Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 94

REPLY to Defendants Reply to Objection re 76 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 30 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Michael E. Spreadbury. (Attachments: # 1 Attachments) (APP, )

Michael E. Spreadbury
700 S. 4th Street
Hamilton, MT 59840
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

Pro Se Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

) Cause No: CV-11-64-DWM-JCL

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY

)

Plaintiff

v.

)

RESPONSE TO BOONE

BIITERROOT PUBLIC LffiRARY,

)

KARLBERG PC; NOTI CE

LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,

)

OF INFORMATION, IN

BOONE KARLBERG, PC,

)

RE: COURT FINDINGS

)

Comes now Spreadbury with timely response, brief in support to Defendant Boone
Karlberg PC motion, briefon Court findings.
Brief in Support
Defendant and Defense counsel Boone Karlberg PC, in color of law, in civil
conspiracy, fraud per FRCP 9b, 42 USC § 1983 misrepresents "harassment" of
Spreadbury in the aforementioned.
1

Response to Boone Reply: Court Findings Cause 9:2011-CV-11-64-DWM-JCl

August 12, 2011

Spreadbury presents infonnation to this Honorable court Defendant Gloria
Langstaff, Defendant Bitterroot Public Library impute harassment on Spreadbury.
Hamilton Police Report 1-209CR0001330 June 16,2009 Defendant Langstaff
imputes crime on Spreadbury for return ofproperty refused from Defendant
Bitterroot Public Library (Exhibit A).
Defendant Boone Karlberg PC, set up public fraud, paid litigation fees for
ineligible Defendant public library using public funds. In civil conspiracy, public
library attempts in malice to impute crime of"harassment" by asking for property
to be returned. Spreadbury's private property made HPD evidence #
209EVOOOO092 at top of pg. 2 ofthe Hamilton Police Report (Exhibit A).
Defendant Public Library did not return property to Spreadbury. Spreadbury never
asked to leave public library, statutory privilege, liberty to use library removed in
violation ofMontana Code Ann. MCA§ 22-1-311 (Use of Library-Privilege).
Court is infonned of misrepresentation with respect to ~'harassment" on proper
conduct of Spreadbury Sprunk v. First Bank W. Missoula 228 Mont. at 174 (1987).
1. Defendant Boone, Library asserts Spreadbury harassed public library.
2. Spreadbury did not harass the public library employees in Hamilton, MT.
3. Defendants improperly benefiting from imputing crime of Spreadbury,
allows bias in US Federal Judiciary at US District Court in Montana.
2

Response to Boone Reply: Court Findings Cause 9:20ll-CV~1l-64-DWM-JCL

August 12, 2011

4. Defendants are aware of falsity: claim of Spreadbury harassment.
5. Defendants intent court should act on falsity.
6. US District Court ignorant of falsity presented.
7. US District Court relies on representation as true.
8. US District Court does not expect Defendants to present representation.
9. Spreadbury defrauded ofproper acts with public library, court does not
uphold constitutional rights, other claims in the aforementioned for
Spreadbury for redress of injury to character, unlawful deprivation of right.
Harassment not effected by Spreadbury, imputed by Defense in bad faith.

Certificate of Compliance
From LR 7(d)(2)(E) US District Court Rules Montana, I certify that this brief
conforms with 14 point font, New Times Roman typeface, is double spaced,
contains 340 words excluding title page, this compliance.
if(

Respectfully submitted this

BY:

IZ

day of August, 2011

----------+--~~~--_r~--------------

Michael E. Spreadbu ,Self Represented Plaintiff
3