Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 124

AMENDED DOCUMENT by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. Amendment to 111 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY B. SMITH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING COUNTS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K) (Smith, Jeffrey) Modified on 10/21/2011 to create relationship w/ 108 Motion (APP, ).

EXHIBIT D

09:05:05

MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST .JUDICIAL DISTR]CT

1

RAVALLI

2

4

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

Plaintiff,

5
6

COUNTY

Cause No. DV-1A-222

vs.
ANGELA B. WETZSTEON and
GEORGE

H.

CORN,

o

Defendants.
9

10

Taken aE che Ravalli CounEy CourEhouse
2O5 Bedf ord SEreet , Hami-1. ton, Montana

11

Friday, August 5,

201-0

T2

13

The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton Presiding.

L4
15

TRANSCR-IPT OF PROCEEpTNGS

L5

I7
AP PEARANCES

18

:

Plaintiff,

MICHAEL

E.

SPREADBURY,

appearrng pro

t_9

20

For Ehe DefendanEs:

2T
22
23

24
25

Official

R. KING
Special Assistant Attorney General
Risk Management and Tort Defense
Division
]-625 lLth Avenue, Middle FIoor
t
P. O. Box 20012 4
Helena, MT 59520-0l.24
MICHAEL

ReporEed by Tamara Stuckey

Court ReporEer, State of Montana.

AUGUST

6,

09:05;21

1

FRIDAY

09:46 : 08

2

THE COURT:

09:45:10

3

09:46 : 13

4

09:45:l?

5

09:45;18

6

THE COURT:

09:45:22

7

MR. KING: Yes.

09:46:23

8

09:46t25

9

09:46:30

10

the "ray I hear
motions, Ehis is not what a full-bfown argument would be
in Ehe Montana Supreme Court or Ehe U.S. Supreme Court.

09:46:35

11

It's

2O1O

The firsU case we're going to

hear this morning is Ehe

Sprea

dbury v. Wetzstean

and

Corn. That's a motion for summary judgment. Mr. King
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor.
This is Your motion.

THE COURT: And

typically,

more like Ehe Ninch Circuit.

I allow abouc l-0 or

O9:46t31 12

15 minutes for each side Eo mention any poinE that you

09:46:42

13

think needs mentioning, eiEher iC's reemphasizing

09:46r45

14

something in your brief or responding to something in

r46:4'l

15

Ehe other briefs.

09:45 : 53

15

all" hearings, are

09;46;5?

17

09:4?:01

18

party presenting, even if you rnighL have an ob j ect.ion.
You can raise that in your arg'ument. IE's your mot.ion,

:Q7

19

O9

Q9:47

09:4?: 11. 20

My rules during Ehis hearing, ds in
Chats nobody

is going to intrerrupt

Mr. King, so you geE to begin and you geE Lo close.
Mr. Spreadbury, you are in t.he middle . And so he has

09:4?:15

2L

the burden, Mr. King does, and he will

t22

22

wi

O9

t41

t.he

1] argue

once

.

Mr

argue Ewice; you

. King
,!

Q9;41:24 23
Q9:47

:26

24

09:47

;30

25

MR. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. As Uhis

Court may know, this case arises out of Mr. Spreadbury'
criminal- prosecution on August 8th of 2005 in t.he

09:4?:35

l-

09:4?:39

2

:4'l :44

3

A9:47

:48

4

O9:47

:52

5

:4'l :57

6

O9:48:00

7

09:48:03

I

O9:48:0?

9

09:48:10

L0

09:48:14

L1

09:48:16

12

09

O9

RavalIi County .lustice court. Mr. Spreadbury alfeges,
as I underscand his Amended complainE, that che Ravalli
County AtLorneyrs Office did four things that entiUle
him to moneEary and injunctive reLief from and against
Angela weLzsEeon and George Corn. AI] four of Ehose
t.hings, those alLegaEions, Iack merit
The first allegaEion, as I undersEand, in
the Amended ComplainE is that Mr. Spreadbury alleges
Ehat Angela WeEzsEeon presenEed evidence during
Mr. Spreadbury's criminal Erial LhaE t.he Ravalli County
Attorney's offj-ce did not. provide Eo him prior Eo t.rial

O9:48222 13

in a Eimely basis this. This allegation lacks merlt
because a prosecutorrs alleged failure Eo provide

09:48:26

14

discovery in a t.imely manner invol.ves a prosecutorial

09:48:30

15

O9:48:34 L5

function for which Miss wetzsteon and Mr. Corn enjoy
prosecuEorial immunity. And Mr. Spreadbury in t.hat

09;48:39

)"7

regard has ciEed no lega1 author.i-ties to Lhe conLrary.

09:48:42

L8

09:48:45

19

O9 r48

247 2O

09:.18

:

Secondly,

Mr

. Spreadbury alleges t.hat

Ravalli County Attorney's Office filed a motion

Ehe

Eo

continue his Erial to a period of time when he would

be

51

2I

09:48 : 56

22

out of tohtn, t.hus in some way causing .fustice Bailey or
Justice of the Peace Bailey to issue a warranE. for his

09:48;59

23

arrest for his failure

O9:49:Q4 24
09r49:0? 25

I

to appear at the trial.

allegation Iacks meriE because filing moEions,
particularly motions for continuance, again, is

This

a

uncEion f or which l'1 r. Corn and Miss

09:49

:12

l-

prosecutorial

09:4 9:

l?

2

Wetzsteon have prosecuEorial immunity- And again,

09:49:21.

3

Mr. Spreadbury has ciEed no legal aulhorities

O9:49:24

4

f

to the

9:3O

5

09:49:35

6

In addition, Mr. Spreadbury hasn'L produced
showing that AngeIa weLzsteon or
any evidence thaE
George Corn in any way participated in ,Judge Bailey's

09:49:38

7

issuance of t.he Arrest Warrant.

09:49:43

8

09:4

09 :4

9:46

9

contrary.

Ehe Arrest Warrant was

And finaIly,

it. was issued by Judge Bailey.

issued

Itrs facially

There's no evidence Eo the contrary.

And in any

09:49:50 10

valid.

09:49:52

event, to Ehe exEenE Mr. Spreadbury is asserEing a false

09 :4 9:

1

1

5? 12

arrest charge, it's

clearly barred by the cwo-year

O9:49:59 13

sEatute of limitations

09:50:02 L4

His Ehird allegation alleges that Ehe
RavaLl-i County Attorneyts Office misrepresented the

:0? I 5

09:50

-

09:50:10 L5

spelling of Angela Wetzsteonls last name Co

09:50:13 L7

Mr. Spreadbury's unspecified deEriment. I'm not. sure

09:50;15

18

what kind of a claim t.his is, buE the best I could

50;19

1-9

of it. hras EhaL iE was a misrepresentation claim, and the

09

r

09:50:23 20
09:50

:2? 2L

09:50:35 22

Affidavits

the undispuEed affidavit

make

Lestimony of

Angela WeLzsEeon and George Corn shows that they didn'L

intend by any such misspelling of Angela l,letzsLeon ' s
last name t'o cause him any harm. Mr . Spreadbury
4

O9:5Q:

f9

23

09:50:43 24

cereainJ-y hasn't produced any facts, Let alone specific

09:50:46 25

facts, to the contrary.

FourthIy, Mr. Spreadbury alleges that as

a

:50: 50

1

09:50:55

2

09:50:5?

3

resulE of Ehe first three allegations, Miss WeLzsteon
and Mr. corn intentionally inflicted emotional di-stress

:01

4

upon him.

09:51:04

5

lack meriL, as Lhey do, then his fourth allegation,

09:51: 0?

6

09:51 : 11

7

09:51 : 15

I

09:5I:20

9

09:51:23

L0

09;5!:2-t

L

09:51:30

L2

09:51:34

13

09

09:51

L

Obviously, if the first

three allegations

of emotionaf disLress, lacks
merit. But more than that, /ou can ' t maintain in
Montana a claim for intentional inflection of emotionaldistress when you are lega1ly entitled to do what you
intenEional infliction

have done, and everything that George corn and Angela

wetzsteon have done in this case, they are legally

entitled

Co do as prosecutors for the State of Montana.

So aLL four of Mr. Spreadbury's allegations

09:51.:38 14

of wrongdoing in this case lack merit..

O9z5L:42 l-5

that, this Court. should grant George Corn's and Angela

09:51:48

15

Wetzsceon's Motions For Summary Judgment and dismlss

09:51:51

L7

Mr. Spreadbury,s

09:51:57

L8

Thank you, Your Honor.

09:51:59

L9

THE COURT:

09:52 : 00

20

MR. SPREADBURY: tn"rn yo;, Your Honor. If

09:52 '02

2l

it. pleases Lhe Court, I ,d al-so like to Ehank the j udge

:05

22

for coming down Eo Ravalli County Twenty-First District.

09:52

Amended Complaj"nt wiEh

As a resulL of

prejudice.

Mr. Spreadburv.

,-|

09:52:10

Z3

I do have a few things I'd like Eo say.

AngeJ-a

09;52:14 24

WetzsEeon, on August 8th, 2OQ7 -- noE 2A06

09r52:20 25

unauthorized to practice law.

was

She was not licensed.

09 :52

:24

l-

She was licensed Lo/9/08, is the date, so iE's

october 9th of 2008, which is prior to thaE date. There
is also attorney witnesses, my retained attorney, that

O9:52:32

2

09:52:37

3

09:52:41

4

r52:45

5

09:52249

6

Miss WeLzsteon was pracLicing withouE supervision, which
is in violaEion of t.he St,udent PracEice Act issued by
the Montana Supreme Court Apr i I 3 0 th, ].9'l 5. wi- thout

09:52:5{

7

Ehose iEems, a bar l-icense, swearing an oath Eo Ehe

09:53:00

I

constitution

53:03

9

Q9

and the third iEem that r mentioned,

09:53:Q7 L0

unsupervised, she has no immunity.
rTusE like r sEand in f ront of you here

09:53:09 l-1

today.

09:53:11

L2

:53:15

l-3

proceeding. I donrE want to geL off track, but a
studenE, unsupervised, wiE.hout a bar Iicense 'has

09:53:20

1'4

no

09

09

:

Irm noL a prosecutor.

This is a civil

L5

in Lhe words of Mr. King, he used "legally
enEiEled. " That ' s not, t.he case whatsoever. In

f

act,

09:53:27

16

his office is charged with the duty of protecting

t.he

09:53:31

L7

53:36

18

09:53

09

r

r24

09:53:40 L9

public from unauEhorized pracEice of law, and here he is
prot,ecEing somebody who did engage in Ehe unauLhorized
pracEice of law.
I submitted to Ehe courE, and I just. gave a

O9:53:42 20

09:53

:50 22

09:53

:52 23

a second copy to opposing counsel. Here is a
cerEified receipE for my Complaint. Would you like Eo
see this, Your Honor? It was wlt,hin the docket. You

09:53

:52 24

may have already see iC.

09:53

:54 25

THE COURT:

09:53:45 2L

copy

It,'s already in Ehe file.

MR. SPREADBURY: It is.

You can see it

09:53

:5?

1

09:53

:59

2

54:07

3

09:54:11

4

i-;r an administraLor

14

5

in 1995, in

09

t54:2I

6

is not entitled

Q9

t54;24

7

duties.

:28

8

and Angela WeCzsLeon was downstairs in the Justice

09:54:31

9

Courts, outside of the speedy trial

09:54:36

10

if

09:

09:54

:

09:54

09;54:41 l-L
Q9:54:46 L2

09:54:50
09:54

13

:54 14

you llke.
In terms of George corn as a supervisor or
KeLman

f

unct.ion, the Montana Supreme CourE,

v, LosJeben, says that a prosecutor

co immunity engaged in admj-nistraEive

If he was sitting

months int,o a triaI,

aL his desk right ever here
time period, eight

f don'L see how George Corn is

entiEled to any immunity whatsoever. He assigned AngeIa
Eo Che case and that's an administrative duty. The
Supreme Court has already determined, your Honor, Ehat
there is no immunity. There is no civil

09:54:58

15

immunity in that situation.

09:55:02

1-5

I,l-1 continue.

liability

The other thing, is as you

09

:55:05 I7

09

r

55;10 l8

said in the beginning, the defense counsel, MichaelKing, from t.he attorney General's Office has the burden

09

:55:15

here

09:

19

55:20 20

09:55:22 2I
O9

;55:22 22

09:

55:28 23

09:55:28 24
O9:55

:

32 25

and I do reallze he has a rebuttal eo my
statement. However it ' s a wel-1-est,ablished f act, in
I4orJey and Wal.ker in the Ninth Circuit in 1999
f have

a printout

of it right, here
"an official seeking
immunity bears the burden of demonstrating that immunity
attaches to a parLicular function. r' I haven'E seen any
segment of Ehis 2007 case where Angefa Wetzsteon

j_n

09:55:38

1

09:55 :42

2

09: 55 :46

3

09:55:51

4

55:55

5

09:55: O0

6

09:56:06

7

09:56: 10

I

12

9

09

r

09;56

:

O9:56:15 10
09:55:19

11

front of a just.ice of Ehe peace or George Corn, wherever
he was, noE in the courEroom, how EhaE is entitled to
immunity. So I jusE stated a case. I just read from
the case thaE says Ehat t,he prosecuEors have the burden
of showing both reasonableness, sir, Your Honor, and
that the specj-fic task is entitled to immunity. And I
I'd go ahead and say that George Corn assigning
non-bar-l.icensed, non-supervised studenE is not

13

a

reasonabfe decision to be made by a prosecuEor. So
there's
that's my argument why t.here isn'L immunity

no immunity assigned Lo Ehis.
Mr. King would like the Court to think thaE

09:56:22 Lz
O9:56:24

a

for int.ent.ional
There's a photo that I think

none of my claims were intenEional

09:56:33

L5

disEress have any merit.
he was talking about or some evidence he was Ealking

09:56:35

15

about.

39

I7

09:55:44

18

Criminal Procedure, ot.her$rise known as discovery, that
is outside of the Rules of Evidence, and so Ehat's noE

09:56:50

L9

someEhj.ng where

09:56 : 55

20

tampered evidence, which is what iE was. It

09:55: 59

2L

acEually altered.

09;55:3O 14

O9:56:

09:57:02 22
Q9:5'7:O'l 23

If someEhing is given outside of the Rules of

a counsel- can say Chis vras
Someone

I call it.
was

scratched their own face.

It

alt,ered my 1if e to where my career wiEh a very
weLl-establ-ished path was purposely and intenLionally

12

24

dest.royed, and t.hat ' s $rhat Ehese IIED cases are alI

09:5?:1?

25

about, is Ehat emotional distress occurred and they were

Q9

:5't

:

O9:57

:20

l"

O9:5'7

:24

2

done intentionally.

I would say that assigning

a

Q9:57:29

3

prosecuEor, wit,hout, a license, unsupervised, viof aEing
the act of Che Supreme Court would be an intentionaL

09:5?:31

4

acE. That's an intentional

09:57:33

5

Like I said before, that case, OcLober 8th,

09:5?:3?

6

2008, the appearance was January 5t.h, so LhaE's outside

09:57 :4 0

7

of speedy trial

:5?:45

I

09:57:49

9

only thaE, if I had a reEained aEtorney, Sasha Brownlee,
in the courEroom for me, therers no need for a judge to

09:5?:51

10

sign a Failure to Appear WarranE, and if Angela

a1

wetzsEeon hrere in uhe courtroom, there's no

O9

09:5?:59 L2
09:58:03 13
O6 L4

09:58:

09:58:09 l-5
09:58:13
09 :58

15

;15 17

completely.

act.

fE's a misdemeanor. Not

she has

of the CourE, and if she's cereified
by her dean. $/hich she is, f or t,wo years of competent
duty as an officer

1egal school, she would know that Lhat is her duty to
say, Your Honor, the Defendant may not be here
t.his
is a misdemeanor trial.
It's a well-esLablished fact, in
this court and in this sEate thae Ehere is no crime of

09:58;20 18

failure

09:58:23

So by omission, she's claiming in her Affidavit

L9

09:58:2? 20
09 :58 :

30 2L

09:58:33 22
09:58:35 23
09:58:39 24
09:58:43 25

a

didn't

Lo appear. There's no need for this warrant..

hear it.

that

she

f 'rn noE quit.e sure
she's trying to get out it.

She didn't. see it..

exacLly what, she's saying.

But if she's in a courtroom and it,s mentioned that
wetre going to issue a warranL for failure to appear,
a court officer,
Ehe certification

even as an assumed court officer

ae

with

from her Dean, that means she has the

l0

09:58

:47

I

onerous to uphotd the rules of the CourE, the

09:58

:

52

2

constitutional

rights and the State rights.

I'11 finish here.

The Lort issue thau

09:58:5?

3

09:59:Q2

4

09:59:05

5

Michael King is bringing up says it's only Ewo years for
false arrest. ILrs a welI-established facL in this
four years Eo bring a tort claim in

09:59

:09

6

state that it's

09:59

:

15

7

front of a court.

09:59:

17

8

09:59:20

9

09:.59:24 L0

That,'s why wetre standing here Loday.

This was three years o9o, 2oo7, and $terre here wit.hin
the four-year time 1imit.. Perhaps there's some other
requirement I'm noE aware of for the Ewo years. I know

O9:59

r27 11

for a fact in a federal court I can bring a torE up to

09: 59

;30 12

four years, and I believe it's

09:59:35
09:59

r

3? L4

09:59:39

L

09r59:45

15

5

09:59:49 L7
09:59:53

18

09:59:56 19
10:00

:00 20

10:00:03 2L
l0

:00:05 22

1.0:00:09 23
10: 00
10 :

:

The Af f idavits

13

12 24

00:15 25

the same in this court.

never said anyt.hing E.hat she

was supervised in the courtsroom. I'm referring

to

Angela Wetszsteon. If a studene is noE, supervised, I'IL

just say

I'm not going to say I rlras a teacher, but I

also was student Ceaching. My t,eacher was in Ehe
courtroom. I had no poh'er Eo put. people in jail.
no power to do Ehe Ehings Ehat a prosecutor can do,

I

had
and

Lhere'g a very importanB reason to this SLudenE Practice
Act.

Itls

clinica]

instrucCion. You,re not geteing
clinical instruction when youtre standing there aIone.
,
You're nob being watched. You're not being checked, and
thaL's the problem with this case, and this has caused
immeasurable and irreparable

damage tso my

life,

Lo

my

11
II

10:00

:21

1

1O:O0:28

2

10:00:34

3

future and an unbearable stress to my family. And Lhis
Lhe Complaint was filed.
is the reason why the case
I don't think we need to argue on che facts

L0:00:40

5

right now. Werre talking about immunity. I'm going to
end with a case where even if immunity is granted, iE

10:00:48

5

stiLl

l0;00

r

36

4

doesn't give them immunity from civif

liabiliLy.

:54

7

:00:58

8

Smith on behalf of Smith Butte Sifver Bow, L994,
"ProsecuEor immunity does noE shield a prosecutor from

10:01:00

9

civi]

10:00
10

10:01:06 L0

liability

for all acgs or omissions."

So, in

oEher words, even if you do find Eherets immuniEy,

1.0:01:15 13

involved. This hearing is
Ehere's sEi]1 civil Iiabitity
noE Ehe end all for this case for a coupl-e of reasons.
For this guote right here Lhat Lhey don't end with

I0:0I :20 L4

prosecutorial immunity, but also if it gets appealed up

10:01:2{ 15

to the Supreme CourE, they may send it right back
say it was incorrecE Eo issue immuniEy because in

:08

10

:01

10

:01:11

10:01:27

1

I

L2

15

10:01:34 17

Losl-eben, Iike I quoted earlier,

and

the administrative

10 : 01

:44 20

dut,ies of someone like George Corn saying, Hey, AngeIa
go down to Just.ice Court, and prosecuEe this case, EhaE's
an adminisEraEive duEy. And that was already

l0:01

:48 2L

esEablished by the supreme court in the state that that

10: Ol

:3?

l-8

10:01:40 L9

10:
10

O1:51 22

:01:55 23

l0:01:59 24
10:02:03 25

doesn ' t.

bring

immuni t,y

.

Also, the 1asts ching is an action thaE lacks
probable cause, iE st,ops al1 immunity. My attorney
and it's !,rel I established, iE ,s in the docket . Mv

L2

10:02:05
10 :02

L

:09

2

attorney, Sasha Brownlee, was bringing the case for
justifiable
force and a couple ocher constiEutional

10;02:11

3

O?:15

4

rights that are irrelevant here. BuE Ehe fact that
there's probable cause issue where it was justifiable

10;02:19

5

force for this situacion would toEally erase immunity

LQ:02:24

6

for the Defendants, George Corn and AngeLa wetzsEeon.

7

This is found in American Jurisprudence Second Ed.it.ion

10:

IO :02

:28

LO:92:32 I
10:02:35

in Section

LO2.

So lastly,

9

l0:O2:3? 10

Your Honor, I'd like to

respect.fully object to t,he assigning of immunity Eo tshe
record.
Defendants. I'd like that to be in the official

10:02:45

1

10:02;50

L2

Because I feel very sErongly, in the research thaE Irve

I0:02:53

13

done in casesr involving

IO:02:50

14

studenEs, buC especially with respect Eo Mr. Corn

l0:03

:01

10:03:04

1

1

5

15

I couldn't

f

ind any vtith
and

adminisErat,ive duties, it.'s a weII-escablished fact

precedenE in Ehe Montana Supreme CourE that no immunit.y
So as a plainEiff

1O:03:0? I7

is available.

1O:03:10 18

courE Eo enter my objeceion respecEfully because I

10:03:16 19

noc believe, very strongly,

l0:03: 18 20

to Lhe Defendants

l0:03

lO:03

:23 24

1O: O3

;25 25

immuniLy is available here

-

,!

23

do

MR. SPREADBURY: Thank lrou.

10:03:22 22
:22

here, I'm asking the

THE COURT: Verv weII.

:20 2L

10 :03

and

THE COURT:

Mr. Kinq.

MR. KfNG: Very briefly,

couple points.

First of all,

Your Honor.

I want to address

JusC

Ehe

13

10:03

:33

1

1O: O3

:38

2

issue of the SLudenE Practice Rule and the argument by
Mr. Spreadbury that Miss WeEzsEeon wasn't authorized

10:03:43

3

10:03:52

4

under Ehe Rule. Mr. Spreadbury hasn't produced any
evidence thaE refutes any part of Angela wetzsteonrs
concerning her quatifications

10;03

:

55

5

Affidavit

]0:04

:00

6

student Praccice Rule.

10:04

:03

7

10:04

:0?

8

10:04

:16

9

10 :04

:20 l.0

10:04:23 11
10;04

:25

12

]-O:O4:27 13

10:04:34

14

It's

under the

his burden to come forward

erith specific facts t,hac refute her effidavit and he
Saying EhaL she isn't. authorized
simply hasn't done it.
is not a subsEiEuEe for presenEing facts that she, in
facE, wasnrE authorized. So Ehere's no facLual basis
for Ehe scaEemenE that she wasn't authorized under
Rule in the first place.
*""ondt",

the argument that, she needed

Ehe

a

supervising attorney with her during his criminal- trial

10 :04

:38 15

is misLaken. The SEudenc Practice RuIe very cLearly

1O r 04

:44

states in Paragraph 2 Ehat, quoEe, nAn eligible

L0:04:49
10 :04

:

51

15
L7
18

1aw

student may also appear in any criminal maEter on behalf
of the StaEe wit,h Ehe written approval of Ehe

10:04:54 L9

supervising lawyer and the prosecuting attorney or his

10;04:58 20

auLhorized represenLative.r'

10

:

O5:02 2L

lO:05:

O5 22

c

10:05:10
10

;05:

ZJ

l^4 24

10:05:19 25

And there's no dispute Ehat

she was authorized by her boss, Mr. Corn, and

Mr. Fulbriqht,

her supervising attorney during that
trial, to appear at that tria1.
The requiremene for
having supervision appears in Subsection 2 (a) of the
RuIe, noE Subsect.ion 2 (b) , which f jusE guoted.

And

14

10:05:24

1

10:05;28

2

10:05:35

3

:05:40

4

10;05:42

5

10

Ehat has to do with criminal defense attorneys

representing defendant,s who have a lega1 right to Iegal
counseL . Under t,hose circumsCances, t,he Rule requires
the presence of a gupervising atEorney, buE not under

10 :05

;45

6

Subsection (b) , which is the subsection of the ru]e
pursuant Eo which Miss wetzsteon appeared at

10 :05

:48

7

Mr

. Spreadbury's criminal t.riaI
with respect Eo Mr. Spreadbury's
.

argumenL

10:05:51

B

10:05:55

9

t,hat George Corn isn'E ent,iEled Eo prosecuEorial

0

immunity because he's an administrative

l0:05:59

1

LOz06zO2

1l

1O:

05:05 L2

1O:05:

10

13

attorney or

supervising aEtorney, Ehat argument was done away with
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van de

Kamp

v. GoldsEein,

which I ciEe on page 5 of t.he Reply Brief in Support of
,Judgment. And Mr. Spreadbr:ry, despite aII the

10:05:13 14

Summary

lO:O6:22

1

1ega1 research he purport.s Lo have done, hasnrt provided

10:06:24

16

5

this CourE h,iEh any lega1 authorities

Mr. Spreadbury takes issue with a phoEograph

10;06:29 I7
10 :06

:32

10:06

:38 19

10:05

:42 20

10

18

:05:44 2L

10:06:4? 22
10:05:50 23
10:06:53 24
10

:06:

5? 25

Eo the contrary-

apparently.

He cLaims it

was aLEered by somebody. what

he has failed Co do, and it's his burden Eo do, if he
thinks chae is an isgue in Ehis case, is to presenE
evidence that. the two people he Fued, George Corn and
Angela Wetzsceon, had something to do with any such
aLteration, and he hasn'E. produced any such evidence to
this Court. in that recrard.
I'inaIly, I rve been practicing in t,he Tort

15

Claims Division for the State of Montana for almosE
15 years now, and iE'S the first I've ever heard Ehat a
This
four-year statuEe of limitaEions applies to torts.

:0?

]-

:0?:10

2

10:0?

:14

3

10:0?

:

1?

4

lO:07 t2O

5

lA:07:25

6

z2't

7

10:0?:30

8

L0:0?:34

9

10:0?:f8

10

10:0?:41

11

judgment, and on behalf of George Corn and Angela
wetzsteon, I would request respecCfully thaE the CourE

10:0?:44

12

do so.

10:0?:46

13

10:0?:48

14

1.0:0?
10

IO :0'7

1R
a?
IO

L7
tx

T9

20

2L
22
z5

z4
25

Court is weIl aware Ehere's a three-year generaf staEute
of ]imitaEions for tort claims. In Ehe case of a false
arrest cIaim, there I s a t,wo-year sEaEute. I don't know
what legal auLhorities Mr. Spreadbury is relying on to
the conErary, but I do know this: He hasn't presenEed
any uo Ehis Court. So Ehis Court should granu summary

Thank you.
THE COURT;

submiEEed.

Very well, the maLter is

The Courc $ri1l issue a vrritten rul ing

(Proceedings concluded.

)

deemed

lb

c E R T. I r I q A r

1

3

STATE OF MONTANA

E

ss.

COUNTY OF RAVALL]
5

6
7

I
9

10
11

72

13
14

I, Tamara Stuckey, Official Court Reporter for
the State of Montana, do hereby certify:
That I was duly authorized to and did report the
proceedings in the above-entitled cause;
That the foregoing Pages of this transcrlpt
constj-tute a true and accurate transcription of my
stenotype notes.
I further certify that f am not an attorney/ nor
counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the
aclion, nor financially interested in the action'
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
on this 19th day of September' 20LL-

1q
IO
L'7

1B

19
20
2T

22

23
24

25

Tarnara Stuckey

Official Court Repo-rte r
State of Montana
Twentv-Pirst Judicial u)" st rict

hand