Thursday, April 19, 2012

Public Information in Hamilton Montana.

This is a brief and case before the Montana Supreme Court.  All readers of this blog have to know is that local governments in Montana try to hide the bad acts of thier police, and administrative staff.  While you can email Human Resources in most states, Montana has a code of protection where public information has to be fought for, and sometimes sued for.

Since the lawyers in Montana also go along (or they would not have a job) you have to go it alone against a judge, and most likely a PARTNER of a law firm.  Well, I did just that and here is my story about a police report or two from the unincorporated city of Hamilton, MT.

Proof first that the City and County in Hamilton Ravalli County does not exist.

Official Plat Map, City of Hamilton [Missoula Co]

Brief of Public Information (this is a public document)

Cause No. DA-11-0731
Michael E. Spreadbury
Hamilton, MT 59840
Self-represented Plaintiff and Appellant

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,                  )        
          Plaintiff and Appellant            )        REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
v.                                                       )        OF PLAINTIFF
KENNETH S. BELL                         )
CITY OF HAMILTON (FBN)          )                 
          Defendants and Appellees        )
______________________________ )
Comes now, Spreadbury in the aforementioned case for public information, 42 USC§1983 with reply brief in support.  Spreadbury seeks de novo review, remand in accordance with Montana Code, Montana Administrative Rules, Opinion of this court, State Constitutional right to inspect local government documents denied by Defendant Bell, City of Hamilton, Montana.
[The Table of Contents and citations have been removed for your reading ease]
Statement of  issues presented for review:
1.     As unsolicited information is given to law enforcement prior to arrest, investigation, did District Court err in determining information privileged, confidential justice information as Montana Code Ann., Administrative Rules of Montana, this court’s decision in Sacco indicates otherwise?
2.     If lower court Judge was married to librarian offering unsolicited information to law enforcement, issues opinion contrary to Montana Code, ARM, controlling authority of this court; is lower court Judicial opinion have appearance of conflict of interest?
3.     As unsolicited information to law enforcement in aforementioned included suspicion of crime, initial information prior to warrant,  arrest; does information in November 4, 2009 city police report qualify as “Initial Offense Report” constitute public criminal justice information?
4.     As initial information was freely given to city police November 4 2009 without request to shield identity, privacy of public employee prior to arrest, investigation; does written law enforcement report as public criminal justice information by Montana Code Ann, Administrative Rules, or this Courts opinion in also overcome individual right to privacy of public employee?
Case Statement:
Spreadbury sought public information from Appellee Ken Bell former Hamilton City Attorney July 20, 2010 for two Hamilton Montana Police reports.  The first Hamilton police report, Spreadbury took pictures on public property, not charged as a crime on February 13, 2009.  The second police report occurred as a Librarian [former spouse of District Judge] and Hamilton City Planner gave unsolicited initial information of a suspected crime November 4, 2009 to the Hamilton Police without requesting confidentiality, or privilege at city police station.  Spreadbury sought both reports from Bell, who refused five written requests over a period of six months, two written requests after disposition of case against Spreadbury October 15, 2010.  Case asks court if rule of law, constitutional right to know in Montana was improperly applied by District Court as summary judgment.
Case Summary
This case is asking the question whether initial unsolicited information in police reports, prior to investigation, charge of crime, or arrest (describing initial facts of an alleged crime) considered public information by Montana Statute, Montana Administrative Rules, and this Court’s opinion.  As Judge below was married to police informant, potential for Judicial conflict of interest arise in this case.  Final judgment via summary judgment from District Court in conflict with Montana Code, Administrative Rules, and this court’s lawful authority for public information, right to privacy of public employees compared to public right to know.
Criminal Justice information, available initially to public (or by disposition of case) by Montana Code, ARM, this courts opinion.  City, former City Attorney Bell failed to release information to Spreadbury depriving right to know, inter alia as pled in the amended complaint in the court below.
Case Argument:
I. Public Information releasable by Bell, City; information not released.
Spreadbury made five (5) written requests for information from City beginning July 20, 2010, ending December 1, 2010 consisting of two City police reports.
First Record Requested of Bell
Spreadbury requested a February 13, 2009 police report as pictures were taken on County property, no charges filed.  Spreadbury’s employer was intimidated by City to discontinue employ as information was taken at time of “interview” with City Police.  As Spreadbury’s request for police report was beyond a year from the date of incident, no misdemeanor charges could be brought by Bell by statute of Limitations in Montana Code Ann. MCA Title 45.  Glenda Wiles, a public employee for Ravalli County called law enforcement due to Spreadbury taking pictures on lawn of Ravalli County Administration Building.  As Spreadbury was never arrested, or charged with a crime for the February 13, 2009 incident City report can only be classified as public information Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 44-5-103(13)(a) et. seq.  Spreadbury not under investigation for any crime as the July 20, 2010 and following written requests for the February 13, 2009 report.  District Court erred in maintaining privacy of Wiles who does not have reasonable expectation of privacy under this Court’s two point test for an public employee’s actual expectation of privacy, and if that privacy is reasonable Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. Police Dept. 260 Mont. at 225 (1993). 
As Glenda Wiles, Ravalli County Commissioner secretary called authorities while at official function, on county property Wiles has no expectation of privacy due to no sex crime, involvement with minor privacy, was no victim, and has a position of public trust as a public employee Bozeman Daily Chronicle at 227.  District Court erred in granting privacy of Wiles for the February 13, 2009 City report.
Spreadbury avers Bell, as City Legal Department Head and City Attorney knowingly withheld with callous indifference to Spreadbury’s right to know; made official policy by deciding to withhold public information in violation of Oath of Office, Montana code, duty to Spreadbury Monell v. NYC Social Services 436 US 658 (1978).  Bell displayed callous indifference towards Spreadbury in not releasing February 13, 2009 city report as five (5) written requests made of City prior to commencement of this action December 2010, allows municipal punitive damages from City to Spreadbury to deter future unlawful activity.
Second Report Requested of Bell
On November 4, 2009 Nansu Roddy, a librarian, and Dennis Stranger Hamilton City Planner entered the Hamilton Police Department to give unsolicited information about a suspected crime.  Both Roddy and Stranger are public employees; Roddy of the City-County Library in Hamilton, MT and Stranger the “special projects” director for City.  Unsolicited information to law enforcement prior to arrest has been found by this court to not be privileged under MCA§27-1-804 Sacco v. High Mountain Independent Press 271 Mont. 279 (1995).  This court given judicial notice of the mis-information by City indicating the Sacco court did not include criminal justice information; initial information was given to the Bozeman Police Department about Sacco prior to arrest.  An arrest, and criminal charges were later filed and dismissed.  As Sacco was not under investigation at the time of her employer’s initial conversation with the Bozeman police that information was deemed not privileged, and Spreadbury argues initial information consistent with an initial offense report MCA§ 44-5-103(13)(i); ARM 23.12.201(3),  ARM 23.12.202 is public criminal justice information.
Roddy fails this court’s two prong test in Bozeman Daily Chronicle (1993) for actual expectation of privacy and if that privacy is reasonable.  Only reasonable expectation of privacy is sex crime, involvement of minors In RE: Lacy 239 Mont. 324 (1989).  Roddy has a public trust position and works with children; as seven (7) false statements, false swearing MCA§45-7-202 as Roddy avers she went to the City Police “by herself” impeached by Stranger’s accompaniment with Roddy on November 4, 2009.  The unsolicited information by Roddy, Stranger to the City did not include a threat, as City officer, now detective failed to obtain a supervisors signature to validate the report.  The misconduct of Officer Brad Weston, the false information given by Roddy, Stranger as public trust employees is an issue of public concern and therefore City report becomes the highest rung of free speech available Dunn & Bradstreet Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders Inc. 472 US 749 (1985).
As Stranger gives six (6) false statements in City Report of November 4, 2009 is issue of public concern for Citizens of Hamilton, MT.  This court found that Svaldi, an Anaconda School Teacher did not have any right to privacy for police reports and complaints as to her function as a public employee but appropriately protected the minors involved Svaldi v. Anaconda-Deer Lodge Co. 325 Mont 365 (2005) citing Jefferson Co. v. Montana Standard 318 Mont 173 ¶17(2003).  City pleads to this Honorable Court that their decision in Bozeman Daily Chronicle 859P.2d 435 (Mont. 1993) gives protection to Roddy, Stanger (pg. 14 City Reply brief) but fails to mention the two prong test, or why public employees should enjoy privacy over the public right to know.  Roddy, Stranger do not meet the Havre Daily News criteria for privacy for a public employee in Montana as neither are a victim, a witness nor have the availability to conceal misconduct of false information Havre Daily News v. City of Havre 333Mont 331 (2006).  Bell was obligated by oath, adherence to Montana Statute to release information to Spreadbury, and had duty to approach court and failed MCA§ 44-5-303(2);(5)(a) see Oral argument (Doc. #34).
City avers throughout Reply brief of “threats” as holding public officials accountable for their behavior not an actual threat.  Bell resigned his position, George Corn was relieved of his position as Spreadbury’s comment was predictive, City violates judicial economy of this court.   Judicial Notice is given that no crime is on record for November 4, 2009 and no threat is available in public documents from the court, writs before this court attest (see ).  Spreadbury has no convictions, holds public trust national security clearance, made sworn affidavit of no criminal activity in Ravalli County Montana on November 22, 2011 under penalty of perjury (Appendix A pg. 2 #6).  Further, City avers in discovery no other initial information of suspected crime November 4, 2009 other than requested  report, confirms status of city report as initial offense report MCA§ 44-5-103 (13)(i) , ARM 23.12.201, Sacco; therefore public information.  Bell, City should be found liable for negligence, callous indifference, decision as official city policymaker, violated Spreadbury established right to petition government, equal protection, Bell breached duty to release public information.
Assuming in arguendo November 4, 2009 was criminal justice information, disposition of case October 15, 2010 makes City liable for non-release of report as public information by Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 44-5-103 (10)(a).  Spreadbury swears in affidavit (Doc. #18) two written requests were made of City after disposition of case.  Bell was negligent in duties to release information for not approaching court to request release.  If February 13, 2009 report was confidential criminal justice information, Bell had duty in Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 44-5-303 (5)(a) and failed to do so (see Oral Argument April 29, 2011; Doc. #34).
II. Initial Offense Report, Montana Code, Sacco Court require release of public information.
As November 4, 2009 City report, requested by Spreadbury on two occasions after disposition of case October 15, 2010 (see Doc. #18 Affidavit of Spreadbury) not released, City is liable to Spreadbury for injury, punitive damages to stop future behavior.  Spreadbury was constructing 42 USC§1983 federal case against County (Spreadbury I) for relief in the Federal Circuit; Bell withheld information with knowledge of its suspected use.  This court is given notice that Bell resigned his contract as City attorney prior to its term.
As City admits no other source of initial information November 4, 2009 Roddy, Stranger statements to City without requesting privilege are public ARM 23.12.201, Sacco.  Spreadbury was not under investigation November 4, 2009, Roddy, Stranger give unsolicited information to City designated as Initial Offense Report MCA§44-5-103 (13)(i) public information in concurrence of the Sacco court of unsolicited information to law enforcement prior to investigation or arrest as not privileged.  As no charges were filed for the February 13, 2009 incident, and Spreadbury requests information beginning July 20, 2010 city report is public information.  Bell, City breached duty to Spreadbury in callous indifference as written requests were made from July to December 2010 (See Spreadbury Affidavit [Doc. #18]).
III. Bell’s Breech to Spreadbury and associated liability as Policymaker.
City, in reply brief gave false and misleading information to this Honorable court.  An official Policymaker is official capable of speaking on behalf of the government, holds position as department head and can make policy for that government with any decision Monell v City of New York Social Services 436 US 658 (1976).  Bell fits this definition of official policymaker for the City of Hamilton as City Attorney and Department Head for City Legal Department.  Punitive damages attach to the municipality as policy or custom violates the established right of Spreadbury ibid.   As Bell deprived Spreadbury’s state right to know (Art. II s. 9) City violates Spreadbury’s right to equal protection Amendment 14 US Constitution (Montana Constitution Art. II s. 4), acted in negligence, made policy for Spreadbury to not produce information which deprives right Streit v. County of Los Angeles 236 F. 3d 552 (9th Cir., 2001).
  Bell not in scope of duties as Spreadbury’s right deprived, Bell acted outside sworn duty as City Attorney.   Bell not protected by MCA§ 2-9-305(5), no qualified immunity as Bell knew, should have known Spreadbury had right to public information as prescribed in Montana Code, Montana Administrative Rules, and this courts authority Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 (1982).  Judicial Notice is given that Bell resisted taking oath of office for first six (6) years stating in 2007 memo to City Council “It is ridiculous to think I have to swear an oath (of office)”.  Bell’s belief due to Hamilton’s unlawful status as a municipality in Montana affirmed in official meeting by Mayor Jerry Steele August 2009 recorded on video. 
City officials aware of unlawful status of municipality; no record of incorporation by way of MCA§ 7-2-4101 to 4105.  Hamilton City annexed to Missoula Co. September 4, 1890 by James H. Hamilton sworn affidavit (see official map certified by Ravalli Co. ).
Bell attests his belief of the futility to swear oath if Hamilton does not exist.  As City obtains litigation fees to defend this case, becomes public fraud of Hamilton taxpayers and top criminal priority of the US Justice Department, top state official’s spouse sits on this Honorable Court: Justice Patricia Cotter.  Tracey Neighbor Johnson esq. dares speak of Spreadbury’s background certified by the FBI in Washington DC as she knowingly participates in the top crime with Defense actors under the assumed protection of established law firm in Montana; Boone Karlberg PC of Missoula. 
IV. Public Employees violating public trust have no expectation of Privacy
Commissioner Secretary Glenda Wiles has no expectation of privacy as “disorderly conduct” was called in as Spreadbury took pictures on County Property Bozeman Daily Chronicle 260 Mont at 225(1993).  Spreadbury exercised right to expression, speech protected in Art. II s.7, Amendment 1 US Constitution.  Wiles is not a minor, no minors were involved in February 13, 2009 situation; Wiles was no victim as Spreadbury had no contact, attempted to make no contact with public employees or hinder work of Ravalli County employees.  Police report of February 13, 2009 is public information withheld by city.
Ravalli County cannot lawfully exist under MCA§7-2-2103 as Hamilton its seat does not have lawful incorporation documents.
Roddy, Stranger do not have expectation of privacy as misconduct: unsolicited false statements to City Police are not privileged Sacco, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, MCA§44-5-103(13)(i).  The intention of the state constitutional Right to Know was to allow access, inspection to government documents to expose the misconduct; here by City actors.  Art. II s. 9 states that no person can be deprived this right, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, criminal background (or in Spreadbury’s case allegation of criminal background).  Bell swore an oath to uphold this right to Spreadbury, yet failed that duty.
V.  Potential Lower court error, conflict, as Montana Code, Controlling Authority not upheld in District Court.
As District Court judge did not recuse himself immediately (or within 90 days) as former spouse was unsolicited information source, question of adherence to Judicial standard arises.  The honorable courts have to abide by authority in legislature and statutory code; District Court disregarded public information statutes, Montana Administrative Rules, disregarded controlling authority in Sacco.  The District Court attempt at entrapment, contempt as three (3) deputies in courtroom, two directly behind Spreadbury at July 20, 2010 Oral Argument (Doc. # 56) clearly showed bias and intent for harm.  District Judge attempted entrapment in hearing as is reflected in transcript (Doc. #56).  This Honorable Court is reminded that it controls the Judiciary in Montana, as it ignores its own rules for Student Practice (#12982), personal communication to former Attorney General McGrath about incompetent and corrupt law enforcement in Hamilton MT September 18, 2006, Orders of Protection are irrespective of pending charges, as no family tie, or relationship allows intimidation without keeping protection order Elden v. Bonemarte 162 P. 3d 847 Mont. (2007). 
The order or protection for Elden struck down by this court as no family tie, relationship to invoke MCA§ 40-15-101 et. seq.   Bonemarte apparently admitted to intimidating Elden: Roddy cannot claim any status as victim via threat or intimidation.  Spreadbury never had relationship or dated Roddy, Stranger nor issued any communicated threat[1].  Spreadbury does not have to “collaterally attack” any intimidation charge that does not exist, but does not wish to try on any loafers for size at Boone Karlberg PC for public fraud.
District Judge Haynes dared Spreadbury to “send up” this case; Spreadbury humbly requests on behalf of Montana residents who remain restricted from public information in Hamilton Montana be protected by the laws, constitutionally protected right to know, prior opinions as directed by this Honorable Court.  Spreadbury pleads for Statutory laws, created by Montana Legislature that govern public information be upheld by this court Wallace v. Helena Elect. Ry. Co. 10 Mont. 24 (1894).
This honorable Court has made opinion, Montana Code Ann. indicates any information prior to investigation or arrest, after disposition of criminal case is releasable to the public as non-privileged.  City did not release information, had callous indifference to Spreadbury about public information request.  This breach of duty is actionable by punitive damages, municipal punitive damages as Bell was official policymaker for City and made decision to withhold information from Spreadbury.  Spreadbury respects court for its careful consideration of this case as a matter of law, and lower court non-adherence to Montana Code, potential bias, Montana Constitutional right to know available to any citizen.  Spreadbury sought, obtained public information within a week from Arizona, New Mexico without Constitutional right to know; public information is not confidential in Montana.
Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to Rule 16, Mont. R. App. P., I certify this motion, along with its supporting authority is printed with a proportionally spaced Times New Roman text typeface of 14 points; is double spaced; and the word count is 3,081 words, excluding Contents, Certificate of Service, and Certificate of Compliance.
Dated this _____ day of  March, 2012.
         Michael E. Spreadbury, self-represented Plaintiff and Appellant.

[1] Roddy admitted under oath she did not remember anything Spreadbury said November 4 2009 in Order of Protection hearing Novmeber 20, 2009 as City Attorney Bell acts in Official Misconduct in civil courtroom.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.