Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 39

Response to 2 Answer to Complaint, 3 Answer to Complaint 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 UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

Cause No: CV-1l-61-M-DWM
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY
Plaintiff

)
)

COMBINED RESPONSE

v.

)

TO DEFENDANT ANSWER

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,

)

BY BOONE KARLBERG PC

CITY OF HAMILTON,

)

CITY OF HAMILTON,

LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,

)

PUBLIC LmRARY

BOONE KARLBERG PC,

)

Defendants

)

Comes now Plaintiff with timely response to Defendant Boone Karlberg, City of
Hamilton, Bitterroot Public Library per F. R. Civ. P. 12 allowing 21 days.
The Defendants admits to allegations by Spreadbury, give rise to partial Summary
Judgment before this court. Combined answers for individual, main defendants.

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

Spreadbury responds to Defendant affirmative defenses are universal for Individual
Defendants (ID) and Main Defendendants (MD) although answers for MD are
listed below; pleading was redundant.
Defendant City ofHamilton, Public Library admit to:
1. Denying Spreadbury request for submission in ~ 19 Main Defendants

(hereafter "MD") pg. 6.

2. Relinquishing library privileges MCA§ 22-1-311 without Spreadbury willful
violations of rules, Staff, Law Enforcement asking Spreadbury to leave
Public Library in ~ 30,32,34,37.
3. Public library admit to receiving Spreadbury affidavit, Montana code from
July 15,2009 correspondence indicating unlawful removal of library
privilege
4. Prosecuting Spreadbury for peaceful assembly on public property in

Amended Complaint (State) ~117.

5. Defense admits Gloria Langstaff was former library director in ~ 5 pg. 3
MD.
6. Defense admit Bitterroot Public Library is a public library in ~7 pg. 3 MD.
7. Defense admit Chief Ryan Oster is policymaker ~ 11 pg. 4 MD.
8. Defense admit City Attorney Bell policymaker ~12 pg. 4 MD

2

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-ll·61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

9. Defense admit Lee Enterprises employees calling in to Ravalli County
dispatch July 9,2009; slander and libel, as Spreadbury wrote request to then
Publisher Kristen Bounds without saying a word in office, business was
conducted in Ravalli Republic offices of Lee Enterprises ,20 pg. 6 MD.

10. Defense admit charging Spreadbury with misdemeanor criminal trespass on
public property by Defendant City of Hamilton ,21 pg. 6.

11. Defense admit Ravalli Republic and five (5) affiliate Lee Enterprises
newspapers in Montana published extensive number of articles including
false Associated Press (AP) articles identifying Spreadbury and imputing
criminal behavior, criminal charge for protected right ,22 pg. 7; published
defamation per se regarding Spreadbury's mental health as found in ,50,51
Amended Complaint (State) MD.

12. Defense admit investigating Spreadbury for no criminal behavior with
respect to the library from June 11,2009 to Febrary 18,2010; including
publishing a defamatory police report for stalking for observing someone in
public as written on a website ,24 pg. 8 MD
13. Defense admit to fraudulently representing Defendant Senior Librarian
Roddy, Defendant City Attorney Ken Bell (outside scope of employment per
MCA§ 7-4-4604 Duties) accepting public funds for knowingly ineligible
actors in ,25 pg. 8 MD.
3

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

I4.Defendant Boone Karlberg PC admits to writing court pleadings with malice
and recklessness defaming Spreadbury described in MCA§27-I-804(4) ,25
pg. 8 MD.
IS.Admit dismissing charge, with malice written in ,26 pg. 8 MD; allows
malicious prosecution charge against defendants.
16. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC defames outside protected court pleadings
by aver Spreadbury " ...suggested he is a current or past member ofthe
FBI. .. " ,27 pg. 9 MD which is with malice accusing Spreadbury of crime
that never happened.
17. Defense admit Spreadbury ran for Mayor November 3, 2009 passes "Public
Function Test" US Supreme Court in color o/law for Boone Karlberg, Lee
Enterprises Inc ,28 pg. 9 MD
18. Defense admit Public Library Chairman Dr. Brophy DVM acted in scope of
duties although condoned the June 11, 2009 removal of Spreadbury library
privileges, March 23,2010 removal without willful violation ofthe rules per
MCA§22-1-3II, no staff, law enforcement asked Spreadbury to leave ,32
pg. 9 MD.
19. Defense admit to sending one of more police reports to City Attorney Bell
to prosecute Spreadbury without any criminal conduct; defamatory to

4

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

Spreadbury, violation of right to speak, assemble in Hamilton, MT ~49 pg.
12 MD.
20. Defense admit to investigating Spreadbury for protected right to speak as
listed in AM complaint (State ~151-155) in ~52 pg. 13 MD
21. Defense admit filing a criminal complaint against Spreadbury for peaceful
assembly on public property ~57 pg. 14 MD.
22. Defense admit Spreadbury seeking injunctive relief before this court to
cease defamatory comments such as MCA§27-1-804(4) in pleadings before
this honorable court in Answer, other pleadings, proof of future harm ~65
pg. 15 MD.
23. Defense admit to Plaintiff request of injunctive relief against Lee Entrprises
including the proper request for arrest of Perry Backus for intentional harm
to person or character in MCA§27-16-102(2) for putting up 4 versions of a
defamatory and false light account of Spreadbury interaction with library 2
articles made into associated press and published to an international
audience ~65 pg. 15 MD.

The admissions of the Defense allow this case to be narrowed by partial
Summary Judgment before this court.
I. Response to First Defense pg. 2 MD

5

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

1. Spreadbury filed original complaint in the Montana State Court 21 st Judicial
District, Hamilton, MT with Honorable Karen S. Townsend presiding.
2. Spreadbury did not have duty to include federal jurisdiction in original
complaint or amended complaint due to State filing of claim as in # 1.
3. Defense answer does not allow Spreadbury to amend complaint (See City

and Library Briefin Opposition to Plaintiff r d Amended Complaint filed 9

th

May 20 I ) when brought to Federal Jurisdiction at US District Court for
Montana, Missoula Division.
4. It was Defense will to remove case from State Court, then attempts to
disallow Plaintiff to amend complaint to meet jurisdiction. A comparison is
taking a case to Italy, and offiering no chance to translate the complaint to a
different venue (here a hypothetical).
5. Spreadbury, as pro se IFP has met federal standard of liberally made claim
for 42 USC§ 1983 although filed originally in a State Courtroom, due to
conflict of interest with Federal Judges in Missoula (see Motion for recusal
ofjudges served 5-2-11) and state issues of lIED, NIED which do not have
jurisdiction in a Federal court, not even supplemental jurisdiction as Defense
avers. In other words, Spreadbury met federal pro se IFP standard, even
with amended state complaint which was removed to the US District Court
in Missoula Farmer v. Breman 511 US 825 (1994).
6

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-I1-61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

From Farmer: a pro se IFP litigant is ENTITLED to 5 procedural protections:
I.

Process issued and served (not met in Spreadbury v. Hoffinan et. al.)

II.

Notice by court to dismiss the complaint and grounds therefore.

Ill.

Opportunity to submit written memorandum in opposition.

IV.

In the event to a dismissal, grounds therefore.

V.

Opportunity to amend complaint to overcome deficiency.

6. Defense has placed Plaintiff in new jurisdiction and tries to use to his
advantage, although Spreadbury has right to overcome the deficiency that
the Defense has put Spreadbury in.
7. Spreadbury complaint is not deficient, unless state complaint is not allowed
to be modified to meet federal jurisdiction.
8. Spreadbury states claim sufficient for review in amended complaint, fully
sufficient in 2nd Amended complaint.
9. Defense needs to take Latin class; Res judicata is for a case already
adjudicated; while Plaintiff has cause of action for non-release of public
information in against Defendant Bell, city of Hamilton with cause DV-10­
639 in 21 st District Court, it is for the Art. II s. 9 right to know. This cause
of action does not complain in re: right to know although it shares a common
cause of 42 USC§ 1983.
ll. Second Defense Response pg. 2 MD
7

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

1. Jurisdiction ofheading was for a state claim filed in 21 st Montana Judicial
District and removed to US District Court Missoula Division.
2. Dr. Robert Brophy DVM as chairman of the Bitterroot Public Library board
is responsible for operation and maintaining the library under MCA§ 22-1­
707 (Duties ofBoard).
III. Third Defense Response
1. The policy or custom Chief Ryan Oster made telling Spreadbury to not enter
Lee Enterprises Inc. business in Hamilton, MT when Spreadbmy silently
wrote a request to publisher to not defame him online, or in print; business
was able to be conducted 232 W. Main St. Hamilton~ MT violated right to
liberty without due process as covered in Amendment 14, US Constitution.
2. Policy or Custom Defendant City Attorney Ken Bell made by filing a sworn
court document September 2, 2009 for summons for peaceful assembly on
public property for Spreadbmy's constitutional protected act August 20~
2009 violated Amendment 1, US Constitution.
3. By arbitrarily removing Spreadbmy library privileges contrary to MCA§22­
1-311 it violated Spreadbmys state right to privileges, and right to liberty~
procedural due process when no administrative remedy was offered pre­
deprivation (or post deprivation).

8

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV·11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

4. All named city actors and library staffknew or should have known that a)
there was no cause to remove privileges as set in Montana law b) reasonable
law enforcement, prosecutor officer knew or should have known peaceful
assembly fundamental protected right in State of Montana, United States.
Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US at 818 (1982) government officials
perfonning discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil
damages only where their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights. Defendant actors in Spreadbury v.
Bitterroot Public Library et. al. do not enjoy immunity herein.
5. By Defense actions, knowledge, no immunity and subjection to punitive
damages are available to Spreadbury per MCA§27-1-221 for actual malice,
as Spreadbury pled in Complaint, Amended Complaint, 2nd Amended
Complaint in the aforementioned. Defendants meet 42 USC§ 1983 criteria
for punitive damages, callous indifference, actual malice as can be found in
established authority before this court.
6. The act of prosecuting Spreadbury for peaceful assembly is an act of malice,
an omission of constitutional rights, as is arbitrary removal of library
privileges, denial ofproper library submission.
7. Library representatives were in color of law when calling law enforcement
for trespassing on public property, returning submission to law enforcement
9

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-1l-61-M-DWM

MayI4,2011

instead of to Spreadbury. By removing privileges without cause, copying
law enforcement in unlawful Director "ban" from library June 11, 2009 act
in conjunction with law enforcement, is in color of law.
8. Spreadbury initiated this case in a State Court for remedy, it was Defendants
who removed it to a Federal Court. Spreadbury should not need a court
remedy for library privileges, administrative remedy proper through library
administration, was not offered; Spreadbury suffered procedural due process
violation from Library as pled herein.
9. Ken Bell and Jennifer Lint enjoy no immunity to prosecution if a reasonable
officer knew or should have known prosecution for peaceful assembly
would violate Spreadbury's established rights under the 1st Amendment.
10.Spreadbury lost state right of library privilege, suffered procedural due
process violation when no administrative remedy offered. Library privileges
are cognizable liberty interest, which cannot be deprived without due
process of law.
11. Peaceful assembly on public property is not a crime, to prosecute
Spreadbury is evidence of actual malice. By using private property statute
for public property, knowingly prosecuting private property on public
property, shows actual malice intent, open to punitive damages. Defense

10

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

actors prosecuting, investigating peaceful assembly on public property as
private property criminal trespass is a reckless disregard for the truth.
12. Spreadbury suffered loss of liberty in travel restrictions purposely published
falsely by Defendant Lee Enterprises in color of law, loss of use of fIrearm,
court restrictions.
13. No ability for Spreadbury to be heard for deprivation of liberty interest of
library privileges; charging criminal trespass on public property was enough
to enact the federal circuit "Stigma-plus" test.
14. Civil Conspiracy does not have to be proved, Defendants worked in

conjunction to meet a goal of disruption of an election, defamation of

Spreadbury, and goal of criminal charges unlawfully to Spreadbury.

15.Spreadbury was treated differently than any other citizen seated on the lawn
of the libray August 20, 2009 ~16 MD.
16. Spreadbury has fear of future harm from Defendants, proved that complaint
does not stop Lee Enterprises from defaming Spreadbury, reasonable person
would request protection from this Honorable court. Injunctive relief is
proper when excessive abuse ofDefendant discretion against Spreadbury
causing irreparable harm has transpired.
IV. Fourth Defense Response pg. 19 MD.

11

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-U-61-M-DWM

May 14/ 2011

1. Defendant violated state right to Individual dignity Art. II s. 4; Freedom of
Assembly Art. II. s. 6; Freedom of Speech Art. II s. 7; Right to participation
Art. II s. 8; Right to privacy Art. II s. 10; Due Process of Law Art. II. s. 17

,2

pg. 19 MD.

2. In,3 Defendant actors for city take oaths to uphold the constitutions;

knowingly deprived Spreadbury right to peaceful assembly, other

established right: speak as presented submission to library.

3. Defense avers Spreadbury knew or should have known peaceful assembly
on public property would lead to defamation, criminal prosecution ,4 pg. 19
MD.
4. Charging Spreadbury with crime when none existed is sufficient to plead for
relief from a court for Emotional Distress. When Defense actors put in a
position to affect Spreadbury, deprive right, ED is actionable in State Court
in The State of Montana.
5. Sitting on public property as a crime is defamation, court paperwork is
defamation by City of Hamilton, MT. Dr. Robert Brophy made comments
defamatory to Spreadbury, which came through court paperwork for
"discovery" of trespass on public property. Library employee Frankforter
responsible to Defendant Brophy defamed, false light of Spreadbury

12

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-1l-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

requesting library policy promised, missing from former library Director
letter of June 9,2009'6 pg 20.
6. Spreadbury exhausted all remedies, to the ridicule, defamation, false light of
Defendant Boone Karlberg. Defendant Public Library did not offer any
remedies, removed privileges outside of established lawful process in
MCA§22-1-311, constitutional protections ~17 pg. 20 MD.
7. Defendants abused lawful process in charging Spreadbury with crime for
peaceful assembly, removing library privileges without cause, investigating
for crime when no criminal conduct occurred ~8 pg. 20 MD.

8. Public Library misrepresented actions of Spreadbury, misrepresented
"library property" as private property at a publically supported facility in
Hamilton, Montana. Defendants had no grounds to believe public property
was private property. The intent that court, public, Spreadbury would rely
on it ~9 pg. 20 MD.
V. Fifth Defense Response pg. 20 MD
I. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable damage as pled in 2nd Amended Complaint:
is considered disabled from malicious prosecution of Defense actors.
Malicious and vicious defamation per se, malicious prosecution, intentional
deprivation of established right ~I pg.20 MD.

13

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

2. Compensatory damages are based upon well established court precedent in
Montana, United States for causes of action. Spreadbury has combined
several causes of action into this cause of action.
3. Spreadbury has suffered permanent loss of employment, established course
of life as documented with the US Social Security Administration for
Disability and Supplemental Income, Vocational Rehabilitation for the State
of Montana who employ employment specialists who have deemed
Spreadbury disabled ~3 pg. 21.
4. The Defense actors for City, Public Library are not immune from civil
damages. The Montana Library compact dictates in subsection 3(e) MCA§
22-1-601 that an independent library can sue and be sued. Defense police
officers, prosecutors have not established immunity for knowingly
prosecuting Spreadbury for peaceful assembly on public property.
Spreadbury avers no immunity available for actions that a reasonable officer
would know deprives right to speak, assemble or otherwise for Spreadbury
~4

pg. 21.

5. Every action of Defendants, as pled in the aforementioned was calculated to
damage Spreadbury, actions of defendants, in actual malice did permanently
damage established course of life for Spreadbury 1f5 pg. 21.

14

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14,2011

6. Statutes listed by Defense counsel in Title 2, chapter 9 do not indemnify
acts, one merely allows municipal employers to give liability protections to
employees. Of note: Montana Constitution Article II s. 18 State Subject to
Suit: The State counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental
entities shaII have no immunity from suitfor injury to a person or property,
except as may be specificaIIy provided by law by a 2/3 vote ofeach house of
the legislature.

7. Spreadbury's claim is generous, straightfOlward, and clear to understand.
One's right to work, pursuit of happiness is limited when injury at the hand
of malicious Defendants, who knowing better did worse. City, Public
library, Boone Karlberg entitled to criminal investigation for multiple
instances of public fraud at the discretion of the US Justice Department, and
constitutional deprivations as pled in the 2nd Amended Complaint and
pleadings before this court ~7 pg. 21 MD.
8. Dismissing complaint would deny Spreadbury property interest without due
process of law, protected by the 14th Amendment US Constitution. Attorney
fees are not available in this cause of action due to Pro Se. IFP Plaintiff.
Individual Defendants Response
Parties to a complaint, acting in color of law are Defendants in the
aforementioned. Spreadbury has a right per Farmer to amend the complaint
15

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

May 14, 2011

to overcome deficiency; in aforementioned Defendants created deficiency
Spreadbury presented 2nd Amended Complaint to honorable court.
Spreadbury cites claim to 42 USC§ 1983 court is to interpret liberally for pro se
IFP Boag v. McDougal 454 US 364 (1982). Spreadbury cites two (2) policy or
custom claims against Defendant City of Hamilton shields, from dismissal Shah v.

Co. o/Los Angeles 797 F. 2d 743(Vh Cir. 1986).
Spreadbury avers to court that answer to Main Defendants are identical to
Individual Defendants; complaint states cause of action for 42 USC§ 1983 where
defendants, in color of law conspired to deprive Spreadbury right to speak,
peacefully assembly inter alia. Spreadbury also indicates to this honorable court
that defendants have not established immunity, nor available due to reasonable
officer know or should have known peaceful assembly, free speech protected right
of Spreadbury Harlow. Defamation, emotional distress plead, cause of action for
Stigma-plus test in aforementioned for protected State right, library privileges
established in state statute Humphries v. Co. o/Los Angeles 554 F. 3d 1170 (9

th

Cir. 2009), Heart v. Parks 450 F. 3d 1059(9h Cir. 2006).
Partial summary judgment is proper, where Defendant admits to unconstitutional
behavior as indicated herein.

16

Combined answer to public library, Defendants

Respectfully submitted this \

Cause CV-11-61-M-DWM

~y ofMay, 2011

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

17

May 14,2011