Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 57

COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICIAL USE ONLY

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD


Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 3500
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17120-0901

Recd:
JCB No:
County:

(717)-234-7911

CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION


INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print. If you wish to provide documents to support your allegations, please attach copies of those
documents. We cannot return documents. The Boards jurisdiction extends only to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices, Superior
and Commonwealth Court Judges, Common Pleas Court Judges, Philadelphia Municipal and Traffic Court Judges and Magisterial
District Judges. Once completed, you must sign and return this form to the address above.
NOTICE: The Judicial Conduct Board has no authority to change a Judges decisions or rulings. Our jurisdiction extends only to
conduct that violates the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, which
may be found at our website at www.jcbpa.org.

Your Information:
Name:

Stan J. Caterbone

Address: 1250

Telephone:
( 717 ) 598-2200

Fremont Street

City: Lancaster

State: PA

Zip: 17603

Judicial Officers Information:


Name: President

Type of Judicial Officer:

Judge Dennis Reinaker

Magisterial District Judge

County: Lancaster

Judge

Case Information: (If misconduct allegations relate to Court Proceedings.)


Case Name: Commonwealth

v. Stanley J. Caterbone

Case Has Been Appealed

Case Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

Your Attorney:

Opposing Attorney:

Witness:

Name: Stan

Name:

Name: Stan

J. Caterbone, Pro Se

Address: same
Phone: same

as above

as above

Address:

Phone:

J. Caterbone

Address:
Phone:

I certify that I have read the information concerning the Judicial Conduct Boards function, jurisdiction, and
procedures included in the accompanying brochure. I further swear (or affirm) that the above information is true
and accurate. The statements in this complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities).
Date:_December 9, 2016________

Your Signature:___________________________________________

Please explain your complaint on the reverse of this form.

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 1 of 37

Friday December 9, 2016

Please use this page to explain your complaint, providing as much detail as possible.
Attach additional pages if needed.
Please note, it is not required that you present your grievance to the Board in person. Personal interviews are not required and are
not usually necessary for our preliminary review, investigation, and understanding of grievances. If we need further information
relative to your grievances, you will be contacted by phone or letter and arrangements will be made for an interview if deemed
necessary.

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.
6.
7.

On October 28, 2016 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se, mailed a NOTICE OF APEAL TO SUPERIOR
COURT via USPS Priority Mail Tracking No. 9405 5036 9930 0417 6700 86 to the CLERK OF
COURT of LANCASTER COUNTY. The tracking delivery confirmation reads Your item has been
delivered and is available at a PO Box at 8:28 am on October 31, 2016 in LANCASTER,
PA 17608. In it contained the NOTICE, an In Forma Pauperis Application, and a Money
Order for $75.00 from PNC Bank on Duke Street, across the street from the Lancaster
County Courthouse, No. 00677971.
On December 7, 2016 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se did an audit of Pennsylvania MDA Superior
Court cases and found no docket number for the filed appeal. A call was made to the
Prothonotary at Superior Court and the clerk also did an audit and confirmed there was no docket
number for the filed appeal.
On December 8 and December 9 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se, made repeated calls to the
Lancaster County Clerk of Court with no answer. I also requested the clerk at Superior Court to
inquirer, however they instructed me to make the calls.
This is not an isolated case, as you are aware. I have had many problems in the past with the
Clerk of Courts, in fact Ryan Aument, former Clerk of Courts, had to enlist the services of Mr.
Frankhouser, Attorney from Underhill and Brubaker, to defend against similar complaints. You
have copies of the correspondence in other case numbers.
This act amounts to extortion and theft by deception of the $75.00 of real monies.
This act amounts to a Civil Rights Violation of Obstruction of Justice for not granting me my
Constitutional Right To Appeal.
SEE THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR YOUR REVIEW.

Dated: December 9, 2016

_________________________________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se

Revised: 06/01/2009

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 2 of 37

Friday December 9, 2016

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

1 of 1

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets


Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which
can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
The webpage you are viewing is operated and maintained by Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System as a source of public information. The webpage
is not affiliated with any search system for public records provided by private organizations for which fees may be incurred. The ability to search for
and review information contained in these web docket sheets is a free public service.

Select a Docket Sheet Search Type from the dropdown (default search type is by Docket Number)
Search Type:

Enter the desired search criteria and click Search (available search criteria changes based upon the type selected above)
* Court Name:
and any combination of
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Attorney First Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed:
Click the Print Preview icon to display the report
Docket Number
Short Caption

through

Case Status Filing Date

1219 MDA 2016 Caterbone, S. v. Lancaster City Bureau of Police Active

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 3 of 37

07/27/2016

Friday December 9, 2016


12/7/2016 5:15 AM

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

1 of 1

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets


Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which
can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
The webpage you are viewing is operated and maintained by Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System as a source of public information. The webpage
is not affiliated with any search system for public records provided by private organizations for which fees may be incurred. The ability to search for
and review information contained in these web docket sheets is a free public service.

Select a Docket Sheet Search Type from the dropdown (default search type is by Docket Number)
Search Type:

Enter the desired search criteria and click Search (available search criteria changes based upon the type selected above)
* Court Name:
and any combination of
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Attorney First Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed:

through

No Records Found

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 4 of 37

Friday December 9, 2016


12/7/2016 5:16 AM

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

1 of 1

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets


Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which
can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
The webpage you are viewing is operated and maintained by Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System as a source of public information. The webpage
is not affiliated with any search system for public records provided by private organizations for which fees may be incurred. The ability to search for
and review information contained in these web docket sheets is a free public service.

Select a Docket Sheet Search Type from the dropdown (default search type is by Docket Number)
Search Type:

Enter the desired search criteria and click Search (available search criteria changes based upon the type selected above)
* Court Name:
and any combination of
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Attorney First Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed:
Click the Print Preview icon to display the report
Docket Number
Short Caption

through

Case Status Filing Date

1461 MDA 2006 Caterbone, S. et al v. Southern Reg. Police et al Closed

08/30/2006

1462 MDA 2006 Caterbone, S. v. Dept. of Transportation

Closed

08/30/2006

1463 MDA 2006 Fulton Bank v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

08/30/2006

950 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Totaro, D. et al

Closed

05/24/2007

951 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Totato, D. et al

Closed

05/24/2007

1103 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Com of PA/Dept Trans

Closed

06/12/2007

125 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

01/19/2007

435 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

03/09/2007

855 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

05/01/2007

1097 MDA 2007 Com v. Caterbone, S.


First Previous 1 2 Next Last

Closed

06/15/2007

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 5 of 37

Friday December 9, 2016


12/7/2016 5:17 AM

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

1 of 1

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets


Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which
can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
The webpage you are viewing is operated and maintained by Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System as a source of public information. The webpage
is not affiliated with any search system for public records provided by private organizations for which fees may be incurred. The ability to search for
and review information contained in these web docket sheets is a free public service.

Select a Docket Sheet Search Type from the dropdown (default search type is by Docket Number)
Search Type:

Enter the desired search criteria and click Search (available search criteria changes based upon the type selected above)
* Court Name:
and any combination of
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Attorney First Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed:
Click the Print Preview icon to display the report
Docket Number
Short Caption

through

Case Status Filing Date

1565 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. et al v. Lancaster General et al

Closed

09/10/2007

2052 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

11/21/2007

2053 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

11/21/2007

113 MDA 2008 Com. v. Caterbone, S.

Closed

01/14/2008

234 MDA 2008 In Re: Petition for Review

Closed

01/24/2008

783 MDA 2010 In Re: S. Caterbone

Closed

05/12/2010

784 MDA 2010 In Re: S. Caterbone

Closed

05/12/2010

1915 MDA 2015 Caterbone, S. & Adv. Media Grp. v. Lanc. Police Closed

11/02/2015

1561 MDA 2015 Caterbone, S. v. Residents of Lancaster County Closed


First Previous 1 2 Next Last

09/16/2015

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT

Page 6 of 37

Friday December 9, 2016


12/7/2016 5:17 AM

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. Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


AND NOW, on this 28th day of October, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, appearing pro se,
do hereby file this NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA as per the
ORDER of October 5, 2016 and do file the attached APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.

Attached is also a Money Order for the $75.00 filing fee as per your previous

instructions.

Dated October 28, 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

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 1 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

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

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 2 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL


1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Selective and Retaliatory Discrimination under the 1990 Disabilities Act
3. Not Considering the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Docketed on September 30, 2016 as
seen in the Court Record
4. By Not Considering the Motion For Continuance in Advance the APPEALLANT was not given
the opportunity to attend the HEARING and was maliciously found GUILTY IN ABSTENTIA
as the APPEALLANT used his PaeDock Mobile App to check the Court Record Daily waiting
for a RULING on the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
5. Using the Courts for Political Vendettas
6. Attempted Extortion of Real Monies
7. Libel and Slander
8. Collusion of COINTELPRO-LIKE Tactics with Law Enforcement

Date: October 28, 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

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 3 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED


On August 3, 2016 the APPELLANT received a phone call from a Loan Representative of
Huntington Bank, Columbus, Ohio concerning the APPELLANT'S auto loan for his 2007 Honda CRV.
The APPELLANT as 11 phone calls back and forth up to and including yesterday, August 30, 2016.
In June of 2015 the APPELLANT borrowed some $12,000 for the auto, a 100,000 mile warranty
and GAP Insurance.

On December 8, 2015 the APPELLANT was rear ended in Carlisle,

Pennsylvania in a suspicious incident. The APPELLANT fixed all repairs for a nominal cost of $300
to a minimum degree noticeability. On May 7, 2016 the APPELLANT FINALLY received the payout
from NATIONWIDE insurance and accepted full liability, documented the Honda CRV as Totaled.
On May 10, 2016 three days later the APPEALLANT'S front end was demolished, again by a
suspicious incident causing the APPELLANT'S insurer to pay over $5,000 in repairs.

In August

Huntington Bank tried to convince the APPEALLANT that payment was due for July and August, yet
in July of 2016 there was not one communication from Huntington Bank. On or about August 18,
2016 the APPEALLANT gave the Huntington Bank Loan Officer a routing number and account
number to a checking account with over $9,000 in available cash to make a payment.

The

Huntington Bank Loan Officer refused to process the payment and instead, as usual KEPT
HARASSING the APPEALLANT. On Sunday, August 20, 2016 the APPEALLANT cleaned out the car
in

anticipation

of

repossession

and

REFUSED

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND HARASSMENT.

FURTHER

NEGOTIONS

REGARDING

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 another

suspicious incident occurred and left the front end severely damaged. On Monday the
APPEALLANT drove the Honda CRV to a parking garage in Harrisburg, notified
Huntington Bank and took a train home to Lancaster. The APPEALLANT has a bike.

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 4 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

AFFIDAVIT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 24(A)(1)


In 2015 the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas began a campaign of DENYING In
Forma Pauperis Applications, and demanding that current cases with legitimate In Forma Pauperis
Status be DENIED in an effort to again subvert the laws of due process and obstruction of justice.
The Superior Court had followed, as did the U.S. District Court in this case by Judge Diamond.
This was an outright effort to extort monies from the APPELLANT and in the long term make
service of the complaints cost prohibitive due to the fact that Pro Se Litigants with In Forma
Pauperis Status, by law, receive free service from the Lancaster County Sheriffs and the U.S.
Marshalls.
APPELLANT.

This tactic, in the end, would have effectively dismissed all legitimate claims of the
The Judges used the excuse of monies in bank accounts as the rationale for the

illegal tactic, however, attached are 5 cases of GRANTED In Forma Pauperis applications in both
the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the United
States District Court with financial affidavits containing amounts of monies in bank accounts
exceeding $10,000.00, all prior to 2015.
This exhibit, like the previous EXHIBITS, is intended to help the Court understand the
complexity of the APPELLANT'S obligation to provide the Court with the evidence and insight to
support the APPELLANT'S claims and statements.
with

sufficient

knowledge

of

the

These documents will also provide the Court

APPELLANT'S

claim

of

the

value

of

the

Appellant's litigation of up to $50 million dollars as stated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 0523059.

The APPELLANT does not intend to overburden the Court with unnecessary filings,

however this burden of supporting the claims and statements falls on the shoulders of all those in
the government that ignored the APPELLANT'S pleas for help to resolve these issues dating back
to the days immediately following the meeting with International Signal & Control, Plc., (ISC)
Executive Larry Resch on June 23, 1987.
This information could explain the COINTELPRO attributes of my situation and persons
under oath of law must refer this to the U.S. Attorney's Office and provide me with relief.
I am currently a recipient of the following type(s) of Benefits from the Social Security
Administration for Long Term Disability Benefits for illnesses and symptoms relating to U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control as evidenced by my documentation and the fact that no medical reports
or physicians were reported in the entire application process and there was never a psychiatric
evaluation for the same said purposes.

I am receiving a net monthly benefit of $1330.00 and

have been since April of 2008 and was declared disabled in December of 2005, the same said
month that I reported that I became the victim of full-time synthetic telepathy, as well as other
related symptoms and illnesses.

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 5 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

If the Court would 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 wil 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.
Consideration should 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.

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 6 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

The attached 29 False Arrests, 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 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

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 7 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

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
Where RICO laws might be applied1
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.

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

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 8 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct


Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page20
18
of
of
of
128
85
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
Page
918
of
23

Monday
Friday October 28,
21,
17, 2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY


DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET


Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:

Date Filed: 07/07/2016

OTN:

Page 1 of 5

Initiation Date: 07/07/2016

Originating Docket No: MJ-02301-TR-0000861-2016

LOTN:

Initial Issuing Authority: Scott E. Albert

Final Issuing Authority: Scott E. Albert

Arresting Agency: East Hempfield Twp Police Dept

Arresting Officer: Keen, Christopher Michael

Complaint/Incident #: E 0007452-4
Case Local Number Type(s)

Case Local Number(s)

STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status:

Closed

Status Date
10/05/2016

Processing Status

10/05/2016

Awaiting Sentencing

07/07/2016

Awaiting Original Papers

07/07/2016

Awaiting Summary Appeal Trial

Complaint Date:

05/10/2016

Sentenced/Penalty Imposed

DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Date Of Birth:

07/15/1958

City/State/Zip: Lancaster, PA 17603

Alias Name
Caterbone, Stanley Jay
Caterbone, Stanley Joseph

CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Type

Name

Defendant

Caterbone, Stanley J.

CHARGES
Seq.

Orig Seq.

Grade

Statute

Statute Description

Offense Dt.

75 3322

Vehicle Turning Left

05/09/2016

OTN

DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description

Disposition Date
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date

Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type

Final Disposition
Grade
Section
Credit For Time Served
Start Date

Incarceration/Diversionary Period

Sentence Conditions
Guilty by Trial (Lower Court)

Lower Court Disposition


1 / Vehicle Turning Left
Albert, Scott E.

Defendant Was Present


06/10/2016
Guilty by Trial (Lower Court)

Not Final
S

75 3322

06/10/2016

Guilty
CPCMS 9082

Printed: 10/14/2016

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
11
12
15
313
13
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 10
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY


DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET


Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description

Page 2 of 5

Disposition Date
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date

Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type

Final Disposition
Grade
Section
Credit For Time Served
Start Date

Incarceration/Diversionary Period

Sentence Conditions
Summary Appeal Trial

10/05/2016

Final Disposition

Guilty

1 / Vehicle Turning Left


Totaro, Donald R.

75 3322

10/05/2016

No Further Penalty

COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

Name:

Name:

Supreme Court No:

Supreme Court No:


Rep. Status:
Phone Number(s):

ENTRIES
Sequence Number

CP Filed Date

07/07/2016

Document Date

Filed By
Caterbone, Stanley J.

Notice of Summary Appeal Filed


1

09/06/2016

Lancaster County District Attorney's


Office

SA Hearing Notice Sent


Caterbone, Stanley J.
09/06/2016

First Class/Certified

Lancaster County District Attorney's


Office
Hand Delivered
09/06/2016
1

09/30/2016

Caterbone, Stanley J.

Motion for a 30-Day Continuance


1

10/05/2016

Totaro, Donald R.

10/05/2016

Totaro, Donald R.

Guilty
2

Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed

CPCMS 9082

Printed: 10/14/2016

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
12
13
16
414
14
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 11
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY


DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET


Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone
ENTRIES
Document Date

Page 3 of 5

Sequence Number

CP Filed Date

Filed By

10/13/2016

Pfursich, Jacquelyn E.

10/13/2016

Court of Common Pleas - Lancaster


County

DL-21S to be Prepared
2
Penalty Assessed

CPCMS 9082

Printed: 10/14/2016

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
13
14
17
515
15
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 12
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY


DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET


Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Page 4 of 5

Last Payment Date:


Caterbone, Stanley J.

Total of Last Payment:


Assessment

Payments

Adjustments

Defendant

Non Monetary
Payments

Total

Costs/Fees

ATJ
CAT/MCARE/General Fund

$4.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$4.00

$45.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$45.00

$2.25

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$2.25

$27.50

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$27.50

Clerk of Court Auto Fee-Costs


6593AAB1211 (Lan)

$5.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$5.00

Commonwealth Cost - HB627 (Act 167


of 1992)

$8.55

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$8.55

County Court Cost (Act 204 of 1976)

$21.40

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$21.40

DA Administration Fee 6421AB130019021 (Lan)

$25.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$25.00

DA Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211


(Lancaster)

$10.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$10.00

Emergency Medical Services (Act 45 of


1985)

$10.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$10.00

JCPS

$21.25

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$21.25

Judicial Computer Project

$8.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$8.00

Sheriff Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211


(Lancaster)

$2.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$2.00

State Court Costs (Act 204 of 1976)

$8.55

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$8.55

Hearing Costs

$8.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$8.00

Prosecution Cost - 6411AB1211


(Lancaster)

$6.68

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$6.68

$213.18

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$213.18

Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License


Fund)

$12.50

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$12.50

Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License


Fund)

$12.50

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$12.50

Fines Totals:

$25.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$25.00

Grand Totals:

$238.18

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$238.18

CJES
Clerk Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211
(Lancaster)

Costs/Fees Totals:
Fines

CPCMS 9082

Printed: 10/14/2016

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
14
15
18
616
16
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 13
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY


DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET


Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone

Page 5 of 5

** - Indicates assessment is subrogated

CPCMS 9082

Printed: 10/14/2016

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
15
16
19
717
17
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 14
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.

Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct


Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
23
21of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 15

Friday October 28,


21, 2016

Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct


Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
24
22of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 16

Friday October 28,


21, 2016

Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct


Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
25
23of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 17

Friday October 28,


21, 2016

Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct


Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
22
20of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 18

Friday October 28,


21, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Lancaster

XXXXXXXXXX
July 7, 2016

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION


Page 1 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page57
36
44
66
58
60
64of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
1

October 28, 2016

Friday October 28, 2016


Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Lancaster

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION


Page 2 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page58
37
45
67
59
61
65of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
2

Friday October 28, 2016


Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION


Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page59
38
46
68
60
62
66of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
3

Friday October 28, 2016


Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

REPOSESSED

See Attached Docket

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION


Page 4 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page60
39
47
69
61
63
67of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
4

Friday October 28, 2016


Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

October 28, 2016

XXXXXXXXX

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION


Page 5 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page61
40
48
70
62
64
68of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
5

Friday October 28, 2016


Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

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
: Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 - hacker changed
: case number on this document

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

!
$%
'

"

&
( )!

*+ ,

-''.#!' /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

,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

./,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

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

Page 12 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

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

Page 13 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016

USPS - Summary AppealMotion


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

Page14
3 of 15
7
Page

Friday July15,
8, 2016
Tuesday November

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

Page 15 of 15

Tuesday November 15, 2016