Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 140

RESPONSE to Motion re 134 MOTION to Strike 130 Notice (Other) Exhibit B filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )

RECEIVED

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S.

4th

NOV 1~ 2011

Street

CLERK. u.s. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA

Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

) Cause No: CV-ll-64-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff

)

v.

)

RESONSE TO BOONE

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

CONTEMPT CLAIM;

CITY OF HAMIL TON,

)

CROSS-CLAIM, BRIEF

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

IN SUPPORT

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)
)

Comes now Spreadbury with response to Defendant Boone, unfounded claim of
contempt; cross-claim presented in favor of criminal contempt provided herein.
Motion:
Spread bury moves Honorable court imposes criminal contempt on Defendant
Boone for knowingly violating court order before this Honorable court.
1

Plaintiff response to contempt, cross claim

Cause 9:20U-CV-11-64-DWM-JCL

November 8,2011

Brief in Support
Defendant Boone Karlberg PC (hereafter: Boone) acts with malice towards
Spreadbury, continued harassment, as Defendant Boone attempts contempt on a
lower court without factual or lawful basis as Spreadbury sought FRCP Rule
I I sanctions Chambers v. Nasco 501 US 32 (1991). US District Court for Montana
Missoula Division cannot interfere where proceedings pending in a state court

Taylor v. Taintor 16 Wall 366 (US Supra 1873) citing Harkrader v. Wodley 172
US at 162 (1898).
The fundamental right to speak about issues ofpublic concern is the "highest rung"
of protection in US District courts Dunn & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmass Builders

Inc. 472 US at 759 (1985), Asking the Honorable Court to find Spreadbury in civil
contempt of a State Court order is asking the Honorable Court to act outside their
jurisdictional "sandbox" In 5 pg. 2 Defendant Boone Brieftofind Plaintiff in

contempt; Taylor, Harkrader. Simply put, the US District Court cannot interfere
with a pending state case due to federalist issues Mitchum v. Foster 407 US at 229

(1972). Further, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the
enforcement ofMCA§ 3-1-503 or any Montana Law that abridges Spreadbury's
fundamental right to speak, protected Amendment 1 US Constitution about issues
ofpublic concern Dunn & Bradstreet.

2

Plaintiff response to contempt, cross claim

Cause 9:2011-CV·ll·64-DWM-JCl

November 8,2011

Lawful Speech
Spreadbury engages in free speech without restrictions as June 19,2010
publication ofblog post "fmd my threat" Exhibit B originally created prior to the
June 28, 2010 State Court order (in violation of MCA§ 44-5-103 et. seq., Sacco v.

HMIP 271 Mont. at 241 (1995)). At time ofpublication, Spreadbury enjoyed stay
on judgment for Montana 21 st Judicial District DC-09-154; speaking to Defendant
Roddy in public, a Felony Crime in Montana. Spreadbury had possession of
Defendant Police Report # 1-209CR0002579 authored by Defendant City of
Hamilton; makes report public criminal justice information Montana Code Ann.
MCA§44-5-103(13Xi). Initial offense reports are those where suspected initial
criminal activity are taken by police, and are open to the inspection of the public,
as unsolicited information, and due to no privilege Sacco v. HMIP 271 Mont. at

241(1995); ARM 23.12.203, MCA§44-5-103 (13}(i). Spreadbury took great care
to redact personal privacy information such as home phone numbers, social
security numbers, and other personal private information prior to publication.
Defendant Roddy did not ask Defendant City Police to be kept confidential at time
of interview with Defendant City of Hamilton November 4, 2009; no privacy can

be afforded although Defendant Roddy's Ex Spouse Judge Haynes made a valiant
attempt, violating State precedent, Montana State Law to protect Roddy in his June
28,2011 order. Spreadbury is merely offering protected speech of account: within
.3

Plaintiff response to contempt, cross claim

Cause 9:2011<V-1l-64-0WM-JCl

November 8, 2011

Exhibit B felony charges against him, allowed as relevant by this honorable court
in the aforementioned had no probable cause. The relation of a November 4th 2009
conversation to sitting on the public property ofthe Bitterroot Public August 20,
2009 as gravamen to the aforementioned escapes Spreadbury; attempted to strike
before this court. As Defendant Boone submits documents of the November 4,
2009 conversation between Roddy and Spreadbury, court cannot pick favorites as
to allowable speech Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc. 475 US at 49 (1986) citing
Police Department o/Chicago v. Mosley 408 US at 95 (1972).

It is ironic that Defendant Boone in this cause of action 42 USC§ 1983 for civil
rights would ask a US District Judge to further violate Plaintiff fundamental rights.
This honorable District court refuses Plaintiff injunctive relief although unlawful
entry of Defendants within Plaintiff residence, unlawful distribution and disclosure
of Plaintiff SSN, and now request to chill fundamental speech 0 'Keefo v. Van
Boening 82 F. 3d at 325 (ljh Cir., 1998).

Cross-claim against Boone: Criminal Contempt
On October 20,2011 this honorable court ordered sealed police reports would not
be accepted from Defendant Boone. On October 31, 2011 (TR# 134), not two
weeks later, Defendant Boone submitted police reports, without leave, and under
seal. Defendant Boone's actions are in contempt ofthis court. Spreadbury filed

4

Plaintiff response to contempt, cross claim

Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-0WM-JCL

November 8, 2011

notice of unlawful activity as Defendant Boone disclosed, distributed Spreadbury's
full Social Security number interstate in furtherance of a public fraud; unlawfully
defending the Bitterroot Public Library: an ineligible entity to be receiving funds
from the Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority (MMIA). Notice of Boone
unlawful activity served upon this honorable court November 4, 2011_
By willfully violating a lawful process, and order of this US District Court within
TR.# 125, Defendant Boone is in criminal contempt of this court by way of
Montana Code Ann. MCA§45-7-309(c):

45-7-309. Criminal contempt. (1) A person commits the offense of criminal contempt when the
person knowingly engages in any of the following conduct:
(a) disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting ofa court in its
immediate view and presence and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due to its authority;
(b) breach of the peace, noise, or other disturbance directly tending to interrupt a court's
proceeding;
(c) purposely disobeying or refusing any lawful process or other mandate of a court;
(d) unlawfully refusing to be sworn as a witness in any court proceeding or, after being sworn,
refusing to answer any legal and proper interrogatory;
(e) purposely publishing a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court's proceeding;
(f) purposely failing to obey any mandate, process, or notice relative to juries issued pursuant to
Title 3, chapter 15; or
(g) purposely failing to comply with the requirements of the sobriety program provided for in
Title 44, chapter 4, part 12, if ordered by a court to participate in the program.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal contempt shall be fmed not to exceed $500 or
be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.
History: En. 94-7-309 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, 1. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-7-309; amd. Sec. 1690, Ch.
56, 1. 2009; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 318, 1. 2011.

Spreadbury presents evidence before this court of Defendant Boone criminal
contempt as described in MCA§ 45-7-309(c) above for submitting sealed police

5

Plaintiff response to contempt, cross claim

Cause 9:2011-CV-ll~DWM-JCl

November 8,2011

reports to this court in the aforementioned. In accordance with Local Rule 103(a)
Spreadbury requests finding of cross-claim of criminal contempt MCA§45-7-309
on Defendant Boone done willfully: in disobedience of an Order given October 20,
2011 before this court, in the aforementioned and other disorderly, unlawful
actions.

Certificate ofCompliance
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 1,021 words excluding title page, this compliance.

Respectfully submitted this

~-li\. day ofNovember, 2011

Michael E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff

6