Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 202

MOTION in Limine regarding expert witnesses by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury. Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (ASG, )

FILED

Michael E. Spreadbury

JAN 18 20l/,

700 S. 4th Street

PATRICK E, DUffY, CLERK

Hamilton, MT 59840

By DEpUTY CLERK

MISSOULA ."

Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

Pro Se Plaintiff
IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No. 9:II-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

OBJECTION, CHALLENGE

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

TO CITY, LIBRARY

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

EXPERT WITNESS

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with objection, challenge to City, Public Library expert
witness via Fed. Evidence Rule 702,403. Plaintiff seeks disqualification of
Defense witnesses Smith, Oster, Bell by court; or reliability hearing as to Defense
witnesses. Defense move seems extremely strange as counsel considers biased
defendants expert witnesses before this Honorable Court.

Plaintiff Opposition to eKperts

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCl

January 18, 2012

Motion:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves court rejects City, Library named "experts" due

to conflict, reliability, relevant credibility issues raised in this pleading. As
Defendants cannot act as independent expert witness: no specialty knowledge or
training. Court must reject Smith, Oster, Bell as expert witness in this case, in
alternative, Plaintiff seeks reliability hearing of experts Smith, Oster, Bell.
Defense opposes motion
Brief in Support:
City gives notice to this court, served 13 January 2012 [T.R. #199] expert
witnesses includes 3 Defendants (T.R. #10 2 nd Amended Complaint '1f 3, 9,10) in
the aforementioned. Defendants Smith Defendant library director, Defendant
Oster City Police Chief, Defendant Bell, City Attorney cannot act independently,
lack required training, experience, or publication history required to be an expert
witness. See Exhibit A, from Legal Dictionary.com for definition of expert
witness which precludes trial witnesses, named Defendants in aforementioned.
Plaintiff has prepared expert witness cases which required hiring expert to present
cases in court for RLK Hydro Inc.; Geotechnics Inc. principals prepared credible
case in court as an expert. Defendants Smith, Oster, Bell do not have credentials,

2

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-0WM-JCL

January 18, 2012

experience to have objective perspective that is tested, reliable, and non-biased
before this court to be expert witness for Defense.
The Federal Evidence Rule 702 gives the authority to trial judges to act as
gatekeepers to exclude unreliable expert testimony Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 US 579 (1993), Komho Tires Co. v. Carmichael 119 s.
Ct. 1167 (1999). A US District Judge must access the reliability and helpfulness of
an expert witness, and answer question of admissibility of evidence by Federal
Evidence Rule 104{a) ibid.

In the aforementioned, Defendant City, Library did not establish pertinent
admissibility of Smith, Oster, Bell as expert status, or credibility as witness in
aforementioned, or objective nature of testimony as Defendants in the
aforementioned Bourjaily v. US 483US17 I (1987), [Exhibit Aj.
Character History of Defendant Expert Witnesses
Trista Smith
As Defendant library director, Ms. Smith has never held a position of Library
Director prior to recent appointment at Defendant Library. Background for Ms.
Smith: one year as staff in a Los Angeles Library District, two years at Darby City
Library, a non-incorporated municipality ofless than 2,000 residents. There are no
known publications by Ms. Smith related to American Library Association
3

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

January 18, 2012

Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

policies, behavior policies of libraries, nor is she considered a "sought after" expert
in the State of Montana as a librarian. Ms. Smith is biased due to being employed
by the Bitterroot Public Library in Hamilton, Montana, and cannot be objective or
attain authority and reliability in this case as violation of library policy is condoned
by Smith.
Ken Bell
Ken Bell knowingly acted in Official Misconduct, [PLA089-PLA090] a crime in
Montana on November 20, 2009 in the Defendant City Court by acting outside
official duties[ PLA091] working with the library to deprive Plaintiff right to due
process [PLA007-PLA009]. Mr. Bell knowingly accessed the NCIC national
crime database as Plaintiff peacefully assembled on public property August 20,
2009 at 306 State St. Hamilton MT site ofthe Bitterroot Public Library. Mr. Bell
committed a felony crime by accessing the NCIC database for a non-crime as
disclosed to Plaintiff in discovery for Hamilton City Cause No. CR-2009-53
trespassing on public property. Mr. Bell is solely responsible per February 18,
2010 trial statement of malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, gravamen of
aforementioned§)~laintiffhas disclofied tax st{ltement proving payment/joint
"

"

7h'

ownership

.

,"."

-

~

.

.

ofp~if,~ property at 306'State Stf~ of the Bitterroot Public Library

[pLA032]. Plaintiff cannot affect criminal trespass for property joint owned by
Plaintiff and City Taxpayers at Defendant Library 306 State St. Hamilton Montana.
4

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCL

January IS, 2012

It took approximately 6 years for Mr. Bell to swear an oath of office [BPL 000114]
to uphold the US and Mf Constitution and felt it was "ridiculous" for him to do so.
As legal department head [PLA092-PLA093], Official Policymaker [PLA 010] for
the City ofHamilton, Defendant Bell made decision to summon Plaintiff to City
Court to answer for trespass on public property as Defendant Lee was invited to
publish Plaintiff photo in a front page article September 10, 2009 prior to Plaintiff
November 3, 2009 election for Mayor for Defendant City.
Defendant Bell knew or should have known Plaintiff never asked to leave library,
required action by Library Policy [PLA052] included in unlawful "ban" letter on or
around July 11,2009 by Defendant Library Director [PLA044]. Requesting
Plaintiffnot to return under threat oftrespass violated Montana Code Ann.
MCA§22-1-31I (Use ofLibrary-Privileges) [PLA077], Plaintiff right to due
process, and equal protection Amendment 14 US Constitution. Defendant Bell
further withheld public documents from PlaintifI as Defendant City Attorney,
protecting library staff Roddy as she gave unsolicited, defamatory, and false
information that did not include a threat Nov. 4,2009 [PLA078]. Defendant Bell
did not prosecute Plaintiff for Felony Intimidation, which is not defined in
Montana code as "scaring" librarians formerly married to a State Judge. Plaintiff
event with unincorporated Defendant City Police November 4, 2009 is slated for
dismissal March 26, 2012 prior to aforementioned trial. Honorable court must
5

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Cause Q:1l-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

January 18, 2012

resmove Newspaper, court, Defense evidence ofNovember 4, 2009 incident in the
aforementioned. Court, Defense directed to [pLAO 11], Public Trust National
Security clearance #378635DC8; Plaintiff affidavit November 22, 2011 #6 [PLA
094-PLA095] before this court as Plaintiff affiants no crime in Ravalli County,
Montana under penalty of perjury.
Defendant Bell has not published any papers, defended prosecution for peaceful
assembly in front of the Supreme Court for Montana or the United States. Mr. Bell
is not an instructor at the FBI academy in Quantico, VA or considered an expert at
anything, other than the civil conspiracy of attending Library staff meetings to
Deprive Plaintiff right to liberty by fraudulent funds to ineligible city, library.
Chief Ryan Oster
On July 9, 2009 Defendant Chief Oster deprived Plaintiff right to liberty to enter
Defendant Lee place ofpublic business without cause, or administrative remedy.
On September 14,2007 Defendant Oster obstructed justice, tampered with
evidence, and covered up an injury felony automobile accident at Fox field Ave
and US 93 in Hamilton, MT. Boone Karlberg PC wishes to include Defendant
Oster as an expert at anything amazes the Plaintiff. He is not objective, is
dangerous to his constitutional oath, nor has he authored anything regarding
trespass to public property, a right he is sworn to uphold, not degrade in a court of

6

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Cause 9:11~cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

January 18, 2012

law. Defendant Oster is an expert at criminal trespass due to unlawful entry into
Plaintiff residence October 4,2011 with video documentation presented to this
Honorable court.
Court review of Expert Witnesses
Honorable Court is given notice of Defendant Smith, Bell, Oster failure as criteria
for expert witness as to theory, technique not tested or challenged in a meaningful
medium; no peer review or publication oftheir opinions; known error in opinion;
no standard control to gage framed opinion; experts opinion presented to court is
not accepted in professional community Daubert.
As Defendant Smith indicates Right to Read is for prisoners only, it defies 1953

statement of American Library Association that no library or librarian can dictate
what is read in a library by a patron [PLA186-189]. Any adult, or child with
reading comprehension at a grade 9 level can ascertain the meaning ofthe
American Library Association policies presented before this court; which indicate
Smith reached this opinion solely for this litigation Daubert at 1317. In her
opinion about the right to read, or barming Plaintiff from Bitterroot Public Library,
Smith comes to an unfounded conc1usio~ about operating policies in place prior to
her becoming director; required any staff to ask Plaintiff to leave, or indicate any
behavior was inappropriate [PLA05I-PLA053], Smiths opinion is contrary to

7

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-0WM-JCL

January 18, 2012

Montana Code with respectto library privileges MCA§22-1-311 [PLA077]
General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 US at 146 (1997). More problematic for Smith

is the limited experience to which she draws, the alternative explanations to ALA
policies that are more founded and accepted in the Library Science Community in
the United States Claar v. Burlington NRR 29 F. 3d 498 (9'h Cir., 1994). For
example, in Wayfield v. Town of Tisbury, a US District Court found in the
Plaintiff's favor via sununary judgment for a violation of patron due process, as
Wayfield, Spreadbury banned without due process impeaches Defendant Smith's
argument Waxfieldv. Town of Tisbury 925 F. Supp. 880 (1996).
Smith would not give opinion about the ALA "Right to Read" as prisoner only, or
excluding written materials from a library on a stand for another case, and fails as
an expert witness due to lack of experience, credibility, or published authority on
the subject matter Kumho Tire Co. at 1176. As Smith indicates public library did
not err as they violated own patron policy is not reliability that Boone Karlberg PC
can rely upon before a jury ibid at 1175.
Plaintiff seeks reliability hearing of Smith, Oster, Bell as to expertise,
independence of pending litigation, and reliability oftestimony if experts not
rejected. As court contemplates abuse of discretion allowing Defenes expert
witnesses without independence or well respected knowledge ripe for appeal GE
Corp. v. Joiner 522 US 136 (1997). Further, Spreadbury urges Court to fmd
8

Plaintiff Opposition to experts

Calise 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCL

January 18, 2012

Defense expert Smith, Oster, Bell testimony unfair, prejudiced, will mislead jury,
and a waste ofthe courts time under Federal Evidence Rule 403.
If Defense wishes to place these witnesses as expert, it will be clear that Oster, Bell
violated oath to US Constitution to prosecute Spreadbury for trespass on public
property as Public Library violated term of lease [BPL000295-BPL000296],
Defendant Public Library never asked Spreadbury to leave in violation of
Defendant Public Library policy, Reconsideration Policy for Plaintiff submission,
the American Library Association Policy for "right to read" and "Library Bill of
Rights" as adopted Defendant Library policy.
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 1686 words excluding title page, this compliance.

-p....

Respectfully submitted this

JLday ofJanuary, 2012

Michael E. Spreadbury, ro Se Plaintiff
Attach Exhibit A (1 page).

9

Expert Witness definition.

expert witness n. a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who
may present hislher expert opinion without having been a witness to any
occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule
against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence
ofhislher expertise, training and speciallrnowledge. Ifthe expertise is challenged,
the attorney for the party calling the "expert" must make a showing of the
necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion
to quality the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited
subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked
by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most
jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed
experts to allow pre-trial depositions. (See: expert testimony)
Cop)'fight © 19111·2005 I>y Gerald N. HUI am! Kathie.n T, HilI. All Right _ d .

Available: http://legal-dictionary.thefi:eedictionarv.comJExpert+witnesses

Certificate of Service
Cause No.9: llcv-0064-DWM-JCL
I certifY as Plaintiff in this action, a copy of the below named pleading 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 for service:
Objection, Challenge to City, Library Expert Witness

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

POBox 416

POBox 9199

Hamilton, MT 59840

Missoula MT 59807

(self-represented)

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

8/12._ __

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff