Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 274

RESPONSE to Motion re 262 MOTION in Limine DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (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 DISIRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No.: 9: 1 l-cv-l1-64-DWM-JCL
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)

)

v.

)

MOTION OPPOSING

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

MOTION IN LIMINE

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiffwith motion to move court to reject motion in limine.
Motion:
WHEREFORE Plaintiff moves court to reject partial motion in limine, ignore
partial motion in Limine by Lee as irrelevant.

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-0WM-JCl

April 19. 2012

Defense opposes this motion.
Brief in Support:
Lee has filed Motion in Limine (Doc. #262) April II, 2012 after filing serial
Motion for Summary judgment April 4, 2010 in violation of this Court's Order
March 6, 2012 asking for briefing of Spreadbury status not motion for dismissal.
Lee presents 15 motions in limine; some must be rejected by this Honorable Court
due to conflicts, irrelevance, conflict with well established controlling authority to
this court:
Specifically, as newspaper sued for defamation in federal court, a material fact is
the methods of editing, fact checking prior to pUblication Curtis Publishing Co. v.
Butz 388 US 130 (1967). Lee failed to produce any information on several
requests from Spreadbury through discovery. Controlling authority dictates that
this infonnation is material for a jury to decide level of actual malice, negligence
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 US 287(1964), Gertzv. Robert Welch Inc. 418 US
323 (1974), Time Inc. v. Firestone 424 US 453(1976}. The grant of Motion in
Limine #3 would be an abuse of discretion before this court Firestone Rubber Co.
v. Bruch 489 US 101 (2007).

2

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-0WM-JCl

April 19, 2012

Lee's motions for limine ask for absurd requests as if Spread bury needed a leash in
a court of law. Similar requests to burden this court would be ask court to have
Lee counsel wear professional clothes in the presence of court.
Motion #1 asks court to restrict Lee's corporate personhood which is how it
appears before this court. How else should Spreadbury refer to Lee? Spreadbury
tinds it interesting how Lee alters Spreadbury's status as a private citizen and then
wishes to change its status from a corporate person.
Motion #2 violates Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure as to presenting a case, or
commenting on opposing witness.
Motion #3 Lee, as a matter of controlling authority, cannot be granted limine #3 as
newspaper editing protocol, fact checking practices are Germaine to negligence,
actual malice before ajury (citations above).
Motion #4 Argument of Golden rule restricts Spreadbury freedom of Speech as
protected and sworn to by this honorable court, rules of federal procedure to allow
fair, and free discourse and ability to make any argument supporting case.
Motion #5 The attempt at criminal activity by Lee to cover their mistake and make
perjury before this court is material fact before the jury to determine case. Lee
violated the rule 45 of Federal Rules of civil procedure by not securing privileged
information obtained in violation of Spreadbury's 4th Amendment by City.
3

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

Cause 9:1l-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

April 19, 2012

Motion #6 Any limitation on Spreadbury's time in court is in violation of court
rules, ethics, and abuse of discretion as Vincent Bugliosi has argued successfully in
Federal Civil actions; court must liberally apply and protect Spreadbury's equal
protection under the law protected 14th Amendment US Constitution_
Motion #7 Spreadbury does not have the resources of a full law firm being
supported by corporate liability insurance, nor an administrative assistant or three,
and cannot determine at 5pm of each court day what witnesses will be called the
next day; Lee's request is an unreasonable restriction before this court.
Motion #8 Spreadbury is well aware of hearsay constraints before this court, and
welcome all Lee witnesses to present evidence in favor of actual malice, liability,
negligence, and omission before this court.
Motion #9 As a corporation in business, most prospective jurors will be aware of
some sort ofliability insurance available to a corporate person such as Lee. The
request to limit the spectrum of a corporate person in a court of law is not available
as a matter oflaw, status of Lee before this court and should be rejected.
Motion # 10 Matters already decided before this court may be an abuse of
discretion as Lee admits newspaper publisher; no protection from publishing
defamatory comments by way of 47 USC§230 et. seq. Other issues such as
Emotional Distress in this court's supplemental jurisdiction 28 USC§ 1367 have
4

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

cause 9:11-cv-11-64-DWM-JCl

April 19, 2012

been mis-applied as Montana's ED standard Johnson v. Supersave 686 P. 2d 209
Mont. (1984) allows liability for false accusation of crime, as Lee effected August

9,20 I 0 as fulse conviction published against Spreadbury_ Not all issued "decided"
by this court are within this courts discretion or controlling authority Firestone
Rubber Co., New York Times. Court is reminded that Lee needs to be held to the

Federal Rules, and controlling authority to newspaper libel cases Ibid.
Motion # II Issue of defamatory comments have not been settled by court as Lee
admits March 22, 2012 to Spreadbury are newspaper publisher_ Newspaper
publishers, TV and Radio are not protected by the Communications Decency Act
47 USC§230 Baztel v. Smith 333 F. 3d 1018 (g'h Clr, 2003). Spreadbury has
reference to other articles in evidence as context to August 9,2010 article.
Motion # 12 Although Lee feels its own employees, non-independent to this case
are "experts", Spreadbury has prepared expert witness cases, and already
understands his testimony is not appropriate as expert witness in this case.
Motion #13 A material fuet is Spreadbury's run for Mayor November 2009, and
association of status after the election November 3, 2009 as a private citizen. Lee,
this court, and Spreadbury aver status is material fact for this case, and mentioning
mayor election, coverage from Lee part oftestimony, evidence before jury Time
Inc.

5

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

Cause 9: ll-CY-11-64-DWM-JCL

April 19, 2012

Motion # 14 Spreadbury has been in front ofthis court September 14, 20 II for oral
argument, and opinion is for the internet, and facts, conclusion oflaw is before the
court. Lee is assured that Spreadbury does not need to stoop to personal attacks to
be victorious in the aforementioned by the preponderance of the evidence.
Spreadbury assures the Honorable Court and Lee this restriction is not necessary,
and can be handled in court if necessary.
Motion # 15 Lee feels witnesses named in the aforementioned are qualified as
experts as no independence is offered or available. Spreadbury looks forward to
cross examination ofLee's "witnesses". It does not take an expert to identify
liability, negligence and error on the part of Lee Enterprises before a jury.
Publishing false conviction is extreme liability, Spreadbury has shown extreme
injury in the aforementioned.
All issues are not finalized and these motions are extremely premature.
Spreadbury pleads court to uphold his rights to trial, both known and unknown
against these requests by Lee in limine.
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 1083 words excluding title page, this compliance.
6

Plaintiff Motion for Oral Argument

Respectfully submitted this

Cause 9:11-cv-11-64-DWM-JCL

L

day of April, 2012

Michael E. Spreadbury, SelfRepresented Plaintiff

7

April 19, 2012