Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 8

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

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CRIMINAL DIVISION CLERK OF COURT

___________________________________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone
APPELLANT

:
: MMMM
CASE NO. Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
:
:

CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ERRORS COMPLAINED

OF ON APPEAL STATEMENT
AND NOW, on this 14th day of November, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, appearing pro
se, do hereby file this CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
STATEMENT as per the ORDER of November 3, 2016. THE APPEALLANT REQUESTS THE
COURT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING AND IT'S OATH OF OFFICE:

1. STAN J. CATERBONE and CONFLICTS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION Monday November 14, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/331068312/Stan-J-Caterbone-andConflicts-With-the-Trump-Administration-Monday-November-14-2016
2. FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence
Agencies November 12, 2016 https://www.scribd.com/document/330869219/False-Imprisonments-andIllegal-Interrogations-by-U-S-Intelligence-Agencies-November-12-2016
3. Stan J. Caterbone LOCAL, STATE, and FEDERAL COURT DOCKET SHEETS as of
November 12, 2016 - https://www.scribd.com/document/330921500/Stan-JCaterbone-Local-State-And-Federal-Court-811-Pages-Bookmarks-Docket-Sheetsas-of-November-12-2016

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

Page 1 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 8

Dated November 14, 2016

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

1250 Fremont Street

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

ACTIVE COURT CASES

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

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

Page 2 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 8

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL
BACKGROUND OF CASE The Notice of hearing by Lancaster county district attorney Craig
Stedman contained a statement regarding a finding of guilt in abstentia which would result in a
sentence above and beyond that of the district magistrate. The APPEALLANT filed a Motion for
continuance which was recorded on September 30, 2016, 5 days prior to the hearing date. The
APPEALLANT kept watching the docket from the PAeDOCKET mobile app waiting for a ruling on
the motion for continuance.

Well beyond the October 5, 2016 hearing date the docket always

ended with the September 30, 2016 motion for continuance.

There was no entry of the hearing and guilty verdict of October 5, 2016 well after the Hearing
date of October 5, 2016. On October 13, 2016, the APPEALLANT was purposefully and malicously
stranded in Lewistown, Pennsylvania by the AMTRAK POLICE, and suspiciously an ORDER was
assessed. The APPEALLANT received no mail regarding the above case since the September 6,
2016 CERTIFIED NOTICE OF HEARING.
The staffer that the APPEALLANT had a problem with in the Clerk of Courts Office stalked the
APPEALLANT on an RRTA Bus from Abbeyville Road to the Centerville Supercuts stop.
On October 15, 2016 the APPEALLANT found that the OCTOBER 6, 2016 ORDER for Case No.
Summary Appeal CP-36-SA-0000247-2016 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas was NOT ON
THE COURT DOCKET.

On October 15, 2016 the APPEALLANT found that there was NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY IMPOSED
from the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas COURT SUMMARY as of October 15, 2016 and
was billed an additional $113.00 for court costs.

ACCORDING TO RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH Summary Appeal CP-36-SA0000247-2016 THE MOTION OF CONTINUANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED PRIOR TO OCTOBER
5, 2016 PROVIDING ME WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE SUMMARY APPEAL!

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

Page 3 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 8

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL
1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Selective and Retaliatory Discrimination under the 1990 Disabilities Act
3. Not Considering the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Docketed on September 30, 2016 as
seen in the Court Record
4. By Not Considering the Motion For Continuance in Advance the APPEALLANT was not given
the opportunity to attend the HEARING and was maliciously found GUILTY IN ABSTENTIA
as the APPEALLANT used his PaeDock Mobile App to check the Court Record Daily waiting
for a RULING on the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
5. Using the Courts for Political Vendettas
6. Attempted Extortion of Real Monies
7. Libel and Slander
8. Collusion of COINTELPRO-LIKE Tactics with Law Enforcement
The Court MUST consider the leqal circumstances surrounding my Whistleblowing activities
and the Federal False Claims Act filing of the APPELLANT as it relates to the past 28 years and the
myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District Attorney. The APPELLANT wil argue that it is
wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the APPELLANT In Forma Pauperis Status. The
APPELLANT has filed ample evidence of a pattern and relentless cycle of earning and accumulating
capital and assets, as well building substantial worth through his business interests, only to have
it all extorted through an elaborate civil and criminal scheme to defruad.

Therefore any

attempt to subject the APPELLANT to more court related fees is only a continuation of
that same said fraud.
Consideration should be given to Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,
where the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due
process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F
2d. 644) have concluded the following:

Even the probability of unfairness can result in a

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

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

case no. 07-4474, see attached.

The prosecutorial misconduct the the APPELLANT has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the APPELLANT
from completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and

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

Page 4 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 5 of 8

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
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

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

Page 5 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 6 of 8

to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations
when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to
strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state infringement and
protection from state and local government from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241,
242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982,
1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and
8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the
transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a
performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business
or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The
defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
1

Where RICO laws might be applied

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for
their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or

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

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

Page 6 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 7 of 8

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

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

limitations has run out.

Date: November 14, 2016

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

1250 Fremont Street

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

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

Page 7 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 64 Filed 11/14/16 Page 8 of 8

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

Page 8 of 8

Monday November 14, 2016