Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 214

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

Michael E. SpreadbUly
700 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

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