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. [phone]

5

•

700 South Fourth St.

3

•

[e-mail]

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