the State of Montana

3

Amended Complaint

62
63

64

65

66
61

68
69

10

11

12

13

14

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

afl'

April 5, 2011

16. The Missoulian Newspaper, an affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation.
As a Montana Corporation, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
17. The Ravalli Republic Newspaper, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation.
As a Montana Corporation, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
18. The Billings Gazette, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc, a Montana Corporation is considered
a person in the State of Montana.
19. The Helena Independent Record, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
20. The Great Falls Tribune, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc. a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
21. The Montana Standard, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
22. William L. Crowley, resident of Montana, partner and responsible officer for Boone

15

Karlberg PC law firm, acting in color of law, in individual duties, is considered a person in

16

the State of Montana.

11

18

19

23. Natasha Prinzing-Jones (hereafter: "Jones") resident of Montana, associate at Boone­
Karlberg PC law firm, acting in color of law, considered a person in the State of Montana.
24. Boone Karlberg PC, as a Montana Corporation is considered a person in Montana.

80

4

Amended Complaint

f,.eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5, 2011

81

Prima Facie Evidence. 42 USC §1983; Civil rights

82

25. The Plaintiff believes, and is prepared to show with a preponderance of the evidence that

83

the Defendants listed, together, individually, and as pairs conspired to deprive the

84

Constitutional rights of Plaintiff. These rights are not limited to the Montana Constitution

85

Article II, s. 4,6,7,17; and US Constitution Amendments I, V, and XIV in actions within

86

Ravalli County, State of Montana, United States of America.

87

26. Under the color of law, two of more Defendants wished to contrive, and execute criminal

88

charges to (1) reap injury to Plaintiff character, and (2) affect Plaintiff employment, and (3)

89

alter public perception of Plaintiff to interfere with an election; keeping Plaintiff out of

90

office, through the course of action described in this complaint.

91

27. The Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, through one

92

or more unlawful acts, Plaintiff has incurred substantial and actual damages as a result.

93

28. No probable cause existed in criminal actions against the Plaintiff, executed by the

94

Defendants. Common law issues are presented to the court, in addition to Defendants

95

filing, contributed to criminal charges without probable cause filed against the Plaintiff,

96

which contained substantial deprivations of Plaintiff fundamental constitutional rights.

97

29. Defendants acted with actual malice, callous indifference, and without equal protection or

98

due process under the law which led to actual damages to the Plaintiff as described herein.

99

100

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
30. Spreadbury resides within City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana.

5

Amended Complaint

101

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. af!j

April 5, 2011

31. Spreadbury met with Ms. Nansu Roddy to admit correspondence written by separate person

102

to be admitted into public library temporary reserve holdings in May/June 2009.

103

32. Bitterroot public library (hereafter "public library") employee Roddy, in violation of

104

policy, and public library's adopted American Library Association policies refused to

105

accept Spreadbury's submission.

106

107

33. Spreadbury utilized administrative remedies available per Roddy for Spreadbury to meet
with library director of public library on or around June 10,2009.

108

34. Director made appointment, cancelled, and refused to meet with Spreadbury.

109

35. Director of Public library published, distributed letter June 11,2009 banning Spreadbury

110

from library unlawfully, in violation of Montana Code Ann. for use oflibrary, privileges,

111

Spreadbury's procedural due process, per well accepted Montana statute, established

112

statutory privilege for library utilization, use of public property.

113

36. Spreadbury presented library, Hamilton Police Department with sworn affidavit that

114

Spreadbury had never been asked to leave public library, or made disruption, any willful

115

violation of rules occurred in past 48 hours, 4 years dated June 12,2009.

116

37. Spreadbury submitted Reconsideration Request Form July 8, 2009; public library did not

117

respond to own established administrative remedy available to the public, Spreadbury.

118
119

38. On July 9,2009 Spreadbury sat in waiting area of Ravalli Republic, as business was
conducted, Spreadbury constructed a hand written request to Publisher Bounds not to

6

Amended Complaint

!readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. a '

April 5, 2011

120

defame Spreadbury. Ravalli Republic called Ravalli County Dispatch, said Spreadbury

121

was making threats, a false and defamatory act. HPD responded to Ravalli Republic.

122

39. On July 9,2009 Chief Ryan Oster informed Spreadbury that the Ravalli Republic did not

123

want Spreadbury to have further entry at the storefront at 232 W. Main St. Hamilton,

124

Montana. Ravalli Republic personnel never asked Spreadbury to not return.

125

40. Spreadbury sent letter to public library, Hamilton Police Department (HPD) July 15,2009

126

citing Montana Statute re: library privileges, reinstating privileges to public library.

127

41. Public library board, public library did not respond to the July 15, 2009 correspondence.

128

42. Defendant Brophy made known false statements, comments to library staff about

129

Spreadbury which were published on electronic form, communicated in verbal form.

130

43. On August 20, 2009 Spreadbury sat peacefully on public property outside public library.

131

44. Sgt. Steve Snavely, Hamilton Police approached Spreadbury with June 11, 2009 letter from

132

133
134

135
136

public library, accused Spreadbury of trespass on public property.
45. Sgt. Snavely intimidated witnesses to photograph where Spreadbury alleged to have stood
in park August 20, 2009, attempt to convict Spreadbury, trespass on public property.
46. Ken Bell, Hamilton City Attorney on or around September 2, 2009 wrote a sworn
complaint that Spreadbury was trespassing on Public Property August 20,2009.

137

47. Spreadbury was not given an opportunity to be heard at public library, lost privileges, due

138

to not being allowed on the public library grounds, facility since early summer of 2009.

7

Amended Complaint

treadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. a '

AprilS, 2011

139

48. Plaintiff summoned September 9, 2009 with Misdemeanor Criminal Trespass on private

140

property, property is publically owned by the City ofHamilton to which Plaintiff is

141

taxpayer, has property, liberty interests in enjoying library privileges.

142

49. On September 10, 2009 the Ravalli Republic, a Lee Enterprise Corporation, published a

143

front page article with Spreadbury's likeness in color photo with full name and headline

144

"Mayoral Candidate charged with Trespass".

145

50. In an online comment published with the September 10, 2009 article, a comment was

146

published on www.ravallirepublic.com stating that Spreadbury "suffers serious

147

psychological problems and needs to seek help."

148
149

150
151

152
153

154

51. A separate comment published by the Ravalli Republic September 10, 2009 story said
"Spreadbury is ready for Warmsprings (referring to the Montana State Mental Hospital)".
52. The Trespass on public property was republished in several Lee Enterprise newspapers
within the State of Montana, named as parties to this cause of action.
53. A photographer from the Ravalli Republic admitted to the Plaintiff that his editor required
a picture of Spreadbury for the September 10, 2009 article.
54. On October 19,2009 Detective Murphy, HPD made report of Spreadbury stalking public

155

library director; published sighting of Director former website: www.Bitterroot-rising.org

156

with report # 209CROOO1589 a deprivation of Spreadbury' s established right to speak.

157
158

55. Spreadbury prosecuted for sitting peacefully on public property by Defendant Bell,
Defendant Lint City of City of Hamilton in violation of established right.

8

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a~

April 5, 2011

159

56. Bell contacted NCIC criminal database to unlawfully get criminal history on Spreadbury.

160

57. Bob Brophy, Chairman BPL Board did send Plaintiffletter dated February 23, 2010 stating

161

board was removinR Spreadbury's privileges although never asked to leave public library,

162

or demonstrated willful violation of rules: requirement per Montana Code Ann.

163

58. Spreadbury's procedural due process rights deprived by Brophy by not having any ability

164

to be heard, administrative remedy to contest action which deprived Spreadbury liberty

165

interest in entering library as taxpayer in Hamilton, MT in 2009.

166

59. Defendant Boone Karlberg, PC did publish false light information in several published

167

pleadings before the Supreme Court for the State of Montana stating Spreadbury frequently

168

returned to library, although not a crime, published false light of actual events that occurred

169

at the public library with respect to Spreadbury/public library situation.

170

60. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC published several instances of false light information,

171

defamation in re: criminal charge of trespassing with respect to Spreadbury after Boone

172

Karlberg PC knew charge dropped August 2010 within court pleadings published in

173

District, Supreme Courts for the State of Montana after dismissal order.

174

61. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC knew or should have known that sitting on public property

175

is not a crime, charge dismissed known as Defendant Bell, client, employees, agents of

176

Defendant Boone Karlberg PC sworn to uphold the Montana, US Constitution as lawyers.

177

178

62. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC, party to cause of action William L. Crowley Esq. did
publish in pleading Spreadbury threatened Defendant Bell, when no evidence of threat

9

Amended Complaint

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public library et.

a"

April 5, 2011

179

exists in correspondence to Bell. Crowley, Jones of Boone Karlberg PC engaging in

180

malicious defamation of Spreadbury.

181
182

63. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC acting in civil conspiracy with client Bell when defaming
Spreadbury in published pleadings to courts in State of Montana.

183

64. As Defendants continue to re-publish August 20,2009 peaceful assembly on public

184

property as criminal act by Spreadbury, causes severe emotional distress per well

185

established standards before the Supreme Court for the State of Montana.

186
187

65. Defendants knew, should have known that peaceful assembly on public property is never a
crime in Montana, United States.

188

66. Defendants knew, should have known that trespass charge was dismissed August 16, 2010

189

by Honorable John Larson 4th District Court in 21 st District Cause No. DC-I0-26 with

190

Spreadbury as Defendant.

191
192

193

67. Every re-publication of false information is considered a new case for libel against the
Defendants.
68. Defendant Lee Enterprises on or around August 20,2010 created four (4) different versions

194

of a story pertaining to criminal trespass charges against Spreadbury originating from

195

Defendant Ravalli Republic Newspaper in Hamilton, Montana.

196
197

69. Defendant Lee Enterprises made two Associated Press (AP) stories of the 4 created articles
pertaining to Spreadbury and criminal trespass on public property.

10

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a'"

April 5, 2011

198

70. Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. published false light: Supreme Court "upheld" library ban,

199

decision in Supreme Court for Montana in re: order of protection out of time appeal, order

200

of protection, not trespassing, or unlawful ban from library of Spreadbury.

201

71. A national newspaper published Spreadbury's name and criminal trespass charge based

202

upon the Ravalli Republic, Lee Enterprises Inc. AP submissions. Distribution is 1.8

203

million readers daily, national, international distribution.

204

72. Six (6) Lee Enterprise affiliates, party to this case in the State of Montana published a

205

version of 4 articles on or around August 20, 2010 origin from the Ravalli Republic

206

Newspaper, each affiliate has ability to publish defamatory comments about Spreadbury.

207

73. Due to AP coverage, TV, radio, newspaper, and other news outlets throughout the State of

208

Montana covered Spreadbury criminal trespass charge on or around August 20,2010. Re­

209

publication, defamation of Spreadbury's alleged criminal act, protected activity of peaceful

210

assembly from August 20, 2009 is in-calculable damage to character, not reversible.

211

74. Spreadbury was no longer considered a public official at 20:00hours November 3, 2009.

212

75. Defendants act in concert to devastate Spreadbury's character, "shocks conscience" that

213

protected act would be criminalized, used to defame, destroy Spreadbury's character.

214

76. Spreadbury was running for office at time of peaceful assembly August 20, 2009 yet that

215

216

does not allow for actual malice of Defendants defamation pled herein.
77. The truth can be actual malice in libel, defamation cases.

11

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

af!j

April 5, 2011

217

78. Spreadbury had injury to character to such an extent that severe economic loss ensued from

218

unlawful prosecution of peaceful assembly on public property in City of Hamilton, MT.

219

79. The acts ofthe Defendants described in paragraph 1 through 86 of this Complaint were

220

done willfully, maliciously, outrageously, deliberately, and purposely with the intention to

221

inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff and were done in reckless disregard of the

222

probability of causing Plaintiff emotional distress, these acts did in fact result in severe and

223

extreme emotional distress to Spreadbury.

224

80. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's acts alleged herein, Spreadbury was

225

caused to incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, fright, anguish, shock,

226

nervousness, and anxiety. Plaintiff continues to be fearful, anxious, and nervous,

227

specifically but not exclusively regarding the future possibility of wrongful defamation,

228

summons without crime, and prosecution for criminal act without due cause.

229

81. As a proximate result of the Defendant's actions alleged herein, Spreadbury has had his

230

capacity to pursue an established course of life destroyed by Defendants. Spreadbury has

231

suffered permanent damage to lifestyle and professional life as a result of Defendant

232

activity described in paragraph 1 through 86. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress

233

inflicted by actual malice ofthe named Defendants.

234

82. This severe emotional distress was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions by

235

Defendants on or about June 11, 2009 and ongoing. Defendants did not take reasonable

236

care to avoid wrongful prosecution of Spreadbury, appeared to have contrived the criminal

237

action against Spreadbury giving no conscience to their duties as officers of the court, in

12

Amended Complaint

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a~

April 5, 2011

238

color oflaw. Spreadbury's peaceful assembly on public property was outrageously

239

exaggerated, manipulated, and exacerbated by the Defendants with actual malice with

240

intent to defame, destroy Spreadbury's character causing severe emotional distress.

241
242

243
244

245

83. Defendants had position of authority over Spreadbury, or in position to affect Spreadbury's
established interests.
84. Defendants conduct was an abuse of power, position, even without authority over
Spreadbury, had position to affect Spreadbury.
85. Defendants certain of infliction on Spreadbury, acted recklessly, outrageously with

246

deliberate disregard of high degree of probability of emotional distress to Spreadbury.

247

86. Defendants acted with heatless, flagrant, and outrageous acts; extreme liability arises for

248

249

Defendants with respect to emotional distress in the State of Montana.

Negligence-Brophy/public library--Count 1

250

87. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-86 of this complaint as if fully set herein.

251

88. Library Board chairman Brophy, acting in official duties in color of law, wrote letter of

252

253
254

255

February 23, 2010 removing Spreadbury's library privileges without cause.
89. Brophy/public library knew or should have known that Spreadbury was never asked to
leave public library, willfully violated any rules of the public library.
90. Brophy/public library did not allow Spreadbury administrative remedy to the allegations of

256

misconduct, allowed arbitrary removal of privileges, did not proceed to administrative

257

remedy for submission to library, ignored Spreadbury's written reconsideration request.
13

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5,2011

258

91. Brophy's actions constituted negligence as chairman of public library Board.

259

92. As a result of Brophy's/ public library's negligence, Spreadbury had actual damages.

260

Abuse of Process! Brophy-public library--Count 2

261

93. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-92 of this complaint as if fully set herein.

262

94. Board Chairman Brophy in his administrative duties as chairman ofBPL board wrote letter

263

264
265

to remove Plaintiffs library privileges on February 23,2010.
95. The proceeding was regular act on the part of Brophy, but not proper in the regular conduct
of library board chairmen abiding by all laws to remove privileges of patrons.

266

96. Due to Brophy's abuse of process at the public library, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.

267

Procedural Due Process!14 th Amendment-Brophy! public library-Count 3

268

97. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-96 as if fully set in this complaint herein.

269

98. Brophy, as chairman of Library board wrote Feb. 23, 2010 letter to Plaintiff which did not

270

271
272

273
274

allow a remedy for Plaintiff to speak to the allegations of misconduct at the Library.
99. Brophy upheld Director's June 11, 2009 letter which unlawfully took Plaintiff library
privileges without remedy to answer the allegations of misconduct at library.
100. Public library did not respond to Spreadbury's July 8, 2009 "Request for
Reconsideration" form, nor administrative process for Spreadbury's submission.

14

Amended Complaint

275

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5, 2011

101. Since Brophy did not allow an administrative remedy for Plaintiff to address Board of

276

library, other remedy, it violated Plaintiffs right to administrative remedy, procedural due

277

process, or be heard on alleged deprivations of rights from the public library.

278

102. Due to Brophy's, public library lack of procedural due process with respect to public

279

library privileges, request for material submission, it violated Plaintiff established right to

280

Procedural Due Process, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.

281

DefamationlDefamation Per Se-Bropby/public library--Count 4

282

103. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-102 as if fully set in this complaint herein.

283

104. Brophy communicated a statement about Plaintiff, in writing, orally in official meeting,

284

285
286

287
288

289

which was distributed throughout library staff.
105. Communication of false information unprivileged, altered perception of library staff as
they interacted with Plaintiff, and constituted Defamation and Defamation Per Se.
106. As a result of Brophy's Defamation and Defamation per se as officer of public library,
Plaintiff had actual damages.

Misrepresentation-Bropby-public library--Count 5

290

107. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-106 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

291

108. In February 23, 2010 letter to Plaintiff, Brophy misrepresented authority of Library

292

Board, Library director to abridge peaceful assembly in a publically owned park, and to

293

remove a patrons privilege to use a public library respectively.

15

Amended Complaint

294
295

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5, 2011

109. A Library Board only has the authority to remove a privilege of a patron who willfully

violates the rules ofthe library under MCA §22-1-311(Use of Library-Privileges).

296

110. Plaintiff was never asked to leave the library by staff, director, or law enforcement.

297

111. Due to Brophy's misrepresentation, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.

298

1 st Amendment-Roddy/public library--Count 6

299

112. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-111 as iffully set forth in this complaint.

300

113. Public Library staff Roddy did refuse Spreadbury's submission to the public library.

301

114. Public library policy requires no rejection of written material by "right to read", freedom

302

303

of speech requires acceptance of material not profane, illicit.

115. By refusing Spreadbury's submission, accepted in a member Library in Montana, Public

304

LibrarylRoddy violated Spreadbury's right to speak, petition government as protected in

305

Amendment 1, US Constitution, as a result Spreadbury suffered actual damages.

306

Malicious Prosecution-Public Library, City of Hamilton---Count 7

307

116. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-115 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

308

117. A judicial proceeding was commenced and prosecuted against Spreadbury.

309

118. The public library, City of Hamilton responsible for instigating, prosecuting, and/or

310

311

continuing the proceeding.

119. Public library, City of Hamilton acted without probable cause.

16

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5, 2011

312

120. Public library, City of Hamilton actuated by actual malice.

313

121. The judicial proceedings terminated favorably for Spreadbury.

314

122. As a result of the Defendant public library, City of Hamilton actions, Spreadbury

315

316

317

318
319

320
321

322

323

sustained actual damages.

Tortious interference with prospective Economic Advantage--Defendants-Count 8

123. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-122 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

124. Defendants committed intentional and willful acts calculated to cause damage to

Spreadbury's reputation, and prospective economic advantage.
125. Defendant acts were done with actual malice, willful purpose of causing damage or loss

to Spreadbury without right or justifiable cause on the part of the actors.

126. Due to Defendant's tortious interference, Spreadbury has suffered actual damages.

"Policy or Custom" by Policymaker Bell, l st,14 th Amendments---Count 9

324

127. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-126 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

325

128. Defendant Bell, department head and official policymaker made new policy for City of

326

Hamilton by deciding Spreadbury's peaceful assembly on public property manifested

327

misdemeanor criminal trespass on August 20, 2009 by way of sworn complaint to court.

328

129. Due to official policy of Defendant Bell by sworn information to the court September 2,

329

2009, Spreadbury's right to peaceful assembly, protected Art. lIs. 6 Montana Constitution,

330

1st Amendment US Constitution deprived by official policy of City of Hamilton, Montana.
17

Amended Complaint

s!adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. al.

e

April 5, 2011

331

130. As a result of Bell's official policy, Spreadbury would not enjoy equal protection of the

332

laws as protected in Art. II s. 4 Montana Constitution, 14th Amendment, US Constitution.

333

131. As a result of official policy created by Policymaker Bell, City of Hamilton, Spreadbury

334

335

suffered actual damages by deprivation of established right.

Policy of Custom-Amendment 5, 14--City of Hamilton--Oster-Count 10

336

132. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-131 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

337

133. HPD Chief Oster, official policymaker, City of Hamilton made new policy: asked

338

Spreadbury to not enter storefront when no adverse or criminal behavior occurred at the

339

Ravalli Republic business, 232 W. Main St Hamilton, Montana on July 9, 2009.

340

134. By asking Spreadbury to not enter Ravalli Republic business without cause, Oster

341

deprived Spreadbury liberty interest, equal protection, protected in Amendment 5,14 US

342

Constitution.

343
344

345

135. As a result of official policy of City of HamiIton by policymaker Oster, Spreadbury

sustained actual damages.

N egligence-City of HamiltonIBell---Count 11

346

136. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-135 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

347

137. Defendant Bell knew or should have known sitting on public property is not a crime.

348

138. Defendant Bell, knowing peaceful assembly, sitting at library not a crime contacted

349

national crime database, NCIC; adversely affects professional employment for Spreadbury.

18

Amended Complaint

350
351

352

353

s!adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. al.

e

April 5,2011

139. Citing Spreadbury for a crime for sitting on public property constitutes negligence on the
part of Bell, deprives Spreadbury right to peaceful assembly, equal protection.
140. As a result of Bell's negligence Spreadbury suffered actual damages.

Negligence, City of HamiltonlSnavely-Count 12

354

141. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-140 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

355

142. Sgt. Snavely HPD knew, or should have known peaceful assembly on public property is a

356

357
358

359

360

protected right in Montana, US Constitution, not a crime.
143. Sgt. Snavely negligent in his actions August 20,2009, ongoing in accusing Spreadbury of
criminal trespass while peacefully assembled on public property in Hamilton, MT.
144. As a result of Snavely's negligence, Spreadbury suffered actual damages.

Negligence, City of Hamilton-Murphy-Count 13

361

145. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-144 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

362

146. Detective Murphy, knowingly sent several written police reports to City Attorney Bell for

363

consideration of charges when no crime occurred, reports "cleared" by HPD.

364

147. Detective Murphy knew, or should have known Spreadbury did not commit a criminal act

365

with respect to the public library, especially when HPD officers, Murphy cleared reports.

366
367

368

148. Detective Murphy knowingly did a domain search to on a website owned by Spreadbury
obtain personal information on Spreadbury when no crime was committed.
149. As a result of Detective Murphy's negligence, Spreadbury suffered actual damages.
19

I

Amended Complaint

s!adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. al.

e

April 5, 2011

369

Freedom to Speak/1 st Amendment, Abuse of Power11 4th Amendment-HPD Det.

370

~urphy~ountI4

371

150. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-149 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

372

151. Defendant HPD Detective Murphy investigated, published police report, investigated

373

Spreadbury for stalking for mentioning a "sighting" of public library director on a website.

374

152. Spreadbury is free to speak in Hamilton, Montana, has a compact to the United States.

375

153. Detective Murphy sent information to City Attorney Bell to consider charges on

376

Spreadbury when it was known by HPD that no criminal acts transpired.

377

154. Actions of Detective Murphy demonstrate actual malice toward Spreadbury, an example

378

of abuse of power, oppressive government as protected in Amendment 14 US Constitution.

379
380

381

155. Due to Murphy's deprivation of protected free speech, abuse of power: recommending
charges, investigating stalking on protected right, Spreadbury had actual damages.
Negligene~rowley/JoneslBoone

Karlberg--Count 15

382

156. Plaintiff repeats, reaUeges paragraphs 1-155 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

383

157. Defendant Crowley, Jones knew or should have known that trespass charge was dropped

384

on August 16, 2010 against Spreadbury by the City of Hamilton, Montana.

385

158. Defendant Crowley, Jones knew or should have known that Spreadbury did not threaten

386

Attorney Bell in regular written correspondence requesting public information in 2010.

20

Amended Complaint

387
388

389
390

391
392

393

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5, 2011

159. Defendant Crowley, Jones knew or should have known that Spread bury made Alfred plea

of no contest to felony charge, under appeal as DC-09-154, not convicted.

160. The publication of information in paragraphs #157-159 constitutes negligence by

Defendants Crowley, Jones, Boone Karlberg.

161. As a result of negligence by Crowley, Jones, Boone Karlberg, Spreadbury suffered actual

damages.

Defamation-Crowley, Jones, Boone Karlberg-Count 16

394

162. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-161 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

395

163. Defendant Boone Karlberg, Crowley, Jones published, republished false information

396

about Spreadbury being charged with a criminal trespass in court documents in the State of

397

Montana after case was properly dismissed, not relevant to fact, background of pled case.

398

164. Defendant Boone Karlberg, Crowley, Jones published, republished false light information

399

400

401

concerning Spreadbury's actions with respect to the public library.

165. Defendant Boone Karlberg, Crowley, Jones published false information that Spreadbury

threatened City Attorney Bell in regular requests for public information in 2010.

402

166. The publishing of false, false light information is defined as defamation in Montana.

403

167. As a result of defamation by Defendant Boone Karlberg, Crowley, Jones, Spreadbury

404

suffered actual damages.

405

21

Amended Complaint

406

treadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

afl'

Aprif 5, 2011

DefamationlDefamation per se-City of Hamilton-Count 17

407

168. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-167 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

408

169. Defendant Bell served upon court sworn complaint September 2, 2009 Spreadbury was

409

trespassing on public property August 20, 2009 on written public document before court.

410

170. The Hamilton Police Department published several unprivileged reports, DVD, CD of

411

interviews in re: alleged trespassing on public property, unfounded harassment, and false

412

light concerning Spreadbury interactions with library, Hamilton Police.

413

171. By publishing false light, false information, hearsay in HPD report is defamation per se.

414

172. Bell put false information about Spreadbury into court documents, available to public is

415

416
417

418

considered defamation in the State of Montana.
173. As a result of defamation, defamation per se by City of Hamilton, Bell, Spreadbury

incurred actual damages.

NegligencelNegiigence per se-- Lee Enterprises Inc.-Count 18

419

174. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-173 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

420

175. Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. knew or should have known sitting on public property is a

421

protected right, Art. II section 6 Montana Constitution, Amendment 1 US Constitution.

422

176. Defendant Lee Enterprises knew or should have known that publishing comments about a

423

424

person's psychiatric health constitutes negligence per se.

177. Lee Enterprises published several comments about Spreadbury's psychiatric health.

22

Amended Complaint

425
426

treadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

af!'

April 5,2011

178. Lee Enterprises knew, or should have known re-publishing material relating to criminal
trespass on public property establishes negligence.

427

179. Lee Enterprises knew or should have known that publishing false light information such

428

as Spreadbury "repeatedly" returning to public library, Supreme Court "upholding" ban on

429

public library for Spreadbury considered defamation in the State of Montana.

430
431

432

180. Due to negligent and negligent per se activity by Lee Enterprises Inc. Spreadbury
suffered actual damages.

Defamation, Defamation per se, Lee Enterprises Inc.-Count 19

433

181. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-180 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

434

182. Lee Enterprises Inc. published known false information with actual malice against

435

436

Spreadbury making case that sitting peacefully on public property was criminal trespass.
183. Lee Enterprises Inc. re-published, encouraged the mass-re-publication of criminal

437

trespass with respect to Spreadbury to statewide, national, and international audience.

438

184. Lee Enterprises Inc. published comments about Spreadbury's psychiatric health which

439

440
441

442
443

constitutes defamation per se.
185. Lee Enterprises Inc. published, mass republished false light information with respect to
Spreadbury and the public library in Hamilton, Montana.
186. Lee Enterprises Inc. encouraged all statewide media outlets to publish criminal trespass
concerning Spreadbury peacefully assembled on public property in Hamilton, Mr.

23

Amended Complaint

444
445

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. a f j

April 5, 2011

187. Lee Enterprises Inc. officials received several written requests from Spreadbury not to
defame his character by publishing false information.

446

188. Due to publication, mass publication of known false information, false light information

447

by Lee Enterprises Inc considered defamation and defamation per se with actual malice.

448
449

450

189. As a result ofthe defamation, defamation per se by Lee Enterprises Inc. with actual

malice, Spreadbury suffered actual damages.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress OIEDl-:-:Defendants--Count 20

451

190. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-189 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

452

191. Defendants were in a position to affect Spreadbury's protected interest.

453

192. Defendants unlawfully conspired to charge Spreadbury with a crime, re-published

454

defamation, false light, false information about Spreadbury committing a crime, caused

455

severe emotional distress, violated Spreadbury's established constitutional right.

456

457

458

459

460

193. Due to willful acts with actual malice on the part ofthe Defendants known to cause

emotional distress, Spreadbury actually suffered severe emotional distress.

194. Due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Defendants, Spreadbury

suffered actual damages.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIEDl-=:Defendants--Count 21

461

195. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-194 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

462

196. Defendants were in a position to affects Spreadbury's protected interest.

24

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

AprilS, 2011

463

197. Defendants negligently conspired to unlawfully charge Spreadbury with a crime for

464

peaceful assembly on public property, a protected right. Defendants encouraged Lee

465

Enterprises Inc. to publish with actual malice intra-state, interstate, and internationally the

466

false notion that Spreadbury committed a crime by peaceful assembly in Hamilton, MT.

467

198. The negligent and unlawful charge of criminal trespass on public property, intra-state

468

469
470

471
472

473

publication, international publication caused Spreadbury severe emotional stress.
199. Defendants negligent actions were willful, with actual malice, knowingly executed to
cause emotional distress, expected outcome: harm, injury to Spreadbury.
200. Due to the negligent infliction of emotional distress by the Defendants, with position to
affect Spreadbury, Spreadbury suffered actual damages.

Injuctive Relief.-Boone Karlberg PC-Count 22

474

201. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-200 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

475

202. Spreadbury seeks an order from this Honorable Court to enjoin Boone Karlberg PC from

476

477
478

479
480

further defamatory statements in reference to Plaintiff.
203. Spreadbury never made threat to Ken Bell, trespass on public property at public library
dismissed, Boone Karlberg published known false information about Spreadbury.
204. It is highly improper, unethical, and defamatory to make published comments about a
criminal behavior that never existed by Boone Karlberg PC.

481

205. Spreadbury seeks a Cease and Desist ORDER from the court, and if violated, sanctions

482

on William L. Crowley esq. and/or Natasha Prinzing-Jones esq. of Boone Karlberg PC.
25

Amended Complaint

leadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

al~

April 5,2011

483

206. Spreadbury seeks injunctive relief from court due to belief of future harm, specifically

484

defamation through the courts, which is malicious, calculated, unprofessional, and causes

485

undue harm and injury to Spreadbury's character.

486

207. Emotional distress, defamation should not be manipulated by lawyers at Boone-Karlberg.

487

208. Spreadbury reserves the right to request civil ARREST of associates at Boone Karlberg

488

489

PC for cause if future harm, or other sanctions this honorable court feels appropriate.

Injuntive Relief-Lee Enterprises Inc.--Count 23

490

209. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-208 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

491

210. Spreadbury seeks a Cease and Desist ORDER from the court to stop any malicious

492

comment, defamatory material from publication in re: Spreadbury.

493

211. Lee Enterprises has published known false information, defamatory comments damaging

494

to Spreadbury since 2007 in more than 30 articles from the Ravalli Republic, parties herein.

495

212. Spreadbury seeks civil ARREST of Perry Backus, per MCA§ 27-16-102(2) former

496

editor, author of at least 20 articles defamatory to Spreadbury, gave permission to publish

497

highly defamatory comments in re: Spreadbury's character by the Ravalli Republic.

498

Affidavit for this arrest will be in docket of the aforementioned.

499

213. Spreadbury seeks injuctive relief due to belief that capability of future harm by Lee

500

Enterprises is likely. Spreadbury will yield to Honorable Court for an additional remedies

501

to stop malicious behavior of Lee Enterprises Inc. ongoing since 2007.

26

.

Amended Complaint

502
503

504

e

,

'eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. al.

AprilS, 2011

214. Spreadbury seeks proper court order to stop future harm by Lee Enterprises Inc. that
attacks the good character of Spreadbury, before this court for relief.

Injunctive Relief-Bitterroot Public Library-Count 24

505

215. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-214 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

506

216. Plaintiff respectfully requests Honorable Court find lawful privilege of library use was

507

removed improperly: no willful violation of rules per Montana statute, sworn testimony of

508

former library director in Hamilton Municipal Court. Plaintiff requests Honorable Court

509

enjoin Bitterroot Public Library to reinstate Plaintiff privileges per Montana Statute,

510

appropriate administrative remedy therein.

511

217. Plaintiff respectfully requests that honorable court finds that Bitterroot Public Library

512

violated in-house policies for patron submissions, constitutional protections in State of

513

Montana, United States for speech of Plaintiff, enjoin Plaintiffs submission as permanent

514

entry into Bitterroot Public Library collection.

515

218. Plaintiff will suffer future harm of liberty interest if honorable court does not impose

516

injunctive relief on Bitterroot Public Library per well established state statute, right.

517

Injunctive Relief-City of Hamilton-Count 25

518

219. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-218 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

519

220. Defendant City of Hamilton, prosecuted Spreadbury for established right.

520

221. Hamilton Police Officers did not uphold Plaintiff right under Montana statute to freely

521

use public library. HPD attempted to cite/arrest Plaintiff for established right. HPD

27

.

"

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a~

April 5, 2011

522

investigated Plaintiff for separate established right. HPD wrote several criminal reports

523

defamatory to Spreadbury when Spreadbury has liberty interest, protected right.

524

222. City Attorney Bell acted with malice prosecuting a protected act, previously entered a

525

civil courtroom in violation of state statute MCA§ 7-4-4604 to act against Spreadbury.

526

223. Hamilton Municipal Judge Reardon did not write findings of fact, conclusions of law for

527

permanent order or protection, ordered jail time for peaceful assembly on public property.

528

224. For fear of future harm, Spreadbury asks court to enjoin City of Hamilton from

529

knowingly, or unknowingly violating Spreadbury's established right.

530

Punitive Damages-Defendants-Count 26

531

225. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-224 as if fully set forth in this complaint.

532

226. Actions of defendants, acting in actual malice, with willful intent to deprive right, defame

533

Spreadbury, and intentionally cause severe emotional distress entitle Plaintiff to seek

534

punitive damages in this cause of action.

535
536

227. Defendant actions that have callous indifference to Spreadbury's protected rights, or are

willfully executed to injure or harm are those eligible for punitive damages.

537

228. Punitive damages are intended to stop future behavior of the Defendants.

538

229. Decisions of official policymakers subject municipal government to punitive damages, as

539

Bell, Oster enacted in this cause of action for the City of Hamilton, Montana.

28

·.

Amended Complaint

teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a'"

April 5, 2011

540

230. Defendants Murphy, Snavely, Brophy, Roddy, Lee Enterprises Inc., City of Hamilton,

541

Bell, Lint, Crowley, Prinzing-Jones, Boone Karlberg PC, public library acted in callous

542

indifference, actual malice towards Spreadbury, allows the grant ofpunitive damages under

543

applicable statute in Montana, 42 USC§ 1983.

544
545

Relief Sought by Plaintiff
I. Plaintiff respectively requests that the court fmd against the Defendants:

546

1.

Plaintiff suffered special damages oflost earnings in the amount of .........$2.2M

547

11.

Plaintiff suffered general damages for pain, suffering of........................ $2M

548

111.

Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for IIED of ...............................$535,000.00

549

IV.

Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for NIED of ............................ $ 475,000.00

550

v.

Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for defamation of....................... $4M

551

VI.

Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for §1983 of.............................. $2M

552

VH.

Plaintiff seeks Punitive damages for lIED of.....................................$200,000.00

553

Vl11.

Plaintiff seeks Punitive damages for §1983 of....................................$ 645,000.00

554

IX.

Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for defamation of............................. $13 M

555

Total Compensatory damages .........................$ 8.21M

556

Total Punitive damages ................................ $ 13.84SM

557

Total damages sought from Defendants .•••••.••.••.....••.•..•..•...••.••••$ 22.0SSM
29

•

II

•

L

558

Amended Complaint

!eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.

a~

AprilS, 2011

II. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief:

559

Boone Karlberg PC ........................................................... .line 473

560

Lee Enterprises Inc ............................................................ line 489

561

Bitterroot Public Library ..................................................... .line 504

562

City of Hamilton...............................................................line 517

563

III. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial to hear this case.

564

End of Complaint.

565

566

Respectfully submitted this

~ of April, 2011

567

568

569

Michael E. Spreadbury, Chief Barrister, self represented litigant.

30