Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 15

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CRIMINAL DIVISION CLERK OF COURT

___________________________________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone
APPELLANT

:
:
:
:

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000247-2016

MOTION TO DISMISS
AND NOW, on this 15th day of November, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, appearing pro
se, do hereby file this MOTION TO DISMISS.

PLEASE RULE ON THIS PRIOR TO THE

NOVEMBER 21, 2016 HEARING DATE. THE APPEALLANT REQUESTS THE COURT TO PAY
ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING AND IT'S OATH OF OFFICE:

1.

STAN J. CATERBONE and CONFLICTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION Monday November 14, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/331068312/Stan-J-Caterbone-andConflicts-With-the-Trump-Administration-Monday-November-14-2016

2.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence

Agencies November 12, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/330869219/False-Imprisonments-andIllegal-Interrogations-by-U-S-Intelligence-Agencies-November-12-2016

3.

Stan J. Caterbone LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL COURT DOCKET SHEETS as of

November 12, 2016 - https://www.scribd.com/document/330921500/Stan-JCaterbone-Local-State-And-Federal-Court-811-Pages-Bookmarks-Docket-Sheetsas-of-November-12-2016

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 1 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 15

Dated November 15, 2016

___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-826-5354

ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa
Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561
MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 2 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 15

MOTION TO DISMISS
BACKGROUND OF CASE On Wednesday evening, March 23, 2016 the APPEALLANT was
driving with Lyle, a friend to Molly's Pub at 545 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Upon approaching the Pub, a large Suburban type SUV was parked in front of the Pub. Two black
females waived to the APPEALLANT that they were exiting the parking space and allowed the
APPEALLANT to take the parking space. The SUV was blocking the No Parking sign, and the two
black females maliciously and purposefully distracted the APPEALLANT from even seeing the No
Parking sign. This was done in collusion with the Lancaster City Police Department in an effort to
fabricate a criminal charge and extort fines and costs from the APPEALLANT. To make matters
worse, the APPEALLANT was deceived into not attending the HEARING at the Magistrate level by
the staff purposefully and maliciously changing the HEARING date and time. The APPEALLANT
HAD CALLED THE STAFF ON THE MORNING OF THE HEARING WHEN LEARNING OF THE
TACTIC AND REQUESTED THAT THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE WAIT APPROXIMATELY 20
MINUTES UNTIL THE APPEALLANT COULD ARRIVE. THE STAFF MEMBER STATED THAT
THE HEARING HAD NOT BEGUN. THE STAFF PERSON REFUSED TO STAY THE HEARING
FOR 20 MINUTES AND THE APPEALLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY IN ABSTENTIA.

ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Selective and Retaliatory Discrimination under the 1990 Disabilities Act
3. Using the Courts for Political Vendettas
4. Attempted Extortion of Real Monies

($169.00)

5. Libel and Slander

6. Collusion of COINTELPRO-LIKE Tactics with Law Enforcement
The Court MUST consider the leqal circumstances surrounding my Whistleblowing activities
and the Federal False Claims Act filing of the APPELLANT as it relates to the past 28 years and the
myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District Attorney. The APPELLANT will argue that it is
wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the APPELLANT In Forma Pauperis Status. The
APPELLANT has filed ample evidence of a pattern and relentless cycle of earning and accumulating
capital and assets, as well building substantial worth through his business interests, only to have
it all extorted through an elaborate civil and criminal scheme to defruad.

Therefore any

attempt to subject the APPELLANT to more court related fees is only a continuation of
that same said fraud.

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 3 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 4 of 15

Consideration MUST be given to Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,
where the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due
process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F
2d. 644) have concluded the following:

Even the probability of unfairness can result in a

defendant being deprived of his due process rights. The focus of these claims are recorded in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 05-2288 and 06-4650. In
addition the Petioner is the MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambrerrt Case and recently filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, 04-2559, which was recently appealed to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The preceding cases have been preserved by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in

case no. 07-4474, see attached.

The prosecutorial misconduct the the APPELLANT has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the APPELLANT
from completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and
18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting
constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide
for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are
ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of
individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from
federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5,
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
A case can be made for a RICO violation as defined in the case of United States v. Holck,
389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the
following: Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an
indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which
attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing
acts in furtherance of an overall plan. This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to
cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.
The APPEALLANT HAS 29 False Arrests in the County of Lancaster dating back to 1987,
which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that may be proved by circumstantial
evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful
combination has been in front of facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North
Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219.

In the same case the following was supported: Arrestees

allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its police officers were acting in concert and
conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees constitutional rights by subjecting him to
unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two (2) or more officers
acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5 th, 2006 and August 4th, 2006) and

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 4 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 5 of 15

forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The preceding pleaded civil
conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.

In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law,
a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to
do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice
with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of United
States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple
conspiracies by the following: Governments, without committing variance between single
conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at
continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times and which
involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan. 1983 Civil
Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the
scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations
to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations
when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to
strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state infringement and
protection from state and local government from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241,
242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982,
1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and

8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the
transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a
performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business
or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The
defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 5 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 6 of 15

Where RICO laws might be applied

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for
their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or
retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be
alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or
against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt
to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as
a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could
be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to
concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been
brought before the courts.

These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of

limitations has run out.

Date: November 15, 2016

___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163

1References
RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December
2004). Retrieved on 2006-03-26. 1.
External links
RICO Act from Cornell University'sU. S. Code database
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html) Detail of Tanya
Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregonriaa-victim-fights-back- sues.html) Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act Categories: Articles with
weasel words | United States federal legislation | Organized crime terminology

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 6 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 7 of 15

Advanced
Stan
Stan
J. Caterbone
J. Media
Medi
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
Executive
Executive
Press
Press
Executive
Summary
Release
Release
Summary
Summary
CP-36-SA-0000247-2016
Motion
to
Dismiss

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
33
33
32
33
33
of
ofof
51
of
51
50
51
51
51
Page
733
of
15

Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
March
December
15,
March
2016
15,
3/15/2016
2016
17,
15,
11, 2015
2016
Tuesday
November

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 8 of 15

Advanced
Stan
Stan
J. Caterbone
J. Media
Medi
Caterbone
Group
Grop
Group
Executive
Executive
Press
Press
Executive
Summary
Release
Release
Summary
Summary
CP-36-SA-0000247-2016
Motion
to
Dismiss

Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
34
34
33
34
34
of
ofof
51
of
51
50
51
51
51
Page
834
of
15

Tuesday,
Thursday,
Tuesday,
Friday,
Tuesday,
March
March
December
15,
March
2016
15,
3/15/2016
2016
17,
15,
11, 2015
2016
Tuesday
November

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 9 of 15

!
$%
'

"

&
( )!

*+ ,

-''.#!' /0 12. )!
/01- . !#!-/ 1
1!/
!1.230/. !/4 !45!/ .4 ".4-! #206)
5
!

)
5

71

!
#

'
&
+( $

4
!

'

"
$

,
.
2
7

0
6
9
:
;
,/
,,
,.
,2

%
()" *

&
"

'
)

"

'
!

4
)
)
4
)
.//0
1
.
2
- (
4
!
(0
3
( '' '
0
4
5
.//6 - &
, !
#
'
/
( (
&
!
*
5
!
&
((! ' 4
'
2
1
( "
.//6 ' 4
'
!
:
2
3 ( '
(
!
'
'
5
/
('
%
"
2
( '
(
%
.//: ' 4
'
5
( '
(
*
<
8
' 4
'
3
;
('
(
&
)
'
'
4
#
.//;
, !
#
!
3
< 2
3 ('
"
6
#
(
*
!
#

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

+ !!

- &

&

-&
&

, !
(

#
) 3

#
!)8
%
./,0
( '
(
#
./,0
5
# &
.//6
.//: ' 4
'
&
./,0
5
.//:
.//: ' 4
(

3
(
"
*

Page 9 of 15

#
6

*
.//0

.//6

'

'
5

&

#
*
'
)=

.//; ' 4
( "

1
'
(

.//;

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 10 of 15

,7 1#-& &
,0 '
4
4
'
,6
"
1
,9 0<;
,: &
3
8
='
&

< ('
2

"
3 ('

<

('
4
./,/ ' 4
< 3 ('
(#
(&
&
#

./,/ ' 4
1

>

(
1
&
$
'
.0 ./,/
#
&
)
( #
.6 ./,/

(%
+

& %
#1 #
$& &

'
*

./,/ '

&

!
' 4
4

.0 ./,/
#
!

'
&
1

5
$

&

"
!
1
$$ 5

: ./,0

=( $

%(

+
/

$, '

( *

.//,0

$> 3

./,0

( ''

'

%
4

$& 1
)

$% ?
$+ )
+
1
!
$*

'@
1
&

./,,

/0 ..::

!
"

*
,.0. 4
(/
'"
5

3
!8# (
+

&
0
>

./,0
3

( '
(

.2 ./,0
(

1
"

&

0
!

1
$A )

?
$= 6

<

@!8>>$ " 8' 84 *$1 !

&

&
'&

./,6
(

@
!1 >8#
)'48>!)#)'"

'
3

!
( ;
'1

&

( )! %
?
8( " ! '&A
#

; ./,6

+
1!

'

$& 4
9
*
@

#8< '"
2, 1.''6 ,+ ( "

(
$

4
./,6
(' A
(

+
=

,$ B
#
,, !

( "

#
'&

<

,> !
,% 1
"

3
-

(3
)

2
*

)
(

3
,7 ./,6

(
@#
"

#
*

A
98 "
2

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

,7 ./,6 &

Page 10 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 11 of 15

./,0
(
8

&

&

4
'
.
<
?;0'. !'. 1!':-/#( ;!2! "./1( !/4
5-0'./ . 0/ ! 2.#6'!2 3! - ( $ %
B
2
3
"
3
)
@
!
3
< )
1.''-6 ,+ ) (/
!
(3 (
"
3
0<;
3
2
'
4
1
)
2
3
2
1
&
1
'
)
4

B #

0''6 -0/ 10 );B - !' 1;2.!1

0&

,: ./,6

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 11 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 12 of 15

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 12 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 13 of 15

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 13 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 14 of 15

USPS - Summary AppealMotion

Form to Dismiss
CP-36-SA-0000247-2016

Page14
3 of 15
7
Page

Friday July15,
8, 2016
Tuesday November

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 65 Filed 11/15/16 Page 15 of 15

CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Motion to Dismiss

Page 15 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016