Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 213

NOTICE by Michael E. Spreadbury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B - DVD being held on shelf in Clerk's Office-Msla). (NOS, )

FBI - What We Investigate

Page 1 of2

What We Illve.~tigate

Spies. Terrorists. Hackers. Pedophiles.
Mobsters. Gang leaders and serial
killers. We investigate them all, and
many IIlore besides.
Thevety heart of FBI operations lies in tlurinvestigations-whlclt serve, as
our mission states, "to protect: and defend the United States against terrorist

and foreign intelligence thl.Y;!81s and to enforce the criminallaWI> oftbe
United States.'" We currently have jurisdiction over violations of 11l(Jl"e tban
200 categories of federal law, and you (::aD find the major ones below,
grouped within our three national security priorities and our five criminal
priorities, Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and

informs all our investigative programs.

National Security Priorities
._--­

Criminal Priorities

~....

4. Public Corruption

1. White-Collar Crime

- Govemment Fraud

1. Terrorism

- An1Itrust
- Bankruptcy Fraud
· CorpotateJSEK;Urilm> Frau<!
- Health Care Fraud

"Domestk Terrorism
• weapona of Moos DeBtruct.lOl1

2. Counterintelligence

5. Civil Rights

Coumerespii:lnage
- CounterproHferaOOfl

• Hate Crime

· EcooomIC Espionage

3. Cyber Crime
~ Computer fntrusions
~

Online Pred8tofs
PlracyJlntelleclual Property Theft
Internet Fraud
• Idenlity ThE!ft
~

- Human TratTick:lng
Color of Law

- klSUf8J100 Fraud
· Mags MaP;etil'lg Ffeod
- Money Uruodering
- Mortgage Fraud

- Freedom of Access 10 ClinlaJ

- More White-Collar Fmuds

6. Organized Crime

8. Violent Crime and Major Thefts

-Italian Mafia,t.CN

- Art Theft
- Bank Robbery
- Cargo 1 heft

-_0
Balkan

-cOmes Against Children
· Cruise Ship Crime

-All103n
- Sports Bribery

http://wwwJbi.gov/about-usiinvestigateJwhaCwe_investigate

--.

Uldian Country C!ime
and Gem Theft
- ReCai Theft

~ Jewelry

~V~Theft

1127/2012

22-1-309. Trustees -- powers and duties.

PA!Ioious Section

MCA Contenls

Page 1 of I

Pat1 Contenls

Search

Help

NellI Section

22-1-309. Trustees -- powers and duties. The library board of trustees shall have exclusive control
of the expenditure of the public library fund, of construction or lease of library buildings, and of the
operation and care of the library. The library board of trustees of every public library shall:
(I) adopt bylaws and rules for its own transaction of business and for the government of the library,
not inconsistent with law;
(2) establish and locate a central public library and may establish branches thereof at such places as
are deemed necessary;
(3) have the power to contract, including the right to contract with regions, counties, cities, school
districts, educational institutions, the state library, and other libraries, to give and receive library service,
through the boards of such regions, counties, and cities and the district school boards, and to payout or
receive funds to pay costs of such contracts;
(4) have the power to acquire, by purchase, devise, lease or otherwise, and to own and hold real and
personal property in the name of the city or county or both, as the case may be, for the use and purposes
of the library and to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of property real or personal, when no longer
required by the library and to insurc the real and personal property of the library;
(5) pay necessary expenses of members of the library staff when on business of the library;
(6) prepare an annual budget, indicating what support and maintenanee of the public library will be
required from public funds, for submission to the appropriate agency of the governing body. A separate
budget request shall be submitted for new construction or for capital impmvement of existing library
property.
(7) make an annual report to the governing body of the city or county on the condition and operation
of the library, including a fmancial statement. The trustees shall also provide for the keeping of such
records as shall be required by the Montana state library in its request for an annual report from the
public libraries and shall submit such an annual report to the state library.
(8) have the power to accept gifts, grants, donations, devises, or bequcsts of property, real or
personal, from whatever source and to expend or hold, work, and improve the same for the specific
pwpose of the gift, grant, donation, devise, or bequest. These gifts, grants, donations, devises, and
bequcsts shall be kept separate from regular library funds and are not subject to reversion at the end of
the fiscal year.
(9) exercise such other powers, not inconsistent with law, neeessary for the eftective use and
management of the library.
History: Ap. p. Sec. 5, Cb. 260, L. 1967; Sec. 44-222, R.C.M. 1947; Ap. p. Sec. 1, Ch. 47, L. 1<;27; re-elI, Sec. 5668.17,
R.C.M.1935;Sec.1I-1006,R.C.M, 1947;R.C.M.I947, II-I006(part),44-222.

http://data.opLmt.govlbiIlsimcal221l122- t -309 .htrn

112712012

"'''',,&

~ SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

\ Itll~,l Refer

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
SSA ODAR Hearing Ofc
Suite 500
2900 4th Ave North
Billings, MT 59101-1266

-"'t"'STtl'"

Date: May ll, 2011

Michael E. Spread bury

a

Hamilton. MT 59840

Notice of Dccision - Fully Favorable
I carefully reviewed the facts oryour cas" and made the enclosed fully favorable decision. Please
read Ibis notice and my decision.
Another office will process my decision and decide if you meet the non-disability re{luirements
for Supplemental Security Income payments. 'nUlt office may ask you for more information. If
you do not hear anything within 60 days ofthe date of this nolke, please contact your local
office. The contact information for your local office is at the end ofthis notice.
Ifl'ou Disagree With My Dedsion

If you disagree with my decision. you may file an appeal with the Appeals Cowlcil.
How To File An Appeal
To file an appeal you or your representative must ask ill writing that the Appeals Council review
my decision. You may use our Request for Review form (HA-520) or write a letter. nl., form is
available at www.socia1security.gov. Please put tlle Social Security number shown above on any
appeal you file. If you need help, you may file in person at any Social Security or hearing office.
Please send your request to:

Appeals Couneil
Office of DisabJIity Adjudication and Review
5107 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, V A 22041-3255
Time Umit To File An Appeal
You must file your written appeal within 60 days ofthe date YOll get tbis notice. The Appeals
Council assumes you got this notice 5 days after the date ofthe notice unless you show you did
not get it within the 5-day period.
The Appeals Council will dismiss a late request unless you show you had a good reason for not
Form HA-L76 (03-2010)

See Next Page

?LA \<13

MONTANA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM OF LIABILITY COVERAGE
EFFECTIVE July 1, 2007
In consideration of the payment of the premium, the Montana Municipal Insurance
Authority (Authority) agrees, subject to the LIMITS OF LIABILITY, EXCLUSIONS,
CONDITIONS and other terms of this Memorandum and DECLARATIONS, to pay on
behalf of the named Entity in the DECLARATIONS (the Entity) as follows:

I. COVERAGE
The Authority agrees to pay on behalf of the Entity all sums in excess of the
DEDUCTIBLE which the Entity shall become legally obligated to pay as Damages
because of:

A

Bodily Injury

B.

Personal Injury

C.

Property Damage

D,

Public Officials Errors and Omissions

As those terms are herein defined and to which the Memorandum applies, caused by an
Occurrence during the COVERAGE PERIOD.

II. DEFENSE, JUDGMENT, AND SETTLEMENT
The AuthOrity shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the Entity claiming
monetary damages for which coverage is afforded under this Memorandum for an
Occurrence during the COVERAGE PERIOD, even if any of the allegations of the suit
are groundless, false, or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and settlement of
any claim or suit as it deems expedient The Authority's duty to defend shall arise when
the complaint or claim alleges facts which would obligate the Authority to indemnify the
insured if the alleged facts were proven, The Authority shall be responsible for payment
of all reasonable attorney fees and costs for defense of a COVERED PARTY and shall
only be responsible for payment of that portion of a settlement or judgment which
relates to claims for which coverage is afforded under the terms of this Memorandum.
Provided, however, the Authority shall not be obligated to pay any settlement or
judgment or to defend any suit after the applicable LIMITS OF LIABILITY have been
exhausted by payment of settlements or judgments.
Page 1 of 23

III. COVERED PARTY

Each one of the following is a COVERED PARTY under this Memorandum:

A.

The Entity

B.

While acting within the scope of his or her duties for the Entity:
1.

Those individuals who were, or are now, elected or appointed offiCials of
the Entity, whether or not compensated (including volunteers), including
members of the Entity's governing body or any other committees, boards,
commissions or special districts of the Entity, while acting for or on behalf
of the Entity during the Coverage Period,

2.

Past or present employees of the Entity, whether or not compensated
(including volunteers), while acting for or on behalf of the Entity during the
Coverage Period.

3.

Any peace officer or law enforcement entity which may render assistance
during the Coverage Period upon request of a peace officer or law
enforcement organization of the Entity pursuant to applicable law. (Retro­
active to 7/1196 and each Policy Year thereafter).

4.

Any firefighter or firefighting entity which may render assistance upon
request of a firefighter or firefighting organization of the Entity pursuant to
a Mutual Aid Agreement entered into under the authority of MCA 7-3­
4112, (2002), or pursuant to a request for assistance made under MCA
10-3-209, (2002).

C.

A governmental or intergovernmental agency, board or commission which is
governed directly by the Entity by having a majority of the members of such
agency, board, or commission representing or apPointed by the Entity.

D.

Additional Covered Party.

IV. TERRITORY
This Memorandum applies to any Personal Injury. Property Damage, Bodily Injury, or
Public Officials Error or Omission occurring during the Coverage Period anywhere in the
world provided a claim is made or suit is brought within the United States of America, its
territories or possessions. or Canada.

V. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions shall govern the meaning of the defined terms for the purpose
Page 2 of 23

X. ADDITIONAL COVERED PARTY
A. In order to obtain an Additional Covered Party Endorsement, a Member Entity
must submit a written request to the MMIA for issuance of an Additional Covered
Party Endorsement stating the name, address, and description of the person or
entity to be named in the Endorsement, including a description of the need for
such Endorsement and the time period for which an Endorsement is sought.
Such request shall also contain information including, but not limited to, the
criteria set forth in Paragraph S, below; and include the person or entity to be
named in the Endorsement's executed agreement to abide by the terms of the
applicable Memorandum of Liability Coverage if such Endorsement is granted. It
shall also include an acknowledgment by the Member Entity that it is aware that
Losses and Defense Costs paid on behalf of the Additional Covered Party will be
assessed to the Member Entity pursuant to the MMIA's Program and Interlocal
Agreements.
8. MMIA staff will maintain absolute discretion in determining whether to issue an
Additional Covered Party Endorsement, and will review requests and make
decisions on the issuance of an Endorsement based on such criteria that may
include, but is not limited to:
a. Proposed Additional Covered Party's authority to conduct business in
Montana.
b. Experience and expertise in the Proposed Additional Covered Party's area
of service or purpose
c. Risk management training, practices or programs by the person or entity
seeking to be named in the Endorsement
d. Loss or lawsuit history of the person or entity seeking to be named in the
Endorsement
e, Risk associated with service provided or purpose of the person or entity
seeking to be named in the Endorsement.
f. Time period of Endorsement.
g. Any other criteria MMIA staff determines to be applicable,
C. The MMIA may either issue the Endorsement as requested, issue the
Endorsement with conditions, request additional information before making a
decision, or deny the request for Endorsement.
D. The MMIA reserves the right to deny an Endorsement for coverage for Proposed
Additional Covered Party that in the MMIA's estimation poses unreasonable risk
or exposure to the Liability Program.
E. The MMIA's decision to deny or conditionally approve a request for an Additional
Covered Party Endorsement may be appealed to the MMIA Underwriting
Committee pursuant to the provisions of the Memorandum of Liability Coverage,

Page 14 of 23

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
Cause No. DA-II-00l7

21 sl Montana District Court cause # DV-10-93

Hamilton Municipal Court cause # CV-2009-168

NANSURODDY
Petitioner and Appellee

)
)

RESPONDENT INVOKES

v.

)

RULE 20; PETITION FOR

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

)

REHEARING

Respondent and Appellant

)
)

Comes now the Respondent, invoking rule 20 on court for non-adherence to
controlling decision, statute, lower court adherence to rules of procedure.
Municipal Court in Hamilton, Montana, Judge Michael J. Reardon presiding did
not issue findings offact as required Mont. R. C. P. Ru1e 52(a) in order dated
December 28, 2009. Judge Reardon further decreed:
As is often the case in the motions for misdemeanor cause filed while the
defendant was a selfrepresented litigant, the Court's response does not let
itselfto a findings offact--opinions-conclusions oflaw format because the
basic problem is simply the defendants limited understanding oflaw and
procedure.( Appendix A)

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA-ll-00017

Roddy v. Spreadbury

In an order denying a statutory de-novo review in District Court, Judge John
Larson dated May 18,2010 (Exhibit 8) Judge Larson mentions Judge Reardon's
December 28, 2009 order, agrees with it, and also does not find facts per Mont. R
C. P. 52 (a). The notice for removal, and de-novo hearing at District court was
February 17,2010 (TR. #1). MCA§ 40-15-302 indicates immediate review. Judge
Larson did not grant hearing in District Court, and did not immediately review in
violation of MCA§40-1 5-302. The ultimate law making body in Montana is the
Legislature, the Supreme Court cannot conflict with established statute Wallace v.
Helena Elect. Ry. Co. 10 Mont. 24 (1894).
This court will only reverse a decision to continue, amend, or make permanent an
order of protection of a District court if it is an abuse of discretion Brock v. Smith
326 Mont. 123 (2005) citing Schiller v. Schiller 309 Mont. 431 (2002) and
Stoneman v. Dollinger 302 Mont. 107 (2000). Judge Reardon, Judge Larson did
not set up finding of fact, conclusion oflaw or establish Spreadbury's guilt of
MCA§ 45-5-220 Stalking, and MCA§ 45-5-201 Assault to enact order of
protection Elden v. Bonemarte 162 P3d. 847 (2007). A pending charge of
Intimidation MCA§ 45-5-203, a presumed charge of trespassing on public property
(which violates established liberty interest) fails to implicate Spreadbury on an
order of protection for a non-family member as defined in MCA§ 40-15-102 (2)(a).
A pending charge is not sufficient evidence, Mont. R C. P. Rule 52 (a) challenges
2

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA·ll-00017

Roddy v. Spreadbury

res judicata issues Snaveley v. St. John 333 Mont. 16 (2006) Edelen v. Bonemarte
162 P3d. 847 (MT Supra 2007).
In the Snavely court, if the reasoning of a District Court is not established by way
of findings of fact, and conclusions of law, the Supreme Court cannot make
appellate review ibid. Therefore, since this court "could not find anything" in
review in the aforementioned, it must remand this issue to the District court for
new hearing 119 Snavely v. St. John 333 Mont. 16 (2006) 119 due to abuse of
discretion by the District Court. Since Judge Larson' May 182010 order did not
set up a reasoning based upon findings of fact, conclusions of law in a manner
sufficient to allow appellate review, this court must remand them back to
determine these facts, and format per Mont R. C. P. 52(a) Sharmel v. Canyon
Resources Corp. 319 Mont. 132 (2003).
In Judge Larson's December 9,2010 order denying Respondents motion to modifY
order (JR. #42) an admission of no contest in a criminal matter does not establish
fmding offact to meet MCA§ 45-5-220 Stalking and MCA§ 45-5-201 Assault as
required by MCA§40-15-1 02 for non-family members Edelen. In Spreadbury's
case, lower courts in Montana did not satisfY requirements governing mandatory
hearings, rules of court, statutory requirements for hearings on petitions for an
order ofprntection Kellerv. Tull 337 Mont. 188 (2007).

rLA

\99

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA-ll-00017

Roddy v. Spreadbury

Spreadbury's procedural due process rights violated by Montana Courts, denied
access to fully and fairly litigate issues Baltrusch v. Baltrusch 331 Mont. 281
(2006). Spreadbury's liberty interest in being free from criminal charges from

sitting on public property, liberty interest in moving freely in Hamilton, MT are
violated by Montana courts, establishes erroneous deprivation through procedures
used Mathews v. Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976).
The Montana Supreme Court reviews for abuse of discretion in a District Court's
decision to continue, amend, or make permanent an order based upon District
Courts conclusion oflaw, when not discemable, remand back to District Court
Boe v. Court Adm'r for the Mon. Jud. Branch 335 Mont. 228 (2007) Snavely v. St.
John 333 Mont. 16 (2006).
The grounds for a new trial MCA § 25-11-102 include
1) irregularity in proceedings, abuse of discretion in either party prevented in
having fair trial (no finding of fact, or Spreadbury allowed to present evidence).
3) accident or surprise (no District Court hearing for Spreadbury)
4) New evidence (Hamilton Police report with Petitioner merely "felt threatened")
5) excessive damages (Spreadbury loss ofliberty for 5 years).
6) Insufficient evidence to justifY verdict (no establishment offactual evidence) .
4

-----------------------~-.-

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA-ll-00017

Roddy v. Spread bury

7) error in law (no coherent statement of facts, finding of law, Roddy false
swearing to judge; appearance of City attorney in violation oflaw).
Standards ofReview MCA§ 2-4-704
a) decisions by Judges were in violation of Rule 52 (a)
b) procedure ofjudges were arbitrary and violated Spreadbury's liberty, procedural
due process, and equal process of the hearing to fully litigate the matter.
c) the process was clearly erroneous by not allowing immediate statutory review,
not establishing fact in Municipal and District Courts, and no District Court
hearing in the aforementioned for Spreadbury.
Spreadbury was a pre-trial inmate in the Missoula County Detention Center with
inmate # 311635 from November 9, 2009 to time of Municipal Court Hearing
November 20,2009. To fully adjudicate a matter, Spreadbury would be able to
present evidence, be prepared for hearing. Although Spreadbury requested hearing

(JR. # 1) no hearing was granted in District Court. This is an abuse of discretion
by Judge Larson 4th Judicial district Missoula, MT.
Procedural Due Process violation by District Court by not issuing Spreadbury
hearing, questions of constitutional law are subject to plenary review State v.

Webb 325 Mont. 317 (2005). A clearly erroneous finding by the District court,

5

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA-ll-QO017

RoddV v. Spreadbury

such as no findings of fuct for order ofprotection can be reversed by this court

State v. Leitheiser 331 Mont. 464 (2006). Spreadbury bears burden of establishing
error in a district court decision In Re: T.R 328 Mont. 428 (2005). Judge Larson
in May 20, 2010 order (TR. #20) lists criminal charges against Spreadbury which
fails to establish fact, conclusion of law pertinent to order ofprotection Edelen v.

Bonemarte 162 P3d 847 (MT Supra 2007). Bonemarte was successful in staying
order, made permanent in District Court due to no establishment of fact,
conclusion oflaw that pending criminal charges satisfies the criteria for a
permanent order ofprotection. In the instant case, Spreadbury was charged with
trespassing on public property, a protected right under 1st Amendment of the
United States Constitution, Art. II Section 7 Montana Constitution. Not given
hearing in District court, although violation of Rule 52(a) in instant case has case
similarities as Edelen v. Bonemarte 162 P3d 487 (2007).

In arguendo, if Spreadbury threatened Roddy as Bonemarte admitted, that action in
the Edelen court was determined not meet MCA§ 45-5-220 Stalking and MCA§
45-5-201 Assault required in a non-family member order of protection as in MCA§
40-15-102 (2)(a). The court in Edelen found an abuse of discretion in the District
court's decision to implicate Bonemarte for the order of protection with respect to
pending criminal charges, proper in the instant case for Spreadbury, consistent with
MCA§ 40-15-102 (2Xa).
6

Rule 20

Request for rehearing

DA-ll-00017

Roddy v. Spreadbury

The order from Judge Reardon, and Judge Larson lack logical reasoned analysis of
the facts in this instant case (Exhibit A&B). To implicate a party due to pending
charges has been determined in the Edelen court to be short ofthe required work in
Mont. R. C. P. Rule 52(a). When this court cannot determine facts or reasoning
from the lower court judges, no appellate review is possible' 19 Snavely. Further
Jurists Reardon in Municipal Court, Larson in District Court failed to support facts
finding Spreadbury caused Roddy apprehension of bodily harm in finding of facts
Mont. R. C. P. 52(a)' 18 Snavelyv. St. John 333 Mont. 16 (2006) 'I[ 18, 'I[ 11

Edelen v. Bonemarte 162 P3d 847 (2007) 'I[ 11.
With respect to res judicata in this case, an abuse of discretion of the courts with
respect to Rule 52(a), and procedural due process violation (rejection of a District
Court hearing), and Spreadbury's status as a pre-trial inmate prior to the November
20,2009 hearing did not allow full adjudication for Spreadbury. Kenneth S. Ben,
Hamilton City Attorney did act outside statutory jurisdiction as Roddy's first
counsel as City Attorney MCA§ 7-4-4604 violating Spreadbury's protected due
process. Bell conducted an unauthorized ex parte communication with Judge
Reardon, which established Bell's criminal appearance in violation ofMCA§ 45-7­
401 Official Misconduct. Roddy's second and current counsel is engaging in
misuse of public funds claiming Roddy as City employee, a false premise. Bell
engaged in felonious behavior in November 20, 2009 hearing in instant case
7

Rule 20

Request for re hearing

DA-U-00017

Roddy v. Spread bury

amounting to witness tampering MCA§ 45-7-206. Statutory mandated appeal to
district court MCA§ 40-15-302 was eluded in this matter for Spreadbury.
WHEREFORE, Spreadbury imposes Appellate Rule 20 by Rule 52(a), statutory
authority as presented in this request, and case precedent in Snavely v. St. John 333
Mont. 16 (2006), Edelen v. Bonemarte 162 P3d. 847 (2007) before this court.
Spreadbury's procedural due process violated by District Court. Due to abuse of
discretion by Judge Reardon, Judge Larson in not setting up finding offacts,
conclusion of law as proper in a Montana courtroom, Spreadbury seeks remand to
District Court by or reversal by well established practice, statutory requirement
under MCA§ 40-15-302, well established case precedent in Supreme Court for the
State of Montana with respect to orders ofprotection MCA§ 40-15-102 (2)(a) as
stated herein.
Signed this

1~y ofFebruary, 2011

Michael E. Spreadbury, self-represented litigant.

700 S. 4th St.

Hamilton, MT 59840

[phone]
8

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. Fourth St.
Hamilton, MT 59840
[phone]
[e-mail]
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA
Cause No. DA-II-000I7
NANSURODDY

)

Petitioner and Appellant,

)

Rule 20, Petition for rehearing

v.

)

addendum to include

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

)

Certificate of Compliance

Respondent and Appellant,

)

Comes now the Respondent, with Certificate of Compliance to adhere to courts
Rule 20, Petition for rehearing. Certificate was missing from original document.

Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to Rule 16, Mont. R. App. P., I certify this Rule 20 pleading, along with
its supporting authority is printed with a proportionally spaced Times New Roman
text typeface of 14 points; is double spaced; and the word count is 1638 words,
which complies with this courts maximum of2500 words for this pleading.
Dated this

~11\day ofF:~tparY, 20ll.

­

,~

//
.-//

Michael E. Spreadbury, self-represented Respondent and Appellant.

Page I of I

7-2-4101. Petition to organize city or town.

Prlllious Section

MCA ConIents

Pall ConIents

Search

Help

Next Section

7-2-4101. Petition to organize city or town. (I) Whenever the inhabitants of any part of a county
desire to organize as a city or town, the inhabitants may apply by petition, signed by not less than 300
registered electors or two-thirds of the registered electors, whichever is less, who are residents of the
state and residing within the limits of the proposed city or town, to the board of county commissioners
of the county in which the proposed area is situated.
(2) (a) The petition must describe the limits ofthe proposed city or town and wards of the proposed
city or town. A proposed ward must contain 50 or more registered electors and must have at least 200
inhabitants for each square mile of land area.
(b) The proposed city or town must contain a post office, contract postal unit, or other similar unit
operated by or under contract with the United States postal service within the proposed area of the city
or town.
(c) Land used for production agriculture in tracts larger than 160 acres and land and facilities used for
electric power generation, refining, or smelting may not be included in a proposed city or town without
the written consent of the owners of the land.
(d) The petitioners shall attach to the petition a map of the proposed area to be incorporated and state
the name of the proposed city or town.
(3) The petition and map nms! be filed in the office of the election administrator.
History: En. Sec. 315, 5th Div. Compo Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 4720, Pol. C. 1895; re..,n. Sec. 3208, Rev. C. J907; amd
Sec. I, Ch. 56, L. 1909; re-en. Sec. 4961, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec.4961, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 86, L. 1973; amd.
Sec. I, Ch. 515, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 1I-203(part); amd Sec. 289, Ch. 571, L. 1979; amd. Sec. I, Ch. 255, L. 1981; amd.
Sec. 1, Ch. 274, L. 2007; amd. Sec. I, Ch. 90, L. 2011; amd. Sec. J, Ch. 177, L. 2011.

http://data.opi.mt.govlbills/mcal7/217-2-4101.htm

112712012

Page 1 of 1

7·2·4102. Census of proposed municipality.

P"";ous Section

MCA Contents

Part Contents

Search

Help

Nex1 Section

7·2-4102. Census of proposed municipality. Upon filing the petition, the board of county
commissioners, at its next regular or special meeting, must appoint some suitable person to take a house·
to·housc census of the residents ofthe territory to be incorporated. After taking the census, the person
appointed to take the same mnst return the list to the board, and the same must be filed by it in tbe
county clerk's office.
History; En. Sec. 315, 5th Diy. Compo Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 4720, Pol. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 3208, Rev. C. 1907; amd.
Sec. I, Ch. 56, L. 1909; re-en. Sec. 4961, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 4961, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. I, Ch. 86, L. 1973; amd.
Sec. I, Ch. 515, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 11.203(part).

http://data.opLmLgovlbillsimcaI7l2n-2-4102.htm

112712012

7-2-4103. Prerequisites to organization of municipality.

PnNOUS Section

MCA Contents

Part Contents

Page 1 of I

Seeleh

Help

IIlexI Section

7-2-4103. Prerequisites to organization of municipality. No municipal corporation may be formed
unless:
(1) (a) the number of inhabitants is 300 or upwards; or
(b) the community was a townsite owned and built by the U.S. government prior to April 3, 1981;
and
(2) the boundary of the proposed territory to be incorporated is more than 3 miles from the boundary,
measured from the nearest point between the two, of any presently incorporated city or town or there is
presented to the board appropriate evidence that any presently incorporated city or town within 3 ruiles
which legally could aunex has refused to annex the proposed territory.
History: En. Sec. 315, 5th Div. Compo Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 4720, Pol. C. 1895; fe-en, Sec, 3208, Rev, C. 1907; amd.
Sec. I, Ch. 56, L. 1909; fe-en. Sec. 4961, R,CM. 1921; re-en. Sec. 4961, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. I, Ch. 86, L. 1973; amd.
Sec. I, Ch. 515, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 1I-203(part); amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 255, L. 1981.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/biUsimca/7/217-2-4103.htm

1/2712012

Page 1 of I

7-2-4104. Election on question of organization.

f>reo,jous Section

MCA Contents

Pari Contents

5ea'ch

Help

Next Section

7-2-4104. Election on question of organization. (I) After filing the petition and census, if there is
the requisite number of inhabitants for the formation of a municipal corporation as required in 7-2-4103,
the eounty commissioners shall call an election of all the registered electors residing in the territory
described in the petition.
(2) The election must be held at a convenient place \\ithin the territory described in the petition, to be
designated by the board. If possible, the election must be held in conjunction with a regular or primary
election.
(3) The ballots used at the election must eontain the words "For incorporation" or "Against
incorporation", and all elections must be conducted as provided in Title 13.
History: En. Sec. 316, 5th Div. Compo Stat. 1887; amd. Sec, 2, p. 178, L, 1889; re-en. Sec. 4721, Pol. C. 1895; re-en,
Sec. 3209, Rev, C, 1907; re-en. Sec. 4962, RC.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 4962, RC.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-204(part); amd,
Sec, 290, Cit. 571, 1.. 1979; amd, Sec. 4, Ch. 387, L. 1995.

http://data.opi.mt.govlbilIs/mca/71217-2-4104.htm

112712012

Page 1 of I

7-2-4105. Notice of election on question of organi7.ation.

PnlllOUS Sedion

MCA Contents

Part Contents

Soareh

Hefp

Next Sedion

7-2-4105. Notice of election on question of organization. Notice of the election shall be published
as provided in 13- J-108. The notice shall contain a description ofthc boundaries of the city or town.
History: En. Sec. 316, 5th Div. Compo Stat. 1887; amd. Sec. 2, p. 178, L. Igg9; re-en. Sec. 4721, Pol. C. 1895; re-en.
Sec. 3209, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec.4962, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 4962, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-204(part); amd.
Sec. 291, Ch. 571, L. 1979.

http://data.opi.mt.govlbillslmcal71217-2-41 05 .htm

1127/2012

Page 1 of I

7-2-2103. Qualifications for municipality or village to be county seat.

Pat Cor1en1s

Search

Help

Next Section

7-2-2103. Qualifications for munieipality or village to be county seat. No city, town, or village
shall beeome the temporary or permanent county seat of any county organized under the provisions of
part 22 or created by an act ofthe legislature unless such city or town shall have been incorporated in the
manner provided by law or unless such village shall have been regularly platted and a plat thereof tiled
in the offiee of the county e1erk and recorder and there be fifty qualified eleetors residing within the
boundaries of such platted village.
History: En. Sec. I, Ch. 16, Ex. L. 1919; re-en. Sec. 4392, R.C.M. 1921; re-en. Sec. 4392. R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947,
16-503 (part).

http://data.opi.mt.govlbillslmca/71217-2-2103.htm

1/2712012