Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 195

Objection re: 189 Order on Motion to Quash, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Order/Judgment. (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 41h Street
Hamilton, MT 59840

FILED

Telephone: [phone]

DEC 2 2 2011

[e-mail]

;ATRICK E, DUFFY, CLERK

Pro Se Plaintiff

DEPUTY CLERK, MISSOUt.,t..

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

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

Plaintiff

v.

)

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

OBJECTION TO

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

COURT ORDER OF

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

DECEMBER 13 2011

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)

----------------------)

Comes now Spreadbury with respectful objection to order December 13,2011,

release of confidential information of Plaintiff.

1

Objection to Order

Cause 9: U.(\I-ll-64-DWM-JCl

December 19, 2011

Brief in Support:
US District Court has not followed US Circuit Court precedent with respect to
discovery in aforementioned, lawful controlling authority, or federal statute with
respect to the release of confidential information in aforementioned.
This honorable court sites 45 CFR§ 162.514(e) as basis of releasing confidential
information. It requires a court order or release of the Plaintiff/patient. A
subpoena deuces tecum per Motion to Quash Invalid Subpoena served November
28, 2011 does not have the ability to reach into confidential information. Defense
does not give compelling reasons, court grants reach into confidential information
using false pretext of 45CRF§ 160-164 et. seq. Defense counsel sent Riverfront
Counseling October 31,2011 request, released November 17,2011 without court
order, and therefore in violation ofHIPPA provisions to protect Plaintiff
confidential information.
PlaintifI has established with the court recent permanent mental disability which
does not need discovery, or release of confidential health information of Plaintiff
records. Rule 45 ofthe FRCP requires that no confidential information be
obtained by subpoena without court order, FRCP 26(e) protects use of confidential
information from court which honorable court deprived by allowance of
information under seaL Defense counsel issued subpoena deuces tecum for

2

Objection to Order

Cause 9: ll-CV-ll-64-DWM-JCl

December 19, 2011

confidential educational, health infonnation in violation of Federal Rules,
controlling authority, disclosed Plaintiff full Social Security Number in violation of
42 USC§ 408(8) USv. Miller 425 US at 442 (1976).
Honorable court has made up rules, given false infonnation in Order December 13,
2011 in attempt to protect unlawful activity of third party actors, in an attempt to
make lawful actions protected by Federal statute (Privacy Act 5 USC§552a;
HlPPA45 CFR§ 160-164 et. seq., FERPA 20 USC§ 1232g & 34CFRpart 99).
Defense requested unlawful infonnation via subpoena deuces tecum precluded
from confidential infonnation. Plaintiff status of mentally disabled not a question
before this court, court fails to abide by federal statutes to protect Plaintiff as party.
Plaintiff serves 2 nd financial conflict with Article III Judge Malloy concurrent to
this pleading in violation of 28 USC§455(b) et. seq. for removal from case.
Honorable court allows Defendant City ofHanlilton Police reports ex parte under
seal in this case, in violation ofAmendment 14 US Constitution as no charges were
filed, but example of Joint Function, Public Function Test with Defense actors

Johnson v. Knowles 113 F. 3d 1114 (cjh Cir, 1997). Plaintiff seeks law,
constitution, which interpretation of law, court precedent is being used other than
that which protects Montana's last ranking for justice in the United States [USOOJ
Nov. 2007].
3

Objection to Order

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

December 19, 2011

Since no adherence to law, controlling authority, constitution, is the intention to
abuse a disabled pro-se litigant, as court request for counsel served May 20, 2011.
Defense will not be allowed to use any confidential infOImation, nor will any of it
help case although Honorable Court bends all controlling authority, law to make all
unlawful activity appear appropriate. Defense is looking for diagnosis of
Schizophrenia which will not help Defense actor who said Plaintiff is afflicted with
such loathsome disease. Assuming arguendo confidential information did reveal
such information, it remains Slander per Montana Code Armotated MCA § 27-1­
801 as a protected health diagnosis under HIPPA, not affirmative defense to
defamation.
Confidential education information irrelevant as work history documents currently
under discovery_ Plaintiff presented National Security Clearance served October
24, 2011 Exhibit A which precludes crime, disciplinary issue in Plaintiff past
sought under unlawful confidential information granted by this court. Plaintiff
wonders if Defense Counsel is either to arrogant to understand chasing rabbit holes
in this case will not improve Defense case, nor hospitalize Plaintiff due to un­
necessary trauma_ Confidential information sought will only improve Plaintiff
case due to no significant disciplinary issues, degree from prestigious university as
tortious interference, serial defamation, deprivation of right in aforementioned by
Defendants.
4

Objection to Order

cause 9: ll-CV-11-64-0WM-JCL

December 19, 2011

Employer FEMA does not release information due to criminal nature ofrelease,
lack of reach into confidential information by Defense Subpoena Deuces Tecum,
although Defense Counsel is not aware oftheir blunder due to Honorable court
available to alter lawful court authority, federal statutory law.
Court does not solve confidentiality issue by allowing Defense to present
confidential information to the court under seal; court ignored unlawful disclosure
of full social security number by Defense Counsel in request for confidential
information of third party actors such as Lehigh University, FEMA, and Riverfront
Counseling (e.g. Notice ofContinuous Unlawful activity by Defendant Boone;
Exhibits A-C served November 4,2011).
Plaintiff objects to the reveal of confidential information, in violation offederal
statues, controlling authority, not needed in aforementioned due to establishment
of full disability, loss of work ability due to defense actors, discovery of
confidential information irrelevant. Plaintiff looks forward to Honorable court
interpreting federal statute, disallowing US Constitution, abuse without precedent
[financial hearing for IFP], law in the aforementioned directed toward disabled
Plaintiff.
Judicial notice is made as to the release of confidential information on or around
November 17, 20 II by third party Riverfront Counseling Hamilton Montana

5

Objection to Order

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

December 19, 2011

without court order, by way of Subpoena deuces tecum unlawfully. Complaint has
been filed for appropriate sanctions in violation ofHIPPA protections. Order of
December 13, 2011 does not cover unlawful actions of Riverfront Counseling.
Plaintiff directs court to 39 Teun. Bar J. 29 (2003) article "Can we talk? The rest of

the story on why Defense Attorneys should not talk to the Plaintiff Doctors".
Discovery or information ex parte is not appropriate, protected under federal
statute, Defense failed to approach court via hearing on need to release Plaintiff
confidential information. Court has attempted to retroactively protect Boone, third
party Riverfront Counseling from IUPPA violation effected November 17,2011
prior to the Order under objection December 13, 2011.
Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(dX2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certity that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 946 words excluding title page, this compliance.

~

k""", I..,.-e..

Respectfully submitted thi:;.,s-)-J----.:day of September, 2011

BY:____~~~~_____+.~__- -____- - - Michaet' E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff
6