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, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
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

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 USC§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