Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al
Filing
9
NOTICE of Receipt of State Court File. (Attachments: # 1 1_Notice of Recusal and Invitation to Assume Jurisdiction, # 2 2_Affidavit of Indigence and Order, # 3 3_Complaint, # 4 4_Motion for Substitution of District Judge, # 5 5_Order of Recusal, # 6 6_Letter with Copy of Invitation to Assume Jurisdiction, # 7 7_Invitation to Assume Jurisdiction re Judge Townsend, # 8 10_Affidavit for Non Corporate Status; Judicial Not Administrative Proceeding, # 9 11_Summons Returned Executed - Lee Enterprises, # 10 12_Summons Returned Executed - Bitterroot Public Library, # 11 13_Summons Returned Executed - City of Hamilton, # 12 14_Summons Returned Executed - Boone Karlberg, # 13 15_Objection to Removal, Use of Public Funds by Defense) (ASG, )
1
Michael E. Spreadbury
2
Hamilton, MT 59840
4
Tel. (406) 363-3877
5
•
700 South Fourth St.
3
•
mspread@hotmail.com
6
MONTANA 21 sT JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
7
RAVALLI COUNTY
8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
)
10
Plaintiff
)
Cause No:
11
v.
)
~EP"-'
12
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
)
13
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES INC.,
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.,
Defendants
COMPLAINT
)
16
3
)
15
I\-\<;?±-J~
/
)
14
'Q)~-
)
17
This cause of action is for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (lIED),
18
negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights
19
42 USCA § 1983, negligence in City of Hamilton, Ravalli County, State of Montana.
20
JURISDICTION:
21
The 21 st Montana Judicial District is the proper venue for this cause of action, due to actions and
22
deprivations of rights within the 21 st Judicial District, Ravalli County Montana. Case and
23
controversy is sufficient to make complaint before this Honorable Court.
Complaint
.adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
ale
March 4, 2011
24
PARTIES:
25
1. Michael E. Spreadbury (hereafter "Spreadbury"), Plaintiff of 700 S. 4th. Street, Hamilton
26
Montana, is a resident of Montana, and is considered a person in the State of Montana.
27
2. Dr. Robert Brophy, resident of Montana, acting under individual duties, Bitterroot Public
28
Library Chairman of the Trustee Board, responsible officer of the Bitterroot Public
29
Library, acting in color of law, considered a person in the state of Montana
30
3. Trista Smith, resident of Montana, current director of the Bitterroot Public Library as a
31
replacement for Gloria Langstaff; acting in color of law, in individual duties, is considered
32
a person in Montana.
33
34
4. Nansu Roddy, resident of Montana, assistant director of the Bitterroot Public Library,
acting in color of law, in individual duties, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
35
5. The Bitterroot Public Library (hereafter "public library"), an independent district, bound by
36
the Interstate Compact as per Montana Code Annotated MCA 22-1-601. Under subsection
37
3(e) ofthis compact, an independent district can sue and be sued; in this jurisdiction an
38
independent library district is considered a person in the State of Montana.
39
40
41
42
6. Jerry Steele, executive director ofthe City of Hamilton as elected Mayor, resident of
Montana, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
7. Steve Snavely resident of Montana, Sergeant in the Hamilton Police Department, acting in
color oflaw, and in individual duties, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
2
Complaint
'eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
ale
March 4, 2011
43
8. Detective Steven Bruner-Murphy, (hereafter: "Detective Murphy") resident of Montana,
44
employed by Hamilton Police Department, acting in color oflaw, in individual duties, is
45
considered a person in the State of Montana.
46
9. Hamilton Police Chief Ryan Oster, resident of Montana, acting in color oflaw, in
47
individual duties, and as official policymaker for the City of Hamilton, Montana; Chief
48
Oster is considered a person in the State of Montana.
49
10. Kenneth S. Bell, Hamilton City Attorney, acting in color oflaw, in individual duties, and
50
that as official policy maker of the City of Hamilton, resident of Montana, considered a
51
person in the State of Montana.
52
53
11. Jennifer B. Lint, resident of Montana, Deputy Hamilton City Attorney, acting in color of
law, in individual duties is considered a person in the State of Montana.
54
12. Stacy Mueller, resident of Montana publisher of The Missoulian newspaper, acting in color
55
of law, is responsible officer for Lee Enterprises Inc., considered a person in the State of
56
Montana.
57
13. Kristen Bounds, resident of Montana, acting in color oflaw, in individual duties, former
58
publisher of Ravalli Republic newspaper, is considered a person in the state of Montana.
59
14. Perry Backus, former editor Ravalli Republic newspaper, acting in color oflaw, resident of
60
61
62
Montana, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
15. The Missoulian Newspaper, an affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation.
As a Montana Corporation, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
3
Complaint
63
64
6S
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
.eadbUry
v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
16. The Ravalli Republic Newspaper, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation.
As a Montana Corporation, is considered a person in the State of Montana.
17. The Billings Gazette, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc. a Montana Corporation is considered
a person in the State of Montana.
18. The Helena Independent Record, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
19. The Great Falls Tribune, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc. a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
20. The Montana Standard, affiliate of Lee Enterprises Inc., a Montana Corporation is
considered a person in the State of Montana.
21. William L. Crowley, resident of Montana, partner and responsible officer for Boone
74
Karlberg PC law firm, acting in color oflaw, is considered a person in the State of
7S
Montana.
76
71
22. Natasha Prinzing-Jones, resident of Montana, associate at Boone-Karlberg PC law firm,
acting in color of law, considered a person in the State of Montana.
78
Prima Facie Evidence
79
23. The Plaintiff believes, and is prepared to show with a preponderance of the evidence that
80
the Defendants listed, together, individually, and as pairs conspired to deprive the
81
Constitutional rights of Plaintiff. These rights are not limited to the Montana Constitution
4
Complaint
.adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. ale
March 4, 2011
82
Article II, s. 4,6,7,17; and US Constitution Amendments I, V, and XIV in actions within
83
Ravalli County, State of Montana, United States of America.
84
24. Under the color of law, two of more Defendants wished to contrive, and execute criminal
85
charges to (1) reap injury to Plaintiff character, and (2) affect Plaintiff employment, and (3)
86
alter public perception of Plaintiff to interfere with an election; keeping Plaintiff out of
87
office, through the course of action described in this complaint.
88
25. The Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, through one
89
or more unlawful acts, Plaintiff has incurred substantial and actual damages as a result.
90
26. No probable cause existed in criminal actions against the Plaintiff, executed by the
91
Defendants. Common law issues are presented to the court, in addition to Defendants
92
filing, contributed to criminal charges without probable cause filed against the Plaintiff,
93
which contained substantial deprivations of Plaintiff fundamental constitutional rights.
94
27. Defendants acted with actual malice, callous indifference, and without equal protection or
95
due process under the law which led to actual damages to the Plaintiff as described herein.
96
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
97
28. Spreadbury resides within City of Hamilton, County of Ravalli, State of Montana.
98
29. Spreadbury met with Nansu Roddy to admit correspondence written by separate person to
99
be admitted into public library temporary reserve holdings in approximately summer 2009.
5
Complaint
teadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
100
30. Bitterroot public library (hereafter "public library") employee Roddy, in violation of
101
policy, and public library's adopted American Library Association policies refused to
102
accept Spreadbury's publication.
103
104
31. Spreadbury utilized administrative remedies available per Roddy for Spreadbury to meet
with Director of public library on or around June 10, 2009.
105
32. Director made appointment, cancelled, and refused to meet with Spreadbury.
106
33. Director of Public library published, distributed letter June 11,2009 banning Spreadbury
107
from library unlawfully, in violation of Montana Code Ann. for library privilege,
108
Spreadbury's procedural due process, per well accepted Montana statute, established
109
statutory privilege for library utilization, use of public property.
110
34. Spreadbury presented library, Hamilton Police Department with sworn affidavit that
111
Spreadbury had never been asked to leave public library, or made disruption, any willful
112
violation of rules occurred in past 48 hours, 4 years dated June 12,2009.
113
35. Spreadbury submitted Reconsideration Request Form July 8, 2009; public library did not
114
respond to own established administrative remedy available to the public, Spreadbury.
115
36. On July 9, 2009 Spreadbury sat in waiting area of Ravalli Republic, as business was
116
conducted, Spreadbury constructed a hand written request to Publisher Bounds not to
117
defame Spreadbury. Ravalli Republic called Ravalli County Dispatch, said Spreadbury
118
was making threats, a false and defamatory act. HPD responded to Ravalli Republic.
6
Complaint
.adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. ale
March 4, 2011
119
37. On July 9,2009 Chief Ryan Oster informed Spreadbury that the Ravalli Republic did not
120
want Spreadbury to have further entry at the storefront at 232 W. Main S1. Hamilton,
121
Montana. Ravalli Republic personnel never asked Spreadbury to not return.
122
123
38. Spread bury sent letter to public library, Hamilton Police Department (HPD) July 15,2009
citing Montana Statute re: library privileges, reinstating privileges to public library.
124
39. Public library board, public library did not respond to the July 15, 2009 correspondence.
125
40. Defendant Brophy made known false statements, comments to library staff about
126
Spreadbury which were published on electronic form, communicated in verbal form.
127
41. On August 20, 2009 Spreadbury sat peacefully on public property outside public library.
128
42. Sgt. Steve Snavely, Hamilton Police approached Spreadbury with June 11, 2009 letter from
129
130
131
132
public library, accused Spreadbury oftrespass on public property.
43. Ken Bell, Hamilton City Attorney on or around September 2,2009 wrote a sworn
complaint that Spreadbury was trespassing on Public Property August 20,2009.
44. Spreadbury was not given an opportunity to be heard at public library, lost privileges, due
133
to not being allowed on the public library grounds, facility since early summer of 2009.
134
45. Plaintiff summoned September 9,2009 with Misdemeanor Criminal Trespass on private
135
property, property is publically owned by the City of Hamilton to which Plaintiff is
136
taxpayer, has property, liberty interests in enjoying library privileges.
7
Complaint
leadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
137
46. On September 10, 2009 the Ravalli Republic, a Lee Enterprise Corporation, published a
138
front page article with Spreadbury's likeness in color photo with full name and headline
139
"Mayoral Candidate charged with Trespass".
140
47. In an online comment published with the September 10,2009 article, a comment was
141
published on \v",w.ravallirepublic.com stating that Spreadbury "suffers serious
142
psychological problems and needs to seek help."
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
48. A separate comment published by the Ravalli Republic September 10, 2009 story said
"Spreadbury is ready for Warmsprings (referring to the Montana State Mental Hospital)".
49. The Trespass on public property was republished in several Lee Enterprise newspapers
within the State of Montana, named as parties to this cause of action.
50. A photographer from the Ravalli Republic admitted to the Plaintiff that his editor required
a picture of Spreadbury for the September 10, 2009 article.
51. On October 19,2009 Detective Murphy, HPD made report of Spreadbury stalking public
150
library director; published sighting of Director former website: www.Bitterroot-rising.org
151
with report # 209CROOO1589 a deprivation of Spreadbury's established right to speak.
152
153
154
52. Spreadbury prosecuted for sitting peacefully on public property by Defendant Bell,
Defendant Lint City of City of Hamilton in violation of established right.
53. Bob Brophy, Chairman BPL Board did send Plaintiffletter dated February 23, 2010 stating
155
board was removing Spreadbury's privileges although never asked to leave public library,
156
or demonstrated willful violation of rules: requirement per Montana Code Ann.
8
Complaint
'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4,2011
157
54. Spreadbury's procedural due process rights deprived by Brophy by not having any ability
158
to be heard, administrative remedy to contest action which deprived Spreadbury liberty
159
interest in entering library as taxpayer in Hamilton, MT in 2009.
160
55. Defendant Boone Karlberg, PC did publish false light information in several published
161
pleadings before the Supreme Court for the State of Montana stating Spreadbury frequently
162
returned to library, although not a crime, publish false light of actual events that occurred at
163
the public library with respect to Spreadbury situation.
164
56. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC published several instances of false light information,
165
defamation in re: criminal charge of trespassing with respect to Spreadbury after Boone
166
Karlberg PC knew charge dropped August 2010 within court pleadings published in
167
District, Supreme Courts for the State of Montana after dismissal order.
168
57. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC knew or should have known that sitting on public property
169
is not a crime, charge dismissed known as Defendant Bell, client, employees, agents of
170
Defendant Boone Karlberg PC sworn to uphold the Montana, US Constitution as lawyers.
171
58. Defendant Boone Karlberg, party to cause of action William L. Crowley esq. did publish in
172
pleading Spreadbury threatened Defendant Bell, when no evidence of threat exists in
173
correspondence to Bell. Crowley, Jones engaging in malicious defamation of Spreadbury.
174
175
59. Defendant Boone Karlberg PC acting in civil conspiracy with client Bell when defaming
Spreadbury in published pleadings to courts in State of Montana.
9
Complaint
176
leadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
60. As Defendants continue to re-publish August 20, 2009 peaceful assembly on public
177
property as criminal act by Spreadbury, causes severe emotional distress per well
178
established standards before the Supreme Court for the State of Montana.
179
180
61. Defendants knew, should have known that peaceful assembly on public property is never a
crime in Montana, United States.
181
62. Defendants knew, should have known that trespass charge was dismissed August 16,2010
182
by Honorable John Larson 4th District Court in 21 st District Cause No. DC-IO-26 with
183
Spreadbury as Defendant.
184
185
186
63. Every re-publication of false information is considered a new case for libel against the
Defendants.
64. Defendant Lee Enterprises on or around August 20, 2010 created four (4) different versions
187
of a story pertaining to criminal trespass charges against Spreadbury originating from
188
Defendant Ravalli Republic Newspaper in Hamilton, Montana.
189
190
65. Defendant Lee Enterprises made two Associated Press (AP) stories of the 4 created articles
pertaining to Spreadbury and criminal trespass.
191
66. Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. published false light: Supreme Court "upheld" library ban,
192
decision in Supreme Court for Montana in re: order of protection out of time appeal, not
193
trespassing, or unlawful ban from library of Spreadbury.
10
Complaint
t'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
194
67. A national newspaper published Spreadbury's name and criminal trespass charge based
195
upon the Ravalli Republic, Lee Enterprises Inc. AP submissions. Distribution is 1.8
196
million readers daily, national, international distribution.
197
68. Six (6) Lee Enterprise affiliates, party to this case in the State of Montana published a
198
version of the 4 articles generated from the Ravalli Republic Newspaper, each affiliate has
199
capability to publish defamatory comments about Spreadbury.
200
69. Due to AP coverage, TV, radio, newspaper, and other news outlets throughout the State of
201
Montana covered Spreadbury criminal trespass charge on or around August 20,2010. Re
202
publication, defamation of Spreadbury' s alleged criminal act, protected activity of peaceful
203
assembly from August 20, 2009 is in-calculable.
204
70. Spreadbury was no longer considered a public official at 20:00hours November 3,2009.
205
71. Defendants act in concert to devastate Spreadbury's character, "shocks conscience" that
206
protected act would be criminalized, used to defame, destroy Spreadbury's character.
207
72. Spreadbury was running for office at time of peaceful assembly August 20, 2009 yet that
208
does not allow for actual malice of Defendants defamation pled herein.
209
73. The truth can be actual malice in libel cases.
210
74. Spreadbury had injury to character to such an extent that severe economic loss ensued from
211
unlawful prosecution for peaceful assembly on public property in City of Hamilton, MT.
212
213
75. The acts of the Defendants described in paragraph 1 through 82 of this Complaint were
done willfully, maliciously, outrageously, deliberately, and purposely with the intention to
11
Complaint
.adbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
ale
March 4, 2011
214
inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff and were done in reckless disregard ofthe
215
probability of causing Plaintiff emotional distress, these acts did in fact result in severe and
216
extreme emotional distress to Spreadbury.
217
76. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's acts alleged herein, Spreadbury was
218
caused to incur severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, fright, anguish, shock,
219
nervousness, and anxiety. Plaintiff continues to be fearful, anxious, and nervous,
220
specifically but not exclusively regarding the future possibility of wrongful defamation,
221
summons without crime, and prosecution for criminal act without due cause.
222
77. As a proximate result of the Defendant's actions alleged herein, Spreadbury has had his
223
capacity to pursue an established course of life destroyed by Defendants. Spreadbury has
224
suffered permanent damage to lifestyle and professional life as a result of Defendant
225
activity described in paragraph 1 through 82. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress
226
inflicted by actual malice of the named Defendants.
227
78. This severe emotional distress was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions by
228
Defendants on or about August 20, 2009 and ongoing. Defendants did not take reasonable
229
care to avoid wrongful prosecution of Spreadbury, and appeared to have contrived the
230
criminal action against Spreadbury giving no conscience to their duties as officers of the
231
court, in color oflaw. Spreadbury's peaceful assembly on public property was
232
outrageously exaggerated, manipulated, and exacerbated by the Defendants with actual
233
malice with intent to defame, destroy Spreadbury's character.
12
Complaint
234
235
236
237
238
4!lreadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4,2011
79. Defendants had position of authority over Spreadbury, or in position to affect Spreadbury's
established interests.
80. Defendant conduct was an abuse of position, even without authority over Spreadbury, had
position to affect Spreadbury.
81. Defendants certain of infliction on Spreadbury, acted recklessly, outrageously with
239
deliberate disregard of high degree of probability of emotional distress to Spreadbury.
240
82. Defendants acted with heatless, flagrant, and outrageous acts; extreme liability arises for
241
242
Defendants with respect to emotional distress in the State of Montana.
Negligence/ Brophy-public library-Count 1
243
83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-82 of this complaint as if fully set herein.
244
84. Library Board chairman Brophy, acting in official duties in color of law, wrote letter of
245
246
247
248
February 23,2010 removing Spreadbury's library privileges without cause.
85. Brophy knew or should have known that Spreadbury was never asked to leave public
library, violated any rules of the public library.
86. Brophy did not allow Spreadbury an administrative remedy to the allegations of
249
misconduct, allowed arbitrary removal of privileges, did not proceed to administrative
250
remedy for submission to library, ignored Spreadbury's written reconsideration request.
251
87. Brophy's actions constituted negligence as chairman of public library Board.
252
88. As a result of Brophy's negligence at the public library, Spreadbury had actual damages.
13
Complaint
253
'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
Abuse of Process/ Brophy-public library--Count 2
254
89. Plaintiff repeats, reaUeges paragraphs 1-88 of this complaint as if fully set herein.
255
90. Board Chairman Brophy in his administrative duties as chairman of BPL board wrote letter
256
257
258
to remove Plaintiffs library privileges on February 23,2010.
91. The proceeding was regular act on the part of Brophy, but not proper in the regular conduct
of library board chairmen abiding by all laws to remove privileges of patrons.
259
92. Due to Brophy's abuse of process at the public library, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.
260
Procedural Due Process/14th Amendment-Brophy, public library-Count 3
261
93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-92 as iffully set in this complaint herein.
262
94. Brophy, as chairman of Library board wrote Feb. 23,2010 letter to Plaintiff which did not
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
allow a remedy for Plaintiff to speak to the allegations of misconduct at the Library.
95. Brophy upheld Director's June 11, 2009 letter which improperly took Plaintifflibrary
privileges without remedy to answer the allegations of misconduct at library.
96. Public library did not respond to Spreadbury's July 8, 2009 "Request for Reconsideration"
form, or follow administrative process at public library for Spreadbury's submission.
97. Since Brophy did not allow an administrative remedy for Plaintiff to address Board of
library, it violated Plaintiffs right to administrative remedy and due process.
14
Complaint
270
leadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
al.
March 4, 2011
98. Due to Brophy's, public library lack of procedural due process with respect to public
271
library privileges, request for material submission, it violated Plaintiff right to Procedural
272
Due Process, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.
273
Defamation/Defamation Per Se-Brophy-public library-Count 4
274
99. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-98 as if fully set in this complaint herein.
275
100. Brophy communicated a statement about Plaintiff, in writing, orally in official meeting,
276
277
278
279
280
281
which was distributed throughout library staff.
101. Communication of false information unprivileged, altered perception of library staff as
they interacted with Plaintiff, and constituted Defamation and Defamation Per Se.
102. As a result of Brophy's Defamation and Defamation per se as officer of public library,
Plaintiff had damages.
Misrepresentation-Brophy-public library--Count 5
282
103. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-102 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
283
104. In February 23,2010 letter, Brophy misrepresented authority of Library Board, Library
284
director ability to remove patrons right to peaceful assembly in a publically owned park,
285
and to remove a patrons privilege to use a public library respectively.
286
287
288
105. A Library Board only has the authority to remove a privilege of a patron who willfully
violates the rules of the library under MCA 22-1-311(Use of Library-Privileges).
106. Plaintiff was never asked to leave the library by staff, director, or law enforcement.
15
Complaint
289
290
.preadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
107. Due to Brophy's misrepresentation of authority, Plaintiff incurred actual damages.
1 st Amendment-Roddy-public Iibrary--Count 6
291
108. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-107 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
292
109. Public Library staff Roddy did refuse Spreadbury's submission to the public library.
293
110. Public library policy requires no rejection of written material, freedom of speech requires
294
295
acceptance of material not profane, suitable for adult readers.
111. By refusing Spreadbury's submission that was accepted in a member Library in Montana,
296
Roddy violated Spreadbury's right to speak, petition government as protected in
297
Amendment 1, US Constitution.
298
Malicious Prosecution-Public Library, City of Hamilton---Count 7
299
112. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-111 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
300
113. Ajudicial proceeding was commenced and prosecuted against Spreadbury
301
114. The public library, City of Hamilton were responsible for instigating, prosecuting, and/or
302
continuing the proceeding.
303
115. Public library, City of Hamilton acted without probable cause.
304
116. Public library, City of Hamilton were actuated by actual malice.
305
117. The judicial proceedings terminated favorably for Spreadbury.
16
Complaint
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
leadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
118. As a result ofthe Defendant public library, City of Hamilton actions, Spreadbury
sustained damages.
Tortious interference with prospective Economic Advantage--Defendants-Count 8
119. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-118 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
120.Defendants committed intentional and willful acts calculated to cause damage to
Spreadbury's reputation, and prospective economic advantage.
121.Defendants acts were done with actual malice, willful purpose of causing damage or loss,
without right or justifiable cause on the part of the actors.
122. Due to Defendant's tortious interference, Spreadbury has suffered actual damage.
"Policy or Custom" by Policymaker Bell, lSt,14 tb Amendments---Count 9
316
123. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-122 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
317
124. Defendant Bell department head and official policymaker made new policy for City of
318
Hamilton by deciding Spreadbury's peaceful assembly on public property manifested
319
criminal trespass on August 20,2009.
320
125. Due to official policy of Defendant Bell by sworn information to the court September 2,
321
2009, Spreadbury's right to peaceful assembly, protected Art. II s. 6 Montana Constitution,
322
1st Amendment US Constitution deprived by official policy of City of Hamilton, Montana.
323
126. As a result of Bell's official policy, Spreadbury would not enjoy equal protection of the
324
laws as protected in Art. II s. 4 Montana Constitution, 14th Amendment, US Constitution.
17
Complaint
325
326
327
.eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
127. As a result of official policy created by Defendant Bell, City of Hamilton, Spreadbury
suffered actual damages.
Policy of Custom-Amendment 5, 14--City of Hamilton-Oster-Count 10
328
128. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-127 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
329
129. HPD Chief Oster, official policymaker, City of Hamilton made new policy when asked
330
Spreadbury to not enter storefront when no adverse or criminal behavior occurred at the
331
Ravalli Republic business, 232 W. Main St Hamilton, Montana July 9, 2009.
332
130. By asking Spreadbury to not enter Ravalli Republic business without cause, Oster
333
deprived Spreadbury liberty interest, equal protection, protected in Amendment 5,14 US
334
Constitution.
335
336
131. Policy or Custom of City of Hamilton by Oster deprived Spreadbury established right.
Negligence, City of Hamilton-Bell---Count 11
337
132. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-131 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
338
133. Defendant Bell knew or should have known sitting on public property was not a crime.
339
134. By citing Spreadbury for a crime for sitting on public property constitutes negligence on
340
341
342
343
the part of Bell, deprives Spreadbury right to peaceful assembly, equal protection.
135. As a result of Bell's negligence Spreadbury suffered actual damages.
Negligence, City of Hamilton-Snavely-Count 12
136. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-135 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
18
Complaint
344
345
346
347
348
349
fIlreadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
137. Sgt. Snavely HPD knew, or should have known that peaceful assembly on public
property was a protected right in Montana, US Constitution, not a crime.
138. Sgt. Snavely negligent in his actions August 20, 2009 in accusing Spreadbury of criminal
trespass while peacefully assembled on public property in Hamilton, MT.
139. As a result of Snavely's negligence, Spreadbury suffered actual harm.
Freedom to Speak-1 st , 14th Amendment-HPD Det. Murphy-Count 13
350
140. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-139 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
351
141. Defendant HPD Detective Murphy investigated, published defamatory report investigated
352
Spreadbury for stalking for mentioning a "sighting" ofpublic library director on a website.
353
142. Spreadbury is free to speak in Hamilton, Montana, has a compact to the United States.
354
143. Actions of Detective Murphy demonstrate actual malice toward Spreadbury, and is an
355
example of abuse of power, oppressive government as protected in Amendment 14 US
356
Constitution.
357
144. Due to Murphy's deprivations of free speech, defamation by publishing HPD report,
358
abuse of power by investigating stalking on protected right, Spreadbury had actual
359
damages.
360
361
Negligence, Lee Enterprises Inc.-Count 14
145. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-144 as iffully set forth in this complaint.
19
Complaint
362
t,eadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
a.
March 4, 2011
146. Defendant Lee Enterprises Inc. knew or should have known sitting on public property is a
363
protected right, found in Art. II section 6 Montana Constitution, Amendment 1 US
364
Constitution.
365
366
147. Defendant Lee Enterprises knew or should have known that publishing comments about
psychiatric health constitutes negligence per se.
367
148. Lee Enterprises published several comments about Spreadbury's psychiatric health.
368
149. Lee Enterprises knew, or should have known that re-publishing material relating to
369
370
371
372
criminal trespass on public property was defamation with actual malice against Spreadbury.
150. Due to negligent and negligent per se activity by Lee Enterprises Inc. Spreadbury
suffered actual harm.
Defamation, Defamation per se, Lee Enterprises Inc.--Count 15
373
151. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-150 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
374
152. Lee Enterprises Inc. published known false infonnation with actual malice against
375
376
Spreadbury making case that sitting peacefully on public property was criminal trespass.
153. Lee Enterprises Inc. re-published, encouraged the mass-re-publication of criminal
377
trespass with respect to Spreadbury to statewide, national, and international audience.
378
154. Lee Enterprises Inc. published comments about Spreadbury's psychiatric health which
379
constitutes defamation per se.
20
Complaint
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.1t
March 4, 2011
155. Lee Enterprises Inc. encouraged all statewide media outlets to publish criminal trespass
concerning Spreadbury peacefully assembled on public property in Hamilton, MT.
156. Lee Enterprises Inc. received several written requests from Spreadbury not to defame his
character by publishing false information.
157. Due to publication, mass publication of known false information by Lee Enterprises Inc
is defamation and defamation per se with actual malice.
158. As a result of the defamation, defamation per se by Lee Enterprises Inc. Spreadbury
suffered actual damages.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)=Defendants-Count 16
389
159. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-158 as if fully set fbrth in this complaint.
390
160. Defendants were in a position to affect Spreadbury's protected interest.
391
161. Defendants unlawfully conspired to charge Spreadbury with a crime, caused severe
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
emotional distress, violated Spreadbury's established constitutional right.
162. Due to willful acts with actual malice on the part of the Defendants known to cause
emotional distress, Spreadbury actually suffered severe emotional distress.
163. Due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Defendants, Spreadbury
suffered actual damages.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)=Defendants-Count 17
164. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-163 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
21
,
.
Complaint
'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
399
165. Defendants were in a position to affects Spreadbury's protected interest.
400
166. Defendants negligently conspired to unlawfully charge Spreadbury with a crime for
401
peaceful assembly on public property, a protected right. Defendants encouraged Lee
402
Enterprises Inc. to publish with actual malice intra-state, interstate, and internationally the
403
false notion that Spreadbury committed a crime by peaceful assembly in Hamilton, MT.
404
167. The negligent and unlawful charge of criminal trespass, international publication caused
405
406
407
408
409
410
Spreadbury severe emotional stress.
168. Defendants actions were willful, with actual malice, knowing actions cause emotional
distress, expected outcome: harm to Spreadbury.
169. Due to several negligent acts of Defendants, with position to affect Spreadbury,
Spreadbury suffered emotional distress.
Injuctive Relief-Boone Karlberg PC-Count 18
411
170. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-169 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
412
171. Spreadbury seeks an order from this Honorable Court to enjoin Boone Karlberg PC from
413
further defamatory statements in reference to Plaintiff.
414
172. Spreadbury has never threatened any person in the State of Montana, information from
415
Spreadbury with respect to Boone Karlberg PC clinets does not contain specific or
416
communicated threat.
417
418
173. It is highly improper, unethical, and defamatory to make published comments about a
behavior that never existed, irrelevant to specific case at hand.
22
,
.
Complaint
'readbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
fit
March 4, 2011
419
174. Spreadbury seeks a Cease and Desist ORDER from the court, and if violated, sanctions
420
on William L. Crowley esq. and/or Natasha Prinzing-Jones esq. of Boone Karlberg Pc.
421
175. Spreadbury seeks injunctive relief from court due to belief of future harm, specifically
422
defamation through the courts, which is malicious, calculated, unprofessional, and causes
423
undue harm and injury to Spreadbury's character.
424
176. Emotional distress, defamation should not be manipulated by lawyers at Boone-Karlberg.
425
177. Spreadbury reserves the right to request civil ARREST of associates at Boone Karlberg
426
PC for cause it activity continues, or other sanctions this honorable court feels appropriate.
427
Injuntive Relief.-Lee Enterprises Inc.-Count 19
428
178. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-177 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
429
179. Spreadbury seeks a Cease and Desist ORDER from the court to stop any comment,
430
431
432
433
defamatory material from publication in re: Spreadbury.
180. Lee Enterprises has published known false information, defamatory comments damaging
to Spreadbury since 2007.
181. Spreadbury seeks civil ARREST of Perry Backus, former editor, author of at least 20
434
articles defamatory to Spreadbury, gave professional permission to publish highly
435
defamatory comments about Spreadbury's character by the Ravalli Republic. Affidavit for
436
this arrest will be in docket ofthe aformentioned.
23
"
.
Complaint
tltreadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et. •
March 4, 2011
437
182. Spreadbury seeks injuctive relief due to belief that capability of future harm by Lee
438
Enterprises is likely. Spreadbury will yield to court for an additional remedies to stop
439
malicious behavior of Lee Enterprises Inc. ongoing since 2007.
440
441
442
183. Spreadbury seeks proper court order to stop malicious behavior that attacks the good
character of Spreadbury, before this court for relief.
Punitive Damages-Defendants-Count 20
443
184. Plaintiff repeats, realleges paragraphs 1-183 as if fully set forth in this complaint.
444
185. Actions of defendants, acting in actual malice, with willful intent to deprive rights,
445
defame Spreadbury, and intentionally cause severe emotional distress entitle Plaintiff to
446
seek punitive damages in this cause of action.
447
186. Defendant actions that have callous indifference to Spreadbury's protected rights, or are
448
willfully executed to injure or harm are those eligible for punitive damages.
449
187. Punitive damages are intended to stop future behavior of the Defendants.
450
188. Decisions of official policymakers subject municipal governments to punitive damages,
451
452
as Bell, Oster enacted in this cause of action.
189. Defendants Murphy, Snavely, Brophy, Roddy, Lee Enterprises Inc., City of Hamilton,
453
Bell, Lint, Crowley, Prinzing-Jones, Boone Karlberg PC, acted in callous indifference,
454
actual malice towards Spreadbury which allow punitive damages in this case.
455
Relief Sought by Plaintiff
24
Complaint
456
t!treadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
It
March 4, 2011
I. Plaintiff respectively requests that the court find against the Defendants:
Plaintiff suffered special damages oflost earnings in the amount of ......... $2.2M
457
1.
458
11.
459
111.
Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for lIED of ...............................$535,000.00
460
IV.
Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for NIED of ............................$ 475,000.00
461
v.
Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for defamation of. ...................... $4M
462
VI.
Plaintiff seeks Compensatory damages for §1983 of.............................. $2M
463
VII.
Plaintiff seeks Punitive damages for lIED of.....................................$200,000.00
464
V111.
Plaintiff seeks Punitive damages for §1983 of. ...................................$ 645,000.00
465
IX.
Plaintiff suffered general damages for pain, suffering of........................ $2M
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for defamation of............................. $13M
466
Total Compensatory damages ......................... $ 8.21M
467
Total Punitive damages ................................$ 13.845M
468
Total damages sought from Defendants •••••••••••....••••••.••••...•••••.•.$ 22.055M
469
II. Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief:
470
Boone Karlberg PC ............................................................ line 410
471
Lee Enterprises Inc ........................................................... .line 427
472
III. Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial to hear this case.
25
'.
,.
....
Complaint
473
ItreadbUry v. Bitterroot Public Library et.
lit
End of Complaint.
474
475
Respectfully submitted this
~day of March, 2011
476
477
478
Michael E. Spreadbury, Chief Barrister, self represented litigant.
26
March 4, 2011
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?