Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-528-2200
March 5, 2017
Dear Sirs,
I would file an AMICUS, however, that would add to the court drama and distract from the
important message that I want to deliver. First, I have a sincere respect for Mark Reese in that in
2008, as Deputy Sheriff, Mark had to inspect every piece of paper that I filed in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas. You see, a certain Mr. Craig Stedman, and Judge James Cullen
tried to be cute with me, and have used a blotch of blood on a cover page to file an ORDER, that
was only intended to inconvenience and distract me from my court cases, as pro se. Needless to
say, it did not work, but it did give me the chance to meet with Mark Reese on most days. Mark
was always very professional, courteous, and respectful to both me and the office staff, from what
I observed. In addition, I was often seen behind the Lancaster County Courthouse smoking a
cigarette with my friend, former Judge Joe Madenspacher, and often Mark would be with us, just
talking about everyday things, nothing court related. For the record, on occasion I did ask Judge
Madenspacher his opinion regarding a few issues, of which had nothing to do with my cases.
Judge Joe Madenspacher, in my mind was one of the most honest and competent Judges that I
have been involved with.
Ever since the story of Mark Reese appeared, I always and still do have the same reaction
not the Mark Reese I know, not saying I know everything. Now, remember, sex has been used
against me for some 30 years, on so many ways. For the past 12 years, I have had to file
injunction after injunction with specific regards to female teasing and exploitation.
1. Mark Reese has never been charged with a crime by any law enforcement agency.
2. I am the AMICUS for Kathleen Kane in Superior Court, Case No. 3575 EDA 2016, and was
AMICUS on one other Superior Court Case and one other Supreme Court Case.
3. The Pennsylvania General Assembly tried in earnest to impeach Kathleen Kane and
remover he from Office, she resigned on August 16, 2016 ONLY AFTER SHE WAS
CONVICTED IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
4. I remember a few years ago, there was a group of concerned citizens trying to rid the
Commonwealth of the Row Officers, at least on the County Level.
Conclusion, I am of the OPINION that you are wasting taxpayer dollars, the root
of the problem is not Mark Reese, but the Pennsylvania Statutes originating the Row
Offices. They are very deceptive, in that the elected Row Officers can rarely be held
accountable for anything of consequence in their respective offices.
Respectfully,
_______________________
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
717-528-2200
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
v.
MARK S. REESE,
Defendant.
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following
pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served,
by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court
your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court
without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS
OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK S. REESE,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Senator Scott Martin and Senator Ryan P. Aument, by their attorneys, bring this
Complaint in Quo Warranto against Defendant Mark S. Reese, and in support thereof, aver as
follows:
representing Senate District 13. Senate District 13 includes Lancaster County. Senator Martin is
representing Senate District 36. Senate District 36 includes Lancaster County. Senator Aument is
5. Defendant Reese was elected to the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County
County buildings.
10. Upon information and belief, that suspension continues through the date of this
Complaint.
11. The duties of the Sheriffs Office in Lancaster County include the following:
2
Letter to Haverstick, et.al., Page 9 of 190 Sunday March 5, 2017
ENTERED AND FILED
PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE
CI-17-____________
LANCASTER, PA
***Electronically Filed***
Mar 02 2017 03:11PM
d. Providing a K-9 explosive detection unit for use in all areas ofRicarda
the County;
Dehl
13. Upon information and belief, since July 2016, Defendant Reese has not reported
15. Defendant Reese continues to hold himself out as Sheriff of Lancaster County by,
16. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Reese resigned from the public office of
17. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Reese resigned from the public office of
18. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Reese absconded from the County under
19. Plaintiffs have a special right or interest in this matter, distinct from the rights or
interests of the public generally, and also, Plaintiffs have been specially damaged.
20. Under Article IV, Section 8(a)-(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and under
Section 409 of The County Code, 16 P.S. 409, Plaintiffs, as elected Senators of the
3
Letter to Haverstick, et.al., Page 10 of 190 Sunday March 5, 2017
ENTERED AND FILED
PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE
CI-17-____________
LANCASTER, PA
***Electronically Filed***
Mar 02 2017 03:11PM
Pennsylvania Senate, have distinct constitutional and statutory rights to receive fromRicarda
the Dehl
Governor nominations for the vacant public office of Sheriff and they have constitutional and
21. Plaintiffs special rights are being denied, and in consequence Plaintiffs are being
specially damaged, by Defendant Reese continuing to hold himself out as Sheriff of Lancaster
County even though the public office has been vacated as a matter of fact and law; his unlawful
CI-17-01626
holding of the title of Sheriff thwarts Plaintiffs right to receive a nominee for Sheriff and to give
23. An action in quo warranto is the sole and exclusive method to try title or right to
24. An action in quo warranto challenges a defendants right to hold and exercise the
25. Defendant Reese is unlawfully holding the title of Sheriff of Lancaster County.
26. By not performing the duties of the Sheriff for over six months, Defendant Reese
27. By not performing the duties of the Sheriff for over six months, Defendant Reese
28. By not performing the duties of the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County
for over six months and by not reporting to work, Defendant Reese has absconded from the
County under Section 412 of the County Code, 16 P.S. 412, and has vacated the public office
as a matter of law.
4
Letter to Haverstick, et.al., Page 11 of 190 Sunday March 5, 2017
ENTERED AND FILED
PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE
CI-17-____________
LANCASTER, PA
***Electronically Filed***
Mar 02 2017 03:11PM
29. Based upon the foregoing, the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County is Dehl
Ricarda
vacant.
30. Based upon the foregoing, Defendant Reese cannot continue to hold title to the
i. Enter judgment that Defendant is barred from performing the duties of Sheriff of
CI-17-01626
Lancaster County.
ii. Enter judgment that Defendant is barred from collecting any further salary or
iii. Enter judgment declaring that Defendant resigned the public office of Sheriff of
iv. Enter judgment declaring that Defendant resigned the public office of Sheriff of
v. Enter judgment declaring that Defendant absconded from the County under
vi. Enter judgment declaring the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County is
vacant.
vii. Enter judgment declaring the Governor can immediately appoint a suitable person
to the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County under Section 409 of The County Code.
viii. Grant such additional relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
5
Letter to Haverstick, et.al., Page 12 of 190 Sunday March 5, 2017
ENTERED AND FILED
PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE
CI-17-____________
LANCASTER, PA
***Electronically Filed***
Mar 02 2017 03:11PM
Ricarda Dehl
6
Letter to Haverstick, et.al., Page 13 of 190 Sunday March 5, 2017
ENTERED AND FILED
PROTHONOTARYS OFFICE
LANCASTER, PA
***Electronically Filed***
Mar 02 2017 03:11PM
Ricarda Dehl
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct
based upon my personal knowledge or information and belief. 1 understand that false statements
authorities.
CI-17-01626
Dated: March 1, 2017
Senator Scott Martin
I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct
based upon my personal knowledge or information and belieE I understand that false statements
authorities.
CI-17-01626
Dated: March 1.2017
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK S. REESE,
Defendant.
Despite having abandoned his elected public office, Defendant Mark S. Reese continues
to hold himself out as the Sheriff of Lancaster County, to the detriment of the County and the
Pennsylvania Senate. Because of Defendant Reeses conduct, expedited review of this matter is
warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Senator Scott Martin and Senator Ryan P. Aument ask the
Court to grant the pending Motion to Expedite and enter an order setting an accelerated
disposition schedule.
I. FACTS
Plaintiffs Senator Scott Martin and Senator Ryan P. Aument are the duly elected State
Senators for Senate Districts 13 and 36, respectively. Each Senate District includes Lancaster
County. Defendant Mark S. Reese was elected to the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County
In July 2016, the Lancaster County Commissioners received an allegation that Defendant
Reese had sexually harassed a deputy. On or about July 26, 2016, Defendant Reese purported to
take a leave of absence from his duties as Sheriff. In connection with his leave, Defendant
Reese relinquished his County-issued weapon and all County-owned equipment in his
County buildings. Upon information and belief, that suspension continues through the date of
this brief.
The duties of the Sheriffs Office in Lancaster County include the following:
a. Serving most original process in civil matters and obtain personal jurisdiction for
the court;
County Courthouse;
d. Providing a K-9 explosive detection unit for use in all areas of the County;
h. Conducting investigations into and issue concealed weapons permits and licenses
i. Conducting judicial sales of real and personal property, and determining property
ownership.
Since July 2016, Defendant Reese has not performed any of the foregoing duties, or any
other statutory duty, of the Sheriff of Lancaster County. Upon information and belief, since July
2016, Defendant Reese has not reported to work at the Sheriffs physical office in Lancaster.
Defendant Reese continues to collect a salary as Sheriff of Lancaster County. Defendant Reese
continues to hold himself out as Sheriff of Lancaster County by, among other things, continuing
On March 2, 2017, Senators Martin and Aument filed a Complaint in Quo Warranto
seeking to resolve the status of the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County. The Complaint
seeks a determination from this Court as to whether Defendant Reese can lawfully hold title to
public office where he has resigned the office by abandonment as a matter of fact or law and
where he has absconded from the County as a matter of law under The County Code, 16 P.S.
412 (The office of any county officer absconding from the county shall be vacant to all intents
and purposes.).
The Sheriff of Lancaster County has not reported to work or exercised his duties as
Sheriff for over six months. Such conduct shows that he has resigned public office by
abandonment or absconding. In light of these circumstances, should the Court order expedited
review of Defendants right to claim title to Sheriff of Lancaster County? Suggested answer: yes.
IV. ARGUMENT
Resolution of the status of the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster County is a matter of
immediate public concern and safety, warranting expedited review of this matter.
The public office of sheriff is so significant that under the Pennsylvania Constitution and
The County Code, immediately upon a vacancy in that office, the Governor shall appoint a
suitable replacement within 90 days of the vacancy and the Senate then has the right to
confirm the replacement. Pa. Const. Art. IV, 8(a)-(b); 16 P.S. 409.1 2 Further, the office is so
significant that the General Assembly made it a crime to neglect or fail to perform the duties of
1
Pa. Const. Art. IV, 8(a)-(b):
(a) The Governor shall appoint a Secretary of Education and such other officers as he
shall be authorized by law to appoint. The appointment of the Secretary of Education and
of such other officers as may be specified by law, shall be subject to the consent of two-
thirds or a majority of the members elected to the Senate as is specified by law.
(b) The Governor shall fill vacancies in offices to which he appoints by nominating to the
Senate a proper person to fill the vacancy within 90 days of the first day of the vacancy
and not thereafter. The Senate shall act on each executive nomination within 25
legislative days of its submission. .
2
16 P.S. 409:
sheriff (and other public offices as well): If any county officer neglects or refuses to perform
any duty imposed on him by the provisions of this act, or by the provisions of any other act of
Assembly, or by any rule of court, or other provision of law, he shall, for each such neglect or
refusal, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine
not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500). See 16 P.S. 411. These constitutional and statutory
regimes show that the people of the Commonwealth long ago decided having a proper officer
fulfilling the duties of sheriff was significant and of immediate public concern.
With the matter before the Court, the status of the public office of Sheriff of Lancaster
County is in doubt: the current purported title-holder has abandoned his post for over six months
while continuing to collect a salary. In the interim, he is depriving the people of the County the
services to which they are entitled (and for which they are paying), while also depriving the
Pennsylvania Senate of its constitutional and statutory right to give its advice and consent on a
replacement. In short, as set forth in the Complaint, the public office of Sheriff is vacant as a
matter of fact and law, and as such, Plaintiffs and their fellow Senators are entitled to have a
nominee to fill the office promptly submitted to them by the Governor so that the duties of this
important office can once-again be fulfilled. As long as Defendant Reese holds himself out as
Sheriff of Lancaster County, even though he has lost that right by abandonment or by
absconding, the public is harmed and Plaintiffs are denied their right to fulfill their constitutional
This warrants expedited review by the Court of the merits of this matter.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant the Motion
to Expedite and enter an order setting the following accelerated schedule for the disposition of
this matter:
b. All discovery in this matter shall be completed within 21 days after service of the
Complaint upon the Defendant;
c. All pre-trial dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed within 7 days of the
completion of discovery; and
d. If necessary, a bench trial shall be held in this matter at the Courts earliest
convenience in April 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINBARD LLC
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 100 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 101 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 102 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 103 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 104 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 1 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
CASE INFORMATION
Cross Court Docket Nos: 1166 EDA 2016, 440 MT 2016, 108 MM 2016, 3575 EDA 2016, 3576 EDA 2016
Judge Assigned: Demchick-Alloy, Wendy Date Filed: 11/23/2015 Initiation Date: 10/01/2015
OTN: T 709032-2 LOTN: Originating Docket No: MJ-38120-CR-0000381-2015
Initial Issuing Authority: Cathleen Kelly Rebar Final Issuing Authority: Cathleen Kelly Rebar
Arresting Agency: Montgomery County Detective Arresting Officer: Bradbury, Paul M.
Complaint/Incident #: 1
Case Local Number Type(s) Case Local Number(s)
RELATED CASES
STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status: Closed Status Date Processing Status Arrest Date: 10/01/2015
11/22/2016 Awaiting Appellate Court Decision
10/24/2016 Sentenced/Penalty Imposed
08/22/2016 Awaiting PSI Completion
08/16/2016 Awaiting PSI
08/16/2016 Awaiting Sentencing
08/08/2016 Awaiting PSI Completion
08/08/2016 Awaiting Sentencing
07/11/2016 Awaiting Trial
04/20/2016 Awaiting Appellate Court Decision
11/27/2015 Awaiting Formal Arraignment
11/27/2015 Awaiting Filing of Information
11/23/2015 Awaiting Formal Arraignment
11/23/2015 Awaiting Filing of Information
11/19/2015 Awaiting Pre-Trial Conference
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
105who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 2 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
CALENDAR EVENTS
Case Calendar Schedule Start Room Judge Name Schedule
Event Type Start Date Time Status
Formal Arraignment 01/06/2016 9:30 am Video Room #1 Judge William T. Nicholas Scheduled
Miscellaneous 01/29/2016 1:00 pm Scheduled
Hearing
Miscellaneous 02/05/2016 1:00 pm Scheduled
Hearing
Miscellaneous 03/22/2016 1:00 pm Scheduled
Hearing
Miscellaneous 04/20/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Hearing
Miscellaneous 07/26/2016 10:00 am Scheduled
Hearing
Jury Trial 08/08/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Jury Trial 08/09/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Jury Trial 08/10/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Jury Trial 08/11/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Jury Trial 08/12/2016 9:00 am Scheduled
Sentencing 10/24/2016 10:00 am Scheduled
DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Date Of Birth: 06/14/1966 City/State/Zip: Clarks Summit, PA 18411
CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Type Name
Defendant Kane, Kathleen Granahan
BAIL INFORMATION
Kane, Kathleen Granahan Nebbia Status: None
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
106who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 3 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
CHARGES
Seq. Orig Seq. Grade Statute Statute Description Offense Dt. OTN
3 3 M2 18 5101 Obstruct Admin Law/Other Govt Func 03/16/2014 T 709032-2
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event Disposition Date Final Disposition
Sequence/Description Offense Disposition Grade Section
Sentencing Judge Sentence Date Credit For Time Served
Sentence/Diversion Program Type Incarceration/Diversionary Period Start Date
Sentence Conditions
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
107who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 4 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
LINKED SENTENCES:
Link 4
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 3 (18 5101 ) - Probation
Link 5
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 5 (18 5301 1) - Probation
Link 6
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 6 (18 5301 1) - Probation
Link 7
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 7 (18 5301 2) - Probation
Link 8
CP-46-CR-0008423-2015 - Seq. No. 3 (18 5101 ) - Probation is Concurrent with
Link 1
CP-46-CR-0008423-2015 - Seq. No. 1 (18 4902 A) - Probation is Consecutive to
CP-46-CR-0008423-2015 - Seq. No. 1 (18 4902 A) - Confinement
Link 2
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 1 (18 4902 A) - Probation is Consecutive to
CP-46-CR-0006239-2015 - Seq. No. 1 (18 4902 A) - Confinement
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
108who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 5 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Name: Thomas W. McGoldrick Name: Joshua D. Lock
District Attorney Private
Supreme Court No: 078192 Supreme Court No: 017092
Phone Number(s): Rep. Status: Active
610-278-3126 (Phone) Phone Number(s):
610-278-3090 (Other) 717-234-4161 (Phone)
610-278-3095 (Other) Address:
Address: Goldberg Katzman PC
Montgomery CO Da's Office 4250 Crums Mill Rd Ste 301
PO Box 311 Harrisburg, PA 17112-2889
Norristown, PA 19404-0311
Representing: Kane, Kathleen Granahan
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
109who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 6 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
Address:
Bucks CO Da's Office
55 E Court St
Doylestown, PA 18901-4318
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
2 11/23/2015 MDJ-38-1-20
Formal Arraignment Scheduled 01/06/2016 9:30AM
Jan 6, 2016, service on 11/10/15
Kane, Kathleen Granahan
11/10/2015 Hand Delivered
1 11/24/2015 MDJ-38-1-20
Notes of Testimony
Preliminary Hearing, Ctrm B
Tuesday November 10, 2015. 1:00 pm
Judge Rebar
1 11/27/2015 MDJ-38-1-20
Original Papers Received from Lower Court
1 12/02/2015 MDJ-38-1-20
Amended Docket Transcript 12/2/15
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
110who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 7 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
111who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 8 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
112who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 9 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
113who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 10 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
114who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 11 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
115who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 12 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
116who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 13 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
117who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 14 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
118who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 15 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
119who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 16 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
120who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 17 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
121who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 18 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
122who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 19 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
123who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 20 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
124who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 21 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Gerald L. Shargel, Esq., Seth C. Farber, Esq. served via order scanned and sent via first class mail on
10/12/2016
Henry, Michelle Ann
10/12/2016 First Class
Kramer, Ross M.
10/12/2016 First Class
McGoldrick, Thomas W.
10/12/2016 Interoffice
Minora, Amil Michael
10/12/2016 First Class
Rosenblum, Douglas Keith
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
125who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 22 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
126who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 23 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
127who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 24 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
128who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 25 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
129who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 26 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
130who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 27 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Service To Service By
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
131who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 28 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
Payment Plan History: Receipt Date Payor Name Participant Role Amount
11/30/2015 Payment Kane, Kathleen Granahan Defendant $9.00
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
132who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-46-CR-0008423-2015
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Court Case
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Page 29 of 29
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Last Payment Date: 11/22/2016 Total of Last Payment: -$9.00
Kane, Kathleen Granahan Assessment Payments Adjustments Non Monetary Total
Defendant Payments
Costs/Fees
Copies (Montgomery) $9.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9.00
Costs of Prosecution - CJEA $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.00
Judicial Computer Project $8.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8.00
State Court Costs (Act 204 of 1976) $13.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13.55
Appeal to Superior Court (Montgomery) $71.25 -$71.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Automation Filing Fee (Montgomery) $5.00 -$5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ATJ $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.00
Automation Fee (Act 36 of 2000) $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
(Montgomery)
CJES $2.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.25
COC Processing Fee Misd/Fel $355.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $355.25
(Montgomery)
Commonwealth Cost - HB627 (Act 167 $20.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20.30
of 1992)
County Court Cost (Act 204 of 1976) $29.65 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29.65
Court Child Care (Act 105 of 2000) $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
(Montgomery)
Crime Victims Compensation (Act 96 of $35.00 -$9.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26.00
1984)
DNA Detection Fund (Act 185-2004) $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00
Domestic Violence Compensation (Act $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10.00
44 of 1988)
Firearm Education and Training Fund $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
JCPS $21.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.25
Variable Amount to be Distributed $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.00
CVC/VWS (Act 96)
Variable Amount to be Distributed $28.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $28.00
CVC/VWS (Act 96)
Victim Witness Service (Act 111 of 1998) $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00
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
COMMONWEALTH v.the Pennsylvania
Kathleen KaneStateOPINION
Police. Moreover Page
an employer
133who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal
of 137 History March
Friday Record 3, 2017
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Kane OPINION Page 134 of 137 Friday March 3, 2017
10:51 A.M. STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
Appellant
CASE INFORMATION
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Journal Number:
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: January 23, 2017
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Neither the
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Appellate
Kane Courts nor the Administrative
OPINION Page 135 Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability Friday March 3, 2017
of 137
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
10:51 A.M. STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
FEE INFORMATION
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
None None
DOCKET ENTRY
Neither the
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Appellate
Kane Courts nor the Administrative
OPINION Page 136 Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability Friday March 3, 2017
of 137
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
10:51 A.M. STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE
Neither the
COMMONWEALTH v. Kathleen Appellate
Kane Courts nor the Administrative
OPINION Page 137 Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability Friday March 3, 2017
of 137
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
v. :
KATHLEEN KANE :
2. In support of any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
The following Amicus should provide this Court with the proper jurisdiction for legal standing
to consider this Amicus according to Rule 531 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 1 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
(2) In an appeal proceeding under Rules 2154(b), 2185(c) and 2187(b), any amicus curiae shall file
and serve its brief within the time allowed by these rules for service of the advance text of the brief
by the party whose position as to affirm and or reversal the amicus brief will support or, if the amicus
brief does not support the position of any party, within the time allowed by these rules for service of
the advance text by the appellant. Alternatively, the amicus curiae may, but is not required to, serve
an advance text and then file and serve a definitive copy of its brief. If the amicus curiae chooses to
serve an advance copy and then file and serve a definitive copy, its deadlines for each are the same
as for the party whose position as to affirm and or reversal the amicus brief supports or, if the
amicus brief does not support the position of any party, as for the appellant.
(b) Oral argument.Oral argument may be presented by amicus curiae only as the appellate court
may direct. Requests for leave to present oral argument shall be by application and will be granted
only for extraordinary reasons.
Official Note
Where the amicus cannot comply with the requirements of this rule because of ignorance of the
pendency of the question, relief may be sought under Rule 105(b). The last eight words of the rule
are new. In Piccirilli Bros. v. Lewis, 282 Pa. 328, 336, 127 Atl. 832, 835 (1925) the court noted the
applicability of this rule to public officers who are represented by official counsel with an adverse
position.
The 2011 amendment to the rule clarified when those filing amicus curiae briefs should serve and file
their briefs when the appellant has chosen or the parties have been directed to proceed under the
rules related to large records (Rule 2154(b)), advance text (Rule 2187(b)) and definitive copies (Rule
2185(c)). Under those rules, the appellant may defer preparation of the reproduced record until after
the briefs have been served. The parties serve on one another (but do not file) advance texts of their
briefs within the times required by Rule 2187. At the time they file their advance texts, each party
includes certified record designations for inclusion in the reproduced record. The appellant must then
prepare and file the reproduced record within 21 days of service of the appellees advance text (Rule
2186(a)(2)). Within 14 days of the filing of the reproduced record, each party that served a brief in
advance text may file and serve definitive copies of their briefs. The definitive copy must include
references to the pages of the reproduced record, but it may not otherwise include changes from the
advance text other than correction of typographical errors. Those filing amicus curiae briefs may
choose to serve an advance text and then file and serve definitive copies according to the procedure
required of the parties or they may choose to file a definitive brief without citations to the reproduced
record.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 2 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
December 23, 2016
Respectfully,
____________/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
717-528-2200
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed,
and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct
and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to
Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation
and the truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and
expose public corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks
on our person, our property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and
some communications are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced
Media Group is also a member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How
long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the
ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 3 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In 1987 AMICUS became a federal whistleblower for the case of local defense contractor
International Signal and Control, or ISC. ISC was a black ops program for the NSA and CIA that
was convicted in 1992 for an elaborate scheme to arm Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries
with a broad array of weapons, most notably cluster bombs. It was the third larges fraud in U.S.
History at that time. I have been a victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of
electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005. I had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005
the U.S. Sponsored Mind Control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic
telepathy; hacking of all electronic devices; vandilism and thefts of personal property, extortions,
intellectual property violations, obstruction of justice; violations of due process; thefts and
modifications of court documents; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy
devices and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted
victim. This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the
federal action in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-
2288. This assault began after the handlers remotely trained/sychronized Stan J. Caterbone with
mental telepathy. The main difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that
THE AMICUS is connected 24/7 with the same person who declares telepathically she is a known
celebrity. Over the course of 10 years THE AMICUS has been telepathic with at least 20 known
persons and have spent 10 years trying to validate and confirm their identities without success.
Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment and act on the numerous formal complaints that are
filed in their respective offices. Most complaints are focused on the routine victimization's of a
targeted individual including but not limited to stalking, harassment, threats, vandalism, thefts,
extortion, burglaries, false imprisonments, fabricated mental health warrants or involuntary
commitments, pain and torture to the body, and most often the cause of obstruction of justice is
the computer hacking.
THE AMICUS has a very sophisticated and authentic library of evidence of the use of U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control technologies on my father and brother that dates back to the 1940's
while my father was in the U.S. Navy after he graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in
Florida, including an affidavit motorized and authenticated by my father in 1996. My brother
served in the U.S. Air force and was victim to LSD experiments of the infamous MKULTRA program
in the late 1960's.
In 2016 THE AMICUS was the AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in the
Pennsylvania Superior Court Case No. 1164 EDA 2016 in the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. Kane which included perjury charges during the alleged leaking of grand jury information.
Kathleen Kane took on the Good Old Boy network regarding judicial reform in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to rid the state of the long standing public corruption
ring that was evident from local law enforcement to Supreme Court Justices, and everyone in
between.
In 2015 THE AMICUS filed an amicus curie on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert who was
convicted in 1992 of the murder of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. THE AMICUS
currently am in litigation in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa
Michelle Lambert published her book titled Corruption in Lancaster County My Story, which is
available in bookstores and on Amazon.com. THE AMICUS is in frequent contact with her co-
author, Dave Brown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 4 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In 2009 THE AMICUS Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster,
Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work
of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these
horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to individuals who are being
harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep
individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency
devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons. THE AMICUS again
reintroduced the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015 and frequented the
Pennsylvania Capitol trying to find support and a sponsor; which THE AMICUS still does to this
day.
In 2006 THE AMICUS began his role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which is
listed as "FULT" on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group,
Ltd., a full service financial firm, Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the success in developing the
strategic vision for his company and the experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public
offering efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. THE AMICUS has been in recent discussions with
the Fulton Financial Board of Directors with regards to various complaints dealing with such issues
as the Resource Bank acquisition and the subprime failures. THE AMICUS believes that Fulton
Financial needs management to become more aggressive in it's strategic planning and the
performance it expects from it's management team in order to increase shareholder value.
Expanding the footprint of the regional bank has not yielded an increase to the bottom line that is
consistent with the expectations of shareholders. Lancaster County has seen several local banking
institutions acquired by larger regional banks, thus increasing the competition Fulton Financial will
see in it's local marketplace as well as in it's regional footprint.
In 2005 THE AMICUS, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in
current litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
United States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania
Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations include violations of intellectual property rights,
anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business interests. Central to
this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG
Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False Claims Act or Federal
Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC) the $1Billion
Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This litigation dates
back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for
professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO Civil Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.
In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to withhold the
Tourism Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center & Marriot.
We also proposed an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel Brunswick and
Lancaster Square to all of the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County Convention Center is
finally under construction with a March 2009 Opening date.
In 2005 THE AMICUS was selected to attend the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City
after submission of an essay with and application. THE AMICUS received the invitation from
Bruce R. Lindsey, Chief Executive Officer of the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2005 THE AMICUS began our philanthropic endeavors by spending our energies and working
with such organizations as; ONE.org, Livestrong.org, WoundedWarriors.org, The Clinton Global
Initiative, Lancaster Convention Center Authority, Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, Toms Project
Hope, People to People International, GlobalWarming.org, Contact Lancaster/24 Hour Suicide
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 5 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In 2004 THE AMICUS embarked on our past endeavors in the music and entertainment
industries with an emphasis on assisting for the fair and equitable distribution of artists rights and
royalties in the fight against electronic piracy. We have attempted to assist in developing new
business models to address the convergence of physical and electronic mediums; as it displaces
royalties and revenues for those creating, promoting, and delivering a range of entertainment
content via wireless networks.
In 2000 to 2002 THE AMICUS developed an array of marketing and communication tools for
wholesalers of the AIM Investment Group and managed several communication programs for
several of the company wholesalers throughout the United States and Costa Rica. We also began
a Day Trading project that lasted until 2004 with success.
In 1999 THE AMICUS developed a comprehensive business plan to develop the former Sprecher
Brewery, known as the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This plan
was developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the
Revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the
former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 THE AMICUS contributed to the debate, research, and implementation of strategies to
counter the effects of the global Y2K threat to the worlds computer technologies. THE AMICUS
attended the U.S. Sponsored Y2K symposium and Conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the
Senate Y2K Subcommittee and Senator William Bennett.
In 1998 THE AMICUS had began to administer the charity giving of Toms Project Hope, a non-
profit organization promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide prevention.
We had provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact Lancaster
(The 24/7 Suicide Prevention Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable
organizations and faith based charities. The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to
schools, non profit organizations, faith based initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational
support for the prevention of suicide and to bring awareness to mental illness problems.
In 1996 THE AMICUS had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that
THE AMICUS was controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., THE AMICUS was retained by Gallo
Rosso Restaurant and Bar to computerized their accounting and records management from top to
bottom. THE AMICUS had also provided consulting for the computerization of accounting and
payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of Washington Boro. THE AMICUS was retained to evaluate
and develop an action plan to migrate the Informations Technologies of the Jay Group, formally of
Ronks, PA, now relocated to a new $26 Million Dollar headquarters located in West Hempfield
Township of Lancaster County. The Jay Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies hosted
by the AS 400 computer and server. THE AMICUS was consulting on the merits of migrating to a
PC based real time networking system throughout the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group
employees some 500 employees with revenues in excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 THE AMICUS was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as controller, and was
responsible for saving the company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time, due to several
unpaid contracts, the company was facing extreme pressure from lenders and the bonding
insurance company. We were responsible for implementing computerized accounting, accounting
and contract policies and procedures, human resource policies and procedures, marketing
strategies, performance measurement reporting, and negotiate for the payment of unpaid
contracts. The bonding company was especially problematic, since it was the lifeline to continue
work and bidding for public contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County demanded a complete
accounting of the operations in order to stave off a default on the notes and loans it was holding.
We essentially revamped the entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an increase in
profits of 3 to 4 times its previous years, and record revenues.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 6 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In 1991 THE AMICUS was elected to People to People International and the Citizen Ambassador
Program, which was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was
founded to To give specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together
and effectively communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-
face scientific, technical, and professional exchanges throughout the world. In 1961, under
President John F. Kennedy, the State Department established a non-profit private foundation to
administer the program. We were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to
discuss printing and publishing technologies with scientists and technicians around the world.
In 1990 THE AMICUS had worked on developing voice recognition systems for the governments
technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). THE AMICUS co-
authored the article Escaping the Unix Tar Pit with a scientist from NIST that was published in
the magazine DISC, then one of the leading publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most
all call centers deploy that technology whenever you call an 800 number, and voice recognition is
prevalent in all types of applications involving telecommunications.
In 1989 THE AMICUS had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was one of only 5 or 6 U.S.
domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We did business with
commercial companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and foreign companies.
THE AMICUS performed services and contracts for the Department of Defense, NASA, National
Institution of Standards & Technology (NIST), Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence
Agency, (CIA), IBM, Microsoft, AMP, Commodore Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers, and
a host of others. THE AMICUS also was working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was
developing various interactive mapping technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest.
Map Quest is the premier provider of mapping software and applications for the internet and is
often used in delivering maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for
High Industries to sell American Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly. We
had brokered a deal and the executives from Donnellys Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to
discuss the deal and perform due diligence of the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield
Industrial Park.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as executive
producer of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be delivered in a
digital format; the first of its kind. We had originated the marketing for the technology, and
created the concept for the Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which would follow the
copyright and marketing formula of the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording
industry featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of
Philadelphia was the lead patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station
Studios was the brainchild of Tony Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown
when he was 15. Tony and Power Station Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the
country, and were responsible for developing Bon Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients
included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper, Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones,
Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station Studios had produced the original
Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was released for distribution and was
the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace technologies. * We
had developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with us in delivering the
Digital Movie and its related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was to include the
commercialization of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the recording industry
simultaneously with the release of the Digital Movie.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 7 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
THE AMICUS also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark
logo for the technology, similar to the DOLBY sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for
the Power Station Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies
on a portable medium, a compact disc.
In 1987 THE AMICUS had a created and developed FMG Mortgage Banking, a company that was
funded by a major banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to finance projects from
$3 to $100 million dollars. Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had quickly received
solicitations from developers across the country. We were also very attractive to companies that
wanted to raise capital that include both debt and equity. Through my company, FMG, we could
raise equity funding through private placements, and debt funding through FMG Mortgage
Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood, California to secure financing of
their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North Carolina. We had secured
refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the midst of replacing
the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We had meetings and discussions
with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his debt portfolio. We were
quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to California. We also had a
number of other prominent local developers seeking our competitive funding, including Owen
Kugal, High Industries, and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The Fisher Group (owner of the Rt.
30 Outlets). We were constantly told that our financing packages were more competitive than
local institutions.
In 1986 THE AMICUS had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd (FMG); a large financial
services organization comprised of a variety of professionals operating in one location. We had
developed a stock purchase program for where everyone had the opportunity for equity ownership
in the new firm. FMG had financial planners, investment managers, accountants, attorneys,
realtors, liability insurance services, tax preparers, and estate planners operating out of our
corporate headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we had 24 people on staff, had approximately
12 offices in Pennsylvania, and
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and
our advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees
from the other professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at
about $3 to $4 million.
In 1985 THE AMICUS developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the first Free Agent
Camp for the Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution to the teams
scouting departments. (See Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985) Current camps
were dependant on the team scouts to travel from state to state looking for recruits. We had
developed a strategy of video taping the camp and the distributing a copy, free of charge to the
teams, to all of the scouting departments for teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My
brother was signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the CFL, and went on to be a
leading receiver while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent quarterbacks. My brother
also played 2 years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting quarterback. We were
a Certified Agent for the National Football League Players Association. Gene Upshaw, the President
of the NFLPA had given me some helpful hints for my camp, while we were at a Conference for
agents of the NFL. The Washington Post wrote a full-page article about our camp and associated it
with other camps that were questionable about their practices. Actually, that was the very reason
for our camp. We had attended many other camps around the country that were not very well
organized and attracted few if any scouts. We had about 60 participants, with one player coming
from as far away as Hawaii. We held the camp at Lancaster Catholic, with a professional
production company filming the entire camp, while THE AMICUS did the editing and produced the
video. The well respected and widely acclaimed professional football scout, Gil Brandt, of the
Dallas Cowboys, had given me support for my camp during some conversations We had with him
and said he looked forward to reviewing the tapes for any hopeful recruits.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 8 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In 1985 THE AMICUS was elected Vice President of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the
International Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter by increasing
membership 3to 4 times. We had personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally
syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major
fundraiser. More than 150 professionals attended the dinner event that was held at the Eden
Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial planning and how all of the
professions needed to work together in order to be most effective for their clients. We attracted a
wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax specialists,
estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that financial
planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball National
Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 THE AMICUS had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy Weill, former President
of Citi Group (the largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of several associates asked to
help advise on the future of Financial Planning and how it would impact the brokerage and the
investment industry at large. Mr. Weil was performing due diligence for the merger of American
Express and IDS (Investors Diversified Services). We were at that time a national leader in the
company in delivering Fee Based Financial Planning Services, which was a new concept in the
investment community and mainstream investors. That concept is now widely held by most
investment advisers.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 9 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
AND NOW comes before the said court Stanley J. Caterbone, appearing Pro Se, and Advanced
Media Group, as Movant, to file an Amicus in the above captioned case.
The Movant has an interest in this case as also being a victim of SELECTIVE AND VINDICTIVE
PROSECUTION by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Lancaster County District Attorney's
Office dating back to the myriad of prosecutions by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1987, 2005,
and 2006 while a resident of the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Most of which have been
dismissed without any convictions, most without any trials, which according to law are false arrests and
false imprisonments. The MOVANT was a Federal Whistleblower in the United States v. International
Signal and Control, Plc., case of 1991.
This amicus provides a voice for the Movant as well as providing another perspective and opinion
that should benefit the courts; the parties; and the public-at-large. The matters presented in this
amicus have a direct relevancy in the disposition of this case as it does in the Attorney General's
(Kathleen Kane) fight to restore integrity and equity to the Judicial System of Pennsylvania, which
affects all of the residents of the COMMONWEALTH. The Attorney General has been quoted as saying
she is in a battle with the 'old boys' network' of Pennsylvania and the MOVANT has written extensively
about this same select group over the years beginning in 1998. In an interview with Brian Taff of WPVI
on February 16, 2016 the Attorney General is quoted as saying Everybody makes mistakes. I
knew there was a good old boy network, everyone does. I had no idea how deep and how
powerful that network actually ran. The fact that I took it on and I wasn't silent about it and
that I am determined to tear that down, I think that's what my legacy will show.
In a 1998 narrative the MOVANT wrote the following This story was perpetuated through a
gross miscarriage of justice: a tenure of malicious wrongdoing by both the law enforcement
community of Lancaster County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as
community leaders. A process that continues to obstruct Stan Caterbone's rights for justice.
It's mannerisms reach into the inner soul of political and judicial corruption. All in the name
of greed, and all in the honor of continuing the status quo of the "Good Ole Boy's" club of
Lancaster County. A process obsessed with keeping it's disclosure from escaping beyond the
confines of "Pandora's Box". It's a tenure of power that evolved from the days of this
country's earliest settlers, but an evolution that has somewhere strayed away from the
intent of our constitution; with total disregard for the law, in total disrespect for the
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 10 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
Constitution, and void of many of our civil liberties. This atrocity, like the Lambert case,
would have made our founding forefathers revel in disgust and bellow in despair. In
fact, their spirits and energies probably are!
In 2009 Opednews.com printed the narrative in full and the MOVANT wishes this said court
to consider it's content in it's final deliberations in support of dismissing all prosecutions against
the Attorney General of Pennsylvania. In addition attached are supporting documents to
advanced the credibility and integrity of the MOVANT. These documents are attached as
EXHIBITS.
Diary: Lancaster County, The CIA, and U.S. Sponsored Mind Control ,
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypagem.php?f=Lancaster-County-The-CIA-
by-Stan-Caterbone-091125-169.html
In addition the MOVANT wrote to the ATTORNEY GENERAL on November 12, 2015 and
stated the following Back in 1998 I had a meeting with an NSA (National Security
Agency, Ft. Meade, Md) operative in a parking lot of a former car dealer in York, PA. I
had just attended a job fair and he approached me as I was about to get into my car. He
introduced himself as being from the NSA and I questioned him about why they would
not leave me alone. His response was "It is not US (NSA) it's the Good Ole Boys". I also
have a huge problem with modified, stolen, and planted documents. We parted ways in
an amicable fashion.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL returned a letter the following day that stated Dear Mr.
Caterbone, Thank You for your correspondence to the Office of Attorney General, we
will keep your information in our files.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 11 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 12 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
If the Court would consider the leqal circumstances surrounding my Whistleblowing activities and
the Federal False Claims Act filing of the Petitioner as it relates to the past 28 years and the
myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District Attorney. The Petitioner wil argue that it is
wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the Petitioner In Forma Pauperis Status. The
Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the Petitioner 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.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 13 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
The 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.
13. 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
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 14 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
References
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 15 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
EXHIBIT FOR
CONSIDERATION
with accompanying DVD Titled
KANE AMICUS DVD
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 16 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
EXHIBIT DOCUMENT FILE LIST (38)
1. 0-LETTER to JAMES COMEY, DIRECTOR of FBI re PRO SE BILLINGS INVOICE Wednesday November 30, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 624713 pdf
2. 01-COINTELPRO - Case Law The Assassination of Fred Hampton 47 Years Later , by Flint Taylor Attorney,
December 5, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 34916121 pdf
3. 1-The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking Program - Lancaster City Police
Stregic Plan, August 24, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 280796 pdf
4. 2-STAN J. CATERBONE and CONFLICTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION - Monday November 14, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 12736810 pdf
5. 3-FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence Agencies November 12, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 90810967 pdf
6. 4-Amici Curiae Filed by Stan J. Caterbone 2007 to 2016 - Kathleen Kane - The National Security Agency NSA -
Lisa Michelle Lambert - Mehgan Liappatt - May 18, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 6145848 pdf
7. 5-FEDS PROBE FULTON BANK and 3 other SUBSIDIARY BANKS of FULTON FINANCIAL with STAN J. CATERBONE
CIVIL ACTIONS and Mind Control Research of Monday November 7, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 41215673 pdf
8. 6-Stan J. Caterbone LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL COURT DOCKET SHEETS as of November 12, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 52519867 pdf
9. 7-Stan J. Caterbone United Nations Human Rights Council of Geneva Switzerland Complaint and Exhibit re U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control, Oct 4, 2009.pdf.pdf 05.12.2016 36042567 pdf
10. 8-CATERBONE v. the United States of America, et.al., COMPLAINT July 20, 2016 ver 3.0 July 22, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 22161323 pdf
11. 9-MEMORANDUM FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA re Leniency for Edward Snowden by 15 FORMER INTELLIGENCE
MEMBERS November 28, 2016 with Director Comey Letter December 1, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 2628625
pdf
12. 10-Superior Court Case No. Case No. 1219 MDA 2016 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL AND GRANTING OF
INJUNCTION Thursday December 1, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 3166268 pdf
13. 11-Superior Court Case No. Case No. 1219 MDA 2016 MOTION TO CLARIFY RECORD FROM LOWER COURT
December 2, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 1351274 pdf
14. 12-Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 3576 EDA 2016 REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE re Kathleen Kane
Amicus in Support of Motion to DISMISS Charges November 30, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 532479 pdf
15. 13 - Advanced Media Group ORIGINAL INVOICES and ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES for November 30, 2016 Updated
December 1, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 16735360 pdf
16. 14-Invoice to SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER for Victimization of U.S. Sponsored Torture Program
December 2, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 3104639 pdf
17. 15-LETTER and DOCUMENT to Cappello & Noel, LLP of Santa Barbara, CA Friday November 25, 2016.pdf
05.12.2016 35068104 pdf
18. 16-Federal False Claim Act Filing of October 19 2006 4200 AUTHENTIC ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS November 26,
2016.pdf 05.12.2016 588809867 pdf
19. 17-Stan J. Caterbone BOOKMARKS and HISTORY December 5, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 4212654 pdf
20. 18-Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 16-8822 COMPLETE FILE re CATERBONE v. Allison Hallet, re
Lisa Lambert Habeus November 22, 2016.pdf 05.12.2016 12700920 pdf
21. 19-Samuel Caterbone Jr Naval Air Gunners School Honors 1943.pdf 20.12.2016 258417 pdf
22. 20-Samuel Caterbone Jr Naval Air Gunners School Certificate 1.pdf 20.12.2016 104409 pdf
23. 21-Naval Air Gunners Training Manual June 1 1943.pdf 20.12.2016 3701618 pdf
24. 22-Samuel P. Caterbone (My Father) Criminal Charges.pdf 20.12.2016 70766 pdf
25. 23-Naval Air Technical Training Center Photo Album.pdf 20.12.2016 5899658 pdf
26. 24 Criminal Charges Dismissed 1987 to 2007.pdf 20.12.2016 347656 pdf
27. 24-Samuel Caterbone Naval Air Gunners Honors 1943.pdf 20.12.2016 139674 pdf
28. 25-Dismissed Criminal Charges April 6 2007.pdf 20.12.2016 1317168 pdf
29. 26-1975 United States Senate Select Hearings on MKultra.pdf 20.12.2016 1828709 pdf
30. 27-ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP - Mark Zuckerberg and his FACEBOOK MIND CONTROL STRATEGIES and KNOWN
ATHEIST Tuesday August 30, 2016.pdf 20.12.2016 2551914 pdf
31. 28-Authentic and ORIGINAL Documents of 1987 RESTORED ON DECEMBER 15, 2016.pdf 20.12.2016
71690158 pdf
32. 29-Calhoun Private Criminal Complaint Sept 22 2007.pdf 20.12.2016 245271 pdf
33. 30-Dave Plummer offers counsel in a crisis.pdf 20.12.2016 99087 pdf
34. 31-David Schuyler Franklin & Marshall - Reunion 2007 Schedule of Events.pdf 20.12.2016 930201 pdf
35. 32-Electronic Mind Control & Timothy McVeigh jan 3 2008.pdf 20.12.2016 132969 pdf
36. 33-Email to Paul Cambell re 3179-06 Appeal April 5 2008 CORRUPTION IN THE FLEEING CRIMINAL CASE AND
APPEAL June 28, 2016.pdf 20.12.2016 142674 pdf
37. 34-Exhibit D of Duke Street Samuel Caterbone Criminal File Mar 4, 2009.pdf 20.12.2016 3248306 pdf
38. 35-Letter to Epic Card re Complaint of Bonnie Lee Polygraph Solutions August11, 2015.pdf 20.12.2016
28004831 pdf
DVD EXHIBIT
3575 EDA 2016
FILE
- AMICUS
LIST BRIEF Page
Page17
3 of 23
4 Wednesday
Friday December 23,
21, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
EXHIBIT AUDIO FILE LIST (28)
DVD EXHIBIT
3575 EDA 2016
FILE
- AMICUS
LIST BRIEF Page
Page18
4 of 23
4 Wednesday
Friday December 23,
21, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
Stan J. Caterbone
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
It comes with great regret and frustration that I must write you this unfortunate letter,
however, I see no other way to stop these attacks against me while I attempt to litigate in
Federal, State, and Local Courts. My most recent case, US Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 19 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
In the article by By Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq. Dated Aug 22, 2016, The
Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking
Program
linked here:
http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.phpoption=com_k2&view=item&id=1686:the-
surreptitious-reincarnation-of-cointelpro-with-the-cops-gang-stalking-
program&Itemid=488
The Church Committee was the United States Senate Select Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate
committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D ID) in 1975. A precursor to the U.S.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence
gathering for illegality by the aforementioned agencies after certain activities had been
revealed by the Watergate affair.
Some famous examples which have since emerged include: (1) the FBI sending letters
to Martin Luther King Jr encouraging him to kill himself or else they would tell the world
about his sexual proclivities; (2) the planned or successful assassinations of foreign
leaders such as Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba, and countless other South American,
Middle Eastern or Asian leaders; (3) the wholesale undermining of entire foreign
economies if they democratically elected someone at odds with the elite power structure
deep state of the United States such as what occurred against Salvatore Allende of
Guatemala; (4) the possible assassination of John F Kennedy; (5) revelations of
Christopher Pyle in January 1970 of the U.S. Army's spying on the civilian population;
(6) the December 22, 1974 New York Times article by Seymour Hersh detailing
operations engaged in by the CIA over the years that had been dubbed the "family
jewels, involving covert action programs involving assassination attempts against
foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments were reported for
the first time; (7) efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political
activities of US citizens; and (8) countless other examples, both overseas and
domestically.
The end result of the Church Committee Hearings was the outright banning on CIA
assassinations as well as the FBI/DOJ COINTELPRO gang-stalking programs. In 1975
and 1976, the Church Committee published fourteen reports on various U.S. intelligence
agencies' formation, operations, and the alleged abuses of law and of power that they
had committed, with recommendations for reform, some of which were later put in
place.
According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four
main methods during COINTELPRO:
(1) Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their
main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine
trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear
genuine activists as agents;
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 20 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
(2) Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used myriad "dirty tricks" to
undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published
bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged
correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They
spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run
by government agents, and manipulated or strong armed parents, employers, landlords,
school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad jacketing to
create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences;
(3) Harassment via the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to
harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave
perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and
wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government
regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand
jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters;
(4) Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten
dissidents; to conduct illegal break ins in order to search dissident homes; and to
commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations. The object was to frighten or
eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.
Unfortunately I cannot leave my home with being stalked, harassed and threatened by
neighbors, passerby's, etc., On a daily basis I have someone, or groups of people entering my
home, vandalizing, stealing, and poisoning my food. To make matters worse, this protocol
follows me in federal, state, and local courthouses. Every electronic device that I have and use
is compromised and hacked in some fashion. Every online account is the same, and every
financial account, including checking accounts, vendor accounts, utilities, etc., contains some
form of fraud and theft by deception costing me money.
Well, the following links are my supporting evidence, and NOW I WISH YOU AND YOUR
FAMILY A VERY HAPPY AND MERRY CHRISTMAS. DON'T EVER TAKE YOUR FREEDOM FOR
GRANTED, SIR! I WISH I HAD THE FREEDOM YOU AND YOUR FAMILY ENJOYS.
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 21 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THE CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
U.S. SUPREME COURT DOCKET, U.S. SUPREME COURT PEITIION, AND Letter
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION of the Sentence of Lisa Michell Lambert to
President Obama, November 15, 2016 -
https://www.scribd.com/document/331393349/Supreme-Court-of-the-
United-States-Case-No-16-8822-DOCKET-and-COMMUTATION-LETTER-to-
OBAMA-Re-CATERBONE-v-Allison-Hallet-Re-Lisa-Lambert-Habeus-Nove
Stan J. Caterbone United Nations Human Rights Council of Geneva Switzerland
Complaint and Exhibit re U.S. Sponsored Mind Control, Oct 4, 2009.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/291083335/Stan-J-Caterbone-United-
Nations-Human-Rights-Council-of-Geneva-Switzerland-Complaint-and-Exhibit-
re-U-S-Sponsored-Mind-Control-October-4-2009-pdf
CATERBONE v. Unted States of America, et.al., Case No. 16-cv-0414 in the
United States Disctrict Court for Eastern Pennsylvania
https://www.scribd.com/document/318862497/CATERBONE-v-the-United-
States-of-America-Et-al-COMPLAINT-July-20-2016-Ver-2-0-Full
Respectfully,
___________/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
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed,
and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct
and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to
Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation
and the truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and
expose public corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks
on our person, our property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and
some communications are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced
Media Group is also a member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How
long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the
ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 22 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
PROOF
IN SUPPORT OF QUASHING THEOF SERVICE
CHARGES IN MONTGOMERY COURT CASE NO. CP-46-CR-0006239-2015
I hereby certify that on or about December 23, 2016 SERVICE VIA ELECTRONIC
MAIL WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING:
Lock, Joshua D.
Law Firm: Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
Address: Goldberg Katzman PC
4250 Crums Mill Rd Ste 301
Harrisburg, PA 17112-2889
Phone No: (717) 234-4161
____________/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
717-528-2200
3575 EDA 2016 - AMICUS BRIEF Page 23 of 23 Friday December 23, 2016
4:36 P.M.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
Appellant
CASE INFORMATION
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Journal Number:
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: January 23, 2017
Next Event Type: Record Remitted Next Event Due Date: January 23, 2017
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
4:36 P.M.
FEE INFORMATION
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
None None
DOCKET ENTRY
Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
4:36 P.M.
DISPOSITION INFORMATION
Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
4:37 P.M.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Kathleen Granahan Kane
Appellant
CASE INFORMATION
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Journal Number:
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: January 23, 2017
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.
4:37 P.M.
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
None None
DOCKET ENTRY
Neither the Appellate Courts nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability
for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on the docket sheets.