Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 215

OBJECTION to 210 Findings and Recommendations filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840

FIlE.L';

Telephone: [phone]

FEB a7 2012

[e-mail]

PATRICK E. DUF~v
8)'
" l.LER/\

Pro Se Plaintiff

DEPUT'( CLERK 11'1.,. ", .,,'"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

) Cause No: 9: 11 cv-0064-DWM-JCL
)

Plaintiff
v.

)

OBJECION TO COURT

CITY OF HAMIL TON,

)

FINDINGS IN RE: Doc.# 210

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

)

Comes now Plaintiff with respectful objection to findings and recommendations

(TR. #210) with respect to Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. summary judgment.
Motion:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves court to reject summary judgment as premature;
new discovery information, withheld by Defendant Lee precludes court judgment.

1

Objection to Court findings [Doc. #210], LEE

Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-0WM-JCL

February 3, 2012

Defendant opposes motion.
Brief in Support
A material fact before this tribunal is the lawful incorporation ofthe City of
Hamilton, inter alia. The implication of non-incorporated status has impacts to all
parties to this case, and to the appropriate adjudication by this Honorable Court.
Court has previously granted privilege to Lee
This court has granted Defendant Lee privilege under Montana Code Ann. MCA
§27-1-S04 as Plaintiff criminal trespass case was heard before Defendant City
Judge Michael J. Reardon February IS, 2010 prosecuted by Defendant Ken Bell
former city attorney.
At issue before this court is the material issue ofthe lawful incorporation of
Defendant City per required documents available for public inspection, yet not
available by Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 7-2-4101 to 4105. Of significance is
Defendant Jerry Steele's admission in official public meeting August 2009 of no
incorporation documents available for public inspection; Plaintiff was witness to
this meeting, captured on video admitting no incorporation documents for City.
Implication of Non-incomoration

2

Objection to Court findings [Doc. #210), LEE

Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-DWM-JCL

February 3,2012

Defendant Lee Enterprises cannot claim privilege MCA§ 27-1-804 to Defendant
City court proceeding against Plaintiff for Criminal Trespass on public property as
Hamilton known by Defendant Mayor Steele invalid, non-incorporation as
required by Montana Code Ann. Witnesses, evidence are required to establish fact
of incorporated or unincorporated Status for Defendant City of Hamilton.
Negligence and Joint Function ofDefendant Lee
As criminal charge of trespass was dismissed, Lee used all resources available to
give false light of Supreme Court for State of Montana, or properly vindicate
Plaintiff as charge was dismissed August 16,2010 [PLA 088].
Lee knew or should have known that peaceful assembly on public property is a
protected activity, not subject to publicity prior to an election for negative impact
on Plaintiff's public figure as joint, public Function with defendants Johnson v.

Knowles 113F. 3d at 1118-1120(f}h cir., 1997}.
Plaintiff as taxpayer is a joint owner of 306 State S1. site of Bitterroot Public
Library public property [PLA 031-032J_ Lee's grant of privilege under Montana
Code is broken as malice is introduced into the reporting by Defendant Lee.
As question of Defendant City lawful incorporation is material to this case, it has
implications to Defendant Lee, and the other Defendants in the aforementioned.

3

Objection to Court findings [Doc. #210), LEE

Cause 9:2011-CV-1l-64-0WM-JCl

February 3,2012

Lee fails to answer Discovery FRCP 26 asks for Summary Judgment
On January 31 2012 Defendant Lee swore to discovery answers that consisted of
deny, or object: Defendant Lee fails to answer discovery yet asks this Honorable
Court for summary judgment renewed in violation of controlling authority Harlow
v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 (1982). As Defendant Lee fails to provide discovery,
asks court for summary judgment as material facts remain, prior order oftrial
preclude granting Defendant Lee summary Judgment.
Pleadings before this court are complete March 9, 2012 by order ofthis court.
Plaintiff gives judicial notice of material fact of incorporation, others; precludes
premature decision by court. It is proper to reject summary judgment anew, or
grant summary judgment as order for trial no new information by Lee.
Certificate ofCompliance
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 544 words excluding title page, this compliance.
Respectfully submitted th·s

BY:

~Y~fFebruary,

2012

--~~~~----~-----------------

Michael E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff
4