MONTANA 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
RAVALLI COUNTY
______________________________________________________________________________

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY            )                            Cause No: DV-10-222 Plaintiff                                              )
v.                                                       )                        RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION
ANGELA B.WETZSTEON                )
GEORGE H. CORN                         )
Defendants                                       )
______________________________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, representing himself respectfully moves to reply to the Defense motion of May 21, 2010 if it pleases the court.

By the intentional incompetence and lack of knowledge demonstrated in Defendant Wetzsteon, it caused severe emotional distress. Actions of Defendants destroyed Plaintiffs way of life, employment, and is permanently damaged by these actions of the Defendants.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Defense counsel made the impression that limitations have passed, which is not true. In a civil tort proceeding in the State of Montana, four (4) years is the statute of limitations. Final disposition was entered by Judge Langton on January 3, 2008 and is therefore not subject to any statute of limitations. Plaintiff requests that Defense counsel refrains from knowingly giving false information to this reputable court.

UNDISPUTED FACTS Plaintiff will comment on facts concerning trial for TK-2006-3068 and did review the tampered evidence presented by Defendant Wetzsteon at time of August 8, 2007 trial outside of the rules of criminal procedure. Defendant in case and present Plaintiff was standing to left of “victim” Linell. Two verbal warnings were issued to leave the area under the living room window after 10 pm on October 10, 2006. A case for threats by the household Linell was a part of was denied by Defendant Corn with Sheriff case # 06070243, as was a community nuisance petition. By denying protections to Plaintiff, Defendant Corn caused severe emotional distress. Plaintiff is wondering why the right side of the face in Exhibit A is purposely scratched with equal distant marks, with no glass lodged in the flesh of Linell. No medical service was called on the night in question. A third party observed Linell from an open window with a two (2) foot separation from the actual perpetrator. No anguish more than a bee sting was uttered, which is consistent with the Plaintiff’s account of the attempt to ward off Linell on 10/10/07. No blood was spilled, and no pain was evident in Linell after impact.

 These facts are far removed from information presented in court and in Defense motion. Ms. Linell lit off two smoke grenades, was standing in front of 1000 wood pallets asking why she should leave the area; although a Sheriff Deputy warned her of encroachment to the Plaintiff residence. Plaintiff will forgive defense counsel of the comment of “slashing a woman’s face with a thrown water glass (pg 5 III A.). That is physically impossible, did not happen, and is defamatory. Defense counsel does not have prosecutorial immunity either. Linell accused a third party on October 11, 2006 of scratching her face. She is probably right handed, and too catatonically drunk on the night of the incident, broke a sheriff order, and swore at the Deputies at the scene. Two state employees were listed as witnesses to Linell’s statement of accusing a third party besides the Plaintiff in this action of scratching her face on October 11, 2007 in the City of Hamilton. By prosecuting the current Plaintiff, Defendants actions were outrageous, and inflicted severe emotional distress.

NAME SPELLING ISSUE

Defendant Corn did not properly introduce Defendant Wetzsteon to the court as is required by the aforementioned Student Practice Act. In so doing, the Justice did not spell her name correctly in the sworn Statement of Facts of August 17, 2007. Corn’s required letter to the court was submitted on August 15, 2007 which is one of many reasons the Student Practice Act is null and void for Wetzsteon. Further, in Wetzsteon’s affidavit of May 21, 2010 there is an indication that Bill Fulbright was her supervisor. There is only one supervisor listed on the Dean’s certification letter of April 20, 2007: Defendant George H. Corn. Within the affidavit aforementioned, Wetzsteon was “authorized and supervised” by Bill Fulbright. No letter from Fulbright is available in the case file TK-2006-3038 authorizing Wetzsteon to prosecute the case.

Without written permission, Wetzsteon was not authorized to prosecute the aforementioned case. Corn is “personally professionally liable” for Wetzsteon. Corn’s affidavit of May 21, 2010 (¶ 2) also indicates that Bill Fulbright was the prosecutor for the case TK-2006-3038 and therefore would require a letter of introduction as per the Student Practice act. Actions outside of the student practice act make it void. Wetzsteon was practicing law unauthorized on August 8, 2007. The Judge would have spelled Angela Wetzsteon’s name correctly had the required letters been on file. Due to them not being on file, and an unsupervised student in the courtroom on August 8, 2007 Wetzsteon was unauthorized to practice law. The actions of Wetzsteon on August 8, 2007 caused the Plaintiff emotional distress. Further, the Plaintiff is not bringing a case for misrepresentation, and therefore does not have to prove any elements of such. The action of instructing a staff at the RCAO to misrepresent Wetzsteon’s name shows Defendants willfull act of attempting to cover wrongdoing. Defendants sworn statement of May 21, 2010 of not intending to mislead the Plaintiff is of no consequence, the deed did lead to added emotional distress as is described in this motion.

COMMENT ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendants acted maliciously, outside of Montana Common Law with respect to Plaintiff right to protect property, US Constitutional rights to equal protection, due process (even with competent prosecutor), free speech (deputy cut off self protection speech in transcript), speedy trial (which was ultimate factor for State Judge to dismiss case), and right to confront witnesses or Amendment 6. Defendants ignored all evidence in favor of the current Plaintiff.

 Arrest warrant for a non-crime went mute in court August 8, 2007, it was not opposed, or spoken to by a 2nd year law student who supposedly was of high moral character according to the Dean. This Law School Certification letter of April 20, 2007 certifies competent legal capability, and adequately trained. Corn instructed her on how to abuse the Plaintiff, because no competent law student would make as many mistakes as happened on August 8, 2007. Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when a deliberate disregard of standard of practice happens.

 The granting of injunctive relief is usually for a Plaintiff who is under the mere threat of a repeat. Plaintiff has more than a repeat.

Defendant prosecuted Plaintiff for sitting peacefully on a lawn of a library and speaking appropriately to a librarian. Criminal Trespass is impossible for public property. Site is publically owned, and Plaintiff was never asked to leave library and is covered in June 12, 2009 sworn statement. A discussion with a librarian which was not forceful, it was asking for help. She thought she knew how to help, due to being a former wife of a state judge. Testifying under oath, this former wife said she did not know what Plaintiff said November 4, 2009. With no threat listed on affidavit, which is required by statute for Intimidation, how can Plaintiff have possibly communicated a threat?

In the essence of justice, the Plaintiff is requesting court intervention from Defendant’s malicious prosecution which puts Plaintiff in jeopardy. How can sitting peacefully on lawn of public property and this last discussion be transferred to a felony crime? Continuous malicious prosecution by George H. Corn, that is how.

Even the Honorable Judge Larson exclaimed that Plaintiff was “pressuring” which was far removed from “intimidating or threatening”. A library cannot order someone off the premises that has not ever been asked to leave, or has knowingly violated the rules. Montana Statute MCA 2-11-311 indicates that library use is a free right, and only a board of a library can remove privileges by knowingly violating the rules. What happens when a library does not follow the rules, the law, and gives false information to a police department? It is supposed to be a crime to give false information in an order of protection hearing. If you are the City Attorney with no business in that civil courtroom, or that former wife you are allowed to turn Hamilton into Hollywood to the Plaintiff’s jeopardy and emotional stress.

 A victim of theft can theoretically recover from a crime, a victim of rape can hopefully recover, and the Honorable Judge Larson puts criminals away for a long time and gains restitution for the victims. A victim of repetitive malicious prosecution is presented here; it has destroyed the Plaintiff’s ability to work, as certified by a Montana Vocational Specialist comparing 2005 to 2010. The actions of the Defendants have disabled the Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy life, work, and most pursuits.

The Defendants did not know when to quit.

Please show them that there is a responsibility in prosecution, and there is no “duty” to destroy lives and ignore Sheriff Cases where constituents are threatened and need protection. Defendant Wetzsteon even wanted to see her handiwork by laughing at the Plaintiff as a janitor in the local Emergency Room. Those who are disturbed enough to maliciously destroy a person’s way of life and need to witness the demise in person needs incarceration and potentially more help than the layman can offer. Lower court Judge Reardon was very amused and pleased with my incarcerated condition on November 20, 2009 the date of the TOP hearing. He even issued a personal attack from the Bench.

The Honorable Ed McLean found 11 rule violations as no problem as chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission.

 Plaintiff instructed to not fully speak on the Nov 4th situation due to the pending “prosecution”. My speech stifled again by the Montana Justice System. My 15 years here and upstanding citizenry meant nothing to the Defendants. They have been in destroy-mode since 2007. Intervention is necessary by the courts. Plaintiff household was suffering from smoke entering in 2007 by Linells boyfriend; he laughed at Plaintiff, knowing he has friends in the Ravalli County Sheriff Department. Plaintiff could not breathe in own house, and feared of burning alive. The State Fire Marshall, Dick Larson agreed with us. Ravalli County continued to be abusive, including a seemingly innocent law student, who quid pro quo in this case got a job at the RCAO. George H. Corn has abused my person for over three (3) years.

 Plaintiff was highly decorated at FEMA helping people at Presidentially Declared Disasters. Plaintiff was deployed on August 8, 2007. Plaintiff continues to hold a national security clearance due to not being convicted of anything for nearly 40 years. If Plaintiff were a criminal, why did criminal history supposedly start at mid life, instead of at 18 years? Those with security clearances can be trusted not to commit crime, even when they can “get away with it”. This cannot be said for the Defendants. While it is easy to sentence or issue a warrant for a known criminal or a defendant who misses a court date, I understand the reluctance to understand the extent of the trauma that Corn, Bell, Roddy, and Wetzsteon have caused to Plaintiff’s household. Rules and laws do not apply to them. Does this sound familiar? For the willing and wanton destruction of Plaintiff’s life that cannot be repaired, I ask for intervention from the court. This is in the form of injunctive relief. For further injunctive relief, I ask that the affidavits for the arrests of the Defendants in cause DV-10-222; DV-10-223; DV-10-224 Be converted to warrants by careful examination of the honorable court. Further, with respect to DV-10-93 the civil order of protection, it does not allow Plaintiff to enter the county administration building, or private shops in Hamilton without fear of the overzealous Hamilton Police Department who would like nothing more than to detain me, measure out 599 feet and arrest me on a felony. Please make this unwarranted attack which is being mounted due to my running for Mayor of Hamilton in November 2009.

Protection is needed for the Plaintiff, not the Defendants in these causes.

Plaintiff has no desire to go near, enter, or otherwise look at an employee of the Bitterroot Public Library at 306 State St (corner of 4th and State) near Main St. If an order of protection needs to remain, it must be known to the court that Plaintiff lives at 700 S. 4th and to get downtown, Plaintiff used to walk up the street. Because someone lied, an innocent person has to walk around a place that is supposed to support free speech, and accept the public. If Plaintiff agrees to the “banning” from the library, it is pathetic that a person who lied about a civil interaction is protected, yet the RCAO can continue to abuse plaintiff, and their newspaper can defame Plaintiff to the point that defamation is fun for Corn and the paper for which Corn is on the editorial board. When the improper influence of attorneys (the MT Bar enforced nothing of these practices).

We wonder why in this state we are impoverished.

When Prosecutors like George Corn take livelihoods, people like the Plaintiff who used to spend $20,000 a year in the local economy now are wards on the State. Plaintiff never knew that Public Libraries are private property, and staff have the ability to contribute to the destruction of peoples lives. Plaintiff always thought that librarians liked to help people. Ms. Nansu Roddy certainly helped herself to putting Plaintiff in jail for three weeks on no probable cause on an affidavit, or the “hearing” where nothing Plaintiff could say was lodged. Plaintiff is requesting a 100ft buffer instead of a 600ft one, or a relinquishing of the order of protection. Ms. Roddy will need protection from her own conscience for giving false statements to a Judge, a Police Officer and others. All Plaintiff asks for three days incarceration for Corn, Bell, Roddy, and Wetzsteon to show them that ruining people’s lives is not in their oath of office or public service. Please remember that Montana Law provides for the arrests of the Defendants when willful destruction of character or person is involved. It is listed as MCA 27-16-102 (2). The affidavits are attached to the original complaints in each cause.

Plaintiff Duty In a civil course of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Plaintiff merely has to show the court that the likelihood of emotional distress was brought forth by the behavior of the Defendants. The job of weighing the evidence if emotional distress existed is up to the jury in the civil trial. When Defendants knowingly and maliciously prosecute a case that should be dismissed due to criminal procedure rules, rights of the Plaintiff, and other reasons, there is a high degree of certainty that emotional distress occurred. When Defendants engage in “injurious falsehoods” it adds to the emotional distress of the Plaintiff. HB 250 now protects self defense, not that the Defendants actions would have changed if the bill was available in 2007. In Ravalli County it counts who you are, not what laws need to be upheld. Recklessness in this case is the insertion of a Law Student in a hasty and improper manner. When circumstances occur in the courtroom for discovery outside of the rules, protection of the public as prescribed in the Student Practice Act did not occur. The reckless abandon of court and student practice rules did knowingly inflict emotional distress. The Defendants asked for a continuance to get their witness into court, but tried the Plaintiff in absentia in violation of his 6th, 7th and 14th Amendment rights, and intentionally to inflict emotional distress.

The Montana Constitution calls for individual dignity, and the Defendants thought the Plaintiff deserved none. This caused severe emotional distress. There is no duty to prosecute for the Defendants, however, there is a duty to follow an oath of office upholding common law in State and Federal Constitutions. George H. Corn did not follow his oath, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted on this ____ day of May, 2010 ______________________________________

Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

==============================================================

Third Pleading

MONTANA 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
RAVALLI COUNTY

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY                                          ) Cause No: DV-10-224
Plaintiff                                                                               )
v.                                                                                          ) REPLY TO DEFENSE MOTION
NANSU RODDY                                                                )
Defendant                                                                          )

Comes now the Plaintiff, responding to Defense motion of May 27, 2010 and respectfully enters this motion in the court docket.

Defendant, in the aforementioned reply does not offer any defense to intentionally inflicting emotional distress when giving false information to a court, and law enforcement on or around November 4, 2009 in the City of Hamilton, Montana which caused Plaintiff emotional distress.

Plaintiff will answer Defense 1-4 and attach a statement of damages as requested.
FIRST DEFENSE REPLY
1. Plaintiff is not currently taking action against Defendant for negligence, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution or conspiracy and has no obligation to state a claim for these infractions in this case. Plaintiff has stated claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in the complaint and amended complaint in this action.
2. In the process of giving false information to a court, Defendant has damaged Plaintiff’s course of life. A statement of damages will be attached to this motion as was requested by Defense counsel. False information that contributes to an order of protection, and a felony arrest (one and the same information) did damage course of life for Plaintiff. Course of life changes cause Plaintiff additional emotional distress.

SECOND DEFENSE REPLY
1. Defendant used position as former wife of State Judge to detriment of Plaintiff.
2. Activities of Hamilton Police department outside the scope of Defendants willful false testimony are irrelevant to the aforementioned case.
3. Plaintiff affirms that a federal claim for civil conspiracy to deprive civil rights is filed, approved against actors in Hamilton, MT. Defendant is not included at this time.
4. Plaintiff admits to acquiring a national security clearance prior to November 4, 2009.
5. Library privileges are bound by Montana Law contained within MCA 22-1-311, and policies of Bitterroot Public Library: asking a patron to leave if behavior is inappropriate. No library policy or law was upheld in Hamilton, MT.
6. Plaintiff sworn statement of June 12, 2009 contains information that Plaintiff was never asked to leave the Bitterroot Public Library, and never caused a disturbance that would warrant such a request. Defendant’s supervisor affirmed this in court.
7. Misdemeanor Criminal Trespass MCA 45-6-203 is reserved for private property. The Bitterroot Public library does not own any private property. The library sits on original block #18 of the original Hamilton Platt Map; ownership of this block which the Bitterroot Public Library leases is the City of Hamilton.
8. Plaintiff admits voluntarily vacation of public library grounds on August 20, 2009 without arrest, citation, or reprimand.
9. Defendant was never in danger on November 4, 2009 and did not need an order of protection from Plaintiff. Plaintiff affidavit of 12-31-09 affirms these statements.
10. Malicious activity of City Judge in Hamilton is irrelevant to aforementioned case.
11. Peaceful assembly on public property is never a crime, is protected by the first amendment, and Defendant was not a witness to Plaintiff assembly August 20, 2009.
12. Appropriate conversation with Defendant, asking for help, affirmed by response by Defendant on November 20,2009 is not a crime, and is also protected by 1st Amendment, Article II S. 7 of the Montana Constitution. Defendant manipulated proper interaction to detriment of Plaintiff. Actions by Defendant caused emotional distress. Resulting actions by authorities caused Plaintiff emotional distress.
13. No Probable cause exists in the affidavit for arrest, nor relevance to the statute for Felony Intimidation in the State of Montana. Defendant under oath Nov. 20 2009 “I did not know a word or anything that the (Plaintiff) said to me.” Communication of a threat is impossible under these circumstances. Plaintiff suffers emotional distress due to being improperly “seized” by arrest, threat of criminal trial by Defendant’s aforementioned improper testimony.

THIRD DEFENSE REPLY
1. Defendant is fully to blame for intentionally misconstruing speech, a proper conversation with Plaintiff, and willfully giving false information to authorities. These activities on or around November 4, 2009 caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.
2. Defendant omitted to tell the truth, and wrongfully stated the actual activities on State St. in Hamilton, MT on November 4, 2009, which includes construing renter of law offices of former husband (State Judge Haynes) as “witness” to November 4, 2009 conversation.
3. Information provided by Defendant caused improper, intentional prosecution, and defamation of Plaintiff, which caused emotional distress.
4. Deliberate false information provided by the Defendant was due course of improper action, and emotional distress levied on Plaintiff.
5. Due to the course of Defendants actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress.
6. Due to false statements in #4-8 in May 27 2010 motion Defendant is put in further jeopardy, and Plaintiff can easily prove intentional infliction of emotional distress through actual actions of Defendant on November 4, 2009.
7. Plaintiff under no circumstances is attempting to re-litigate in a civil court, and res judicata therefore is null and void. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) has no overlapping concern with other litigation open to the Plaintiff with respect to this situation with the Defendant. No preclusion or collateral estoppel exists in this action against the Defendant.

FOURTH DEFENSE REPLY
1. Plaintiff has been damaged in the extent listed in the amended complaint, and is further prepared to quantify such damage in a statement attached to this motion.
2. Defendant acted intentionally, with disregard for the Plaintiff, and caused emotional distress for these reasons:
i) Trauma from false imprisonment, three weeks duration with 8 days of 19 hour lockdown due to “danger” of Plaintiff due to Defendant testimony.
ii) Irreparable damage to career and way of life that has been permanently damaged by Defendants testimony. See Plaintiff statement.
iii) Irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s character due to testimony of Defendant.
iiii) Loss of freedom and future freedom to Plaintiff, otherwise known as jeopardy from Defendant’s false construction of a civil conversation November 4, 2009.
3. Actual Malice is easily proven by statement of Defendant, and resulting actions and damages such as emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff.
4. All of Plaintiffs claims are supported by fact, and law. Defense response is grounded in misinformation, denial, unethical actions, and potentially illegal activities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is prepared to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress to a jury based upon the Defendants actions on or around November 4, 2009.
Intentional actions by the Defendant in Hamilton, Montana have caused severe emotional distress, indicated by the stressors which were unfairly placed upon the Plaintiff by Defendant’s improper reporting of the conversation at 306 State Street in Hamilton, MT on or around November 4, 2009.


Respectfully submitted on this ____ day of June, 2010


Michael E. Spreadbury, Pro Se Plaintiff

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++