Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
1 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
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

IN THE UNITED STATES U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: STANLEY JOSEPH CATERBONE
APPELLANT

:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-mc-49

BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-10517

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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I Stanley J. Caterbone, MOVANT, and appearing Pro Se, do hereby on this 3 rd

day of

August, 2016 file a AFFIDAVIT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 24(A)(1) to the ORDER recorded
on August 2, 2016 by the Honorable Edward G. Smith according to the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, RULE 24(A)(1) which is attached.
Dated August 3, 2016
___________/S/____________

Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163

ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149;15-3400; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559; 05-2288; 06-4650, 0802982
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016
Superior Court of Pennsylvania AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA
2015; 1519 MDA 2015
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 1 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case
Case2:16-mc-00049-EGS
2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document
Document31
30 Filed
Filed08/03/16
08/02/16
Page
Page
21of
of14
2
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
APPELLANT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: STANLEY JOSEPH CATERBONE,
Appellant.

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-mc-49

BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-10517

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the pro se appellant, Stanley Joseph
Caterbone, having filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. No. 28); 1
and the court pointing out that
[e]xcept as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to
appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must
attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the
partys inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal[,]
Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1); 2 and the court also noting that the in forma pauperis statute requires an
appellant to submit an affidavit attesting to the appellants ability to pay and the nature of the
appeal[,] 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1); and
IT APPEARING THAT although the appellant has submitted an affidavit in support of
his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he has not submitted an
affidavit that (1) claims an entitlement to redress or (2) states the issues that he intends to present

The appellant also includes a copy of his application to proceed in forma pauperis with his notice of appeal. See
Doc. No. 27.
2
Although Rule 24(a)(1) references Rule 24(a)(3), Rule 24(a)(3) is inapplicable here because the court did not
permit the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 2 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case
Case2:16-mc-00049-EGS
2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document
Document31
30 Filed
Filed08/03/16
08/02/16
Page
Page
32of
of14
2
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
APPELLANT

on appeal; and it therefore appearing that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 24(a)(1);
accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3 and

2.

The appellant shall have until no later than August 10, 2016, to file an application

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal that contains an affidavit that complies with Rule
24(a)(1). If the appellant fails to file the application with the appropriate affidavit, the court will
deny the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with prejudice. 4

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith

EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

See Stevenson v. Fisher, No. 3:CV-12-0981, 2012 WL 5727305, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2012) (denying
application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because even if Petitioners motion could be construed as
providing sufficient detail of his financial affairs as required by Rule 24, Petitioner fails to state the issues that the
party intends to present on appeal (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C)); Dieffenbach v. Crago, No. 4:09-cv-967,
2011 WL 3320951 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2011) (denying motion for leave to file in forma pauperis because, inter alia,
the appellant failed to state any issues that he intends to present on appeal); Alexander v. District Attorney of
Philadelphia, No. CIV A. 00-3796, 2004 WL 1275812, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2014) (Pollak, J.) (denying motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without prejudice because the appellant failed to file an affidavit
claiming an entitlement to redress and a statement of the issues that the appellant intended to present on appeal).
4
At that point, the appellant may proceed under Rule 24(a)(5).

2
16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)
Page 3 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
4 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
ORDER OF AUGUST 2, 2016
AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2016, the pro se appellant, Stanley Joseph Caterbone,
having filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. No. 28);1 and the court
pointing out that
[e]xcept as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in
forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the partys inability to pay
or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal[,] Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1) 28
U.S.C. 1915(a)(1); and
IT APPEARING THAT although the appellant has submitted an affidavit in support of his
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he has not submitted an affidavit
that (1) claims an entitlement to redress or (2) states the issues that he intends to present on
appeal; and it therefore appearing that the appellant failed to comply with Rule 24(a)(1);
accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
2. The appellant shall have until no later than August 10, 2016, to file an application to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal that contains an affidavit that complies with Rule 24(a)(1). If the
appellant fails to file the application with the appropriate affidavit, the court will deny the
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with prejudice.4

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 4 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
5 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
AFFIDAVIT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 24(A)(1)
In 2015 the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas began a campaign of DENYING In
Forma Pauperis Applications, and demanding that current cases with legitimate In Forma Pauperis
Status be DENIED in an effort to again subvert the laws of due process and obstruction of justice.
The Superior Court had followed, as did the U.S. District Court in this case by Judge Diamond.
This was an outright effort to extort monies from the APPELLANT and in the long term make
service of the complaints cost prohibitive due to the fact that Pro Se Litigants with In Forma
Pauperis Status, by law, receive free service from the Lancaster County Sheriffs and the U.S.
Marshalls.
APPELLANT.

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

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

sufficient

knowledge

of

the

These documents will also provide the Court

APPELLANT'S

claim

of

the

value

of

the

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

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

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

I am receiving a net monthly benefit of $1330.00 and

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

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 5 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
6 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
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.
The attached 29 False Arrests, which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that
may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 6 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
7 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,

an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of

facts formed for the purpose

charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following
was supported: Arrestees allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its police officers were
acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees constitutional rights
by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two
(2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5 th, 2006 and August
4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The preceding
pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.

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

8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the
transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a
performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business
or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The
16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)
Page 7 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
8 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
Where RICO laws might be applied1
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for
their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or
retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be
alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or
against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt
to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as
a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could
be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to
concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been
brought before the courts.

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

limitations has run out.

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

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 8 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
9 of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. Caterbone,
ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL
1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Selective and Retaliatory Discrimination under the 1990 Disabilities Act
3. Collusion to Commit Assault and Battery in Easton, Pennsylvania
4. Using the Courts for Political Vendettas
5. Attempted Extortion of Real Monies
6. Libel and Slander
7. Collusion of COINTELPRO-LIKE Tactics with Law Enforcement
On April 14, 2016 the Clerk of Court issued an order transferring this case from The
Honorable Anita J. Brody, of the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to
The Honorable Edward G. Smith of the Larry Holmes Federal Courthouse in Easton Pennsylvania.
The order is item no. 2 in this case' court docket sheet. See Exhibit No. 1. It should be noted
that The Honorable Judge Anita Brody had heard similar appeals for the APPELANT'S
previous Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case No. 05-23059.
On July 6, 2016 the APPELLANT filed a MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE and requested
that the Hearing of July 19, 2016 be moved to either the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Reading,
Pennsylvania or the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Motion reads:
AND NOW, on this 5TH day of July, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA
GROUP, APPELLANTS, appearing pro se, do hereby file this MOTION FOR CHANGE OF
VENUE TO PHILADELPHIA for the HEARING of July 19, 2016, according to ORDER of
June 28, 2016 by the Honorable Judge Edward G. Smith. The Allentown Courthouse is an
inconvenience and would place an undo hardship on the APPELLANT.

Given that the

APPELLANT must visit the Philadelphia Courthouse to copy dockets due to the fact that the
APPELLANT'S Pacer Account has been maliciously and erroneously closed due to computer
hackers,

it

would

appear

that

this

MOTION

FOR

CHANGE

OF

VENUE

TO

PHILADELPHIA should be granted.

On July 19, 2016 the APPELLANT filed an EXHIBIT in the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse which
read the following:
AND NOW, on this 19TH day of July, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP, APPELLANTS, appearing pro se, do hereby file this MOTION TO FILE
EXHIBIT re Press Release and Executive Summary re CATERBONE v. the United
States of America, et.al., July 16, 2016 in response to the ORDER of June 28, 2016 by
the Honorable Judge Edward G. Smith. It is now 6:57pm on Monday, July 18, 2016
and the computer hackers WOULD NOT allow mapquest on my computer find the
Larry Holmes Building in Easton, PA. I have no choice but to file this EXHIBIT in
U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on July 19, 2016.
16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)
Page 9 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. 10
Caterbone,
On July 19, 2016 the APPELLANT called the Honorable Judge Edward G. Smith's Clerk and
notified the clerk that on the morning of July 19, 2016, the day of the HEARING, the APPELLANT
had first traveled to the vicinity of Norristown, Pennsylvania, in order to file the Court of Common
Pleas of Montgomery County Case No. CP-46-CR-0008423-2015 REQUEST FOR APPEARANCE re
Kathleen Kane Amicus in Support of Motion to DISMISS Charges July 20, 2016 in the
Montgomery County Courthouse. Again, like before the APPELLANT'S GPS mapping system on his
Samsung 6S smartphone was again compromised by a computer hacker that left the APPELLANT
driving around in circles for nearly 2 hours. In addition upon trying to locate the address of the
Montgomery County Courthouse, the address changed from Norristown to Willow Grove. Needless
to say the APPELLANT never did file the Amicus. It will be filed today. In addition the APPELLANT
is recorded as being the AMICUS in Superior Court Case No. 1164 EDA 2016 for Pennsylvania
Attorney General Kathleen Kane. The APPELLANT is alleging judicial misconduct by the Clerk of
Court for maliciously and purposefully inconveniencing the APPELLLANT in an effort to have the
APPELLANT miss the court hearing of July 19, 2016 in an effort to have this case dismissed and
sanctions imposed.

The traveling time is approximately and additional one hour and most

importantly is unfamiliar territory making the computer hacking all that much more devastating to
the APPELLANT.
On July 27, 2018 the COMPLAINTANT again called the Clerk of Judge Edward Smth for
guidance as the the Show Cause ORDER of July 20, 2016. The ORDER states the following:
[AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2016, the appellant having filed an application for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with this purported bankruptcy appeal; and the court
having entered an order on June 28, 2016, which, inter alia, scheduled a hearing on the
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis for July 19, 2016 (Doc. No. 7); and the court
having denied the appellants request to change the venue of the hearing (Doc. Nos. 9, 10); and
the court having reiterated that the appellant must appear in Easton for the hearing, see Order,
Doc. No. 10; and the appellant nonetheless having failed to appear for the hearing because he
claims that the computer hackers WOULD NOT allow mapquest on [his] computer [to] find the
Larry Holmes Building in Easton, PA, see Motion to File Exhibit re Press Release and Executive
Summary re Caterbone v. the United States of America, et[] al., July 16, 2016 at
1, Doc. No. 15;1 accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The appellant shall SHOW CAUSE why this court should not impose sanctions
for his failure to appear for the hearing on July 19, 2016;
2. The appellant shall file any written response with the court electronically by no
later than July 27, 2016;
3. If the appellant fails to respond to the order to show cause, the court will deem
him in favor of dismissing this appeal; and
4. The court will hold a hearing on the order to show cause on Thursday, July 28,
2016, at 1:00 p.m. at the Holmes Building, 101 Larry Holmes Drive, 4th Floor, Easton, PA

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 10 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page
of 14 APPELLANT
Stanley
J. 11
Caterbone,
18042. If the appellant fails to appear for the hearing, the court will dismiss this appeal with
prejudice.]
The COMPLAINTANT received a call from a male who directed the COMPLAINTANT to attend
the HEARING on July 28, 2016 WHICH IS PURELEY MALICIOUS AS IT CANNOT BE
INTPRETED

FROM

THE

ORDER

THAT

ATTENDANCE

IS

REQUIRED

SINCE

THE

COMPLAINTANT FILED THE SHOW CAUSE BRIEF THE DAY AFTER THE ORDER WAS
RECORDED.

THE COMPLAINTANT FILED THE SHOW CAUS BRIEF ELECTRONICALLY AS

REQUIRED.

THE COMPLAINTANT IS ALLEGING THAT THE COURTS WISH TO PUT THE

COMPLAINTAINT IN HARMS WAY AND HIS LIFE AT RISK!

16-Mc-49 Affidavit That Complies With Rule 24(A)(1)

Page 11 of 11

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page Judges
12 of 14Unaccountability
Exposing

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

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
Judicial Discipline Reform 2165 Bruckner Blvd., Bronx, NY 10472-6506
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School tel. +1(718)827-9521;
follow @DrCorderoEsq
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net
as of June 14, 2016

_________________________________________________________

Exposing Judges Unaccountability

and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing

http://judicial-discipline-reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf
Pioneering The News And Publishing Field Of Judicial Unaccountability Reporting

Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting

This study analyses official statistics, reports, and statements of the Federal Judiciary
showing that its judges are unaccountable and their operation is pervaded by secrecy;
consequently, they risklessly do wrong in self-interest and to peoples detriment, which calls for
reform. In the last 225 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of its
judges have been removed from the bench14. They hold all their adjudicative, policy-making,
administrative, and disciplinary meetings behind closed doors and never appear before a press
conference(Lsch:2A). They act with impunity. The evidence reveals their motive, means, and
opportunity(jur:211-3) to engage in financial and non-financial wrongdoing(jur:53) by
abusingpower to deny due process, disregard the law, and decide by reasonless summary
orders66.

They

have

hatched

system

of

wrongdoing

so

routine,

widespread,

and

coordinated(88a-c) among themselves213 and between them and insiders169, e.g., running a
bankruptcy fraud scheme(651-3), as to have turned wrongdoing into their Judiciarys
institutionalized modus operandi(494).

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Page 1 of 3

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page Judges
13 of 14Unaccountability
Exposing
The presentation(971) of this evidence and of the findings of its further investigation (1003-4)
can outrage(832-3) the national public and set off a Watergate-like(410-14) generalized
media investigation(ol:55). Its findings can cause the public to demand official investigations of
the judges and the top politicians(775-6) conniving with them. The official investigators,
exercising their subpoena, search & seizure, contempt, and penal powers and holding public
hearings, will be able to make even more outrageous findings. A more deeply outraged public will
force politicians to undertake reform that will treat judges as what they are: public servants hired
to perform a service and accountable for their performance to their masters, We the People.
Public support for the investigation of the Federal Judiciary will embolden journalists and officials
to investigate state judiciaries and hold their judges accountable. Public demand for judicial
reform(1586-7) can include the establishment of citizen boards of judicial accountability and
discipline(1608). Such boards can constitute the first mechanism through which the people
conduct reverse surveillance(Lsch:2) on their government. The ensuing new Peoplegovernment
relation can foster the formation of a Tea Party-like national civic movement(1649) that turns
government effectively ever more of, by, and for the people: the Peoples Sunrise.
Journalists, politicians, and advocates of honest judiciaries thinking strategically by applying
dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:142-3) can be rewarded by
disseminating and further investigating the evidence presented here. They can:
a) cause one or more justices to resign, as they did J. Fortas in 1969(92d), and win a Pulitzer
Prize;
b) run on a winning platform that promises to hold all public servants accountable; and
c)be recognized as the Peoples Champions of Justice who brought down Judges Above the Law.
Dr. Cordero offers(Lsch:1; ol:54) to present(Lsch:9) the evidence of judges wrongdoing and show
how you and your colleagues can join his professional team(ol:119) to further investigate(ol:115)
it; and how to develop the novel news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting
through a multidisciplinary(jur:131b) academic(1284) and business(1191-3) venture. The
latter can begin with two unique stories(ol:55) involving top officers(63), an investigative
plan(66), and the potential to dominate the mid-term election campaign(70) and beyond. Dare
trigger history!(jur:75)and you may enter it!

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Page 2 of 3

Wednesday August 3, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 31 Filed 08/03/16

Page Judges
14 of 14Unaccountability
Exposing

___________/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
ACTIVE COURT CASES
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit
Court of Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400
and 16-1149
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149;15-3400; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559; 052288; 06-4650, 08-02982
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016
Superior Court of Pennsylvania AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016;
Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349,
CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.

Page 3 of 3

Wednesday August 3, 2016