Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 141

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

~.

....

Michael E. Spreadbury

)

100 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-11-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)

)

FUNDAMENTAL

v.

)

OBJECTION TO

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

DEFENDANT BOONE

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

REQUEST TO STRIKE

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

FREE SPEECH

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with response to Defendant Boone with respect to striking
free speech in published exhibit before this court. Motion, Brief in support
presented to the Honorable Court to uphold Plaintiff critical fundamental speech in
aforementioned.

Fundamental Objection to Strike Free Speech

cause CV·ll·64·M·DWM·JCL

November 8, 2011

Motion:
Spreadbury moves that this honorable court deny, reject, set aside Defendant
Boone pleading asking court to deprive fundamental and protected free speech of
Spreadbury in this cause of action for 42 USC § 1983.
Briefin Support
This honorable court, in the aforementioned allowed information from a November
4,2009 interaction between Plaintiff, Defendant Roddy on the public lawn of the
Bitterroot Public library. Defendant Boone submitted exhibits as did Spreadbury.
Spreadbury never admitted wrongdoing to Defendant Roddy or State ofMontana.
Before this court is a published article as exhibit in support TR. # 130 contains
speech of the highest public concern: being charged with a felony without probable
cause Dunn & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmass Builders Inc. 472 US at 759 (1985).
As this honorable court granted information regarding November 4, 2009 for the
Defense, it must allow the protected speech ofthe Plaintiff Amendment I US

Constitution, Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. 418 US 323 (1974).
The original date of publication for exhibit B in question was June 19. 2009 as is
indicated on Exhibit B (TR# 130). Defendant Boone claim the police report was

2

Fundamental Objection to Strike Free Speech

Cause CV-l1-64-M-DWM-JCL

November 8, 2011

sealed under DV-20l0-639 in the 21 st Judicial District; Spreadbury published the
speech June 19,2009 due to having a possession of a copy ofDefendant City's
Report #1-209CR0002579 not signed by a supervisor and authored by Defendant
City ofHamilton Police. Spreadbury took care not to include social security
numbers, home phone numbers, or other personal sensitive data, unlike Defendant
Boone with respect to Spreadbury's information (e.g. notice ofunlawful activity
pleading served 1114/2011 in aforementioned).
Spreadbury pled for, and enjoyed a stay ofjudgment from DC-09-154 for speaking
in public, a Felony crime from approximately April 2011 through August 2011.
The protected speech of TR# 130 Exhibit B published during stay of court
judgment as no restrictions from any court.
With respect to the unsolicited information given to law enforcement by Defendant
Roddy November 4, 2009 in Hamilton Montana, it is defined in ARM
23.12.201(3) ARM 23.12_203 and Montana Code MCA§ 44-5-103(13)(i) as an
initial offense report, always public information Sacco v. HMIP 271 Mont. at 241
(1995). Defendant City ofHamilton Report #1-209CR0002579 was an initial
offense report on the alleged criminal activity of Spreadbury; contained no
probable cause for a crime, no supervisor signature. Spreadbury collected
documents for November 4, 2009 and asked readers to find probable cause for the
criminal charge, naming the article "Find my Threat". Subsequently, editor and
3

Fundamental Objection to Strike Free Speech

Cause CV-ll-64-M-DWM-JCL

November 8, 2011

owner ofonline blog expanded title to "Find My Threat--exposing corruption in
Ravalli County Montana" .
As Exhibit article describes November 4, 2009 court paperwork, law enforcement
detail, personal email history on November 4,2009 open to the public for
inspection. Since the publication was prior to Judge Haynes June 28,2010 order,
Spreadbury had possession ofreport: Spreadbury not entitled to criminal justice
information per Montana Code Ann_ §44-S-103 et. seq. Judge Haynes mentioned
at initial appearance to DC-09-1S4 21 st Judicial District on or around December 3,
2009 that ex-spouse Roddy was not an issue, parties to case (Spreadbury, Boone)
mutually signed agreement to keep Judge Haynes in DV-2010-639; conflict
evident as Judge Haynes protects Defendant Roddy, from public disclosure,
liability from Spreadbury-Roddy protected speech November 4, 2009.
Since Spreadbury was not subject to court restrictions at time of publication, the
public mention ofDefendant Roddy in forum other than this privileged pleading
was not in violation of any restrictions. The Honorable court is encouraged to not
play favorites as to which speech to uphold Renton v. Playtime Theaters Inc 475

US at 49 (1986) citing Police Department o/Chicago v. Mosley 408 US at 95
(1972).

4

Fundamental Objection to Strike Free Speech

Cause CV-ll-64-M-DWM-JCL

November 8, 2011

Spreadbury respectfully asks that court deny Defendant Boone request to strike
fundamental, highest protected under Federal Court authority Dunn & Bradstreet
at 759. As Honorable court allows November 4, 2009 interaction between
Spreadbury and Defendant Roddy, court must uphold Plaintiff speech presented as
Exhibit B TR.# 130 before this court.

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 672 words excluding title page, this compliance.

Respectfully submitted this

?~y of November, 2011

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

5