Electronic File October 16, 2015 To Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Re in Forma Pauperis Appeal For Reconsideration Case No 08-13373

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION
In Re: STANLEY J. CATERBONE

and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP,
PLANTIFFS
Case No. 08-13373
v.
DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, et.al.,
of Lancaster Pennsylvania
DEFENDANTS
APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION for IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

AND NOW, on this 16th day of October, 2015 I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP, Petitioners, appearing pro se, do hereby file the Appeal for Reconsideration
pertaining to the REJECTION NOTICE with the Transaction ID:57985968 filed on October 8 th , 2015
DENYING the Praecipe to reinstate claiming the following Praecipe to reinstate requires a filing of
$8.75.
PA State Rules require a party to inform the court of improvement in financial
circumstances. Your most recent IFP was denied. The IFP granted in this case is from 2008.
If the Court and or the LANCASTER COUNTY PROTHONOTARY OFFICE would consider the
legal circumstances surrounding my Whistleblowing activities and the Federal False Claims Act
filing of the Petitioner as it relates to the past 28 years and the myriad of violations of the
Lancaster County District Attorney, the Petitioner will argue that it is wholly unfair and
unconstitutional not to grant the Petitioner In Forma Pauperis Status. The Petitioner has filed
ample evidence of a pattern and relentless cycle of earning and accumulating capital and assets,
as well building substantial worth through his business interests, only to have it all extorted
through an elaborate civil and criminal scheme to defruad. Therefore any attempt to subject
the Petitioner to more court related fees is only a continuation of that same said fraud.
Page 1 of 90
Friday, October 16, 2015
The above captioned case contains all the said evidence needed to support my
claims. If need be, there are several cases in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, such as 05-2288 and 06-4650 that will suffice.
In
addition I am claiming that this rejection was also in retaliation for my recent appeal to
the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to Lisa Lambert v. Superintendent
Framingham MCI, et al.
I am only several weeks away from a decision by a Panel of Third Circuit Judges
that may set Lisa Michelle Lambert FREE for the rest of her natural life!
In addition,
before the same said panel is an argument to grant me SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in all
federal and state court cases of which I am the PLAINTIFF seeking redress.
Consideration should be given to Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,
where the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due
process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F
2d. 644) have concluded the following:
Even the probability of unfairness can result in a
defendant being deprived of his due process rights. The focus of these claims are recorded in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 05-2288 and 06-4650. In
addition the Petioner is the MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambrerrt Case and recently filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, 04-2559, which was recently appealed to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.
The preceding cases have been preserved by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
case no. 07-4474, see attached.
The prosecutorial misconduct the the Petitioner has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the Petitioner from
completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18
U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting
constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide
for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are
ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of
individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from
federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5,
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
A case can be made for a RICO violation as defined in the case of United States v. Holck,
389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the
following: Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an
Page 2 of 90
indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which
attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing
acts in furtherance of an overall plan. This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to
cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.
The attached 29 False Arrests, which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that
may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant
an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of
facts formed for the purpose
charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following
was supported: Arrestees allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its police officers were
acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees constitutional rights
by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two
(2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and August
4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The preceding
pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a
plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an
unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with
intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of United States v.
Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by
the following: Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges
in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy
which attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups
committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A.
Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting constitutional
rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal
prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective
for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual
rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from federal
interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15,
2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and
8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
Page 3 of 90
prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the
transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a
performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business
or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The
defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court.
http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
Where RICO laws might be applied1

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for
their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or
retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be
alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or
against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
1
References
RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December 2004).
Retrieved on 2006-03-26. 1.
External links
RICO Act from Cornell University'sU. S. Code database
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html) Detail of Tanya
Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregonriaa-victim-fights-back- sues.html) Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act Categories: Articles with
weasel words | United States federal legislation | Organized crime terminology
Page 4 of 90
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt
to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as
a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could
be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to
concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been
brought before the courts.
These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of
limitations has run out.
Dated October 16th , 2015
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group, President and Owner
Pro Se Litigant, U.S. District Court & Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court
Scaterbone@Live.com
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Page 5 of 90
!" #
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
/
/
#
9
"
"
!
3
,
9
"
!
3
,
#
9
"
!
3
,
/
#/
#/
#/
#/
#/
#/
#/
/
/
,3!
,3!
,3!
,3!
,3!
,3!
,3!
,3!
"
"
/ /
"
/ #/
!
/ #/
!
/ #/
!
/ #/
!
/ #/
!
/ 3/
!
/ 3/
!
9/# /
!
9/# /
!
9/# /
!
9/# /
!
/ /
!
/ /
!
/ ,/
!
/ /
!
/ /
!
!/ #/
3
!/ #/
3
$ % &'
$&()*%& (* & +$+
$*(
(+ +%
- ( & .+
+ /0+$-.( 0%/%*$1 2+ $'
,3! $*
3
! "$
$4
1
5
4
/.
/.
, 1 2 6 78 6 (
1
5
4
/.
/.
## 9
6
4 8 1 # % 66
/0 4
7
#
)
6 :1
5
4
/.
/.
#!
6(
:1
5
4
/.
/.
#,
$4 8 ): 2 678 $ ;
* .
< # % 66
/0 4
7
#,##
2 6 78 6 2
*8
1 # % 66
/0 4
7
#,##
2 6 78 6 2
*8
1 #5
4
/.
/.
3=
# ==
.
6:
12
6 %
10 4
7 > 7
3 = #, " == 9 $4 8 *8
1 @
*8
0 4
7 > 7
3 = ! , == ! 1
(
+
4
0 4
7 >
3 1
%
;
*
0 4
7 > 7
?
3 1#
A 6
0 4
7 > 7
?
3="
==
(
42
/
& .
> 7
3 1
%
;
*
0 4
7 > 7
?
3 1#
A 6
0 4
7 > 7
?
! =
9# == .
04 6 *
* (
;
%
6 :
! = !3" == *
A 4 0/* ( @B
(
%
6 :
3=
# == 9/ .
- C
/ 4: *88 %
6 :
3=
! == / *
- 47 : %
6 :
#/ 3 = ! , == # 1
*8
0/%
% 66
! =#
== / .
$ 88
6.
%
6 : % 66
3=
9(
/* 4
7& 8
3/ 9/
" D9!!
#
3 = , 3 ==
; ( / 66/& *88 0
3/ 9/
" D9!!
% 66
! =
9# == .
04 6 *
* (
;
%
6 :
! = #! 9 ==
6
.
3/ 9/
" % 66
! = #3
== E .2+F
+
/+
8.
8 6: % 66
$(
3# 1 3 .
2
:
:6
6
$(
3# 1 3 .2+ 4
:
.*$
6
8 6
:
Page 6
5 of 90
89
Friday, October 16,

09, 2015
?
?
?
?
)6
G!
(&. G
++ /
,3! - ( & .+
+
*2$-&(% (& +*%
6+ 8
&$-+
&
6& 4
8
&. *2$ * ! - ( &.

* + & - ( & .+
+
&. *( *A&($2(%&. *%
&
6(
6 : > ,3#?
*% +.&( $+*%
>& 4
? !1
!"
#
# (
%
= 3#
(
*(
+
!(
&'
9
@
'
8 62
9
#
= 3#
8
'
(
*(
!( ,
-(
.(
"(
-
!( 3
*B
66 : >
,,9?
88B
> ,,"? /
1
( 2
*( 3
'
#
,
,
4
Page 6 of 89
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 24

www .amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
scater00ne@tjve.com
717-669-2163
Stcmfey J. -Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
IN THE UNITED;STATES. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF P.ENNSYLVANIA
Lisa Michelle Lambert
PETITIONER
CASE NO. 14-2?59
v.
Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

RESPONDANT
Motion for Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperls
I hereby on this 30th day of September, 2015, request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in The 3RD Circuit
Court Of Appeals UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Date: September 30, 2015
Page 1 of24
Page 7 of 89
Wednesday, September 30, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Motion for Leave To Proceed In
Forma Pauperls has been served this 30th day of September, 2015, by first class mail, Postage
prepaid, or by electronic mail upon, or by hand deliver to:
Date: September 30, 2015
Page2of24
Page 8 of 89


Affidavit accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
United States Oi$trict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Lisa Michelle Lambert
PETI110NER
v.
CASE NO. 14-2559
Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

RESPONDANT
Atlldavtt In Support of Motion
Instructions
I swear or affinn under penalty of perjury that,

because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the
docket fees of my appeal or po&t a bond for
Complete all questions on this application and

then sign it Do not leave any blanks. If the
answer to a question is "O," "none," or"not
...._
IL _u
-.&!.ti
!- -'-
,.._llA \ 11 -:.a._ i -
io1
or aflirm under penally of perjury that my

answers on this form are true and correct. (28
u.s.c. 1746. 18u.s.c.1821)
need more space to answer a question or fu

explain your answer, attach a separate piece
of paper identified with your name, your case's
docket number, and the question number.
Signed:.
Date:
My issues on Appeal are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Was Appellant Provided Opportunity To Respond To Lower Court Order?

Did the lo-wer court judge rule according to the court record?
Was Appellant Afforded Due Process In Accordance To Law?
Did the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond violate RICO Anti-Slapp Statute in
Retaliation Against Federal VVhisUe-Blo\lller?
Page 3of24
Page 9 of 89
1.
For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from
each of the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was
received weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannuaDy, or annually to show the monthly
rate. Use gross amounts, that is, amounts Wore any deductions for taxes or
otherwise.
INCOME SOURCE
AVERAGE MONTHLY
AMOUNT DURING THE
PAST 12 MONTHS
AMOUNT EXPECTED
NEXT MONTH
Your Spouse
You
s_
Income from real property (such as

rental income)
Interest and Dividends
Gifts
/>Jimony
Unemployment payments
Disability (such as social security,

insurance payments)
$ 136Q.00
Public Assistance (such as welfare)
Employment
Self Employment
ChDd S111pport
Retirement (such as social
se&Urity, pensions, annuities,
insurance)
Other (specify):_ _ _ __
$
$
Total monthly income
1360.00
Page4 of24
Page 10 of 89

2. List your employment history, most recent ef1'1:)1oyer first (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other
deductions.
Employer
Address
Dates of Employment
1250 Fremont street

Lancaster, PA 17603
Gross Monthly Pay
1998 To Present
2005 to Present $0.00

1998 to 2005 $4,000.00
Pftumm Contractors, Inc.
54 S. Duke street
Millersville, PA 17551
1994to1998
$3200.00
1857 Colonial Village Lane

Lancaster, PA 17602
1988to 1992
$4,000.00
1sasto1988
$9,000.00
Financial Management Group 1755 Oregon Pike

Lancaster, PA 17601
=
=
3. List your spouse's employment history, most recent employer first (Gross monthly pay is before taxes
or other deductions.
Employer
Address
Dates of Employment Gross Monthly Pay
4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $1300.00
Below, state any money you or spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.
Financial Institution
Type of Account
Amount you have
Amount your spouse
has
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
If you are a prisoner, you must attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer
showing all receipts, expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional
accounts. If you have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions,
attach one certified statement for each account
Pages of24
Page 11 of 89

5. List the assets, and their values, >Mlich you own or your spouse owns. Do not list dothing and
ordinary household furnishings.
Home
(Value)
Other real estate
1250
Fremont
St
(Value) MotorVehide #
(Value)
$9,000.00
Make & year 2007 Honda CRV

Model: Honda CRV
Registration #:
Motor Vehide #2
(Value)
Other assets
(Value)
Other assets
(Value)
Make&year_
Model:
Registration #:
6. State every person, business or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount owed.
Person owing you oryour
spouse money
Amount owed to you
Halileysville Insurance Company

Sam Lombardo
High Industries
Mike Caterbone
Thomas Grassel
Drew Anthon/Eden Resort Inn
Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas Fines & Costs
Paid (Appeals Won 4/30/07)
Fulton Bank
$14,000.00
$1,871.00
$15,221.00
$10,000.00
$ Amount not available
$ 24,000.00
Amount owed to your spouse
$ 954.00
$ 85,000.00
7. State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support
Name
Relationship
Page6 of24
Page 12 of 89
Age
8. Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your famUy. Show separately the amounts paid
by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterty, semiannually, or
annually to show the monthly rate.
You
Rent or Home Matgage
Onclude lot rented for mobDe
home)
Are real estate taxed
included?
ayes
a no Is property
insurance included? a yes
no
Your Spouse
$
$SEE ATTACHED
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel,

water, sewer, and telephone)
Home maintenance (repairs
Food
Clothing
Laundry and dry.cleaning
Medical and dental expenses
Transportation (not including

motor vehicle payments)
Reaeation, entertairvnent,
newspapers, magazines, etc.
Insurance (not deducted from

wages or included in mortgage
payments)
$_
$_
Motor Vehicle
$
$
$
$
Other:
and upkeep)
Homeowners or renters
Life
Health
$_
$_
$_
Taxes (not deducted from

wages or included in mortgage
payments)(specify):
Page7 of24
Page 13 of 89

Installment payments
You
Your Spouse
Credit Card (name):
$_
Department Store (name):_ $
$_
Other:
$_
Alimony, maintenance and

support paid to others
$_
Regular expenses for operation

of business or farm (attach
detailed statement)
$_
Other (specify): Postage
$_
t.
Total monthly expenses:
9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or liabilities
during the next 12 months?
o Yes
X NO
If yes, describe on an attached sheet.
10. Have you paid_Orv.111 you be paying.,._ _an attorney any money for services in connection
v.1th this case, including the completion of this form?
a Yes
X No
If yes, how much?$_ _ _ __
If yes state the attorney's name, address and telephone number:
Page8of24
Page 14 of 89
11. Have you paid_ Or will you be paying___anyone other than attorney (such as a paralegal or
typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form?
o Yes
X No
If yes, how much?$_ _ __
If yes state the person's name, address and telephone number.
12. Provide any other information that v.iill help explain why you cannot pay the docket fees for your appeal.
I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF NUMEROUS FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AND HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING TO BE RESTORED TO WHOLE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. THE MONIES THAT I HAVE AND
THE LIABILITIES, LOSSES, AND THE LIKE ARE NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DENY ME IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS IN ANY COURT OF LAW, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT I AM A FEDERAL
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND VICTIM OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL. IN ADDITION THE PRECEDING
HAS PREVENTED ME FROM OBTAINING AND SECURING COPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PAST
30 YEARS AND PUT ME IN THE UNFORTUNATE POSTION AS PRO SE.
13. State the address of your legal residence.

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
51
Your age: ,JI
' ( Your years of SchooHng: Bacbelor of Science Business Admjnistratipn 1980
Rev: 9/29/04
Page 9of24
Page 15 of 89
Case 05-23059-ref Doc_ 132 osfitmtiA/lleed iliRffar~;tW~Altiio~an ~JM~1, 2010

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
DocumentPage
18 Filed
Page 10 of 24
Document
30 of 10/01/15
31
Stan J. Ceterbone and Advanced Media Group
Case No. OS-23059
Balance Sheet
January 1, 2010
Date of St.attment
Cash
Wachovia Bank Checking

Social Security Debit Card
Inventory
Accounts Receivables
Total cunent aueta
50.00
346.00
1,000.00
0.00
2,714,832.35
2,716,228.35
Property & Other MMt8

Residence
Home Fuml$hlngs
1991 Dodge Pick Up Dakota
Advanatd1Medla Group Stock
Advanced1Medla Group Equipment
0.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
1,000,000.00
Litigation Value
1,000.00
50,000,000.00
Net Property and Other .Aaets
51,013,000.00
TotatAue
53,729,228.35
Accounts payable
Citl Bank Crt!dit Card
Bank of America
1.Jan-10
PayPal Buyer Credit

Discover
Bank of America
Chase/Bank One
AAA F1nanclal Services
AAA Financial Services
Wells Fargo Flnancial services

Wells Fargo Financial Services
Fulton Mortgage services
Honda Financial Servic:es
Beneficial!
Comcast
Sprint
Capitol Blue Cross
Donegal Mutual Insurance

Verizon
FedEx
PP&L
Wiiiow Run Veterinary Clink:
$12,111.93
$10,187.52
$1,809.80
$3,743.10
$623.69
$238.35
$18,827.63
$1,585.97
$3,466.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,369.70
$7,000.00
$1,813.11
$806.76
$32.00
$74.00
$26.00
$41.38
$1,089.00
$74.00
Qm.'11d~
ti nllnr'9professi<l.1ai
-ftffl:~h-llhl~~~-
Reorganization Plan Page 30 of 31

Page 10of24
Page 16 of 89

Case 05-23059-ref Doc 132 o~~d~~~ iatltaEHhall~~~l>ta~arMiifl 11, 2010

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
DocumentPage
18 31-of!ff'"
Filed 10/01/15 Page 11 of 24
Document
Stan J. Cebal'bofta and Advanced Media Group
case No. OS-23.059
Balance Sheet
January 1, 2010
Yamell Security Systems
Yolanda caterbone
Cingular Wireless
sovereing Bank
PowerNet Global Communications
Windstream
Lancaster.County Probation
BMG MuSic Service
Microsoft
Pacer Service Center-U.S
West Publlcatlons
Salute Visa
$1,076.32
$25,000.00
$509.98
$404.85
$2.82
$9.55
$1,800.00
$120.33
$59.95
$41:92
$92.22
$906.49
MEDICAL BILLS
Lancaster Regional Medical Ctr
Conestoga Oral Maxillofacial AssOI
Anestesia Asst~ Of Lancaster, L
SE Lancaster Health Ctinlc
Abbeyvllle Family Practice of LGH
Lancaster Genentl Hospltal
Lancaster Radiological AsSociates
Health Port
Lancaster Emergency Associates
TOTAL BALANCE
~95.0'
iUi(S7.9
Charges are inflated; wrong; or

liability of another person or entity.
$53,211.1&
Non-Contested
Total Uabilities
$141,557.97
a.
Lone Term Debt

Net Worth
$459.98
$1,269.00
$1,034.00
$12.55
$149.00
$31,264.90
$568.00
$61.17
$0.00
$5315871670..38
C1~W(1h
tt .._....professional
4~~~~~-~~~
Reorganization Plan Page 31 of 31

Page 11of24
Page 17 of 89
Wednesday, September 30,, 2015
Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main
Case: 07-2151
Docu~O!Atr04M1cJ>dde:1
Date Filed: 04/04/2011
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STA1ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TIDRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2151
IN RE: STANLEY J. CA1ERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR 1HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv--05012)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a)
March 17, 2011
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 4, 2011)
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro se
1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
William Kanter, Esq.

Jeffrica I. Lee, Esq.
.
Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Room 7537
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Page 12of24
Page 18 of 89

Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04/11 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed
10/01/15 Page 13 of 24
2
Case: 07-2151
Docurf?~~~mM~f- qf;~e: 2
Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.

Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Court
Duane Moms LLP
1940 Route 70 East
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
OPINION OF THE COURT
BARRY, Circuit Judge
This case involves an lUltimely notice of appeal to the
District Court after the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal, for
cause, of a Chapter 11 petition. The question before us is
whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(c)(2) and the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an lllltimely filing such as the
one at issue here deprives subsequent reviewing courts-here,
both. the District Court and this Court-of jurisdiction over
the appeal. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we will
dismiss the instant aj>peal and remand to the District Court
with instructions to dismiss the appeal to it from the
Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Background
Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition in May 2005. The United States Trustee
subsequently moved to dismiss the petition for cause, and the
Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 3, 2006,
citing various substantive and procedural deficiencies. See 11
u.s.c. l l 12{b).
The order of dismissal was mailed to Caterbone by
first class mail on October S, 2006. On October 16, he sent a
notice of appeal by first class mail and electronic mail.
However, the notice of appeal was filed with the District
Court on October 19; rendering it lllltimely because it
occurred outside the ten-day window, then in place, for filing
Page 13of24
Page 19 of 89

3 10/01/15 Page 14 of 24
Case: 072151
oocu&~~:~3q\04&1~9 ~abl: 3
Date Filed: 04104/2011
a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).1 It

is undisputed that Caterbone did not file a "request to extend
the time for filing a notice of appeal ... by written motion ...
before the time for filing a notice of appeal ha[d] expired,"
nor did the Bankruptcy Court grant such an extension
following "a motion filed not later than 20 days after the
expiration of the time for.filing a notice of appeal .. upon a
showing of excusable neglect" Id 8002(c)(2).

Despite its untimely ftling, Caterbone's appeal was
docketed in the District Court on November 14, and the
Trustee did not argue that it was untimely. On March 15,
2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal, citing
Caterbone's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006,
which requires that a petitioner designate "items to be
included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues
to be presented" Caterbone appealed to this Court. Shortly
thereafter, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing, for
the first time, Caterbone's initial lllltimely notice of appeal,
and arguing that, as a result of the untimely filing, the District
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Following various intervening events, including the
appointment of amicus curiae, the case is now before us. The
Trustee argues that, consistent with Bowles v. Russell, 551
1
In amending Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), effective

December 1, 2009, to expand the time for filing a notice of
appeal to fourteen days, the Supreme Court's accompanying
Order provided that the amendment "shall govern in all
proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and,
insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending."
Supreme Court of the United States, Order Amending Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Mar. 26, 2009). The Trustee
argues that the "just and practicable" rationale is inapplicable
here. Moreover, the Trustee notes that Caterbone's notice of
appeal was dated, but not filed, on Ociober 16, and argues,
persuasively in our view, that even if the expanded period
were to apply, the notice of appeal was still untimely because
it was filed the sixteenth day after entry of the Bankruptcy
Court's order.
Page 14of24
Page 20 of 89
10/01/15 Page 15 of 24
Case: 07-2151 Docu~ei~~lRF.J.1~04- 4 q\/Je: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2011
U.S. 205 (2007), Section 158(c)(2) established a mandatory,

jurisdictional deadline that statutorily encompasses Rule
8002(a)'s specified timeline for. appealing the judgment of a
bankruptcy court, such that the timeline is not. akin to a
freestanding, waivable "claim-processing rule'' within the
meaning of Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004). Amicus
argues similarly. Caterbone, on the other hand, elides the
Bowles analysis and argues, inter alia, that his untimely filing
should be addressed, and excused, under the standard of
"excusable neglect" set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Bnmswick.A.ssocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
For the reasons explained below, we hold that the
prescribed timeline within which an appeal from a banktuptcy
court must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional, thus
affirming, in light of Bowles, the rule that we applied in
Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d
Cir. 1997).
Il. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in this case, and we

must address its relevance both to the decision rendered by
the District Court, and to our review of that decision. Thus,
as an initial matter, we note that we have jurisdiction over the
final decision that the District Court rendered on Caterbone's
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(l).
Our authority includes reviewing whether the District Court's
own exercise ofjurisdiction, per 158(a}, was proper. That
is because "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a
court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or
waived[, such that courts] ... have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
in the absence of a challenge from any party." .Arbaugh v. Y
& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Ordinarily, we apply plenary review to final orders of

a district court sitting as an appellate court reviewing the
decision of a bankruptcy court. In re Carnegie Ctr. .A.ssocs.,
129 F.3d 290, 294 (3d Cir. 1997). However, following from
Page 15of24
Page 21 of 89

5 10/01/15 Page 16 of 24
case: 07-2151
Docun2~tllm~;04Elifif ~: s
our obligation to detennine the threshold issue of subject

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at .514, and where,
as here, a party "contest[sl our jurisdiction and that of the
District Court, ... (w]e exercise de novo review over [the]
question[] of subject matter jurisdiction." Great W. Mining &
Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d
Cir. 2010). This is the case even where, again as here, a
district court "exercis[es its] jurisdiction" and dismisses a
cause of action for some other reason. Id If our independent
review yields the conclusion that the District Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court, the appropriate.disposition is dismissal of
the appeal. In re Caribbean Tubular Corp., 813 F.2d 533,
S3S (1st Cir. 1987) (holding that where it is found that a
district court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcy
court order, the court of appeals must dismiss the appeal to it,
and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its
order and to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court).
ID. Discussion
An appeal from a decision of a bankruptcy court is
subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 158(cX2), which
provides that appeals "shall be taken in the same manner as
appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts
of appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by
Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." When Caterbone filed
his appeal, that rule provided, in relevant part, that "notice of
appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date
of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed :from."
Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).
Although Kontrick affmned as "'axiomatic"' the

proposition that requirements contained in a bankruptcy rule
alone are not jurisdictional (and, hence, are waivable), 540
U.S. at 453 (citation omitted), Section 158 provides the
statutory basis for the courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy
appeals.
See 28 U.S.C. 158(a) & (d) (specifying
circumstances of "district courts['] . . . jurisdiction to hear
appeals" and the "courts of appeals['] . . . jurisdiction").
Because Section 158 also specifies the time within which an
Page 16of24
Page 22 of 89

6 10/01/15 Page 17 of 24
Case: 07-2151
0ocunf6Ql\mq;04JA8if ~a\Jl: 6
appeal must be taken-i.e., "in the time provided by Rule

8002"-that requirement is jurisdictional.
As Bowles
clarified, both acknowledging and distinguishing Kontrick,
''the taking. of an appeal within [a statutorily] prescribed time
is mandatory and jurisdictional." 551 U.S. at 209 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, "failure
to file [a] notice of appeal in accordance with the statute
therefore deprive[s] u [courts) of jurisdiction[, and bars a
party from) ... rely[ing) on forfeiture or waiver to excuse [a]
lack of compliance with the statute's time limitations." Id. at
213 (citation omitted).
Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that specifies
the time within which an appeal must be filed, the statutory
incorporation of that rule renders its requirement statutory
and, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable. As the Supreme
Court recently observed, while "the distinction between
jurisdictional conditions [i.e., a la Bowles) and claimprocessing rules [i.e., a la Kontrick] can be confusing in
practice[,] ... Bowles stands for the proposition that context,
including th[e] Court's interpretation of similar provisions in
many years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a
requirement as jurisdictional." Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
Muchnick, 130 S. Ct 1237, 1243, 1247-48 (2010).
Beyond the fact that the statutory text of Section
158(cX2) incorporates a time condition, historical context
also supports our holding. Prior to Kontrick and Bowles, we
regarded Rule 8002(a)'s time limit for filing a notice of
appeal as jmisdictional. See Shareholtkrs, 109 F .3d at 879;
Whitemere Dev. Corp., Inc. v. Cherry Hill Twp., 786 F.2d
185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals, Inc., 155
F.2d 309, 311 (3d Cir. 1985). Kontrick-and, later, Eberhart
v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005}-arguably provided the
opportunity to question whether this rule remained correct.
That being said, a careful reading of Kontrick, Bowles, and
Reed Elsevier confirms that the rule we affirmed in
Shareholders, Whitemere, and Universal Minerals remains
the rule today.
In holding that time constraints for objecting to a
Page 17of24
Page 23 of 89

1 10/01/15 Page 18 of 24
Case: 07-2151
DocunQRf.'6B!104aiM 'abi:7
Date Flied: 04/04/2011
discharge in bankruptcy are non-jurisdictional "claimprocessing rules," Kontriclc noted that Congress's statutory
grant of jurisdiction to the courts to adjudicate discharges in
bankruptcy contains no reference to a time condition. 540
U.S. at 452-53 (citing 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(l), (b)(2)(1), and
(b)(2)(J)).2 To the contrary, in holding that the statutorilyprescribed time provision for filing an appeal in a federal
habeas corpus proceeding is jurisdictional, Bowles expressly
stated: "Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice
of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictionalrequirement." 551
U.S. at 214. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that .Arbaugh
could be read to state that a clear statement rule applies to
Congress, s identification of a statutory limitation as
juri$dictional, see 546 U.S. at 515-16,3 Reed Elsevier more
recently clarified that, again ala Bowles,
the relevant question . . . is not . . . whether [a
particular statutory provision] itself has long
2
Likewise, in Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 21, the Court

concluded that time provisions in the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure were non-jurisdictional, and thus
waivable. In Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, the Court concluded
that a numerical provision affecting Title VII claims, but
which was separate from Title Vll's jurisdictional provision,
thereby was not jurisdictional.
3
As the Court stated in Arbaugh:

[W]e think it the sounder course to refrain from
constricting 1331 or Title VIl's jurisdictional
provision, and to leave the ball in Congress'
court. If the Legislature clearly states that a
threshold limitation on a statute,s scope shall

count as jurisdictional, then comts and litigants
will be duly instructed and will not be left to
wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does
not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as
jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction
-as nonjurisdictional in character.
546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citations and reference
omitted).
Page 18of24
Page 24 of 89
10/01/15 Page 19 of 24
Case:07-2151 Docurlr<i~lWJ\~~ 8 <f>tae: 8 Date Filed: 04/0412011
been labeled jurisdictional, but whether the type

of limitation that [it) .imposes is one that is
properly .ranked as jurisdictional absent an
express designation. The statutory limitation in
Bowles was of a type that we had long held did
"spetilc in jurisdictional tenns" even absent a
"jurisdictional" label, and nothing about [that
provision's) text or context, or the historical
treatment of that type of limitation, justified a
dep~ from this view.
130 s. Ct. at 1248.
It is evident,. in light of Shareholders, Whitemere, and

Universal Minerals, that we "ha[ve] long held" that Section
IS8{c)(2)'s incorporation of the filing timeline specified in
Rule 8002(a) "speak[s]injurisdictional terms[,] even absent a
jurisdictional label, and [that] nothing about [its] text or
context, or [its] historkal treatment ... justifie[s] a departure
from this view.'' See Reed Elsevier, 130 S. Ct. at 1248.
Because it was both prior to and shortly after Reed Elsevier
that we affinned in non-precedential opinions that the time
requirement for filing a bankruptcy appeal is jurisdictional,
we now take the occasion to so hold in a precedential
opinion.4 Doing so comports with the fact that, unlike the
rules that Eberhart and Kontrick held were non-jurisdictional,
Rule 8002(a)'s time limit is rooted in a congressionallyenacted statute. Se.e Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002, advisory
committee note (noting that ''th[e] rule is an adaptation of''
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)); see also Bowles, 551 U.S. at 212, 213
("[A] statute-based filing period for civil cases is
jurisdictional. . . . Because Congress decides whether federal
courts can hear cases at all, it can also detennine when, and
wder what conditions, federal courts can hear them. Put
another way, the notion of subject-matter jurisdiction
obviously extends to . . . when Congress prohibits federal
courts from adjudicating an otherwise legitimate class of
4
For purposes of reference only, we note In re Taylor,

343 F. App'x 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2009), and In re Jacobowitz,
384 F. App'x 93, 94 (3d Cir. 2010).
Page 19of24
Page 25 of 89

case 05-23059-ref Doc 133
Entered 08/04/1114:01:54
Filed 04/04111
Desc Main

9 10/01/15 Page 20 of 24
Case: 07-2151
DocurR'h'i-,J~g q!J-Je: 9
cases after a certain period has elapsed from final judgment."

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Taking all
of this into consideration, we conclude that the rule we
enunciated in Shareholders remains good law.5
Given the fact that subject matter jurisdiction over

Caterbone's appeal to the District Court was, and is,
lacking-and that jurisdictional defect also bars us from
reviewing the merits of his appeal to us-we need not address
the Court's dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute.
Nor need we address Caterbone's argument that his
"excusable neglect" saves his untimely filing, given the clear
text of Rule 8002 and the guidance of Shareholders:
Rule 8002(c) ... requires that even in cases of
excusable neglect, the issue must be raised and
the appeal filed within the ... window of Rule
8002 (Rule 8002(a)'s [timeline] for the appeal+
8002(c)'s [timeline] for the extension). The
rule does not allow a party to claim excusable
neglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired.
109 F3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). Finally, we
decline to address Caterbone's remaining arguments, because
they do not pertain to the threshold issue ofjurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the instant
appeal and remand to the District Court with instructions to
dismiss Caterbone's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Our conclusion is consistent with the holdings of our
sister circuits that have affirmed that the filing timeline for
bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. See In re Latture, 605
F.3d 830, 837 (10th Cir. 2010); In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933,
938 (9th Cir. 2007); In re B.A.R. Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 2010
WL 4595554 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing In re Siemon,
421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)).
9
I
,J
I
Page20 of24
Page 26 of 89

Case: 07-2151
DocurR&Wt.'~104-lO tJt3~: 1
Date Filed: 04/0412011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TIIIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2151
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 1lIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a)
March 17, 2011
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This cause came to be heard on the appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on March 17, 2011.
After consideration of all the contentions raised, it is
ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and this
matter is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal
from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No costs. All in
accordance with the Opinion of the Court.
Page21 of24
Page 27 of 89

Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Oesc Main
Case: 072151
Docu~Qn~rn8~\ 1048a311 ;alii: 2 -Date Filed: 04/0412011
ATI'EST:
Isl Marcia M. Waldron,
Clerk
Dated: April 4, 2011
2
Page22of24
Page 28 of 89
10/01/15 Page 23 of 24
2
Case: 07-2151
DocuirtQfiH-104~ ~i: 1
omcEOF nm CLERK
MARCIA M. WALDRON
UNl'J'ED STATES CoURT OF APPEALS
TELEPHONE
CLERK
21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA. PA 19106-1790
215-597-2995
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov
April 4, 2011
.
i
..
Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Jeffrica J. ~' Esq.
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
950 Pennsylvani~ Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Duane Morris
1940 Route 70 East
Suite200.
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
RE: In re: Stanley Caterbone
Case Number: 07-2151
District Case Number: 06-cv-05012
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Today, April 04, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 36.
If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.
Page23 of24
Page 29 of 89
'-"-
10/01/15 Page 24 of 24
3
Case: 07-2151
Docu~itt~~l\104i8U'11 ~ahl: 2
Time for Filing:

14 days after entry ofjudgment.
45 days after entry ofjudgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.
Page Limits:
15 pages
Attachments:
A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are pennitted without
first obtaining leave from the Court.
Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en bane rehearing. If separate petitions for panel
rehearing and rehearing en bane are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will
be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not
provide for the subsequent tiling of a petition for rehearing en bane in the event that the petition
seeking only panel rehearing is denied.
A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must tile an itemized and verified
bill of costs within 14 days from the entry of judgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on
the proper fonn which is available on the court's website.
A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.RApp.P. 41.
Review of this Court's final decision may be pursued in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and
requirements for tiling a petition for v..Tit of certiorari.
Very truly yours,
7'(~ ;.,. VJiN,...

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
By: Charlene/jk
Case Manager
267-299-4923
Page24of24
Page 30 of 89
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...
1 of 6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi...
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"RICO" redirects here. For the Better Call Saul episode, see RICO (Better Call Saul). For other uses, see RICO (disambiguation).
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the
RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal
penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal
organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a
syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing,
closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example,
murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]
RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L.
91452 (http://legislink.org/us/pl-91-452), 84 Stat. 922 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-84-922),
enacted October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96) as 18 U.S.C. 1961 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/18/1961.html)1968 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1968.html). G. Robert Blakey, an
adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under
the close supervision of the committee's chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was
enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard
M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who
were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act
Long title
Acronyms
(colloquial)
1 Summary
2 State laws
3 RICO predicate offenses
4 Application of RICO laws
5 Famous cases
5.1 Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
5.2 Frank Tieri
5.3 Catholic sex abuse cases
5.4 Gil Dozier
5.5 Key West PD
5.6 Michael Milken
5.7 Major League Baseball
5.8 Pro-life activists
5.9 Los Angeles Police Department
5.10 Mohawk Industries
5.11 Latin Kings
5.12 Gambino crime family
5.13 Lucchese Crime Family
5.14 Chicago Outfit
5.15 Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella
5.16 Scott W. Rothstein
5.17 AccessHealthSource
5.18 FIFA
5.19 Drummond Company
6 International equivalents to RICO
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
OCCA
RICO
Nicknames
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
Enacted by
the 91st United States Congress
Effective
October 15, 1970

Citations
Beginning in 1972, 33 States adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.
Contents
An Act relating to the control of organized crime

in the United States.
Public law
91-452 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE84-Pg922-3.pdf)
Statutes at
Large
84 Stat. 922-3 (http://legislink.org/us/stat84-922-3) aka 84 Stat. 941
Titles
amended
18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
U.S.C.
sections
created
18 U.S.C. 1961 (http://www.law.cornell.edu

/uscode/18/1961.html)1968
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/18/1968.html)
Codification
Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 30 by John L. McClellan
(DAR)
Passed the Senate on January 23, 1970 (74-1
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/s254))
Passed the House on October 7, 1970 (341-26
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/h367))
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October
15, 1970
Summary
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes
within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise". Those found guilty of
racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and
interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily
seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This
Page 31 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
2 of 6
provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond
ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it
difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior
as opposed to criminal acts.[2]
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an
"enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four
specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the
enterprise (18 U.S.C. 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection
(c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator'
of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We
don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy
League diplomas."[2]
Initially, prosecutors were skeptical of using RICO, mainly because it was unproven. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, federal prosecutors utilized the law
to bring charges against several Mafia figures. The first major success was the Mafia Commission Trial, which resulted in several top leaders of New York
City's Five Families getting what amounted to life sentences. By the turn of the century, RICO cases resulted in virtually all of the top leaders of the New York
Mafia being sent to prison.
State laws
Beginning in 1972, 33 states, as well as Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, adopted state RICO laws to cover additional state offenses under a similar
scheme.[7]
RICO predicate offenses

Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. 1961 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1961.html). As currently amended it
includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a
controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money
laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of
which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court
has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established
pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are
interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open
ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.
Application of RICO laws

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict
and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with
federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or
corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or
corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be
shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves
having been brought before the courts.
Page 32 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
3 of 6
Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and
racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the
"Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies; whereas the RICO law covers a variety of
organized criminal behaviors.[8]
Famous cases
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
In 1979, the United States federal government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of the Oakland charter of the Hells Angels using
RICO. In United States v. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of
RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it
was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning
drugs and guns."[9][10]
During the many trials of many Motorcycle Clubs the one that garnered the most attention of the US Government was the Hells Angels case in San Francisco
starting from 1979 to 1983. The US Government had a secret team known as BET= Biker Enforcement Team. It started with the DAGO Chapter of the Hells
Angels, the team whose members included FBI, ATF, DEA, BNE and other agencies. The members were highly secretive and were able to break the law
without recourse as long as they targeted the Hells Angels USA. Some of the members were hand picked from, OCCIB, LEIU, CNIN, PDID and the Organized
Crime Intelligence unit of the San Diego DA's office under the command of DA Ed Miller and his top associated Richard Lewis, others were Ron Dowen OPI
(BET) Scott Barnes (BET-Intelligence records Keeper) J. Kennedy, Fred S. OCCIB and over a dozen others never to be made public.
This unit was so secretive and had access to everything and everyone many who are now deceased, it started in mid 1976 in San Diego and quickly spread
Nationwide until it was exposed in approx. 1980, what was learned was 4 BET members wanted to start a Biker War between the Hells Angels and the
Mongols. It started in San Diego and quickly spread Statewide and beyond. The plan was hatched in a small town in Calif. Santee near San Diego. What the
BET agents did was had 7 Mongol Colors made with the California Rocker on the bottom, knowing the HA's could only have California Rocker, several U/C
agents rode bikes wearing the Mongol Colors around HA's did some bombing aganist them, shootings, kidnappings, gun and dope deals all making it appear the
Angels were doing this and not the Mongols.[11]
When they decided also to have several HA's Colors flying and doing crimes against the Mongols, and vise a verse then both Clubs would think War was on,
and indeed it was starting in San Diego, El Cajon and Statewide the ploy worked and the war became a reality, setting the HA's into a war with the Mongols the
first blatant act was the killing of two Mongols Redbeard and Jingles while they were riding near Escondido. The BET team was the original group to start the
war and it worked.[12][13][14]
Frank Tieri
On November 21, 1980, Genovese crime family boss Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Mafia boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.
Catholic sex abuse cases

In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for
abuses committed by those under their authority. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex
abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against
archbishop Bernard Law prior to his getting reassigned to Vatican City.[15][16]
Gil Dozier
Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Gil Dozier, in office from 1976 to 1980, faced indictment with violations of both the Hobbs and the RICO
laws. He was accused of compelling companies doing business with his department to make campaign contributions on his behalf. On September 23, 1980, the
Baton Rouge-based United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana convicted Dozier of five counts of extortion and racketeering. The sentence
of ten years imprisonment, later upgraded to eighteen when other offenses were determined, and a $25,000 fine was suspended pending appeal, and Dozier
remained free on bail.[17] He eventually served nearly four years until a presidential commutation freed him in 1986.[18]
Key West PD
About June 1984, the Key West Police Department located in the County of Monroe, Florida, was declared a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO statutes
after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond
Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers.[19] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered
bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall.[20]
Michael Milken
On March 29, 1989, American financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into an allegation of
insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first
occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser felonies of securities fraud
and tax evasion rather than risk spending the rest of his life in prison, and ended up serving 22 months in prison. Milken was also ordered banned for life from
the securities industry.[21]
On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was threatened with RICO charges respondat superior, the legal doctrine that
Page 33 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
4 of 6
corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by entering an Alford plea to lesser felonies of stock parking and stock
manipulation. In a carefully worded plea, Drexel said it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations" made by the government. If Drexel had been indicted
for RICO violations, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over
all of the firm's other obligationsincluding the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital base. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have
been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.[22] By
at least one estimate, a RICO indictment would have destroyed the firm within a month.[23] Years later, Drexel president and CEO Fred Joseph said that Drexel
had no choice but to plead guilty because "a financial institution cannot survive a RICO indictment."[24]
Major League Baseball

In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud
Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a
move.[25] If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been responsible for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted two years,
successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration where the arbiters ruled in favor of
Major League Baseball,[26] permitting the move to Washington to take place.
Pro-life activists
RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the
National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held
that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court
remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Los Angeles Police Department

In April 2000, Federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the
LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further
damaged the already-tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July 2001, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue
the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries, rather than economic or property damage.[27]
Mohawk Industries
On April 26, 2006, the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/05-465/), 547
U.S. 516 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/516/) (2006), which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk
Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies,
constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.[28]
Latin Kings
On August 20, 2006, in Tampa, Florida, most of the state leadership members of the street gang, the Latin Kings, were arrested in connection with RICO
conspiracy charges to engage in racketeering and currently await trial. The operation, called "Broken Crown", targeted statewide leadership of the Latin Kings.
The raid occurred at the Caribbean American Club. Along with Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office, Tampa Police Department, the State Attorneys Office,
the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were involved in the operation. Included in the
arrest were leader Gilberto Santana from Brooklyn NY, Captain Luis Hernandez from Miami FL, Affiliate Celina Hernandez, Affiliate Michael Rocca, Affiliate
Jessica Ramirez, Affiliate Reinaldo Arroyo, Affiliate Samual Alvarado, Omari Tolbert, Edwin DeLeon, and many others, totaling 39.
Gambino crime family

Also, in Tampa, on October 16, 2006, four members of the Gambino crime family (Capo Ronald Trucchio, Terry Scaglione, Steven Catallono and associate
Kevin McMahon) were tried under RICO statutes, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
Lucchese Crime Family

In the mid 1990s, prosecuting attorneys Gregory OConnell and Charles Rose used RICO charges to bring down the Lucchese family within an 18-month
period. Dismantling the Lucchese family had a profound financial impact on previously Mafia held businesses such as construction, garment, and garbage
hauling. Here they dominated and extorted money through taxes, dues, and fees. An example of this extortion was through the garbage business. Hauling of
garbage from the World Trade Center cost the building owners $1.2 million per year to be removed when the Mafia monopolized the business, as compared to
$150,000 per year when competitive bids could be sought.[29]
Chicago Outfit
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Operation Family Secrets indicted 15 Outfit members and associates under RICO predicates. Five defendants were
convicted of RICO violations and other crimes. Six plead guilty, two died before trial and one was too sick to be tried.
Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella

A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges
Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella.[30] The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money
Page 34 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
5 of 6
laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted of mostly petty crimes, at a
private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the "Kids for cash scandal".[31] On February 18, 2011, a federal
jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child
Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.[32]
Scott W. Rothstein
Scott W. Rothstein is a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt
Adler law firm. He was accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law firm salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a massive 1.2 billion
dollar Ponzi scheme. On December 1, 2009, Rothstein turned himself in to federal authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to RICO.[33]
Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27,
2010. Bond was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who ruled that due to his ability to forge documents, he was considered a flight risk.[34]
On June 9, 2010, Rothstein received a 50-year prison sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.[35]
AccessHealthSource
Eleven defendants were indicted on RICO charges for allegedly assisting AccessHealthSource, a local health care provider, in obtaining and maintaining
lucrative contracts with local and state government entities in the city of El Paso, Texas, through bribery of and kickbacks to elected officials or himself and
others, extortion under color of authority, fraudulent schemes and artifices, false pretenses, promises and representations and deprivation of the right of citizens
to the honest services of their elected local officials (see indictment).[36]
FIFA
Fourteen defendants affiliated with FIFA were indicted under the RICO act on 47 counts for "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies,
among other offenses, in connection with the defendants participation in a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer."
The defendants include many current and former high-ranking officers of FIFA and its affiliate CONCACAF. The defendants had allegedly used the enterprise
as a front to collect millions of dollars in bribes which may have influenced Russia and Qatar's winning bids to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups
respectively.[37]
Drummond Company
In 2015, the Drummond Company sued attorneys Terrence P. Collingsworth and William R. Scherer, the advocacy group International Rights Advocates
(IRAdvocates), and Dutch businessman Albert van Bilderbeek, one of the owners of Llanos Oil, accusing them of violating RICO by alleging that Drummond
had worked alongside Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia to murder labor union leaders within proximity of their Colombian coal mines, which Drummond
denies.[38]
International equivalents to RICO

The US RICO legislation has other equivalents in the rest of the world. In spite of Interpol having a standardized definition of RICO-like crimes, the
interpretation and national implementation in legislation (and enforcement) widely varies. Most nations cooperate with the US on RICO enforcement only
where their own related laws are specifically broken, but this is in line with the Interpol protocols for such matters.
By nation, alphabetically
In Australia the Australian Crime Commission has powers based on similar legislation and regulations.
In Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enforce rules and regulations that
cumulatively are equivalent to RICO.
New Zealand has a similar arrangement and commission to Australia.
Without other nations enforcing similar legislation to RICO many cross border RICO cases would not be possible. In the overall body of RICO cases that went
to trial, at least 50% have had some non-US enforcement component to them. The offshoring of money away from the US finance system as part racketeering
(and especially money laundering) is typically a major contributing factor to this.
However, other countries have laws that enable the government to seize property with unlawful origins. Mexico and Colombia both have specific laws that
define the participation in criminal organizations as a separate crime,[39] and separate laws that allow the seizure of goods related with these crimes.[40] This
latter provides a specific chapter titled "International Cooperation", which instructs Mexican authorities to cooperate with foreign authorities with respect to
organized crime assets within Mexico, and provides the framework by which Mexican authorities may politely request the cooperation of foreign authorities
with respect to assets located outside of Mexico, in terms of any international instruments they may be party to.
Arguably, this may be construed as allowing the application of the RICO Act in Mexico, provided the relevant international agreements exist among Mexico
and countries with RICO or RICO-equivalent provisions.
See also
Continuing Criminal Enterprise
Patriot Act
Criminal Tribes Act
Page 35 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
6 of 6
References
1. 18 U.S. Code 1962(c); see also Criminal RICO Prosecutors Manual
(http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/rico.pdf),
elaborating that "A Defendant May Be Liable for a RICO Conspiracy Offense
Even if the Defendant Did Not Participate In the Operation or Management of
the Enterprise"
2. Sanders, Alain; Painton, Priscilla (August 21, 1989). "Law: Showdown At
Gucci". Time. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
3. Olsen,, William P. The Anti-Corruption Handbook: How to Protect Your
Business in the Global Marketplace. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4. 18 USC 1962.
5. "As the Supreme Court noted in National Organization for Women, Inc. v.
Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1994), one commentator has used "the terms
'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' and 'perpetrator' to describe the four separate roles
the enterprise may play in 1962." (citing G. Robert Blakey, The RICO Civil
Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev.
237, 307-25 (1982). See page 32 of RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation
under the State Racketeering Statutes, John E. Floyd, Section of Antitrust Law,
American Bar Association, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number
97-70903, ISBN 1-57073-396-1
6. Van Over, Gil. "Can You Be Subject to a RICO Claim?". Dealer Magazine.
Archived from the original on October 14, 2008. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
7. Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division. "Introduction: RICO State by
State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes, Second
Edition". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
8. Carlson, K (1993). "Prosecuting Criminal Enterprises". National Criminal
Justice Reference Series (United States: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report): 12. Retrieved December 28, 2009.
9. Barger, Ralph 'Sonny'; Zimmerman, Keith; Zimmerman, Kent (2000). Hell's
Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and The Hell's Angels Motorcycle
Club.
10. "Organized Crime Research". Klaus von Lampe. 2000. Retrieved December 8,
2007.
11. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-10-27/news/mn-835_1_el-cajon-police
12. USA v. Sonny Barger, et al
13. USA v. James E. Brandes
14. USA v. Hells Angels
15. Weigel, David. "But Why Isn't Bernard Law in Jail? (Part 2)". Slate.com.
Retrieved April 24, 2012.
16. Mitered in the Mob? (http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20140102195850/http:
//www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp) January 2, 2014 at the
Wayback Machine
17. "707 F.2d 862: United States v. Dozier". law.justia.com. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
18. "Inmate Locator". Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
19. "Key West Police Department Called a 'Criminal Enterprise' ". The New York
Times. July 1, 1984. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
20. Klingener, Nancy (May 22, 2005). "From wrecking to smuggling to

development, corruption, investigations have long history". Key West Citizen.
Archived from the original on March 20, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
21. Gerber, Jurg; Jensen, Eric L. (2007). Encyclopedia of White-collar Crime.
Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313335242. Retrieved August 16,
2014.
22. Stone, Dan G. (1990). April Fools: An Insider's Account of the Rise and
Collapse of Drexel Burnham. New York City: Donald I. Fine.
ISBN 1-55611-228-9.
23. Stewart, James B (1992). Den of Thieves (reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster.
p. 517. ISBN 0-671-79227-X.
24. Kornbluth, Jesse (1992). Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of
Michael Milken. New York City: William Morrow and Company.
ISBN 0-688-10937-3.
25. Chass, Murray (July 17, 2002). "Baseball: A Group's Racketeering Suit Brings
Baseball to Full Bristle". The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
26. "Ruling clears way for move to D.C.". ESPN.com. Associated Press. January 15,
2004. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
27. Weinstein, Henry (July 13, 2001). "Use of RICO Law in Rampart Cases
Weakened". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 6, 2013.
28. "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, Shirley, et al." (PDF). Supreme Court of
the United States. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
29. Volkman, Ernest (1998). Gangbusters: The Destruction of America's Last Mafia
Dynasty. 53 Shore Road, Winchester, MA 01890: Faber and Faber, Inc.
ISBN 0-571-19942-9.
30. "Indictment: United States v. Conahan and Ciavarella" (PDF). September 9,
2009. Retrieved September 12, 2009.
31. Morgan-Besecker, Terrie (September 10, 2009). "Ex-judges hit with 48 counts".
Times Leader. Retrieved September 11, 2009.
32. "Jury finds Ciavarella guilty on first of 39 counts". Times Leader. February 18,
2011. Retrieved February 18, 2011.
33. "Scott Rothstein Charging Document". Scribd.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
34. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50820067.pdf
35. Weaver, Jay (June 9, 2010). "Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein gets 50-year
sentence". Miami Herald. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
36. Bracamontes, Ramon. "Public corruption: Feds allege bribery, kickbacks". El
Paso Times. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
37. "Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering
Conspiracy and Corruption". United States Department of Justice. May 27,
2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
38. Kent Faulk, Drummond sues those claiming coal company involved in
Colombian deaths (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04
/drummond_sues_those_claiming_c.html), The Birmingham News, April 8, 2015
39. Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada, 28 October 1996
(http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/101.pdf) (in Spanish)
40. Ley de Extincin de Dominio, 30 April 2009 (http://www.diputados.gob.mx
/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFED.pdf) (in Spanish)
Further reading
Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968: A Manual for Federal Prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, Organized Crime
and Racketeering Section, [2009].
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 5. Organized Crime Control. Hearings ... Ninety-first Congress, Second
Session on S.30, and Related Proposals, Relating to the Control of Organized Crime in the U.S. [held] May 20, 21, 27; June 10, 11, 17; July 23, and
August 5, 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.
External links
RICO Act from Cornell University's U. S. Code database (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act&oldid=683182245"
Categories: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 in law 91st United States Congress Organized crime terminology
United States federal criminal legislation American Mafia events Inchoate offenses United States federal public corruption crime
This page was last modified on 28 September 2015, at 17:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Page 36 of 89

10/9/2015 4:18 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
Nt?. IJiD 379-2007
VS.
TONY FREEMAN
NOBLE REAL ESTATE
GREG MILLAN
SHELBY SHEPRO
CENTRAL PENN SERVICES
ORDER
AND NOW, this &day
of November, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition
for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that
the District Attorney's refusal to approve the private complaint due to "insufficient evidence"',
obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the complaint
establishes a prima facie case, see, Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1996),
and In re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wilson 11, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005), the
Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity
to identify the information relied upon and lo explain the Commonwealth's decision to
disapprove the filing of Petitioner's private criminal complaint.
I certify this document to be filed

i~the iancaster County Office of
the
Clerk of the Caurts.
.
BY THE COURT:
LOUIS J.FARINA
PRES.JUDGE
LOUIS J. FARINA
PiiESiDENT JUDGE
'Chief County Detective Landis, who reported the District Attorney's position by letter
dated kovern~er2,2007,
s:ated "Car investigation fsiied to find any criminal intent on the pari
of the defendants. . . ."
Page 37 of 89
Page 38 of 89
Page 39 of 89
Page 40 of 89
Page 41 of 89
Outlook.com - scaterbone@live.com
1 of 1
https://col131.mail.live.com/?tid=cm_Q04etVt5RGKUwAiZMHHaA2&...
New
Reply
Delete
Archive
Junk
Sweep
Move to
Stan J. Caterbone
Categories
Case: CI-08-13373; Transaction: 57985968 Rejected

Folders
FileAndServeXpress (ClerkReviewNotification@secure-mail.fileandservexpress.com)
Inbox
To: 'scaterbone@live.com'
Add to contacts
Lancaster Chamber
Junk 4
Drafts 4
Sent
Deleted
AA Inbox 41
Deed and City Rehab
Ebay and Online Purcha
Electronic Filing 1
Facebook
Fax Folder 184
FFCHS Communications
Geek Squad 2
To: Stan Caterbone

Subject: Notice of Rejected Transaction
PA Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas has rejected one or more documents in
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP VS DUKE ST BUSINESS CENTER, CI-08-13373. The details for this
transaction are listed below.
Court: PA Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
Case Name: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP VS DUKE ST BUSINESS CENTER
Case Number: CI-08-13373
Transaction ID: 57985968
Judicial Officer:
Division: N/A
Authorized Date/Time: Oct 8 2015 9:57AM EDT
Authorizer: Pro Se
Authorizer's Organization: Pro Se
Reviewing Clerk: Audrey Conrad (7173917599)
Go Fund Me 2
Lambert Case 15
LinkedIn 5
May-June Surge 51
Mind Control Research
Saved Sent
New folder
Document Title(s):
Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 Reinstatement and DEFENDANTS Lancaster Chamber
of Commerceer October 8, 2015 ECF Copy
Status: Rejected
Reason: Other:
Comment: Praecipe to reinstate requires a filing of $8.75. PA State Rules require a party to
inform the court of improvement in financial circumstances. Your most recent IFP was denied.
The IFP granted in this case is from 2008.
Court statutory fees on rejected documents are not charged to you. However, File &
ServeXpress fees for this transaction will not be refunded.
If you have questions regarding this rejection, you can view details online under the
Transaction Comment and/or Document History sections of your transaction. If you have
further questions after viewing the details online, please contact the court clerk directly for
more information as to why your document(s) were rejected. The court is the final authority
on all rejected documents. File & ServeXpress representatives do not have access to
additional information on rejected documents outside of the details located in the Transaction
Comment and/or Document History sections within each transaction.
If you have any questions or believe that you have received this notice in error, please contact
File & ServeXpress Client Support by phone at 1-888-529-7587.
Thank you for using File & ServeXpress.
Questions? For prompt, courteous assistance please contact File & ServeXpress Client Support
by phone at 1-888-529-7587 (24/7).
2015 Microsoft
Terms
Privacy & cookies
Developers
Page 42 of 89
English (United States)

10/9/2015 3:14 AM
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LANCASTER COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION LAW
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
STAN J. CATERBONE
:
:
V.
Case No. 08-13373
DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, et. al.,
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly reinstate the Complaint originally filed on December 3, 2008 in the
above captioned action along with the attached EXHIBIT A.
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 401(b)(2) Time For Service, Reissuance, Reinstatement
and Substitution of Original Process, Copies for Service,
which states "A writ may
be reisued or a complaint reinstated at any time and any number of times. A new
party defendant may be named in a reinstated writ or a reinstated complaint".
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 126 Liberal Construction and Application of Rules, which
states "the rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are
applicable. The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard
any error or defect of procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the
parties.
Kindly add the following parties to the above captioned complaint:
1. Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, S. Queen Street, Lancaster, PA 17602
2. Thomas Baldridge, President
3. Arthur Mann, of the Hourglass Foundation
Page 43
of 47
89
Page
1 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
The above named defendants did engage in the following:

A. An Act of Malice and Reckless Disregard during the registration process of
Advanced Media Group's membership to the Lancaster Chamber of
Commerce on September 28th and 29th of 2015 by knowingly accepting the
membership application and 1st month fees (check no. 135 for $65.25)
with the intent to libel and slander by workplace mobbing Stan J.
Caterbone out of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
B. Conspiracy and Collusion to Obstruct Due Process in the Lisa Michelle
Lambert Case, No. 5:14-cv-02559 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern
Pennsylvania of which I am named MOVANT, and the APPEAL to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was recorded on Friday, October 2, 2015.
C. Fraud in the refusal to register Advanced Media Group and Stan J.
Caterbone to the Tech Talk seminar held Wednesday September 30 th at the
headquarters at Southern Market then calling and leaving a voice mail
message that he can no longer attend because he did not attend Part 1,
which was held previously. Kristy Aurand who met with Stan J. Caterbone
had used the Tech Talk Seminar of September 30 th, 2015 as a selling tool.
Stan J. Caterbone was told that first meeting that he would be registered
and Kristy Aurand would call a leave a message regarding the starting
time. Later that day of September 29th after meeting and completing the
application process, a Mathew .. called and left a message not to attend
because it would create a problem since Stan J. Caterbone did not attend
part 1 of the Seminar. Stan J. Caterbone sent an email to the Lancaster
Chamber of Commerce stating that he would be attending. On September
30th, the Seminar was CANCELED, according to the Lancaster Chamber
website.
D. At the early morning meeting at Southern Market on October 6, 2015
Arthur Mann did engage in street theater by placing his finger under his
left eye as Stan Caterbone first entered the room.
After the opening
remarks the MC requested that everyone stand and introduce themselves

to the group, which was about 40. Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray was to to
be the featured speaker with an update on the City of Lancaster. The first
person stood up at the front of the room and did the same as Arthur Mann
and put his finger under his eye while looking at Stan J. Caterbone. Stan
J. Caterbone immediately rose from his seat, grabbed his pink napsack
Page 44
of 47
89
Page
2 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
and left the room. After leaving the room, Lancaster Chamber President
Thomas Baldridge was walking fast toward the room and gave Stan J.
Caterbone a cocky hello, which Stan J. Caterbone ignored and walked past
him and left the building. Stan J. Caterbone and Thomas Baldridge have a
previous relationship from the days of the Conestoga Shark Swim Team.
Thomas Baldridge was President and Stan J. Caterbone produced a video
for the Swim Team with Pam Pflumm and Susan Baldridge, LNP Reporter
and wife of Thomas Baldridge. The year was 1998.
Date: October 8, 2015
___________________________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Set
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 669-2163
scaterbone@live.com
Page 45
of 47
89
Page
3 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 46
of 47
89
Page
4 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 47
of 47
89
Page
5 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 48
of 47
89
Page
6 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 49
of 47
89
Page
7 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 50
of 47
89
Page
8 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
Page 51
of 47
89
Page
9 of
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?222845988427601-L_1_0-1
CLOSED,APPEAL,HABEAS,A/R,DOC-RESTRICT
United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14-cv-02559-PD
LAMBERT v. BISSONETTE et al
Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND
Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Date Terminated: 05/22/2014
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus: (General)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Petitioner
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT
represented by JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM

LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY H. GONZALEZ IBRAHIM
P.O. BOX 1025
CHADDS FORD, PA 19317
215-568-1943
Email: jeremyibrahim.esq@verizon.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Respondent
LYNN BISSONETTE
SUPERINTENDENT, MCI-FRAMINGHAM
Respondent
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
V.
Movant
AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

1250 FREMONT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Email: scaterbone@live.com
PRO SE
Date Filed
Docket Text
05/02/2014
1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 100526.), filed by LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT.
(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ks, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
05/22/2014
2 CJA 20 APPIONTMENT OF ATTORNEY JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM for LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT. SIGNED BY
HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jpd) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
05/22/2014
3 ORDER THAT JEREMY IBRAHIM, ESQ., IS APPOINTED AS PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY HER HABEAS
PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A COUNSELED MOTION FOR
RELIEF. COUNSEL SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS WHETHER PETITIONER MUST SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE FILING A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL
S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/23/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
(Entered: 05/23/2014)
06/23/2015
4 BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CANTERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP IN SUPPORT OF
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S HABEAU CORPUS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
07/06/2015
5 STATEMENT OF MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (jpd, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
08/14/2015
6 LETTER FROM STAN J. CATERBONE DATED 8/7/15 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER AND
THE HONORABLE JUDGE PAUL S. DIAMOND RE: ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PRIVILEGES. (jpd) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
Page 10
52 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/8/2015 2:46 AM
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?222845988427601-L_1_0-1
09/02/2015
8 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
7 ORDER THAT MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE
DOCUMENTS (DOC. NO. 6) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/3/2015. 9/3/2015 ENTERED
AND COPIES E-MAILED; AND MAILED TO PRO SE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
9 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(jaa, ) Modified on 9/3/2015 (afm, ). Modified on
9/4/2015 (jaa, ). (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
10 MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
09/09/2015
11 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
12 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT.(jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
13 LETTER APPLICATION FROM TIMOTHY RICE #DU-2363 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORALE TIMOTHY R. RICE, UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (jpd) (DOCKETED IN ERROR SEE 15-CV-291). (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
14 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT OF MOVANT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/14/2015
15 ORDER THAT MR. CATERBONE'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 8 AND 9) AND MOTIONS TO FILE
EXHIBITS OR STATEMENTS (DOC. NO. 10, 11, 12, 14) ARE DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
STANLEY J. CATERBONE MAY NO LONGER SUBMIT FILINGS-WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR IN PAPER FORMAT IN THE
ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL NOT DOCKET ANY SUCH FILINGS WITHOUT MY
APPROVAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/11/15. 9/14/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO
SE MOVANT AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL. (jpd) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
09/30/2015
16 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 15 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. IFP PENDING Copies to Judge, Clerk
USCA, Appeals Clerk.(jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
10/01/2015
17 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 16 Notice of Appeal, : (jpd, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
10/01/2015
18 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
10/08/2015 02:45:26
PACER Login: am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:
Description:
Docket Report
Billable Pages: 2
Search Criteria: 5:14-cv-02559-PD

Cost:
Page 11
53 of
Page
of 89
47
0.20
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/8/2015 2:46 AM
Cases Selection Table
1 of 1
https://ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom
Case Selection Page

Case Number
Title
Opening Date Party
Last Docket Originating Case Number

Entry
Origin
06-3955
Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison,
et al
09/06/2006
Stanley J.
Caterbone
07/05/2007
15:14:00
0313-2 : 05-cv-02288
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania
07-2151
In re: Stanley Caterbone
04/30/2007
Stanley J.
Caterbone
05/03/2011
16:04:01
0313-2 : 06-cv-05012
07-3054
In Re: Caterbone, et al
07/13/2007
Stanley J.
Caterbone
06/20/2008
10:35:49
0313-2 : 06-cv-05117
07-4474
Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison,
et al
11/30/2007
Stanley J.
Caterbone
10/22/2008
09:28:30
0313-2 : 05-cv-02288
07-4475
Caterbone, et al v. Wenger, et al
12/07/2007
Stanley J.
Caterbone
10/22/2008
09:28:30
0313-2 : 06-cv-04650
10-2313
Stanley Caterbone, et al v. Fulton
Financial Corp, et al
05/14/2010
Stanley J.
Caterbone
08/25/2010
16:56:17
0313-2 : 5-10-cv-01558
Note:
* Click on Case No. to get Case Summary
* Click on Short Title to get Case Query
* Click on Originating Case No. to get Case Summary for Originating Case

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:29:37
PACER
Login:
am6446:3514696:0
Client
Code:
Description:
Case Selection
Table
Search
Criteria:
Name:
CATERBONE,
STAN (pty)
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.10
Page 12
54 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 1:01 AM
06-3955 Docket
General Docket
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-3955
Nature of Suit: 3440 Other Civil Rights
Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison, et al
Appeal From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Fee Status: IFP
Docketed: 09/06/2006
Termed: 07/03/2007
Case Type Information:

1) civil
2) private
3) civil rights
Originating Court Information:
District: 0313-2 : 05-cv-02288
District Judge: Mary A. McLaughlin, U.S. District Judge
Date Order/Judgment:
08/24/2006
Date NOA Filed:

08/30/2006
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
Plaintiff - Appellant
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
Defendant - Appellee
Robert W. Hallinger, Esq.

Direct: 717-390-7934
Email: RHallinger@appelyost.com
Fax: 717-299-9781
[COR NTC Retained]
Appel & Yost
33 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT

Christopher S. Underhill, Esq.

Direct: 717-299-7254
Email: chrisu@hublaw.com
Fax: 717-299-3160
[COR NTC Retained]
Hartman Underhill & Brubaker
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT

William H. Howard, Esq.

Direct: 610-975-0952
Email: bhoward627@comcast.net
[COR NTC Retained]
627 Newtown Road
Berwyn, PA 19312
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK

George M. Gowen, III, Esq.

Direct: 215-665-2781
Email: ggowen@cozen.com
Fax: 215-701-2028
[COR NTC Retained]
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
SOUTH REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT

Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
Defendant
FULTON BANK
Stephanie Carfley, Esq.

Direct: 717-399-1536
Email: scarfley@barley.com
Fax: 717-291-4660
[COR NTC Retained]
Barley Snyder
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Page 13
55 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 4
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:32 AM
06-3955 Docket
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Appellant
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT.;
AVALON POLICE DEPT.; COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank;
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.;
FULTON BANK
Page 14
56 of
Page
of 89
47
2 of 4
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:32 AM
06-3955 Docket
3 of 4
09/06/2006
CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Stanley J. Caterbone. (CLM)
09/06/2006
RECORD, received. (CLM)
09/08/2006
LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising appeal has been listed for possible dismissal. (ZM)
09/18/2006
APPEARANCE from Attorney Christopher S. Underhill on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol, filed. (CLM)
09/18/2006
APPEARANCE from Attorney Stephanie Carfley on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. (CLM)
09/18/2006
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. (CLM)
09/19/2006
FOLLOW UP LETTER to Robert W. Hallinger, Walter H. Swayze, Patricia Baxter, George M. Gowen and Stuart A.
Weiss requesting the following documents: **Appearance Form SEND TO MERITS (CLM)
09/25/2006
APPEARANCE from Attorney William H. Howard on behalf of Appellee Avalon Pol Dept, filed. (LWC)
09/25/2006
Certified Copy of Amended Notice of Appeal filed 09/20/06, received from the Clerk of the District Court, filed.
(LWC)
09/28/2006
APPEARANCE from Attorney George M. Gowen on behalf of Appellee Comm Natl Bank, filed. (CLM)
09/28/2006
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellee Comm Natl Bank, filed. (CLM)
09/29/2006
RESPONSE in support of to Legal Division letter for possible dismissal, on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed.
Certificate of Service dated 9/28/06. (CLM)
10/02/2006
APPEARANCE from Attorney Robert W. Hallinger on behalf of Appellee Lancaster Cty Prison, filed. (CLM)
10/11/2006
RESPONSE to Legal Division letter for possible dismissal, on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol, filed. Certificate
of Service dated 10/6/06. (LWC)
12/01/2006
Notice received from district court that IFP has been granted to Stanley J. Caterbone . (CLM)
04/30/2007
Document filed by Appellant titled "Addendum to Appeal, filed. (CLM)
07/03/2007
ORDER (McKee, Authoring Judge, Fuentes and Roth, Circuit Judges) The appeal is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.
A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment." Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996). The order Appellant seeks to appeal merely
established a deadline for the filing of Appellant's amended complaint and denied Appellant's request for an
unspecified deadline. The order does not decide any of the claims in the complaint nor does it determine the rights
and liabilities of any of the parties. Accordingly, the order does not constitute a "final" order for purposes of appeal
under Section 1291, filed. BLD-115 (LWC)
07/03/2007
Certified copy of order to Lower Court. (LWC)
07/05/2007
RECORD RETURNED. (RM)
Page 15
57 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:32 AM
06-3955 Docket
4 of 4
Documents and Docket Summary

Documents Only
Include Page Numbers
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:30:28
PACER Login: am6446:3514696:0
Description:
Client Code:
Docket Report (filtered) Search Criteria: 06-3955
Billable Pages: 2
Cost:
Page 16
58 of
Page
of 89
47
0.20
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:32 AM
07-2151 Docket
General Docket
Nature of Suit: 2422 Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
In re: Stanley Caterbone
Fee Status: IFP
Termed: 04/04/2011

1) civil
2) private
3) Bankruptcy
District: 0313-2 : 06-cv-05012
District Judge: Anita B. Brody, U.S. District Judge
03/20/2007
Date NOA Filed:

04/16/2007
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
v.
KEVIN P. CALLAHAN, Esq.
Defendant
Kevin P. Callahan
[Pro Se Atty]
Office of the Trustee
833 Chestnut Street
Suite 500
DAVE P. ADAMS, Esq., Esq.

Defendant
Dave P. Adams, Esq.

Direct: 215-597-4411
Email: dave.p.adams@usdoj.gov
[Pro Se Atty]
Office of the Trustee
833 Chestnut Street
Suite 500
v.
KELLY B. STAPLETON
Not Party - Rule 43 substitution
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE REGION 3
Not Party - Appellee
Jeffrica J. Lee, Esq.

Email: Jeffrica.Lee@usdoj.gov
[COR NTC Federal government]
Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
-----------------------------COURT APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE

Not Party - Amicus Curiae

[COR NTC Amicus apptd]
Unknown
Page 17
59 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:36 AM
07-2151 Docket
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Appellant
Page 18
60 of
Page
of 89
47
2 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:36 AM
07-2151 Docket
04/30/2007
Bankruptcy Case Docketed. Notice filed by Stanley J. Caterbone. (CLM)
05/10/2007
MOTION by Appellant to proceed in forma pauperis, filed. (CLM)
05/10/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney Dave Adams on behalf of Appellee Kelly B. Stapleton, filed. (CLM)
05/21/2007
MOTION by Appellant for Request for Recusal of Judge Rendell, filed. Answer due 6/4/07. Certificate of
Service dated 5/18/07. (CLM)
05/29/2007
ORDER (Clerk) granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis by Appellant. The appeal will be submitted to
a panel for determination under 28 U.S.C. section 1951(e)(2) or for summary action under Third Circuit
L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, filed. FPS-369 (CLM)
05/29/2007
Certified copy of order to Lower Court. (CLM)
06/08/2007
MOTION by Appellee to dismiss appeal, filed. Answer due 6/25/07. Certificate of Service dated 6/8/07.
(CLM)
06/21/2007
RESPONSE filed by Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone to motion to dismiss appeal. Certificate of Service
dated 6/19/07. (CLM)
07/08/2009
2 pg, 29.79 KB
07/08/2009
1 pg, 22.26 KB
07/08/2009
1 pg, 30.31 KB
07/08/2009
ORDER (AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges) referring to a merits panel the Motion to
dismiss appeal for untimeliness filed by the appellee and the motion to recuse Judge Rendell filed by the
Appellant. The Clerk shall locate and appoint amicus counsel on behalf of the Court. Panel No.: CLD-92.
Judge Ambro, Authoring Judge.--[Edited 07/08/2009 by SDT] (JT)
ORDER appointing Charles D. Breckinridge, Esq. as amicus counsel without compensation, filed.--[Edited
07/08/2009 by SDT] (JT)
Clerk's letter regarding information and deadlines for appointed counsel. Counsel shall have a period of 60
days from the date of this order to review the record. The Clerk will issue a briefing schedule immediately
after the 60 day review period ends. Counsel shall file the entry of appearance form within 14 days of the
date of this order. (JT)
2 pg, 31.64 KB
AMENDED ORDER appointing Charles D. Breckinridge, Esq. as amicus counsel on behalf of the Court,
filed. (JT)
2 pg, 31.25 KB
ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Charles D. Breckinridge on behalf of Amicus Curiae Amicus
on behalf of Court. (CDB)
8 pg, 293.66 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone recusal of court appointed Amicus Charles
Breckinridge. Response due on 08/05/2009. Certificate of Service dated 07/24/2009. (CLM)
14 pg, 831.02 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for Appointment of New Counsel. Response due on
08/05/2009. Certificate of Service dated 07/24/2009. (CLM)
07/10/2009
07/27/2009
07/27/2009
07/30/2009
3 pg, 16.27 KB
08/03/2009
1 pg, 60.99 KB
12/16/2009
2 pg, 26.53 KB
12/16/2009
2 pg, 31.61 KB
12/16/2009
ECF FILER: Response filed by Amicus Counsel to Motion for recusal of court appointed amicus Charles
Breckinridge, filed. Certificate of Service dated 07/30/2009.--[Edited 07/31/2009 by CLC]--[Edited
07/31/2009 by CLC] (CDB)
ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from H. Thomas Byron III on behalf of Appellee(s) United States
Trustee (Kelly Beaudin Stapleton). (HTB)
ORDER (SLOVITER, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges) The foregoing motion to recuse amicus
counsel is denied. The motion for the appointment of new counsel is denied. Pro se litigants are not
required to file electronically. 3d. Cir L.A.R. Misc. 113.2 (2008). Opposing counsel must serve parties who
do not file electronically with paper copies of all documents. 3d Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 113.4 (2008). Amicus
counsel's request to withdraw is granted. The Clerk is directed to find new amicus counsel, filed. Panel No.:
ALD-323. Kent A. Jordan, Authoring Judge. (JT)
ORDER appointing Catherine L. Sakach, Esq. as Amicus counsel without compensation on behalf of the
Court. As stated in the Court's July 8, 2009 order, amicus counsel's representation is limited to the following
issue: whether any objection to appellant's untimely appeal to the district court was forfeited by the trustee's
failure to challange it in the district court, or whether the time-period for filing such an appeal is a
jurididictional time-constraint, not subject to such waiver, within the meaning of Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.Ct.
2360 (2007). Counsel shall file the entry of appearance within 14 days of the date of this order. Ms. Sakach
shall have a period of 60 days from the date of this order to review the record. The Clerk will issue a briefing
schedule immediately after the 60 day review period ends. Appellant Caterbone may raise any other issues
regarding the merits of his appeal as well as the issue stated above in his brief. The Clerk will issue a
briefing schedule at the appropriate time. Appellant Caterbone's brief and the brief by amicus counsel will
be due on the same date, filed. (JT)
Clerk's letter regarding information and deadlines for appointed counsel. (JT)
1 pg, 29.33 KB
12/29/2009
2 pg, 63.58 KB
ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Catherine L. Sakach on behalf of Amicus Curiae Court
Appointed. (CLS)
0 pg, 0 KB
Document titled "Motion to File Exhibit A-1" received by Appellant. Certificate of Service dated 01/11/2010.
(CLM)
2 pg, 24.22 KB
CLERK LETTER SENT advising Appellant that no action will be taken on the motion to file exhibit A-1 as
the relief sought is unclear. (CLM)
6 pg, 245.39 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone due on or before
06/08/2010. Appendix due on or before 06/08/2010. (CLM)
29 pg, 1.78 MB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for Extension of Time to File Brief and Appendix.
Response due on 05/24/2010. Certificate of Service dated 05/12/2010. (CLM)
1 pg, 19.95 KB
ORDER (Clerk) granting Motion for extension of time to file brief and appendix filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley
J. Caterbone until 07/08/2010, filed. (CLM)
01/13/2010
01/15/2010
04/29/2010
05/14/2010
05/24/2010
Page 19
61 of
Page
of 89
47
3 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:36 AM
07-2151 Docket
07/02/2010
24 pg, 479.55 KB
PRO SE BRIEF with Volume I of appendix attached on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone, filed.
Pages: 8, Certificate of Service dated 06/06/2010 by US mail. (CND)
22 pg, 220.47 KB
ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Amicus Curiae Court Appointed Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.,
filed. Certificate of Service dated 07/08/2010 by email.--[Edited 07/09/2010 by MS] (CLS)
27 pg, 3.64 MB
ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC APPENDIX on behalf of Amicus Curiae Court Appointed Catherine L. Sakach,
Esq., filed. Certificate of service dated 07/09/2010 by US mail, email.--[Edited 07/09/2010 by MS] (CLS)
07/08/2010
07/09/2010
07/12/2010
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Amicus Curiae Court Appointed Catherine L. Sakach, Esq. - Amicus Brief.
Copies: 10. (KEL)
07/12/2010
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Amicus Curiae Court Appointed Amicus Curiae - Supplemental Appendix.
Copies: 4. Volumes: 1 (LAL)
07/20/2010
2 pg, 59.15 KB
ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Jeffrica Jenkins Lee on behalf of Appellee(s) United States
Trustee, Roberta A. DeAngelis. (JJL)
44 pg, 239.74 KB
ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellee Roberta DeAngelis, filed. Certificate of Service
dated 08/06/2010 by US mail, ECF, 3rd party. (JJL)
08/06/2010
08/09/2010
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellee Roberta DeAngelis - Brief. Copies: 10. (SJB)
08/18/2010
1 pg, 21.69 KB
12/29/2010
ORDER (Clerk) Substituting United States Trustee Region 3 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43 for Kelly B.
Stapleton. It is noted that Roberta A. DeAngelis is the current United States Trustee for Region 3, filed.
(LML)
Calendared for Thursday, 03/17/2011. (CND)
2 pg, 35.49 KB
12/30/2010
2 pg, 84.35 KB
ECF FILER: ARGUMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT filed by Attorney Jeffrica J. Lee, Esq. for Appellee US
Trustee Region 3. Certificate of Service dated 12/30/2010. (JJL)
2 pg, 58.66 KB
ECF FILER: ARGUMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT filed by Attorney Catherine L. Sakach, Esq. for Amicus
Curiae Court Appointed Amicus Curiae. Certificate of Service dated 01/04/2011. (CLS)
01/04/2011
03/03/2011
Submit Notification for Thursday, 03/17/2011. (TLG)

1 pg, 25.62 KB
03/08/2011
19 pg, 247.69 KB
03/17/2011
ECF FILER: Letter dated 03/08/2011 , filed pursuant to Rule 28(j) from counsel for Appellee US Trustee
Region 3. This document will be SENT TO THE MERITS PANEL, if/when applicable. (JJL)
SUBMITTED on Thursday, March 17, 2011. Panel: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges (TLG)
9 pg, 105.73 KB
PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 9.
Judge: BARRY Authoring. (JK)
4 pg, 66.46 KB
JUDGMENT, Dismissed and Remanded to the District Court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(JK)
04/04/2011
04/04/2011
04/29/2011
MANDATE ISSUED, filed. (CLM)

6 pg, 112.14 KB
05/03/2011
Page 20
62 of
Page
of 89
47
4 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:36 AM
07-2151 Docket
5 of 5

Documents Only
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:
Totals reflect accessible documents only and do not include unauthorized restricted documents.

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:34:08
Description:
Client Code:
Billable Pages: 3
Cost:
Page 21
63 of
Page
of 89
47
0.30
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:36 AM
07-3054 Docket
General Docket
In Re: Caterbone, et al
Fee Status: IFP
Termed: 01/15/2008

1) bankruptcy
2) District court
3) Bankruptcy
District: 0313-2 : 06-cv-05117
District Judge: Anita B. Brody, U.S. District Judge
06/18/2007
Date NOA Filed:

07/06/2007
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Plaintiff

[NTC Pro Se]
c/o S. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
v.
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORP
Michael A. Henry, Esq.

Direct: 610-820-5450
[COR NTC Retained]
Gross McGinley
33 South 7th Street
P.O. Box 4060
Allentown, PA 18105
Page 22
64 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 4
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:40 AM
07-3054 Docket
In Re: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Debtor
STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
v.
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES
Stanley J. Caterbone,
Appellant
Page 23
65 of
Page
of 89
47
2 of 4
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:40 AM
07-3054 Docket
07/13/2007
Bankruptcy Case Docketed. Notice filed by Stanley J. Caterbone. (CLM)
07/17/2007
RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (LWC)
07/17/2007
CM/ECF case - Portion of record received by Court of Appeals Received document numbers: Document #1.
(LWC)
07/23/2007
LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising appeal has been listed for possible dismissal. (ZM)
07/24/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney Michael A. Henry on behalf of Appellee PPL Elec Util Corp, filed. (CLM)
07/24/2007
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellee PPL Elec Util Corp, filed. (CLM)
07/25/2007
07/30/2007
RESPONSE to Legal Division letter for possible dismissal, on behalf of Appellee PPL Elec Util Corp, filed.
07/31/2007
ORDER (Clerk) granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis by Appellant. The appeal will be submitted to a
panel for determination under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2) or for summary action under Third Circuit L.A.R.
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, filed. FPS-495 (CLM)
07/31/2007
08/17/2007
RESPONSE to Legal Division letter for possible dismissal, on behalf of Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone, filed.
01/15/2008
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION (McKee, Rendell, and Smith, Circuit Judges), filed. Total
Pages: 4. BLD-39 VACATED--[Edited 04/17/2008 by CLC] (CLM)
01/15/2008
JUDGMENT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, filed. VACATED--[Edited 04/17/2008 by CLC] (CLM)
02/06/2008
MANDATE ISSUED, filed (CLM)

2 pg, 32.72 KB
02/06/2008
16 pg, 578.2 KB
03/12/2008
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to File Petition for Rehearing Out of Time and contrued
as a Motion to Recall Mandate. Certificate of Service dated 02/05/2008. (CLM)
04/17/2008
1 pg, 18.95 KB
04/17/2008
ORDER (CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, Circuit Judge) the opinion and judgment filed by this Court on January
15, 2008 are hereby vacated and the mandate shall be recalled. It is further ORDERED that the panel shall
be reconstituted. Appellant's motion to file a petition for rehearing out of time is denied as moot, filed. (CLM)
COURT ORDER granting to Recall Mandate, filed. (CLM)
1 pg, 18.95 KB
04/17/2008
Calendared for Thursday, 04/17/2008. (CMH)
04/17/2008
SUBMITTED on Thursday, April 17, 2008. Panel: SCIRICA, Chief Judges, MCKEE and SMITH, Circuit
Judges. (CMH)
05/29/2008
4 pg, 37.54 KB
05/29/2008
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SCIRICA, MCKEE and SMITH, Circuit Judges. Total
Pages: 4. ELD-26 (CLM)
JUDGMENT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, filed. (CLM)
4 pg, 144.78 KB
MANDATE ISSUED, filed. (MLR)
06/20/2008
4 pg, 112.84 KB
Page 24
66 of
Page
of 89
47
3 of 4
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:40 AM
07-3054 Docket
4 of 4

Documents Only
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:38:28
Description:
Client Code:
Billable Pages: 1
Cost:
Page 25
67 of
Page
of 89
47
0.10
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:40 AM
07-4474 Docket
1 of 6
General Docket
Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison, et al
Fee Status: IFP
Termed: 09/30/2008

1) civil
2) private
3) civil rights
District: 0313-2 : 05-cv-02288
10/23/2007
Date NOA Filed:

11/23/2007
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
Lead
Member
Start
End
07-4474
07-4475
08/19/2008
joined
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
Robert W. Hallinger, Esq.

Direct: 717-390-7934
Email: RHallinger@appelyost.com
Fax: 717-299-9781
[COR NTC Retained]
Appel & Yost
33 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Christopher S. Underhill, Esq.

Direct: 717-299-7254
Email: chrisu@hublaw.com
Fax: 717-299-3160
[COR NTC Retained]
Hartman Underhill & Brubaker
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT

Defendant
AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT
Lawrence D. Mason, Esq.

Direct: 312-474-1405
Email: lmason@smsm.com
Fax: 312-474-1410
[COR NTC Retained]
Daar Fisher Kanaris & Vanek
200 South Wacker Drive
33rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank

George M. Gowen, III, Esq.

Direct: 215-665-2781
Email: ggowen@cozen.com
Fax: 215-701-2028
[COR NTC Retained]
Cozen O'Connor
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place
SOUTH REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT

Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
Defendant
Page 26
68 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4474 Docket
2 of 6
FULTON BANK
Stephanie Carfley, Esq.

Direct: 717-399-1536
Email: scarfley@barley.com
Fax: 717-291-4660
[COR NTC Retained]
Barley Snyder
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Page 27
69 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4474 Docket
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Appellant
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT; AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank;
SOUTH REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.;
FULTON BANK
Page 28
70 of
Page
of 89
47
3 of 6
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4474 Docket
11/30/2007
11/30/2007
RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (CLM)
12/07/2007
LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising appeal has been listed for possible dismissal due to jurisdictional
defect. (NF)
12/07/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney Stephanie Carfley on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. (CLM)
12/07/2007
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. (CLM)
12/10/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney William H. Howard on behalf of Appellee Avalon Pol Dept, filed. (CLM)
12/10/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney Christopher S. Underhill on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol, filed. (CLM)
12/10/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney Robert W. Hallinger on behalf of Appellee Lancaster Cty Prison, filed.--[Edited
07/29/2008 by MGD]--[Edited 07/29/2008 by MGD] (CLM)
12/12/2007
MOTION by Appellant for appointment of counsel, filed. Answer due 12/31/07. Certificate of Service dated
12/12/07. (CLM)
12/13/2007
MOTION by Appellant to extend time to file response to letter of jurisdiction, filed. Answer due 12/31/07.
12/18/2007
APPEARANCE from Attorney George M. Gowen on behalf of Appellee Comm Natl Bank, filed. (CLM)
12/18/2007
(POSITIVE) DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed on behalf of Appellee Comm Natl Bank. (CLM)
12/20/2007
12/20/2007
FOLLOW UP LETTER to Patricia Baxter and Walter H. Swayze requesting the following documents:
**Appearance Form (CLM)
12/20/2007
TRANSCRIPT (Clk), unnecessary for appeal purposes. (CLM)
12/28/2007
RESPONSE to Legal Division letter for possible dismissal, on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed.
Certificate of Service dated 12/26/07.--[Edited 04/22/2008 by CLC] (CLM)
01/02/2008
MOTION by Appellee Manheim Twp Pol to dismiss appeal, filed. Answer due 1/14/08. Certificate of Service
dated 12/31/07. SEND TO MERITS--[Edited 04/22/2008 by CLC] (CLM)
01/16/2008
ORDER (Clerk) it is noted that appellant has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and that appellant
requests an extension of time to file his jurisdictional response until his counsel motion has been
determined. Insofar as the motions panel of this Court that will determine the counsel motion will determine
the jurisdictional issue at the same time, the foregoing motion for an extension of time is denied. Appellant
may have an additional 21 days from the date of this Order to file a response regarding jurisdiction, filed.
(CLM)
02/06/2008
41 pg, 1.65 MB
03/26/2008
1 pg, 21.24 KB
04/22/2008
2 pg, 29.65 KB
RESPONSE on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to Legal Division letter advising of possible
dismissal, filed. Certificate of Service dated 02/05/2008. [Edited 04/22/2008 by CLC]--[Edited 04/22/2008 by
CLC] (CLM)
CLERK ORDER as the District Court granted the Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Mr.
Stanley J. Caterbone, no action will be taken on the motion filed in this court. The appeal will be submitted
to a panel for determination under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) or for summary action under Third Circuit L.A.R.
27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, filed. (PD)
ORDER (AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges) denying Motion for appointment of counsel
filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone; referring to the merits panel the motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, filed. SEND TO MERITS PANEL Panel No.: CLD-170. Judge: FUENTES Authoring (CLM)
2 pg, 71.29 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Stanley J. Caterbone due on or before 06/02/2008.
Appendix due on or before 06/02/2008. (CLM)
11 pg, 152.45 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for Extension of Time to File Brief and Appendix until
07/02/2008. Response due on 05/27/2008. (CJG)
1 pg, 20 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion for extension of time to file brief and appendix until 07/02/2008 filed by
Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone , filed.--[Edited 05/27/2008 by CJC] (CJG)
23 pg, 1.42 MB
Pro Se 1st STEP BRIEF with Appendix attached on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone, filed.
Copies: 4, Pages: 22, Manner of Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 07/02/2008. (LAL)
4 pg, 95.54 KB
MOTION filed by Appellee Avalon Pol Dept to be Relieved from Filing a Brief. Response due on 08/04/2008.
04/22/2008
05/12/2008
05/27/2008
07/02/2008
07/23/2008
07/29/2008
23 pg, 886.61 KB
07/29/2008
11 pg, 255.15 KB
ELECTRONIC 2nd STEP BRIEF with Addendum attached on behalf of Appellee Lancaster County Prison,
filed. Pages: 11, Manner of Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 07/29/2008.--[Edited 07/29/2008 by
MGD] (MS)
ELECTRONIC 2nd STEP BRIEF on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol, filed. Pages: 8, Manner of
Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 07/29/2008. (LAL)
07/30/2008
Notice of telephonic request to Attorney Christopher S. Underhill, Esq. for Appellee Manheim Twp Pol
requesting both E-version and hard copy of addendum to brief to contain a certificate of Bar membership,
Identity and virus scan for Appellee Manheim Township Police Dept. brief and service for addnedum.
Response due in 3 days. (LAL)
07/30/2008
COMPLIANCE RECEIVED. Electronic addendum to brief of Appellee Manheim Township Police Dept..
(LAL)
Page 29
71 of
Page
of 89
47
4 of 6
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4474 Docket
07/30/2008
3 pg, 48.31 KB
ELECTRONIC ADDENDUM to BRIEF on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol containing certificate of bar
membership, identity and virus scan, filed. Manner of Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 07/30/2008.
(LAL)
07/30/2008
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellee Lancaster Cty Prison - 2nd Step Brief with Addendum attached.
Copies: 10. (EAF)
07/31/2008
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellee Manheim Twp Pol - 2nd Step Brief. Copies: 10. (EAF)
08/01/2008
50 pg, 1.74 MB
08/04/2008
ELECTRONIC 2nd STEP BRIEF on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. Pages: 40, Words: 10161,
Manner of Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 08/01/2008. (EAF)
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellee Manheim Twp Pol - Addendum to Brief. Copies: 10. (MS)
08/04/2008
9 pg, 89.81 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for a 30- day Extension of Time to File Reply Brief.
Response due on 08/15/2008. Certificate of Service dated 07/31/2008. (DW)
1 pg, 20.22 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion for extension of time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J.
Caterbone. Reply brief due on or before 09/15/2008 , filed. (DW)
08/07/2008
08/11/2008
HARD COPY RECEIVED from Appellee Fulton Bank - 2nd Step Brief. Copies: 10. (EMA)
08/11/2008
Notice of telephonic request to Attorney Stephanie Carfley, Esq. for Appellee Fulton Bank for a motion for
leave to file supplemental appendix. Response due in 3 days. (EMA)
08/13/2008
COMPLIANCE RECEIVED. Received motion to file supplemental appendix. (EMA)
08/13/2008
5 pg, 190.41 KB
08/19/2008
MOTION filed by Appellee Fulton Bank for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix. Response due on
08/25/2008. Certificate of Service dated 08/12/2008. (EMA)
CLERK ORDER consolidating appeal nos. 07-4474 and 07-4475 for purposes of disposition, filed. (CLM)
1 pg, 21.33 KB
08/22/2008
1 pg, 20.27 KB
08/22/2008
CLERK ORDER granting Motion by Appellee Fulton Bank for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix with
filing as of the date of this Order, filed. (See Attachment for Complete Text). (EMA)
SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX on behalf of Appellee Fulton Bank, filed. Copies: 4. Volumes: 1. Manner of
Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 08/01/2008. (EMA)
08/26/2008
2 pg, 50.72 KB
RESPONSE on behalf of Appellee Manheim Twp Pol to Motion for relief from Rule 31 requirements, filed.
1 pg, 25.32 KB
ORDER (AMBRO and FUENTES, Circuit Judges) granting Motion for relief from Rule 31 requirements filed
by Appellee Avalon Pol Dept, filed. Panel No.: CCO-138. Ambro, Authoring Judge. (CLM)
09/08/2008
09/15/2008
CALENDARED for Friday, 09/26/2008. [07-4474, 07-4475] (CMH)

1 pg, 140.22 KB
09/25/2008
4 pg, 91.01 KB
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE filed by Attorney Lawrence D. Mason, Esq. for Appellee Avalon Pol Dept..
(CLM)
4 pg, 91.01 KB
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE from Attorney William H. Howard in 07-4474 for Appellee Avalon Pol
Dept in 07-4474. (CLM)
09/25/2008
09/26/2008
SUBMITTED (Pro Se - 3rd Cir. LAR 34.1(a)) Date: Friday, 09/26/2008 Panel: SLOVITER, BARRY and
NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. [07-4474, 07-4475] (PM)
09/30/2008
8 pg, 46.34 KB
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit
Judges. Total Pages:. [07-4474, 07-4475] (CLM)
6 pg, 146.61 KB
JUDGMENT vacated and the cases are remanded for further proceedings. Costs will not be taxed.
[07-4474, 07-4475] (CLM)
09/30/2008
10/22/2008
MANDATE ISSUED, filed. [07-4474, 07-4475] (DW)

4 pg, 140.24 KB
Page 30
72 of
Page
of 89
47
5 of 6
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4474 Docket
6 of 6

Documents Only
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:41:30
Description:
Client Code:
Billable Pages: 3
Cost:
Page 31
73 of
Page
of 89
47
0.30
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:42 AM
07-4475 Docket
General Docket
Caterbone, et al v. Wenger, et al
Fee Status: IFP
Termed: 09/30/2008

1) civil
2) private
3) civil rights
District: 0313-2 : 06-cv-04650
10/23/2007
Date NOA Filed:

11/23/2007
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
Lead
Member
Start
End
07-4474
07-4475
08/19/2008
joined
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Plaintiff
v.
RANDALL O. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary
Defendant
MATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of
Lancaster County
Defendant
MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County
Defendant
LEO ECKERT, Lancaster County District Magistrate
Defendant
KELLY S. BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate
Defendant
MAYNARD HAMILTON, JR.
Defendant
DENISE COMMINS, Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge
Defendant
RICHARD H. SIMMS, Lancaster County District Magistrate
Defendant
STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County District Magistrate
Defendant
WILLIAM G. REUTER
Defendant
MICHAEL SMITH, Dalphin County District Magistrate
Defendant
RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department
Defendant
THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police
Defendant
ADAM CRAMER, of the Southern Regional Police Dept.
Defendant
Page 32
74 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:45 AM
07-4475 Docket
JOHN FIORILL
Defendant
ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police Department
Defendant
ROBERT M. FEDOR, of the Southern Regional Police Department
Defendant
ROBERT BOURNE
Defendant
JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office
Defendant
NELSON BREWSTER, Investigator, of the PA Attorney General
Office
Defendant
MICHAEL K. SCHAEFER
Defendant
LUIS FURINA
Defendant
DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County District Attorney
Defendant
MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County
Defendant
Page 33
75 of
Page
of 89
47
2 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:45 AM
07-4475 Docket
STANLEY J. CATERBONE;
v.
MR. RANDALL O. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary;
MATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of
Lancaster County; JUDGE MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County; LEO
J. ECKERT JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; KELLY S.
BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MAYNARD
HAMILTON, JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; DENISE COMMINS,
Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge; RICHARD H. SIMMS,
Lancaster County District Magistrate; STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; WILLIAM G. REUTER, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; MICHAEL SMITH, Dalphin County District Magistrate;
OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department;
OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police;
OFFICER ADAM CRAMER, of the Southern Regional Police Dept.;
CHIEF JOHN FIORILL; OFFICER ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police
Department; OFFICER ROBERT M. FEDOR, of the Southern Regional Police
Department; ROBERT BOURNE, of the Southern Regional Police Department;
JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office; NELSON BREWSTER,
Investigator, of the PA Attorney General Office; OFFICER MICHAEL K.
SCHAEFER; LUIS FURINA; DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County
District Attorney; DETECTIVE MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County
Stanley J. Caterbone,
Appellant
Page 34
76 of
Page
of 89
47
3 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:45 AM
07-4475 Docket
12/07/2007
12/11/2007
LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising appeal has been listed for possible dismissal due to jurisdictional
defect. (NF)
12/12/2007
MOTION by Appellant for appointment of counsel, filed. Answer due 12/31/07. Certificate of Service dated
12/12/07. (CLM)
12/20/2007
MOTION by Appellant to extend time to file response to letter of jurisdiction, filed. Answer due 12/27/07.
12/20/2007
01/04/2008
ATTORNEY NOT PARTICIPATING: Atty Gen PA advises they will not participate in this appeal. [SEND TO
MERITS PANEL] (CLM)
01/15/2008
ORDER (Clerk) it is noted that appellant has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and that appeallant
requests an extension of time to file his jurisdictional response until his counsel motion has been
determined. Insofar as the motions panel of this Court that will determine the counsel motion will determine
the jurisdictional issue at the same time, the foregoing motion for an extension of time is denied. Appellant
may have an additional 21 days from the date of this Order to file a response regarding jurisdiction, filed.
(CLM)
01/23/2008
ORDER (Clerk) it appearing that the District Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. No
action will be taken on the motion as it is unnecessary. The appeal will be submitted to a panel for
determination under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2) or for summary action under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and
I.O.P. 10.6, filed. FPS-127 (CLM)
01/23/2008
36 pg, 1.54 MB
RESPONSE on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to Legal Division letter advising of possible
dismissal, filed. Certificate of Service dated 02/05/2008. SEND TO MERITS--[Edited 04/22/2008 by CLC]
(CLM)
2 pg, 28.04 KB
ORDER (AMBRO, FUENTES and JORDAN, Circuit Judges) denying Motion for appointment of counsel
filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone; referring to the merits panel the question of jurisdiction, filed.
SEND TO MERITS PANEL. Panel No.: CLD-171. Judge: FUENTES Authoring (CLM)
02/06/2008
04/22/2008
04/22/2008
2 pg, 70.33 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED. Brief on behalf of Stanley J. Caterbone due on or before 06/02/2008.
Appendix due on or before 06/02/2008. (CLM)
12 pg, 172.16 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for Extension of Time to File Brief and Appendix until
07/02/2008. Response due on 05/27/2008. (CJG)
1 pg, 19.21 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion for extension of time to file brief and appendix until 07/02/2008 filed by
Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone, filed. (CJG)
18 pg, 1.07 MB
Pro Se 1st STEP BRIEF with Appendix attached on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone, filed.
Copies: 4, Pages: 19, Manner of Service: mail, Certificate of Service dated 07/02/2008. (LAL)
05/21/2008
05/22/2008
07/02/2008
07/02/2008
LIST APPELLANT'S BRIEF ONLY. (LAL)
08/19/2008
CLERK ORDER consolidating case nos. 07-4474 and 07-4475 for purposes of disposition, filed. (CLM)
1 pg, 21.33 KB
09/03/2008
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: ERROR: Incorrect Court Order Attached to the
4/22/08 entry. CORRECTION: Incorrect order removed, correct order attached and correct order emailed to
the parties. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. (CLM)
CALENDARED for Friday, 09/26/2008. [07-4474, 07-4475] (CMH)
09/15/2008
1 pg, 140.22 KB
09/26/2008
SUBMITTED (Pro Se - 3rd Cir. LAR 34.1(a)) Date: Friday, 09/26/2008 Panel: SLOVITER, BARRY and
NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. [07-4474, 07-4475] (PM)
09/30/2008
8 pg, 46.34 KB
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit
Judges. Total Pages:. [07-4474, 07-4475] (CLM)
6 pg, 146.61 KB
JUDGMENT vacated and the cases are remanded for further proceedings. Costs will not be taxed.
[07-4474, 07-4475] (CLM)
09/30/2008
10/22/2008
MANDATE ISSUED, filed. [07-4474, 07-4475] (DW)

4 pg, 140.24 KB
Page 35
77 of
Page
of 89
47
4 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:45 AM
07-4475 Docket
5 of 5

Documents Only
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:44:02
Description:
Client Code:
Billable Pages: 2
Cost:
Page 36
78 of
Page
of 89
47
0.20
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:45 AM
10-2313 Docket
General Docket
Stanley Caterbone, et al v. Fulton Financial Corp, et al
Fee Status: IFP
Termed: 08/25/2010

1) civil
2) private
3) civil rights
District: 0313-2 : 5-10-cv-01558
Trial Judge: Mary A. McLaughlin, U.S. District Judge
Date Order/Judgment EOD:
04/14/2010
04/14/2010
Date NOA Filed:

05/04/2010
Prior Cases:
None
Current Cases:
None
Direct: 717-669-2163
[NTC Pro Se]
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Plaintiff

[Pro Se]
c/o S. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
v.
FULTON FINANCIAL CORP
R. SCOTT SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO
PHILLIP WENGER, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF FULTON
FINANCIAL CORPORATION
RUFUS FULTON, FORMER CHAIRMAN AND CEO AND
CURRENT MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SUSAN A. FOLLMER, SECURITY OFFICER OF FULTON
FINANCIAL CORPORATION
FULTON BANK
CRAIG RODA, PRESIDENT OF FULTON BANK
FERNANDO SANCHEZ, MANOR BRANCH MANAGER AT
FULTON BANK
NEIL HARKINS, CHIEF OF MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT
STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ., PARTNER OF BARLEY SNYDER,
LLC
SHAWN LONG, ESQ.
Page 37
79 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:52 AM
10-2313 Docket
HARTMAN UNDERHILL AND BRUBAKER

CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL, ESQ. UNDERHILL, BRUBAKER
AND HARTMAN, LLC
MARGARET MILLER, JUDGE FOR THE LANCASTER COUNTY
COURT OF COMMONN PLEAS
BARLEY SNYDER
Page 38
80 of
Page
of 89
47
2 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:52 AM
10-2313 Docket
STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GRP,

Appellants
v.
FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION; MR. R. SCOTT SMITH, CHAIRMAN AND CEO; MR. PHILLIP WENGER, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER OF FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION; MR. RUFUS FULTON, FORMER CHAIRMAN AND CEO AND CURRENT
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SUSAN A. FOLLMER, SECURITY OFFICER OF FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
FULTON BANK; MR. CRAIG RODA, PRESIDENT OF FULTON BANK; MR. FERNANDO SANCHEZ, MANOR BRANCH MANAGER AT
FULTON BANK; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; MR. NEIL HARKINS, CHIEF OF MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPARTMENT; MS. STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ., PARTNER OF BARLEY SNYDER, LLC; MR. SHAWN LONG, ESQ.; HARTMAN
UNDERHILL AND BRUBAKER, LLC; MR. CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL, ESQ. UNDERHILL, BRUBAKER AND HARTMAN, LLC;
MARGARET A. MILLER, JUDGE FOR THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMONN PLEAS; BARLEY SNYDER, LLC
Page 39
81 of
Page
of 89
47
3 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:52 AM
10-2313 Docket
05/14/2010
7 pg, 214.29 KB
05/14/2010
CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellants Stanley J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Grp in
District Court No. 10-cv-01558. (LML)
SIMBRAW ORDER SENT informing party cannot represent corporation. (LML)
1 pg, 63.58 KB
TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER FORM (Part 1), filed. No proceedings in District Court. (CLM)
05/14/2010
1 pg, 68.63 KB
05/14/2010
RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (CLM)
05/18/2010
2 pg, 82.27 KB
LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising that the case has been listed for possible dismissal due to
jurisdictional defect. (MW)
3 pg, 135.09 KB
RESPONSE on behalf of Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to clerk order dated May 14, 2010, filed.
3 pg, 205.55 KB
ORDER (SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges) dismissing appeal as to Stanley Caterbone and
Advanced Media Group for lack of jurisdiction, filed. Panel No.: ALD-266. Smith, Authoring Judge. (CLM)
05/24/2010
08/25/2010
Page 40
82 of
Page
of 89
47
4 of 5
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:52 AM
10-2313 Docket
5 of 5

Documents Only
Selected Pages:
Selected Size:

Transaction Receipt
Third Circuit - 10/07/2015 00:47:09
Description:
Client Code:
Billable Pages: 1
Cost:
Page 41
83 of
Page
of 89
47
0.10
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
10/7/2015 12:52 AM
Lanca terOnline.com:Ncws: 15 ,000 greet Obama here
Page 1 of 3
Intelligencer Journal
15,000 greet Obama here
Article Photos
Video
P1Jblisn a Sep 05 200S

02.15 E T
Lancasler
Map Related Share It
Embed this
vide_o~our site~
Sen . Barack Obama's Lancaster address

Blame T
tlahan I Lancasler Newspapers
More Local Videos
rings
3 Dam
c..
9:39m
picks
16:56m
Presidential Candidate Obama at Buchanan Park

Page42
1 of
Page
84
of
Page
of189
47
http ://articlcs.lancasteronline.com/locaI11 8/22682111869
Chestnut..
1 35m
September
4, 2008
Friday,
October
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
October
08,
9/512008
Outlook.com - scaterbone@live.com
https://col131.mail.live.com/?tid=cmrUmIGFQb5RGM9QAjfeQUag2&f...
New
Reply
Delete
Archive
Junk
Sweep
Move to
Categories
Stan J. Caterbone
RE: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Folders
Susan Lindauer via LinkedIn (member@linkedin.com) 6/25/15
Inbox
To: Stan Caterbone
Social updates
Junk 2
Drafts
Sent
Deleted
Susan Lindauer
Author, Whistleblower, Founder of ENGAGE Global Action
AA Inbox 41
Deed and City Rehab
Stan,
Ebay and Online Purcha

Facebook
I want to reassure you that nobody would put you on a terror list as an email recipient from
a Muslim Group. You don't need to be afraid on that score. I'm sure you're okay.
Fax Folder 146

FFCHS Communications
Susan
Geek Squad 1
Go Fund Me 2
Lambert Case 14
LinkedIn 5
On 6/25/15, 4:00 AM, Stan Caterbone wrote:

-------------------Susan, Could they have put me on a Terrorist List? The following is an email that I sent to
the Lancaster City Police Department -
May-June Surge 51
Mind Control Research
Saved Sent
New folder
"Some years ago this Muslim group, http://www.ikhwanscope.net/

was found to have visited my website and was a follower on my twitter account. Back at
this time there were middle eastern people following me around Lancaster. I tried to warn
people on my blogs and social media that it was not a good idea to be torturing me like this
for the reason that it gives the Muslim community an opportunity to call our government
hypocrites when it comes to our foreign policy.
I have emailed about this and now I cannot find my files verifying and confirming that it
was a one way communication to me, not me to them.
Did you take this file to justify putting me on a terrorist list so that you can justify using
COINTELPRO on me?
I did manage to find a file with the following on that is dated January 8, 2010:"
Stan J. Caterbone
717-669-2163
Reply to Susan
Replying via your email application will message everyone in the conversation.
You are receiving member message notifications emails. Unsubscribe
This email was intended for Stan Caterbone (Victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control). Learn why we included this.
If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.
2015, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
Too many newsletters? You can unsubscribe.
2015 Microsoft
Terms
Privacy & cookies
Developers
Page 43
85 of
Page
of 89
47
1 of 1
English (United States)
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
9/15/2015 3:59 AM
Obama Interrogation Official Linked to U.S. Mind Control Research | The...
1 of 28
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/50281
About us
Login HereAdvertise
Contact Us
Send Comments/Tips
Home
Firedoglake
News
Emptywheel
TBogg
ATTACKERMAN
La Figa
Book Salon
FDL Action
Blue America
Work
Elections
FDL TV
The Next Democratic Primary Senate Candidate We Need to Support
Food Sunday: Food News You Can Use
Obama Interrogation Official Linked to U.S. Mind Control Research

Tweet
By: Jeff Kaye Sunday May 23, 2010 2:42 pm
49
Share
13
A new article at Truthout, by H.P. Albarelli and Jeffrey Kaye, describes how the CIAs Artichoke Project*
was the contemporaneous and operational side of the MK-ULTRA mind control research program. It was not
superceded by MK-ULTRA in the 1950s, as often supposed. Even more, Artichoke-derived methods of using
drugs, hypnosis, sensory deprivation and overload, behavioral modification techniques and other methods of
mind control have resurfaced as a primary component of U.S. interrogation practice.
The Truthout article includes some amazing revelations, including the largest description to date of the roles
of then-Ford administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in working hand-in-glove with the
CIA to suppress information on Artichoke from surfacing.
The article also references the November 2006 release of an "Instruction" from the Secretary of the Navy
(3900.39D) regarding its "Human Research Protection Program." While this memo specifically prohibits the
use of research upon prisoners, including so-called "unlawful enemy combatants," waivers of informed
consent for research, or suspension of the protections enumerated in the memo can be made by the Secretary
of the Navy under conditions of "operational contingency or during times of national emergency." It is likely
the latter rests upon the legislative language within the September 18, 2001 Authorization to Use Military
Force, where terrorist acts are said to "continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
Page 44
86 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
5/25/2010 2:35 PM
2 of 28
security and foreign policy of the United States."

The waivers allowed for normal human research testing gains further piquancy when one considers the kinds
of research referenced in the Secretary of the Navys memo. Section 7(a)(2)(a) describes the Undersecretary
of the Navy as the "approval authority" for research done upon prisoners, as well as "Severe or unusual
intrusions, either physical or psychological, on human subjects (such as consciousness-altering drugs or
mind-control techniques)" [emphasis added].
This referencing of "mind-control techniques" in a document specifically discussing human subjects
protections by then Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, is not an anomaly, but a rare instance in which
the actual activities of the government in this area are openly revealed. Some of these activities can be
documented via publicly available materials. This article describes how some of the individuals involved in
U.S. government mind control and torture activities can be tracked and identified.
APA, CIA: "How might we overload the system or overwhelm the senses?"
Another instance in which the curtain was pulled back on mind control research by the U.S. government
involved the online description by the American Psychological Association (APA) of a CIA and Rand
Corporation workshop which it co-sponsored in July 2003 at Rands Arlington, Virginia headquarters. The
event was attended by approximately 40 research psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists, as well as
"representatives from the CIA, FBI and Department of Defense with interests in intelligence operations."
One of these workshops, ostensibly on detection of deception, specifically described how participants should
consider "sensory overloads on the maintenance of deceptive behaviors," including the use of
"pharmacological agents. "How might we," the workshop asked, "overload the system or overwhelm the
senses and see how it affects deceptive behaviors?"
The man in charge of "recruiting the operational expertise" for the workshop was Kirk Hubbard, Chief of the
Research & Analysis Branch, Operational Assessment Division of the CIA. It appears likely that Hubbard
was responsible for the presence at the workshop of SERE psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen,
who were instrumental in the construction of the Bush administrations "enhanced interrogation" torture
program. Hubbard was also reported (by Scott Shane of the New York Times) to have brought James Mitchell
to an informal meeting "of professors and law enforcement and intelligence officers to brainstorm about
Muslim extremism" at the home of former APA president Martin Seligman in November 2001.
Sometime in the past six months, the APA eliminated all references to the webpage described above, even
going so far as to eliminate linked references to it on other webpages on its site. While the webpage that
described the workshops has been scrubbed, mirrored images of the site remain available at well-known web
archive sites, as I described in a recent article on this attempt to rewrite or hide APAs offensive history. In
one sense, this attempt to hide its history is not surprising, because the kind of activities discussed in these
workshops are exactly like those that involved CIA and military mind control torture programs going back
fifty years or more, and evidently still operational today.
The Role of Government Psychologist Susan Brandon
In a recent article, Scott Horton at Harpers picked up on the unique link between the APA/CIA workshop
and the recent revelations about torture at a hitherto unknown black site prison at Bagram Air Base in
Afghanistan. That link was an individual, Susan Brandon.
Referenced by Horton as working for the Defense Intelligence Agencys (DIA), Defense Counterintelligence
and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC), a recent publication identified Brandon more fully as Chief for
Research in the DCHCs Behavioral Science Program. As Horton notes, a recent column by Marc Ambinder
Page 45
87 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
5/25/2010 2:35 PM
3 of 28
at The Atlantic described the DCHC as providing "intelligence operatives and interrogators.. [performing]
interrogations for a sub-unit of Task Force 714, an elite counter-terrorism brigade." Interrogations at the
Afghan black site reportedly have included use of sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, brutality, isolation,
relying on the guidelines of the Army Field Manual, including its Appendix M. Many human rights groups
have criticized Appendix M as including techniques tantamount to torture and/or cruel, inhumane and
degrading and illegal by domestic and international law.
Back in 2003, according to an APA news article, Brandon "jointly conceived" the APA/CIA workshops with
Rand Associate Policy Analyst, Scott Gerwehr. (Mr. Gerwehr reportedly died a few years ago.) At the time,
psychologist Susan Brandon was the Program Officer for Affect and Biobehavioral Regulation at the National
Institute of Mental Health, and worked on the APA/CIA program while also serving as "Senior Scientist" at
the APA.
In the early 2000s, Dr. Brandon served as Behavioral and Social Science Principal at the Mitre Corporation, a
company highly linked to U.S. Air Defense. Subsequent to her stint as APAs Senior Scientist, she went on to
work in for the Bush administration as Assistant Director of Social, Behavioral, and Educational Sciences for
the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. In addition, she became an instrumental member of
the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBES) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology
Councils Committees on Science and Homeland and National Security.
Subsequently, as described in an important article by Stephen Soldz that extends many of the points in this
essay, Brandon joined the Defense Departments Counterintelligence Field Activity group (CIFA), which was
later disbanded and reformed as part of the DCHC. Soldz also reminds us that Brandon was "one of the silent
observers at the [APA] PENS [Psychological Ethics and National Security] taskforce described by dissident
taskforce member Jean Maria Arrigo as exerting pressure on members to adopt a likely pre-approved policy
in favor of participation in Guantnamo, CIA, and other interrogations. According to a 2005 article by Geoff
Mumford, APAs Director of Science Policy, Dr. Branford "helped steer much of the associations scientific
outreach relevant to counter-terrorism after 9/11."
One example of such outreach would include the June 11, 2002 meeting between Branford, and other top
APA officials with "two senior staff members in the National Security Councils (NSCs) Office of Combating
Terrorism" (OCT). Since Vice Admiral William McRaven was head of OCT at that time, perhaps Brandons
acquaintance with the world of Special Operations dates to that time, as McRaven was to become
Commander of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
JSOC is the other Defense Department component, besides DIA, that has been linked currently with the
management of the black site prisons run by the Obama administration, subsequent to President Obamas
apparent closure of the CIA black sites. One reputable source has informed me that there are eight such black
site prisons in Afghanistan alone. A recent report by the BBC corroborated earlier reports by the New York
Times and the Washington Post. The article by Ambinder further elaborated upon this story.
Why is the Obama Administration Still Involved in Torture?
It is not known if Dr. Brandon has been involved in any of the reported abuses of prisoners coming out of
Bagrams Tor prison, or elsewhere. Yet one would think the Obama administration and the Pentagon has a lot
to explain in utilizing as their behavioral chief of research for an agency involved in intelligence operations,
including interrogation. But then, why is the Obama administration involved in torture or operating secret
prisons at all? President Obama has manifestly broken his promise to the American people to end torture and
close all secret prisons. Nor has Congress done their due diligence in investigating these matters. Only when
the American people fully understand the extent to which these activities have occupied the government and
their various collaborators, like the APA, will society be able to take the necessary steps to end these abuses,
and hold those accountable for what amount to crimes against humanity.
Page 46
88 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
5/25/2010 2:35 PM
4 of 28
As for psychologists, Dr. Soldz rightly notes, "Psychology as a profession is at a crossroads." The same holds
true for other professions involved with this abusive and criminal history, including the activities of
anthropologists in the militarys Human Terrain System teams in Afghanistan, researchers in numerous
academic departments across the country, and the many reports of doctors and other medical personnel
involved in the monitoring of torture activities for the CIA and Defense Department. The use of torture has
suborned U.S. civil society as a whole in activities that are dark and evil, and the society as a whole must
make a tremendous effort if it is to extirpate such evil from its midst.
*For an early document referring to Artichokes history, see CIA, Memorandum for the Record, Subject:
Project ARTICHOKE, January 31, 1975. While this MOR downplays Artichokes history, it represents the
degree to which the CIA was willing to reveal such operations. The Truthout article discusses Operation
Dormouse, where then Ford administration officials Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld worked with the CIA
to limit revelations about Artichoke and other CIA torture and assassination operations.
61 Comments
Spotlight
Tags: Torture, CIA, Scott Horton, Black Sites, Navy, Dia, mind control, Susan Brandon, H.P. Albarelli,
DCHC
Related Posts
CIA vs DoD Turf War: Finding Terrorists April 28, 2010
Official Joint Chiefs Policy for Long-Term Detention and Interrogation of Civilians April 9, 2010
CIA Second Taping System Reported in Zubaydah Interrogation April 18, 2010
APA Scrubs Pages Linking It to CIA Torture Workshops May 16, 2010
While SCOTUS Nomination Sucks Up All The Oxygen, Obama Meets with Intel Advisory Board May
10, 2010
61 Responses to Obama Interrogation Official Linked to U.S. Mind Control Research

ubetchaiam May 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm
1
But then, why is the Obama administration involved in torture or operating secret prisons at all? President
Obama has manifestly broken his promise to the American people to end torture and close all secret prisons.
Nor has Congress done their due diligence in investigating these matters. ; this may be part of the answer to
your question Jeff.
Reply
plunger May 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
2
WHO DOSED IVINS WITH LSD? HOW FREQUENTLY? DID THE DELUSIONAL EPISODES AND THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION BOTH COMMENCE IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME? GOT PLANNING?
LSD leaves a metallic taste in the users mouth
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&
cd=1&q=lsd+%2B+metallic+taste&spell=1
Page 47
89 of
Page
of 89
47
Friday,October
October08,
09, 2015
2015
Thursday,
5/25/2010 2:35 PM

Electronic File October 16, 2015 To Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Re in Forma Pauperis Appeal For Reconsideration Case No 08-13373

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronic File October 16, 2015 To Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Re in Forma Pauperis Appeal For Reconsideration Case No 08-13373

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

In Re: STANLEY J. CATERBONE

APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION for IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

PA State Rules require a party to inform the court of improvement in financial

Friday, October 16, 2015

Even the probability of unfairness can result in a

case no. 07-4474, see attached.

Friday, October 16, 2015

facts formed for the purpose

Friday, October 16, 2015

Where RICO laws might be applied1

Friday, October 16, 2015

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

limitations has run out.

Dated October 16th , 2015

Friday, October 16, 2015

Friday, October 16,

&. *2$ * ! - ( &.

Friday, October 09, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 24

Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

Motion for Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperls

Date: September 30, 2015

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 24

prepaid, or by electronic mail upon, or by hand deliver to:

Date: September 30, 2015

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 24

United States Oi$trict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

Atlldavtt In Support of Motion

I swear or affinn under penalty of perjury that,

Complete all questions on this application and

or aflirm under penally of perjury that my

need more space to answer a question or fu

My issues on Appeal are:

Was Appellant Provided Opportunity To Respond To Lower Court Order?

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Friday, October 09, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 24

Income from real property (such as

Interest and Dividends

Disability (such as social security,

Public Assistance (such as welfare)

Total monthly income

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 24

1250 Fremont street

Gross Monthly Pay

Advanced Media Group

2005 to Present $0.00

Pftumm Contractors, Inc.

Advanced Media Group

1857 Colonial Village Lane

Financial Management Group 1755 Oregon Pike

Dates of Employment Gross Monthly Pay

4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $1300.00

Amount you have

Amount your spouse

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed 10/01/15 Page 6 of 24

Other real estate

&. 2$ ! - ( &.

Case 05-23059-ref Doc 132 od~ iatltaEHhall~~~l>ta~arMiifl 11, 2010