MD-1108-2015

Page 1 of 4

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STANLEY J. CATERBONE

vs.

MD-1108-2015
Superior Court 1915 MDA 2015

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department

LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP

STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED

ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2015
AND NOW on this 25th

day of November 2015, Petitioner, Stanley Caterbone, appearing

pro se, hereby submits the STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED.

Date: November 25, 2015

1108-2015

/S/ Stanley J. Caterbone

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner
Pro Se
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

Page 1 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

MD-1108-2015

Page 2 of 4

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED

The Court had filed an ORDER on the 28 th day of September, 2015, the ORDER states the
following:

AND NOW, this 28 th day of September, 2015, the Court has examined the

Petition for Review of Private Criminal Complaint.

The Court finds no basis which to

overturn the decision disapproving the filing of criminal charges.

The Petitioner cites the ORDER dated 27 th day of November, 2007 by then President Judge
Louis J. Farina which states the following:

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2007,

upon consideration of the Petition for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in
Support thereof, and it appearing that the District Attorney's refusal to approve the
private complaint due to "insufficient evidence"', obligates the Court to conduct a "de
novo" review to determine whether the complaint establishes a prima facie case, see,
Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1996), and In re Private Criminal
Compl. Of Wilson 11, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005), the Commonwealth is therefore
directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity to identify the
information relied upon and lo explain the Commonwealth's decision to disapprove the
filing of Petitioner's private criminal complaint.
The PETITIONER alleges that the Court did not conduct a de novo review, and thus the
Petition for Review was never properly adjudicated in the Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas. In fact, the PETITIONER believes that if such a de novo review was conducted, then the
PLAINTIFF would have built a sufficient case for prosecution.

Date: November 25, 2015

/S/ Stanley J. Caterbone
Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner
Pro Se
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

1108-2015

Page 2 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Stanley J. Caterbone
Appellant
v.

Superior Court 1915 MDA 2015

1108-2015

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department

LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this 25 day of November, 2015, I have served the attached
document(s) to the persons on the date(s) and in the manner(s) stated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 121:

Service
Served: Mr. Craig Stedman, Lancaster County District Attorney
Service Method: Hand Deliver
Service Date: 11/25/2015
Address: 50 N. Duke Street, Lancaster, PA 17602
Representing: Lancaster County District Attorney

/s/ Stanley J. Caterbone

(Signature of Person Serving)
Person Serving: Caterbone, Stanley J., Pro Se
Attorney Registration No:
Law Firm:
Address: 1250 Fremont St
Lancaster, PA 17603
Pro Se: Appellant Caterbone, Stanley J.

1108-2015

Page 3 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

MD-1108-2015

Page 3 of 4

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL

STANLEY J. CATERBONE
Nt?. IJiD 379-2007

VS.

TONY FREEMAN
NOBLE REAL ESTATE
GREG MILLAN
SHELBY SHEPRO
CENTRAL PENN SERVICES

ORDER
AND NOW, this &day

of November, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition

for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that
the District Attorney's refusal to approve the private complaint due to "insufficient evidence"',
obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the complaint
establishes a prima facie case, see, Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1996),
and In re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wilson 11, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005), the
Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity
to identify the information relied upon and lo explain the Commonwealth's decision to
disapprove the filing of Petitioner's private criminal complaint.

I certify this document to be filed

i~the iancaster County Office of
the
Clerk of the Caurts.
.

BY THE COURT:

LOUIS J.FARINA
PRES.JUDGE
LOUIS J. FARINA
PiiESiDENT JUDGE

'Chief County Detective Landis, who reported the District Attorney's position by letter
dated kovern~er2,2007,
s:ated "Car investigation fsiied to find any criminal intent on the pari
of the defendants. . . ."
1108-2015

Page 4 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

MD-1108-2015

Page 4 of 4

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

1108-2015

Page 5 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

1108-2015

Page 6 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

1108-2015

Page 7 of 7

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

November 25, 2015

The Honorable President Judge D. Reinaker
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re: 1108-2015 Concise Statement of Matters Complained & Computer Hacking
Your Honor,
I apologize for the 3 files emailed to you on this day that were intended to be
my Statement of Matters Complained as per your ORDER of November 9, 2015 and
AMENDED ORDER of November 18, 2015.
Unfortunately, I am under constant attack from computer hackers that either
prevent me from utilizing a certain function, or modify the names of documents, or
just play with my computer while attempting to perform a task, such as name a file.
Just yesterday I reverse engineered the COMPUTER HACKERS and RECOVERED over
300 files that they hid from me in my computers and my cloud for 5 years. Those
tricky devils were relocating files in my root directory, which I never included in my
searches for documents. They were not deleting the files, just moving them to
another location.
I have also filed a document as an EXHIBIT in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, Case No. 15-3400 which provides documentation of my Geek Squad Repair
Account. Since August 1, 2015 I have had 14 repair tickets due to computer hacking
and one since June 22, 2015. You may view the filing at:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/289867934/Recorded-Third-Circuit-Lambert-AppealSUBMISSION-Statement-as-an-EXHIBIT-Re-Linkedin-com-Restricted-Access-andComputer-Hacking-Documentation-November
My sincerest apologies to the Court.

Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se