Thursday, September 22, 2011

Steve Bullock's secret

Steve Bullock's SECRET:

Steve Bullock protected the unauthorized practice of a law student who practiced law without a license in Montana on August 8, 2007.  Worse, Steve Bullock used public funds to protect this law student.  If we had a justice system which worked off of its priorities Steve Bullock would be indicted for fraudulent use of public funds.

You and I as Montana residents paid to protect Angela Wetzsteon, the law student in question.  Ms. Wetzsteon was not a state prosecutor, yet Steve Bullock protected this unsupervised law student which is a violation of the Montana Ethics rule 5.5 for practicing attorneys: dont assist an unauthorized practice in the State of Montana.  Steve Bullock is exposed for this act as a public official:

Steve Bullock Exposed:
 http://www.montanapoliticalnews.com/2011/09/steve-bullock-exposed.html

While we are on this subject of unauthorized practice, many other lawyers in Montana protected Angela Wetzsteon:

Peggy Tonon; former UM clinics director, see Peggy Tonon Failed:
http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/2011/06/peggy-tonon-failed.html

Bill Fulbright Ravalli County Attorney
http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2011/06/prosecutor-william-bill-fulbright.html

George Corn, former Ravalli County Attorney:
http://www.georgecorn.com/2011/06/prosecute-george-corn-for.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But none of them used public funds, or made threats like Steve Bullock did:  affidavit of threats...
http://www.montanapoliticalnews.com/2011/06/recall-steve-bullock-of-montana.html

copied here is a reply brief the Supreme Court IGNORED for their own order for the Student Practice Rule, which states all students must be supervised in a criminal courtroom.....so the sitting Montana Supreme Court also violated rule 5.5 about unauthorized practice.

Chief Justice McGrath did same conduct which disbars attorneys, but he is our chief justice:
http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2011/05/montana-supreme-court-chief-exposed.html

Patricia Cotter takes money from lawyer groups for favorable decisions: pg 138 of archive
http://www.hamiltonmontananews.net/2010/12/bitterroot-rising-archives-truth-will.html

Beth Baker went along

James Nelson went along

other Montana Supreme Court justices went along.  Here is what they ignored: Steve Bullock committed fraud, Steve Bullock violated ethical rules.

Reply Brief to Montana Attorney General Bullock:  30 pages of proof...


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA-10-0492



Michael E. Spreadbury


Hamilton, MT 59840


Self-represented Plaintiff and Appellant



MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,       )        

          Plaintiff and Appellant            )        REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT

v.                                                       )        OF PLAINTIFF

ANGELA B. WETZSTEON             )

GEORGE H. CORN                         )                 

          Defendants and Appellees       )

______________________________ )



If it pleases the court, Spreadbury in the aforementioned case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) presents reply brief in support; Spreadbury seeks reversal and remand; issue of material fact present to reverse summary judgment of the District Court.



Table of Contents:

Statement of issues presented for review…………………………………………6

Case Statement………………………………………………………………….6-7

Case Summary…………………………………………………………………..7-8

Case Argument

          I. Inferences which establish material fact………………………………….9

II. Status of Angela B. Wetzsteon………………………………………….11

          A) Fraud Element: Wetzsteon State Prosecutor/Followed SPR...13-14

          B) Fraud Element: Representation of Wetzsteon Name………..16-17

          II. Immunity of Defendants………………………………………………..17

          III. Material Facts Germaine to Case………………………………………22

                   A) List of Material Facts…………………………………………….22

                   B) ARM 24.5.329 Summary Judgment……………………………..23

                   C) Rule 56 (c)……………………………………………….………24

                   D) “Facially Valid Arrest Warrant”…………………………………25

                   E) Fraud Element: representation of warrant………………………..25

          III. Protected Interests……………………………………………………...27

          IV. Conflict of Interest……………………………………………………..28

                   A) Fraud Element:  unsupervised student/conflict with………….….28

                   B) With Chief Justice McGrath (prior knowledge of case)…………29

Conclusion…………………………………………………………..…………29-30

Appendix items……………………………………………………………………30

Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………………………30

Authorities:                                                                                                             Pg.

Administrative Rules of Montana

ARM 24.5.329 Summary Judgment………………………………………24

MCA§ 3-10-401 Contempt, Justice Court………………………………………7,25

MCA§ 27-2-102 (3)(a)(b) [When action commenced]……………………….…..9

MCA §45-7-309 Criminal Contempt………………..…………………….17,19,28

MCA § 46-16-122 Absence of Defendant from Trial…………….………….25,27

Montana Constitution Art. II s. 3………………………………………………7,27

Montana Constitution Art. II s. 16—Administration of Justice………...…….14,17

Montana Constitution Art. II s. 24—Rights of the Accused……………………20

Montana Student Practice Rule, Order #12982……………9,10,12,13,15,16,19,28

Citations:

Anderson v. Boyd 714 F. 2d 906 (9th Cir. 1983)………………………………..…….18

Bruner v. Yellowstone 272 Mont. 261 (1995)………………………………………….6

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 US 259 US Supra (1993)……………………………17

Dukes v. Sirius Const. Inc. 316 Mont. 226 (2003)…………………………..…….18

Forrester v. White 484 US 219 (US Supra 1988)…………………………..17,19,23

Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US 800 (US Supra 1982)……………………….16,19,20

Henry v. State Comp. Ins. Fund 294 Mont. 449 (1999)……………………………...17

Imbler v. Pachtman 424 US 409 (US Supra 1976)……………………………16,21

Johnson v. Supersave 211 Mont. 465 (1984)……………………………..……….27

Kelman v. Losleben 271 Mont. 156 (1995)…………………………………………….20

Morley v. Walker 175 F. 3d 756 (9th Cir 1999)………………………………………..17

Noll and Kennedy v. Bozeman18,21

Patten v. Raddatz 271 Mont. 276 (1995)…………………………………………….…23

Rosenthal v. County of Madison 339 Mont. 419 (2007)………………………….18,19

Sacco v. High County Independent Press 271 Mont. 209(1995)……………………27

Schmidt v. WA Contractors Inc. 290 Mont. 276 (1998)……………………………...23

Sprunk v. First Bank Western M. Missoula 228 Mont. 168 (1987)……13,16,25,28

Steele v. McGregor 288 Mont. 238 (1998 ) ………………………………………18

U. Pa. L. Rev. 161 (1981) Student Role in Clinic Program…………………...16,20

Reference to Exhibits

 Exhibit “A”—Form 2 Student Certificate………………………………………11

Exhibit B Consumer Complaint—MT Dept. of Justice……………………23,27,28

Exhibit C Arrest Warrant listing MCA§ 3-10-401……………………………….25

References to Pleadings:

TR. #3 Original Complaint  “WETZSTONE(SIC)”……………….....…………...16

TR. #20  2nd Affidavit of Angela Wetzsteon ………………………………….10-13

TR. #22 Plaintiff Presents Requests for Admissions………………………..…23,24

TR. #29 Plaintiff Statement on Conflict of Interest……………………………23,28

TR. # 35 Reply Motion from Plaintiff, Affidavit of Spreadbury………………..22

TR. #42 Notice of Appeal (contains 2 Plaintiff affidavits)……………………23,24

TR. #45 Opening Brief in Support of Plaintiff…………………………..…14,15,19

Statement of  issues presented for review:

Spreadbury appeals de novo District Courts judgment of Rule 56 summary judgment Bruner v. Yellowstone 272 Mont. 261 (1995).  Issues presented in Opening Brief before this court, information presented in this reply brief indicate significant issue of material fact remain; this court must reverse and remand.

Case Statement:

Wetzsteon, a law student practicing without supervision in a criminal courtroom, and supervisory attorney Corn in administrative task knowingly violated this courts Student Practice Rule (Order # 12982) to deprive Spreadbury well established legally protected interest.  In doing so, a cause for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) arises; Defendants actions constitute a substantial invasion of legally protected interest of Spreadbury which caused significant impact, and severe emotional distress.

Case Summary

Spreadbury was charged with misdemeanor assault for protecting property from a neighbors attack, inalienable under Art. II s. 3 Montana Constitution.  Defendants did not timely prosecute case, dismissed by speedy trial right.  This case is asking the question whether law student, Wetzsteon practicing law without required direct supervision in violation of the court’s order (student practice rule , order #12982), in unsupervised criminal courtroom entitled to prosecutor immunity.  An unlawful arrest warrant was issued based upon MCA§ 3-10-401 for failure to appear, Spreadbury’s counsel present for misdemeanor charge.  The supervisor, county prosecutor Corn with dual role as law student’s supervisory attorney and actual supervisor in administrative task, knowingly assigned unauthorized student.  Issue of material fact is ambiguous nature of Wetzsteon adherence to the Montana Student Practice Rule, adherence of ARM by District Court for summary judgment.  The solo practice of law by Wetzsteon, prior to admission to the Montana Bar, in a Ravalli County criminal courtroom August 8, 2007 is at issue: Wetzsteon admitted to the Montana Bar October 9, 2008.  The material fact, with respect to prosecutor immunity for unsupervised law student, prosecutor in administrative task arise in the aforementioned.  Defendants failed duty of functional analysis, prosecutor immunity of Defense actors in this instant case, which raises material fact of immunity on appeal for Spreadbury.  District court further erred in granting summary judgment, interrogatories not discovered, nor in full agreement between parties.  Court is precluded from finding no issue of material fact in “good faith”; interrogatory questions, affidavit inconsist between parties, elements of fraud, logical inferences, ARM for summary judgment not met in the aforementioned.  This is the first case in Montana, United States for unauthorized practice of law involving a law student, unlicensed, without direct supervision.

The basis of the case is intentional infliction of emotional distress; prima facie case, case citations, authorities, and references to pleadings in 21st District court are contained within case transcript in aforementioned.  Spreadbury seeks proper reverse and remand of summary judgment due to well established question of material fact remaining, consistent with M.R. C. P. Rule 56 findings in this court.

Case Argument:

The Montana Supreme Court, in 1975 created an Order (#12982) to allow law students necessary clinical instruction prior to obtaining a juris doctor and prior to admission to Montana Bar.  The Montana Student Practice Act of April 30, 1975 created the Student Practice Rule (hereafter: SPR) on May 1, 1975.  The provisions within the order are very clear in a criminal matter: a student must be directly supervised while in a courtroom by a supervisory attorney: Section II Activities, subsection (3) Student Practice Rule (SPR): a criminal matter defendant has right to counsel:

Supervisor (CORN, or delegated Prosecutor) must be personally present throughout proceedings, fully responsible for manor in which they are conducted.

I. Inferences which establish material issues of fact:

In a notarized statement by presiding judge BaileyAugust 17, 2007, Wetzsteon’s name is incorrectly spelled 2 days after Defendant served written permission on the court.  Spreadbury did not have proper identity of Wetzsteon until April 26, 2010, start of this cause of action, an issue of material fact in the aforementioned.   Since Wetzsteon’s identity was misrepresented to Spreadbury, statute of limitation on unlawful arrest begins April 26, 2010 Montana Code Ann. MCA§ 27-2-102 (3)(a)(b) [When action commenced].  Within the MT SPR, II Activities subsection B indicates written permission from both supervisor (CORN) and prosecutor (FULBRIGHT) prior to interning in a criminal courtroom.  Wetzsteon, in 2nd affidavit admits to not turning in paperwork prior to Spreadbury’s August 8, 2007 trial.  As Judge Bailey misspells “Wetzstone (sic)” in sworn statement August 17, 2007 confirms permission paperwork was not in place for Bailey to preclude Wetzsteon from Spreadbury’s trial; Judge Bailey’s discretion per Montana Student Practice Rule II, Activities; C, D.

As Judge Bailey indicates in August 17, 2007 sworn statement, Wetzsteon was “the States Attorney” although Wetzsteon, in 2nd affidavit Corn introduces Wetzsteon to Judge Bailey prior to August 8, 2007 as “a legal intern who would be practicing in his courtroom under the Montana student practice rule.” (TR. # 20 2nd Affidavit of Angela Wetzsteon pg. 2 ¶ 2).  A Judge would not allow an intern to practice law unsupervised, which impeaches Wetzsteon’s 2nd affidavit.

Wetzsteon, in 2nd Affidavit (TR. #20) admits to practicing law (pg. 2 #3) in separate cause of action prior to Spreadbury’s trial in a Ravalli County Court.

Wetzsteon, in 2nd affidavit of June 10, 2010 (TR. #20 pg 1-2) was certified to “…perform as a legal intern…” , introduced to Judge Bailey, submitted Dean Certification to Bailey (TR# 20 pg 2 #2) although Wetzsteon tried Spreadbury’s case August 8, 2007 without direct supervision in violation of MT SPR per sworn statement presiding Judge Bailey (Plaintiff Opening Brief --Appendix C) August 17, 2007; full admission to MT Bar for Wetzsteon not until October 9, 2008.

ABA Model Rules of Conduct, Montana Professional Rules of Conduct for Lawyers, Wetzsteon in student status, not needed to adhere to professional responsibility rules (Exhibit “A”—Form 2 Student Certificate).  Wetzsteon did not have to follow Montana Rules of Professional Conduct, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: all rules addressed to lawyers, Wetzsteon’s status as law student, certified law intern August 8, 2007; MT Bar admission October 9, 2008.

II. Status of Wetzsteon August 8, 2007.

1) Wetzsteon was acting on a Form IA-Summer provisional form, Dean Certification (Opening Brief in Support of Plaintiff—Appendix B).  The provisional nature of the form included the limitation that Wetzsteon pass all Law classes Spring 2007 at the University of Montana.  In Wetzsteon’s June 10, 2010 affidavit (TR. #20—Second Affidavit of Angela B. Wetzsteon pg.2 #2) affiants to have “…worked as legal intern in the Ravalli County Attorney office in the Spring of 2007”.  Wetzsteon required to attended classes Spring Semester at the University of Montana Law School which concluded Friday May 18, 2007, certification served upon the court June 20, 2007 [ North American summer solstice][1].  Wetzsteon in second affidavit (TR. # 20 pg. 2 # 3) indicates verbal introduction by  Corn sufficient to satisfy the Montana Student Practice Rule; II Activities C: “in each case the written consent and approval… shall be filed in the record of the case and shall be brought to the attention of the Judge of the court.”   Corn’s written permission absent from case file.  SPR is a cumulative document: Activities II, section C purpose seen in section D: a Judge may eliminate legal intern for any reason prior to trial as paperwork served on court.  Wetzsteon unfamiliar to Judge Bailey, evident in misspelling of Wetzsteon’s name, refer as the ‘State’s Attorney” (Opening Brief ,Appendix C: Bailey sworn statement).

The impeachment of Wetzsteon’s 2nd affidavit (TR #20) comes from lack of truthfulness in: 1) Spring 2007 work for Corn, 2) submittal of written documents for prosecutor, supervisor prior to Spreadbury trial, 3) Direct supervision in a criminal courtroom August 8, 2007.  

In 2nd affidavit (id,pg. 2 #4) Wetzsteon talks of  “…approval of (her) appearance as trial counsel (not legal intern) in Cause No. TK-2006-3068 (Spreadbury case).    Prosecutor Fulbright, in Exhibit C attached to 2nd Wetzsteon affidavit (TR. # 20) approves Wetzsteon to appear “…on behalf of the Ravalli County Attorney Office (not legal intern) in the following case: Mike Spreadbury TK-2006-3068 August 8, 2007.”  This document, served to the court August 15, 2007; Wetzsteon in 2nd affidavit (id, pg. 2 #5) said :“(She) could not recall why it was not filed sooner.”  Document was filed outside SPR, and no written permission was served on court by supervisor Corn, required by II, Activities C of this court’s order #12982 , the Montana Student Practice Rule.

Per SPR, Judge must have intern approvals prior to trial, not 7 days after trial: Wetzsteon served paperwork on court August 15, 2007 for Spreadbury case.  In the MT SPR, Activities II D a Judge may exclude a law student from a case for no reason, and the preclusion of required paperwork by law student, in instant case would not allow the Judicial officer to exclude a law intern from practice.  Wetzsteon violated the Montana Student Practice Rule:

1) No direct supervision August 8, 2007 ; section II Activities, A, #3; MT. SPR; issue of material fact.

2) Wetzsteon failed to obtain, and serve permission paperwork on court prior to Spreadburys August 8, 2007 trial. MT SPR section II, Activities, B

3) Court should take judicial notice of non-existent Supervisory written permission from Corn prior to, post Spreadbury trial August 8, 2007.  Wetzsteon’s second affidavit (TR. # 20) June 10, 2010 contained Fulbright’s permission filed August 15, 2007.  Corn’s permission was alleged to have been verbal, outside SPR.

In the complete file transfer of May 12, 2010, 21st Montana District Cause No. DC-07-119 [Spreadbury appealed misdemeanor case] Corn’s written permission did not, does not exist.  Wetzsteon obtained no supervisor, assigned prosecutor written permission prior to Spreadbury’s trial: section II Activities; B of the Montana Student Practice Rule, order #12982 requires pre-trial service to court.

Nine Elements of Fraud: Attorney General representing Wetzsteon as state prosecutor; Wetzsteon followed Montana SPR Sprunk I 288 Mont. at 174.

1.     Wetzsteon followed the Montana SPR, was a state prosecutor.

2.     Wetzsteon was a law student August 8, 2007 acting unsupervised in a Ravalli County Justice Courtroom; violated SPR for Spreadbury’s trial.

3.     Material facts which reverses summary judgment, immunity for Wetzsteon.

4.     Wetzsteon, by Dean certification, non-admittance to the Montana Bar until October 9, 2008 knows of its falsity at August 8, 2007 trial of Spreadbury.

5.     Wetzsteon relies upon Courts to take representation as true to grant summary judgment, affirm in aforementioned.

6.     District Court, Spreadbury trusted Attorney General as legal authority.

7.     District Court relied upon truth of representation in making ruling in favor of Defendants.  Spreadbury relied on representation due to non-lawyer status.

8.      District Court, Spreadbury had right to listen to Attorney General as party in aforementioned.

9.     A. Due to District court decision, Spreadbury suffered injury: destruction of livelihood by fraud executed on courts by Attorney General.

B. Spreadbury suffered injury in fact of loss of redress of injury found in Art. II s. 16 (Administration of Justice) Montana Constitution.

Facts indicate Wetzsteon was a law student at August 8, 2007 trial, with admission to the Montana Bar, License #9623 October 9, 2008.  Wetzsteon,  required to abide by SPR in State of Montana as intern at time of Spreadbury’s August 8, 2007 trial. 

The physical absence of supervisory lawyer; Corn or prosecutor at Spreadburys trial August 8, 2007 (TR. # 45 Opening Brief —Appendix C Justice Bailey sworn statement) subsequent unsupervised practice of law by Wetzsteon is in violation of the MT SPR Section II #3; is issue of material fact in the aforementioned which precludes summary judgment, prosecutor immunity for the Defendants.  A sworn affidavit August 17, 2007 from Justice Bailey (TR. # 45Opening Brief--Appendix C Pg. 2 #2) affirms Wetzsteon as practicing law without a supervisory attorney at Spreadbury’s August 8, 2007 trial.

Wetzsteon acute failure to meet requirements of Montana’s Student Practice Rule, order #12982 is a genuine issue of material fact in the aforementioned.

Wetzsteon was permitted by Law School Dean Eck to be a legal intern (TR. # 45 Opening Brief Plaintiff—Appendix B, Dean Certification; TR. #22: 2nd Affidavit of Wetzsteon) .  Wetzsteon did not have authorization to violate the Montana Student Practice Rule August 8, 2007 at Spreadbury’s trial.  Wetzsteon’s exceeded legal authority of Law School Dean August 8, 2007at Spreadbury’s trial, acted outside of allowed practice, without valid Montana Bar License.  Wetzsteon’s status August 8, 2007 intern; not a state prosecutor: unauthorized, unlicensed student at Spreadbury’s trial.  Students are not lawyers U. PA L. Rev. 161 (1981) only lawyers who are prosecutors may act in violation of protected interests Harlow v. Fitzpatrick 457 US 800 (1982); Imbler v. Pachtman 424 US 409(1976) and obtain absolute prosecutor immunity if filing or maintaining charges.   Wetzsteon’s legal status, violation of SPR August 8, 2007are facts material to this case, and preclude issuance of immunity, summary judgment to Defendants.

Prima facie case: fraud for intentional representation of Wetzsteon’s name to Spreadbury by Ravalli County Attorney Office (RCAO) staff 2007-2010

Sprunk I 228 Mont. at 174

1.     Defendants and employees of RCAO represented students name as “WETZSTONE (SIC)” (TR. #3 Original Complaint)

2.     True identity of unauthorized student is Wetzsteon.

3.     Material nature of fact: inability by Spreadbury to redress disciplinary action, redress legal injury for 3 years Art. II s. 16 Montana Const.

4.     Wetzsteon, Corn, knew of its falsity, Defendants instructed RCAO to give false unprivileged information to Spreadbury when requested.

5.     Defendants wished to misrepresent true identity of Wetzsteon to conceal misconduct, injury against Spreadbury.

6.     Spreadbury ignorant to true identity due to Defendants in civil conspiracy with newspaper who published “WETZSTONE(SIC)” and kept representation with Defendants from 2007 to time of original complaint April 26, 2010; Honorable Judges in 21st District corrected representation.

7.     Spreadbury relied upon Defendants representation for original complaint in aforementioned, had no reason to suspect representation by Defendants.

8.     Spreadbury had right to rely upon representation due to being told no different upon request, observed consistent published representation.

9.     Spreadbury’s injury is inability to redress actual injury until April 26, 2010 court corrected representation in original complaint, Spreadbury amended.

III. Immunity

This court uses Forrester v. White 484 US 219 (1988) to initiate functional analysis for assignment of immunity for Prosecutors.  Duty of Defendants to prove functional element of immunity for each task performed by the prosecutors Morley v. Walker 175 F. 3d 756 (9th Cir. 1999).  The Defendants failed in pleadings, oral argument, appeal briefs to perform functional approach to immunity to establish immunity from suit Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 US 259 (1993); Forrester.  This material fact, failure by Defense to assign functional immunity, as matter of law allows court to review for correctness Henry v. State Comp. Ins. Fund 294 Mont. 449 (1999).  If the interpretation of law in the District Court was incorrect, this court has obligation to reverse the opinion of lower court in the light most favorable to Spreadbury Dukes v. Sirius Const. Inc. 316 Mont. 226 (2003).

Defendants in Reply brief (pg. 32) indicate to this court that Corn, Wetzsteon entitled to Judicial immunity .  Judicial and quasi-judicial immunity reserved for judicial acts: presiding over a hearing, ruling on a motion Anderson v. Boyd 714 F. 2d 906 (9th Cir. 1983); Steele v. McGreggor 288 Mont. 238 (1998).  Quasi-judicial immunity is limited to statutory role, or within law Rosenthal v. County of Madison 339 Mont. 419 (2007). 

Wetzsteon acted outside the Montana Student Practice Rule August 8, 2007 prosecuted Spreadbury as law student unsupervised.  No judicial acts were conducted by the Defendants August 8, 2007, consistent with this court in Rosenthal.  Absolute immunity is reserved for licensed prosecutors filing or maintaining charges acting reasonably within their duties of office Noll and Kennedy v. Bozeman 166 Mont. 504 (1975).   Since Corn knowingly assigned law intern to prosecute without license, unsupervised August 8, 2007 violates Spreadburys protected interest, no immunity available to Corn.  Wetzsteon, an unlicensed law intern, acted outside Montana SPR by prosecuting Spreadbury August 8, 2007 without direct supervision, did not serve supervisor, prosecutor permissions on court prior to trial. Wetzsteon, as certified intern, had no status or admission to the Montana Bar at Spreadbury trial August 8, 2007.  Even In arguendo, Wetzsteon had gained admission to the Montana Bar prior to Spreadburys trial, absolute immunity from civil liability would manifest: a material fact to this case.

At the instant moment Corn assigned intern Wetzsteon to prosecute Spreadbury, Corn knew or should have known Spreadburys well established legally protected interest violated, qualified immunity nullified Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 US at 812 (1982); Forrester 484 US at 244 (1988).  Defendants Corn, Wetzsteon knew unsupervised prosecution by a law student violates this court’s SPR order (#12982) a misdemeanor under Montana Code Ann. 45-7-309(c) (Criminal Contempt).  A law intern, unsupervised would know that acting unsupervised would nullify the Dean Certification (TR. # 45 Opening Brief —Appendix B) violates Montana Student Practice Act.  Since a student is not a lawyer U. PA L. Rev. 161 (1981), students cannot prosecute without direct supervision, Wetzsteon  action August 8, 2007 in criminal courtroom Ravalli County Montana prior to admission to Montana Bar October 9, 2008 constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

Corn acted in administrative task, assigning Wetzsteon to Spreadbury’s trial; offers no immunity from civil suit Kelman v. Losleben 271 Mont. 156 (1995).  Knowingly assigning intern Wetzsteon to prosecute without supervision nullifies Corn’s qualified immunity: knowingly depriving Spreadburys protected interest Harlow.  Defendants, knowingly tried Spreadbury in absentia, violated Art. II s. 24 (rights of the accused), Amendment 6 US Constitution, eliminates qualified immunity ibid.

The assignment of immunity was improper by the lower court, Spreadbury raises sufficient issues of material fact to review, reverse district court as a matter of law Dukes v. Sirius Const. Inc. 316 Mont. 226 (2003).

 Prosecutor Immunity in context

It is appropriate, to discuss the protections prosecutors have enjoyed while tampering with evidence, allowing perjury in court via witness testimony, while prosecutors are protected by the US Constitution. Prosecutor, within scope of duties, maintaining and filing criminal charges enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability Imbler v. Pachtman 424 US 409 (1976). Note that Pachtman, the prosecutor wrote a note to Imbler, the criminal defendant when believed Imbler was destined to be imprisoned.  Within that note was a confession by the prosecutor that his tactics were not worthy of a courtroom.  Upon appeal, Imbler used the letter to file a §1983 case against Pachtman. 

In the instant case, an unlicensed student violated this court’s order to maliciously prosecute Spreadbury outside constitutional right, known to Corn, former Ravalli County Attorney.  In the aforementioned, Wetzsteon enjoyed protections from the Attorney General tort defense division; not a state officer at time of Spreadbury’s trial.   The Courts recognize prosecutor misconduct, protect those actors citing the US Constitution, Imbler from the US Supreme Court since1976.  Spreadbury’s liberty, way of life permanently altered by execution of malicious, intentional actions of Defendant prosecutors knowingly executing extra-constitutional acts, including acts by omission of unlawful arrest, violations of Professional Conduct as described in this case.

The Standard in this court, Noll and Kennedy v. Bozeman 166 Mont. 504 (1975) a licensed prosecutor (Wetzsteon status: intern August 8, 2007) acting within duties (Wetzsteon acts outside SPR) is absolutely immune from civil liability.  Imbler(US Supreme 1976) at 428 states:

As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.

This Court is asked the question: 

IS IT REALLY BETTER TO LEAVE UNDRESSED THE WRONGS DONE BY DISHONEST OFFICERS, UNDER COLOR OF MT, US CONSTITUTIONS?



IV. Material facts Germaine to case

1.     District Court purported Wetzsteon to be prosecutor, status was law intern unsupervised at Spreadbury trial August 8, 2007.

2.     Law student certified by Dean as intern not prosecutor.

3.     Whether Wetzsteon followed SPR ambiguous; issue of material fact.

4.     Whether Corn is entitled to qualified immunity in administrative task assigning law intern to prosecute unsupervised ambiguous, raises issue of material fact.

5.     Issue of unsupervised law student practicing in criminal courtroom entitled to immunity is ambiguous, raises issue of material fact.

6.     Defendants not proven compete absence of material fact, surrounding Wetzsteons practice as law intern August 8, 2007.

7.     Prosecutorial protections not available to certified law intern without supervisor present August 8, 2007.

8.     Plaintiff discovery interrogatories (TR. # 22) not answered in this case.

9.     Issue of Spreadburys arrest August 16, 2007 ambiguous, material fact to case.

10.       Wetzsteon represented by Attorney General ambiguous, conflict of interest for Spreadbury (TR# 29 Conflict of Interest; Appendix B: MT DOJ complaint) creates issue of material fact.

11.        Elements of fraud (4) arise in aforementioned, pled herein.

12.      Affidavits of Spreadbury (7/19/10: TR# 35): Wetzsteon not licensed, unsupervised per Bailey sworn statement, contempt of court. Second Affidavit (9/27/10: TR. #42—Notice of Appeal) Corn not present at Spreadbury trial, unauthorized practice, no paperwork prior to trial, Corn in Administrative task, no immunity to Defendants, Wetzsteon violated MT SPR.  Difference in affidavits between parties is an issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment Patten v. Raddatz 271 Mont. 276 (1995).

13.       Defense failed to argue functional issue of immunity, which precludes the issuance of immunity, a material fact in this case, Forrester.

Administrative Rule of Montana: Summary Judgment

By way of ARM 24.5.329  Summary Judgment Schmidt v. WA Contractors Inc. 290 Mont. 276 (1998).

Spreadbury using numerical system of this ARM:

(2) pleadings depositions, answers to interrogatories (TR.# 22 Plaintiff Interrogatories), affidavits (TR. # 42 Plaintiff Affidavits: Notice of Appeal) have no issues of material fact between the parties not met in aforementioned.

(3) Brief statement of uncontroverted facts absent in Defense pleadings before this court.  Uncontroverted facts in serial fashion, not narrative and have specific location in pleadings.

(4) Parties don’t agree in aforementioned.

(5) Plaintiff could request oral argument.

(7) Defense affidavits unclear, impeached.  Spreadbury presented affidavit prior to judgment: July 19, 2010 (TR. #35 Reply motion, Affidavit attached).

(8) Discovery halted by Judge Larson upon request of Defense (TR. #24 Defendants motion to Stay Discovery).

(9) Defendants affidavit in bad faith: a) “supervision” to Defendants: acting alone in Spreadbury trial August 8, 2007 b) Grossly inaccurate report of a courts proceeding MCA§ 45-7-309(e) [Contempt --inaccurate report of court proceeding].

Mont. R. C. P. Rule 56(c)

Spreadbury asserts admissions filed in aforementioned (TR #22Plaintiff presents requests for Admissions) on file, not answered by Defendants.  Opposing affidavits by Defense indicate issue of material fact, Defense not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.



“Facially valid Arrest Warrant”

Defense counsel asserts Spreadbury arrest warrant facially valid (Reply brief p. 10 #1) although listed MCA §3-10-401 (Contempt Justice of Peace may punish).  Statute lists 5 elements of boisterous activity: Spreadbury out of state August 8, 2007; MCA§ 3-10-401 Montana Code is not a crime, crimes found in Title45 MCA.  Spreadbury retained counsel present August 8, 2007 for misdemeanor trial per MCA § 46-16-122 (Absence of Defendant from Trial).  “Facially valid” arrest warrant (Exhibit C); issuance of warrant after Spreadbury trial is issue of material fact in the aforementioned.

Nine element prima facie case for arrest warrant representation Sprunk I 228 Mont. at 174.

1.     Criminal arrest warrant (citing MCA § 3-10-401) facially valid.

2.     A. Spreadbury did not cause disturbance in Ravalli County Montana Justice Court, violate court order; had retained counsel present on Spreadbury’s behalf for misdemeanor trial in Ravalli County; deployed to North Dakota August 8, 2007 at time of trial.

B. Spreadbury could not be arrested for failure to appear in misdemeanor matter in Montana with counsel present MCA § 46-16-122, face of warrant listing MCA§ 3-10-401.

3.     A. Unlawful arrest material to aforementioned for emotional distress: by being falsely being accused of a crime, unlawful arrest creating substantial and severe emotional distress on Spreadbury as a result of Defendants.

B. By omission, Wetzsteon did not speak to warrant for Spreadbury’s arrest, obtain supervision in criminal courtroom August 8, 2007; retained counsel present, acting on Spreadbury’s behalf.

4.     A. Defendants knowledge: no crime if counsel present on behalf of Spreadbury for misdemeanor charge August 8, 2007.

B. Wetzsteon ignorant to truth as non-licensed unsupervised student practicing law.

5.     Defendants wish court to accept fraudulent representation to end liability for aforementioned ED case.

6.     Spreadbury ignorant to falsity due to appearance of propriety by Defenants.

7.     Spreadbury relied upon representation: authority of Defendants, Spreadbury retained counsel hasty removal, newspaper publishing representation, Ravalli County Sheriff Department processing warrant as true.

8.     Spreadbury had right to believe representation was true.

9.     Spreadbury had fear of lost livelihood, suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the injury of the unlawful arrest, accused of failing to appear.

V. Protected Interests 

In IIED, tortious conduct results in a substantial invasion of a legally protected interest, causing significant impact upon Spreadbury Sacco v. High County Independent Press 896 P. 2d at 422;  Johnson v. Supersave 686 P. 2d at 213.  Spreadbury’s right to liberty deprived when unlawfully arrested, accused of failing to appear: presence of retained counsel at misdemeanor trial August 8, 2007 MCA § 46-16-122.  Spreadbury’s right to liberty protected from invasion, humiliation, embarrassment, and other emotional distress proximately caused by such intrusion can certainly be considered substantial Johnson 686 P.2d at 213.  

Spreadbury’s legally protected interests include:

1.     Inalienable right to protect property Art. II. s. 3 Montana Constitution

2.     Right to be free from Arrest without probable cause

3.     Right to Liberty

4.     Right to Due Process/Equal Protection (Wetzsteon prosecutor as student)

5.     Right to be free from criminal trial—speedy trial

6.     Right to pursue profession without undue restrictions

7.     Right to confront witnesses

8.     Right to be free of unreasonable seizure.



IV. Conflict of Interest

I. Wetzsteon’s unauthorized practice of law August 8, 2007 in a Ravalli County Courtroom presents a conflict of interest to this court.  Spreadbury, on May 24, 2010 (within month of obtaining legal name of Student “Prosecutor”) filed Form OCP-100 (Appendix “B”) with the Montana Dept. of Justice by certified mail #7009 2820 0000 9082 7440.  Spreadbury expects protection from the Montana Attorney General to defend the unauthorized practice re: law student which significantly injured Spreadbury.  This court should take notice (TR. #29 Plaintiff Statement on Conflict of Interest), at oral argument August 6, 2010 Plaintiff pleads to Defense counsel, District court conflict of interest; unheard.

Element of fraud by Attorney General representing unsupervised law student per Sprunk I 228Mont. at 174:

1.     Attorney General represents Wetzsteon as state prosecutor in civil tort, without regard for presented conflict of interest.

2.     Wetzsteon, not state prosecutor August 8, 2007; certified law intern, unauthorized to practice law unsupervised, court’s order: MT SPR #12982.

3.     By protecting Wetzsteon, Attorney General protecting student intern in violation of MT SPR (order#12982) Criminal Contempt of Court MCA§ 45-7-309(c).  Attorney General Protects criminal act, fails to protect Spreadbury from Wetzsteon’s unauthorized practice.  Material to aforementioned: Attorney General requests, obtains summary judgment by fraud.

4.     Attorney General knew of falsity due to a) Spreadbury’s May 24, 2010 complaint (Exhibit B), b) Wetzsteon’s admission status with Montana Bar.

5.     Attorney General wished to defraud courts in Montana, Spreadbury to obtain summary judgment in District Court, affirm case in Supreme Court.

6.     District Court, Spreadbury ignorant to falsity.

7.     District Court, Spreadbury reliant upon its truth.

8.     District Court, Spreadbury had reason to rely on representation.

9.     Spreadbury has injury, no redress of harm, severe emotional distress.

II. Personal communication dated September 18, 2006 faxed to then Attorney General McGrath, Schweitzer: contains details pertinent to this case.  Chief Justice McGrath proper recusal from aforementioned before court: prior knowledge of the facts of this case, personal communication.  Communication brought to attention of this court in notice of appeal (TR. # 41 Notice of Appeal).

Conclusion:

Plaintiff has made legal argument issue of material fact remains, District court erred in issuing summary judgment.  Proper for court to reverse the grant of immunity to unsupervised law student and County prosecutor, outside of well established student practice rule, case precedent before this court for immunity of prosecutors in administrative task.  Spreadbury requests case to be remanded to District Court with instructions.  Rational decision to place unsupervised law student, to enter courtroom unlicensed, unlawful arrest of Spreadbury had intention of having power over Spreadbury, was intentional, outrageous, malicious, violated fundamental right, legally protected interest, caused severe emotional distress.

Appendix:

Student Certificate, Form 2 adherence to Professional rules Exhibit “A”

Consumer Protection Complaint Montana Dept. of Justice labeled Exhibit “B”

Arrest Warrant face, issued after Spreadbury trial in absentia Exhibit “C”

Certificate of Compliance

Pursuant to Rule 16, Mont. R. App. P., I certify this brief, 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 4849 words, excluding Certificate of Service, and Certificate of Compliance.

Dated this ___ day of January, 2011.

         

 Michael E. Spreadbury, self-represented Plaintiff and Appellant.



[1] The summer solstice marks the beginning of summer, direct rays of the sun reach the Tropic of Cancer 23.5° N



Steve Bullock feels that abuse of constituents, the law is not as powerful as the force to elect him.  When Americans are denied due process, the voters of Montana need to terminate Steve Bullocks political career.  This is not a party line attack, it is revealing the truth which many Montana officials are bending the rules for Steve Bullock.

For the reasons given in this blogpost, Steve Bullock should not be Governor.