LETTER To Clerk of Court U.S. Bankruptcy For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Re Case No. 10615 Hearing Transcripts March 4, 2017 With RECONSIDERATION March 6, 2017

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
717-528-2200
CLERK OF COURT
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT
400 WASHINGTON ST
STE 300
READING PA 19601-3951
Re: Case No. 17-10615

Request for Hearing Transcript of February 16, 2017
I am formally and officially requesting the Hearing Transcript of February 16, 2017 before
the Honorable Judge Fehling. I request an estimate of costs in writing within an expedited time as
I am under consideration for appealing Judge Fehling's February 28, 2017 ORDERS. Please mail
me the estimate of costs or phone me at (717) 598-2200.
Respectfully,
_______________________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
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)?
Case No. 17-10615 Hearing Transcripts Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2017

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. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; 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. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; 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- 2513 INJUNCTION; 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 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, 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. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472 INJUNCTION re
Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157
Case No. 17-10615 Hearing Transcripts Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2017

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Stan J. Caterbone
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________________
In Re:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PETITIONER
Case No. 17-10615REF
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF JUDGE RICHARD FEHLINGS ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 2017
On this 26th day of February 2017, I Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner, do hereby file this
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGE FEHLINGS ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 2017.
In addition, Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, requests that this court make a ruling on
the In Forma Pauperis Application, filed on February 16, 2017 in order to determine the
cost borne to the Petitioner for the HEARING TRANSCRIPT of February 16, 2017 before
the Honorable Judge Fehling. In addition, the Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone would
like the Court to explain why the Calendar of Judge Richard Fehling, herein attached,
did not contain the Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone. The attached Calendar was
downloaded from this Courts website on the morning of February 16, 2017.
February 26, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 1 of 39 February 26, 2017

are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES

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 Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, 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

ARGUMENT FOR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) has
added a new eligibility requirement to 109 of the Bankruptcy Code. New
subsection (h) provides that a person intending to file bankruptcy must first
undergo credit counseling:
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
individual may not be a debtor under this title unless such individual has, during the 180-day
period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved
nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111(a) an individual or group
briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the
opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related
budget analysis.
11 U.S.C. 109(h)(1). Because Congress placed this requirement in 109, the section that
govern the fundamental eligibility to "be a debtor," this new provision has been described as a
"first level requirement for someone seeking bankruptcy relief." In re Wallert, 332 B.R. 884, 890-
91 (Bankr.D.Minn.2005). As the Court in Wallert noted Congress's goal seems to be to discourage
the practice of hastily filing for bankruptcy, even if that be in the face of foreclosure, repossession,
or garnishment, and to discourage debtors from deferring their first consideration of bankruptcy
until the very eve of such decisive events in the exercise of creditors' remedies.
332 B.R. at 889. However, the requirement is not without its exceptions. For example, paragraph
(3) ofsubsection (h) provides:
(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to a debtor who submits to the court a certification that (i) describes exigent
circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1);
(ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget
and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph *696
(1) during the 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and
(iii) is satisfactory to the court.
(B) With respect to a debtor, an exemption under subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply to that
debtor on the date on which the debtor meets the requirements of paragraph (1), but in no case
may the exemption apply to that debtor after the date that is 30 days after the debtor files a
petition, except that the court, for cause, may order an additional 15 days.
It is clear that the The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
(BAPCPA) was passed by Congress to prevent fraud and abuse in the filing of Federal Bankruptcy
Petition. The Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, has filed this Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition for the
following reason, as stated in the CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN and DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT filed on February 16, 2017 which states the following:
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE

THE INTENT OF THE LITIGATION OF THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, AND TO
ERMARK A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE FUTURE SETTELMENTS FOR THE CREDITORS
NAMED HEREIN.

In order to provide this Court with adequate information to make an intelligent and legal
OPINION for this motion, the following is background information, also filed in the CHAPTER 11
REORGANIZATION PLAN and DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed on February 16, 2017:
The Debtor, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, is AN INDIVIDUAL, A CORPORATION, A

FICTICIOUS NAME, ALL CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE COMMOWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA SINCE 1986 UNDER VARIOUS NAMES AND REGISTRATIONS. SEE THE
FOLLOWING RESUME AND BIOGRAPHY FOR SPECFIC DETALS.
This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy

Code The Code) proposes to pay creditors of STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE DEBTOR
(the Debtor) from PROCEEDS FROM THE MYRIAD CLAIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS, VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-TRUST, VIOLATIONS OF THE RICO STATUTE, FEDERAL
FALSE CLAIMS ACT RE ISC, INSURANCE CLAIMS OF VANDALISM AND THEFTS, DAMAGES
FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ETC., ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCRUING SINCE 1987.
THESE CLAIMS ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
THESE CLAIMS HAVE ARE ALL WELL SUBSTANTIATED AND ARE SUPPORTED WITH
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, AUDIO RECORDINGS, AND
VIDEOS. HOWEVER DUE TO THE HISORY OF STAN J. CATERBONE, THISE CLAIMS HAVE
BEEN POLITICIZED SINCE 1987 AND THE FBI COINTELPRO'S PRGOGRAM HAS BEEN
USED TO OBSTRUCT EFFORTS IN ALL OF THE COURTS. IT IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND
CRIMINAL TO ALLOW THIS CONDUCT TO PROCEED AND NOT ALLOW THIS
REORGANIZATION PLAN TO BE CONSUMATED FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS, WHO
HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY PUNISHED JUST AS THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. MANY OF
THSES CASES HAVE RESULTED IN ORDERS GRANTING PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNTIL THE UNDOINFLUENCE, COMPUTER HACKING,
HARASSMENT, VADALISM, ETC., IS REMOVED FROM THE DEBTORS LIFE SO THAT THESE
CLAIMS CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR SETTLEMENTS
REACHED. ALL OF THE USECURED CLAIMS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY
DISPUTED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE
VIOLATIONS OUTLINED HEREIN AND ARE NOT LEGALLY THE DEBT OF THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE. IN ADDITION DUE TO THE COMPUTER HACKING TO THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE, MOST IF NOT ALL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS WERE AND ARE SUBJECT
TO ERRORS AND/OR FALSE LEDGER BALANCES.

April 20, 2016
Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography
Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.
In 1987 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner has been a victim of
organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005.
Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner is connected 24/7 with the same person who declares telepathically she is a known
celebrity. Over the course of 10 years Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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.
I have 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner currently is 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner is in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave
Brown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In 2009 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner again reintroduced the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015
and frequented the Pennsylvania Capitol trying to find support and a sponsor; which Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner still does to this day.
In 2006 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner, 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. This litigation 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was selected to attend the Clinton Global
Initiative in New York City after submission of an essay with and application. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey, Chief Executive Officer of
the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner began a philanthropic endeavor 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 Hotline, Schreiber Pediatric Center, and numerous others.

In 2004 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner contributed to the debate, research, and

implementation of strategies to counter the effects of the global Y2K threat to the worlds
computer technologies. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc.,
during the time that Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was controller of Pflumm Contractors,
Inc., Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner, was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to
computerized their accounting and records management from top to bottom. Stanley J.
Caterbone, Petitioner had also provided consulting for the computerization of accounting and
payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of Washington Boro. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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.

In 1991 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner had worked on developing voice recognition systems
for the governments technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards &
Technology). Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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. Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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.

I 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone,
Petitioner 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.

In 1985 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner 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.

SUMMARY: It is evident, that the Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, had filed this Chapter 11
Bankruptcy Petition in GOOD FAITH to PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS, NOT TO
ABUSE THE Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). In
addition, as indicated by the preceding Biography and Resume, the Petitioner, Stanley J.
Caterbone, has the expertise and experience far exceeding any Credit Counselor that would be
administering the Credit Counseling Certification.
This Court must use it's DISCRETIONARY POWER, AND THE OPINION IN DiPinto,
336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006) and REINSTATE THIS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY
PETITION FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS.
February 26, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES

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 Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, 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


In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 CourtListener.com https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1951255/in-re-dipinto/?q=cites:1...
Share
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. We rely on

donations for our financial security.
Please support our work with a donation.
Donate Now
In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

Sign in or register to save a favorite.
(click to dismiss)
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Filed: January 30th, 2006
Precedential Status: Precedential
Citations: 336 B.R. 693
Docket Number: 06-10112
Judges: Stephen Raslavich
336 B.R. 693 (2006)
In re Jeffrey DiPINTO, Debtor.

No. 06-10112.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
January 30, 2006.
*694 John H. Croom, Esquire, Law Office of John H. Croom, PA, for debtor.
Frederick L. Reigle, Esquire, Reading, PA, Chapter 13 Trustee.
2 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
OPINION
STEPHEN RASLAVICH, Bankruptcy Judge.
Introduction
Before the Court is a Certification of the Debtor's Counsel for Waiver of Credit *695 Counseling Requirement
Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 109(h)(3). For the reasons set forth below, the request for a waiver will be denied
and the Debtor's petition will be dismissed.
Factual Background
The Debtor filed this Chapter 13 petition on January 10, 2006 without having first obtained credit counseling
as required by recent changes to the Bankruptcy Code. In lieu of a certificate reflecting completion of credit
counseling, Debtor's counsel filed a request for a waiver of that requirement. It is asserted that exigent
circumstances entitle the Debtor to a waiver. The Certificate recites that a Sheriff's Sale of the Debtor's
property was scheduled for January 10 but that he had a "commitment to sell th[at] property." Certification,
1,2. The Certificate further recites that the Debtor first contacted counsel regarding filing a bankruptcy at 7:30
p.m. on January 9, 2006, but was told by counsel that he needed credit counseling in order to commence a
case. Id. 3. The Debtor thereafter contacted a credit counseling service by telephone, seeking to obtain
counseling but, according to the Certificate, was informed that the earliest date available was January 31. Id.
4,5. Counsel then told the Debtor to try to obtain counseling sooner. Id. 6. This is the basis upon which
the Debtor makes the present request.
Credit Counseling Under the BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) has added a new eligibility
requirement to 109 of the Bankruptcy Code. New subsection (h) provides that a person intending to file
bankruptcy must first undergo credit counseling:
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an
individual may not be a debtor under this title unless such individual has, during the 180-day
period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved
nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111(a) an individual or group
briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the
opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related
budget analysis.
11 U.S.C. 109(h)(1). Because Congress placed this requirement in 109, the section that govern the
fundamental eligibility to "be a debtor," this new provision has been described as a "first level requirement for
someone seeking bankruptcy relief." In re Wallert, 332 B.R. 884, 890-91 (Bankr.D.Minn.2005). As the Court
in Wallert noted
Congress's goal seems to be to discourage the practice of hastily filing for bankruptcy, even if that
be in the face of foreclosure, repossession, or garnishment, and to discourage debtors from
deferring their first consideration of bankruptcy until the very eve of such decisive events in the
exercise of creditors' remedies.
332 B.R. at 889. However, the requirement is not without its exceptions. For example, paragraph (3) of
3 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
subsection (h) provides:
(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to a debtor who submits to the court a certification that
(i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1);
(ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget
and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph *696
(1) during the 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and
(iii) is satisfactory to the court.
(B) With respect to a debtor, an exemption under subparagraph (A) shall cease to apply to that
debtor on the date on which the debtor meets the requirements of paragraph (1), but in no case
may the exemption apply to that debtor after the date that is 30 days after the debtor files a
petition, except that the court, for cause, may order an additional 15 days.
11 U.S.C. 109(h)(3). These elements are stated in the conjunctive, meaning that each element must be
satisfied before the court can permit the extension of time. In re Graham, 336 B.R. 292, ___, 2005 WL
3629925 *2 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.) The Court will examine whether the record before it supports the Debtor's
request for a waiver.
Has the Debtor Provided a Certification?
The Court begins with the threshold requirement of this exception: that the Debtor "certify" his unsuccessful
efforts to obtain credit counseling. For a written statement to have any evidentiary effect in a federal court,
such statement must contain at least the following:
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement
made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established,
or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in
writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath
required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with
like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as
true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on (date).
(Signature)".
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: "I declare
(or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on (date).
(Signature)".
28 U.S.C. 1746. See In re La Porta, 332 B.R. 879, 881 (Bankr.D.Minn.2005) ("Under federal law, a
4 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
`certification' must be `subscribed,' i.e., signed by the declarant. It also must contain the declarant's statement
that the content of the document is true and correct, with an acknowledgment that the declarant is under the
penalty of perjury in making the statement." quoting 28 U.S.C. 1746); In re Hubbard, 332 B.R. 285, 289
(Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005) (finding that unverified motion is not a certification for purposes of 109(h)(3)). In this
case, the Debtor made no certification or statement whatsoever; it was his counsel whose signature appears on
the document entitled "Certification." The Court, then, has no statement from the Debtorsworn to or
otherwiseattesting to his efforts to obtain credit counseling. The Debtor's request, accordingly, must be denied
on this basis alone.
Whether The Exigent Circumstances Merit a Waiver
But even had the Debtor submitted a proper certification, his claimed exigency does not persuade. The
"exigent *697 circumstances" which the Debtor points to in support of a waiver is the imminent Sheriff's sale
of his property. Courts interpreting this term agree that an imminent foreclosure sale or repossession
constitutes an exigency.[1] But that is not the end of the inquiry. Significant is the language which follows:
"exigent circumstances [must] merit a waiver." In a case with strikingly similar facts, the Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Missouri explained that the analysis must delve deeper:
Here, the Debtor alleges that she first consulted counsel and sought credit counseling at
approximately 5:00 p.m. on the afternoon prior to the date of the scheduled foreclosure sale on
her residence. At first blush, the imminence of the proposed sale would appear to satisfy the
exigent circumstances requirement. See, e.g., In re Hubbard, 333 B.R. 377, 384-85
(Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005). Upon closer examination, this Court has some doubt on the issue. The
statute requires that the Court find that there are exigent circumstances that "merit a waiver" of
the requirement that the debtor obtain counseling services prior to filing. This suggests that the
Court should consider all the facts and circumstances relating to the debtor's alleged inability to
obtain credit counseling prior to filing a petition for relief. In other words, the focus should be not
so much on the imminence of the event that threatens the debtor with loss of property and
requires filing of the petition for relief in order to invoke the automatic stay, but on the reasons
why the debtor was unable to obtain the required credit counseling prior to having to file for
relief.
In re Talib (I), 335 B.R. 417, 421-22 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.) In examining the Certification offered by the debtor,
the Court in Talib found that
[t]he Debtor offers no explanation, however, as to why it would not have been possible for her to
request the required credit counseling well in advance of the scheduled foreclosure sale. In the
absence of such an explanation, the Court finds it difficult to determine whether the
circumstances are such that a waiver of the prepetition credit counseling requirement is merited.
Assuming the holder of the deed of trust on Debtor's residence complied with Missouri law (and
its publication and notice requirements) the Debtor has been apprised of the date of the pending
foreclosure sale for several weeks . . . Based on the Certification submitted, the Court would be
justified in finding that the exigent circumstances which make it necessary for the Debtor to
request authorization to file without having first obtained credit counseling were of the Debtor's
own making . . . Put another way, the Certification would not be "satisfactory to the Court."
Id. Similar to the above, even assuming that the document entitled Certification was satisfactory in form, its
substance is lacking. The present Debtor, like the debtor in Talib (I), waited until much less than 24 hours
prior to a Sheriff's Sale to first attempt to arrange for credit counseling.[2]*698 The Debtor clearly could not
5 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
have just learned of the sale; due process requires that property owners in danger of losing their assets to
judicial sales be notified well in advance.[3] As one Bankruptcy Court has explained:
Foreclosures do not come without a good deal of advance notice. To a lesser degree, neither do
garnishments or executions on judgments. Impending trial dates and other similar motivators also
do not spring up overnight. Nonbankruptcy law has myriad procedural protections for debtors,
providing advance notice of what might occur and when. Waiting, therefore, until the eve of
creditor action before addressing the 109(h) prerequisite for filing bankruptcy makes the
exigency rather self-inflicted.
In re Rodriguez, 336 B.R. 462, ___, 2005 WL 3676825 *8 (Bankr.D.Idaho). In the opinion of this Court, it
does not suffice for present purposes for the Debtor to simply say that he had found a last minute buyer for his
property. See In re Randolph, 2005 WL 3408043 *1 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.) (finding it "highly unlikely that if
Debtor had prioritized obtaining counseling, then she would have been unable to meet that requirement."); In
re Talib II, 335 B.R. 424, 427-28 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.) (finding that the debtor bore some responsibility for the
inability to obtain counseling having failed to address the situation until the day before the sale). The credit
counseling industry itself deems two days to be the time period between which a request for counseling is
made and the actual counseling occurs. See Leslie E. Linfield, Strange Bedfellows: Bankruptcy Reform and
Mandatory Credit Counseling, 24 Am.Bankr.Inst.J. 12, n. 9 (May 2005) (citing the Best Practices Guidelines
published by the Association of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies which calls for such
agencies to offer an appointment within two business days of a request).
In sum, under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the present Debtor's exigency does not merit a
waiver.
The Efforts to Obtain Counseling
Aside from the lack of an excuse for the delay, the Debtor's efforts to obtain credit counseling are, in the
opinion of the Court, both deficient and suspect. It is alleged that the Debtor contacted one credit counselor,
CCCS, but was informed that he could not be given an appointment for 22 days. Certification, 5. There are,
however, 13 other approved credit counseling agencies in this District.[4]See In re Booth, 2005 WL 3434776
*1 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.) (noting that the UST has approved 7 agencies for credit counseling in that District) but
also see, contra, In re Hubbard, 333 B.R. at 387 (holding that BAPCPA does not require Debtor to contact
more than one credit counseling agency). Although the Sheriff's Sale was to occur within a matter of hours,
the Debtor certainly could have tried to contact other credit counseling agencies. Moreover, the new law
specifically allows a prospective debtor to obtain the counseling via the *699 internet or telephone[5] so it is
quite possible that this could have been completed instantly, in a matter of hours, or first thing the next
morning. See Booth, supra *1; Talib I, *5; see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy 109.09[3] (Matthew Bender
15th Ed. Revised) (noting that if services are available over the Internet and by telephone, then there will
rarely be a situation in which the debtor cannot obtain the necessary briefing within hours of seeking it). To
allow the Debtor under these circumstances to fulfill his obligation by contacting but a single credit counselor
would reward token effort. In sum, the Court finds wholly unsatisfactory both the Debtor's claim of exigent
circumstances and his efforts to obtain counseling despite the late hour. His request for a waiver will,
therefore, be denied.
The Timing of the Request For Counseling/ Threshold Requirement
In the interest of completeness, the Court will consider whether, if the Debtor had filed a proper certification
which described exigent circumstances that merited a waiver, and was satisfactory to the Court, the Debtor
6 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
would have also satisfied the requirement of unsuccessfully contracting a counseling agency that could
provide him with counseling within five days of the date of his request. The statute at 109(h)(3)(A)(ii)
requires the Debtor's certification to state that the credit counseling agency contacted by the Debtor informed
him that counseling could not be furnished within the 5 day period beginning on the date on which the Debtor
made the request. Some think it is less than completely clear whether this provision requires the request to
have been made 5 days prior to the date of the commencement of the Bankruptcy case, or whether the 5 day
period can straddle the date on which the bankruptcy case is commenced.
A literal reading of the statute clearly does not require that the five days during which the debtor is unable to
get counseling after having requested it be 5 days prior to the anticipated bankruptcy filing date. Yet, if the
prepetition counseling requirement is not interpreted that way it is easy to see how inconsistencies might
follow. Consider, for example, the case of two individuals who intend to file bankruptcy because their homes
are scheduled for Sheriff's Sale in fewer than five days. Assume that one of the two contacts a credit counselor
4 days prior to the sale. Assume that this individual is told that he cannot be counseled until five days later:
that is one day after the sale date, but one day too soon to qualify for the counseling waiver if the statute
requires a 5 prepetition day request. That person would be barred from filing because he is not exempt from
the counseling requirement. Assume that the second individual is told that the first available appointment for
counseling is 6 days later: that is also later than the date of the sale of his home, but it is more than 5 days
after the request was made for counseling. The second person thus qualifies for a counseling waiver
(assuming all of the other conditions of 109(h)(3) are met). Here then would be two prospective debtors,
neither of whom, admittedly, is particularly diligent in attending to their financial problems; still, the less
proactive of the two obtains critical relief denied to the other. This is arguably an unfair result, given the de
minimis difference between the two scenarios. Interpreted in this fashion the statute, ironically, could reward
the prospective debtor who waits until the last minute to seek counseling and is fortunately *700 unable to
obtain it within 5 days! As noted, this portends some potentially unfair outcomes. As one Court has explained:
The statute does nothing more than mandate debtors to recognize and start dealing with their
straits of insolvency squarely, at least a week before they will bloom out to an actual, permanent
economic loss. As Congress clearly contemplated, within that week one would either lay the
eligibility issue to rest by snagging the counseling agency's certificate, or would qualify for the
temporary exemption and, in tandem, lay the groundwork to get the briefing and counseling
promptly after filing for bankruptcy
Wallert, 332 B.R. at 890. There are no reported decisions holding that the five day period of 109(h)(3)(A)(ii)
must elapse prepetition. However, one court has noted in dicta, at least, that the statute must be read that way.
See In re Cleaver, 333 B.R. 430, 435 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 2005) (noting in dicta that 109(h)(3)(A)(ii) would
appear to require a five-day waiting period before a debtor could file a petition together with their
certification). This Court is respectfully constrained to disagree.
The Court suspects that the likely intention of Congress was to impose a five prepetition day counseling
attempt. Although it cannot conclude so to a certainty, given the language adopted. Moreover, legislative
history is of no help on this point. As noted above, a contrary reading could reward dilatory conduct. Credit
counseling, furthermore, will arguably be of little benefit if it is received by an individual mere hours before a
sheriff sale of the individual's residence. Indeed, one purpose of the counseling is presumably to assist
individuals in identifying whether there are feasible alternatives to bankruptcy. Nevertheless, if a five
prepetition day requirement was what Congress intended, it simply did not put that requirement in the statute.
Where the statue is unambiguous the Court must interpret it as it is written, not as it thinks it should have been
written.[6] Thus, while the Court finds merit to the argument that the requirement probably should be five
7 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
prepetition days, the Court cannot conclude that the plain reading of the statute supports that result.
Summary
To summarize the present request for a waiver of the new Bankruptcy Code requirement of prepetition credit
counseling must be denied as it fails to satisfy two of the three part conjunctive test for the entitlement to such
a waiver. To recapitulate these: 1) the Debtor failed to file a sufficient certification; 2) the pending foreclosure
sale of the Debtor's residence, while constituting an exigent circumstance is not one which merits a waiver
due to the Debtor's dilatory conduct; and 3) the Debtor's nominal effort to secure prepetition *701 credit
counseling prior to the sale of his property renders the certification otherwise unsatisfactory to the Court.
An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Certification of the Debtor's Counsel for Waiver of Credit Counseling
Requirement Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 109(h)(3) and for the reasons set forth in the attached Opinion, it is
hereby
ORDERED that the request for waiver of the credit counseling requirement is Denied; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed.
NOTES
[1] See, e.g., In re Davenport, 335 B.R. 218 (M.D.Fla.) (repossession of family's only means of transportation
constitutes exigent circumstances); In re Graham, 336 B.R. 292, ___, 2005 WL 3629925 *3 (holding that
impending creditor action constitutes exigence circumstances); In re Valdez, 335 B.R. 801 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.)
(foreclosure sale constitutes exigent circumstances); Miller, supra, *2 (sheriff's sale constitutes emergency); In
re Hubbard, 333 B.R. 377, 384 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.2005) (loss of family home unless immediate relief granted is
exigent circumstances).
[2] As previously noted, the Debtor first appeared at counsel's office at 7:30 p.m., 2 hours after the close of
normal business hours on the evening before the Sheriff sale of his property.
[3] Even before the mortgage company filed its foreclosure complaint, it was required to give the Debtor at
least 30 days notice (known as an "Act 6 Notice") of its intention to foreclose. 41 P.S. 403(a). Likewise at
least another month would pass before a judgment could be obtained and the Sheriff's Sale scheduled. The
Debtor, thus, had ample time to seek prepetition credit counseling.
[4] See the U.S. Trustee's website, www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc approved.htm.
[5] 11 U.S.C. 109(h)(1).
[6] "[W]here, as here, the statute's language is plain, `the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according
to its terms.'" United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S. Ct. 1026, 1031, 103 L.
Ed. 2d 290 (1989) quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S. Ct. 192, 194, 61 L. Ed. 442
(1917). The Supreme Court recently interpreted Caminetti to mean that "[its] task is to give effect to the will
of Congress, and where its will has been expressed in reasonably plain terms, that language must ordinarily be
8 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM
regarded as conclusive." United States v. One "Piper" Aztec "F" Deluxe Model 250PA 23 Aircraft, 321 F.3d
355, 358 (3d Cir.2003) quoting Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 104, 113 S. Ct. 1119, 122 L. Ed. 2d 457
(1993). Where the meaning is unambiguous, the Court should make no further inquiry unless the literal
application of the statute will end in a result that conflicts with Congress's intentions. See Armstrong World
Industries, Inc., 432 F.3d 507, 512 (3d Cir.2005) citing Ron Pair at 242, 109 S.Ct. at 1031.
About
Visualizations
FAQ
Tour
Donate
Citation Lookup
Coverage
APIs and Bulk Data
Feeds & Podcasts
Jurisdictions
Blog & Newsletter
Contact
Data Services
Contribute
Terms & Privacy
Removal
CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project.
9 of 9 2/25/2017 9:05 AM

0.00
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN
THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. FEHLING, PRESIDING

READING CALENDAR
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2017 HEARING ROOM: COURTROOM #1
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
1 09-22207-REF DIANE M. MASTELLIS CH: 13
Adv: 4-16-00289
Diane M. Mastellis vs Ditech Financial LLC
Motion To Determine Amount Of Money Judgment Filed By Diane M. Mastellis
Represented By John A. DiGiamberardino .
VACATED: Terminated in CM/ECF on 02/02/2017
Attorney: John A. DiGiamberardino (Diane M. Mastellis)
1.00 2.00 0.00
2 10-21620-REF DEBRA A. MURRAY CH: 7
Motion To Approve Compromise Under Rule 9019 In Connection To Litigation And For
Authority To Pay Special Counsel's Fees And Costs Filed By Michael H Kaliner
Represented By Paul Brinton Maschmeyer .
Attorney: Kevin K. Kercher (Debra A. Murray)
2.00 3.00 0.00
3 11-22875-REF LORI J. WEEKS CH: 13
Motion For Determination Of Final Cure And Mortgage Payment Re: Rule 3002.1 Re:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Filed By Lori J. Weeks Represented By John A.
Attorney: John A. DiGiamberardino (Lori J. Weeks)
Attorney: Jennifer R. Alderfer (Lori J. Weeks)
3.00 4.00 0.00
4 12-19376-REF CARTER P. & SARAH C. REESE CH: 11
Response To Certification Of Default Filed By Creditor PNC Bank And Request For
Hearing Filed By Sarah C. Reese .
Motion To Sell Property Free And Clear Of Liens Under Section 363(F) To Resolve
Disputed Interest Involving Agricultural Conservation Easement And To Modify
Confirmed Plan 00 Filed By Carter P. Reese, Sarah C. Reese Represented By Dexter K.
Attorney: Frederick L. Reigle (Sarah C. Reese)
Attorney: Dexter K. Case (Carter P. Reese)
4.00 5.00 0.00
5 12-19551-REF DARRYL EUGENE & HOLLY L. FRITZ CH: 13
Motion To Modify Second Amended Plan Post Confirmation Filed By Darryl Eugene Fritz
Jr., Holly L. Fritz Represented By David W. Tidd .
Attorney: David W. Tidd (Darryl Eugene Fritz, Holly L. Fritz)

Page 1
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
6 13-11090-REF TIMOTHY CHARLES & REBECCA JO MOORE CH: 13
Motion To Sell Commercial And Residential Property (1627 Main Street, Northampton,
Pa) Free And Clear Of Liens Under Section 363(F) 00 Filed By Rebecca Jo Moore,
Timothy Charles Moore Represented By Michael J. McCrystal .
Attorney: Michael J. McCrystal (Rebecca Jo Moore, Timothy Charles
1.00 2.00 0.00
7 13-15346-REF BETH H. MOLETS CH: 7
Motion To Avoid Lien With Asset Acceptance, LLC Filed By Beth H. Molets Represented
By Brenna Hope Mendelsohn .
Motion To Avoid Lien With American Express Filed By Beth H. Molets Represented By
Brenna Hope Mendelsohn .
Attorney: Miguel M. Debon (Beth H. Molets)
Attorney: Brenna Hope Mendelsohn (Beth H. Molets)
2.00 3.00 0.00
8 13-16805-REF CARLOS & RAMONA REYNOSO CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Post Confirmation Filed By Carlos Reynoso, Ramona Reynoso
Represented By Lynn E. Feldman .
Attorney: Lynn E. Feldman (Carlos Reynoso, Ramona Reynoso)
3.00 4.00 0.00
9 13-20074-REF BRAD R. BENDER CH: 13
Motion To Approve Loan Modification And Loan Adjustment Agreement Filed By Brad
R. Bender Represented By John R.K. Solt .
Attorney: David W. Tidd (Brad R. Bender)
Attorney: John R.K. Solt (Brad R. Bender)
4.00 5.00 0.00
10 13-20582-REF SUSAN D. WIMMER CH: 13
Motion To Sell Property Free And Clear Of Liens Under Section 363(F) 00 Filed By
Susan D. Wimmer Represented By Stephen McCoy Otto .
Attorney: Stephen McCoy Otto (Susan D. Wimmer)
5.00 6.00 0.00
11 14-11692-REF RICHARD T & CAROL J MOORE CH: 13
Motion To Sell Property Free And Clear Of Liens Under Section 363(F) 00 Filed By Carol
J Moore, Richard T Moore Represented By Michael J. McCrystal .
Attorney: Michael J. McCrystal (Carol J Moore, Richard T Moore)
Page 2
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
12 14-15565-REF LILY LOPEZ CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Filed By Lily Lopez Represented By Stephen McCoy Otto .
Attorney: Stephen McCoy Otto (Lily Lopez)
1.00 2.00 0.00
13 14-16850-REF GENE CARL BENCKINI CH: 7
Debtor's Motion To Reconsider Order Entered 1/12/2017 Denying Debtor's
Motion/Request To Have This Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case Dismissed ; Motion To
Reconsider And Certificate Of Service Filed By Debtor Gene Carl Benckini Represented
2.00 3.00 0.00

14 14-18039-REF JOHN G WADSWORTH CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay 526 Hallman Road, Union Township, Pa 19518 Filed By
Mtglq Investors, L.P. Represented By William Edward Miller .
Attorney: William B. Callahan (John G Wadsworth)
3.00 4.00 0.00
15 14-18444-REF LORA ANN JANUSZEWSKI CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Post-Confirmation Filed By Lora Ann Januszewski Represented
By John Everett Cook .
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Lora Ann Januszewski)
4.00 5.00 0.00
16 14-19578-REF NICHOLAS PETROCK CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Post-Confirmation Filed By Nicholas Petrock Jr. Represented By
John Everett Cook .
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Nicholas Petrock)
5.00 6.00 0.00
17 15-12187-REF DEREK & DONNA MCCARTHY CH: 7
Motion To Dismiss Debtor(S) For Failure To File Documents Filed By David Alan
Eisenberg Represented By David Alan Eisenberg .
Attorney: Harry J. Newman (Derek McCarthy, Donna McCarthy)

Page 3
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
18 15-12433-REF KERRY JAMES ETCHBERGER CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 200 Salem Road, Bethel, Pa 19507
Filed By Federal National Mortgage Association Represented By Jerome B. Blank
Attorney: Leonard Zagurskie (Kerry James Etchberger)
1.00 2.00 0.00
19 15-13083-REF VIRGINIA M. CHUDGAR CH: 13
Motion For Turnover Of Property Filed By Virginia M. Chudgar Represented By Stephen
McCoy Otto .
Attorney: Stephen McCoy Otto (Virginia M. Chudgar)
2.00 3.00 0.00
20 15-14200-REF BLANCA MARTINEZ CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Regarding 2018 Fairview Street, Whitehall, Pa 18052 Filed
By Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. As Servicing Agent For HSBC Bank USA, National
Association, As Trustee, In Trust For The Registered Holders Of Ace Securities Corp.
Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006 Represented By Matthew Christian Waldt
Attorney: Paul Edward Trainor (Blanca Martinez)
3.00 4.00 0.00
21 15-14520-REF CARMEN BEATRICE MALDONADO CH: 13
Motion For Sanctions For Violation Of The Automatic Stay Against Co-Debtor Antonio
Maldonado, With Hearing Notice And Certificate Of Service Filed By Carmen Beatrice
Maldonado Represented By William P. Marshall .
Attorney: William P. Marshall (Carmen Beatrice Maldonado)
4.00 5.00 0.00
22 15-14842-REF MICHAEL JOHN & CHRISTAL R VITKO CH: 13
(Amended) Objection To Claim # 6 Of Claimant Commonwealth Of PA,. Department Of
Revenue Filed By Christal R Vitko, Michael John Vitko.
Attorney: Michael J. McCrystal (Christal R Vitko, Michael John Vitko)
5.00 6.00 0.00
23 15-14914-REF EDWARD C. & ELIZABETH L. HILL CH: 13
Motion To Approve Loan Modification Filed By The Bank Of New York Mellon, Et Al.
Represented By Denise Elizabeth Carlon .
Attorney: Joseph T. Bambrick (Edward C. Hill, Elizabeth L. Hill)

Page 4
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
24 15-14980-REF LISA KOCHEL CH: 13
Response To Certification Of Default Filed By Creditor Santander Bank, N.A. Filed By
Lisa Kochel .
Attorney: Brenna Hope Mendelsohn (Lisa Kochel)
1.00 2.00 0.00
25 15-16044-REF JAMES D TINKER CH: 13
--Motion To Withdraw As Attorney Filed By James D Tinker Represented By Lynn E.
--Motion To Abate Plan Payments For 1 Months And Modify Plan After Confirmation.
Filed By James D Tinker Represented By Lynn E. Feldman .
Attorney: Lynn E. Feldman (James D Tinker)
2.00 3.00 0.00
26 15-16466-REF BRIAN M. MAYBERRY CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Post-Confirmation Filed By Brian M. Mayberry Represented By
John Everett Cook .
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Brian M. Mayberry)
3.00 4.00 0.00
27 15-16924-REF MICHAEL JOHN CERAMI CH: 13
Motion To Withdraw As Attorney Filed By Michael John Cerami, Michael John Cerami
Represented By Charles Laputka .
Attorney: Charles Laputka (Michael John Cerami)
4.00 5.00 0.00
28 15-17106-REF KENNETH A. & TRICIA A. WOLF CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan Post-Confirmation Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. 1329 Filed By Kenneth
A. Wolf, Tricia A. Wolf Represented By Beth Marie Auman .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Kenneth A. Wolf, Tricia A. Wolf)
Attorney: Beth Marie Auman (Kenneth A. Wolf, Tricia A. Wolf)
5.00 6.00 0.00
29 15-17574-REF MATTHEW W. HARMON CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 329 Anvil Drive, Douglassville,
Pennsylvania 19518 Filed By Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Represented By Jerome B. Blank .
Attorney: David B. Spitofsky (Matthew W. Harmon)

Page 5
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
30 15-18080-REF HAAS PACKAGING & DESIGN, INC. CH: 7
Adv: 4-16-00276
David Alan Eisenberg Vs Jonathan Haas & Evolution Works, LLC & April Haas
Motion To Reconsider Revised Order Entered November 14, 2016, Granting Plaintiff's
Motion For Default Judgment Against Defendants, Jonathan And April Haas Filed By
April Haas, Jonathan Haas Represented By John Everett Cook .
Adv: 4-16-00276
David Alan Eisenberg vs Jonathan Haas & Evolution Works, LLC & April Haas
Motion To Extend Time To Time To File Appeal Pursuant To Bankruptcy Rule 8002(D)
Filed By April Haas, Jonathan Haas Represented By John Everett Cook .
Attorney: Kevin K. Kercher (Haas Packaging & Design, Inc.)
Attorney: Gary F Seitz (David Alan Eisenberg)
Attorney: Holly Elizabeth Smith (David Alan Eisenberg)
Attorney: John Everett Cook (April Haas, Evolution Works, LLC, Jonathan
Haas)
1.00 2.00 0.00
31 15-18767-REF LISAMARIE R ELLIS CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 264 Friedensburg Road, Reading, Pa
19606 Filed By Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Et. Al. Represented By Chrisovalante Fliakos .
Attorney: Brenna Hope Mendelsohn (Lisamarie R Ellis)
2.00 3.00 0.00
32 15-18768-REF ANN LOUISE MOYER CH: 13
Motion To Modify Plan After Confirmation Filed By Ann Louise Moyer Represented By
Mark W. Adams .
Attorney: Mark W. Adams (Ann Louise Moyer)
3.00 4.00 0.00
33 15-18865-REF KWESSAN & TRISHA ANN CREPPY CH: 13
Adv: 4-16-00410
Kwessan Creppy & Trisha Ann Creppy vs Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
Motion For Default Judgment Filed By Kwessan Creppy, Trisha Ann Creppy Represented
By Thomas L. Lightner .
Attorney: Thomas L. Lightner (Kwessan Creppy, Trisha Ann Creppy)
Attorney: Jada S. Greenhowe (Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency)

Page 6
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
34 16-10619-REF SCOTT & MICHELLE PAFFHAUSEN CH: 13
Amended Objection To Proof Of Claim #7 By Claimant Lfs8 Master Participation Trust
Filed By Joseph T. Bambrick Jr. On Behalf Of Michelle Paffhausen, Scott Paffhausen .
Attorney: Joseph T. Bambrick (Michelle Paffhausen, Scott Paffhausen)
1.00 2.00 0.00
35 16-10776-REF DAVID MICHAEL & ALLYSON LEIGH OKONSKI CH: 13
Motion To Approve Loan Modification Filed By JPmorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, Et Al Represented By Kevin S. Frankel
Attorney: Brenna Hope Mendelsohn (Allyson Leigh Okonski, David
Michael Okonski)
2.00 3.00 0.00
36 16-10958-REF WILLIAM H. & TINA M. YANDERSITS CH: 13
Motion To Approve Loan Modification Agreement With Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Filed By
Tina M. Yandersits, William H. Yandersits Represented By George M. Lutz .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Tina M. Yandersits, William H. Yandersits)
3.00 4.00 0.00
37 16-11037-REF MICHAEL GEORGE & JOY N. SCHWENTNER CH: 13
Adv: 4-16-00408
Joy N. Schwentner & Michael George Schwentner Vs Us Bank National Association
Motion For Default Judgment Filed By Joy N. Schwentner, Michael George Schwentner
Represented By Kevin K. Kercher .
Attorney: Kevin K. Kercher (Joy N. Schwentner, Michael George
4.00 5.00 0.00
38 16-11435-REF ROSABELLE JEANETTE SANTIAGO CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 128 Philadelphia Avenue, Shillington,
Pa 19607 Filed By U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee Et Al. Represented By
Thomas Young.Hae Song .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Rosabelle Jeanette Santiago)

Page 7
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
39 16-11522-REF TERESA S. BASHORE CH: 7
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: 107E Vine St, Fleetwood, Pa 19522 Filed By PNC Bank,
National Association Represented By Nicole B. Labletta .
Attorney: Joseph L Quinn (Teresa S. Bashore)
1.00 2.00 0.00
40 16-11556-REF COLTON A. SCHRONICK CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 2119 Cullum Drive, Reading, Pa
19601 Filed By Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Joseph Angeo Dessoye .
Attorney: Joseph T. Bambrick (Colton A. Schronick)
2.00 3.00 0.00
41 16-11811-REF ANNIE WANGARI GITONGA CH: 13
Motion To Amend Chapter 13 Plan After Confirmation Filed By Annie Wangari Gitonga
Represented By Paul Edward Trainor .
Attorney: Paul Edward Trainor (Annie Wangari Gitonga)
3.00 4.00 0.00
42 16-12141-REF SITHA HEN & KIM L. CHENG CH: 13
--Objection To Claim # 9 By Claimant Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. Filed By Kim L.
Cheng, Sitha Hen.
--Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address: 1002 Ayres Court, Lancaster, Pa
17602 Filed By Lsf8 Master Participation Trust Represented By Chrisovalante Fliakos .
Attorney: Michael D. Hess (Kim L. Cheng, Sitha Hen)
4.00 5.00 0.00
43 16-12441-REF KIMBERLY A ROTH CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay In Re: 229 West Weis Street, Topton, Pa 19562 Filed By Jp
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Represented By Denise Elizabeth Carlon .
Attorney: Brenna Hope Mendelsohn (Kimberly A Roth)
5.00 6.00 0.00
44 16-13342-REF ROBERT JOSEPH & MELANIE ANN KROBOTH CH: 12
--Chapter 12 Confirmation Hearing.
--Motion For Relief From Stay Re: 6274 Mud Run Road, Nazareth Pa 18064 Filed By
United States Of America, Acting Through USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation
Represented By Thomas I. Puleo .
Attorney: David B. Schwartz (Melanie Ann Kroboth, Robert Joseph
Kroboth)

Page 8
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
45 16-13850-REF MOCTAR MBENGUE CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: 2597 Chandlee Ct, Macungie, Pa Filed By SRP 2010-6,
LLC C/O Sn Servicing Corporation Represented By Brian E. Caine .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Moctar Mbengue)
1.00 2.00 0.00
46 16-14267-REF DORIS ANN BURNER CH: 13
Second Motion To Sell Filed By Doris Ann Burner Represented By Joseph T. Bambrick
Motion For Relief From Stay And Co-Debtor Stay Re: Property Address 7 Dale Drive,
Mohrsville, Pa 19541 Filed By Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Represented By Joseph Angeo
Attorney: Joseph T. Bambrick (Doris Ann Burner)
2.00 3.00 0.00
47 16-14512-REF JOSEPH DAVID HAAS CH: 13
Motion To Avoid Lien With First Commonwealth Federal Credit Union Filed By Joseph
David Haas Represented By Patrick J. Best .
Attorney: Patrick J. Best (Joseph David Haas)
3.00 4.00 0.00
48 16-14593-REF HEBER A. & MARILYN F. SNYDER CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay Filed By Seterus, Inc. As The Authorized Subservicer For
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Creditor C/O Seterus, Inc.
Represented By Jeniece D. Davis .
Attorney: David S. Gellert (Heber A. Snyder, Marilyn F. Snyder)
4.00 5.00 0.00
49 16-15510-REF METROPOLITAN STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. CH: 7
Trustee's Application For Compensation/Pay Broker'S Service Fee And Reimburse
Expenses Following Sale For Wm. F. Comly & Son, Inc., Broker, Fee $25,000.00,
Expenses $11,103.48 Filed By Robert H. Holber, Trustee.
Attorney: Charles J. Phillips (Metropolitan Steel Industries, Inc.)
5.00 6.00 0.00
50 16-15516-REF JASON B GAUBY CH: 13
Motion To Approve Loan Modification Filed By Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Represented By Karina Velter .
Attorney: Paul H. Herbein (Jason B Gauby)

Page 9
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
51 16-15579-REF BONNIE L. CARON CH: 13
Motion To Approve Mortgage Loan Modification Filed By Bonnie L. Caron Represented
By Joseph L Quinn .
Attorney: Joseph L Quinn (Bonnie L. Caron)
1.00 2.00 0.00
52 16-16660-REF ISABELLE PAONESSA CH: 7
Motion To Dismiss Debtor(S) For Failure To File Documents Filed By David Alan
Eisenberg Represented By David Alan Eisenberg
2.00 3.00 0.00

53 16-16789-REF CURTISS H. PEMBERTON CH: 13
Motion For Relief From Stay 4 Joy Avenue, Mount Joy, Pennsylvania 17552-1532, In
Addition To Motion For Relief From Co-Debtor Stay Filed By Lakeview Loan Servicing,
LLC Represented By Celine P. Derkrikorian .
Attorney: Michael D. Hess (Curtiss H. Pemberton)
3.00 4.00 0.00
54 16-17117-REF RAMON A ABREU CH: 7
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: Property Address 360 Imperial Drive, Mohnton, Pa
19540 Filed By Bank Of America, N.A. Represented By Mario J. Hanyon .
Attorney: Paul H. Herbein (Ramon A Abreu)
4.00 5.00 0.00
55 16-17789-REF RICHARD P. & CAROL M. KOZAKIEWICZ CH: 7
Motion To Avoid Lien With American Express Bank Filed By Carol M. Kozakiewicz,
Richard P. Kozakiewicz Represented By George M. Lutz .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Carol M. Kozakiewicz, Richard P.
5.00 6.00 0.00
56 16-18176-REF TINA ANN DIXON CH: 13
Motion To Avoid Lien With A Better Night's Sleep Inc. Filed By Tina Ann Dixon
Represented By Michael J. McCrystal .
Attorney: Michael J. McCrystal (Tina Ann Dixon)
6.00 7.00 0.00
57 16-18424-REF LAWRENCE P. & DEBRA K. KELLY CH: 7
Motion To Avoid Lien With Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Filed By Debra K.
Kelly, Lawrence P. Kelly Represented By George M. Lutz .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Debra K. Kelly, Lawrence P. Kelly)
Page 10
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
58 16-18448-REF JAN-MICHAEL RIEGEL CH: 7
Motion To Avoid Lien With Visions Federal Credit Union Filed By Jan-Michael Riegel
Represented By George M. Lutz .
Attorney: George M. Lutz (Jan-Michael Riegel)
1.00 2.00 0.00
59 16-18581-REF JAMES M. & DEBORAH K. LONG CH: 7
Reaffirmation Agreement Between Debtor And Systems & Services Technologies, Inc
Filed By Systems & Services Technologies Inc.
Attorney: Barry A. Solodky (Deborah K. Long, James M. Long)
2.00 3.00 0.00
60 16-18645-REF WILLIAM L. & BONNIE BOWER CH: 13
Motion To Reconsider Dismissal Of Case Filed By Bonnie Bower, William L. Bower Sr
Represented By Joseph T. Bambrick Jr.
Attorney: Joseph T. Bambrick (Bonnie Bower, William L. Bower)
3.00 4.00 0.00
61 16-18715-REF TRACI L. FAKE CH: 13
Motion To Avoid Lien With Matthew David Fake Filed By Traci L. Fake Represented By
David S. Gellert .
Motion To Avoid Lien With William G. Fake And Arlette N. Fake Filed By Traci L. Fake
Represented By David S. Gellert .
Attorney: David S. Gellert (Traci L. Fake)
4.00 5.00 0.00
62 16-18732-REF SPYRIDON KITIXIS CH: 7
Motion To Avoid Lien With American Express Centurion Bank Filed By Spyridon Kitixis
Represented By David S. Gellert .
Attorney: David S. Gellert (Spyridon Kitixis)
5.00 6.00 0.00
63 16-18930-REF RUSSELL JAMES URMY CH: 7
Motion For Relief From Stay Re: 105 South Robinson Avenue, Pen Argyl, Pa 18072 Filed
By Nationstar Mortgage LLC Represented By Kevin S. Frankel .
Attorney: Amanda Lauren Kurecian (Russell James Urmy)

Page 11
0.00

READING CALENDAR
09:30 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
64 17-10041-REF DEBRA ANN TURCZYN CH: 13
Motion To Impose Automatic Stay Filed By Debra Ann Turczyn Represented By John
Everett Cook .
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Debra Ann Turczyn)
1.00 2.00 0.00
65 17-10323-REF JANNETTE VAZQUEZ CH: 7
Motion To Impose Automatic Stay Filed By Jannette Vazquez Represented By John
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Jannette Vazquez)
11:00 AM
0.00 3.00 0.00
66 15-16736-REF HAYDEE CLAUDIO CH: 7
Order To Show Cause astowhyDebtor'sCaseShouldNotBeDismissedforDebtor's
FailuretoAppearatthePreviouslyTwiceScheduledFirstMeetingofCreditor
Attorney: David S. Gellert (Haydee Claudio)
1.00 4.00 0.00

67 15-17580-REF BEN HUNTER REAL ESTATE, L.P. CH: 11
Motion To Dismiss Case Or, Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7 Filed By United
States Trustee Represented By Dave P. Adams .
Chapter 11 Plan Of Reorganization Filed By Ben Hunter Real Estate, L.P.
Attorney: Kevin K. Kercher (Ben Hunter Real Estate, L.P.)
2.00 5.00 0.00
68 14-16946-REF BRUCE J. CRISCUOLO CH: 11
---Motion To Dismiss Case Or, Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7 Filed By United
States Trustee Represented By Dave P. Adams .
---Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan
Attorney: Kevin K. Kercher (Bruce J. Criscuolo)

Page 12
0.00

READING CALENDAR
11:00 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
69 13-18784-REF MICHAEL B. SARACENO CH: 11
Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7; Motion To Dismiss Case Filed By United States
Trustee Represented By Dave P. Adams .
Attorney: Michael J. McCrystal (Michael B. Saraceno)
1.00 2.00 0.00
70 14-19893-REF W.E. YODER, INC. CH: 11
Motion To Dismiss Case, Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7 Filed By United States
Trustee Represented By Dave P. Adams .
Attorney: David B. Smith (W.E. Yoder, Inc.)
Attorney: Robert M. Greenbaum (W.E. Yoder, Inc.)
2.00 3.00 0.00
71 15-11568-REF WILLIAM W. YODER CH: 11
Motion To Dismiss Case, Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7
Attorney: David M. Klauder (William W. Yoder)
Attorney: Cory P. Stephenson (William W. Yoder)
3.00 4.00 0.00
72 15-11569-REF YODER REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP CH: 11
Motion To Convert Case To Chapter 7, Or, In The Alternative, To Dismiss Case Filed By
United States Trustee Represented By Dave P. Adams .
Attorney: John A. Gagliardi (Yoder Real Estate Partnership)
4.00 5.00 0.00
73 16-10755-REF MARGUERITE M RUSYN CH: 13
Continued Hearing On Order That The Prior Dismissal Of This Case Is Hereby Vacated.
Further Ordered That Debtor'S Attorney, Matthew Croslis, Shall File The Following
Documents On Or Before January 6, 2017 - Rule 2016(B) Fee Disclosure Statement
Disclosing All Fees Paid To Attorney Croslis In The Year Before The Case Was Filed And
All Documents That Are Necessary Or Required To Be Filed In This Case But Have Not
Been Filed. Further Ordered That If Attorney Croslis Fails To File Any Of The Documents
And Status Report, He May Be Subject To An Order Of Sanctions.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Marguerite M Rusyn)
5.00 6.00 0.00
74 16-13259-REF ZYVETTE ALVARADO CH: 13
Hearing Held And Continued - Re: Order To Appear And Show Cause Why All Fees
Counsel Received From Debtor Should Not Be Disgorged And Returned To Debtor
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Zyvette Alvarado)

Page 13
0.00

READING CALENDAR
11:00 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
75 16-14189-REF BEATRIZ PENA CH: 13
Motion For Contempt, Motion For Sanctions Filed By United States Trustee Represented
By Dave P. Adams .
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Beatriz Pena)
1.00 2.00 0.00
76 16-15181-REF CARLOS GONZALEZ CH: 13
Hearing Held And Continued Show Cause Why All Fees Counsel Received From Debtor
Should Not Be Disgorged And Returned To Debtor.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Carlos Gonzalez)
2.00 3.00 0.00
77 16-15569-REF RANDALL COINE CH: 13
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Randall Coine)

3.00 4.00 0.00
78 16-15571-REF SALVATORE RIZZO CH: 13
Hearing Held And Continued On Show Cause Why All Fees Counsel Received From
Debtor Should Not Be Disgorged And Returned To Debtor.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Salvatore Rizzo)
4.00 5.00 0.00
79 16-15572-REF ERIC SIMMONS CH: 13
Hearing Held And Continued On Show Cause Why All Fees Counsel Received From
Debtor Should Not Be Disgorged And Returned To Debtor.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Eric Simmons)
5.00 6.00 0.00
80 16-15992-REF ROBERT J & MARY KAY ZARTLER CH: 11
Motion To Dismiss Case Or Convert Case To Chapter 7 Filed By United States Trustee
Represented By Dave P. Adams .
Attorney: John Everett Cook (Mary Kay Zartler, Robert J Zartler)

Page 14
0.00

READING CALENDAR
11:00 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
81 16-17118-REF DOLORES L. YENIK CH: 13
Hearing On Order That The Prior Dismissal Of This Case Is Hereby Vacated. Further
Ordered That Debtor's Attorney, Matthew Croslis, Shall File The Following Documents
On Or Before 1/6/17 - Rule 2016(B) Fee Disclosure Statement Disclosing All Fees Paid
To Attorney Croslis In The Year Before The Case Was Filed And All Documents That Are
Necessary Or Required To Be Filed In This Case But Have Not Been Filed. Further
Ordered That If Attorney Croslis Fails To File Any Of The Documents And Status Report,
He May Be Subject To An Order Of Sanctions
Attorney:
1.00 Matthew Croslis 2.00
(Dolores L. Yenik)0.00
82 16-10397-REF HENRY N SMITH III CH: 13

Hearing On The Order That The Prior Dismissal Of This Case Is Hereby Vacated. Further
Ordered That Debtor's Attorney, Matthew Croslis, Shall File The Following Documents
On Or Before 1/6/17 - Rule 2016(B) Fee Disclosure Statement Disclosing All Fees Paid
To Attorney Croslis In The Year Before The Case Was Filed And All Documents That Are
Necessary Or Required To Be Filed In This Case But Have Not Been Filed. Further
Ordered That If Attorney Croslis Fails To File Any Of The Documents And Status Report,
He May Be Subject To An Order Of Sanctions.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Henry N Smith Iii)
2.00 3.00 0.00
83 16-14857-REF MIGUEL AMARO CH: 13
Hearing Held And Continued On The Order That The Prior Dismissal Of This Case Is
Hereby Vacated. Further Ordered That Debtor's Attorney, Matthew Croslis, Shall File The
Following Documents On Or Before 1/6/17 - Rule 2016(B) Fee Disclosure Statement
Disclosing All Fees Paid To Attorney Croslis In The Year Before The Case Was Filed And
All Documents That Are Necessary Or Required To Be Filed In This Case But Have Not
Been Filed. Further Ordered That If Attorney Croslis Fails To File Any Of The Documents
And Status Report, He May Be Subject To An Order Of Sanctions.
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Miguel Amaro)
3.00 4.00 0.00
84 16-15570-REF THOMAS CUSHING CH: 13
Hearing Held and Continued - Re: Order To Appear And Show Cause Why All Fees
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (Thomas Cushing)

Page 15
0.00

READING CALENDAR
11:00 AM
0.00 1.00 0.00
85 16-17119-REF WILLIAM F ROBERTS CH: 13
Attorney: Matthew Croslis (William F Roberts)

Page 16

LETTER To Clerk of Court U.S. Bankruptcy For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Re Case No. 10615 Hearing Transcripts March 4, 2017 With RECONSIDERATION March 6, 2017

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LETTER To Clerk of Court U.S. Bankruptcy For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Re Case No. 10615 Hearing Transcripts March 4, 2017 With RECONSIDERATION March 6, 2017

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Stan J.

Re: Case No. 17-10615

Case No. 17-10615 Hearing Transcripts Page 1 of 2 March 5, 2017

Case No. 17-10615 Hearing Transcripts Page 2 of 2 March 5, 2017

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Case No. 17-10615REF

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 1 of 39 February 26, 2017

ACTIVE COURT CASES

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 2 of 39 February 26, 2017

In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

THE PURPOSE OF THIS REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 3 of 39 February 26, 2017

The Debtor, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, is AN INDIVIDUAL, A CORPORATION, A

This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 4 of 39 February 26, 2017

Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography

Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.

In 2009 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 5 of 39 February 26, 2017

In 2005 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner began a philanthropic endeavor by spending our

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 6 of 39 February 26, 2017

In 2000 to 2002 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed an array of marketing and

In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner developed a comprehensive business plan to develop

In 1999 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner contributed to the debate, research, and

In 1993 Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 7 of 39 February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 8 of 39 February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 9 of 39 February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 10 of 39 February 26, 2017

February 26, 2017

ACTIVE COURT CASES

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 11 of 39 February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 12 of 39 February 26, 2017

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 14 of 39 February 26, 2017

CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. We rely on

Please support our work with a donation.

In Re DiPinto, 336 B.R. 693 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006)

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Filed: January 30th, 2006

Precedential Status: Precedential

Citations: 336 B.R. 693

Docket Number: 06-10112

Judges: Stephen Raslavich

336 B.R. 693 (2006)

In re Jeffrey DiPINTO, Debtor.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 30, 2006.

Frederick L. Reigle, Esquire, Reading, PA, Chapter 13 Trustee.

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 15 of 39 February 26, 2017

Credit Counseling Under the BAPCPA

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 16 of 39 February 26, 2017

subsection (h) provides:

(iii) is satisfactory to the court.

Has the Debtor Provided a Certification?

Whether The Exigent Circumstances Merit a Waiver

The Efforts to Obtain Counseling

The Timing of the Request For Counseling/ Threshold Requirement

17-10615REF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 20 of 39 February 26, 2017

An appropriate order follows.

ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

[4] See the U.S. Trustee's website, www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc approved.htm.