Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 273

MOTION for Oral Argument with Lee by Plaintiff Michael E. Spreadbury. Motions referred to Jeremiah C. Lynch. (APP, )

Download PDF
Michael E. Spreadbury 700 S. 4th Street Hamilton, MT 59840 Telephone: (406) 363-3877 mspread@hotmail.com Pro Se Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION Cause No.: 9: ll-cv-ll-64-DWM-JCL MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY Plaintiff ) ) v. ) MOTION FOR ORAL BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY, ) ARGUMENT WITH LEE CITY OF HAMIL TON, ) OVER PENDING ISSUES LEE ENTERPRISES INC., ) BOONE KARLBERG PC, ) Defendants ) Comes now Plaintiff with motion to move court to hear oral argument; pending issues before this court require argument, and decision. Motion: WHEREFORE Plaintiff moves court to compel Lee to oral argument. Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument Cause 9:11-cv-1l-64-DWM-JCL April 19, 2012 Defense opposes this motion. Brief in Support: Brief asks court to call oral argument for three issues pending before this court: 1. Status of Spreadbury at time of August 9, 2010 article 2. Lee Contempt of Court in violation of Order March 6, 2012 (Doc.# 249) 3. Lee Published Comments with August 9,2010 article; others as Lee admits to Spreadbury it is Newspaper Publisher by court ordered discovery. This Honorable Court has ordered March 6, 2010 (Doc. #249) that parties to this case must brief the status of Spreadbury at time of August 9, 2010 Lee article. Spreadbury cites controlling authority in April 18 Motion, Brief in support from US Supreme Court Time Inc. v. Firestone 424 US 448 (1976). Lee relies upon false sworn statement April 4, 2012 from Defendant Backus, former editor saying Spreadbury was ''newsworthy'' and Spreadbury's public controversies convert to public figure status although the US Supreme Court avers public controversies do not make Spreadbury a public figure Time Inc. As this court has asked parties to brief this matter or send it to jury, Spreadbury respectfully requests court hear oral argument on the status of Spreadbury public figure. The second reason for oral argument is the Defamatory comments published by Lee in August 9, 2010 article and several others against Spreadbury's character. 2 Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-0WM-JCL April 19, 2012 Lee, in court ordered "better" response to discovery admitted Newspaper publisher status for Lee (served March 22, 2012; sworn affidavit Michael Spreadbury April 18,2012 # 6,7; Statement of Disputed Facts served April 18, 2012 #1). As the Communications Decency Act 47 USCĀ§230 et. seq. precludes protection for Newspaper Publishers such as Lee, Radio, or TV stations this court must uphold federal statute Batzel v. Smith 333 F. 3d 1018 (tjh Cir., 2003). Honorable Court would deprive Spreadbury property interest without due process by disallowing Lee published comments defamatory to Spreadbury Paul v. Davis 424 US 693 (1976). Thirdly, this court has motion to find Lee in contempt of court served April 12, 2012 for filing serial sununary judgment claims as court ordered briefing on Spreadbury status (Doc. #249) Lee's Motion for Dismissal April 4, 2012 is in contempt of this Honorable Court's order. Spreadbury avers spending 32 hours researching, writing, publishing report which can be affiant as court desires; costs are $4,000 to prepare, answer Lee serial pleading. Burden to court as Lee is in contempt of court needs to be argued before this court. Spreadbury gives Judicial Notice of Rule II motion "in safe harbor" against Lee AprH12, 2012. Spreadbury asks Honorable Court to schedule Oral Argument to argue, and decide issues pending before this court. 3 Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument Cause 9:11-<;v-1l-64-DWM-JCl April 19, 2012 Certificate of Compliance 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 469 words excluding title page, this compliance. Respectfully submitted this l~ay of April, 2012 Michael E. Spreadbury, Self Represented Plaintiff 4

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

Why Is My Information Online?