Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 136

RESPONSE to Motion re 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING COUNTS filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A and B) (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No.: CV-1l-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

)
)

RESPONSE TO LEE

v.

)

DEFENDANT PLEADING

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

IN RE: SUMMARY

CITY OF HAMIL TON,

)

JUDGMENT ON

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

REMAINING COUNTS

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Plaintiff

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with response to Lee Enterprises with respect to summary
judgment before this Honorable Court. Motion, Statement ofDisputed facts, brief
in support before the Honorable Court presented herein.
Motion:

Plaintiff response to Lee Summary Judgment

Cause CV-U-64-M-DWM-JCL

October 28. 20U

Spreadbury moves that court declines Defendant Lee motion for summary
judgment due to issues of material facts that remain, grant of summary judgment
improper via FRCP 56.
Statement of Disputed Material Facts
1. Defendant Lee Enterprises is a publisher of newspapers in the United States
under pretext before this court as an internet provider, interactive internet service.
2. Defendant Lee does not provide internet access or service to any individual.
3. Defendant Lee is not protected under 47 USC§ 230 et. seq. The
Communications Decency Act; as newspaper publisher, its internet website
www.RavalliRepublic.com, www.Missoulian.com and others are news publishers.
Defamatory third party comments are liable to Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc.
4. Defendant Lee, by publishing the conviction of a crime August 9, 2010 never
charged on Plaintiff Spreadbury is engaging in Defamation per se.
5. Lee Enterprises coverage with malice of a trial for trespass on public property is
not privileged under Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 27-1-804(4) depriving
Spreadbury right to peaceful assembly with malice at the Bitterroot Public Library
public property August 20, 2009; submitting articles with malice to Associated
Press to be mass published about Spreadbury protected activity.

2

Plaintiff response to Lee Summary Judgment

Cause CV·ll·64·M·DWM·JCL

October 28, 2011

6. There is no information within Lee's amended foundational affidavit of October
18, 2011to support Lee's "uncontroverted facts" although it is mentioned as such.
7. Spreadbury returned to being a private citizen November 3, 2009, after
Defendants successfully defamed Spreadbury to alter a public election.
S. Material fact is Spreadbury's right to peacefully assemble at the Bitterroot
Public Library August 20, 2009 precludes any motion for summary judgment.
9. Defendant Lee August 9,2010 article went out of scope of hearings,
misreported information without fact checking, falsely attributed Spreadbury with
speech never uttered, false light of situation, contained defamatory third party
comments published by Defendant Lee.
10. Lee failed to correct August 9, 2010 article concerning the false and incorrect
published information: conviction for Disturbing the Peace by Spreadbury.
11. Defendant Lee added false light within the August 24, 2010 failed attempt at
correction (Appendix B) by incorrectly reporting a Supreme Court decision
imputing more crime and misconduct on Spreadbury; did not mention false charge.
12. Defendant Lee was in joint function, inter alia with Defendant City July 9,
2009 at 232 W. Main St as Spreadbury requested in writing Lee refrain from
defaming Spreadbury and Defendant City Police arrive: false "threats" call.

3

Plaintiff response to Lee Summary Judgment

cause CV-U-64-M-DWM-JCL

October 28, 2011

13. A publisher ofnews such as Defendant Lee and their online resources are
always liable for published third party comments defamatory in nature.
14. Spreadbury injury: unable to seek gainful employment due to stress, anxiety
willfully and knowingly leveraged by Defendant Lee; affirmed in Social Security
Disability notice of decision fully favorable (Exhibit A).
15. The willful and intentional defamation by Lee, willful publish of defamatory
per se comments was tortious inference in Spreadbury's ability to work.
16. Lee knew or should have known that peaceful assembly on public property is a
protected activity; published front page headline articles, AP stories, multiple
articles about Spreadbury's alleged trespass done with actual malice.
17. Lee acted in actual malice to publish multiple articles in re: trespass on public
property at the Bitterroot Public Library August 20, 2009.
18. Lee breeched duty to Spreadbury to not defame, deprive rights as sovereign
American citizen.
19. Lee abused position as public news source with actual malice to deprive
Spreadbury established right to peacefully assemble on public property at the
Bitterroot Public Library August 20,2009.

4

'"

----~~~"~"."

......... .

Plaintiff response to lee Summary Judgment

cause CV-l1-64-M-DWM~JCl

October 28, 2011

20. Publishing the false conviction of a criminal charge always carries liability,
there are no "stages" of severity as implied by Lee counsel before this court.
21. Spreadbury's peaceful assembly August 20, 2009 on public property at 306
State St. Hamilton Montana USA site of Bitterroot Public Library.
22. The attempt at deception before this court by Defendant Lee counsel of
submitting an edited version as the sworn true and accurate copy of the August 9,
2010 article shows intent by Lee to unlawfully and unethically absolve liability,
damages to Spreadbury.
Briefin SupPOrt

It is improper for this honorable court to find summary judgment for Defendant
Lee as Spreadbury has presented claim under 42 USC§ 1983 for deprivation of
fundamental established right: peaceful assembly Amendment 1 US Constitution,
and Defendant Lee failed to show absence of material fact Adickes v. SH Kress &

Co. 398 US at 148 (1970).
Lee counsel misrepresented correction, written, published in malice which did not
correct the publication indicating Disturbing the Peace, a false charge against
Spreadbury. The full text of the correction published August 24, 2010 with respect
to the August 92010 article is:

5

Plaintiff response to Lee Summary Judgment

Cause CV-ll-64-M-DWM·JCL

October 28, 2011

Correction
An article on thefront page ofthe Aug. 9 edtition ofthe Ravalli Republic
incorrectly identified a charge against Hamilton resident Michael
Spreadbury. The article should have stated that Spreadbury was appealing
a conviction ofcriminal trespassing, a charge the city dropped earlier this
month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld an order ofprotection
restraining Spreadbury from entering the Bitterroot Public Library for five
years.
[full copy Exhibit B, attached]
The Montana Supreme Court denied an out of time appeal on August 10, 2010
which was one day after the August 9, 2010 article. At no time did the Montana
Supreme Court uphold the unlawful "ban", nor did Spreadbury willfully violate the
rules ofthe Bitterroot Public Library per Montana Code Ann. MCA§22-1-311
(Use ofLihrary-Privileges). Spreadbury was arbitrarily removed from the
Bitterroot Public Library without procedural due process, never asked to leave by
Defendant Public Library staff or Defendant City Police. Disturbing the Peace is
not mentioned or corrected in the Defendant Lee attempt at correction of August
24,2011. The order ofprotection was secured by Defendant City Attorney Bell by
Official Misconduct, Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 45-7-401 (bXc) a city prosecutor

6

Plaintiff response to Lee Summary Judgment

cause CV-l1-64-M-OWM-JCL

October 28, 2011

unlawfully acting on behalf of Defendant Roddy in a civil courtroom. Further the
Order of Protection was without rmding of fact, conclusion of law as contained in
the written order, in violation ofMont. R Civ. P 52 (c), Spreadbwy's due process:
no hearing was issued at District Court level.
Honorable Court, must find that issues ofmaterial fact remain, and summary
judgment for Lee is not proper FRCP 56 Lopez v. Smith 203 F. 3d 1122 (cjh Cir.

2000).

Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 1,074 words excluding title page, this compliance.

~

Respectfully submitted this

f2J?

day of October, 20 II

Michae E. Spreadbwy, Pro Se Plaintiff

7

Certificate of Service
Cause No. 9:2011-cv-II-0064-DWM-JCL
I certify as Plaintiff in this action, a copy ofthe below named motion was served
upon the US District Court Missoula Division and all opposing counsel for parties
in this above named cause of action by first class mail. The following addresses
were used fur service:
Response to Lee Defendant Pleading in re: Summary Judgment on Remaining
Counts.
Russell Smith Federal Courthouse
Clerk of Court
201 E. Broadway
Missoula, MT 59803

Defendant Counsel:

Plaintiff Counsel:

William L. Crowley

Michael E. Spreadbury

Boone Karlberg PC

PO Box416

PO Box 9199

Hamilton, MT 59840

Missoula MT 59807

(self-represented)

Jeffrey B Smith
Garlington, Lohn, & Robbinson PLLP
POBox 7909
Missoula MT 59807

Dated _ _ _-0/28/2011 _ _ __

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff