Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 214

RESPONSE to Motion re 211 MOTION in Limine filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )

Download PDF
Michael E. SpreadbUly 700 S. 4th Street Hamilton, MT 59840 Telephone: (406) 363-3877 mspread@hotmail.com Pro Se Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY ) Cause No: 9:11cv-0064-DWM-JCL Plaintiff ) v. ) OBJECION TO MOTION CITY OF HAMILTON, ) In Limine RE: Doc. # 212 LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., ) BOONE KARLBERG, PC, ) --------------------------) Comes now Plaintiff with respectful objection to Defense motion in limine (Doc. #212) with respect to Defendant Boone, City, Library premature, controlling authority precludes granting Motion In Limine. Motion: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves court to reject motion as premature; precludes Plaintiff to plead case, final determination of adjudicated material not set. 1 Objection to Court findings [Doc. #210), LEE Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCL February 3, 2012 Defendant opposes motion. Brief in Support Defendant Boone presents peculiar requests before this court to limit information before trial, which violates Plaintiff ability to plead case, not consistent with controlling authority citrcumstantial in this Federal Circuit. Evidence without all possible grounds, inferences, reference is barred by F. Rules of Evidence 404. Boone asks court to limit material with probative, non­ prejudicial effect, out of scope of In Limine motions Luce v. United States 469 US 38 (1984). Boone and this Honorable Court are reminded that the pleading deadline not past in the aforementioned. Plaintiff has right to ask for reconsideration of Complaint, new material in aforementioned, request for jury prohibitions is premature, and implicate Boone attempting to cover crime, misconduct of Defendants. Brief comment of Defense In Limine requests 1. Boone is a named defendant in this case; even if District Court exonerates behaviors to this point, continued defamation present with request for injunctive relief (latest: "Personality Disorder" not diagnosed by medical provider, Plaintiff Physician precluded diagnosis) [Doc. # 10]. 2 Objection to Court findings [Doc, #210], LEE Cause 9:2011-CV·ll·64·DWM·JCl February 3, 2012 2. The Defense litigation costs addressed by Plaintiff [Doc. #29] and is material to the City ofHamilton ambiguous status of incorporation, and the Defense of a non-municipality, Defendant Public Library is material to the case [See concurrent pleading Objection to Findings this date]. Defense costs have probative value in aforementioned Luce. 3. "Ostracism" in Hamlton, Montana: Being ostracized is an inherent feature of defamation which does not have to be proved, but an aspect nonetheless. Defendant Mayor slandered Plaintiff with loathsome disease; ostracism is expected result. This motion #3 is vague. Defendant city bas not proven fact municipality lawfully exists, eligible for MMIA coverage. 4. Defendants caused Plaintiff to lose election: Defamation prior to election; Lee publication, Defendant action was cause of loss of election, severe defamation, negligence, tortious interference with livelihood, ability to work, ultimately led to full disability ofPlaintiff. Election and defamation of Plaintiff are material facts to this case, have probative value Luce. Election is not circumstantial fact of case which do not require jury to make prejudicial inferences, not available as In Limine to Defendants Palmerin v. City ofRiverside 794 F. 2d 1409 (tjh Cir., 1986). 5. "Bad Acts" of Defendants unrelated to Plaintiff. All evidence which relate to character, actions, misconduct had effect on the Plaintiff; representation 3 Objection to Court findings [Doc. #2101, LEE Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCl February 3,2012 of city as legitimate, lawful as Defendant pretext to non-adherence to law, rules of court have probative value, not inadmissible on all possible grounds Hawthorne v. AT&T Tech. Inc. 831 F. Supp. 1398 D. Court, N.ll!. (1983) citing Luce v. United States 469 US 38 (1984). 6. Corruption. As Defendant Mayor, Defendant City holds out to be lawful municipality and is not, is admissible, fact has probative value to aforementioned Luce. As Defendant City, Public Library have defense litigation paid by MMIA as ineligible entities; material fact to aforementioned and precluded from restriction via In Limine motion. 7. Opinion of Plaintiff. The freedom to speak includes opinions as they relate to making case before jury. Bone is reminded of status as named Defendant in aforementioned case for 42 USC§ 1983 [conspiracy to deprive established right] as request before court to limit speech protected in Amendment 1 US Constitution. 8. Prior Claims against Plaintiff. As Defendant City is unable via discovery to prove lawful incorporation, admission of Defendant Mayor Steele in official public meeting of no documents to establish lawful incorporation, functions of city court, city police are suspect before this court. Plaintiff holds "public trust" national security clearance [FBI # 37865DC8] without conviction. Any mention ofprior acts ofDefendant City constitute defamation as :fulse. 4 Objection to Court findings [Doc. #210], LEE cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-DWM-JCL February 3,2012 Defendant City Judge engages in fraud as no finding of fact, conclusion of law for "Order of Protection" without merit, grounds [PLA197-PLA205]. Intimidation charge without admission of guilt, poisoned jury by Lee article; deferred sentence complete after stay March 26, 2012 prior to aforementioned trial. Boone is reminded In Limine excludes prejudicial comments, circumstantial evidence not include them. Defense motion is 5 months prior to trial,S weeks prior to pleading deadline, premature. Honorable Court is requested to reject Defendant City, Public Library In Limine motions with cause, lawful controlling authority, in alternative hold hearing to determine restricted material In Limine for trial in aforementioned. Certificate of Compliance From LR 7(dX2){E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certifY that this brief conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced, contains 746 words excluding title page, this compliance. Respectfully submitted thi BY: ,2012 --~~~~~----77~------------- Michael E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?