Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 222

NOTICE of Filing Additional Discovery for Trial by Michael E. Spreadbury (Attachments: # 1 Attachments) (APP, )

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10118/11

Page 2 of 17
1

1

MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2

09,05 \ 06

RAVALLI COUNTY

3

4

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff,

5

6
7

Cause No. DV-10-222

vs.
ANGELA B. WETZSTEON and
GEORGE H. CORN,

8

Defendants.
9

10
11

Taken at the Ravalli County Courthouse
205 Bedford Street, Hamilton, Montana
Friday, August 6, 2010

12
13

The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton Presiding.
HI

15

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16
17

APPEARANCES:
18

Plaintiff, MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY, appearing pro.
19

20
21
22

.'

23

For the Defendants:

MICHAEL R. KING
Special Assistant Attorney General
Risk Management and Tort Defense
Division
1625 11th Avenue, Middle Floor
P.O. Box 200124
Helena, MT 59620-0124

24
25

Reported by Tamara Stuckey
Official court Reporter, State of Montana.

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 3 of 17
2

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 2010

09:0S;21

1

09:46:08

2

09:46:10

3

hear this morning is the Spreadbvry v. Wetzsteon

09:46 13

.;

Corn.

\1

5

MR. KING,

09:46, lB

6

THE COURT:

09:46:22

7

MR. KING:

09:46:23

8

THE COURT:

09 :46 ~2 S

9

0'9:406;)0

10

in the Montana Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

09:'/;06 ).

11

It's more like the Ninth Circuit.

09 ,H d1

12

15 minutes for each side to mention any point that you

0914.6 :42

13

think needs mentioning, either it's reemphasizing

09:46;45

14

something in your brief or responding to something in

09:45;41

15

the other briefs.

09:45;53

16

all hearings, are that nobody is going to interrupt the

09:45:57

17

party presenting, even if you might have an objection.

09.:47:01

HI

You can raise that in your argument,

t>!L47;07

19

Mr. King. so you get to begin and you get to close.

O~:47~11

20

Mr. Spreadbury, you are in the middle,

Q9:11;15

21

the burden, Mr. King does, and he will argue twice; you

Oliht7,22

22

will argue once,

0:9:47 ;2:4

23

0';47:26

24

Court may know, this case arises out of Mr. spreadbury's

09:41;:)0

25

criminal prosecution on August 8th of 2006 in the

Q9!46 ;

THE COURT,

The first case we're going to

That'S a motion for summary judgment.

~nd

Mr. King .

Yes, Your Honor.
This is your motion.
Yes.
And typically, the way I hear

motions, this !s not what a full-blown argument would be

I allow about 10 or

My rules during this hearing, as in

It'S your motion,

And so he has

Mr. King.

MR. KING,

Thank you, Your Honor.

As this

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 17
3

09: 4' :35

1

Ravalli County Justice Court.

"

2

as I understand his Amended complaint, that the Ravalli

03:'17,44

3

county Attorney's Office did four things that entitle

09:47:48

4

him to monetary and injunctive relief from and against

09;47:52

5

Angela wetzsteon and George Corn.

09;4?~SI

6

things, those allegations, lack merit.

09:48:00

7

09:48:03

e

the Amended Complaint is that Mr. Spreadbury alleges

09,48:07

9

that Angela Wetzsteon presented evidence during

09!4S;lo

10

Mr. Spreadbury's criminal trial that the Ravalli County

0':48:14

11

Attorney's Office did not provide to him prior to trial

09: 4a: 16

12

in a timely basis this.

09:48:22

13

because a prosecutor's alleged failure to provide

09~'UI~26

14

discovery in a timely manner involves a prosecutorial

09!4S:30

15

function for which Miss Wetzsteon and Mr. Corn enjoy

09:48:34

16

prosecutorial immunity.

09:48:39

17

regard has cited no legal authorities to the contrary.

09;48:42

18

09;48:45

19

Ravalli County Attorney's Office filed a motion to

09:48:47

20

continue his trial to a period of time when he would be

09;48:51

21

out of town. thus in some way causing Justice Bailey or

O':48;~6

22

Justice of the Peace Sailey to issue a Warrant for his

09:48;S9

23

arrest for his failure

09:49;04

24

allegation lacks merit because filing motions,

0';491<n

25

particularly motions for continuance, again. is a

09 :47 .

Mr. spreadbury alleges,

All four of those

The first allegation, as I understand, in

This allegation lacks merit

And Mr. spreadbury in that

Secondly, Mr. Spreadbury alleges that the

,

io appear at the trial.

This

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11 Page 5 of 17
4

09:49,12

1

pros e cutorial function for which Mr. Corn and Miss

09:;;9:17

2

Wetzsteon have prosecutorial immunity.

0$1:49:21

3

Mr. Spreadbury has cited no legal authorities to the

Q!h49:24

4

contrary.

09:49:30

5

any evidence that -- showing that Angela Wetzsteon or

09: 49::1':.

6

George Corn in any way participated in Judge Bailey's

09: 4 9:; 38

7

issuance of the Arrest Warrant.

013:43:~3

8

09:49;46

9

issued

\)9:49;50

10

valid.

09:'19:52

11

event.

09:119:51

12

arrest charge, it's clearly barred by the two-year

09t49:S9

13

statute of limitations.

09:50:02

14

09:50:01

15

Ravalli County Attorney's Office misrepresented the

09:50~lO

16

spelling of Angela Wetzsteon's last name to

09:50:13

17

Mr. Spreadbury's unspecified detriment.

O~:50~16

18

what kind of a claim this is, but the best I could make

09:50:19

19

of it was that it was a misrepresentation claim, and the

09:50:23

20

Affidavits -- the undisputed affidavit testimony of

09,So.:27

21

Angela Weczsteon and GeorgE! Corn shows that they didn't

09:50!3S

22

intend by any such misspelling of Angela Wetzsteon's

09: 50: 39

23

last name t'o Cause him any harm.

O!i:SO~4l

24

certainly hasn't produced any facts,

09,50:46

25

facts,

And again,

In addition, Mr. Spreadbury hasn't produced

~nd

finally,

the Arrest Warrant was

it waS issued by Judge Bailey.

It·S facially

There's no evidence to the contrary.

And in any

to the extent Mr. Spreadbury is asserting a false

His third allegation alleges that the

to the contrary.

I'm not sure

Mr. Spreadbury

.'

let alone specific

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10118111 Page 6 of 17
5

Fourthly, Mr. Spreadbury alleges that as a

09:50 50

1

09150 S5

2

result of the first three allegations, Miss Wetzsteon

09:50 57

J

and Mr. Corn intentionally inflicted emotional distress

: 01

4

upon him.

09:51 :04

5

lack merit, as they do, then his fourth allegation,

09 51 07

6

intentional infliction of

09 51 11

7

merit.

09:51 .15

S

Montana a claim for intentional inflection of emotional

09:51:20

9

distress when you are legally entitled to do what you

09 51:23

10

have done, and everything that George Corn and Angela

09151:27

11

Wetzsteon have done in this case, they are legally

stJ 30

12

entitled to do as prosecutors for the State of Montana.

09~5l;34

13

So all four of Mr. Spreadbury's allegations

O'~Sl:3a

14

of wrongdoing in this case lack merit.

09;51:42

15

that, this court should grant George Corn's and Angela

09:51,4B

16

Wetzsteon's Motions For Summary Judgment and dismiss

09~

Sl dH

17

Mr. Spreadbury's Amended Complaint with prejudice.

0':51:51

18

Thank you, Your Honor.

O!hSl!59

19

THE COURT:

0;1:52:00

20

MR. SPREADBURY.

o$ll$::!~02

21

it pleases the Court, I'd also like to thank the judge

09di2 H:l5

22

for coming down to Ravalli County Twenty-First District.

09:52t10

23

I do have a few things I'd like to

09:S'h14

24

Wetzsteon, on August 8th, 2007 -­ not 2006 -­ was

09:S2120

25

unauthorized to praotice law.

{)9 ~ 51

OSI;

Obviously,

if the first three allegations

e~otional

distress, lacks

But more than that, you canlt maintain in

As a result of

Mr. Spreadbury.
Thank you, Your Honor.

d~y.

Angela

She was not lioensed.

If

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11 Page 7 of 17
6

09152,24

She was licensed 10/9/08,

09,S:.},)2

2

October 9th of 2008, which is prior to that date.

09:51:)7

3

is also attorney witnesses, my retained attorney,

09:52:41

4

Miss Wetzsteon waS practicing without supervision, which

09:52:45

5

is in violation of the Student Practice Act issued by

09;52;49

6

the Montana Supreme Court April 30th, 1975.

09:52:S<I

7

those ieems, a bar license, swearing an oath to the

09:53:00

a

constitution and the third item that r mentioned,

09,53=0)

9

unsupervised~

0$':$J:07

10

09:53:09

11

today.

09:$3:11

12

proceeding.

09t$3:1.5

13

student, unsupervised, without a bar license ·has

09!51~20

14

no -­ in the words of Mr. King. he used "legally

09:53;2:4

15

entitled."

O;;:5)!27

16

his office is charged with the duty of protecting the

09~S:3:H

17

public from unauthorized practice of law, and here he is

09d~j3:l~

18

protecting somebody who did engage in the unauthorized

09:53:40

19

practice of law_

09t53:42

20

09d33145

,

1

is the date, so it's

21

copy -­ a second copy to opposing counsel.

0'),53:50

22

certified receipt for my Complaint.

09:53:52

23

see this/ Your Honor?

{)9:53:$2

24

may have already see it.

09~5l;s.t

25

There
that

Without

she has no immunity.

Just like 1 stand in front of you here
I'm not a prosecutor.

This is a civil

1 don't want to get off track, but a

That's not the case whatsoever.

In fact,

I submitted to the Court. and I just gave a

THE COURT,

,t

Here is a

Would you like to

was within the docket.

It's already in the file.

You

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11 Page 8 of 17
7

MR. SPREADBURY,

It is.

You can see it if

09 53:57

1

co

Sl:S9

2

a9:S4~O'!

3

09:54:11

4

i~

09:54 : 14

5

in 1995, in Kelman v. Losleben, says that a prosecutor

09:S" ; 21

6

is not entitled to immunity engaged in

09:54 :24

7

duties.

09.$4:28

a

and Ange19 Wetzsteon was downstairs in the Justice

09,$4;31

9

Courts, outside of the speedy trial time period, eight

09154:36

10

months into a trial, I don't see how George Corn is

09;54~41

11

entitled to any immunity whatsoever.

09:S4:4t:

12

to the case and that'S an administrative duty.

09:54:50

13

Supreme Court has already determined, Your Honor, that

09:54.54

14

there is no immunity.

09:54:1$8

15

immunity in that situation.

09:55:02

16

09:5$:05

17

sa1d in the beginning, the defense counsel, Michael

09:55;10

18

King, from the attorney General's Office has the burden

09:55;15

19

here -- and I do realize he has a rebuttal to my

09:55:20

20

statement.

09155:22

21

Morley and Walker in the Ninth Circuit in 1999 -

09,55,22

22

a printout of it right here -- "an official seeking

O!,SS 28

2]

immunity bO,ars the burden of demonstrating that immuni ty

aSh $5 29

24

attaches to a particular function."

09:55:12

25

segment of this 2007 case where Angela Wetzsteon in

'you 1 ike.
In terms of George Corn as a supervisor or
an administrator function,

the Montana Supreme Court,

ad~inistrative

If he was sitting at his desk right over here

He assigned Ange19
The

There is no civil liability

I'll continue.

The other thing, is as you

However it'S a well-established fact,

in
I have

I haven't seen any

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 9 of 17
B

O.

S$:J8

1

front of a justice of the peace or George corn, wherever

O\):

55:42

2

he was, not in the courtroom, how that is entitled to

09:55:46

3

immunity.

09:55:51

4

the case that says that the prosecutors have the burden

SS;S6

5

of showing both reasonableness,

09 .$6,00

6

that the specific task is entitled to immunity.

09:56:06

7

I'd go ahead and say that George Corn assigning a

09: 56 :10

B

non-bar-licensed, non-supervised student is not a

09;56 12

9

reasonable decision to be made by a prosecutor.

0"t56,16

10

thatls my argument why there isn't immunity -- there'S

O~:

56: 19

11

no immunity assigned to this.

090:56:22

12

o9!56.24

13

none of my claims were intentional -- for intentional

09156: JQ

14

distress have any merit.

09:56:33

15

he was talking about or some evidence he was talking

09:$6;"35

16

about.

09:SG,39

17

Criminal Procedure, otherwise known as discovery,

09:56:44

18

is outside of the Rules of Evidence, and so that's not

'0'9,56:$0

19

something where a counsel can say this was --

55

20

tampered evidence, which is what it was.

09:56159

21

actually altered.

09!57;O2

22

altered my life to where my career with a very

09:57:0'7

23

09:57,12

24

destroyed, and that'S what these lIED cases are all

Q'91S'1~17

25

about, is that emotional distress occurred and .they Were

"

()~,,56:

So I

just stated a case.

I just read from

sir, Your Honor, and
And I

So

Mr. King would like the Court to think that

There's a photo that I

think

If something is given outside of the Rules of

.~ell-established

I

that

call it

It was

Someone scratched their own face.

It

path was purposely and intentionally

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 10 of 17
9

09:57~20

done intentionally.

03:57;24

2

prosecutor, without a license, unsupervised, violating

09':51,2~

3

the act of the Supreme Court would be an intentional

09:~"':31

4

act.

0'9:57;33

5

09::'1:31

6

2008,

09; 05'1; 4 0

7

of speedy trial completely.

09; 57; 4 5

8

only that, if I had a retained attnrney, Sasha Brownlee,

09:57:49

9

in the courtroom for me,

09:57:51

10

sign a Failure to Appear Warrant, and if Angela

09:!'>'7~55

11

wetzsteon were in the courtroom.

09:57.59

12

duty as an officer of the court, and if she's certified

Q9:5B~03

13

by her dean, which she is, for two years of competent

09:58;06

14

legal school, she would know that that is her duty to

09:58;09

15

say, Your Honor,

09:59;13

16

is a misdemeanor trial.

09:58:15

17

this court and in this state that there i6 no crime of

{)$I~5S ;~o

18

failure to appear.

09:58:23

19

So by omission. she's claiming in her Affidavit that she

09;58.;17

20

didn't hear it.

Oi,5S,).

21

exactly what she's saying.

0":5$:33
~

1

I would say that assigning a

22

But if she's in a courtroom and it'S mentioned that

09:58:35

23

we're going to issue a warrant for failure ·to appear. as

0!~.58:J9

24

a court officer, even as an assumed court officer with

09;56:43

25

the certification from her Dean, that means she has the

That's an intentional act.

Like I said before, that case, October 8th,

the appearance was January 5th, so that's outside.

It's a misdemeanor.

Not

there's no need for a judge to

there's no -- she has a

the Defendant may not be here -- this
It's a well-established fact in

There's no need for this warrant.

She didn't see it.

rim not quite sure

She's trying to get out it.

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18111

Page 11 of 17
10

03~$a;q7

1

onerous to uphold the rules of the court, the

09:59:52

2

constitutional rights and the State rights.

09lS8!57

3

09:59:02

4

Michael King is bringing up says it'S only two years for

69159:06

5

false arrest.

09:59:0';9

6

State that it's four years to bring a tort claim in

09:S9t15

7

front of a Court.

09:59:17

8

This was three years ago, 2007, and we're here within

09:$9:20

9

the four-year time limit.

09: S !:h 24

10

requirement I'm not aware of for the two years.

Ol.h59~27

11

for a fact in a federal court I can bring a tort up to

09:59:30

12

four years, and I believe it's the same in this court.

09d)~t35

13

09;5~h37

14

was supervised in the

09:59:39

15

Angela wetzsteon.

09:59:4$

16

just say -­ I'm not going to say I was a teacher, but I

09159:49

17

also was student

09:59:53

18

courtroom.

09:$9;5$

19

no power to do the things that a prosecutor can do, and

10:00.00

20

there's a very important reason to this Student Practice

10:00:03

21

Act.

10:00;1)6

22

clinical instruction when you're standing there alone.

lO:O():O9

23

You're not being watched.

10100:12

24

that's the problem with this case, and this has caused

HhOO:16

25

immeasurable and irreparable damage to my life, to my

I'll finish here.

The tort issue that

It's a well-established fact in this

That's why we're standing here today.

Perhaps there'S some other
I know

The Affidavits neVer said anything that she
co~rtroom.

Itm referring to

If a student is not supervised, I'll

t~aching.

My teacher was in the

I had no power to put people in jail.

It's clinical instruction.

I had

YOu're not getting

YOU're not being checked, and

Case 9: 11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 12 of 17
11

10:00;21

1

future and an unbearable stress to my family.

And this

10:00:28

2

is the reason why the case -- the Complaint was filed.

10:00:34

3

10:00:36

4

right now.

lO;O(),40

5

end with a case where even if immunity is granted, it

lOrOQ:48

6

still doesn't give them immunity from civil liability.

10:00:54

7

Smith on behalf of Smith Butte Silver Bow,

10:00:5$

a

"Prosecutor immunity does not shield a prosecutor from

10,01,00

9

civil liability for all acts or omissions."

10:01:0~

10

other words,

10;01:08

11

there's still civil liability involved.

10:01:11

12

not the end all for this case for a couple of reasons.

10:0L15

13

For this quote right here that they don't end with

10~Ol:20

14

prosecutorial immunity, but also if it gets appealed up

1(1:01:2-4

15

to the Supreme Court, they may send it right back and

10: 01; 1'1

16

say it was incorrect to issue immunity because in

10:01;34

17

Losleben, like I quoted earlier, the administrative

1(hQl:31

18

duties of someone like George Corn saying, Hey, Angela

-l()!Ol:-4iQ

19

go down to Justice Court and prosecute this case,

lQd)ll'l4

20

an administrative duty.

10,01,4$

21

established by the Supreme court in the state that that

lO.Ol:Sl

22

doesn't bring immunity,

lO:Ol;S6

23

10101:$t

24

probable cause, it stops all immunity.

11):Ol.O)

25

and it's well established, it's in the docket.

I don't think we need to argue on the facts
We're talking about immunity.

I'm going to

1994,

So,

in

even if you do find there's immunity,

Also,

This hearing is

that's

And that was already

the last thing is an action that lacks
My attorney
My

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 13 of 17
12

10:02:05

1

attorney, Sasha Brownlee, was bringing the case for

10:02:09

2

justifiable force and a couple other constitutional

10:02;11

3

rights that are irrelevant here.

10,02 ·15

4

there'S probable cause issue where it was justifiable

10; 02: 19

5

force for this situation would totally erase immunity

10 :02:24

6

for the Defendants, George Corn and Angela Wetzsteon.

10 .02:28

7

This is found in American Jurisprudence second Edition

10:02:32

8

in section 102,

10:02:35

9

10:02:31

10

respectfully object to the assigning of immunity to the

10:02:46

11

Defendants.

so

12

Because I feel very strongly, in the research that I've

10;02:S3

13

done in cases involving -­ I couldn't find any with

lO:02;S9

14

students, but especially with respect to Mr. Corn and

10:03:01

15

administrative duties, it's a well-established fact and

10:03:04

16

precedent in the Montana Supreme Court that no immunity

10:03:01

17

is available.

10:03:10

18

Court to enter my objection respectfully because I do

10:03:16

19

not believe, very strongly, immunity is available here

10:03:18

20

to the Defendants.

10:0]:20

21

THE COURT:

lOtQ3:22

22

MR. SPREADBURY:

10:03:22

23

10:03:23

24

10103:25

25

10: 02!

But the fact that

So lastly, Your Honor, I'd like to

"

I'd like that to be in the official record.

So as a plaintiff here, I'm asking the

THE COURT,
MR. KING,

couple points.

Very well.
Thank you.

Mr. King.
Very briefly, Your Honor.

Just a

First of all, I want to address the

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 14 of 17
13

10:0] :3)

1

issue of the Student Practice Rule and the argument by

10:03 ·38

2

Mr.

10;0) :43

3

under the Rule.

10:03:52

4

evidence that refutes any part of Angela Wetzsteon's

10:0):55

5

Affidavit concerning her qualifications under the

]0;04 :00

6

student Practice Rule.

10;04:0)

7

with specific facts that refute her Affidavit and he

10:04 :07

8

simply hasn't done it.

10;04:16

9

is not a

10:04 :20

10

fact,

10:04:2)

11

for the statement that she wasn't authorized under the

10:04 ;25

12

Rule in the first place.

10:04:27

13

10:04 :]"

14

supervising attorney with her during his criminal trial

10:04:38

15

is mistaken.

10:04:44

16

states in Paragraph 2 that, quote,

10:04,49

17

student may also appear in any criminal matter on behalf

10:04:51

18

of the State with the written approval of the

10:04::54

19

supervising lawyer and the prosecuting attorney or his

10:04:58

20

authorized representative.

10:05:02

21

she was authorized by her boss, Mr. Corn, and

10:05:05

22

Mr. Fulbright, her supervising attorney during that

10:0.5:10

23

trial,

10:05:14

24

having supervision appears in Subsection 2(a) of the

10;05:1'9

25

Rule, not Subsection 2(b), which I just quoted.

Spreadbury that Miss Wetzsteon wasn't authorized

Mr. Spreadbury hasn't produced any

Itls his burden to come forward

Saying that she isn't authorized

substitute for presenting facts

wasn't authorized.

that

she,

in

So there's no factual basis

Secondly, the argument that she needed a

The Student Practice Rule very clearly

w

"An eligible law

And there's no dispute that

to appear at that trial.

The requirement for

And

Case 9:11-cv·00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10'18/11

Page 15 of 17
14

10:05:24

1

that has to do with criminal defense attorneys

10:05:28

2

representing defendants who have a legal right to legal

10;05:35

3

counsel,

10~O5:40

4

the presence at a supervising attorney. but not under

.i.O:OS;42

5

Subsection (b). which is the subsection of the rule

:;'0:05:45­

6

pursuant to which Miss Wetzsteon appeared at

10;05:46

7

Mr. Spreadbury's criminal trial.

10:05;51

B

lO;05:SS

9

lO:()5:59

10

immunity because he's an administrative attorney or

10;06;02

II

supervising attorney, that argument was done away with

10 :(16 :05

12

by the u.s. Supreme Court in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein,

10:06:10

13

which I cite on page 5 of the Reply Brief in Support of

lO~O6:1l

14

Summary Judgment.

10:06.22

15

legal research he purports to have done, hasn't provided

10:06~24

16

this Court with any legal authorities to the contrary.

10:06;29

17

10;06132

19

apparently.

10::06,)8

19

he has failed to do, and it's his burden to do, if he

10:06:42

20

thinks that is an issue in this case, is to present

lO;O(i~44

21

evidence that the two people he sued, George Corn and

lO~O6~47

22

Angela Wetzsteon, had something to do with any such

lO;O~;50

23

alteration, and he hasn't proftuced any such evidence to

1O;O.f;:S3

24

this Court in that regard.

10:06~S7

25

Under those circumstances, the Rule requires

With respect to Mr. Spreadbury'a argument

that George Corn isn't entitled to prosecutorial

And Mr. Spreadbury, despite all the

Mr. Spreadbury takes issue with a phot'ograph
He claims it was altered by somebody.

What

Finally, I've been practicing in the Tort

Case 9:11-cv-00064-0WM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 16 of 17
IS

10:0'1 ;0'1

1

claims Division for the State of Montana for almost

10:07; 10

2

15 years now. and it's the first I've ever heard that a

10:007 .14

3

four-year statute of limitations applies to torts.

10:07;17

4

Court is well aware there's a three-year general statute

~20

5

of limitations for tort claims.

10:07:25

6

arrest claim, thece's a two-year statute.

10,07:27

7

what legal authorities Mr. Spreadbury is relying on to

10:07;)0

8

the contrary, but I do know this,

10; 07.34

9

any to this Court.

10:07:38

10

judgment, and on behalf of George Corn and Angela

11):07;41

11

Wetzsteon, I would request respectfully that the Court

10:07:44

12

do so.

lO:07:46­

13

10.07:48

~4

10:01

15

This

In the case of a false
I don't know

He hasn't presented

So this Court should grant summary

Thank you.
THS COURT,

submitted.

Very well, the matter is deemed

The Court will issue a written ruling.
(proceedings concluded.)

16

17

IS
19

20

n
22
23
24
25

,

,

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-4

Filed 10/18/11

Page 17 of 17
11l

C E R T I F I C.A T. E

1
2
3

STATE Of MONTANA
COUNTY Of RAVALLI

)

)
)

S5.

5
6

1, Tamara Stuckey, Official Court Reporter for
the State of Montana, do hereby certify:

7

a
9
10
11

12

That I was duly authorized to and did report the
proceedings in the above-entitled cause;
That the foregoing pages of this transcript

constitute a true and accurate LranscripLion of my

stenotype notes.

I further certify that I am not an aLtorney, nor
co·unsel of any of the parties, nor a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the
action, nor financially interested in the action.

13
14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
on this 19th day of September, 2011.

15
16

17
18

Official Court Reporter
$,ate of Montana
Twenty-first Judicial District

19

20

21
22

.'
24
25

Case 9:11-cv-0006<bDWM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10118111_ Page 2 of 11
1

•

1

MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRlcT

2

RAVALLI COUNTY

3

4

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

Plaintlff,
Cause No.

vs.

6

7

DV-IO-223

KENNETH S. BELL,

8

Defendant.

9

Taken at the Ravalli County Courtho se
205 Bedford Street, Hamilton, Montana
Friday, August 6, 2010

lO
11

•

12

13

The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton Presiding.

,

14
~§CRl~T

15

OF PROCEEDINGS

16
17

APPEARANCES;

1B

Plaintiff, Michael E. Spreadbury, appearing pro 5e.

19
20

For the Defendant:

21

NATASHA PRINZING JONES
Boone Karlberg P.C.
201 West Main Street, Slice 300
Missoula, MT 59802

22

23

.'

24

•

25
~----------------

Tammy Stuckey ** 375-67a3-----t------____~

PLA 2.2\5

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124.5

Filed 10/18/11

Page 3 of 11
2

e

1O : 01 :.t6

1

10;07;46

2

[0:01:46

3

11):07;S2

4

10::)7: 501

5

counsel.

10,08,11

6

Jones is here on behalf of Mr. 8ell, and Mr. Spreadbury

13

7

again pro se.

10,08,11

8

such a motion, while argument is not required the way it

lO~OS;21

9

is required on summary jUdgment motion,

10:09:27

10

appropriate in this case to hear legal argument.

10,011,30

11

follow the same format as

10,oa:33

12

movinq party goes first,

.0;00:31

13

middle and the movinq party with the burden closes.

10,08,'0

14

Miss Jones.

10:0Il: 41

15

10: 08:43

16

be brief.

Hl:Q8:.4t.

17

add to the briefinq on this issue.

lO:O8!49

18

highlight this:

lO!OS:S2

19

we are bound to the record.

10:08:55

20

Court with the authority tnat allows the Court to take

10,011:59

21

judicial notice of related proceedings.

~O:09tOl

22

Hh(f9:04

23

related proceedings, of course, are the criminal cases
"
involving the same personf Mr. Spreadbury.
And so this

lO:C9;09

24

1s relevant because Mr.

.10:09:13

25

what Mr. -­ City Attorney Bell's role in the protective

lo~oa:

fRIDA,(,

THE COURT:

AUGUST 6,

Very well,

2011

the matter is deemed

The Court will issue a written ruling.

submitted.

There's a second case involving different
That's Spreadbury v. Bell, DV-IO-223.

This is a 12tb) (6) motion on dismissal on

MS.
I

Miss

JON~S:

~e

I

felt it

We'll

Just utilized; again, the

the party opposing is in the

Thank you, '(our Honor.

And I'll

don't think that there's much that I can
I

would simply

That this is a motion to dismiss and so
However,

I

provided the

And those

Spreadbury has tried to view

~----------------- Tammy Stuckey •• 375-67a3------------------~

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 11__
3

Vacuu~.

.1~'O~'18

1

order hearing was in Q

10;09:22

2

course,

~O;09:25

3

motion to dismiss, of the related proceedings so that we

And the Court, of

can take judicial notice,

have context for his role there.

10:09:28

in the context of a

And it becomes clear

10;09:31

5

that his role there was related to the criminal

IG:09~33

6

proceedings because Nansu Roddy, who was moving for the

10:D9:37

7

protective order at that time, was also a key witness in

1(1:09:40

8

a criminal matter,

lO,~9,O

9

victim of a crime that Was under investigation with the

IQ,09:45

10

assistance of City Attorney Bell •. and that is the felony

10;09;4'1

11

intimidation charge that Was subsequently filed against

10:09:51

12

Mr. Spreadbury for the exact conduct that was at issue

.0:09:55

13

in the order of protection hearing.

to :(I>;.k 59

14

reasons, of course, it was absolutely appropriate for

10; 10; OJ

15

City Attorney Bell to participate in that hearing.

10:10:06

16

indeed, Mr.

:J9

17

public defender whO had been assigned to him in the

10:10:13

18

criminal trespass case.

H): 10: 16

19

10:10:22

20

applies.

10:10:4'4

21

immunity, as that's been the issue of multiple legal

10; 10;)0

22

briefs by Mr. Spreadbury and myself, as well as in

10:10:3)

23

related

10:10:36

24

anything to that.

.0:10::31

25

10:10~

the criminal trespass case, and the

And for those

And

spreadbury himself was represented by his

Then, of course,

it is that immunity

And with that I'll leave it to the briefs on

case~

on that issue,

THE COURT,

50

I don't think I can add

Thank you.

Tammy Stuckey **

Mr. Spreadbury_

37S-67a3----------------~

Filed 10f18f1l

Case 9:11-cv-OD064-DWM -JCL Document 124-5

Page 5 of 11
4

e

10 ,10,J9

1

MR. SPREAOBURY:

lO:11};46

2

you.

10,10,50

3

comments.

4

acting within his authority and there's all these

If it pleases the Court,

I

Thank

just have a few

We can say all we want to that Ken Bell was

crlminal charges.

IG:1C:5S

Yes, Your Honor.

Well, if you think that sitting on a

10;1;';02

6

public park owned by the City of Hamilton in a public

10:11,06

7

place with,

10:11:10

8

freedom of access, definitely freedom of assembly,

10:11:15

9

is in both constitutions of the flags on either side of

10:\1,18

10

you, and if you think asking a librarian for help is a

IO'll:22

11

felony,

10,11,2\

12

matter.

I

then,

don't know what you'd call it,

whiCh

you know, let's talk about the criminal

In fact,

.0::J:26 13

liberty,

Ken Bell was in a civil proceeding

1O:1):Z9"

14

like we are right now and there was no criminal stuff

lO.1l:3:.s

15

going on.

l/): 11; n

16

very clear in MeA 7-4-4604, which are the duties of a

10011:45

17

city attorney.

IG!ll:~O

18

my pleadings, Your Honor, none of them listed include

10:lL~6

19

representing an employee who is not a city employee or

10:12,00

20

even entering a civil courtroom like we're here right

10,1.:01

21

now.

10: 12d)8

22

to prosecutor for the city, to draft ordinances for the

10,12,12

23

10:t2~11

24

counCil, upon a vote, deems the city attorney should do_

.0,'2,20

25

And I might be missing one there, but it's definitely

I hate to use the word ·stuff,"

But it's

•

y,

~

None of them listed, and I have that in

None of those duties.

They are -- the duties are

and do whatever other services that the City

________________ Tammy Stuckey Ow

375-67B3------~--------~

PL'f\ 2:)\

Case9:11-cv-00064-DWM-JCL Document124-5

Filed10/18/11

Page6of11
5

.'0,11, 11

1

J (): 12: 2'

2

iO::2:29

3

interest that Mr. 8ell engaged in.

10;12;16

4

courtroom, as I was being arraigned, as a stand-in

j{};j2:40

5

prosecutor on November

lO;12:4t

6

courtroom,

10:12,52

7

aforementioned civil hearing on behalf of Nansu Roddy,

12!56

6

which she is not a city employee.

10: 13:00

9

the Bitterroot Public Library, which is an independent

10:IJ,O)

10

library district who gees funding from the City,

10; 13;05

11

however,

10;1):10

12

So he prosecuted one party ten days prior, and then carne

.0:1):14

13

in to,

10:J),20

14

non-city business on November 20th, 2009, in

10<1):25

15

Court in Hamilton.

10,13:)0

16

me -­ oh, and then we have the sitting on the library

10'; 13; 36

17

lawn prosecution.

1£)-: 13:38

18

in Novembez:.

'0: I): 41

19

the prosecutor on that case.

10:13:4.3

20

February 18, 2010.

10:14:02

21

I'm going to move on.

10;14~O2

22

'!,O:14:02

23

if you act outside of the duties, that's one of the

10;14:02

24

requirements for emotional distress is to be outrageous.

25

It's outrageous for Ken Bell to be in a civil courtroom

](1:

.10;U:02"

not being in a civil courtroom.
I'm gOIng to go on to the conflict of

10~h

He sat in a criminal

1n Justice Clute's

and then on November 20th he was in this

She is an employee of

she is not an employee of the City of Hamilton_

[ guess you'd call it defended or represented

I

Municip~l

Just as a layman, that appears to

believe there was a date sometime

I

can't quite remember, but he was also
The trial,

I

know,

was

November -­ it doesn't matter,

so

So Ken Bell acted outside of the duties, so

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

Tammy Stuckey ••

315-6183----------------~

\1.-1\

'l "?:>2..

Case 9: 11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Documen1124-5

Filed 10/18/11

Page 7 of 11
6

.lO:14'O~

1

as a city attorney without including any city business.

to:14:11

2

So that's one of ehe requirements for emotional distress

lO:1~:t5

3

Cd se 5 •

10: 1Il:1'3

4

interest.

10,14:1'1

5

lO:l~:25

6

prosecutors have no immunity in civil courtrooms.

10:14:29

7

Mr. Corn is sitting right here.

10::U~12

8

this civil courtroom.

lO:14:3S

'l

County.

10:14:40

10

else, that could be used as defamation.

10:14:4)

11

used as misrepresentation.

14; 41'

12

deputies could say, which they have,

.O:14!!>1

13

anybody else but Mike Spreadbury, we would have dropped

10~14t~S

14

this case.

LO:l.:-~8

15

only have qualified immunity,

10: lS:0!

16

certain stages of immunity.

H.l;:~;06

17

there's no immunity.

lO~l":O'"

18

well-established fact and observed,

10: 1:>: II

19

courtroom,

10:1~:J1

20

IO:l~,19

21

that there is a burden of proof.

lO!l5:24

22

getting from the defense counsel that, it's just in heF

lO:!S:26

23

pleadings, that there is immunity.

10:1;:)•

24

burden there.

10:15:31

25

in a civil courtroom, here's how he has immu~ity right

lil~

•

I've already talked about the conflict of

It's a well-established fact thae

He has no immunity in

He's the prosecutor for Ravalli

If he were to say something to me or anything
That could be

You know, one of his

if this were

So when they say something like that,

no

if anything.

they

So there's

And in a civil courtroom,

So Ken Bell, it's a
in a civil

immunity~

The other thing I'll get into is the fact
And respectfully,

I'm

I don't see any

I don't see any proof that, okay, he was

Tammy Stuckey

**

375-6783----~--------____~

Case 9:11-cv-00064-0WM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10/18111 Page 8 of 11
7

If he's

o~tside

of his duties

1

there in that courcroom.

10:15:44

2

and heis also in a civil courtroom, he!s lost in space,

HI! 15:4'3

3

Your Honor.

10:1:;;$5

4

10,15,58

5

Bow. 1994, "Prosecutorial immunity does not shield

10=16~Ol

6

prosecutor from civil liability for all facts! or

10.

t5~04:

7

omissions."

la~16:0e

B

standing on public property.

10:16:12

9

to charge me with trespassing today.

10;16:14

10

would be another year of fun.

l(h16:1!1

11

there's no probable cause,

10:16;22

12

stops.

. •0:16:26

13

And in a situation where Bell is in a

10:16,3'

14

November 20th hearing for an order of protection,

10:16:39

15

is an argument that could be made that there's no

10: 16:41

16

probable cause for that because there is already

10;J.6:45

17

indiscrepancies

10,16,$2

IS

detention of Nanau Roddy, what she made with Ithe police

10,10,5,

19

and what she did with -- sworn to a judge.

lO:l1~Ol

20

lot of things going on here where there's some

10,11:02

21

improprieties.

10=17:06

22

misconduct of Mr.

. 1 0 '15'41

He has no immunity.

Again,

Smith on behalf of Smith Butte-Silver:

Definitely with probable cause here -- I'm
Maybe Mr. Bell

~ould

like

1 don't: know.

I don't know.

But if

immunity stops dead.

(sic) with the testimony of

It

Just

there

~he

~o

there's a

I've already asked for official
Bell to this Court.

don't get an

I
"

10:11:12

23

answer.

I have in the docket because 1 believe it

10:11:14

24

happened.

.O~17r15

25

I ' l l kind of end with the fact that there is

~----------------Tamrny Stuckey

** 37S-6783-----------------J

flf\ 2?:J+

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10/18/11

Page 9 of 11
B

. 1 0 : 1 -1 ,17

1

no criminal case involved here.

10:17:21

2

a civil proceeding.

3

advised by my counsel, who had just showed up at that

!

I

was not allowed to Sperk.

time that he wasn't prepared.

10: 11:29

November 20th, 2009 was

was

We have another criminal

5

case involving this same incident.

6

to speak to the fact that there waS no danger involved.

7

There was no danger at all.

]7: ••

s

case.

to: 1'1: 50

9

you're sitting peacefully and it's open access to the

:'= 53

10

public.

lO:l"':~S

11

probably the easiest deCision to make because Ken Bell

lO:IS:O'

12

was in a civil courtroom.

.10:18:07

13

prosecutors, Your Honor, in a civil courtrOom.

10:1e:o~

14

doesn't get any clearer than that.

10: 16;13

15

respect the court and I hope we move forward

lOd6:16

16

case.

10:ISd6

17

10:18:19

16

assigned,

10:18:2t

19

this because I feel strongly that the immunity is

10:1$:26

20

something that isn't assigned in a civil courtroom and

10: 16:29

21

it should be established in this court.

lOd/h)l

22

for your time.

10: 1":J2

to:

lO;

10:16:l3

24

.10:16:35

25

So this wasn't a criminal

Trespassiog is not a crime on public PFoperty if

And I'll just end with the fact that this is

I

There's no immunity to
It

And I'd It'ke to
ith this

If there is immunity assigned or dismissal

23

10:18:34

So I wasnft allowed

I'm going to ask the higher court

t~ lOOk at

And t thank you

I

THE COURT:

Very well, Hiss Jones, you

MS. JONES:

I've already briefed the scope

may~

conclude.

~---------------- Tammy Stuckey •• 375-6783------~---------J

I

ft1\ 23C;;

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10/18/11 Page 10 of 11
9

.10:18:41

1

of the duties of the city attorney, which includes

1():~8:H

2

appearances in civil matters.

:0: 18;0

3

immunity or the duties of a prosecutor to

10:H1:50

4

criminal matters.

10'lB,53

:;

that.

lO:19:()O

6

party for the protective order was the victim of a crime

10:19:01

7

and was a key witness in another crime,

1~;O7

8

clearly related to city business.

10;19;12

9

true his allegation that she wasn't a city em loyee.

10,19; 15

10

can take all of his allegations as true.

10:19:17

11

remains that given judicial notice of related:

In: 19:21

12

proceedings,

10,

There is no limitation on
pur~ly

There is no case or statutt that says

This was a city busIness case because

he moving

and s

it was

And we Can cake it as
We

The!fact
!

that Mr, Bell was acting in his scope as

.O:l~:U 13

city attorney; that he was entitled to -

is entitled to

)0:19:2B

14

immunity for his actions in that regard,

Thank you.

10,19,31

IS

1~:

16

10:

33

17

THE COURT:

The matter is deemed submitted.

The Court will issue a wLitten ruling in that matter.
(Proceedings concluded.)

18

19
20
21

22

,

23

'.

"

24
25
Tammy Stuckey

**

375-6793----______________

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-5

Filed 10/18/11 Page 11 of 11

10

•

C E R

1

7

I F I CAT E

2

3

STATE

or

MONTANA

ss.

COUNTY OF RAVALLI

6

I, Tamara Stuckey, Offic:al Court
do hereby certify:

the State of Montar.a,

Repo~ter

7

8

9

10
11

•

12

for

~

That I was duly authorized to and did teport the
proceedings in the above-entitled cause;
That the foregoing pages of this trans9ript
constitute a true and accurate transcription
f my
stenotype notes.
I further certify that 1 am not an att
counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative
employee of any attorney or counsel connected
action, nor financially interested in the act

rney, nor

Or
with the
on .

13

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
14

on this 2nd day of September, 2011.

15
16
17
18

19

~ara Stuckey
Official Court

-­
Reporter
State of Montana
T~enty-First JUdicial Distric

t

20
21

I

22
23

•

24
25
Tammy Stuckey *. 375-6793-------------------­

..

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-6

Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 6
1

•

1

MONTANA TWeNTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DJSTRICT

2

RAVALLI COUNTY

3

4

MICHAEL 1':. SPREADBIlRY,

Plaintiff,

5
6

7

Cause No. DV-IO-224

vs.

NAtlSU RODDY,

a

Defendant.

9

10

11

•

Taken at the Ravalli County Courthouse
205 Bedford Street, Hamilton, Montana
friday, August 6, 2010

12
13

The Honorable John W. Larson Presiding.

14

15

TRANSCRIPT

or PROCEEDINGS

16
17

APPEARANCES;

18

Plaintiff, MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY. appearing pro sa.

20

For the OefEondant:

21

22

NATASHA FRINZING JONES
Boone Karlberg P.C.
201 west Main Street, Suite 300
Missoula. MT 59802

.•

23
24
•

25

Tammy Stuckey, RfR

**

375-6783

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-6

Filed 10/18/11 Page 3 of 6
2

•

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6,

1

THE COURT:

2

2011

There was,

I believe, another

3

case where 1 indicated there would be some opportunity

4

to diSCUSS scheduling, the Spreadbury v. Roddy case,

5

DV-IO-224.

6

Scheduling Order.

We don't have a scheduling -- we do have a

7

MS. JONES;

Your Honor,

a

today a Proposed Scheduling Order.

9

Hr. Spreadbury.

I brought with me
I presented that to

We have agreed to the deadlines.

We

10
11

•

have not set forth a date for a settlement master.
would ask the Court's permission to consult by the

12

deadline, which is in December, and then add that

13

information later.

14

THE COURT:

We

That's agreeable to you,

15

Mr. Spreadbury, to WOrk out the date and time for a

16

settlement master by the deadline in December?
MR. SPREADBURY:

Yes, Your Honor.

I did

16
19

is something we need to work out.

20

the September 3rd might be a little bit early for me.

21

originally thought everything

22

like to get everything accomplished within six months,

23

•

speak with Ms. Jones and 1 do feel the settlement time

and it

24

doinQ that,

25

February something.

appe~rs

I'm noticing now that

wo~ld

be fine.

I

1 would

that that -- this would be very close to

bu~

then the last date that I saw was
Here it is,

Tammy Stuckey, RPR

February 11th.

.*

375-6183

I would

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-6

Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 6
3

•

1

ask that the September date be moved back by a week, to

2

September 10th.

3

THE COURT:

Any objection Ms. Jones?

4

MS. JONES:

No objection.

5

TKE COURT:

So I'll interlineate three and

6

putting in ten.

7

MR. SPREADBURY:

a

TH8 COURT:

9

and a I10w you,

Yes, sir.

So I'll order that at this time

then, up unti 1 the Oecembe r da te

10

11

settlement conferences with the settlement masters

12

because their schedules are just like everyone else's

13

and the more lead time they have, the more flexibility

14

there is.

15

isn't quite available within that time frame,

16

regularly amended Orders to meet the scheduling issues

17

that the settlement master might have.

18

always a little flexibility built in, and just as you

19

did today, Mr. Spreadbury, if you have an issue,

20

certainly try to work i t out with opposing counsel.

21

•

hopefully -- I mean, you do need to schedule these

you can't, then you need to file

And certainly,

if your settlement master

22

23

•

MR. SPREAOSORY:
THE COURT:

II

So there's

If

written motion.

Thank you,

Thank you.

I

So I

Your Honor.
think we have

24

har.dled all matters this morning that we were going to

25

handle,

and t've handled other matters in chambers.
Tammy Stuckey, RPR

*- 375-6783

We

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-6

•

1
2

Filed 10/18111

are adjourned.

(Proceedings concluded_)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

•

13

14
15
16

17

18
19
20

21
22
23

24
•

2S

Tammy Stuckey, RPR •• 375-6783

- - - _..........................

_

.... _

..

Page 5 of 6

Case 9:11-cv-00064-DWM -JCL Document 124-6

Filed 10/18/11 Page 6 of 6
5

•

C E R T I F I CAT E

1

2
3

STATE OF MONTANA

4

COUNTY OF RAVALLI

6

I, Tamara Stuckey, Official Court Reporter for
the State of Montana, do hereby certify:

55.

7

8
9
10
11

•

12

That I was duly a~thorized to and did report the
proceedings in the above-entitled cause;
That the foregoing pages of this transcript
constitute a true and accurate transcription of my
stenotype notes.
I further certify that I am not an attorney. nor
counsel of any of the parties. nor a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the
action, nor financially interested in the action.

13

14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
on this 19th day of September, 2011.

15

16
17
18

19

... io~
Tamara Stuckey

Jtuckl.,rt

Official Court Reporter
State of Montana
Twenty-First JUdicial District

20

21
22

23

•

24

25
Tammy Stuckey,

~PR

•• 375-6783

•
1

Peo Per

2

Michael E. Spreadbury

3

700 South Fourth St.

4

Hamilton, MT 59840

5

•

Tel. [phone]

F I LED
OEBBIE HARMON CLERK

MAY 07 2010

c--ua ' 'e? eel" , ...
DEPUTY

6

MONTANA 21 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

7

RAVALLI COUNTY

8
9

10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

v.
KENNETHS.BELL
Defendant

<+­

)
)

Cause No:DV-IO-223 /

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

)

Cause of action:
This case is for eelieffor the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Factual Background:
Plaintiff, acting on his own behalf, pleads and alleges as follows:

19
20

I. Plaintiff Michael Speeadbury is an individual and resides at 700 South 4th Street in the
City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State ofMonlana.

21
22

2. Defendant Kenneth S. Bell is an individual and is employed at 210 South 3lh Steeet, in the
City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana.

23
24
25
26
27

3. On or about November 20,2009, Plaintiff was in court for a civil order of protection
hearing (CV-2009-168) in Hamilton, MT. The appearance of Defendant Kenneth S. Bell
at this hearing was not part of his duties as City Attorney. Defendant Bell was allowed
by the court to examine the witness. Defendant Bell proceeded in leading the witness
through gestures, to give false testimony on the interaction between Plaintiff and
1

i

q

J

•

•

30

Petitioner which occurred Nov 4 2009. The false infonnation iIIicited by Defendant Bell
put Plaintiff in unnecessary jeopardy. Defendant Bell actions defamed Plaintiff without
due cause, or in good faith.

31
32
33

4. Based upon Defendant bome infonnation in the civil bearing, Plaintiff continues to be in
undue future harm by Defendant's actions for four (4) years by order of protection
infonnation.

34
35
36
37
38

5. Tbe acts of the Defendant described in paragraph 3and 4 of this Amended Complaint
were done willfully, maliciously, outrageously, deliberately, and purposely with the
intention to inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiffand were done in reckless disregard
oftbe probability of causing Plaintiff emotional distress, and these acts did in fact result
in severe and extreme emotional distress.

39
40
41
42
43
44

6. .As a direct and proximate result ofthe Defendant's acts alleges herein, Plaintiffwas
caused to incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering. flight, anguish,
shock, nervousness, and anxiety. Plaintiff continues to be fearful, anxious, and nervous
specifically but not exclusively regarding the future possibility of wrongful arrest and
prosecution. For this harm, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of
$250,000.00

45
46
47
48
49

7. As a proximate result of the Defendant's actions alleged herein. Plaintiff has bad his
capacity to pUISue an established eour.;e of life destroyed by the Defendant. Plaintiff has
suffered pennanent damage to lifestyle and professional life as a result of Defendant
activity described in paragraph 3 through 5. Severe emotional distress bas inflicted
Plaintiff as a result.

28
29

50

51
52

53
54

8. This severe emotional distress was reasonable and foreseeable consequence of actions by
Defendant on November 20, 2009. Defendant did not take reasonable care to avoid
pennanent damage 10 Plaintiff's person, or defamation to Plaintiff. Defense actions on tbis
date were outrageous. Defendant Bell acted as Hamilton City Attomey for non city business
or city interest in a city court against Plaintiff. Defense actions were deliberate.

55

9. Plaintiff respectfully asks the court for a jury trial to resolve this matter.

56

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael E. Spresdbury prays for judgment against Defendant Kenneth
S. Bell as follows:

57
58

I. Compensatory Damages in the amount 0($ 250,000.00

S9

2. Punitive Damages in the amount of$25,000.OO

60

3. Costs associated with the suit and such otberreliefas the Court deems proper.
2

•

•

61

62
63

64

Michael E. Spreadbury. Pro Se Plaintiff Attorney

3

•
1

•
FI LED

Pro Per

D~BBIE

2

Michael E. Spreadbury

3

700 South Fourth St.

4

MAY 07 2010

=0

Q

U

,)

(f

\

at.

Tel. (406) 363,3877

6

MONTANA 21 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

7

RAVALLI COUNTY

8
9

/<r

MICHAELE.SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)
)

Cause No: DV-10-222

11
12

v.

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

ANGELA B.WETZSTEON

}

14

GEORGE H. CORN

)

15

Defendants

)

10

16

17
18

19

This case is for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Factual Background
Plaintiff, acting on his own behalf, pleads and alleges as follows:

21

I. Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury is an individual and resides at 700 Soutb 4'h Street in the
City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana.

22
23

2. Defendants Angela Wetzsteon and George Com are individuals with business address of
205 Bedford St. Suite C in the City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana.

24

3. On or about August 8, 2007 Defendants Wetzsteon and Com obtained an arrest warrant
from Judge Bailey of Justice Court of Ravalli County for Plaintiff's failure to appear on
TK 2006-3068. Plaintiff appeared through retained attorney for misdemeanor in Justice
Court, Ravalli County on this date. It is a well established appearance in misdemeanor

20

2S

26
27

1

Ito ,;,..

OEPUTY

Hamilton, MT 59840

S

HARMON. CLERK

0

•

•

28
29
30

court that a defendant can appear though an attorney as it is established in Montana Code
as MCA 46-16-122. It should be a well known practice for officiating Judge and a
practicing attorney in a Montana CourtrOom.

31
32
33
34
35
36
37

4. Defendant Wetzsteon was a law student, however, Wetzsteon as a paid student intern at
The Ravalli County Attorney Office (RCAO) and bad a duty to be aware of Montana
Code and practices, as did George H. Com. Wetzsteon was notliceosed to practice law
in August 2007. By way of respondeat superior, George H. Com is accountable for
Defendant Wetzsteon in an administrative and supervisory capacity. Wetzsteon appeared
at plaintiff trial on behalf of the RCAO on August 8, 2007 when arrest warrant was
obtained.

38
39
40
41
42

5. Defendant Wetzsteon asked Judge Bailey of Ravalli Justice Court to grant evidence
outside of discovery for Plaintiff's August 8, 2007 trial. This evidence was contrived,
and intended to convict Plaintiff outside rules of criminal procedure. An officer orthe
court, or a representative orthe court as with the ease of Defendant Wetzsteon should
know the rules of the court, and the bounds of discovery in II Montana Courtroom.

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

6. Prosecutors George H. Corn, Bill Fullbright, and T. Geoff Mahar originally participated

S2

53
54
55
56

7. From August 8, 2007 to May 5, 2010 the Ravalli County Attomey office did misrepresent
Ibe correct spelling of Defendant Angela Wetzsteon's name, in an effurt to misrepresent
information to the PlaintitT in this case, and hide the identity of a public court officer in
the State of Montana. This misrepresentation of the Defendants identity does show
evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Ravalli County Attorney Office.

57
58
59
60
61

8. The acts ofthe Defendants described in paragraph 3 through 7 of this Complaint were
done willfully, maliciously, outrageously, deliberately, and purposely with the intention
to inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff and were done in reckless disregard ofthc
probability of causing Plaintiff emotional distress, and these acts did in fact result in
severe and extreme emotional distress.

62
63

9. As a direct and proximate result oflbe Defendant's acts alleged herein, Plaintiff was
caused to incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, fright, anguish,
2

in the prosecution of Plaintiff for TK-2006-3068. In Fulbright's motion to continue of
July 30,2007 he mentions Plaintiffs speedy trial would be violated, yet asked for a
continuance. Com's motion to reconsider of the same date would place Defendant Corn
as knowing that Plaintiffs right would be violated. Original date oftrial was July 31,
2007 and RCAO eontinued trail for only 8 days knowing Defendant would be out of
state, setting up the platform for the false arrest warranl Com assigued, or knew of the
assigument of Angela Wettsteon as representative from the Ravalli County Attorney
office acting as "State's attorney'" yet a student intem at Plaintiff trial on August 8, 2007.

."
64
65
66

67
68
69
70

71
72

73
74

75
76
77

78

79

•

•

•

shock, nervousness, and anxiety. Plaintiff continues to be fearful, anxious, and nervous,
specifically but not exclusively regarding the future possibility ofwrongfuJ arrest and
prosecution. For this hann, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of
$350,000.00

10. As a proximate result of the Defendant's actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has had his
capacity to pursue an established course oflife destroyed by Defendants. Plaintiff has
suffered permanent damage to lifestyle and professional life as a resull of Defendant
activity described in paragraph 3 through 5, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress
has inflicted as a result
II. This severe emotional distress was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions by
Defendants on or about August 8, 2007. Defendants did not take reasonable care to avoid
wrongful arrest ofPlaintifi', and appeared to bave contrived the arrest of the Plaintiff
giving no conscience to their duties as officers of the court, or in the case of Defendant
Wetzsteon acting agent of the court Warrant from Judge Bailey from court on August 8,

2007 cited Title 3 in Montana Codc which is not a crime, and Plaintiff appeared through
retained attorney on August 8, 2007 in Ravalli Justice Court.

81

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury prays for judgment against Defendants
Angela Wetzsteon, and George H. Corn as follows:

82

1. Compensatory Damages in tbe amount of $ 350,000.00

83

2. Punitive Damages in the amount of $50,000.00

84

3. Preventative relief through the court in tbe fonn of injunctive relief:

80

85
86
87

88
89

Defendants are to cease and desist malicious attack on Plaintiff's person to the
satisfaction of the Honorable Court. Plaintiff is entitled to equal protection and due
process in the courts, and as II citizen. The malicious destruction of Plaintiff by
Defendants is recognized by the Court, and it will intervene on behalf ofPlaintiff.
4. Costs associated with the suit and sucb other relief as the Court deems proper.

90
91

Respectfu1ly submitted on this '7

-A

92

93

94

Michael E, Spreadbury,Pro Se Plaintiff Attorney
3

•

•
•
1

•

ProPer

FILED
2

Michael E. Spreadbury

"

700 South Fourth St.

4

DEBBIE HARMON. CLERK

Hamilton, MT 59840

S

6

MONTANA 21 ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

7

RAVALLI COUNTY

8

--..----------------.------------...------.-.-.--------------------..---------.-.....................--------..-----­

9

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

)

10

Plaintiff
v.

)

12

NANSURODDY

"I­

)

11

CauseNo:DV·lo..224 /

)

13

14
15
16

17

Defendant

AMENDED COMPLAINT

)

Cause of Action:

This case involves relief for intentional infliction ofemotional distress.

Factual Baekground:

Plaintiff, acting on his own behalf, pleads and alleges as follows:

18
19

I. Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury is an individual and resides at 700 South 4th Street in the

City of Hamilton, County ofRavalli, State ofMontana.

20
21

2. Defendant Nansu Roddy is an individual and resides at 419 South 4111 Street, is employed
at 306 State Street in the City ofHamilton, County of Ravalli, State ofMontana.

22
23

3. On or about November 4, 2009 Defendant Nansu Roddy gave false information to a
police officer and a Municipal Judge regarding II civil conversation with the Plaintiff at
306 State Street, City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana November 4,
2009. Defendant did intentionally distort the known facts, and dangers present to the
Defendant on this date. False infoMation from the Defendant has placed Plaintiff in
undue jeopardy.

24

2S
26
27

1

•

•

28
29

4. Defendant told Plaintifftbat she "thought she knew how to help him", and intentionally
distorted facts, protected speech, and situation to put Plaintiff in undue jeopardy.

30

5. The acts oftbe Defendant described in Paragraph 3and 4 oftbis Amended Complaint
were done willfully, maliciously, outrageously, deliberately, and purposely with tbe
intention to inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff and were done in reckless disregard
oftbe probability ofcausing Plaintiff emotional distress, and these acts did in fact result
in severe and extreme emotional distress.

31

32
33
34
35
36
37

38
39
40
41

42
43
44
45
46
47

48
49
50

6. As a direct and proximate result oftbe Defendant's acts alleged herein, Plaintiff was
caused to incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, Jiight, anguish,
shock, nervousness, and anxiety. Plaintiff continues to be fearful, anxious, and nervous
specifically by not exclusively regarding the future possibility of wrongful arrest and
prosecution. For this harm, Plaintiff requests compensatory damages in the amount of
$500,000.00
7. As a proximate result of the Defendant's actions alleged herein, Plaintiff has had his
capacity to pursue an established course of life destroyed by the Defendant. Plaintiff has
suffered permanent damage to lifestyle and professional life as a result of Defendant
activity described in Paragrapbs 3 and 4. Severe emotional distress has inflicted Plaintiff
as a result.
8. This severe emotional distress was reasonable and foreseeable consequence of actions by
Defendant on or about November 4, 2009. Defendant did not take reasonable care to
avoid arrest and defamation of Plaintiff. Plaintiff used status as former spouse afState
Judge to intentionally inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff.

51

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Micbael E. Spreadbury prays for judgment against Defendant
Nansu Roddy as follows:

52

I. Compensatory Damages in the amount of $ 500,000,00

53

2. Punitive Damages in the amount of$35,000.00

54

3. Costs associated with the suit and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

5S

Respectfully submitted on this

l

day of May, 2010

56
57
58

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff Attorney
2

I
I
I

FORM lA-Summer. Pro.isional

Under the Montana Student Practice Rule,

(;

COfYl

&.~'6. L»eb..--fm
~ame

~

wlI

IL

I
I
I

0
-l,....u::~~/-L:::::::.~:....::.-_ _ "fOV-::> ~.sl S,UtTI.__L-

I

DEAN'S CERTIFICATION
OF STUDENT'S MORAL CHARACTER AND LEGAL

COMPETENCE ­

J/v-r7> • ..Jf' _ £
_

1

'.1",/

Supervising A.ttorney 's mailing (ld~'ress

.~?

I

n;w" cue
city

.

,!"

2""

zip

.

SUBJECT TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF

SPRING SEMESTER COURSES

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, -f\r\Jft'lo 5, \.i'eiz:.s-te00
is duly enrolled in the University of Montana School of Law, which is approved
by the American Bar Association; has completed legal studies amounting to at
least two-thirds (2/3) of the total credit hours required for graduation (or is within
five credit hours ofmeeting this requirement) subject to successful completion of
all spring 2007 semester courses; is of good character; has competent legal
ability; and is adequately trained to perform as a legal intern.

I
I

£~«

\

E. Edwin Eck, Dean
School of Law
The University of Montana

c :L\STVPRAC\deancen: Si.ItlUller Provisional.wpd

I

I

Date

vu~ 2.5 \

State Bar of Montana

Horne

!For Ov( MepllJE:! S I
r

'Nho We P.re

For the Pi..bJ-C:

Store

Site

.searc~

Montana Student Practice Rule
May 1,1975

TIle following order wa$ issued by Ute Monism; SJJpreme Court on April 3f), 1975:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABUSHMENT
OFA
MONTANA STUDENT PRACTICE RULE

PER CURIAM:

Dean Robert E. S4JMivElI"I of the Universil)' of Montana Law School. and RO/lald F. watennan, Esq., Chairman of Liaison Committee of the Montana Bar AssoCiation (now the
Stale Bar of Monwna) and rte SttJderlt Bat M$ociation of tt'!$ Law School, petitionoo this Court to adopt a rule permitting and gOlJ(!.ming studant prnctlt:e:
A hearing WM had Qtt s.aid peliljQl'1 end the proposed rule w<lS also submitted to our tocal Bat Associalfons-throughout Monlana and received marry oodorsemenhl, and Ihe
Court having: I'IO'N conlide.ed 100 matter and being advised in the premises.

H IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following rukf perrnifting and governing law :student practice be adopted:

MONTANA STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
I. Purpose
Thebencl'l and !he bar are re~ for pr()'olkling ccmpetetlt!egal serW:e9. This. rule is adopted as ooe mealS of providing 9Ssista'lce to ptaCbd:ng lawyers hi providing
$Ud't ~$ and 10 e!\W!,Jr'SQ8 law $d't0Ql$

to pKIYide dtnical insfruclion In tltal woril: or'lafj'ing kinds.

A An eligible law swdam m<lY ~r in "0)1 COtII1 or before any admimlral:iYe iribU1l81 in ttml sial£! 00 behalf or any petSOIl if the persoo 00 whose behalf he is appearing has
indicated in wming his CQJIMOt \(I that a~ and !he $lJP(U"IIjsjng lawyer- ~$ al$O IndicBled in mling approval (;ftlutt ElppeafBflct!. in itle 1oIJowing matiefS:
1, AIry civil~. In sud'! ClUIlI$ the sUPE!fVl$iog I<wvyer j$ not required robe personally prese(11 In CQJJ1 unless difeded robe pt'e5eflt by the judgo!!-, maglstme, or

refeme before 'Whom the ITIIi1ter is pefldirIg,

2, Any almmel mallef In wtlidi 1he defendant does. not h8IIe the righl to tOO assignment of COUI1:SeI under any COI'lM!I1JIiOOeI pro'MiOn. $1atute, Of rule of It\i$ court. In
the m.tpef"\lisinQ lawym is not reQuired to be pemlIlllIlly present in COW1.

$tid) CElSfi

3. Ally criminal !'IIatt&f in wrnd'! the defmdam fum the right

to ,he a~men1 ofQ;,Iunsei under any coostitulional provision, starute, 0; rule of this court. In Sl.U;:h casetI

\he oopeMsing I9Nyer moot be personally prnaent throulJlloot the proceedings. and mall be fuly respol'l$ible for the manner In 'WhiCh they ere cond:tJdad,
6. An eIlgibie I~ sllilfef!t may also appear In any crlmInaI mailer on behalf of "the Slate wIlh the written apprOvef Of the ~ IaWyef and the prosec:uliog attomey or his
atIIhortlad r.-e&entatiw.
C. In each case the ..mHafl con&erIl and awrovat ~ to abow mall be filed in "the rocord of U\e case and shall be brougttt to the attention of Ute jUdge of !be coort or tbe
preildiflg officer of the admInistratt.le tribl.lfl6f.

O. A judge fftfJy excktde 8 laW student from ecttve partidp.a1jon in ~ings bEfore the coort. irI tM infefest of 0Jderty: administration Of justice 01' for the prolec'!jon of a dianl
or~,

and sMIIltlete!Jf!Ofi gtBI"It a cootInuanoe to secure fh9 ~ of the ~ lawyer.

E Under ft>e ~ $U~ of a member Qf the State Bar of Moolarle, bW. outside the: personal presence Of that lawyer, an eUglbie laW Mu€lent

mav engage ttl 0Itler

~,if\('Judiog;

1. ~ at p1eadi~ and o!hef ooeumoofs to be IDed In any matter In wtlk:h !he stOOer!t is eIigibte to sweer, but sodt pfeading$ til' docUmool$l'IlU8t be _00 by
the suparvieing lawyer.
2. p~ oJ bfiefs, f.lbsfrad8, and olhar documents to be filed in appeIBte courts of !his. stale, but sud! documents must 00 tilJOOd b)<!he 1U.IJ.lElI'Vismg ~
3. AdviSing, negotiaIing, and petfOmltng o6ler approptlate legallJeMoe:s, but ooty after pOOr comuImtion ~ and obtaining the ~s amsenl of' the supet'\'ising

tawyer. NegoI:Ialkms am subject to Hrlal approval of ttle supeMsing lawyer.
F. .An elJgible IfNi 81iJOOrIt may pmtici(tale in om! ergumetll in tile SUpreme Court of Montana. but only in the presence of tile superviSing tawvar"

State Bar of Montana

A. Be duly enrolled in Slaw' St;hoof approved by the A.merican Bar A<lsocUlfkm,
B. Haw ~ted legal stUdies amounting to at least two-thirds (213) or Itle to1:eI aedit hOlJl'S required fot j}faduatioll.

C. Gs certified by me tkran 011ha law 5ChOo/ as bslrlg Of good character end competent tegeJ abiily ald ss being sdeq.uately tnidood 10 pwfunn all a iegBI intern,
O. Be ifltroduced to the oourt in whiCh he Is appe3flng hy an a!lorr!e)' admitled to pmdiCe In that court
E. NelIher a$!( tor nor receive any compen$8lioo or remunallitiOn of any kind for hl!li services from 1tIe perSOn on 'Io'hose betlalf he ",nden~:

but Ihis shaff ~ prevenl a
lawyer,;ega! aid bute8U, law $Chooi, public defender agency. orthe state from paying 4XIlIip6l'l&&tiM to thfl eligibfe law lI'luderlt. nor &halt It preYeflt MY aganey from I'I'\akmg
wch d1arges1or Its seMce$ as it may Oi:hefWi:J.e properly tequire.
F. Certify in WfIb1'1Q ItWIt he has feed and is farrlIiarwith and will abide by ttte Code ofPrutessional Responsibility.

IV.~ol"l

The certIIIca!ion of a student by !he law: sctiooI dean;
A. ShaiI be /i/et:l with the der'll: Offhe CO\Jrt; and. unless It is sootier witt\drawrt, it Shall AmUlin In effect until ihe eq)iration of twetve (12) mOOU\s aft... i1. \is flieQ. Ot adn;iujon to
lhe b<U, 'Whiclievat occurs first Upon exceptiOnal cltwmstan,* shOwn, the dean /l'l8)' renew lhe ~ lOr Me ri'l!OOIlwelve (12) monlfl period. Law sd\ooI graduates
WtIo Jl'lI.Isl take ttle bar 8lQ'1rnirnnkm are 9ligible ur~illhe f'Q$UUs are al\MlJndtd of ttl& IWSt bar examination after their cerllficatkm Uf'lder tma rule,
13, May be 'IlI1tMrftWn by tOO dean at any IjIM by mailing e notl~ to Ihat ~ to Ihe o::::Jeti: of the court. WhO $hall I'OOhwlth mail COJries thereof to the 8I:udant end Ihe
supervisin~

lawyer.

C. May be terminated by the court alany time wfthOOI notire or hearing aruI without any SOOWIr'IQ of cauS/t

Y. Supervl6km

The lawyer under whOse: wpelViaiM an eligible law SlUdent p~te$ in any of !he aaivitias ~ by this rule Shail:

A. Be 8 rnoernber it\ good standing of the SIIJ{e Bar Of MOllI.an8whose seMc:e as a ~sing lawyer for IttIs proQl'$m is apprOWld bjl a judge at me court in wtlich ttte student
mlJ$tappear.
B, Ahume p!Ilr$OflaI profe$Simal responSibi!ty fofthe stvdetlt's guidam:.e in anv wort undertaken MId for IWpeMsing ltIe quail}< Of the student's worlt
C, AssiS! and counsel the law $\udent /1"1 Che ~ mentiOl"ltXi in thase rules and rtl\Iiawsud'l adivilies willi RId'! student, aU to tooexten1 requited fur tlle proper practi&al
irOOing Of tIw ~l and the 'f)m\eQlon (lithe cllerrt.

D. No supeM1itng ~ $hall hllMl supervision over ~ than one (1) iawstlldem at 001 one time: flOwwer, In tnecase of recognized IegaJ Bid. legal assiSience, public
6efender, and simller programs furnillhing ieg:BI asmtance 10 indigents. CIt Of stata, coonty, ormunicipall&Oai departments, the aup«Y!81ng. ~er may s~ two (2) taw

SlIJdefrt:s at 000 1thl'Ie'. This reS1rlction &hall no! apply to any dlnlcal legal educ:.atiM program cenducteti as a part of Ihe QJ;rieulum Of any law schOCll in this slate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ttlis ruie shIM be etfedive Mav 1. 1975.

DATED this 300l day of April, H175.

(Goti'> 199 1 t1mt;f'.ctmen! to !he Sludet'lt Practice RuleSI

LOGIN (rot" sWill! bar 918f!)
CopyrightO~2(j12 5tateBat~

Quick Links
StteMap

Mettlber Seefd'\

Montana Ju$bCfJ

Montana lBwHe!p..org

MOl'ltane L_ RII\IjINj

F¢UIldetJOn

Montanlt Legal SefW:es

Mmlana ProBoocuiti

MotJlena Supreme

Ofi'\o$ of OOlcipliMry

UM Lew Sehool

Coo"

CDun9i!l

"",."Ill,

Montall9AI! flghte msl!Mtd.

""al DhH.:tahner1 WMIe: Wf.l do OUt best ttl erllll.lfll! ltlatilie- inrommt!(m 0:1 thIS $ll.e is ac.tl.IOJte. the
ird"cmwlUon on INs web site does not ~ the proWSjon 01' legal adyj(4, Al.fdltiooally, thiS. eM:
eontahs links to various government informallon pagl}$ and merenoa pages ~ fur legal. re$tiafd't.
moo net malfllam comr(ll owrh content of h!lnked pa(JM. and caflootbIJ mpoO$iblefOrb
atctKaGi' ¢fany inl'onrlation in the ¥l"Iked pages. FI'.!; answaJ'l) to spedflc que.wons. voo siwIJId oonsu!1
an attortW;y l'M"\iliar wilh yrur jlat1lcl/lar sitUation

,"

.,

Justice Court, Dept. 2
lOS Bedford Stteet, Suite F
Hamilton, Montana S9840

Phone: 406·375-6766

Jim Bailey, JU!ltice. ofthe Peace

SUMMARY OF FACTS
STATE Of MONTANA vs MIKE SfJl,EADBURY
Ravalli County Justice Court Case No. TK·2006-3068

On October 10, 2006 at approximately 10:30 PM, Mike Spreadbury received a citation for
assault, allegedly to have occurred at 285 Cooper Lane, Hamilton, Montana.
On October 18, 2006, Defense Attomey Sasha Brownlee filed a Notice of Appearance to
represent Mike Spreadbury.
On January 5, 2007, Mike Spreadbury appeared in Justice Court, Dept 2, with his attorney. He
was advised of the charge against him and advised of his rights. He pled not guilty. An
Omnibus Hearing was scheduled for March I, 2007. He was released on his own recognizance.
Mr. Spreadbury was advised by the Court that he had to personally appear in Court each and
every time his appearance was required unless specifically exempted by the Court. Mr.
Spreadbury was also advised to stay in contact with his attorney at all times and to contact his
attorney at least once a week (see Conditions of Release).
This Court schedules all Omnibus hearings once a month, and this case was originally set for
March 1,2007. Defendant's attorney, Sasha Brownlee, failed to appear at the hearing. She did
not file anything with the Court indicating she could not attend. She did not contact the Court,
either in person or by phone, to indicate she could not appear at the hearing
Because Defendant's attorney, Sasha Brownlee, failed to appear at the Omnibus hearing, it was
necessary to reschedule it for the following session, April 5, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Ms. Brownlee's
failure to appear at the originally scheduled Omnibus delayed the Defendant's speedy trial by
approximately 36 days.
On April 5, 2007, the Defendant's attorney appeared for the Omnibus hearing. At that time, a
jury trial was requested and, subsequently, scheduled for July 31,2007 at 9:00 AM.

fLl\ Z5L/

On the morning of July 30,2007, the State filed a Motion for Continuance. Shortly after the
Motion was filed, my Court Administrator, Jennifer Ray, personally contacted Defendant's

attorney and advised her that the Judge was considering the State's Motion to Continue and
asked if she would like to respond. Ms. Brownlee said she was at a family affair and did not
have the time to respond.
On July 30,2007, the Court denied the State's Motion, finding there was no good cause for a
continuance. Within a very short time, the State filed a Motion to Reconsider. It provided more
detail and explanation than the Motion to Continue. The Court did reconsider and granted the
Motion to Continue.
On July 30,2007, my Court Administrator again contacted Defendant's attorney and advised her
that the Motion to Continue had been granted. After some discussion, Sasha Brownlee said that
August S, 2007 "will work" for the jury triaL
On July 30, 2007, my Court Administrator followed-up the conversation with Sasha Brownlee
by providing her with a letter, detailing the new trial date and time. A copy ofthe letter was
provided to the County Attorney's office.
On August 6,2007, Defendant's attorney, Sasha Brownlee, filed a Motion to Dismiss, based on
speedy trial and discovery issues. In her Motion, it states "counsel informed Mr. Spreadbury that
the trial had been continued. Spreadbury informed counsel that he was scheduled to fly OUi for
his job with FEMA on August 1,2007." The Court denied the Motion on August 6, 2007.
On August 7, 2007, one day before the trial, Defendant Mike Spreadbury attorney, Sasha
Brownlee, filed a "Motion for Writ of Supervisory Control" with the Ravalli County District
Court. The "Writ of Supervisory Control" sought to reverse the Justice Court's denial ofthe
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed a day earlier.
On August 7, 2007, Ravalli County District Court Judge James Haynes denied Defendant's
application for "Writ of Supervisory Control".
The following look place on the morning of August 8, 2007, prior to commencement ofthe trial:
I.

Sasha Brownlee advised the Court that Defendant Mike Spreadbury was not
present.

2.

Defendant's attorney and the State's attorney, Angela Wetzstone, met with Judge
Bailey in chambers. When asked where her client was, Sasha Brownlee replied
that he had flown out of the State to his job with FEMA

3.

Ms. Brownlee was advised that a warrant would be issued for Defendant's failure
to appear. At this point, Sasha Brownlee told the ~ourt that she had not informed
her client of the date of tria!' Judge Bailey then referred to Ms. Brownlee's
Motion to Dismiss which was filed on August 6, 2007, in which she specifically
stated that she had informed Mr. Spreadbury that the trial had been continued.
and that he had infoI1l1ed her that he would be flying out on August 1,2007 for
255
employment.

p!j\

4.

Sasha Brownlee then informed Judge Bailey that she had told the Defendant the
trial had been continued, but had not told him the 8/8/07 date. Judge Bailey
informed Ms. Brownlee that he did not believe she could have talked to her cHent
on July 30,2007, with full knowledge the trial had been continued to August 8,
2007, and not have told him the new trial date, especially when on the same day
Mr. Spreadbury told her he was flying out of State on August 1,2007.

5.

Sasha Brownlee then informed the Court that I must "hate" her, that I was
prejudice against her client, and that I should recuse myself from the case. I
informed Sasha Brownlee that I did not know Mr. Spreadbury and had only seen
him onee during the arraignment. She was advised that I would not recuse myself
because of her failure to get her client to Court.

6.

I asked Ms. Brownlee to leave my office and go into the Courtroom, She refused
and was asked a second time. When that request failed, she was advised that if
she did not leave my office, she would be held in contempt. I was later advised
that she hit the wall with her fist after leaving my chambers.

As the trial proceeded, Defendant's attorney, Sasha Brownlee, called three witnesses to the
stand, One of those witnesses was Mary Miller, who identified herself as a live-in partner with
Mike Spreadbury. It was clear to the Court that if Mike Spreadbury's live-in partner knew the
date of trial, surely, Mr. Spreadbury was aware of it as well.
Defendant was found guilty of assault by ajury of his peers.
A warrant for the arrest of the Defendant was issued on the afternoon of August 8, 2007 for his
failure to appear and contempt under Section 3-10-401 MCA for failing to comply with Court
Orders.
On August 13,2007, Sasha Brownlee filed a Motion to Withdraw as the Defendant's attorney of
record, stating a conflict of interest between herself and Mike Spreadbury. The Motion was
granted on August 15,2007.

On August 15, 2007, a paralegal from the law firm of Stevenson, ludnich & Associates contacted
my Court Administrator and stated they would be filing a Notice of Appearance for Mike
Spreadbury, The paralegal indicated that the firm was not aware iliat Mr. Spreadbury had been
found gUilty in-absentia of assault, and she was advised that a warrant had been issued for
Defendant. She was further advised that a sentencing date would be scheduled when a Notice of
Appearance was filed. Later that day, a Notice of Appearance was faxed by Mathew M,
Stevenson of that law firm.
On August 16, 2007, Mike Spreadbury was arrested and then bonded. When he contacts the
Court, he will be advised to call the Court of Hamilton City Judge Mike Reardon, who will rule
on the matter contempt pursuant to Section 3-10-401 MeA.

Dated August 17, 2007

~

Jim Bailey, J

-

--~

ce ofthe Peace, Dept 2

Subscribed and sworn to before me on August 17, 2007.

"- &(YINA"-"-,,,,,,::---=-::--_
Notary Public for the State of Montana
Residing at Stevensville, Montana
My commission expires 1130/2011

Michael R. King
Special Assistant Attorney General
Risk Management and Tort Defense Division
1625 JJ'h Avenue - Middle Floor
P.O. Box 200124
Helena, MT 59620-0124
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: (406)444·2592
E-mail: [e-mail]

FILED

OEl!BIE H~RMON. CLERk

Attorney for Defendants Angela B. Wetzsteon and George H. Corn

MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RA VALL! COUNTY

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff.
vs.

ANGELA WETZSTEON and
GEORGE I-I. CORN.
Delcndanls

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No. DV-10-222!?

AFFIDA VIT OF
ANGELA B. WETZSTEON

Angela B. Wctzsleon, being first duly sworn, deposes and slales as
follows:
I)

William Fulbright was Ihe as.~igm.>d depUty county attorney on

Slate v. Spreadbury. Cause No. TK 2006-3068. Ravalli County Justice
Court;
2)

Under the authorization and supervision ofMr. Fulbright. I

tried the jury Irial against Mr. Spreadbury for assault in Cause No. TK 2006­
3068, Ravalli County Justice Coun;

AFFIDAVIT OF ANGELA B. WETZSTEON

.l

.»

Mr, Spn:adbLiry did

2006-}06~

nnd was

COI1l'jCleU

nOI

<ll'pcar at his trial in Calise

l\ll.

bya jury ol',l1c' assault charge in nbscmiu;

Imllledia!el y 10110wi r.g iV1 r, Spr.::tdbLll'Y· S <:OI1\'i<:liol1 in

.:l)

Tl,

e<lUSC

l\'o. TK 2006-3068. Justice o1'lh..: Peacc .lim Bailey issued a bench wurrant

10 issue Ihe

bench

WUl'ntl1l

or in any \lay pllnicipme or USS!Sl in ils

prepnraLil)l1. issmltlcc. or cxecution: and

5)

During the course l>t'thc procC'cdings in Calise No. TK 2006­

306R. I do not rc(;,dl persollally misspelling

wriling. but if I

C\,(,I'

111\'

lasln!ll11c orally 01' in

..lid it was unintenlional ilnd I did

1101

illlcncill1:lt ,VIr.

Sprcadbury rely on uny stich misspelling 10 his dClrill1L'nL
Further this Allium saycth IUluglll,

DAn:!) lhisJ-BtlY oj' tvla)'. 2() IO.

A Vflll,\ Vft'

Ol~

AN(;":I.!\ II. \Vl':'rZSTt:O:\

2,

•

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certifY that Ii true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by

U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 41fi: day of May, 2010 upon;
Michael E. Spreadbury
700 South Fourth Street
Hamilton. MT 59840

BY:~_~
Lon Capli~
Legal Assistant

A'FIDAVIT OF ANCELA B. WETZSTEON

3

Michael R. King
Special Assistant Attorney General
Risk Management and Tort Defense Division
1625 ll'h Avenue - Middle Floor
P.O. Box 200124
Helena, MT 59620-0124
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

FILED

DJ:IlBIE '1ARMON. cu;~"

Attorney for Defendants Angela B. Welzsteon and George H. Corn
MONTANA TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RA VALLI COUNTY

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff,

)
)

vs.

)
)
)

ANGELA WETZSTEON and
GEORGE H. CORN,

)
)
)

Defendants

Cause No. DV-IO-22¥<g

)
)

AFFIDAVIT OF
GEORGE H. CORN

George H. Com, being first duly sworn, deposes and slates as follows:
I)

I am the Ravalli County Attorney and have been employed in

that capacity since January 1991;
2)

Deputy County Allomey William Fulbright was in charse of

the prosecution of Mr. Spreadbury tor assault in Cause No. TK 2006-3068,
Ravalli County Justice Court;
3)

1 approved and authorized Angela B. Wetzsteon, a law student

under the Montana Supreme Court's Student Practice Rule, \0 handle cases

AFflDAvrr Ot· GF.oRGf. H. CORN

·

in accordance with the Student Practice Rule and to work with the two
deputy County Attorneys that handled misdemeanor cases one of whom was
Mr. Fulbright.
4)

Deputy County Attorney William Fulbright authorized and

supervised Angela B. Wetzsteon under the Montana Supreme Court's
Student Practice Rule as the trial attorney in the prosecution of Mr.
Spreadbury for assault in Cause No. TK 2006-3068, Ravalli County Justice
Court;
5)

The record shows that Mr. Spreadbury did not appear at his tTial

in Cause No. TK 2006-3068 and was convicted by ajury of the assault
charge in absentia;
6)

Immediately following Mr. Spreadbury's conviction in Cause

No. TK 2006-3068, Justice of the Peace Jim Bailey issued a bench warrant
for his arrest I did not authorize, direct, request, or encourage Judge Bai ley
to issue the bench warrant or in any way participate or assist in its
preparation, issuance, ar execution; and
7)

While I do not review the misdemeanor cases in general, I am

certain that ifthere was a misspelling of Ms. Wetzsteon's name it was
unintentional. Spelling Ms. Wetzsteon's name phonetically often results in a
misspelling, Tn any event, during the course orthe proceedings in Cause No.

AfFIDAVIT OF GEORGE II. CORN

2

rUt 262­

•

<

TK :::006-3068. I do not I'ccII11 personally l1lis'pclling. Ms. WI2IZ.<;ICOII·S hlS1
name orally or in wriling, but if I eler did it \Ins llllilllelliional ami I did nOI
intend Ihat Mr. Sprcadbury rely on any such misspelling to his oclnmcl1i.
FlIrlh~r

this Amant S*lY,;lh Jl<mghl.

DATI:D

this~ftt;or IV .

HY:

.

~r

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~L_ da)' of May.
2010.

AFFIr>AVIT OF (a:OI,(;E II. CDlt:-.l

,,

-

,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was served by
5f-

US, Mail, postage prepaid, this ;;f 1- day of May. 2010 upon:
Michael E, Spread bury
700 South Fourth Street
Hamilton, MT S9840
BY:

AFFIOAVITOF CEORGE H, CORN

L;caplis 1
Legal Assistant

4