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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?