Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 29

NOTICE of Fraud; F.R.Civ.P.(9)(b) by City of Hamilton, Public Library by Michael E. Spreadbury. (ASG, )

R

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

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MONT~A
MISSOULA

Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Pro Se Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)

Cause No: CV-11-61-M-DWM

)

v.

)

NOTICE OF FRAUD;

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

F.R.CIV. P. (9)(b) BY

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

CITY OF HAMILTON,

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

PUBLIC LIBRARY

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with notice of fraud F.R. Civ. P. (9)(b) before the Honorable
court. Specifics of Defendant fraud representation, its damages given in this
pleading, court notified in Plaintiff 2nd Amended Complaint served May 4, 2011
before this court Edwards v. Marin Park Inc. 356 F. 3d 1058 (cjh Cir. 2004).

Notice of Fraud

Cause CV-1l-61-M-DWM

May 9, 2011

Defendant Bitterroot Public Library as pled in the aforementioned is an
independent library district by the Independent Library Compact, Montana Code
Ann. MCA§ 22-1-601. Defendant Bitterroot Public library ("public library")
whereby is a separate entity from municipality known as the City of Hamilton,
Montana; Public Library can sue or be sued MCA§ 22-1-601(3)(e).
Defendant Bitterroot Public Library receives public tax dollars from the City of
Hamilton, and County of Ravalli Montana to function independently, contained in
a line item in the City of Hamilton annual budget for Defendant City of Hamilton.
The Montana Municipal Interlocal Authority (MMIA) defends cities, and
associated personnel within the State of Montana with liability protection as a
corporate entity, not an insurance provider. The taxpayers within municipalities of
the State of Montana remit premiums for the liability coverage from MMIA
(available www.mmia.net) to whit public library is not eligible for coverage.
The City of Hamilton, associated personnel member ofMMIA; eligible, enjoys
benefits for litigation costs, coverage purchased by City of Hamilton taxpayers.
Defendant Bitterroot Public library presently covered by MMIA fraudulently, as an
ineligible, non-municipality in the State of Montana. Defendant Public Library is
not paying to retain counsel, not liable for damages, if any, from improper and
fraudulent collaboration with Defendant City of Hamilton arranging coverage.
2

Notice of Fraud

Cause CV-11-61-M-OWM

May9,2011

The prima facie case for fraud in Montana is given by 9 elements Sprunk v.

First Bank Western M Missoula 228 Mont. at 174 (1987)
1. Bitterroot Public Library is part of the municipality City of Hamilton, MT.
2. Said public library is not part of the City ofHamilton, MT nor pays for
coverage for MMIA liability coverage as a municipality.
3. Public library is improperly benefiting from public funds to gain litigation
expenses and services, liability protection in the aforementioned.
4. Public library is aware of falsity of municipal status conjoined with

Defendant City of Hamilton, MT.

5. Public library is intent that representation should be acted upon by the
Honorable court, upheld by court officers, public in the aforementioned.
6. Honorable Court, City of Hamilton taxpayers defrauded, ignorant of the
falsity.
7. The Honorable Court relies upon the representation; counsel has been
retained appropriately for Defendant Public Library in the aforementioned.
8. The Honorable Court, taxpayers of the City of Hamilton do not expect
public library to present falsity.
9. Plaintiff, taxpayers of Hamilton defrauded of public funds; Plaintiff faces
counsel who is Defendant co-conspirator, gains unlawful advantage in the

3

Notice of Fraud

Cause CV-1l-61-M-DWM

May9,2011

aforementioned by having litigation fees, damages paid by improper
coverage intended exclusively for municipalities of the State of Montana.
Defendants have knowledge of fraud, intent to defraud public, deceive Honorable
court that appropriate counsel has been retained. Fraud intent ofDefendants,
advantage over Plaintiff Swartz v. KPMG LLC 476 F. 3d 756 (flh Cir. 2007).
Defendant City of Hamilton, Bitterroot Public Library executed public fraud four
(4) previous times. In State causes before the 21 st Montana District Court filed
April, 2010 and previous where Plaintiff is party:
1. Roddy v. Spreadbury cause no. DV-10-93 in 21 st District Court
2. Spreadbury v. Roddy cause no. DV-I0-222 in 21 st District Court
3. Spreadbury v. Bell cause no. DV-IO-223 in 21 st District Court [City Atty.
Outside statutory role per MCA§ 7-4-4604, a civil courtroom]
4. Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et. aI. 9:2011-cv-l1-064-M-DVM
Defense cannot merely deny public fraud Bly-Magee v. California 236 F. 3d 1014
(flh Cir.,2001). Agent at Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) Helena, Montana

office asked Plaintiff to inform Honorable Judge of fraud, can alter outcome of
case, public fraud is top criminal priority of agency, US Dept. of Justice.

4

Notice of Fraud

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 9, 2011

Plaintiff asks court to order Defendant Bitterroot Public Library to retain counsel
separate from Defendant Boone Karlberg PC to dissolve fraudulent representation,
appropriate sanctions and opinions within this court's discretion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has indicated to Honorable court specifics of fraud, pled

within 2nd Amended Complaint. Existence affects Plaintiff, public. Defendant has
knowledgeable of fraud, represented to court. Plaintiff respectfully requests that
the Honorable court determines fraud exists within Defendant counsel, require in­
camera inspection for retained counsel for all Defendants in the aforementioned.

Plaintiff yields to Honorable court for other sanctions, opinions to resolve matter.

Respectfully submitted this rday of May, 2011

//

Michael . Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

5