Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
mailto:amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
October of 2006
??
??
(7) more copies of the brief, which Stan Caterbone will not receive until
January 4th, 2007.
an amended complaint to Stan Caterbones Southern Regional Police
Department Civil Action was due in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County.
the Unsecured Bail Bond was revoked by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern
Regional Police Department
(2) Bench Warrants were issued for the Arrest of Stan Caterbone by Adam
Cramer and MDJ Leo Eckert, Jr.
Stan Caterbone filed the Amended Complaint and mailed it from the Bausman
Post Office Substation, and did not go to the Lancaster County Courthouse in
fear it would not get filed.
(2) PA Constable arrest Stan Caterbone and take him to MDJ Eckerts Office on
the (5) Bench warrants for summary citations
NOVMEBER OF 2006
??
??
??
??
DECEMBER OF 2006
??
??
??
Leo H. Eckert, Jr, and Mary Commins for the fraudulent activities leading to
the false imprisonment of October 30th, 2006, and Bench Warrants.
?? December 12th,:
o Stan Caterbone files for Continuances in all of the following Civil Complaints in
the
Commonwealth
Court
of
Common
Pleas
of
Lancaster
County,
Pennsylvania: CI-06-07330; CI-06-08742; CI-06-08490; CI-06-07376; CI-0607188; CI-06-06658; CI-06-04939; CI-06-03403; CI-06-03401; CI-06-03349.
??
??
??
??
JANUARY OF 2007
??
January 2, 2007:
o Stan Caterbone files and records (4:09pm) a Petition To Set Aside Sale for 220
Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County
Sheriffs Department.
Stan Caterbone visits 220 Stone Hill Road and finds 2 unidentified individuals
on his property loading the entire contents of 220 Stone Hill Road onto 2
moving trucks, to an unidentified location, and is ordered off the Property for
Trespassing.
The 2 individuals said they were from Noble Real Estate
Company. Mr. Joseph Caterbone accompanied him as a witness and driver.
Stan Caterbone retrieves his mail from the Conestoga Post Office from dating
back to October 25th, 2006 up to the present and temporarily forwards mail to
1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA.
Stan Caterbone visits the Lancaster County Sheriff Lt. Lancaster about the
incident at 220 Stone Hill Road and is told that Southern Regional Police have
already responded, and would not give any information about the incident.
Stan Caterbone files and records an Addendum to the Petition To Set Aside
Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the
Lancaster County Sheriffs Department regarding the theft of all of his personal
possessions, including business files of Advanced Media Group, and all Legal
files and evidentiary assets for all pending litigation.
Judge Cullen rules for a Continuance in Criminal Case No. ***********
Hill Road.
Stan Caterbone files for a Change of Venue for the Hearing scheduled for
January 18th, 2007 in Intercourse before Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus.
Stan Caterbone does not have all of his evidentiary files and no transportation
because of the illegal revocation of his Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Bus
Pass.
?? January 8th, 2007:
o Stan Caterbone files an Emergency Petition for Food Stamps and other in the
o
o
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster after his Food Stamps and
Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Pass was illegally terminated, thus leaving
him without food and transportation for all court preceding.
Stan Caterbone files for a Continuance for Summary charges by District Justice
Leo H. Eckert Jr., a Defendant in U.S. District Civil Action 06-4650, scheduled
for January 18th, 2007.*******
Stan Caterbone files and sends his Brief to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
for the challenge to the Stone Hill Road Foreclosure.
the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 052288; 06-4650; 06-5138; 06-4734; 06-CV-4154; 06-5117; 06-2236; 0523059BKY
Stan Caterbone files for a Change of Venue and Continuanc for Summary
Citations (TR-0008735-2006; TR-0008578-2006; TR-0008721-2006; TR0008503-2006; TR-0007528-2006) Scheduled for a Hearing on January 23,
2007 before District Magistrate Richard H. Simms, a Defendant in U.S. District
Civil Action 06-4650.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster after his Food Stamps and
Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Pass was illegally terminated, thus leaving
him without food and transportation for all court proceedings.
Stan Caterbone files and sends his Brief to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
for the challenge to the Stone Hill Road Foreclosure.
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from the Lancaster County Sheritts Office
that states: On December 20,2007 your property located at 220 Stone Hill
Rd. was sold at Sheriff Sale to a third party buyer, Central Penn Property
Services, Inc. for $156,000.00. Attached, you will find a Schedule of
Distribution, which we are required to do. On this schedule you will see that
there is a balance of proceeds to be paid to you, Stanley J. Caterbone. You,
the defendant, will receive this balance of $17,306.80, however, you have
served Sheriff Bergman with a petition to set aside the sale (PARCP 3132).
Please note that we, the Sheriffs Office, do not have a dated and signed copy
by the court of your petition. At the advice of our solicitor, the distribution of
any payouts regarding this property will not be made until the matter is
resolved.
Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department embezzles over
$50,000 in Fees and Costs associated with the Sale Proceeds. The Mortgage
in Defualt was only in the amount of $97,000.00, plus all of the belongings.
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
notifying him that AND NOW, this fourth day of January, 2007 the appeal in
this matter is DISMISSED for failure to file a brief.
Stan Caterbone receives DENIAL ORDERS from his attempts to Change Venue
and Continue the Hearings for January 18th, 2007, signed by Judge Dennis
Reinaker of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief
failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not
substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore
considered the merits of the case.
??
Pa. R. App. P. Rule 552, 561 Indigent 16.2 In Forma Pauperis, Griffen v. Illinois, 351
U.S. 12, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956) states Indigent has right to free Trial
Transcript for Appeal of Right.
DUE PROCESS
??
In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, 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:
The first issue to address is that of the Plaintiffs right to due process, as prescribed by
law. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, 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.
CIVIL RIGHTS
?? 1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose
of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional
violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional
violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring
violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state
infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference,
18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42
U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
??
In Ascolese v. Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351, the case supports the
notion that One of the principal purposes of 1983 was to give remedy to parties
deprived of Constitutional Rights, privileges, and immunities by Officials abuse of his or
her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate
Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
?? In the case of United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines
single or multiple conspiracies by the following:
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.
??
??
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law,
a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to
do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of
malice with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of
United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or
multiple conspiracies by the following: Governments, without committing variance
between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish
existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times
and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan.
??
1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose
of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional
violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional
violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring
violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state
infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference,
18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42
U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
ANIT-TRUST
?? The Following violations constitute a legitimate Anti-Trust violation under Title 15 of the
Federal Statutes. In private Anti-Trust actions, Plaintiff, in addition to proving violations
and an injury, must also show that a violation and an injury must also prove that the
violation was direct and material to the cause of injury suffered; however, the Plaintiffs
burden in causations issues is not as heavy as the Plaintiff only needs to show a casual
relation with reasonable probability to a fair degree of certainty (Anderson Foreign Motors,
Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributors, Inc., D.C. Mass 1979, 475. Supp.).
SHERIFF SALES
??
Rule 3132 Setting Aside the Sale states: Upon petition of any party in interest before
delivery of the personal property or of the sheriffs deed to real property, the court may,
upon proper cause shown, set aside the sale and order a resale or enter any other order
which may be just and proper under the circumstances.