Case No. 16-05715 Emergency Injunction Re CULLEN Motion To Recuse EXHIBIT Re Complaint Re Courthouse Employees - June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400
Page 1 of 231
Thursday, November 19, 2015

mailto:amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
April 26, 2007

Judicial Council
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia Pa 19106-1790
Re:
Future Federal Courthouse in Lancaster County
Dear Sir or Madam:

With respect to your efforts of bringing a Federal Courthouse to downtown Lancaster, I
would be remiss if I did not share this information with you. In all due respect for the Federal
Courts, I would like to caution you regarding the conduct of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County Pennsylvania personnel. I assume many of whom may wish to seek employment, should
the opportunity arise.
I have had such horrendous experiences with respect to Court filings, rulings, and
procedures, I would hope that you would plan ahead to prevent the same problems from
occurring at the Federal level. Justice is the fabric or our nation, and it should be treated with
respect and honor.
Enclosed are some copies of correspondence that I would like to share with you in the
hope that when the Federal Courthouse in Lancaster is operational, there will be an opportunity
for me to conduct my litigation free from misconduct.
I look forward to your decision on a location, and seeing your efforts come to fruition.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
cc:
Rick Gray, Mayor of the City of Lancaster

Senator Arlen Specter
Randy Patterson, Lancaster City Director of Economic Development
U.S. Congressman Joseph Pitts
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel
Enclosures
Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 1 of 231
Page 1 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 2 of 231
Page 2 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 3 of 231
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant/06-5238-200

Lancaster County Prison 625 E. King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Mr. Dale R. Delinger
Clerk of Courts
Lancaster County Courthouse
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re: Criminal Court Documents
December 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Delinger,
I have received your letter dated December 26, 2006, and you are confusing me. I
have reason to believe that my documents are not being filed in your office or are not
being filed in a timely manner. I have had similar problems with your staff this past year
when I personally filed court documents at the Lancaster County Courthouse.
For the above reason, I am formally requesting a copy of all documents that I have
filed since October 30th, 2006, and sent to me at the prison. I am not receiving receipts
for all of my filings. This past summer my drivers license appeal and related documents
to Penn DOT are missing from your office.
I am also formally and officially requesting a transcript of the court record for all of
my court trials and appearances, as prescribed by law. The trial of CP-36-CR-00028432006 is under appeal and CP-36-CR-0003179-2006 is now formally being challenged for
civil rights violations under 1983.
In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 13, 76 S ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1959) An indigent
has a Constitutional Right to Free Transcript for Appeal of Right.
I would appreciate a quick response to these matters as they are material to
my Federal litigation in United States District Court case no.s 05-cv-2288 and 06-cv4650.
Stanley J. Caterbone

Page 3 of 231
Page 2 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 4 of 231
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
February 21, 2007
Mr. Randall O. Wenger
Prothonotary of Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re: Civil Action CI-00019-07 and CI-06-02271 Court Docket
Dear Mr. Wenger:
There is a problem within your office of the way that you are recording Court Orders by Judge
Michael Georgelis on the Docket for my civil action against Fulton Bank, CI-07-00019.
On February 1, 2007, I attended a meeting in the chambers of Judge Georgelis with Fulton Bank
attorney Mr. Shawn Long. Mr. Long was submitting an ORDER for DISMISSAL of my Petition To Set
Aside The Sale of Real Estate concerning my Sheriff Sale of December 20th, 2006. The property is
located at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga. During the meeting, Mr. Long acknowledged that the
Fulton Bank RESPONSE that I received the previous day on January 31, 2007, and that he was
submitting to Judge Georgelis had not yet been recorded in the Prothonotary.
On February 2nd, 2007, via 1st class mail, I received an ORDER signed by Judge Georgelis, DENIED
with prejudice, dated FEBRUARY 1, 2007. On February 6, 2007, my REPLY to the Fulton Bank
RESPONSE was recorded.
The problem arose when I pulled up the court docket on your computer, and conveniently the
ORDER was under the date of February 6, 2007, the same day my REPLY was recorded. This definitely
deceives the fact that Judge Georgelis signed that ORDER to Fulton Banks RESPONSE DENYING my
Petition, less than one day after I received it, and prior to the time that my REPLY was filed and
recorded. Your staff explained that it took from February 1st to February 6th for the ORDER to travel
from the 4th floor to the 2nd floor, and they used the date that they received the ORDER from Judge
Georgelis office. This is illegal and wrong. You are maliciously tainting the COURT RECORD.
During the meeting of February 1, 2007, I again requested that Judge Georgelis recuse himself
from this case. Without any opportunity to support my motion, he denied my request stating that he
has been sued by many people that come before him in Court, and that if he would allow himself to be
recused, he would have 6,000 inmates requesting the same.
Aside form the fact that Judge Georgelis is a DEFENDANT in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-cv-4650, he also preside over the case of William A.
Clark v. James H. Guerin, Chairman and CEO of International Signal & Control (ISC) in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas in 1989. Then, my former attorney, Joseph Roda, represented Mr.
William A. Clark, a former top legal advisor to International Signal & Control.
More importantly, International Signal & Control is central to many of my Federal civil actions filed
in the U.S. District Courts in Philadelphia beginning in May of 2005, and is central to my Federal False
Claims Act civil action 06-cv-3955 filed in October of 2006.
For your information, I also enclosed a document that may shed some light as to the dire
consequences of my whistle-blowing allegations of International Signal & Control in 1987, and the vital
importance of my court actions and filings.

Page 4 of 231
Page 3 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 5 of 231
Page 2
February 21, 2007
May I suggest your preserve the integrity of the Courts and the Record, especially since this
matter is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, case number 71 MT 2007, and the Superior
Court.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc:

The Honorable Michael Georgelis

Enclosures
Page 5 of 231
Page 4 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 6 of 231
Page 6 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 5 of 12
04.26.2007
Page 7 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
February 22, 2007
Mr. Dale R. Denlinger
Clerk of Courts of Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re:
Motion for Continuance of February 15, 2007

CP-36-SA-0000160-2006
CP-36-SA-0000159-2006
Dear Mr. Wenger:

There is a problem within your office of the way that you are handling my criminal proceedings.
Yesterday, I had problems with the paperwork, which has always been a problem in your office, and I
requested the status of the above continuance. I was informed, the the Motion for Continuance was
never sent up to a Judge for a Ruling.
This is unfortunate, and given the history of problems that your staff causes me, I am formally
alleging foul play and malice within the Clerk of Courts to Obstruct Justice.
Most insulting, is the allegation by The Honorable Judge Reinaker on his ORDER of January 19, 2007
which he states the following: The Court notes that Defendant has deliberately failed to properly
identify the matters which form the basis of his request by refusing to provide the accurate docket
numbers. I have always maintained that it was your office that either was providing erroneous
numbers, or your office confusing me with the wrong docket numbers.
importance of my court actions and filings. You are hereby formally being notified of the Clerk of
Courts conduct, and its appearance of misconduct with relation to the attached filing.
May I suggest your preserve the integrity of the Courts and the Record, especially since some of
these matters are now before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc: Mr. Donald Totaro
The Honorable Judge Dennis E. Reinaker

Page 7 of 231
Page 6 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 8 of 231
Page 8 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 7 of 12
04.26.2007
Page 9 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
Printed: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:24 AM
From :
Stan Caterbone <amgroup01@msn.com>
Sent :
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:10 PM
To :
oberholb@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
CC :
andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
Subject :
RE: We came to your home
Attachment : JudgeMcLaughlin05-2288ContinuanceORDERDeniedin3rdCircuitCourtofAppealApril172007.pdf (0.71 MB),

Dad_sFileApril242007.pdf (0.25 MB)
Hopefully a jury will decide, of course that is why you all lie, to keep me from ever getting to a jury. And you do lie.
Didn't you get the report of what happened this morning at about 5:00am? I had a digital Sony Recorder with an authentic
recording, which is required and already entered into the docket for trial in 2 weeks, stolen. Officer Pinnone took the report.
And why is it that the responding Officer is never from your sector? I surmise so that you don't have to file a report?
Now, it was my evidence concerning Officer Robert Busser of Conestoga Twp. Maybe you should question him to see if he
took it. He already stole $750.00 from me on April 5, 2006 (or one of his fellow responding Officers).
By the way, it is National Crime Victims Rights Week, and I am one, like it or not.
1. Treat victims with dignity and respect
2. Offer victim assistance services and support
3. Help victims understand and demand thier legal rights.
Advanced Media Group Stan Caterbone mailto: amgroup01@msn.com www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Fax: (717)
427-1621 Advanced Media Group 220 Stone Hill Road Conestoga, PA 17516
From: "Oberholtzer, Brent A" <oberholb@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>
To: "Stan Caterbone" <amgroup01@msn.com>
CC: "Binderup, Chad " <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>,"Anders, Peter J" <andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: RE: We came to your home
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:58 -0400
Mr. Caterbone,
Off. Binderup informed me that he told you he'd start work tomorrow at 10 but that didn't seem to fit your
schedule, or you couldn't commit to that. Please contact LCWC at the provided number for a response
from an officer. I cannot speak of what happened this weekend but I can tell you this. I am not lying and
we are NOT corrupt.
Regards,
Lt. Oberholtzer

Page 9 of 231
Page 8 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 10 of 231
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this transmission is confidential, proprietary or
privileged and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message
is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If you received this transmission in error,
please contact the sender immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from any computer.
-----Original Message----From: Stan Caterbone [mailto:amgroup01@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 15:34
To: Oberholtzer, Brent A
Cc: Anders, Peter J
Excuse me Sir, I was in the middle of a Superior Court brief that was due today, when Officer Binderup arrived at my
door. Me and Officer Binderup set up an appointment for tommorow at 10:00 am. I explained that I was busy,
and he agreed to that schedule.

On Saturday when I filed my complaint in your precinct, your desk sergant told me that someone would be at my residence
at 12:00 noon, and I waited all day. No one arrived.
What kind of Police Office are you, lying like this? I expect someone tommorrow at 10:00 am.
Are you all corrupt?
Stan J. Caterbone
To: <amgroup01@msn.com>
CC: "Anders, Peter J" <andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: We came to your home
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:01:04 -0400
Mr. Caterbone,
As I mentioned, I sent an officer to your home since you did not have a telephone. When Off. Binderup
arrived you would not speak to him. Consider our responsibility complete. You will need to come to the
police station for future requests of contact Lancaster County Wide Communications at 664-1180 for police
response.
Respectfully,
Lt. Brent Oberholtzer

Page 10 of 231
Page 9 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 11 of 231
Officials: Ex-bank best for federal courthouse
Pitts, Gray, Stengel all support East King Street site after tour of four possible locations.
By TOM MURSE
Lancaster New Era
Published: Apr 24, 2007 2:06 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa - When it comes to finding a home for a federal courthouse in Lancaster City, elected officials here clearly
prefer the former Sovereign Bank building on East King Street.
The question is, will the feds go along with them?
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts and federal Judge Lawrence Stengel, who toured four potential sites Monday
afternoon, said housing a new courthouse at 23 E. King St. makes the most sense.
"It's the cheapest alternative. It's a great location. There's great parking already. It's available. You get in there right away," Pitts
said. "I think it could happen by the fall, but again you've got to give the courts and the GSA time to make a decision."
The GSA, or U.S. General Services Administration, is the branch of government that owns property and leases it to the federal courts
and other departments. It has the final say on which, if any, of the Lancaster sites will be selected for a courthouse.
The mayor's office is recommending the site to the GSA.
"My understanding of the process is we can provide information, and we've requested information in regards to that particular site,
that we will forward on to the GSA with a statement from the city that it is our preferred site," said Randy Patterson, the city's
director of economic development and neighborhood revitalization.
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who also went on the bus tour Monday, declined to say which of the four sites he liked best, but pledged
once again to bring a federal courthouse to the city.
"I think we're going to get it done," said the state's senior senator, noting that funding had already been approved for a Lancaster
court. "I'm not here wasting my time."
The three other proposed locations are the Bulova Technologies building at Queen and Orange streets; the Hager parking lot at North
Prince and West Grant streets; and a parking lot at North Prince and West Walnut streets.
Stengel said he, too, prefers the East King Street location.
"I certainly think there are great advantages to that site. It's capable of being secured. It's vacant. It's owned by the Girard Estate,
which has experience in leasing to government tenants," said Stengel, who lives in the county and commutes to Philadelphia.
"And it's about the right size for what we need to do, and it has the potential for secure parking and entry. It's in close proximity to
the Lancaster County Courthouse," Stengel added. "Those were the reasons articulated by the mayor's office, and I think they make
sense."
The former bank would cost about $15.4 million to renovate into courtrooms and offices. Two stories could be added to the existing
three-story building, said Patterson, who served as tour guide during the bus trip.
Specter said he met earlier this month in Washington, D.C., with the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals about
bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
"Meetings are on the docket through June and perhaps into the fall," Specter said. "It is ripe for a decision.
Officials have discussed bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster for more than two decades, and have said many times that such a
decision was imminent. They said again today that they are optimistic it will happen soon.
"I don't think we're talking another decade. I would be surprised if it took us another five years," said Stengel. "It's the use of public
money, and so they're careful about how to do it ... It won't be within the next six months, but it's likely it could be within two
years."
Gray, who served on a local bar association panel in the 1980s that sought to bring a federal courthouse to the city, said he is

Page 11 of 231
Page 10 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 12 of 231
encouraged by the level of attention the issue has received.

"This is the most movement I've ever seen. Senator Specter has always been committed to it, but I've never seen so much activity,"
said Gray. "There's more positive energy surrounding this issue than I've seen in the last quarter century."
Gray, asked how soon he thinks the government will settle on a site, said: "If it does happen, my guess is it would happen within the
next year or so. The planets are all lining up right. And if it was the Sovereign building, it would happen a lot quicker than if it was
one of the other sites."
Specter: Time for U.S. courthouse

Officials look at four possible locations in city
By Brett Lovelace, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Apr 24, 2007 2:14 AM EST
LANCASTER, Pa. - U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter pledged Monday to bring a federal courthouse to downtown Lancaster, a long-discussed
proposal that has been delayed by problems with financing and finding a suitable location.
"I am determined to see that we move ahead and get this done," Specter said. "It has been in the planning stage for the better part
of two decades."
Specter took a look at four possible sites for a courthouse during a brief bus tour of the city. Along for the ride were Lancaster Mayor
Rick Gray; U.S. Rep. Joseph Pitts, who represents Lancaster county; U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, a former member of
the county bench; Randy Patterson, the city's director of community and economic development; and other city, state and federal
officials.
The four proposed locations include the former Sovereign Bank building, 23 E. King St; Bulova Technologies building, Queen and
Orange streets; Hager parking lot, North Prince and West Grant streets; and a parking lot at North Prince and West Walnut streets.
"Lancaster is a major metropolitan area," Specter said. "(Putting a federal courthouse here) has truly had a lot of problems, and
there are very tight budget constraints," Specter said.
"Candidly, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape that has to be cut, but that's what Congressman Joe Pitts and Arlen Specter are
for."
Gray, a former lawyer, said he served in the 1980s on a committee formed to bring a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
He endorses the former bank building because it is close to the Lancaster County Courthouse, county offices, parking lots and
garages and the convention center and hotel being built in downtown Lancaster.
three-story building, according to Patterson, who served as tour guide during the bus trip.
Specter declined to say which of the sites he favored or how much the federal government is willing to spend on a courthouse here.
He did say, however, that he met earlier this month in Washington, D.C., with the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals about bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
"It is a great inconvenience to people in this community who have cases in the federal court to have to travel to Philadelphia," he
said. "It takes police officers off the street when they have to spend several days in a courtroom in Philadelphia, and the litigants and
the lawyers ought to have the availability of a station here."
The bus tour was scheduled to start shortly before 3 p.m. It was briefly delayed while Specter and Gray snacked on ice cream at
Isaac's Deli, 25 N. Queen St.
Specter wanted a milk shake but had to settle for peanut butter ice cream because the restaurant does not serve shakes.
Stengel, who lives in Lancaster but has his courtroom in Philadelphia, is optimistic about a federal courthouse in Lancaster.

Page 12 of 231
Page 11 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 13 of 231
"I think we are close," Stengel said. "The strongest evidence of that is the people who are interested and the people who are pushing
for it.
"It's not happening because Judge Stengel wants it to happen. It's going to happen because Sen. Specter and Rep. Pitts are strongly
behind it."
Specter and U.S. Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. both attended an anti-gang conference in Lancaster last month.
Casey did not join Specter for Monday's tour but supports the courthouse project.
"While in Lancaster last month for a roundtable on youth violence, I discussed the need for a federal courthouse with local officials,"
Casey said in a statement. "Unfortunately, I had to be in Washington today and was unable to be in Lancaster.
"I will work with Sen. Specter, Congressman Pitts and local leaders to do everything I can to expedite a new federal courthouse in
Lancaster."
E-mail: blovelace@lnpnews.com

Page 13 of 231
Page 12 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 14 of 231

amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
May 7, 2006
Mr. Joseph Masse
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Judicial Conduct Board
Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street
Suite 403
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Re: Complaints Status
Dear Mr. Masse;
Unfortunately, in addition to the problems with the Criminal Justice System in Lancaster
County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I have had my legal files, materials, and evidence
stolen from me. Most of it was recently returned on April 13, 2007, however, sorting and verifying
my files has been a tedious and time-consuming effort. In addition, I have just found some
unopened mail from October of 2006, which was addressed from your office. This was some of the
files that were returned to me on April 13th. All of these matters are before the Pennsylvania
Superior Court, MDA 1463-2006 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 248 MAL-2007.
May I request a complete update of all of my complaints and the status, with a copy of the
Complaint cover sheet? It would be the only way that I can verify my documents, and determine if
any files are missing.
Also attached are the dockets for 21 criminal charges that have been dismissed, withdrawn,
or not guilty verdicts returned. I am sure that your office will look at my complaints in a different
manner. And, of course, I was pro se for most of these proceedings. I also have 3 criminal appeals
in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and would most appreciate your office being as judicious and
as impartial as you can possibly be.
Remember, I am a Federal Whistle-Blower and have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that
the RICO Anti-SLAPP provision has been violated.
Respectfully,

Enclosures

Page 14 of 231
Page 1 of 28
June 28, 2016
05.07.2007
Page 15 of 231
!" #
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
/
/
#
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 15 of 231
June 28, 2016
?
?
?
?
)6
G!
(&. G
++ /
,3! - ( & .+
+
*2$-&(% (& +*%
6+ 8
&$-+
&
Page 16 of 231
6& 4
8
&. *2$ * ! - ( &.

* + & - ( & .+
+
&. *( *A&($2(%&. *%
&
6(
6 : > ,3#?
*% +.&( $+*%
>& 4
? !1
!"
#
# (
%
= 3#
(
*(
+
!(
&'
9
@
'
8 62
9
#
= 3#
8
'
(
*(
!( ,
-(
.(
"(
-
*B
66 : >
,,9?
88B
> ,,"? /
1
( 2
*( 3
!( 3
'
#
,
,
4
Page 16 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 17 of 231
scaterbone@live.com
www.advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com
www.scribd.com/amgroup01
www.facebook.com/scaterbone
www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone
www.mcvictimsworld.ning.com/profile/StanJCaterbone
http://www.youtube.com/advancedmediagroup
Stan J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
ILLEGAL NO TRESPASS NOTICES AGAINST

STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Violations of Public Accommodations Law re Discrimination
and Anti-Trust Violations with False Statements to Authorities
September 27, 2015
Work-In-Progress
Community Stalking and Organized Libel/Slander Campaign Strategy Issue a few every
year to support false arrests; false imprisonment; fabricated mental illness history. In addition to
isolate by prohibiting entrance to major entertainment venues with good live music. Prohibit from
defending against the lies and slander in public to a minimum. Also, destroy history of strong
Christian values and church attendance on a weekly basis by keeping away from church. The
Millersville University Graduate Studies No Trespass Notice was accommodated by the denial of
entitled benefits of LETA Job Training Education Course of the Paralegal program at HACC during
the same time period.
1. David Pflumm Properties by David Pflumm Served by State Constable in June of

2005, original not signed by David Pflumm
2. Eden Resort Inn, by Drew Anthon, Owner Sent via 1st Class Mail in 2005.
3. Barley Snyder, LLC Lancaster Office, by Shawn Long, Esq., Attorney representing
Fulton Bank in 2006 Sent via 1st Class Mail
4. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., by Steve Weaver, Manager in 2006, No Notice,
Corraborated by Jack Buckwalter, Chairman and CEO and George Warner, Atty with Barley
Snyder, LLC, No Formal Notice, allowed to reenter in 2015.
5. Ruby Tuesday, Manor Shopping Center, Lancaster, by Manager and Lancaster City
Police in 2006, No Formal Notice, allowed to reenter in 2015.
6. Alley Kat Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster by Bartender Ms. Santinello, Brett Stabley,
and Lancaster City Police, No formal Notice in 2006
7. Village Nightclub, Lancaster by George in 2008, No Formal Notice
8. Marion Court Restaurant, Lancaster, by Security Personnel, corroborated by Michael
Geesey, in 2008, No Formal Notice, allowed to enter in 2015.
9. Valentinos Cafe, Lancaster, by Jeanine, Bartender,in 2008, corroborated by John
Valentino, Owner, No Formal Notice
10. Brunswick Hotel, Lancaster, by Staff Employees, in 2008, No Formal Notice
11. Lancaster County Library and Duke Street Business Center, by Executive Director in
March of 2009, by 1st Class Mail
12. Anne Bailey's Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster, by Manager in 2009, No Formal Notice
13. Millersville University Graduate Studies and Millersville University, Millersville, by
Lori Austin, Judicial Affairs, via Certified Mail in June of 2009.
Page 17 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 18 of 231
14. TGIF Friday's, Lancaster, by Manager, in January of 2010, No Formal Notice

15. Lucky Dog Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster, by Robert Donnelly, in January of 2010, No
Formal Notice
16. Saint Mary's Catholic Church, Lancaster, by Don Spica, Usher and Lancaster City Police
Department in Feb of 2010, No Formal Notice
17. O'Halloran's Bar, Lancaster, March 25, 2010 by Male Staff Employee. No Formal Notice.
18. Fulton Bank, Fulton Financial Corporation, March 26, 2010 by Susan Follmer, Security
Officer.
19.Tobias Frog Restaurant and Bar, August 8, 2015 by Owner of Establishment, reason
was for complaining of harassment and stalking.
20. Millersville University, July 9, 2015, served notice by Millersville University Police
Chief Pete Anders, for negotiating a civil rights complaint with Assistant to the President,
Debra Hoeckler
21.Village Nightclub, July of 20015, by George..........., Owner, tried to enter several times,
with no reason and no written notice.
22.Lucky Dog Bar, August of 2015, met Abby and Keagan Pflumm outside, went inside and
was told by bartender to leave and not come back.
23.Barley Snyder, LLC Lancaster Office, receptionist Ms. Woods refused to let me
communicate with Attorney George Werner, who in 2011 entered appearance in 05-2288
for Fulton Bank in U.S. District Court.
24.Wennerstrom Property Management Company, June 2015, went to complain
regarding harassment, threats, etc., at 1252 Fremont Street and told to leave building.
Dated: September 27, 2015
Page 18 of 231
June 28, 2016

:ELMI-21179 - CHR
~
Page 19 of 231

PhGE 1 OF 3
10/07/05 02:51:37 - 10/07/05 02:51:37 BTKTNBAKZFJY
..
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE CENTRAL REPOSITORY

1800 ELMERTON AVENUE HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110 717-787-9092
:TN: BEZZARD
ORIr PA0364001 EAST LAMPETER TWP PD
ISE OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD FOR * * * SID/178-78-81-6 * * *

ZEGULATED BY ACT 47, AS AMENDED. * " * I11 - SINGLE STATE OFFENDER **'
~--..----22--------------------------------------------------------------------
bB: 07/15/1958
SEX: M
RAC: W
SOC: 200-46-0959
FBI: 508174HA2
W E : CATERBONE,STANLEY J
OTN: 8384566-0
?RESTED: 09/04/1987 PA0360800 MANHEIM TWP PD
[SPOSITION DATE: 03/14/1988 COMMON PLEAS DOCKET: 198187-
Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal Page 19 of 231

Page 2 of 28
OCA: 3930
June 28, 2016

05.07.2007
BTKTNBAXZFJY
Third Circuit
15-3400
9/03/1987
CC3304A2
CRIMINAL MISCHIEF -Page
F3 20 of 231
9,'03/1987 CC3502
BURGLARY - F1
QUASHED/DISMIS/DEMr;R SUS
3/07/1981 CC3101A1 ROBBERY - F1
QUASHED/DISMIS/DEMUR SUS
9/03/1987 CC3921A THEFT BY UNLWF TAKING OR DISPO NOLLE PROSSED/WITHDRAWN
4N:
W E : CATERBONE,STANLEY J
OTN: L260045-2
?RESTED: 10/06/2005 PA0364000 EAST LAMPETER TWP PD
)/06/2005
CC2709A7 HARASSMEW
M3
OCA: 05-355
DISPOSITION UNREPORTED
I++++++++++++++tt++++++++++++++++++++++4l.i+it+t+++++ti++++t++++++++++++++t++t+
<<<<<<<<<<<
ADDITIONAL IDENTIFIERS >>>>>>>>>>>
* * CPIN PHOTO ON FILE **'

=
FELONY, M
MISDEMEANOR, S
SUMMARY AND THE NUMERIC
THE DEGREE
<IS RESPONSE IS BASED ON REQUESTER FURNISHED INSORMATION AND INCLUDES
LNGERPR.INT SUPPORTED DATA EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE FILES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

PATE POLICE REPOSITORY.-.-ITDOES NOT PRECLUDE THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER
Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal Page 20 of 231

Page 3 of 28
June 28, 2016
05.07.2007
Page 21 of 231
Magisterial District Judge 02-3-01
DOCKET
Docket Number: NT-0000460-05
Non-Traffic Citation Docket

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CATERBONE, STANLEY J
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
EAST LAMPETER TWP, POLICE DEPT

BEZZARD, RONALD S
P4985908-4
LANCASTER
EAST LAMPETER TWP
Name:
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1954
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
10/06/2005
10/11/2005
Withdrawn
12/05/2005
$0.00
DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 18 5503 A2
DISORDERLY CONDUCT-UNREASONABLE NOISE SUMMARY
Withdrawn (Lower Court)
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
11/17/2005
12/05/2005
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
WD
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: BEZZARD, RONALD S
1200
Address:
EAST LAMPETER TWP PD

2250 OLD PHILADELPHIA PIKE
LANCASTER, PA 17602
Printed: 04/06/2007 12:20 pm
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial System of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or
omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which can only be
provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record Information Act (18 Pa.C.S.
Page 21 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
4 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 22 of 231
DOCKET

v.
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:

BEZZARD, RONALD S
P4985907-3
LANCASTER
EAST LAMPETER TWP
Name:
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1954
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
10/06/2005
10/11/2005
Withdrawn
12/05/2005
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 18 3926 A4
THEFT OF SERVICES-ACQUISITION OF SERVICES
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
11/17/2005
12/05/2005
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
WD
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
AFFIANT INFORMATION
1200
Address:

LANCASTER, PA 17602
Printed: 04/06/2007 12:23 pm
Page 22 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
5 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 23 of 231
DOCKET
Docket Number: CR-0000263-05
Criminal Docket
v.
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
L 260045-2
BEZZARD, RONALD S
LANCASTER
EAST LAMPETER TWP
10/17/2005
10/18/2005
Withdrawn
12/05/2005
$0.00
Name:
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1954
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 18 2709 A7
HARASSMENT - COMM. REPEATEDLY IN ANOTHER MANNER
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
11/17/2005
12/05/2005
Preliminary Hearing
Preliminary Hearing
CONT
WD
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
10/31/2005
SUMMONS ACCEPTED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
1200
Address:

LANCASTER, PA 17602
Printed: 04/06/2007 12:18 pm
Page 23 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
6 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 24 of 231
DOCKET
Docket Number: TR-0003557-06
Traffic Citation Docket

v.
CATERBONE,STAN
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
CATERBONE, STAN
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
LANCASTER, POLICE DEPT

GJURICH, THOMAS
F2520306-5
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
02/10/2006
04/28/2006
Withdrawn
01/23/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 285-21D
NO PARKING OR STOPPING PERMITTED
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
06/19/2006
08/04/2006
10/05/2006
10/05/2006
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
CONT
GT
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
04/28/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: GJURICH, THOMAS
Address:
LANCASTER CITY PD
39 W CHESTNUT ST
LANCASTER, PA 17603
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-BW-0310495-2006
Bench
Cancelled
1/11/2007
1200
Printed: 04/06/2007 11:44 am
Page 24 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
7 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 25 of 231
DOCKET

v.
CATERBONE,STAN
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
CATERBONE, STAN
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:

GJURICH, THOMAS
F2522147-5
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
04/03/2006
05/26/2006
Withdrawn
01/23/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 285-30A
METER VIOLATION
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
08/04/2006
10/05/2006
10/05/2006
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
GT
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
05/26/2006
06/23/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
SUMMONS ACCEPTED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Address:
LANCASTER CITY PD
39 W CHESTNUT ST
LANCASTER, PA 17603
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-BW-0310500-2006
Bench
Cancelled
1/11/2007
1200
Printed: 04/06/2007 11:39 am
Page 25 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
8 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 26 of 231
DOCKET

v.
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1958
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:

HERSHISER, DAVID K
P5612199-5
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
04/16/2006
04/25/2006
Dismissed
01/23/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 18 6501 A1
SCATTER RUBBISH UPON LAND/STREAM ETC
Dismissed (Lower Court)
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
06/19/2006
08/04/2006
10/05/2006
01/23/2007
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
GT
DIS
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: HERSHISER, DAVID K
Address:
LANCASTER CITY PD
39 W CHESTNUT ST
LANCASTER, PA 17602
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-BW-0310486-2006
Bench
Cancelled
1/9/2007
1200
Printed: 04/06/2007 11:36 am
Page 26 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
9 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 27 of 231
DOCKET

COMMONWEALTH OF PA
v.
CATERBONE, STAN
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
CATERBONE, STAN
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:

GJURICH, THOMAS
F2531888-2
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
08/04/2006
10/16/2006
Withdrawn
01/23/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
LANCASTER, PA 17603
Unknown
Unknown
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 285-21D
NO PARKING OR STOPPING PERMITTED
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
01/23/2007
01/23/2007
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
WD
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
10/16/2006
12/06/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
SUMMONS UNDELIVERABLE
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Address:
LANCASTER CITY PD
39 W CHESTNUT ST
LANCASTER, PA 17603
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-AW-0000014-2007
Arrest
Served
1/9/2007
1200
Printed: 04/04/2007 10:32 am
Page 27 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
10 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 28 of 231
DOCKET

COMMONWEALTH OF PA
v.
CATERBONE, STAN
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
CATERBONE, STAN
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:

GJURICH, THOMAS
F2532089-0
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
08/29/2006
10/25/2006
Withdrawn
01/23/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
LANCASTER, PA 17603
Unknown
Unknown
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 285-30A
METER VIOLATION
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
01/23/2007
Summary Trial
WD
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
10/25/2006
12/15/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
SUMMONS REJECTED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Address:
LANCASTER CITY PD
39 W CHESTNUT ST
LANCASTER, PA 17603
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-AW-0327716-2006
Arrest
Served
1/9/2007
1200
Printed: 04/04/2007 10:28 am
Page 28 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
11 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 29 of 231
DOCKET

v.
CATERBONE, STAN
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
DEPT
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
SIMMS, RICHARD H
Name:
Date Of Birth:
CATERBONE, STAN
07/15/1958
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
LANCASTER CNTY SHER, POLICE

WILLCOX, JOSEPH
B0826408-2
LANCASTER
LANCASTER CITY
08/30/2006
09/13/2006
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
LANCASTER, PA 17603
Male
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 75 1543 A
DRIVING WHILE OPER PRIV SUSPENDED OR REVOKED
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
03/06/2007
03/06/2007
04/11/2007
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
Summary Trial
CONT
CONT
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
09/18/2006
11/09/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
SUMMONS REJECTED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: WILLCOX, JOSEPH
Address:
LANCASTER CNTY SHERIFF'S

50 N DUKE ST
LANCASTER, PA 17602
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-04-AW-0237058-2006
Arrest
Cancelled
1/9/2007
1200
Printed: 04/04/2007 10:34 am
Page 29 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
12 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 30 of 231
DOCKET

v.
CATERBONE, STANLEY JAY
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
ECKERT, JR, LEO H
Name:
Date Of Birth:

07/15/1958
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
MILLERSVILLE BORO, POLICE DEPT

SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL K
B3003269-3
LANCASTER
MILLERSVILLE BORO
09/05/2006
09/05/2006
Not Guilty
01/18/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
LANCASTER, PA 17602
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 75 1543 A
DRIV WHILE OPER PRIV SUSP OR REVOKED
Not Guilty
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
01/18/2007
Summary Trial
NG
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
09/06/2006
10/13/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL K
Address:
MILLERSVILLE BORO PD
10 COLONIAL RD
MILLERSVILLE, PA 17551
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-06-BW-0165735-2006
Bench
Served
10/30/2006
1200
Printed: 04/03/2007 4:48 pm
Page 30 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
13 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 31 of 231
DOCKET

v.
Page 1 of 1
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Arresting Agency:
Arresting Officer:
Citation #:
County:
Township:
ECKERT, JR, LEO H
Name:
Date Of Birth:

07/15/1958
Issue Date:
File Date:
Case Disp:
Disp Date:
Requested:
Judgment:
MILLERSVILLE BORO, POLICE DEPT

SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL K
B3003268-2
LANCASTER
MILLERSVILLE BORO
09/05/2006
09/05/2006
Not Guilty
01/18/2007
$0.00
Address:
Sex:
Race:
LANCASTER, PA 17602
Male
White
CHARGES
# Charge
Description
Disposition
1 75 1786 F
OPER VEH W/O REQ'D FINANC RESP
Not Guilty
CALENDAR
Schedule Date
Event Type
Status
01/18/2007
Summary Trial
NG
CASE ACCOUNTING
Total Due:
Total Paid:
$0.00
$0.00
Total Adj:
Balance:
$0.00
$0.00
SUMMONS
Summons Date
Summons Action
09/06/2006
10/13/2006
SUMMONS ISSUED
AFFIANT INFORMATION
Name: SCHAEFFER, MICHAEL K
Address:
MILLERSVILLE BORO PD
10 COLONIAL RD
MILLERSVILLE, PA 17551
WARRANT
Number
Type
Status
Status Date
02-2-06-BW-0165732-2006
Bench
Served
10/30/2006
1200
Printed: 04/03/2007 4:50 pm
Page 31 of 231
June 28, 2016
Section
9101 et seq.)
mayGROUP
ADVANCED
MEDIA
Page9183.
14 of 28
05.07.2007
Page 32 of 231
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY

DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000028-2007
SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Stanley Jay Caterbone
Page 1 of 6
CASE INFORMATION
Cross Court Docket Nos: NT-0000561-06, NT-0000562-06, NT-0000569-06
Judge Assigned:
Date Filed: 01/22/2007
OTN:
Lower Court Docket No: NT-0000561-06
Initiation Date: 01/22/2007
Initial Issuing Authority: Leo H Eckert Jr.

Arresting Agency: Southern Regional Police Dept
Case Local Number Type(s)
Final Issuing Authority: Leo H Eckert Jr.

Arresting Officer: Michener, John R.
Case Local Number(s)
Judge Assigned:
OTN:


Judge Assigned:
OTN:


STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status:
Closed
Processing Status:
Awaiting Original Papers

Awaiting Summary Appeal Trial
Completed
Sentenced/Penalty Imposed
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1958
City/State/Zip: Lancaster, PA 17602
Alias Name
Caterbone, Stanley J.
Caterbone, Stanley Joseph
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the Court of Common Pleas nor the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket
Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police.
Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set
No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal
Page 32 of 231
June 28,
forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
Page 15 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 33 of 231

DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Page 2 of 6
CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Type
Defendant
Name
Caterbone, Stanley Jay
CHARGES
Sequence
Grade
Section/ Description
Statute Description
Offense
Date
18 5503 A4
Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi Off
08/05/2006
18 5507 A
Obstruction Highways
08/05/2006
18 2709 A3
Harassment - Course of Conduct W/No

Legitimate Purpose
08/10/2006
2
3
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
OTN
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 33 of 231
June 28,
Page 16 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 34 of 231

DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Page 3 of 6
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description
Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type
Disposition Date
Final Disposition
Section
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date
Credit For Time Served
Incarceration/Diversionary Period
Start Date
Lower Court Proceeding (generic)
Lower Court Disposition
01/22/2007
Not Final
04/30/2007
Final Disposition
Not Guilty
Summary Appeal Trial

1 / Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi Off
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Not Guilty
04/30/2007
18 5503 A4
2 / Obstruction Highways
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Not Guilty
04/30/2007
18 5507 A
3 / Harassment - Course of Conduct W/No

Legitimate Purpose
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Nolle Prossed
18 2709 A3
04/30/2007
COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Name:
Name:
Supreme Court No:
Supreme Court No:

Counsel Status:
Phone Number(s):
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 34 of 231
June 28,
Page 17 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 35 of 231

DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Page 4 of 6
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Status Date
Service To
Registry Entry
1
Service By
01/22/2007
Notice of Summary Appeal Filed
01/23/2007
Office Mailbox
01/23/2007
First Class
Eckert, Leo H. Jr.
01/23/2007
First Class
Michener, John R.
Service Status
03/22/2007
Court of Common Pleas - Lancaster County
Hearing Notice
03/22/2007
Certified
03/22/2007
Hand Delivered
1
04/04/2007
Motion for Continuance
Sent Motion to Business Judge Paul K. Allison
04/04/2007
Order Denying Motion for Continuance
04/05/2007
First Class
04/05/2007
Rounds
04/04/2007
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Allison, Paul K.
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 35 of 231
June 28,
Page 18 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 36 of 231

DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Page 5 of 6
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Status Date
Service To
Registry Entry
1
Service Status
Service By
04/30/2007
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Not Guilty
04/30/2007
Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed
Reinaker, Dennis E.
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Last Payment Date:

Defendant
Total of Last Payment: $0.00
Assessment
Payments
Adjustments
Non Monetary
Payments
Total
Server Fees
$86.40
$0.00
($86.40)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$86.40
$0.00
($86.40)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$83.90
$0.00
($83.90)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$83.90
$0.00
($83.90)
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
$0.00
($5.00)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$27.50
$0.00
($27.50)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$27.50
$0.00
($27.50)
$0.00
$0.00
Costs/Fees
Constable Education Training Act (Act

44 of 1991)
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 36 of 231
June 28,
Page 19 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 37 of 231

DOCKET

Non-Traffic
v.
Defendant
Page 6 of 6
Assessment
Payments
Adjustments
Non Monetary
Payments
Total
Server Fees
$25.00
$0.00
($25.00)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$25.00
$0.00
($25.00)
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
$0.00
($5.00)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$27.50
$0.00
($27.50)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$27.50
$0.00
($27.50)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$25.00
$0.00
($25.00)
$0.00
$0.00
Server Fees
$25.00
$0.00
($25.00)
$0.00
$0.00

44 of 1991)
$5.00
$0.00
($5.00)
$0.00
$0.00
Clerk of Court Auto

Fee-Filing-6593AAB1211 (Lan)
$5.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
Costs/Fees Totals:
$570.60
$0.00
($565.60)
$0.00
$5.00
Grand Totals:
$570.60
$0.00
($565.60)
$0.00
$5.00

44 of 1991)
** - Indicates assessment is subrogated
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 37 of 231
June 28,
Page 20 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 38 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 1 of 8
CASE INFORMATION
Cross Court Docket Nos: TR-0000244-06, TR-0000245-06
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Lower Court Docket No: TR-0000244-06


Arresting Officer: Burger, Robert Paul
Judge Assigned:
OTN:
Lower Court Docket No: TR-0000245-06


Arresting Officer: Burger, Robert Paul
STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status:
Closed
Processing Status:
Awaiting Original Papers

Completed
Sentenced/Penalty Imposed
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1958
City/State/Zip: LANCASTER, PA 17603
Alias Name
Caterbone, Stanley Joseph
CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Type
Defendant
Name
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 38 of 231
June 28,
Page 21 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 39 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 2 of 8
CHARGES
Sequence
Grade
Section/ Description
Statute Description
Offense
Date
75 3111 A
Disregard Traffic Control Device
02/05/2006
75 4703 A
Operat Veh W/O Valid Inspect
02/05/2006
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
OTN
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 39 of 231
June 28,
Page 22 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 40 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 3 of 8
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description
Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type
Disposition Date
Final Disposition
Section
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date
Credit For Time Served
Incarceration/Diversionary Period
Start Date
Lower Court Proceeding (generic)
Lower Court Disposition

1 / Disregard Traffic Control Device
Eckert, Leo H. Jr.
2 / Operat Veh W/O Valid Inspect
Eckert, Leo H. Jr.
06/09/2006
Not Final
Guilty by Trial (Lower

Court)
07/12/2006
75 3111 A
Guilty by Trial (Lower

Court)
07/12/2006
75 4703 A
Not Guilty
Summary Appeal Trial
04/30/2007
Final Disposition
1 / Disregard Traffic Control Device

Reinaker, Dennis E.
Not Guilty
04/30/2007
75 3111 A
2 / Operat Veh W/O Valid Inspect

Reinaker, Dennis E.
Guilty
04/30/2007
75 4703 A
COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Name:
Name:
Supreme Court No:
Supreme Court No:

Counsel Status:
Phone Number(s):
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 40 of 231
June 28,
Page 23 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 41 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 4 of 8
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Service To
Registry Entry
1
Status Date
Service By
07/12/2006
Notice of Summary Appeal Filed
07/14/2006
First Class
Burger, Robert Paul
07/14/2006
Office Mailbox
07/14/2006
First Class
Miller, David P.
Service Status
11/08/2006
Hearing Notice
11/08/2006
Certified
11/08/2006
Hand Delivered
1
11/14/2006
11/20/2006
Rounds
11/27/2006
Motio for Continuance Denied without prejudice
Cullen, James P.
12/05/2006
12/06/2006
Interoffice
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 41 of 231
June 28,
Page 24 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 42 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 5 of 8
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Status Date
Service To
Registry Entry
Service Status
Service By
12/06/2006
Rounds
1
12/22/2006
Motion for Transcripts
01/04/2007
Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc
01/03/2007
First Class
01/03/2007
Rounds
01/05/2007
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Order of the Court
01/18/2007
01/17/2007
Concise Statement Order
01/19/2007
First Class
01/19/2007
Rounds
Lancaster County District Attorney's Office
Reinaker, Dennis E.
01/19/2007
Hearing Notice
01/19/2007
Certified
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 42 of 231
June 28,
Page 25 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 43 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 6 of 8
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Service To
Registry Entry
Status Date
Service Status
Service By
01/19/2007
Hand Delivered
2
01/19/2007
01/19/2007
Court Order of 1/17/07 is Rescinded,Pet to Proceed IFP is Denied
01/19/2007
First Class
01/19/2007
Rounds
Lancaster County District Attorney's Office
Reinaker, Dennis E.
02/15/2007
02/22/2007
Order Granting Motion for Continuance
Perezous, Michael J.
03/22/2007
Hearing Notice
03/22/2007
Certified
03/22/2007
Hand Delivered
1
04/04/2007
Sent Motion to Business Judge Paul K. Allison
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 43 of 231
June 28,
Page 26 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 44 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 7 of 8
ENTRIES
Document/Sequence
CP Filed Date
Document Date
Filed By
Title
Comments
Issue Date
Service Type
Status Date
Service To
Registry Entry
2
Service By
04/04/2007
Order Denying Motion for Continuance
04/05/2007
First Class
04/05/2007
Rounds
Service Status
04/04/2007
Allison, Paul K.
04/30/2007
Reinaker, Dennis E.
Not Guilty
04/30/2007
Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed
Reinaker, Dennis E.
05/03/2007
Penalty Assessed
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Last Payment Date:
Defendant
Total of Last Payment: $0.00
Assessment
Payments
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Adjustments
Non Monetary
Payments
Total
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 44 of 231
June 28,
Page 27 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Page 45 of 231

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Defendant
Page 8 of 8
Assessment
Payments
Adjustments
Non Monetary
Payments
Total
Clerk of Court Auto

Fee-Filing-6593AAB1211 (Lan)
$5.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
State Court Cost (Act 204 of 1976)
$6.95
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.95
Commonwealth Cost - HB627 (Act 167

of 1992)
$6.95
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.95
County Court Costs (Act 204 of 1976)
$17.60
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$17.60
Emergency Medical Services (Act 45

of 1985)
$10.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
JCP
$8.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.00
ATJ
$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.00
CAT/MCARE (Act 13 of 2002)
$30.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$30.00
DA Administration Fee 6421AB130019021 (Lan)
$25.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
Clerk Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$24.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$24.00
DA Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$10.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
Sheriff Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.00
Costs of Transportation (Act 143-2006)
$6.96
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.96
Constable/Postage - 6411AB1211
(Lancaster)
$1.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.00
$155.46
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$155.46
Title 75, Motor Vehicle
$12.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.50
Title 75, Motor Vehicle
$12.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.50
Fines Totals:
$25.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
Grand Totals:
$180.46
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$180.46
Costs/Fees
Costs/Fees Totals:
Fines
** - Indicates assessment is subrogated
AOPC 2220 - Rev 05/04/2007
Case
Printed: 05/04/2007
Page 45 of 231
June 28,
Page 28 of 28
2016
05.07.2007
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights - Findlaw for the Public Third Circuit 15-3400
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-mis.
Page 46 of 231
FindLaw | For the Public | For Small Business | For Legal Professionals | Find a Lawyer
Overview
Race
Discrimination
Browse Civil Rights
Gender
Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Search Public
Housing
Enforcement
Discrimination
More
Topics
Laws and
Resources
FindLaw > Public > Civil Rights > More Topics

My current location: Lancaster, PA | Change location
Overview
Race Discrimination
Gender Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Housing Discrimination
Enforcement
More Topics
Age Discrimination
American Indians &
Alaska Natives
Citizens and the
Police
Civil Liberties
Credit / Lending
Discrimination
Criminal Civil Rights
Violations
Disaster Victims and
Civil Rights
Education and
Discrimination
Sexual Orientation
Discrimination
Hate Crimes
HIV / AIDS Patients
Immigrants
Institutionalized
Persons
Medical Patients
National Origin
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Public
Accommodations
Rights
Religious
Discrimination
Sexual Harassment
Laws and Resources
Find A Lawyer
Select type of practice:
Civil Rights
Enter City or Zip:
Lancaster
Pennsylvania
Featured Attorneys
FindLaw Lawyer Directory

Search FindLaw's database of 1,000,000 lawyers to find attorneys in your area.
Police Misconduct and Civil Rights

Police officers generally have broad powers to carry out their duties. The Constitution and
other laws, however, place limits on how far police can go in trying to enforce the law. As
the videotaped beating of motorist Rodney King, in Los Angeles and several recent cases in
New York have illustrated, police officers sometimes go too far, violating the rights of
citizens. When this happens, the victim of the misconduct may have recourse through
federal and state laws. A primary purpose of the nation's civil rights laws is to protect
citizens from abuses by government, including police misconduct. Civil rights laws allow
attorney fees and compensatory and punitive damages as incentives for injured parties to
enforce their rights.
Overcoming Immunity
Being stopped and questioned by police in connection with a crime is an unsettling
experience for most anyone. As long as the officer is performing his job properly, however,
there is no violation of a suspect's rights. In fact, police are immune from suit for the
performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere
negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity
therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the
police. Civil rights remedies come into play for willful police conduct that violates an
individual's constitutional rights.
Civil Rights Laws and Police Misconduct
A statute known as Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law victims of police
misconduct rely upon. This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of
1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private
individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called
Section 1983 because that is where the law has been published, within Title 42, of the
United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority
of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal
law. The most common claims brought against police officers are false arrest (or false
imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force.
Page 1 of 3 Next Page
Find
Browse Lawyers by State

More Sponsored Services
Page 46 of 231
Page 14 of 16
June 28, 2016
04.07.2007
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-mis..
Page 47 of 231
Overview
Race
Discrimination
Browse Civil Rights
Gender
Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Search Public
Housing
Enforcement
Discrimination
More
Topics
Laws and
Resources

Overview
Race Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Enforcement
More Topics
Age Discrimination
American Indians &
Alaska Natives
Citizens and the
Police
Civil Liberties
Credit / Lending
Discrimination
Violations
Civil Rights
Education and
Discrimination
Sexual Orientation
Discrimination
Hate Crimes
HIV / AIDS Patients
Immigrants
Institutionalized
Persons
Medical Patients
National Origin
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Public
Accommodations
Rights
Religious
Discrimination
Sexual Harassment
Laws and Resources
Find A Lawyer
Civil Rights
Enter City or Zip:
Featured Attorneys


False Arrest
The claim that is most often asserted against police is false arrest. Persons bringing this
claim assert that police violated their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
seizure. If the officer had probable cause to believe the individual had committed a crime,
the arrest is reasonable and the Fourth Amendment has not been violated. Police can arrest
without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor committed in their presence. (Some states
also allow warrantless arrests for misdemeanor domestic assaults not committed in the
officer's presence.) Even if the information the officer relied upon later turns out to be false,
the officer is not liable if he believed it was accurate at the time of the arrest. To prevail on
a false arrest claim, the victim must show that the arresting officer lacked probable cause,
that is, facts sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been
committed.
Malicious Prosecution
A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the
Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show
four things: 1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding; 2) the
proceeding ended in the victim's favor (that is, no conviction); 3) there was no probable
cause; and 4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim. As with false
arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.
Excessive Force
Excessive force claims receive the most publicity, perhaps because the results of excessive
force seem the most outrageous, involving serious physical injury or death. Whether the
officer's use of force was reasonable depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances.
The officer's intentions or motivations are not controlling. If the amount of force was
reasonable, it doesn't matter that the officer's intentions were bad. But the reverse is also
true: if the officer had good intentions, but used unreasonable force, the excessive force
claim will not be dismissed.
Page 2 of 3 Prev Page Next Page
Lancaster
Pennsylvania
Find
More Sponsored Services

Wills, Divorce, Incorporation & More: Fast and friendly service from LegalZoom, the #1 online legal document service.

Page 47 of 231
Page 15 of 16
June 28, 2016
04.07.2007
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/police-mis...
Page 48 of 231
Overview
Race
Discrimination
Browse Civil Rights
Gender
Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Housing
Enforcement
Discrimination
Search Public
More
Topics
Laws and
Resources

Overview
Race Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Employment
Discrimination
Enforcement
More Topics
Age Discrimination
American Indians &
Alaska Natives
Citizens and the
Police
Civil Liberties
Credit / Lending
Discrimination
Violations
Civil Rights
Education and
Discrimination
Sexual Orientation
Discrimination
Hate Crimes
HIV / AIDS Patients
Immigrants
Institutionalized
Persons
Medical Patients
National Origin
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Public
Accommodations
Rights
Religious
Discrimination
Sexual Harassment
Laws and Resources
Find A Lawyer
Civil Rights
Enter City or Zip:
Lancaster
Pennsylvania
Featured Attorneys


Failure to Intervene
Officers have a duty to protect individuals from constitutional violations by fellow officers.
Therefore, an officer who witnesses a fellow officer violating an individual's constitutional
rights may be liable to the victim for failing to intervene.
The Qualified Immunity Defense
Defense attorneys representing a police officer for any of these claims will raise a defense
of qualified immunity. This defense exists to prevent the fear of legal prosecution from
inhibiting a police officer from enforcing the law. The defense will defeat a claim against
the officer if the officer's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or
statutory right. In other words, the specific acts the officer prevented the individual from
engaging in must be legally protected, otherwise there is no civil rights violation. In order
to win a civil rights claim, an individual bringing a police misconduct claim must prove that
the actions of the police exceeded reasonable bounds, infringed the victim's constitutional
rights, and produced some injury or damages to the victim.
Police Misconduct: If You've Been Affected
Civil rights claims are an important part of our legal system, providing a balance between
the duty of law enforcement to uphold the laws, and the rights of individuals to be free from
police misconduct. Yet cases against police officers can be difficult. Officers may be
immune from suit, even though an individual feels he or she was mistreated. Claims against
police departments can also be expensive to bring because a lot of evidence must be
secured, including records, statements of police, statements of witnesses, and various other
documentation, to prove the misconduct.
The evidence supporting your claim is the most important element in a police misconduct
suit. If you feel you've been the victim of police misconduct, contact a Civil Rights
Attorney promptly so that valuable evidence does not disappear. Take photographs of any
injuries or damage caused by the police, and set aside clothing or other objects that was
torn or stained with blood from the incident. Try to get the names and addresses or
telephone numbers of anyone who may have witnessed the incident. Also, write down
exactly what happened as soon as you can, so that you don't forget important details.
Find
Page 3 of 3 Prev Page

Page 48 of 231
Page 16 of 16
June 28, 2016
04.07.2007
Third Circuit Case:

15-340007-4475
Page 49 of 231Page: 1
Document: 00312120604
Thursday,
November 19, 2015
Date Filed:
10/22/2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4474
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
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
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-2288)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
____________________________________
No. 07-4475
STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
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,
Page 49 of 231
June 28, 2016
Third Circuit Case:

15-340007-4475
Document: 00312120604
Thursday,
November 19, 2015
Date Filed:
10/22/2008
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
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-04650)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 26, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
_______________________
JUDGMENT
_______________________
These causes came to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were submitted pursuant to Third
Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on September 26, 2008. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby
Page 50 of 231
June 28, 2016
Third Circuit Case:

15-340007-4475
Document: 00312120604
Thursday,
November 19, 2015
Date Filed:
10/22/2008
ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgments of the District
Court entered on October 23, 2007, be and the same are hereby VACATED and the cases
are REMANDED for further proceedings. Costs will not be taxed. All of the above in
accordance with the opinion of this Court.
ATTEST:
/s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
DATED: September 30, 2008
Certified as a true copy and issued in lieu

of a formal mandate on 10/22/2008
Teste:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Page 51 of 231
June 28, 2016
Third Circuit Case:

15-340007-4475
Document: 00312120622
Thursday,
November 19, 2015
Date Filed:
10/22/2008
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
MARCIA M. WALDRON
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
CLERK
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
TELEPHONE
215-597-2995
21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov
October 22, 2008

Mr. Michael Kunz
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
James A. Byrne United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
RE: Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison, et al
Case Number: 07-4474 & 07-4475
District Case Number: 05-cv-02288 & 06-cv-04650
Dear Mr. Kunz,
Enclosed herewith is the certified judgment together with copy of the opinion in the
above-captioned case(s). The certified judgment is issued in lieu of a formal mandate and is to be
treated in all respects as a mandate.
Counsel are advised of the issuance of the mandate by copy of this letter. The certified judgment
is also enclosed showing costs taxed, if any.
Very truly yours,
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By: /s/Charlene L. Crisden, Case Manager/DWB
267-299-4923
cc:
Stephanie Carfley, Esq.
Robert W. Hallinger, Esq.
Christopher S. Underhill, Esq.
George M. Gowen III, Esq.

Lawrence D. Mason, Esq.
Page 52 of 231
June 28, 2016
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

1 of 6
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?885193309240359-L_1_0-1
Page 53 of 231
CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-04650-MAM
CATERBONE v. WENGER et al
Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN
Case in other court: THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
07-04475
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Terminated: 10/23/2007
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

1250 FREMONT STREET
CONESTOGA, PA 17603
PRO SE
Plaintiff
V.
Defendant
MR. RANDALL O. WENGER
OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY
PROTHONETARY
Defendant
MATTHEW MR. BOMBERGER
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
OF LANCASTER COUNTY
Defendant
JUDGE MICHEAL GEORGELIS
LANCASTER COUNTY
Defendant
LEO J. ECKERT, JR.
LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
KELLY S. BALLENTINE, ESQ.
Page 53 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

2 of 6
Page 54 of 231
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
MAYNARD HAMILTON, JR.
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
DENISE COMMINS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant
RICHARD H. SIMMS
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
STEVEN MYLIN
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
WILLIAM G. REUTER
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
MICHAEL SMITH
DAULPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE
Defendant
OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD
OF THE EAST LAMPETER POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Defendant
OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH
OF THE LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF
POLICE
Defendant
OFFICER ADAM CRAMER
OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL
POLICE DEPT
Page 54 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

3 of 6
Page 55 of 231
Defendant
CHIEF JOHN FIORILL
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant
OFFICER ROBERT BUSER
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant
ROBERT M. FEDOR
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendant
SHERRIF ROBERT BOURNE
LANCASTER COUNTY, OF THE
LANCASTER SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
Defendant
JOLYNN STEINMAN
POSTMASTER, CONESTOGA POST
OFFICE
Defendant
NELSON BREWSTER
INVESTIGATOR, OF THE PA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE
Defendant
OFFICER MICAHEL K. SCHAEFER
OF MILLERSVILLE BORO POLICE
Defendant
LUIS FURINA
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT JUDGE
Defendant
JUDGE MICHAEL A. GEORGELIS
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT
Defendant
DONALD TOTARO
ATTORNEY
Page 55 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

4 of 6
Page 56 of 231
Defendant
MICAHEL DETECTIVE LANDIS
LANCASTER COUNTY
Date Filed
Docket Text
10/18/2006
1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by STANLEY J.

CATERBONE.AFFIDAVIT.(ks, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/29/2007 (mk, ).
(Entered: 10/19/2006)
11/15/2006
2 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED BY STANLY J. CATERBONE.(gs)

Additional attachment(s) added on 10/29/2007 (mk, ). (Entered: 11/16/2006)
11/17/2006
3 ORDER THAT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS

GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF SHALL AMEND HIS
COMPLAINT SO AS TO PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT PURSUANT
TO F.R.C.P. 12(e). SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 11/16/2006.
11/17/2006 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mbh, ) Additional attachment(s)
added on 10/29/2007 (mk, ). (Entered: 11/17/2006)
11/17/2006
4 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED. THE

CLERK OF COURT MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL
PURPOSES AND PLACE THE MATTER IN THE CIVIL SUSPENSE FILE. SIGNED
BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 11/17/06. 11/20/06 ENTERED AND
COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 11/20/2006)
11/17/2006
5 Complaint against DEFENDANTS MAYNARD HAMILTON, JR, DENISE

COMMINS, RICHARD H. SIMMS, STEVEN MYLIN, WILLIAM G. REUTER,
MICHAEL SMITH, RONALD BEZZARD, THOMAS GJURICH, ADAM CRAMER,
JOHN FIORILL, ROBERT BUSER, ROBERT M. FEDOR, ROBERT BOURNE,
JOLYNN STEINMAN, NELSON BREWSTER, MICAHEL K. SCHAEFER, LUIS
FURINA, MICHAEL A. GEORGELIS, DONALD TOTARO, MICAHEL
DETECTIVE LANDIS, RANDALL O. WENGER, MATTHEW MR. BOMBERGER,
MICHEAL GEORGELIS, LEO J. ECKERT, JR and KELLY S. BALLENTINE, ESQ
filed by PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP and STANLY J.
CATERBONE.(mbh, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/29/2007 (mk, ). (Entered:
01/18/2007)
01/19/2007
6 ORDER THAT THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE SHALL REMAIN IN CIVIL

SUSPENSE UNTIL 4/19/07. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
1/19/07. 1/19/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
04/03/2007
7 ADDENDUM TO COMPLAINT filed by STANLY J. CATERBONE. Cert. of Service.

(PRO SE) (pr, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/29/2007 (mk, ). (Entered:
04/03/2007)
04/13/2007
8 STANLY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (#50 in 06-cv4154).(fdc) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
Page 56 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

5 of 6
04/16/2007
Page 57 of 231
9 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED. THIS

CASE SHALL REMAIN IN CIVIL SUSPSENSE UNTIL 6/19/07. SIGNED BY
JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 4/16/07.4/16/07 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED TO CATERBONE.(fdc) (Entered: 04/16/2007)
04/26/2007
10 ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EX PARTE MEETING IS

DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 4/25/07. 4/26/07
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
05/07/2007
11 Addendum to Complaint by STANLY J. CATERBONE (#11 in 06-cv-4154). (fdc)

(Entered: 05/07/2007)
06/19/2007
12 STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE (#12 in 06-4154).(fdc) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/19/2007 (ac, ).
(Entered: 06/19/2007)
06/20/2007
13 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED. THIS

CASE SHALL REMAIN IN CIVIL SUSPENSE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
THE PLAINTIFF SHALL INFORM THE COURT ON OR BEFORE 8/31/07 AS TO
THE STATUS OF THE CASE. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
6/19/07.6/20/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
08/10/2007
14 EXHIBITS by plff STANLY J. CATERBONE. (gn, ) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
09/04/2007
15 Status of Case by STANLY J. CATERBONE. (stb, ) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
09/12/2007
16 ORDER THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST DATED 8/30/07 TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT ON 11/15/07, IS DENIED. THE PLAINTIFF MUST
SERVE THIS COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 10/15/07, OR THE CASE WILL BE
DISMISSED. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 9/11/07. 9/12/07
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 09/12/2007)
10/15/2007
17 STANLY J. CATERBONE'S Amendment to Complaint and Motion for Continuance,

Certificate of Service.(fdc) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
10/23/2007
18 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS DISMISSED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A

CONTINUANCE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
10/22/07.10/23/07 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO CATERBONE.(fdc)
(Entered: 10/23/2007)
11/23/2007
19 NOTICE OF APPEAL by STANLY J. CATERBONE, Certificate of Service. (Filing

Fee: IFP Status) Copies to Judge, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk. (kw, ) (Entered:
11/26/2007)
11/23/2007
20 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 19 Notice of Appeal. (kw, ) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
12/10/2007
10/20/2008
NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 19 Notice of Appeal filed by

STANLY J. CATERBONE. USCA Case Number 07-4475 (jpd) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
21 STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(fdc) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
Page 57 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

6 of 6
Page 58 of 231
10/30/2008
22 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW IS GRANTED TO THE

EXTENT IT REQUESTS DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 10/30/08.10/30/08
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO CATERBONE.(fdc) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
07/29/2011
23 ORDER of USCA as to 19 Notice of Appeal filed by STANLY J. CATERBONE. Re:

Ordered and Adjudged by this Court that the judgments of the District Court entered on
10/23/07, be and the same are hereby vacated and the cases are remanded for further
proceedings. Costs will not be taxed. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of
this Court. (fdc) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
08/13/2015 15:03:11
PACER
Login:
am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:
Description:
Docket Report
Search
Criteria:
2:06-cv04650-MAM
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.30
Page 58 of 231
June 28, 2016

8/13/2015 3:03 PM

Case
Page 59 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
2:06-cv-04650-MAM Document
1 ofNovember
63
Page 59 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 60 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
2 ofNovember
63
Page 60 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 61 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
3 ofNovember
63
Page 61 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 62 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
4 ofNovember
63
Page 62 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 63 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
5 ofNovember
63
Page 63 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 64 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
6 ofNovember
63
Page 64 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 65 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
7 ofNovember
63
Page 65 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 66 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
8 ofNovember
63
Page 66 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 67 of 17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
9 ofNovember
63
Page 67 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 68 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
10 ofNovember
63
Page 68 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 69 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
11 ofNovember
63
Page 69 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 70 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
12 ofNovember
63
Page 70 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 71 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
13 ofNovember
63
Page 71 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 72 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
14 ofNovember
63
Page 72 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 73 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
15 ofNovember
63
Page 73 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 74 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
16 ofNovember
63
Page 74 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 75 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
17 ofNovember
63
Page 75 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 76 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
18 ofNovember
63
Page 76 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 77 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
19 ofNovember
63
Page 77 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 78 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
20 ofNovember
63
Page 78 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 79 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
21 ofNovember
63
Page 79 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 80 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
22 ofNovember
63
Page 80 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 81 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
23 ofNovember
63
Page 81 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 82 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
24 ofNovember
63
Page 82 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 83 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
25 ofNovember
63
Page 83 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 84 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
26 ofNovember
63
Page 84 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 85 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
27 ofNovember
63
Page 85 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 86 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
28 ofNovember
63
Page 86 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 87 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
29 ofNovember
63
Page 87 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 88 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
30 ofNovember
63
Page 88 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 89 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
31 ofNovember
63
Page 89 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 90 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
32 ofNovember
63
Page 90 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 91 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
33 ofNovember
63
Page 91 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 92 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
34 ofNovember
63
Page 92 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 93 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
35 ofNovember
63
Page 93 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 94 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
36 ofNovember
63
Page 94 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 95 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
37 ofNovember
63
Page 95 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 96 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
38 ofNovember
63
Page 96 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 97 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
39 ofNovember
63
Page 97 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 98 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
40 ofNovember
63
Page 98 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 99 of17
231 Filed 10/15/07 Page
Thursday,
19, 2015
41 ofNovember
63
Page 99 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 100 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
42 ofNovember
63
Page 100 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 101 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
43 ofNovember
63
Page 101 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 102 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
44 ofNovember
63
Page 102 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 103 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
45 ofNovember
63
Page 103 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 104 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
46 ofNovember
63
Page 104 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 105 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
47 ofNovember
63
Page 105 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 106 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
48 ofNovember
63
Page 106 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 107 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
49 ofNovember
63
Page 107 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 108 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
50 ofNovember
63
Page 108 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 109 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
51 ofNovember
63
Page 109 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 110 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
52 ofNovember
63
Page 110 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 111 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
53 ofNovember
63
Page 111 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 112 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
54 ofNovember
63
Page 112 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 113 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
55 ofNovember
63
Page 113 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 114 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
56 ofNovember
63
Page 114 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 115 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
57 ofNovember
63
Page 115 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 116 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
58 ofNovember
63
Page 116 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 117 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
59 ofNovember
63
Page 117 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 118 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
60 ofNovember
63
Page 118 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 119 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
61 ofNovember
63
Page 119 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 120 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
62 ofNovember
63
Page 120 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case
Page 121 of
Thursday,
19, 2015
17231Filed 10/15/07 Page
63 ofNovember
63
Page 121 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 122 of 231
717.427-1621 Fax
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________________________________________________
STANLY J. CATERBONE
AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
PLAINTIFF
:
:
:
:
v.
WENGER, ET AL
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO. 06-cv-4650
ADDENDUM TO COMPLAINT
AND NOW, on this 2nd day of April, 2007, I hereby file an Addendum to this Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: April 2,2007

_____________/s/_____________
1250 Fremont Street
717-427-1821 facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 122 of 231

Page 1 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 123 of 231
____________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
_________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ADDENDUM TO COMPLAINT has been served this 2nd day of
April 2007, by first class mail, Postage prepaid, by electronic mail upon, or by hand delivery:

Page 123 of 231

Page 2 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
1. Mrs. Wiegand
Of the Lancaster County Assistance Office
P.0 BOX 4967
832 Manor Street
Lancaster pa 17604-4967
2. Ms. JoLynn Stoy
Of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
211 North Front Street,
P.O. Box 15530
Harrisburg, PA 171 05-5530
3. Ms. Lynn Patch
P.O. Box 15530
4. Officer James McVey
Of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police
39 West Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
5. Ms. Kerri Egan of
Select Security/Access
150 North Queen Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
6. Dr. Emily M. Pressley
Of the Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster. PA 17602
7. Mr. Randall O. Wenger Of The
Lancaster County Office Of The Prothonotary
Lancaster, PA 17602
wengerr@co.laneaster.pa.us
8. Mr. Mathew Bomberger Office Of The
Lancaster County Public Defender
29 East King Street-Suite 213
Lancaster, Pa 17602
9. Lancaster County Judge Luis Farina
Lancaster, PA 17602
10. Lancaster County District Magistrate
Kelly S. Ballentine, Esq.
123 Locust Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Fax (717)299-8375
11. Officer Michael K. Schaefer
Of Millersville Boro Police
10 Colonial Avenue
Millersville, PA 17551
12. Mr. Donald Totaro
Lancaster County District Attorney
Lancaster, PA 17602
13. Ms. Bachman
P.O. Box 4967
832 Manor Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Page 124 of 231
14. Mr. James Doran

26 Blue Rock Road
15. Mr. Steven J. Sikking

Of the Eden Resort Inn
222 Eden Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
16. Mr. John Buckwalter
Of the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.
8 West King Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
17. Mr. Frank McCabe
Of the High Hotels
High Industries
1853 William Penn Way
Lancaster, PA 17601
18. Mr. Shawn Long
Of Barley Snyder, LLC
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
19. Mr. David Pflumm
Of Pflumm Contractors, Inc.
54 South Duke Street
20. Mrs. Bleicher
P.0 BOX 4967
832 Manor Street
Stuart J. Mylin
25 East State Street
Quarryville, PA 17566
22. Chief John Fiorill Of The Southern
Regional Police Department
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516

Stuart J. Mylin
29. Chief John Fiorill Of The Southern
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
William G. Reuter
77 Donegal Business Center
Mount Joy, PA 17552
31. Lancaster County
Judge Michael A. Georgelis
Of The Court of Common Pleas
Lancaster, PA 17602
Leo Eckert, Jr.
841 Stehman Road
Judge Maynard Hamilton, Jr.
324 Beaver Valley Pike
Willow Street, PA 17584
Fax 717 464-2824
34. Officer Ronald Bezzard Of The
East Lampeter Police Department
2205 Old Philadelphia Pike
Lancaster, PA 17602
35. Officer Adam Cramer
Of The Southern Regional Police Dept
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
23. Officer Robert M. Fedor Of The

Southern
Regional Police Dept
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
36. Officer Robert Buser

Of The Southern Regional Police Dept.
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
24. JoLynn Steinman, Postmaster

Conestoga Post Office
Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
37. Lancaster County

Sherriff S. Bourne
Lancaster, PA 17602
25. Dauphin County District Magistrate

Michael Smith
1281 South 28Th Street
38. Nelson Brewster, Investigator

PA Attorney General Office/Civil Rights
Enforcement
14th Floor, Strawberry Square
26. County Detective Michael Landis

Lancaster County District Attorney Office
Lancaster, PA 17602
Date: April 2,2007

Judge Denise Commins
15 Geist Road
Lancaster, PA 17602
39. Ms. Sheryl Crow

c/o Wendell W. Crow, Managing Partner
Crow, Reynolds, Shetley & McVey, LLP
308 First Street
P.O. Box 189
Kennett, MO 63857-0189
Page
____________/s/_______________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
124
of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 3 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 125 of 231
EXHIBIT C

Page 125 of 231

Page 4 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 126 of 231
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
March 26, 2007
Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company
Margery Lukens, AIC, AIS
Claims Specialist
Mid Atlantic Claims Service Center
P.O. Box 1016
308 Harper Drive
Moorestown. NJ 08057-0916
Fax 856.642.9415
Re:
Claim No. M0-702274 (Stolen Property)
Dear Ms. Lukens:

On Friday, March 23, 2006, at approximately 11:00 am I visited the office of Parula Properties, LLC
at 100 South Seventh Street, Akron, Pennsylvania. The office had no designation of Parula Properties,
instead had 2 outside signs of Noble Real Estate. The receptionist would not acknowledge that Parula
Properties existed and asked who I was and what I wanted. She called a gentleman from an adjacent
office and I explained that I was looking for my personal property that was held in storage. I asked him
that I wanted to inspect the property and demanded my 1991 Dodge Pickup Truck immediately. I also
gave him an updated inventory or item list of all of my personal property that was missing. He told me
that I could not inspect the property because it was far far away, and that he would deliver my vehicle to
1250 Fremont Street. I asked him when, and he said he would email me with a time.
He kept telling me that he wanted to deliver everything at one time to a location of my choosing. I
tried to explain that I did not have anyplace for him to deliver the items. I am currently temporarily
residing in 1000 square foot row home in Lancaster City, that is currently furnished, and that in no way will
the contents of a 2,000 square foot home fit in this house. I became suspicious and asked him what he
had in storage. I told him to email me, and gave him my business card with my email on it. He said he
did not have a card, and that Parula Properties was a client. He would not give me his name. I left, and
have still not received an email from him as promised. I have no evidence that my property was in his
possession, or anyones at that location. Please see the enclosed documents.
Additionally, enclosed is a document that I found yesterday, Notice of Sheriff Sale filed by Shawn
Long, of Barley Snyder on behalf of Fulton Bank. This is the only document that I currently possess
regarding my Foreclosure from Fulton Bank. Please note the following excepts from the Notice of Sheriff
Sale:
2. You may be able to stop the sale by filing a petition asking the Court to strike or open the
judgment, if the judgment was improperly entered. You may also ask the Court to postpone the sale for
good cause.
My Position: I have done this and the matter was before the Superior Court on December 20th,
2006, the day of the Sheriff Sale.
3. You may be able to stop the sale through other legal proceedings. You may need an attorney to
assert your rights. The sooner you contact one, the more chance you will have of stopping the sale. (See
notice below to find out how to obtain an attorney).
My Position: Again, I have done this and the matter was before the Superior Court on
December 20th, 2006, the day of the Sheriff Sale.

Page 126 of 231

Page 5 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 127 of 231
YOU MAY STILL BE ABLE TO SAVE YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE
OTHER RIGHTS EVEN IF THE SHERIFF'S SALE DOES TAKE PLACE
2. You may be able to petition the Court to set aside the sale if the bid price was grossly
inadequate compared to the value of your property.
My Position: I have raised this objection in both Civil Actions Nos. 07-00119 and 07-00366
filed in The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, of Pennsylvania; and have included an
Exhibit the 1099-A document which places the Fair Market Value of Real Property at
$250,000, approximately $100,000 more than the Sheriff Sale price paid by Central
Pennsylvania Settlement on December 20, 2006.
5. You have a right to remain in the property until the full amount due is paid to the Sheriff and
the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time. the buyer may bring legal proceedings to evict you.
My Position: I have never vacated that property and the buyer never initiated any legal
proceedings to evict me. On January 4, 2006, 2 movers ordered my uncle and myself off my
property from Noble Real Estate and I was told hours later by Lt. Lancaster of the Lancaster
County Sheriffs Department that the Southern Regional Police were summoned to the property
because we were trespassing. On February 1, 2007, Common Pleas Judge, Michael Georgelis
signed an ORDER by Shawn Long, of Barley Snyder, representing Fulton Bank, in the matter of
CI-07-00119 Caterbone v. Fulton Bank, et al.
AND, NOW this 1st day of February ,2007, upon consideration of Stanley Caterbone's Petition to Set
Aside Sale of Real Estate and Fulton Bank's response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that said Petition is
denied, with prejudice. Accordingly, the Sheriff is directed to make the scheduled distribution of
proceeds from the December 20,2006 Sheriffs Sale of the property known as 220 Stone Hill Road,
Conestoga, Pennsylvania and to deliver the Sheriffs Deed to such property to the purchaser at such
Sheriffs Sale.
It should be noted that Fulton Bank filed that Response on January 30th, 2007, and I was only
served a copy at 3:00 pm on January 31st, the day before the Hearing (which was held in the
Judges office with no Oath administered). Common Pleas Judge, Michael Georgelis signed the
ORDER that day, February 1st, 2006, without giving me an opportunity to first file my Reply, as
prescribed by law. I filed my reply on February 6th, 2007. Shawn Long admitted in the meeting
that he needed settlement for the property by Friday, February 2nd, 2007, for some unknown
reason.
6. You may be entitled to a share of the money which was paid for your house. A schedule of
distribution of the money bid for your house will be filed by the Sheriff on or about January 19, 2007. This
schedule will state who will be receiving the money. The money will be paid out in accordance with this
schedule unless exceptions (reasons why the proposed distribution is wrong) are filed with the Sheriff
within ten (10) days after January 19,2007.
Ms. Lukens, at this time, given these most recent developments, I must dispute your legal opinion
in your letter of March 13, 2007 which you stated, Regarding yon personal property, 1 have been in
contact with Central Penn Property Services. I was advised that their employee told you on January 4,
2007 to contact their office regarding your personal property. Central Penn Property Services will be
sending you a letter regarding this matter. Your personal property was not stolen.
In addition, I would urge Harleysville to keep this claim open until every item of my personal
property is delivered, and inspected. I would expect that my personal property, be in the same condition
as I left it on December 4, 2006, the last time I was in my residence and property. This was at the ORDER
of Court of Common Pleas Judge Louis Farina, accompanied by 2 Lancaster County Sheriffs from the
Lancaster County Prison to obtain legal files for my trial.
I Remain,
Stan J. Caterbone
cc:
Mr. Donald Totaro, Lancaster County District Attorney

Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael A. Georgelis (CI-07-00119)
Court of Common Pleas Judge Paul K. Allison (CI-07-00366)
Enclosures

Page 127 of 231

Page 6 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 128 of 231
BARLEY SNYDER, LLC

Shawn M. Long, Esquire
Court I.D. Nu. 83774
Lancaster, PA 17602
(717) 299-5201
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Fulton Bank
FULI'ON BANK,
Plaintiff
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. CI-06-02271
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Defendant
ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSUM
NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

TO:
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Your house (real estate) at 220 Stone Hill Road a/Wa Lot #5 Stone Hill Road, Township
of Conestoga, County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania is scheduled to be sold at Sheriffs Sale on
December 20,2006 at 1.30 p.m., by the office of the Lancaster County Sheriff in Courtroom A:
Second Floor, Old Courthouse, 50 North Duke Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania to enforce the
court judgmer.! of $97,425.07 obtained by Fulton Bank, against you.
NOTICE OF OWNER'S RIGHTS
YOU MAY BE ABLE TO PREVENT THIS SHERIFF'S SALE
To prevent this Sheriffs Sale you must take immediate action:
1.
The sale will be canceled if you pay to Fulton Bank (the amount of the judgment
plus costs)(the back payments, late charges, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees due). To find
out how you 111ust pay, you may call Shawn M. Long, Esquire at (717) 299-5201.

Page 128 of 231

Page 7 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
2.
Page 129 of 231
You may be able to stop the sale by filing a petition asking the Court to strike or
open the judgment, if the judgment was improperly entered. You may also ask the Court to
postpone the sale for good cause
You may be able to stop the sale through other legal proceedings. You may need
3.
an attorney to assert your rights. The sooner you contact one, the more chance you will have of
stopping the sale. (See notice below to find out how to obtain an attorney).
YOU MAY STILL BE ABLE TO SAVE YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE
OTHER RIGHTS EVEN IF THE SHERIFF'S SALE DOES TAKE PLACE.
1.
If the Sheriffs Sale is not stopped, your property will be sold to the highest
bidder. You may find out the price by calling the Sheriff of Lancaster County, at (717) 2998200.
2.
You may be able to petition the Court to set aside the sale if the bid price was
grossly inadequate compared to the value of your property.

3.
The sale will go through only if the buyer pays the Sheriff the full amount due in
the sale. To find out if this has happened, you may call the Sheriff of Lancaster county, at (717)
299-8200.
4.
If the amount due from the buyer is not paid to the Sheriff, you will remain the
owner of the propcrty as if the sale never happened.
5.
You have a right to remain in the property until the full amount due is paid to the
Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time. the buyer may bring legal
proceedings to evict you.
6.
You may be entitled to a share of the money which was paid for your house. A

Page 129 of 231

Page 8 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 130 of 231
schedule of distribution of the money bid for your house will be filed by the Sheriff on or about
January 19, 2007. This schedule will state who will be receiving the money. The money will be
paid out in accordance with this schedule unless exceptions (reasons why the proposed
distribution is wrong) are filed with thc Sheriff within ten (10) days after January 19,2007.
7.
You may also have other rights and defenses, or ways of getting your house back,
if you act immediately after the sale.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO

NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. G O TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE LISTED BELOW TO FlND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyer Referral Service

The Lancaster County Bar Association
28 East Orange Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Telephone: (717) 393-0737

Page 130 of 231

Page 9 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 131 of 231
ALL That certain tract of land along Stone Hill Road situate in Conestoga Township, Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania, and being more particularly shown on a survey prepared for Anna L. Mylin
by Charles L. Roach, P.L.S., on September 30, 1994, and all the same being more fully bounded
and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a railroad sdke set bv others near the center of the westbound lane of Stone Hill
Road; thence extending in Stone Hill Road, South eight (8) degrees thirty-five (35) minutes twelve
(12) seconds East, a distance of two hundred eighty-nine and seventy-three hundredths (289.73)
;
extending along land
feet to a nail set by others near thc centerline ofsaid Stone Hill ~ o a dthence
now or late of Floyd E. and Justinc L. Duke and crossing over an iron pin set twenty-three and
sixty hundredths (23.60) feet from the last described point, South eight (8) dcgrees forty-four (44)
minutes twelve (12) seconds West, a distance of three hundred thirty-five and forty-nine
hundredths (335.49) feet to a stone, a comer of land now or late of Russel and Donna Lasch;
thence along lands now or late of same, South eighty-seven (87) degrees twenty-one (21) minutes
thirty-two (32) seconds West, a distance of one hundred ninety-five and fifty-seven hundredths
(195.57) feet to an iron pin; thence extending along land now or late of Charles E. and Theda M.
kneer, North five (5) degrees seventeen (1 7) minutes thirty (30) seconds West, a distance one
hundred seventy (1 70.00) feet to a point; thence extending along land now or late of Harold F. and
Mary Jane Baker, North six (6) degrees thirteen (1 3) minutes ten (10) seconds West, a distance of
two hundred twenty (220.00) feet, having crossed over an iron pin set twenty-five and forty
hundredths (25.40) feet from the next described point to a railroad spike set by others, the place of
BEGINNING.
-- -
CONTAINlNG 1.982 acres

UNDER AND SUBJEC'I' TO any conditions, restrictions and rights-of-way of record.
IT BEING the same premises which Anna L. Mylin, by deed dated January 20, 1995 and recorded
January 24, 1995 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Lancaster County,
Pcnnsylvm~ilia,in Record Book 4552, Page 0419, granted and conveyed unto Stanley J. Caterbone.
his heirs and assigns, Grantor herein.
Tax Map No.: 120-32523-0-0000
SEIZED IN EXECUTION as the property of Stanlcy J. Caterbone, on Judgment No. CI-06-02271.

Page 131 of 231

Page 10 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 132 of 231
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL
FmTCN BAXK
No. CI-06-0227 1
1'.
STANLEY J. CATEAWGNE
Pa. R.A.P. 192Sfb) 0 R D E R

The Defendant has appealed my June 29, 20C6 Order granting the Plaintiffs Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadinss. He is directed to file. by August 25. 2006. a concise statement of the
matters complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). The Plaintiff is directed to file its
answer, specificaily addressing those matters identified by the Defendant, by September 8, 2006.
C o ~ i e sof each must he GeEivereb to mv Chzmhers bv those dstes.
BY THE COURT:
MICHAEL A GEORCFI
1s
Jll?f;F
MICHAEL A. GEORCiELIS
JUDGE
AUGUST 1 1,2006
ATTEST:
\.
i"?""
* .
'V.
<
C
4"L"LLJ
1 1 h
i.b i r i l i Y \ l i . b >
??A Cinxa U : I I D - - A
"I"..- l
I.YU..)
Pn-n-+nrn D A
VVIICU."~'.,
!7<1 C
1.
S'.,?\r:n M. L m g , Esq.

Page 132 of 231

Page 11 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 133 of 231
March 19, 2007

CERTIFIED MAIL
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
RE:
Your personal property from 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA 17516
Dear Mr. Caterbone

Your personal property and your 1991 Dodge Dakota Pickup are secure and safe in storage and
will be delivered directly to you at the location you specify. Please contact our office and give
us a location as t o where you want your things delivered to as well as a date and time.
Our phone number is 717-859-3311 and press zero for the operator.
Parula Properties, LLC.
Parula Properties, LLC

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal 100 S 7thStreet,
Page 133
of 231PA 17501
Akron,
Page 12 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 134 of 231

amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
March 15, 2007

100 S 7th Street,
Akron, PA 17501
Re:
220 Stone Hill Road
Dear Sir or Madam:

I was never told by anyone regarding the location and/or status of my personal property. I
dont know how you think you can get away with that statement. Law enforcement had a duty and
obligation to disclose that information, and never ever communicated to me any such notion.
We will address this situation in a professional manner.
information in order to take possession of my property:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I am demanding the following
Location of storage facility.

The submittal of an itemized inventory listing of all property returned to me.
Names of all individuals that have had access to my property.
Location of my 1991 Dodge Dakota Pickup.
Your specified requirements to take possession.
You must remember, the evidentiary materials and files are material to litigation in the
following Courts; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; The Third
Circuit District Court of Appeals; The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania Superior Court,
The Commonwealth Court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, The Commonwealth Court of Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania; The Commonwealth Court of Berks County, Pennsylvania; Magisterial District
Justices Eckert, Commins, Stoltzfus, Roth, Simms, Ballentine, Sponaugle, Hamilton, Mylin, and
James.
I will not being uses a telephone to communicate at this time. First, I do not have a
telephone, and second, I have no way of knowing or verifying you by telephone. In 2004, I have
filed a complaint regarding persons misidentifying themselves on the telephone, and redirecting my
calls. Agent Sarsfield of the Pittsburg Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania can verify and
confirm this.
I expect you will expedite your response.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc: file

Page 134 of 231

Page 13 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 135 of 231
March 13, 2007

CERTIFIED MAIL
Stanley 1.Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
RE:
Your personal property from 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA 17516
Dear Mr. Caterbone

Please be advised that we are still storing your personal propetty thai aas r s r o v e d %or, 220
Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA 17516. We had told you on January 4, 2007 to contact obr
office so that we could coordinate getting your things back into your possession. To date, we
have not heard from you.
This is official notice that if you do not contact our office in 30 days to claim your personal
property, it will be disposed of. We can be reached at 717-859-3311 and press zero for the
operator.
Parula Properties, LLC.

100 S 7thStreet, Akron, PA 17501
Page 135 of 231

Page 14 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 136 of 231
Midatlantic Claims Service Center

PO. Box l O l h
308 Harper Drive
Tel $88.5959876
Fax 856.h42.9415
Mooreslown. NJ 08057,0916
www.harleysviile,mo~p.~om
Goodpeople to know
March 13.2007
Stanley Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Claim No:
Insured:
Loss Location:
Date of Loss:
MO-702274
Stanley Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road, Lancaster, PA
1104107
Dear Mr. Caterbone:

Thank you for your letter of March 10, 2007. Please be advised that we have reviewed the
information provided to date.
We are will be closing your claim. As stated in the docun~entationthat you provided, your housc
was sold and your I-eceivedcompensation for it. If you disagree with the amount of compensation,
yon need to discuss that with Fnlton Financial Corporation.
Regarding yon personal property, 1have been in contact with Central Penn Property Services. I
was advised that their employee told you on January 4, 2007 to contact their office regading your
personal property. Central Penn Property Services will be sending you a letter regarding this
matter. Your personal property was not stolen.
Should you have any question, please feel free to contact me at (888) 595-9876.
Sincerely,
7
Margery Lukens, AIC, AIS

Claims Specialist
Mid-Atlantic Claims Service Center
Ext: 2359
cc:
Murray Insurance Assoc.

File
State law requires us to include the following statement Any person who knowingly files a statement of claim
Case containing
No. 16-05815
CULLEN
Recusalinformntion is Page
136
of 231 and civil penalties.
June 28, 2016
any false
or misleading
subject
to criminal
Page 15 of 78
03.30.2007
MSN Hotmail Third Circuit 15-3400
1 of 2
http://by104fd.bay104.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=0000...
Page 137 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
Printed: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:04 AM
From :
Sent :
Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:43 AM
To :
Senator_Specter@Specter.Senate.gov
CC :
Lisa_Owings@judiciary-rep.senate.gov
Subject :
RE: In Response to your message to Senator Specter
Dear Senator,
I will not accept your explanation or response as satisfactory. I have given you evidence of a
widespread civil and criminal conspiracy, to cover up my Federal False Claims Act complaint
regarding selling arms to Iraq. Now, I notified you of the subject matter back in 1991 or 1992,
during a personal meeting in Columbia, Pennsylvania. You have a statatory duty to at least
refer this matter to someone in authority that can offer me assistance. I had someone attempt
to take my life over these matters before, and you, being a Republican, cannot change your
obligation or duties; you are now privy to these matters.
I have given you enough evidence of Obstruction of Justice (for at least an interview), and
being that Mr. Donald Totaro, the Lancaster County District Attorney was directely inovolved in
these matters in 1987 (with fradulent and dismissed criminal charges), when these incidents
began, (ISC Whistle-Blowing), and given your recent visits to Lancaster County over the past
year, I am urging you to reconsider your position and your lack of willingness to uphold the
rule of law, and your obligations.
You, Senator, took an Oath of Office, and if you do not at least give me an opportunity to
discuss these matters with you or someone else, I will find a way to hold you accoutable for
playing partisian politics. I have been interrogated in Austin Texas, in July of 2005 by 2
Agents for the DOD Defense Intelligence Agency, and will not let this continue. Ever since I
began filing my Federal Civil Action in May of 2005 (052288), it has been a game of law
enforcement engaging in a vigorius campaign to discredit me and my allegations, and most
importantly, they have taken the Anti-SLAPP statutes of RICO to new heights.
I do not accept your reponse, your position, or your patisian politics.
I am begining to think that your staffer, Ms. Lisa Owings, was deliberatly positioned to meet me
outside the Southern Market building before your talk on Crime, a few weeks ago, for some
malicious reason.
I remain,
Stan Caterbone
mailto:
amgroup01@msn.com
Fax: (717) 427-1621
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
----Original Message Follows---From: <Senator_Specter@Specter.Senate.gov>

Subject: In Response to your message to Senator Specter
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:59:10 -0400
Dear Mr. Caterbone :

Page 137 of 231

Page 16 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
MSN Hotmail Third Circuit 15-3400
http://by104fd.bay104.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=0000...
Page 138 of 231
Thank you for your letter regarding legal matters. Unfortunately, the
function of the Senate is primarily legislative, and we cannot intercede
in matters which are under the jurisdiction of the courts.
While I know that our system of justice can at times be frustrating, I

believe it is the finest system in the world, and I am confident that
justice will eventually be served. In my role as a federal legislator
and as Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am working to
improve the effectiveness of our system of justice and to ensure that
our system continues to respect the rights of individuals and honor the
rule of law.
I am sorry that I am not in the position to offer individual legal

assistance, but I will keep your concerns in mind when relevant
legislation is considered by the Senate. Should you have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my
website at www.specter.senate.gov <http://www.specter.senate.gov/> .
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter

Page 138 of 231

Page 17 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 139 of 231
Page 139 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 18 of 78
03.30.2007
Page 140 of 231
EXHIBIT D

Page 140 of 231

Page 19 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 141 of 231

amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
March 29, 2007

Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company
Margery Lukens, AIC, AIS Claims Specialist
Mid Atlantic Claims Service Center
P.O. Box 1016
308 Harper Drive
Moorestown. NJ 08057-0916
Fax 856-642-9415
Re:
Follow up to Claim No. M0-702274 (Stolen Property)
Dear Ms. Lukens:

I need to stress to you the importance of the stolen legal materials, evidence, and files that are
part of my missing and stolen personal property.
On Tuesday, March 27th, 2007, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on made it harder
for federal whistle-blowers to share in the proceeds from fraud lawsuits against government contractors.
The False Claims Act allows individuals, acting on the government's behalf, to file fraud suits against
companies that do business with the government. Business groups that wanted the court to limit whistleblowers in false claims lawsuits cheered the outcome. Since Congress reinvigorated the Civil War-era law in
1986, those suits have returned $11 billion to the government. But Justice Antonia Scalia, writing in the 6-2
ruling Tuesday, said Stone was not entitled to recover any money because he lacked "direct and independent
knowledge of the information upon which his allegations were based."
In case you are not aware, my civil actions in the Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania are the result of my whistle-blowing activities of 1987 against Lancaster defense contractor
International Signal & Control, PLC (ISC). My documentation, fortunately, provides for evidence of direct and
independent knowledge. There are (3) Federal Cases that are currently in litigation, they are 05-2288; 064650; 06-4734; and my Amici Curiae for case number 2006-2095/2006-2140 (ACLU v. the National Security
Agency (NSA). This is why my property was stolen. Plain and simple.
I have been afforded continuances in most of my Federal Civil litigation until April 11, 2007; with the
exception of my Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Reorganization case, 05-23059; which requires a motions due at this
time. I have also cases that require the same materials in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania (MDA 125-2006, MDA 435-2007), and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (248
MAL 2007). The Pennsylvania State Courts have not afforded me Continuances, and I am in desperate need
of these files. I also have to defend numerous summary criminal citations, the result of RICO Anti-SLAPP
violations, that require these files for me to defend myself with all available elements of my defense. The
criminal courts have afforded me all the continuances available.
Please review and add the attached materials to this case file.
I Remain,
Stan J. Caterbone
cc:
Mr. Donald Totaro, Lancaster County District Attorney

enclosures

Page 141 of 231

Page 20 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007

Page 142 of 231
Lancaster Online.com: Top Local News : Is Herley the next Chem...
Leola Village Inn/Suites
Lancaster Hotels
Enjoy A Romantic Weekend of Fine Dining &

Shopping in Lancaster PA
www.leolavillage.com
Stop Here First for Guaranteed Great Rates on

Lancaster PA Hotels.
www.OnlineHotels.com

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/2330
PA Homes in Lancaster Pa
Tools, Maps, and Photos Free and Unbiased

Information
www.Trulia.com
LancasterOnline Keyword
Homes | Cars | Jobs | Customer Care Center
Photos
Home
Is
Herley
the
next
News
Chem-Con or ISC?
Sports
Manheim Township defense firm is 3rd

here in 20 years accused of fraud.
Business
Entertainment By Tim Mekeel
Lancaster New Era
Technology
Health
Published: Jun 08, 2006 1:50 PM
EST
Weather
Article Tools
Link to This Article
Archives
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - One local
Printer Friendly
defense contractor acted like it had big
en
Format
overseas contracts, putting empty

Espaol
Order a Reprint
Services
Classifieds
Talkback
eEditions
Cars
Real Estate
Apartments
Shopping
Community
Visit
Lancaster
Personals
Features
Celebrations
Obituaries
Special
Sections
Columns
Interests
Advertisement
crates of inventory in warehouses

worldwide.
A second local defense firm faked its

own work records to show the
production of boxcar-size Navy cargo
containers was on schedule.
Email This Article

Related Articles
More Top Local News
Videos
A third local defense contractor

allegedly faked problems obtaining
parts and making products, to justify
the inflated prices it was charging.
Over the past 20 years, three defense
firms here International Signal &
Control, United Chem-Con and now
this week, Herley Industries have
been indicted for fraud.
All were accused of orchestrating
charades to achieve the same goal
pocketing millions of dollars.
But the alleged ruses were different.
And whether the outcome of the cases
is different as well remains to be seen.
Though the top executives at ISC and
United Chem-Con pleaded guilty and
served years in prison, Herley and its
chairman, Lee N. Blatt, have denied
any wrongdoing and say they will
vigorously contest the charges.
The biggest and most complex of the
three local cases involved ISC, once an
apparently thriving firm that employed
1,800 here but then closed in the wake
of the scandal.
Customer
Service
Subscribe
A federal grand jury indicted 20

individuals and companies in 1991 for
their roles in ISCs $1.14 billion
fake-contract scam, as well as a $50
million scheme to smuggle weapons to
South Africa.

Page 142 of 231

Page 21 of 78
Go
Welcome
Edit
Search
LancasterOnline 6
Go
Newspaper Advertisements
GREAT FATHER'S DAY GIFT IDEA!
Golf Mini-Saver at Lancaster Host
Golf Club. For a limited time, only
$140. Click for details.
SPRING SPECIAL! All mulch
wholesale cost at Thomas Trucking,
Inc. Pick-up or Delivered. Click for
details.
ENTER TO WIN A $250 SHOPPING
SPREE or an "EXTREME HOME
BAKEOVER". Click here for details.
FREE GAS CARD for all work
scheduled by customers during June
at Martin's Excavating &
Landscaping Services.
EARN CASH BACK and get a coupon
for 15% off your next drycleaning
order from Clean Enterprises.
Click here for JUNE DINNER
SPECIALS at T. Burk & Co. Deli
Restaurant.
RELAX...One call does it all! Clean
Cut Design & Landscaping.
STOP Shaving, Waxing & Tweezing!
Find out how, at, YOUR LASER
CENTER.
10-50% OFF at Bowman's Stove &
Patio's 29th ANNIVERSARY SALE!
Click for details.
THIS WEEKEND at the Villa East
Comedy Club. Jesse Joyce with
Brian McKim, and your host, Pat
Lamb.
Marketplace
Visit the
Marketplace >>
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007

Page 143 of 231
Care
Center
Place an Ad
Advertising
Contact Us
Site
Site Map
Keyword
Index
RSS Feeds
Need a
Website?

Ads by Google
ISC founder James H. Guerin pleaded

guilty to eight counts of wrongdoing,
admitting he orchestrated the crimes.
He recently finished a 13-year prison
sentence in Florida and returned to
Lancaster County.
The fake contract scam was designed
to portray ISC as a vibrant company,
first so bankers would lend it money
and later, so the British firm Ferranti,
would buy it.
James Street Strap

Light #13
Olde Mill Lighting
$160.00
Pineapple Dinner Plate

Olde Mill House $11.00
14-kt. Gold &

1.0-ct. TW Diamond
Solitaire Earrings
$1454.99
Camp Chef Outdoor

Cooking Kit
$29.99
Refinance Your
Mortgage
The decade-long scheme was

remarkably detailed.
Get Low Refinancing
A Pakistani military man got a

$250,000 bribe to say that ISC had a
missile contract with his country. Fake
missile contracts with that country, as
well as the United Arab Emirates,
China and South Africa, were drawn
up, with forged signatures.
Lenders Now. Free,
Quotes From Top

No Obligation.
www.SmartMortgageUSA.com
Supporting documents were

fabricated, down to minutes from
phantom meetings about the supposed
contracts and invoices from imaginary
suppliers.
Empty crates of inventory were
placed in warehouses in Chile, Belgium
and South Africa, and a sham contract
management office in Greece opened,
all for the benefit of Ferrantis auditors
and outside auditors.
Advertise on this site
Then, to support the illusion of all this

business, ISC funneled hundreds of
millions of dollars through a web of 47
front companies and 61 bank accounts
around the world.
The scam at ISC was foreshadowed by
the 1987 scandal at Chem-Con, a
company which Guerin co-founded and
was headed by president James B.
Christian.
Again, an apparently robust defense
contractor, with about 150 employees
here, collapsed amid accusations of
fraud. In 1988, the first indictments
were filed. Ultimately, 15 people were
charged.
Christian pleaded guilty to
racketeering, tax evasion, mail fraud
and conspiracy, serving 22 months on
the federal charges. He then went to
state prison to serve the rest of a
two-year concurrent sentence for
illegally dumping hazardous waste. He
was released in 1991.
The heart of the Chem-Con case was
the firms contract to make steel cargo
containers for the Navy. Chem-Con
bilked the Navy out of $12 million in

Page 143 of 231

Page 22 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007

Page 144 of 231

payments and the companys lead

bank, Meridian Bank, out of $3 million
in loans based on work it hadnt
performed.
But it sure acted like it had.
In a blizzard of fake paperwork,
Chem-Con submitted phony invoices,
labor costs and production records to
the Navy and the bank to hide the fact
that it actually was behind schedule.
The containers, known as sea sheds,
were made at Chem-Cons plant in
Renovo, Clinton County.
Chem-Con used the same technique to
hide the fact that a contract handled
by its Lancaster plant, to make Army
fuze cables, was being completed with
a 90 percent failure rate.
Herley, with more than 300 employees
here, and Blatt were accused this week
of using another kind of fake
paperwork to cheat the American
military out of $2.8 million.
In a 35-count indictment, Herley and
Blatt were charged with falsely
inflating the prices that Herley charged
the military for two components used
in aircraft radar, giving Herley profits
of more than 300 percent on them.
To support the prices, Herley and Blatt
allegedly pretended that key parts
would have to made in costly,
alternative ways. Then, once its prices
were accepted by the military, Herley
allegedly reverted to the original ways.
The company and its chairman also
allegedly fabricated expenses,
including pretending to fund research
for one component at Syracuse
University and buying new production
equipment for another.
Herley and Blatt also slowed or
stopped production of early orders of
the components, to pressure the
military into accepting its prices on
later orders, the indictment alleges.
Recent TalkBack comments about this article

Comment on this article
Daisy Lee
stock up today..
Myers
06-08-2006
web link:
Herley Industries, Inc. (US:HRLY) - Stock Quotes - MSN Money
http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_q...ymbol=US%3AHRLY

Page 144 of 231

Page 23 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 145 of 231
January 23, 1997

Mr. Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Ms. Christina Rainville
1300 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
RE: Previously discussed matters.
Dear Ms. Rainville:
I thank you for your help regarding the enclosed materials. As I have discussed
previously, I would appreciate your legal opinion as to the extent of my legal rights
concerning the following circumstances.
I will attempt to describe the many legal issues that are contained herein, and I have
provided documentation substantiating my claims. Due to the complexity and
sensitive nature of these issues, I have tried to reduce the paper to its simplest
form, while also protecting the integrity of my claims. I have also provided authentic
conversations, which I recorded merely in my defense as an accurate account of the
activities surrounding my sudden demise. I possess many more forms of evidence,
including over 9000 paper images that I had microfilmed in November of 1987.
I realize that you offered to review only a few documents, however it was necessary
to formulate the documents in a way that was sufficient to challenge the legal issues
that I am questioning. Documents 1 & 2 would provide a glimpse into the legal
merits of my claims. The following is an attempt to provide you with a brief
description of the activities and actions contained in these matters. Please
understand that I have not included any related activities that continued during
1991, especially concerning ISC and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The following is a legend of the conversations contained on the Compact Disc:
2. 09/29/87 - A segment of the interview with the PA Securities and Exchange
Commission, Agent Howard Eisler, Attorney Robert Beyer, Client
Millard Johnson, and myself, present.
3. 02/24/88 - Meeting with Attorney Sandra Gray, of San Diego, California.
4. 07/10/87 - Phone conversation with Chuck Smith, President of Lancaster
Aviation.
5. 07/07/87 - Phone conversation with Attorney David Drubner.
6. 07/21/87 - Meeting in Hollywood California with the owner of Gamillion Film
Studios, who was seeking my help to secure financing. Also present is
Marcia Silen, a producer of the Digital Movie.
7. 10/27/87 - Telephone conversation with Pennsylvania Securities & Exchange

Page 145 of 231

Page 24 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 146 of 231
Commission Agent, Howard Eisler.

8. 10/26/87 - Detective Boden, of the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals office.
9. 02/24/97 - ABC News 20/20 segment on International Signal & Control, and
Arms to Iraq.
Please forgive the form of the following narrative, however it is especially draining to
prepare these materials. This is the first time that I have attempted this task, with
the exception of various efforts which were intended to merely defend myself, my
person, my character, my reputation, or my assets. You will eventually discover that
the question of my mental condition is of grave importance to my perpetrators. For
the record, I do suffer from Bi Polar Mood Disorder, however, no where during all of
these activities can anyone prove that I have acted irrationally or insane, the truth to
my actions are well recorded, however the massive attack on my mental condition is
proven to be centered around lies and hearsay.
Any help pertaining to these matters, no matter how small, will be greatly
appreciated. Please invoice me accordingly.
The Background.
Ten years ago I had built a financial firm, Financial Management Group, Ltd., (FMG).
In 1985 I had conducted a marketing study that included interviewing more than 5
local physicians, all of substantial wealth or income. I had merely described my
strategic plan for FMG, and they gave me feedback, all positive and enthusiastic. In
1986 I incorporated 11 different corporations, all under the ownership of FMG. To
attract local talent, FMG was owned by not only the 3 principals, but stock was
offered to every professional in the organization, including satellite offices. I had
raised approximately $400,000 of capital to start the company, and I did it in
compliance of the PA SEC Rule 144 Regulation D public offering.
In one year, we had phenomenal growth. By June of 1987 we had invested
approximately $50 million of client funds. We provided relatively most of the financial
services necessary during ones lifetime. On the streets our organization was worth
approximately $4 million, which is strictly correlated to the commissions paid out.
We had at least 10 satellite offices, and covered 5 states. We also owned an interest
in the PSG Broker Dealer, which was worth another $1.5 million.
I was Executive Vice President and Secretary of FMG. I was President and Secretary
of FMG Advisory, which was our Registered Investment Advisor (RIA). I had been
pushing through the approval process with the Pennsylvania Securities and Exchange
Commission for more than 6 months, concerning the RIA.
In early 1987 I had developed a mortgage banking operation. I had negotiated with
a large Southwestern mortgage firm to provide mortgages for Eastern Pennsylvania.
Our lending capacity ranged from a minimum of $3 million and as high as $100
million. Even more important was the fact that this lending capacity was very and
sometimes more competitive than other area lending institutions, I had shortly
developed a very large list of clients for whom I was trying to secure financing for
various types of projects.
Combining the mortgage banking services with the ability of FMG to secure financing

Page 146 of 231

Page 25 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 147 of 231
through equity investment programs, I was very attractive the real estate
community that had deals to finance. My second cousin, in Houston, TX, provided me
with this opportunity. In the mater of 2 months, we had met not only with several
large local developers, I had also begun business with companies located in more
than 5 other states. I had provided a commitment letter for $5 million mortgage for
Norris Boyd, of Boyd Wilson, for the Village of Old Hickory. Norris Boyd had
personally informed me that I had a better deal than the Commonwealth National
Bank (who will later illegally reposes my airplane), where the loan was currently
secured.
In February of 1987, because of our ability to raise capital, Scott Robertson
requested that I assist him in visiting Power Station Studio, who was trying to secure
financing for a movie. Reluctantly, due to the risk involved with motion picture
investments, I went to Power Station Studios, in Manhattan. Tony Bongiovi built
Power Station Studios to be among of an elite few. The names of stars that recorded
there was very impressive. Tony also produced the sound track for Star Wars, which
was very profitable, and still is. Another project, although controversial, was his
cousin, Jon Bon Jovi. Power Station is where Jon Bon Jovi began his amazing career,
under early development of Tony, his cousin. Contractual disputes ruined the
relationship, which put large sums of money to risk. Jon Bon Jovi is one of the
leading all time musicians, in terms of revenues.
Tony described his project, which was not merely just a movie. Tony wanted to
develop the first Digital Movie. Given my thirst for technology, along with a
demonstrated knowledge, I became infatuated with the concept, the concept of
providing the highest quality of sound, along with the highest quality of video. I had
researched the merits of the technology, which complimented my own vision, and
found a tremendously feasible project, one which would have the potential to have a
major impact into the film and video industries. I had always personally believed that
sound was as important as the picture for the truest sense of entertainment. The
following documents will demonstrate my investment into this technology, along with
my keen sense of perception. Today we call this Direct Broadcast Satellite DSS,
which is currently causing the cable industry great pains. The consequences of digital
technologies to the world of information is what now gives us the Information
Highway, and all of its peripheral components.
The following documents will easily confirm my interests to the preceding three
businesses, FMG, the mortgage banking operation, and the Digital Movie project.
The relationship to my partners was less than amicable. In developing FMG I agreed
to let Mr. Robert Kauffman (Kauffman) act as President, upon the condition that we
each own the same amount of stock. Mr. Michael Hartlett (Hartlett) did contribute to
the early development of FMG. Since Kauffman could not control me, Kauffman and
Hartlett would of attempt to buy me out, well after I created and incurred the most
risk, and after the proven success of the organization. In the Spring of 1987, I had to
personally take control of the Board of Directors to undue a merger that presented
great risk to the company, and my investment. As part of our strategic plan, we
agreed to purchase an interest in a Broker Dealer, rather than spending the capital
and human resources in which it would require. I had personally traveled to
Washington D.C., to visit this company, which was Kauffmans idea, and I literally
found an empty shell. I found offices full of empty cartons, empy file cabinets, and
this was the company that was responsible for processing all of the securities
business that our brokers transact. This process was vital to our organization.

Page 147 of 231

Page 26 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 148 of 231
I immediately flew to Atlanta, GA, to visit another company, PSC, which had been
courting our company for a relationship for almost a year. It was a company that
provided technology, service, affiliates which accounted for several of the past
presidents International Association for Financial Planners, of which I served as Vice
President the Central Pennsylvania Chapter. (This association provided me with the
national exposure to develop FMG.) In May of 1987, while traveling to a conference
in Palm Springs, CA, the FMG Board of Directors approve the merger of PSG, I had
voted via telephone from an airport in Chicago.
The would be the last time that I would vote at an FMG Board of Directors meeting.
This is when I loose virtually everything that is vital to a businessman, my assets,
excellent credit rating and my spotless reputation, my professional designations and
licenses, the opportunity to continue the vast business opportunities that I have
developed, and most painfully, my dignity --- all without merit or reasonable cause.
June 23, 1987
10:30 am. I have a schedule meeting with Mr. Larry Resch and Mr. Carl
Jacobson,both of International Signal & Control, (ISC) and United Chem Con. The
meeting was to discuss different financial deals. Upon arriving, Mr. Resch disclosed
to me that they had to fly Carl out of the country this morning, he will not be here.
I remember that there was a lot of names and places, all over the world, that
mentioned.
During our discussions, I had become annoyed at something, so I began making
assertions that ISC and Mr. James Guerin was involved with fraudulent activities. I
further described some of those activities.
I did not know that Mr. Resch was as close to Mr. James Guerin as you could get.
At approximately 3:00 that same afternoon, I had Russell Locksmith company
change the locks to my office door. Between my partners and ISC, I apparently
became concerned.
2 Days later, on June 25th, via telephone, Mr. Kauffman carelessly reported that 2
stock certificates were issued, without my authorization.
First, I, acting as Secretary ,I must authorize and issue stock certificates, in
accordance to the Articles of Incorporation.
Secondly, Kauffman and company must have burglarized my office to gain access to
the corporate records, which were under my custody, as defined in the Articles.
Several days later, during the night, I had went into my office and removed all of my
files, and upon finding a forged stock certificate with another Board of Director
signing as myself and as Secretary, which violated several bylaws of the Articles of
Incorporation.
The next day I went to the office of my attorney, Mr. Joseph, who advised me to
return all of the corporate files, and essentially suggested that I go home and get

Page 148 of 231

Page 27 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 149 of 231
some rest. Mr. Roda would later represent Mr. William Clark, corporate legal counsel
for ISC against Mr. James Guerin in contract dispute for several million dollars.
That afternoon, I loaded all of my files into my airplane, to transport to Stone Harbor
NJ, where I was renting another house for the Digital Movie project. I had secured
pilots from Romar Aviation to transport the files early the next morning. I had driven
to New Jersey that evening.
That next morning, the pilot that I had hired to fly my plane, telephoned me and
informed me that my plane was repossessed and locked in a hanger, and he would
not be able to deliver my files.
Those files were the only means of substantiating the truth in order to protect myself
from whatever was happening.
My first payment to Commonwealth National Bank, was not due for another month.
In short, I finally found a pilot at the Cape May Airport to fly to Lancaster to my
files.He returned hours later with my files, and would only mention some incident
involving a gun. Later I would be told that he died a mysterious death the next
month.
Not knowing that Commonwealth National Bank, the same bank that I was about to
transfer $5 Million mortgage to my mortgage operations, had actually repossessed
my titled airplane in the middle of the night. And conveniently with all of my files
aboard. What bank repossesses legitimate possessions in the middle of the night?
This will be the end of my life as I know it, I had demonstrated my success, my
reputation was exemplified through my ability to develop FMG, and my financial
credit was flawless. In the following months, I will suspiciously loose everything;
including my assets, my business interests, my reputation, my credit, and the most
valuable of all, my opportunity; and ultimately, my dignity. In reality, I was never
even given the chance to fail.
I will contend, and prove, that all of the actions were without merit and many of
which were fraudulent themselves, and I know that I can substantiate that
statement.
According the Articles of Incorporation, I was never legally removed as Secretary, or
any other official duties. Because, there cant be a Board of Directors Meeting
without me, the Secretary. The record in the preliminary hearing transcript clearly
proves that there was no legal Board of Directors Meeting that removed me.
I never resigned from any positions or official duties of FMG, nor was I ever officially
and legally removed from the same.
I was a Tenant, with a $500,000 personal guarantee attached to the lease of FMG,
Ltd.
The forgery of stock certificates violated the bylaws of the Articles of Incorporation,
thus, as Secretary, my duties were to safeguard the corporate records.
The evidence indicates that all of the arrests were fabricated, the airplane
repossession was illegal, and all of the allegations of insanity were malicious.

Page 149 of 231

Page 28 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 150 of 231
In September of 1987, in the Report to the Board of Directors of Ferranti

International, raised a question of substantial risk, unlike that of which Ferranti was
accustomed. The report cautioned any alliance due to the related CIA activities
connected to ISC, and the lack of stability of the customers (Iraq?). At that same
time, I was making public allegations against ISC. My conversations posed
considerable risk to those connected with the pending deal with Farranti.
I can substantiate my claim that; everything that transpired during the days
immediately following the forged stock certificate, of FMG, Ltd., stock on June 25,
1987 was illegal and violated several of the bylaws of the Articles of Incorporation I
was the only officer that was in compliance with the bylaws of the Articles of
Incorporation, and the only officer that did not violate criminal codes.
I can substantiate my claim that I had an interest in Digital Technologies, including
patent research from Mr Joel Goldhammer, of the law firm of Seidel, Gonda,
Goldhammer & Abbott, P.C. of Philadelphia, which violated several statutes of
intellectual property rights. I can substantiate my claims that all of the arrests and
hospitalizations were malicious and illegal, violating several of my civil rights.
I can substantiate my claim that my allegations of fraud within International Signal &
Control, Plc., were motive for many of my perpetrators.
I can substantiate my claim that the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office, and the
Pennsylvania Securities and Exchange Commission; aided and abetted in the sale of
Arms and Technologies to Iraq, by virtue of the fact that I made formal complaints
involving the same, and both agencies violated my constitutional rights to suppress
the truth of my complaints.
I can substantiate the legal validity of the recorded conversations for my defense.
My interests in Digital Technologies, and my demand to be restored to whole, is
the matter at hand.
I Remain,
Stan J. Caterbone
Enclosure CD-ROM

Page 150 of 231

Page 29 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Los Angeles Times: Archives

1 of 19
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/22547542.html?MAC=2e836ead823c7c1440fb92de137c...
Page 151 of 231
ARCHIVES
NEWS
ENTERTAINMENT
JOBS
CARS
HOMES
RENTALS
MORE CLASSIFIEDS
SALES & DEALS
BUSINESS DIRECTORY
Coupons | Newspaper Ads
PLACE AN AD
ARCHIVES
Basic Search
Advanced Search
Saved Search
Logout
Account & Purchases
Knowledge Center
Archives Trouble
Report
latimes.com Site
Services
ARCHIVES HELP &
INFO
OTHER SECTIONS
MEMBER SERVICES SIGN UP

HOME | HELP
CLASSIFIEDS
Join now!
JOBS CARS HOMES
RENTALS
SHOPPING
search
i
j
k
l
m
n
Site
j
k
l
m
n
Web
Go
Start a New Search | Back to Results

Printer-Friendly Format
COLUMN ONE; A Bitter Lesson for Lancaster County; Judge says Pennsylvania community 'lost its soul'
in push to convict woman of murder. Residents claim he, not they, are mocking justice. Right or wrong,
his ruling challenges U.S. court system's balance of power. Series: * Second of two parts; [Home Edition]
BARRY SIEGEL. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Nov 10, 1997. pg. 1
Full Text (8866 words)
About the Archive

Pricing
Terms of Service
Search Tips
FAQ
Stories Prior to 1985
Obituaries
Rights and Permissions
OTHER SERVICES
Prof. Research Service
Back Issues
Front Page Reprints
Commem. Front Pages
Books

Page 151 of 231

Page 30 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

2 of 19
Page 152 of 231
Custom Reprints
Photos
OTHER RESOURCES
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 1997 all Rights reserved)
Other Archives
Microfilm
By midmorning on the first day of Lisa Michelle Lambert's federal habeas corpus hearing, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell
already could be seen displaying alarm over what he was hearing.
From the lawyers' briefs alone, he'd read enough to persuade him to grant Lisa's request for this uncommon federal review of a
state murder conviction. He'd read enough to suspect that just possibly,Lisa Lambert, although sentenced to life without parole,
hadn't killed Laurie Show over a teenage romantic rivalry. He'd read enough to surmise that just maybe, Lisa's boyfriend,
Lawrence "Butch" Yunkin, along with a girl named Tabitha Buck, had killed Laurie.
Now, he was listening to evidence that served only to deepen his concerns regarding Lancaster County's prosecution of Lisa.
It was March 31. Computers, boxes of documents and piles of papers filled the small hearing room on the fifth floor of the
federal courthouse in downtown Philadelphia. Lisa's parents sat in the first row, Laurie Show's behind them. Reporters and
court personnel occupied the jury box. On the stand, an expert witness for Lisa's side, Northwestern University speech
professor Charles Larson, was testifying.
Contrary to the autopsy report, Larson believed--as did three emergency medical technicians and the Philadelphia medical
examiner--that Laurie Show's left carotid artery had been severed by whoever slashed her throat. This, he explained, left her
unable to say "Michelle did it," as Laurie's mother, Hazel, had claimed. Her vocal tract was "destroyed," her left brain
hemisphere "dying." She was "totally incapable of speech."
How, asked Lisa's attorney, Christina Rainville, could two doctors have signed an autopsy report saying that the carotid arteries
weren't "involved"?
Those two doctors were both Lancaster County physicians, one the part-time coroner, the other an ear-nose-and-throat
specialist.
"I don't think they were telling the truth," Larson replied.
Dalzell peered over gold wire-rimmed bifocals at the witness. "Oh," he said. "Well, OK."
So it went, hour by hour, for 15 days.
That this hearing was even being held appalled most in Lancaster County, about 75 miles west of Philadelphia. In the 1991
killing of Laurie Show, Lisa had already been found guilty of first-degree murder, Tabitha Buck of second-degree, Butch Yunkin
of third-degree. Now here was Lisa, claiming her innocence, claiming all sorts of prosecutorial abuse. Now here was Lisa,
seeking a federal order freeing her because the state had illegally imprisoned her.
For Lisa to cast herself as an innocent victim was maddening enough. For a federal judge to take her seriously was
unimaginable. Yet that was just what was happening in this Philadelphia courtroom.
The second day of the hearing found Dalzell puzzling over two quite different versions of a videotaped police search of the
Susquehanna River. The one initially provided by the Lancaster County district attorney, eight minutes long, had no soundtrack,
and no images of police finding a pink bag Lisa said she'd thrown there. The second, obtained through discovery only after
Rainville realized she'd been sent an edited tape, was four minutes longer. It had sound. It also had an officer kicking at a pink

Page 152 of 231

Page 31 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

3 of 19
Page 153 of 231
bag while another asked, "What do you got, a bag?"

After watching these tapes, Dalzell removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes, something he'd do more than once during the
three-week hearing. He studied Lisa, also something he'd do more than once, especially in the hearing's early days. Lisa,
sobbing off and on, was staring down at the table where she sat, bent over, her hands between her legs. Dalzell looked as if he
were trying to fathom her character.
The third day found Dalzell puzzling over Lisa's initial statement to the police. He listened to East Lampeter Police Det.
Raymond Solt try to reconcile the typewritten first page, where Lisa says she wore her own clothes at the murder scene, and a
handwritten last page where Lisa says she wore Butch's sweatpants. He listened to Solt explain how he destroyed all his notes
from the interview. By the time Solt stepped down, the judge was referring openly to "Ms. Lambert's alleged statement."
With Det. Ronald Barley on the stand later that afternoon, Dalzell grew even more openly dissatisfied. Barley was a
well-regarded detective in Lancaster County. A "very thorough investigator" is how Ted Darcus, chairman of Lancaster's City
Council, considered him. Barley "dealt well with people in our community accused of crimes." Yet this wasn't apparent to
Dalzell.
Barley, being questioned about the taped interview he helped conduct with Butch Yunkin--a tape full of laughter, clicks and
obvious gaps--kept waffling so much that Dalzell finally snapped: "Answer her question! Yes or no?" Rather than heed the
suggestion, Barley grew even more evasive. Asked about a critical spot where the recorder clicked off, he denied even being in
the interview room at that moment.
Dalzell had heard enough. He called a recess and ordered all the lawyers into his chambers.
"I want to know what is going on here," he told Lancaster County Dist. Atty. Joseph Madenspacher. "I'm hearing perjured
testimony. . . . As we had with Det. Solt, {Barley} is contradicting his own statement. . . . My patience has just run out. . . . I'm
afraid the commonwealth is allowing perjured testimony in federal court. . . . I'm being lied to. . . . This man gives me the
unbelievably fantasti statement that suddenly he 'evaporated.' It's totally incredible, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer this,
if this keeps up, to the United States attorney. . . ."
Madenspacher shifted uneasily. This hadn't been his case to try. He'd left the prosecution to his seasoned first assistant, John
Kenneff. "I understand what the court is saying . . .," he replied. "I don't know what I'm going to do, but I'm going to do
something."
Little changed, though, when Barley resumed the stand. He didn't recall his colleague, Det. Ronald "Slick" Savage, turning the
tape recorder on and off. He destroyed his notes after taking Butch's statement.
"No, no . . . please answer her questions. Will you do that?" Dalzell interrupted at one point.
"You knew . . . because you took the statement?" the judge asked later. "Or did you disappear for that part? . . . Oh, do you
have that ability to appear and disappear at will?"
By the time Barley tried to explain how he "completely forgot" they'd found a pink bag during the river search--a pink bag that
Lisa told them contained Butch Yunkin's bloodied sneakers--Dalzell was beside himself. It helped his mood little when, with
Barley still on the stand, Rainville moments later played the segment of unedited videotape that showed an officer kicking the
Page 153 of 231

Page 32 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

4 of 19
Page 154 of 231
pink bag, then waving the camera off.

"No, that's not me," Barley said.
Rainville inched the videotape ahead a moment. "No, no ma'am."
Again she moved the tape forward. Now the man at the river could be seen clearly.
"That is me," Barley allowed. "I don't know why I waved at that point."
Dalzell again peered over his eyeglasses. "Who were you waving to? The record should reflect that the witness definitely waved
directly at the camera. What in the world were you doing, if you weren't waving to the camera?"
Barley looked blank. "I don't recall, sir."
Defendant Alleges Gang Rape
On the seventh day, Dalzell began to hear Lisa Lambert's story of being gang-raped by three policemen six months before
Show's murder.
Lisa--her extravagant eye makeup toned down but still too thick for Rainville's taste--had started testifying the previous day.
Now she described being stalked by an officer named Robin Weaver, of vainly calling his police chief to complain, of receiving
threatening calls after the alleged attack. She explained how fear had kept her from telling this story before. Finally, she
explained why she now was willing to talk.
In a deposition given to Lisa's attorneys before the hearing, Weaver, without being asked, had referred to the gang-rape
accusation. He thought Lisa had cited it in her habeas petition, but she had not. The charge had never been raised publicly. To
Lisa, Weaver's comment, therefore, provided independent proof of her claim: "There is no way that he could have ever known
about that unless he was there and he did it. It was not raised in the petition."
Dalzell interrupted: "Is that true?"
"That is true, your honor," said Rainville, who had been appointed by the judge to represent Lisa on a pro-bono basis.
Dalzell again had heard enough: "We'll take another recess. . . . I want {Weaver} here this afternoon, and I don't want anyone to
say a word about what has come up here. If he resists, please tell me. I will have the marshal arrest him, OK?"
Moments later, Dalzell learned that prosecutor John Kenneff already had discussed the rape allegation with Weaver.
"So he's been coached . . . ," Dalzell exclaimed.
The judge's budding animosity toward Kenneff was palpable. The prosecutor had not yet appeared before him, but the residue
of his work at the Lambert trial was everywhere.
"I'm going to direct that Mr. Kenneff have no further contact with any witness in this case. . . ," Dalzell declared. "And he might
want to consult with counsel. . . . I'm going to want to hear about this, because in the context of this case, Mr. Kenneff, God help
Page 154 of 231

Page 33 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

5 of 19
Page 155 of 231
him, if he coached this witness. God help him. . . . Mr. Kenneff, at his election, should retain counsel for proceedings that may
follow this one."
On the witness stand that afternoon, Weaver absorbed the full brunt of Dalzell's rancor. The judge grilled him: Have you talked
to any human beings? You understand you're in federal court? You understand the laws of the United States apply? You
understand you're under oath?"
Weaver said he did, and then denied any involvement in a rape of Lisa Lambert. Dalzell, though, wasn't finished.
Weaver had been among the first on the murder scene. It was he who'd initially questioned Hazel Show, and it was he who had
written the police report. Yet, nowhere in it had he indicated that Hazel Show heard her daughter make a dying declaration
about Lisa. Nor had he done so in a final report written three weeks later.
"Yes or no," the judge demanded. "Did you hear Hazel Show report a dying declaration?"
"I don't remember. . . . " Weaver replied. "She could have or she may not have."
"Is it your testimony that you would not have put it in a report if Hazel Show had told you about a dying declaration, that you
would not have put it down in that report? Is that your testimony? Yes or no?"
"No."
"So the fact that you don't make reference to a dying declaration, is some evidence that she didn't tell you that. Correct?"
"You can infer that, yes, sir."
"Oh," the judge said. "I could infer it. Could I infer anything else from that?"
Mounting Anger Among Citizenry
Day by day, watching from afar or from a courtroom seat, the citizens of Lancaster County grew ever more amazed and furious
as the Lambert hearing unfolded. This is shocking us, they declared. This is shaking our confidence in the American judicial
system.
What troubled them, though, were not the revelations coming out of Dalzell's courtroom. It was, rather, Dalzell's conduct.
The judge was "making the county look bad." The judge sounds as if he "revels in publicly humiliating Lancaster County."
Most irksome of all was the judge's handling of Lancaster County authorities. He was "discourteous" to the police officers and
John Kenneff. He sighed and rolled his eyes and looked at the ceiling as they testified. He interrupted with his own questions,
as if to assist the defense. He acted as if he didn't believe them.
Many in Lancaster County just couldn't fathom such an attitude. The police and prosecutors were their neighbors, their friends,
their protectors. They couldn't possibly manipulate evidence. They couldn't possibly lie.
By midway through the hearing, a certain tone of frantic fear could be heard in the county's response. Don't believe the "lies and
Page 155 of 231

Page 34 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

6 of 19
Page 156 of 231
untruths" being aimed at our police, urged East Lampeter Supervisor Chairman John Shertzer. Don't "rush to judgment." It's
"unfortunate that so much is being made of such insignificant points."
In his opening statement at the hearing, Madenspacher, the district attorney, had allowed that the investigation hadn't been
"perfect," that maybe they'd been a little "careless," maybe a little "sloppy." Others, though, refused even to acknowledge that
much. All sorts of citizens instead continued to offer glowing tributes to the police and prosecutors.
No one official drew more accolades than did John Kenneff. He is a big, heavyset man with a full, broad Irish face. Growing up
in Lancaster County, Kenneff was considered a fine schoolboy, a high achiever. Not Harvard-level material, but his college,
Villanova University, was nonetheless a good school. Not as good as the University of Pennsylvania, but the next step.
He'd come back after law school, opened a private practice, worked his way up through the D.A.'s office. He came to all the
Fourth of July picnics; he brought his family, he brought his dog. He was known as a committed, persistent prosecutor, one of
the fairest and most reasonable in the county.
Even the defense attorneys who went up against him said as much. Even they called him a decent, honest guy. To Terry
Kauffman, a dairy farmer and chairman of the board of county commissioners, that particularly carried a lot of weight: "A lot of
people I know here, from both sides of the aisle, say he's the best. I know them, and I've known Jack Kenneff for years. I don't
know Stewart Dalzell."
Darcus--the chairman of the Lancaster City Council, a black man from West Virginia who followed a Boys' Club job to Lancaster
30 years ago and happily settled--believed he possessed an especially close take on John Kenneff's character. They'd been
involved together in a "Weed and Seed" anti-crime development program in Lancaster's minority community. So Darcus saw
Kenneff not just as a prosecutor, but a community leader. Also as a father: Kenneff's children went to the same Catholic school
as Darcus' son.
"I've seen how he cares about people," Darcus said. "I've seen him deal with people in my community. I've seen him go beyond
what was needed. Knowing Jack Kenneff, I just can't picture this man doing what the judge says. I wonder how that judge
sleeps at night."
Denials From the Prosecutor
No, John Kenneff insisted. No, he didn't think Butch Yunkin's sweatpants were a critical issue at the murder trial. No, he had no
recollection of looking at the sweatpants the state put into evidence.
It was April 15, the hearing's 11th day. Kenneff had taken the witness stand soon after court convened. Questioning him was
Peter Greenberg, Rainville's husband, a partner at their law firm and one of Philadelphia's most-accomplished litigators.
At the trial, the state's theory of the murder had Lisa wearing Butch's extra-large men's sweatpants, found full of blood in a
dumpster after the attack. Trial judge Lawrence F. Stengel accepted this theory and thought it significant. So Kenneff's answers
now caused Dalzell to lean forward.
"Did you make a conscious judgment at trial as to who was wearing the clothing that you put into evidence?" Greenberg asked.
"It was my understanding that Miss Lambert had admitted to wearing the clothing . . . ," Kenneff replied.
Page 156 of 231

Page 35 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

7 of 19
Page 157 of 231
Dalzell interrupted: "I don't think that's the question he asked you. And I think you ought to listen more carefully to Mr.
Greenberg's questions because I don't think you're answering them. . . . That question can be answered yes or no."
So it went through much of the morning. Lancaster County citizens were right: Dalzell by then couldn't hide his dismay for their
assistant district attorney. The moments when the judge removed his glasses and rubbed his eyes were adding up.
For 10 days he'd been exposed to an ever-more disturbing portrait of how Kenneff had prosecuted Lisa Lambert. He'd listened
to the pathologist Isidore Mihalakis--a defense witness at Lisa's murder trial--describe private conversations with Kenneff that
Dalzell thought constituted witness-tampering. He'd heard how authorities had concealed critical testimony by Hazel Show's
neighbor Kathleen Bayan. He'd been presented evidence that convinced him the state had "lost" an earring of Butch's found on
the victim's body. He'd been presented evidence that convinced him the state had edited critical video and audiotapes.
Now the man who oversaw the state's efforts sat before Dalzell on the witness stand.
No, Kenneff was testifying. He didn't recall looking at the river-search video.
"You didn't think it worthwhile to look at the video?" Greenberg asked.
"I didn't think what happened at the river was a contested issue," Kenneff replied.
This time, Greenberg snapped before the judge could: "You've been in this business long enough to know that when I ask a
question you're supposed to answer it?"
"Right," Kenneff agreed.
Dalzell joined in now: "It would be nice if you would do that. . . . I want to warn you, sir, that, if you don't do that, you are going to
put me into a position where this will have to get unpleasant. Do you understand that? . . . The record should reflect that you
have been consistently unresponsive to the questions. . . . "
Greenberg turned back to the matter of Butch's sweatpants. Now, Kenneff has even resisted saying he based the case on the
theory that Lisa wore Butch's clothing. He no longer, in fact, was sure whether the sweatpants were Butch's.
The pair he'd produced for the habeas hearing, after all, were much smaller than men's extra-large. "The sweatpants would
have looked ridiculous if worn by 6-foot-1-inch-tall Butch," Kenneff had argued in a written response just before the hearing.
"You are the same person . . . " Greenberg asked, "saying that the sweatpants would have looked ridiculous on Butch, who put
Butch on to testify in Lisa's trial . . . that they were his sweatpants, these very same sweatpants that would have looked
ridiculous on him?"
"Correct."
"These are the same sweatpants that Judge Stengel found belonged to Butch?"
"Correct."

Page 157 of 231

Page 36 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

8 of 19
Page 158 of 231
"And if you had your way, Lisa would have been executed based on that evidence, wouldn't she?"
Kenneff hesitated; Dalzell spoke: "Yes or no," the judge ordered.
"That would be correct."
Greenberg erupted: "Do you think this is some kind of game? . . . Do you realize that there is a human being sitting here who is
in jail serving a life sentence based on the evidence you put on . . . that you are now disowning. . . . Not only are you disowning
it, you are committing perjury. . . . Are you sure it is Miss Lambert who is a dangerous person in this courtroom?"
Handling of Letter Infuriated Judge
In the end, the commonwealth's handling of the controversial 29 Question Letter was what most inflamed Dalzell.
Lisa had written Butch from jail, asking a series of questions. The answers Butch had scrawled under each question, the judge
felt, left no doubt that he was the murderer of Laurie, and that his accomplice was Tabitha Buck. That the letter was authentic
seemed equally certain to Dalzell: Both the state and defense experts had affirmed there'd been no alteration.
Yet, Kenneff--after stipulating to the experts' opinions--had let Butch testify at Lambert's trial that the questions were altered.
That the prosecutor knew his witness was committing perjury appeared obvious to Dalzell. At Butch's plea-bargain hearing after
Lisa's conviction, Kenneff wanted to revoke their deal precisely because of this perjury.
Experts had reviewed the 29 Questions Letter and Butch's trial testimony, Kenneff told the judge at that Oct. 10, 1992, hearing.
"They advised us that his testimony . . . regarding that {letter} that was false . . . . It is our opinion that he testified falsely . . . on
that basis we feel we are entitled to withdraw from the original plea agreement."
There just was no ambiguity, Dalzell felt: Kenneff knew that Butch committed perjury on a material issue, regarding a document
that established Lisa's innocence.
Under such circumstances, Dalzell believed Kenneff had an unambiguous ethical obligation to take remedial action with the
court that convicted Lambert. The Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct was clear about this: "A lawyer shall not
knowingly . . . offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of
its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial steps."
Yet far from complying with this rule, it looked to Dalzell as if Kenneff had encouraged Judge Stengel to accept Butch's perjured
testimony. "I think he's just like any other witness," Kenneff told Stengel when Lisa's attorney moved for a mistrial based on
Butch's perjury. "You can believe some of it, all of it, or none."
It was worse than that, in Dalzell's eyes. For, after obtaining a conviction based partly on this perjured testimony, Kenneff had
coolly proceeded to seek the death penalty for Lisa Lambert.
Now, remarkably, Kenneff at this habeas hearing--and in written responses that looked to Dalzell to be blatantly false--was back
to arguing that some of the 29 questions had been initially written in pencil, then altered. In other words, Kenneff, before Dalzell,
was defending testimony by Butch that he had told two other judges was a lie.
Page 158 of 231

Page 37 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

9 of 19
Page 159 of 231
"Do you want to take remedial actions with Judge Dalzell?" Peter Greenberg asked.
Here the judge interceded: "I was just going to ask that myself. . . ."
It was the morning of April 16, the hearing's 12th day. Kenneff had been on the stand for hours.
"Well, your honor," Kenneff responded. "I think I still feel the same way about the 29 questions. . . . That there is some type of
tampering with it. . . . "
"No, no, no, sir," Dalzell interrupted. "I am going to jump in here. You said in your answer to me that there was pencil. And you
have testified under oath here that your expert and the defense expert said there was no graphite. . . . "
"Judge," Kenneff began.
Dalzell spoke over him: "I want to warn you, sir, you are under oath, and you are subject to the rules of professional
responsibility. . . . Do you retract that statement that you signed . . . as to pencil? Yes or no?"
"I just don't think I can answer that question yes or no, judge."
Dalzell turned to Madenspacher, Kenneff's supervisor. "Does the commonwealth retract it?"
Madenspacher rose. "Yes, your honor. We retract it."
"Thank you," Dalzell said. He turned back to Kenneff. "Your boss just retracted it. Next question."
Their confrontation hadn't peaked yet.
The climax came minutes later, when Greenberg began listing all the pieces of evidence that the district attorney's office kept
from Roy Shirk, Lisa's attorney at her trial. What if Shirk had the names of the emergency medical technicians? What if he knew
the police had found a pink bag? What if he had the unedited river-search video? What if he knew a neighbor had seen Butch at
the crime scene?
"Well," Kenneff tried to answer, "the Pennsylvania Rule provides for certain . . . "
That's as far as he got. Dalzell exploded: "No. Excuse me. We're talking here--let me just make something clear to you. We're
talking here about something called the United States Constitution, and in particular the 14th Amendment thereof, which has a
clause in it that refers to due process of law. OK? Have you heard of that?"
"Yes sir."
"That's what we're talking about. . . . So we're not talking about the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. We're talking
about due process of law here. . . . That's what we're talking about here. You got it? Do you understand?"
"Yes," Kenneff replied.

Page 159 of 231

Page 38 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

10 of 19
Page 160 of 231
Biggest Drama Begins to Unfold

As it happened, the confrontation between Dalzell and Kenneff was neither the most dramatic nor revealing sequence to occur
on this 12th day of Lisa's habeas hearing. The event that would eclipse it began only after Kenneff left the witness stand, and
court adjourned for lunch.
Madenspacher, walking toward his hotel, bumped into Hazel Show's brother, who reported that his sister needed to talk to him.
Back at the Holiday Inn in downtown Philadelphia, where both were staying, Madenspacher walked up to Show's room.
Sobbing as she talked, the murder victim's mother told him her story.
During the hearing that morning, she'd suddenly recalled the morning of the murder: As she drove up Black Oak Road to her
condo, on her way to find Laurie's body, a brownish-colored car passed, heading out of the condo complex. It was Butch's car.
She looked at Butch. There was recognition on his face. He pushed down someone with blond hair. There was also a third
person in the back seat, with black hair.
She'd told this to Det. Ron Savage back then. Savage had come to her house saying one of her neighbors had seen Butch's car
leave the complex. She'd started to say she had too. Savage had stopped her, told her not to dwell on that. They had so many
witnesses saying Butch wasn't there. Besides, this neighbor lady was kind of disturbed anyhow. Probably wouldn't be a reliable
witness. We were better to go with Butch not being there.
Hazel was sobbing harder now. She'd forgotten about it, she told Madenspacher. She'd put it aside. Until now.
Madenspacher was reeling. Hazel's story fit exactly with testimony given by that "neighbor lady," Kathleen Bayan, on the
hearing's fourth day. Testimony that Hazel hadn't heard because she'd left the courtroom early that day. Testimony that had
never been produced at Lisa's murder trial. Testimony that Kenneff knew about back then but had never shared with Lambert's
attorney. Testimony that Savage had tried to water down while taking Bayan's initial statement, then dismissed as coming from
a woman with "an emotional problem."
Hazel's story also fit perfectly with something else: Lisa Lambert's testimony at her trial. There she'd told of driving by Hazel
Show, of Butch saying, "Oh . . . it's Hazel," of Butch pushing her head down.
Madenspacher pondered. If true, it seemed to him that this story knocked out the underlying theory of the trial, which was that
Butch wasn't at the condo. It didn't mean Butch was actually inside; it didn't clear Lisa; it could be explained. But it was a new
story. It changed the theory of the case. Madenspacher felt as if he were slipping into shock.
"You sure?" he asked. "Let's hear it again."
Hazel repeated her story.
Madenspacher had no choice: He had to get this to the judge. He couldn't suppress it. The only question was, when and how? It
was going to come out anyway, Madenspacher figured. So let's get the bad news over with.
The conference in Dalzell's chambers began at 1:40 p.m. that day. Present were the judge, the lawyers for all sides, Hazel
Show and Lisa Lambert.
Page 160 of 231

Page 39 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

11 of 19
Page 161 of 231
Hazel Show told her story again, this time before a court reporter: Well, when I was sitting in the courtroom today, I realized that
I had seen Lawrence's {Butch's} car with passengers drive out of our condominium complex. . . . Det. Savage said that I wasn't
to dwell on it. . . . I never thought anymore about it until I was sitting in there. . . . It all just came back.
By now, Lisa was sobbing along with Hazel.
"It's OK, Miss Lambert," Dalzell said. "It's OK."
To Dalzell, this revelation was the final straw. Throughout Lisa's trial the state had been at pains to keep Butch as far from the
Show condo as possible. No doubt that was why the state had never disclosed anything about Hazel's report or Bayan.
To Dalzell, it wasn't just that Hazel's and Bayan's accounts were consistent with Lisa's testimony at trial five years ago: Just
about everything being revealed at this hearing was consistent with Lisa's testimony back then.
From all he'd heard, Dalzell now believed that the commonwealth's misconduct had been so substantive, it had undermined the
state court's ability to find the truth. He believed the commonwealth had committed at least 25 separate instances of
prosecutorial misconduct--all constitutional violations, all violations of the norms of a civilized society.
It seemed clear to him that Laurie Show did not say "Michelle did it." It seemed clear that Butch, in the 29 Questions Letter,
confessed to the murder. It seemed clear Lisa didn't wear Butch's sweatpants on the morning of the murder. It seemed clear the
police had fabricated Lisa's initial statement.
Worse yet, in Dalzell's view, the commonwealth still hadn't stopped its treachery. At this habeas hearing the state had produced
not the extra-large sweatpants of Butch's from the original trial, but a smaller girl's pair. The commonwealth, Dalzell believed,
had perpetrated a fraud on the federal court; the commonwealth had swapped evidence.
At least six state witnesses, by Dalzell's count, had perjured themselves before him. One, Ron Savage--now an elected district
justice in Lancaster County--likely obstructed justice. And now this: now Hazel's revelation, right before his eyes. Hazel had
every reason to want Lisa's petition denied; Hazel sincerely believed Lambert did it. Yet still she'd felt compelled to tell this
story. Dalzell had never seen a more courageous act.
"Well," the judge told those gathered in his chambers. "Now we come to the question of relief. Does the commonwealth intend
to defend this case?"
All eyes turned to Madenspacher.
The Lancaster County district attorney had been looking uncomfortable in recent days. Nothing he'd heard rose to the level of
conscious misconduct or obstruction, he kept insisting. But he had to admit, it hadn't been a perfect trial or investigation. He
wished certain things had been done differently.
In Lancaster County, then as now, there were many who wanted their district attorney to fight ferociously. There were many who
wanted their district attorney to defend their honor, to insist they'd done nothing wrong, to match Lisa's lawyers blow for blow.
Yet, Madenspacher, at this moment, wasn't sure what should be done. Everything, he would say later, was "spinning in my
mind." It was "awful tough" operating away from the office. It "would have been nice" to have known everything from the start.
Page 161 of 231

Page 40 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

12 of 19
Page 162 of 231
"Now, obviously . . . " he finally told the judge. "There is some relief that is justified in this particular case. . . ."
That was all Dalzell needed; he now had the commonwealth's assent. The state hadn't even put on its case yet, but he meant to
get Lisa out of prison. He also meant to get Savage off the bench forever; he didn't see how Savage could hear cases anymore,
and he planned to tell the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just that.
"You can make a choice overnight," Dalzell advised the district attorney, "whether you want to defend this case, put on your own
witnesses. In the meantime, I'm going to release Ms. Lambert into some agreed-upon custody. . . . Because it's quite clear now
that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the only question is how much."
Off to one side, a dismayed Hazel Show tried to interject: "Laurie told me she did it. . . . "
Madenspacher's voice overrode hers. "Yes, I agree relief is warranted, and I think we're talking now. . . . "
"About what relief," the judge said.
"What relief, your honor . . . "
"I can tell you, Mr. Madenspacher, that I've thought about nothing else but this case for over three weeks, and in my experience,
sir, and I invite you to disabuse me of this at oral argument, I want you and I want the Schnader firm to look for any case in any
jurisdiction in the English-speaking world where there has been as much prosecutorial misconduct, because I haven't found it. .
. . So are we agreed that the petitioner will tonight be released into the custody of Ms. Rainville?"
Madenspacher nodded. "I don't see how I can object to that, your honor."
Stunned Response in Lancaster County
In bars and cafes, street corners and living rooms, the citizens of Lancaster County gasped at the news of Lisa's release. Their
district attorney may not have seen reason to object, but they did. Most sounded stunned; many sounded enraged. One man, at
8 a.m. on the morning after her release, anonymously called in a phone threat to the Lancaster Sunday News, saying he would
kill Lambert if she returned to Lancaster.
Maybe there were "mistakes," the more rational by now were willing to allow. Maybe there was "sloppy" police work. Maybe Lisa
even deserves a new trial. Nothing more than that, though. Certainly not her freedom. She was there, she was an accomplice,
she was a co-conspirator. Give her a new trial, remand it elsewhere even. But don't just let her go. You can't just let her go.
"Lambert is not innocent--how could she be?" the Lancaster New Era editorialized the day after Hazel Show's revelation. " . . .
even with newly revealed evidence that supports her claims, Lambert is still irrevocably involved in the events that lead to Laurie
Show's murder. These facts must not be drowned out by the explosive revelations at Lambert's federal appeals hearing. . . . "
As it happened, these thoughts exactly echoed those offered by Judge Stengel, who'd presided at Lisa's murder trial. "Even if
Lambert's story at trial was completely credible," Stengel had declared in his written opinions, "she would still be an accomplice
to the crime of murder. . . . The single most important fact on the issue of guilt is whether Ms. Lambert was present in the Show
condominium at the time of the killing. By her own admission, she was present. . . . "
Page 162 of 231

Page 41 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

13 of 19
Page 163 of 231
Dalzell, however, simply did not accept this notion, at least not in a federal habeas hearing.
On the proceeding's final day, when Madenspacher in his closing argument spoke of Lambert being guilty at least as an
accomplice or conspirator, Dalzell waved him off. "She wasn't charged with conspiracy was she?" he declared. "She was
charged with first-degree murder. So the only issue before me is actual innocence of first-degree murder. That is what she was
convicted of."
In fact, the law is murky on this point. Lisa was actually charged with criminal homicide, which in Pennsylvania encompasses all
degrees of murder. How her conviction for first-degree murder affects her exposure to lesser murder charges is a matter for
debate.
So, Madenspacher tried to argue: "What I am saying here is that charged with criminal homicide, she could be found guilty of
murder in the first degree . . . or she could have been found guilty of second degree . . . or she could be found guilty of third
degree."
That didn't sway Dalzell: "But if one took her testimony, she said that she did everything possible to de-escalate what spun out
of control. . . . By her own testimony she exited when it started spinning out of control. So therefore, it was not 'reasonably
foreseeable' from her point of view, so the argument would go."
The judge then cut things off: "Let's not waste time debating that."
Dalzell had good reason for not wishing to bother further with this issue. By then--after 14 days of testimony covering 3,225
pages of transcript--the judge wasn't thinking only about Lisa's conduct at the Show condo. He was thinking about the 14th
Amendment of the Constitution, and the role of a federal habeas corpus in upholding the unalienable right of due process.
Among other historic cases, Dalzell's mind was on a 1973 opinion by then-Justice William H. Rehnquist, in United States vs.
Russell. There, Rehnquist predicted that "we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law
enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking the judicial
processes to obtain a conviction."
That day, Dalzell decided at the close of Lambert's hearing, had come.
While presiding at a habeas hearing, he reminded himself, he effectively sat as a court of equity--a court operating under a
system of law designed to protect rights and deliver remedial justice. He recalled the ancient maxim that "equity delights to do
justice, and not by halves." To give Lisa full relief, it seemed to him imperative that he do nothing to benefit or empower those
who had wronged her.
He would not just release Lisa, Dalzell decided. An outrageous violation of due process required even more severe sanction. He
would bar the state from ever retrying her. He would strip the state of its natural right to adjudicate a murder committed within its
boundaries.
He wrote his 90-page opinion over the weekend, after court adjourned at 4:10 p.m. on Friday, April 18. Before a packed
courtroom late the following Monday morning, he declared Lisa "by clear and convincing evidence" to be "actually innocent of
first-degree murder."
Page 163 of 231

Page 42 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

14 of 19
Page 164 of 231
"If Lisa Lambert's is not the 'situation' to which Chief Justice Rehnquist referred, then there is no prosecutorial malfeasance
outrageous enough to bar a reprosecution. . . ." he proclaimed. "We have now concluded that Ms. Lambert has presented an
extraordinary, indeed, it appears, unprecedented case. We therefore hold that the writ should issue, that Lisa Lambert should
be immediately released, and that she should not be retried."
In scorching language, Dalzell explained just why: "We have found that virtually all of the evidence which the commonwealth
used to convict Lisa Lambert of first-degree murder was either perjured, altered or fabricated. Such total contempt for due
process of law demands serious sanctions. The question we must now answer is whether . . . the commonwealth is entitled to
get another try at convicting Lisa Lambert and sending her to prison for the rest of her life. . . . In short, the question is whether
we may accept a promise from anyone on behalf of the commonwealth that a trial will be fair 'next time.' "
No, Dalzell concluded, we cannot.
"We hold that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment bars the commonwealth from invoking judicial or any other
proceedings against Lisa Lambert for the murder of Laurie Show. . . . Equitable considerations preclude our leaving the decision
whether to retry Lisa Lambert in the hands of those who created this gross injustice. . . . "
As far as legal researchers could tell, there was an accepted basis, but no exact precedent for a federal judge in Dalzell's
situation to take such action. Dalzell did not stop there.
He was, he announced in his opinion, going to refer the matter of Kenneff's "blatantly unethical and unconstitutional" actions to
the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board. He also was going to refer the whole Lambert prosecution to the U.S. attorney for
investigation of "possible witness intimidation, apparent perjury by at least five witnesses in a federal proceeding, and possible
violations of the federal criminal civil rights laws."
Still, Dalzell wasn't finished. He felt compelled, in the two final pages of his opinion, to address the question of just why all this
had happened in Lancaster County.
"Those who have read this sad history," he wrote, "may well ask themselves, 'How could a place idealized in Peter Weir's
'Witness' become like the world in David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet'?' Because it is so important to that community and indeed to
many others to prevent a recurrence of this nightmare, we offer a few reflections on the record."
Laurie Show's grandfather, Dalzell pointed out, was, in the 1980s, the coroner of Lancaster County. Her mother was "a paragon
of morality" who kept "a picture-perfect home." By contrast, Lisa Lambert was "as though delivered from Central Casting for the
part of villainess." By the testimony of even those who loved her, "she was at the time literally 'trailer trash.' " The community
"thus closed ranks behind the good family Show and exacted instant revenge against this supposed villainess." Almost
immediately after "the snap judgment" was made, law enforcement officials uncovered "inconvenient facts," but soon
"discovered a balm for these evidentiary bruises, Lawrence Yunkin." Thus "Lancaster's best made a pact with Lancaster's worst
to convict the 'trailer trash' of first-degree murder."
Dalzell's parting words: "In making a pact with this devil, Lancaster County made a Faustian bargain. It lost its soul and it almost
executed an innocent, abused woman. Its legal edifice now in ashes, we can only hope for a 'Witness'-like barn-raising of the
temple of justice."

Page 164 of 231

Page 43 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

15 of 19
Page 165 of 231
Uprising Began With Calls, Letters

The uprising in Lancaster County in the wake of Dalzell's ruling began first with the usual letters to editors and calls to radio talk
shows.
The legal system is a "crock of crap." How could Dalzell destroy the reputation of "honorable and decent people" for the
purpose of freeing a "cold-blooded killer?" What kind of justice do we have?
Soon enough, such talk escalated. All sorts of theories about Dalzell's motives began circulating. Something's been going on
behind the scenes, it was suggested. Something behind what Dalzell did, something we don't know about.
Ted Byrne, the conservative radio talk show host in Lancaster County, pored through Dalzell's decisions in a law library. Then,
seeking hidden connections, he analyzed the activities of the attorneys at Dalzell's old law firm and Rainville's firm.
It was considered significant that Dalzell and Greenberg, 30 years before, had been classmates at the University of
Pennsylvania. Some talk had it that they were old pals. Some talk had it that Dalzell had handed the Lambert case to his own
"carefully assembled defense team."
Had Dalzell reached the end of a career path? Had he felt unfulfilled? Had he wondered how he might become an appellate
judge? Had he seen a challenge to the controversial habeas corpus situation as a means to garner attention?
For that matter, how did the Lambert case get to Dalzell in the first place? Had not Dalzell displayed an excessive personal
interest in Lisa in his chambers? Was it possible that they had a relationship?
"We must begin to think who it was that had to gain from this travesty of justice other than Lambert," suggested one citizen in a
letter to the editor. "My vote goes to Judge Stewart Dalzell. It would appear that it is an appropriate time for this newspaper to
dig very deep into the archives of the noteworthy judge to determine what it was or who it was that set him on his grudge
mission to 'punish' the county for sins of the past committed against him."
Such comments reflected as much bewilderment as paranoia. They came from a citizenry who well knew Lisa Lambert, and
well knew those who had prosecuted her. Yet rarely did anyone, amid all the outpouring of emotion and speculation, feel
inclined to discuss the particulars of the Lambert case as revealed in Dalzell's courtroom.
More common was East Lampeter Supervisor Chairman John Shertzer's response. "There were a lot of false accusations
throughout the trial. . . . We never had the opportunity to address those," Shertzer told a reporter, before confessing that he, in
fact, couldn't address them: "There are some things about this that I don't have a lot of background in. But I just know these
people. . . . They were treated very abusively on the stand by Lambert's attorneys as well as the judge."
Lancaster's citizens were struggling to hold together a way of viewing their world. Even those willing to acknowledge certain
blemishes in that world--even those willing to acknowledge official wrongdoing in the Lambert case--found themselves laboring
to understand what Dalzell had done. No matter what was revealed in a Philadelphia courtroom, no matter what Lancaster
authorities did or failed to do, it seemed incomprehensible that Dalzell would let Lisa Lambert walk free, without at least a retrial.
Not even Lisa's parents had hoped for that back when their daughter's appeals first started. Their dream, Leonard Lambert told
a reporter then, was that Lisa receive "a level of punishment that's not greater than what's deserved. . . . It's a known fact that
Page 165 of 231

Page 44 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

16 of 19
Page 166 of 231
she was there. But something could argue that maybe she doesn't deserve more than aggravated assault or third-degree
murder."
Dalzell went too far, even the more reasonable in Lancaster County now declared. He was a disgrace to the legal profession.
He had made a mockery of justice. He was a man without honor.
Hazel Show, more than anyone, sounded the clarion. "Thank you for listening to me," she'd told Dalzell on the hearing's last
day. "My parents brought me up to be truthful, and I believe in God. . . . So it is up to me to tell the truth." Yet soon after,
whether out of confusion or regret at what she'd wrought, Show began to backtrack and revise.
Never in her "wildest dreams," she declared, had she thought her story would free Lisa. All her story proved was that she got
home just as the killers left, in time to hear her daughter's dying declaration. But the judge "didn't want to hear that." The judge
"wouldn't let me say that."
No matter that Madenspacher insisted Hazel never mentioned this notion to him in their hotel meeting. No matter that she never
mentioned this notion while on the witness stand on the hearing's last day. It now became her constant refrain. "We have to get
this judge off the bench," she began declaring publicly. "There is not one bit of justice in him."
They began first with a petition drive. Hazel's ex-husband, John Show, drew it up, calling for Congress to "investigate" Dalzell
and take "corrective action," including impeachment. Show's girlfriend took it to her beauty shop, where customers clamored to
sign it. Local businesses started stocking piles on their front counters. Volunteers called for extra copies, carried them door to
door, offered them at yard sales. One couple outside a Kmart parking lot on a hot Sunday collected more than 500 signatures.
On the morning after an ad for the petition appeared in the Lancaster newspapers, John Show walked to his mailbox and found
300 envelopes. By mid-September, he had 37,000 signatures.
Then came Hazel Show's 10-page "Citizens Action Report," the keystone of her newly launched national campaign seeking to
reform the entire federal judiciary. Now the Shows wanted, among a host of items, to bar federal judges from banning retrials, to
fix stricter guidelines for appointing federal judges, to limit federal judges' terms in office. Hazel Show's words and image soon
became ubiquitous in Lancaster County.
Television provided one forum, both local talk shows and the national tabloids. Politicians provided another. The
Washington-based Judicial Selection Monitoring Project, an arch-conservative organization seeking to block the appointment of
what it calls "activist liberal judges," featured both Shows in a 15-minute videotape that lambasted Dalzell and misidentified him
as a Clinton appointee.
The Shows, accompanied by 16 friends and relatives, took their campaign to Washington on Sept. 17, where Pennsylvania
Sen. Arlen Specter, along with Reps. Joseph R. Pitts and George W. Gekas, accepted cartloads of petitions. The lawmakers,
weeks before, had introduced legislation that would severely restrict federal judges' power to bar retrials during habeas
proceedings--a bill specifically designed to reverse Dalzell's decision. Now, to the Shows, Specter agreed to call it the "Laurie
Bill" and promised them a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Wherever they went, the Shows were applauded and courted.
"How often do you get to do this?" Hazel observed.
"I think we made an impact," John offered.

Page 166 of 231

Page 45 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

17 of 19
Page 167 of 231
Argument That Judge Brought It on Himself

It can fairly be argued that Dalzell brought some of this on himself. He may have overly embraced Lisa Lambert's account of
events, and unduly diminished her role. He may not have needed to rough up witnesses in his courtroom as much as he did. He
certainly need not have painted Lancaster County with such a broad brush at the end of his opinion.
How could he claim to know this county, his critics asked. How could he claim to know our citizens? How could he say such
things about us?
Yet, valid as such claims may be, it most likely will be Dalzell who leaves a lasting impact, not those fueling the backlash
against him.
Whether right or wrong, whether he operated entirely within his bounds, a federal judge consumed by moral outrage has, as he
intended, sent a message. The idea behind Lisa Lambert's outright release was not, finally, to let a guilty person go free. It was
to let the powers of the state know they can't violate bedrock principles of the Constitution and get away with it.
They haven't.
In early May, the U.S. attorney's office in Philadelphia, responding to Dalzell's referral, announced it had launched a criminal
investigation into those who investigated and prosecuted Lisa Lambert. Aiding them will be the FBI and the Justice
Department's civil rights division. They will focus on John Kenneff and seven police officers, among them Ronald Savage,
Ronald Barley, Robin Weaver and Raymond Solt.
Days later, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in refusing Lancaster County's motion for a temporary stay of Dalzell's order,
said "the commonwealth has not demonstrated that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal. . . . We remind the
commonwealth that Judge Dalzell's factual findings are based on his view of the credibility of the witnesses and testimony. . . .
We can only reverse if we find them clearly erroneous."
In that written opinion, the appellate panel also chastised the commonwealth for calling Lisa Lambert a "convicted killer" in its
brief. She "no longer has that status," the 3rd Circuit reminded. "Indeed, that description is inflammatory and inappropriate,
given {Dalzell's} findings of actual innocence. . . . "
What remains to be seen is whether Dalzell will ultimately be allowed his unprecedented involvement in a state's sovereign
affairs. At the habeas hearing's end, Lancaster County hired its own high-powered Pennsylvania law firm, Sprague & Lewis,
known for its political connections, particularly to the Republican Party. On Oct. 21, when lawyers for both sides argued the
merits of the county's appeal before a 3rd Circuit panel, the appellate judges grilled them on a critical question: Did Lisa
Lambert exhaust all her appeals in Pennsylvania's courts before turning to a federal judge for help?
This issue, rather than any question of Lisa's innocence or a prosecutor's malfeasance, is what presently fuels a nationwide
debate in the legal community and beyond. Elemental principles of law and government in this country normally restrain federal
intrusion until a state has heard all claims, and has been given the chance to correct its own errors. Just weeks ago, a 3rd
Circuit panel--saying "we are sensitive to the independence of the Pennsylvania courts and of that state's sovereignty"--denied
another convict's habeas petition because he hadn't exhausted his state appeals.
Dalzell, in his opinion, recognized these principles, then essentially dismissed them. The Pennsylvania General Assembly, he
Page 167 of 231

Page 46 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

18 of 19
Page 168 of 231
pointed out, amended its statutes in 1995 to exclude "actual innocence" as a basis for certain appeals. By doing so, Dalzell
declared, Pennsylvania, in effect, relinquished its jurisdiction over claims such as Lisa Lambert's, and placed them "squarely
into the federal forum." And even if Pennsylvania were willing to consider some of Lambert's claims, Dalzell added, "we find that
the state proceedings that would follow if we dismissed this action are ineffective to protect the rights of Ms. Lambert."
By thus declaring his utter distrust in Pennsylvania's ability to deliver justice, Dalzell has challenged the fundamental balance of
power between state and federal courts that governs the judicial system. This is why five state attorneys general--including
California's--have joined Pennsylvania in an amicus brief that talks of the Dalzell ruling's "potential to seriously weaken, if not to
dismantle entirely, the system for litigating habeas actions." This is why law-and-order-minded national politicians have their
knives out for Dalzell. This is why Lisa Lambert's federal hearing promises to be one of the most carefully reviewed cases in
criminal law for a long time to come.
This is also why Dalzell's actions will leave a legacy no matter what the outcome of the present appeals. His ruling may or may
not stand, his ruling may or may not establish a formal precedent, but--by granting a hearing and allowing widespread
discovery--Dalzell has required that attention be paid to what happened in a Lancaster County courtroom in the summer of
1992. He's shown why the federal habeas corpus action is essential to the integrity of the judicial system.
Dalzell has also set a moral, if not legal, example. Rulings in one case often affect other rulings. One judge's decision shapes
not just the outcome of a particular case, but also the character of justice. What he doesn't allow, others likewise forbid.
In mid-May, in Lancaster County court, Lisa Lambert's original trial lawyer, Roy Shirk, serving as defense attorney in a routine
burglary case, rose to ask for a mistrial. As in the Lambert case, he argued, prosecutors in this one had failed to turn over
exculpatory evidence to the defense. Shirk most likely meant only to put this commonplace claim into the record for later review,
but Judge Paul K. Allison, to the lawyers' astonishment, promptly granted his request.
Yes, the judge said in declaring a mistrial, this is exactly what Dalzell felt happened to Lisa Lambert.
PHOTO: Lisa Michelle Lambert walks ahead of lawyers, Peter Greenberg and Christina Rainville, to court hearing.;
PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press; PHOTO: Lancaster County Dist. Atty. Joseph Madenspacher talks to news media after
judge ruled Lisa Michelle Lambert innocent of charges.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press; PHOTO: Hazel Show, left,
stands in bedroom where daughter, Laurie, was murdered.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press; PHOTO: Laurie's father,
John Show, above, hugs woman identified as his girlfriend, after judge ruled Lisa Michelle Lambert innocent.;
PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press; PHOTO: U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell was assigned the writ of habeas corpus that
set him on a course to freeing Lisa Michelle Lambert.; PHOTOGRAPHER: Associated Press
Credit: TIMES STAFF WRITER
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Subjects:
Judicial reviews, Acquittals & mistrials, Murders & murder attempts, Prosecutions, Series & special reports
Locations:
Lancaster County Pennsylvania
People:
Lambert, Lisa, Show, Laurie
Document types: News
LANCASTER, Pa.
Dateline:
PART-A; National Desk
Section:
ISSN/ISBN:
04583035
Page 168 of 231

Page 47 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM

19 of 19
Page 169 of 231
Text Word Count 8866

Document URL:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Home Delivery | Advertise | Archives | Contact | Site Map | Help
PARTNERS:

Page 169 of 231

Page 48 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
6/4/2005 9:58 AM
Supreme Court puts limit on whistle-blowers in nuclear case

1 of 1
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0328Scotus-WhistleBlower0328...
Page 170 of 231
Supreme Court puts limit on whistle-blowers

in nuclear case
Mark Sherman
Associated Press
Mar. 28, 2007 12:00 AM
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court left an 81-year-old retired engineer without a penny to show for his role in
exposing fraud at a former nuclear weapons plant in a ruling that makes it harder for whistle-blowers to claim cash
rewards.
James Stone stood to collect up to $1 million from a lawsuit he filed in 1989 against Rockwell International, now part of
aerospace giant Boeing Co., over problems with environmental cleanup at the now-closed Rocky Flats plant northwest
of Denver.
A court eventually ordered Rockwell to pay the government nearly $4.2 million for false claims the company submitted.
Stone could have received up to a quarter of Rockwell's payment, under the False Claims Act.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the 6-2 ruling Tuesday, said Stone was not entitled to recover any money
because he lacked "direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which his allegations were based."
Scalia said Stone had little connection to the jury's verdict against Rockwell.
The company still must pay the penalty. The only question before the court was whether Stone would get a cut.
The outcome was cheered by business groups that wanted the court to limit whistle-blowers in false claims lawsuits.
Since Congress reinvigorated the Civil War-era law in 1986, those suits have returned $11 billion to the government.
Recent high-profile cases include settlements with leading pharmaceutical manufacturers.
James Moorman, president of the advocacy group Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund said that individuals
whose information leads the government to pursue fraud can be told years later that they can't collect anything,
Moorman said.

Page 170 of 231

Page 49 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
3/28/2007 8:38 PM
Court tightens rules in whistle-blower cases : National-World : Albuque...

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/mar/28/court-tightens-rules-whistle-...
Page 171 of 231
2 of 3
National-World
search abqtrib.com
Home Business National/World Business
Court tightens rules in whistle-blower cases

Mark Sherman/Associated Press
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court made it harder

Tuesday for federal whistle-blowers to share in the
proceeds from fraud lawsuits against government
contractors.
STORY TOOLS
E-mail story
Comments
iPod friendly
Printer friendly
MORE NATIONAL/WORLD
BUSINESS
Intel CEO gets $6.18M in 2006
compensation
New Mexico, Virgin Galactic
reach agreement on lease for
space tourism base
Union, suit factory working hand
in glove
The court ruled 6-3 that James Stone, an 81-year-old

retired engineer, may not collect a penny for his role in
exposing fraud at the now-closed Department of Energy's
Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, northwest of Denver.
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said Stone
was not an original source of the information that resulted
in the ordering of Rockwell International, now part of
aerospace giant Boeing Co., to pay the government
nearly $4.2 million for fraud connected with environmental
cleanup at the Rocky Flats plant.
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
Rockwell must pay the entire penalty anyway. The only

question before the court was whether Stone would get
his cut.
The company, backed by defense, energy and pharmaceutical interests, wanted the justices to
restrict when an individual can collect for suing on the government's behalf.
The Bush administration backed Stone, arguing that it was in the government's interest to
encourage whistle-blowers, even though the government keeps more money now that Stone has
lost.
Ten most e-mailed stories from abqtrib.com:

1. Editorial: Lobos coach has to win big to justify pay
2. Can Northeast Heights neighborhood embrace new
urbanism?
3. The loopy legislation of 2007
4. Red-light cameras linked to fee drop
5. Communities start cleanup after twisters
6. New Lobos coach tells Giddens to get on board, stay
there
7. The man behind Mesa del Sol is no stranger to getting
things done
8. Sculptor Glenna Goodacre regains consciousness
9. Kate Nash: Legislators had reason to be fed up with
governor
10. N.M. Medicaid changes worry hospitals
The False Claims Act allows individuals, acting on the government's behalf, to file fraud suits
against companies that do business with the government.
If they prevail, they receive a portion of what the contractor must pay the government. Lower federal
courts ruled in Stone's favor.
This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are the sole responsibility of the person
posting them. Readers will be banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of
privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement.
Add your comments

(Requires free registration.)
Username:
Today's Headlines
Richardson's Quest
LoboZone
TribVid
Events Calendar
Restaurant Guide
Podcasts
Alerts
Comics
Bill Richardson Log

Roundhouse Report
Food City
ABQ AV Club
Be all you can bee
Trib Sports Extra
Wolf Tracks
Split Personality
No harm, no Fowler
High School Sports
The Flip Side
Password:
(Forgotten your password?)
Comment:

Page 171 of 231

Page 50 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
3/28/2007 8:35 PM
Page 172 of 231
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2006
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 051272.
Argued December 5, 2006Decided March 27, 2007
While employed as an engineer at a nuclear weapons plant run by peti

tioner Rockwell under a Government contract, respondent Stone pre
dicted that Rockwells system for creating solid pondcrete blocks
from toxic pond sludge and cement would not work because of prob
lems in piping the sludge. However, Rockwell successfully made such
blocks and discovered insolid ones only after Stone was laid off in
1986. In 1989, Stone filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act,
which prohibits submitting false or fraudulent payment claims to the
United States, 31 U. S. C. 3729(a); permits remedial civil actions to
be brought by the Attorney General, 3730(a), or by private individu
als in the Governments name, 3730(b)(1); but eliminates federalcourt jurisdiction over actions based upon the public disclosure of al
legations or transactions . . . , unless the action is brought by the At
torney General or the person bringing the action is an original source
of the information, 3730(e)(4)(A). An original source has direct
and independent knowledge of the information on which the allega
tions are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the
Government before filing an action . . . based on the information.
3730(e)(4)(B). In 1996, the Government intervened, and, with
Stone, filed an amended complaint, which did not allege that Stones
predicted piping-system defect caused the insolid blocks. Nor was
such defect mentioned in a statement of claims included in the final
pretrial order, which instead alleged that the pondcrete failed be
cause a new foreman used an insufficient cement-to-sludge ratio.
The jury found for respondents with respect to claims covering the
pondcrete allegations, but found for Rockwell with respect to all other

Page 172 of 231

Page 51 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 173 of 231
ROCKWELL INTL CORP. v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus
claims. The District Court denied Rockwells postverdict motion to
dismiss Stones claims, finding that Stone was an original source.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, but remanded for the District
Court to determine whether Stone had disclosed his information to
the Government before filing the action. The District Court found
Stones disclosure inadequate, but the Tenth Circuit disagreed and
held that Stone was an original source.
Held:
1. Section 3730(e)(4)s original-source requirement is jurisdictional.
Thus, regardless of whether Rockwell conceded Stones originalsource status, this Court must decide whether Stone meets this juris
dictional requirement. Pp. 811.
2. Because Stone does not meet 3730(e)(4)(B)s requirement that a
relator have direct and independent knowledge of the information on
which the allegations are based, he is not an original source.
Pp. 1218.
(a) The information to which subparagraph (B) speaks is the in
formation on which the relators allegations are based rather than
the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations that trig
gered the public-disclosure bar are based. The subparagraph stand
ing on its own suggests that disposition. And those allegations are
not the same as the allegations referred to in subparagraph (A),
which bars actions based on the public disclosure of allegations or
transactions with an exception for cases brought by an original
source of the information. Had Congress wanted to link originalsource status to information underlying public disclosure it would
have used the identical phrase, allegations or transactions. Fur
thermore, it is difficult to understand why Congress would care
whether a relator knows about the information underlying a publicly
disclosed allegation when the relator has direct and independent
knowledge of different information supporting the same allegation.
Pp. 1214.
(b) In determining which allegations are relevant, that term is
not limited to allegations in the original complaint, but includes the
allegations as amended. The statute speaks of the relators allega
tions, simpliciter. Absent some limitation of 3730(e)(4)s require
ment to the initial complaint, this Court will not infer one. Here,
where the final pretrial order superseded prior pleadings, this Court
looks to the final pretrial order to determine original-source status.
Pp. 1417.
(c) Judged according to these principles, Stones knowledge falls
short. The only false claims found by the jury involved insolid pond
crete discovered after Stone left his employment. Thus, he did not
know that the pondcrete had failed; he predicted it. And his predic

Page 173 of 231

Page 52 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 174 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
Syllabus
tion was a failed one, for Stone believed the piping system was defec
tive when, in fact, the pondcrete problem would be caused by a fore
mans actions after Stone had left the plant. Stones original-source
status with respect to a separate, spray-irrigation claim did not pro
vide jurisdiction over all of his claims. Section 3730(e)(4) does not
permit jurisdiction in gross just because a relator is an original
source with respect to some claim. Pp. 1718.
3. The Governments intervention in this case did not provide an
independent basis of jurisdiction with respect to Stone. The statute
draws a sharp distinction between actions brought by a private per
son under 3730(b) and actions brought by the Attorney General un
der 3730(b). An action originally brought by a private person, which
the Attorney General has joined, becomes an action brought by the
Attorney General only after the private person has been ousted.
Pp. 1820.
92 Fed. Appx. 708, reversed.
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J.,
took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Page 174 of 231

Page 53 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 175 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

_________________
No. 051272
_________________
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[March 27, 2007]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. 37293733, elimi
nates federal-court jurisdiction over actions under 3730
of the Act that are based upon the public disclosure of
allegations or transactions unless the action is brought by
the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is
an original source of the information. 3730(e)(4)(A). We
decide whether respondent James Stone was an original
source.
I
The mixture of concrete and pond sludge that is the
subject of this case has taken nearly two decades to seep,
so to speak, into this Court. Given the long history and
the complexity of this litigation, it is well to describe the
facts in some detail.
A
From 1975 through 1989, petitioner Rockwell Interna
tional Corp. was under a management and operating
contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to run the
Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado. The most

Page 175 of 231

Page 54 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 176 of 231

significant portion of Rockwells compensation came in the

form of a semiannual award fee, the amount of which
depended on DOEs evaluation of Rockwells performance
in a number of areas, including environmental, safety, and
health concerns. United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell
Intl, Corp., 92 Fed. Appx. 708, 714 (CA10 2004).
From November 1980 through March 1986, James Stone
worked as an engineer at the Rocky Flats plant. In the
early 1980s, Rockwell explored the possibility of disposing
of the toxic pond sludge that accumulated in solar evapo
ration ponds at the facility, by mixing it with cement. The
idea was to pour the mixture into large rectangular boxes,
where it would solidify into pondcrete blocks that could
be stored onsite or transported to other sites for disposal.
Stone reviewed a proposed manufacturing process for
pondcrete in 1982. He concluded that the proposal would
not work, App. 175, and communicated that conclusion to
Rockwell management in a written Engineering Order.
As Stone would later explain, he believed the suggested
process would result in an unstable mixture that would
later deteriorate and cause unwanted release of toxic
wastes to the environment. Ibid. He believed this be
cause he foresaw that the piping system that extracted
sludge from the solar ponds would not properly remove
the sludge and would lead to an inadequate mixture of
sludge/waste and cement such that the pond crete blocks
would rapidly disintegrate thus creating additional con
tamination problems. Id., at 290.
Notwithstanding Stones prediction, Rockwell proceeded
with its pondcrete project and successfully manufactured
concrete hard pondcrete during the period of Stones
employment at Rocky Flats. It was only after Stone was
laid off in March 1986 that what the parties have called
insolid pondcrete blocks were discovered. According to
respondents, Rockwell knew by October 1986 that a sub
stantial number of pondcrete blocks were insolid, but

Page 176 of 231

Page 55 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 177 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
DOE did not become aware of the problem until May 1988,
when several pondcrete blocks began to leak, leading to
the discovery of thousands of other insolid blocks. The
media reported these discoveries, 3 Appellants App. in
Nos. 991351, 991352, 991353 (CA10), pp. 88938 to
88939; and attributed the malfunction to Rockwells
reduction of the ratio of concrete to sludge in the mixture.
In June 1987, more than a year after he had left Rockwells employ, Stone went to the Federal Bureau of Inves
tigation (FBI) with allegations of environmental crimes at
Rocky Flats during the time of his employment. According
to the court below, Stone alleged that
contrary to public knowledge, Rocky Flats accepted
hazardous and nuclear waste from other DOE facili
ties; that Rockwell employees were forbidden from
discussing any controversies in front of a DOE em
ployee; that although Rocky Flats fluid bed incinera
tors failed testing in 1981, the pilot incinerator re
mained on line and was used to incinerate wastes
daily since 1981, including plutonium wastes which
were then sent out for burial; that Rockwell distilled
and fractionated various oils and solvents although
the wastes were geared for incineration; that Stone
believed that the ground water was contaminated
from previous waste burial and land application, and
that hazardous waste lagoons tended to overflow dur
ing and after a good rain, causing hazardous wastes
to be discharged without first being treated. App. to
Pet. for Cert. 4a.
Stone provided the FBI with 2,300 pages of documents,
buried among which was his 1982 engineering report
predicting that the pondcrete-system design would not
work. Stone did not discuss his pondcrete allegations with

Page 177 of 231

Page 56 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 178 of 231

the FBI in their conversations.1

Based in part on information allegedly learned from
Stone, the Government obtained a search warrant for
Rocky Flats, and on June 6, 1989, 75 FBI and Environ
mental Protection Agency agents raided the facility. The
affidavit in support of the warrant included allegations (1)
that pondcrete blocks were insolid due to an inadequate
waste-concrete mixture, App. 429, (2) that Rockwell
obtained award fees based on its alleged excellent
management of Rocky Flats, id., at 98, and (3) that Rockwell made false statements and concealed material facts in
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA), 90 Stat. 2811, 42 U. S. C. 6928, and 18
U. S. C. 1001. Newspapers published these allegations.
In March 1992, Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 environ
mental violations, including the knowing storage of insolid
pondcrete blocks in violation of RCRA. Rockwell agreed to
pay $18.5 million in fines.
B
In July 1989, Stone filed a qui tam suit under the False
Claims Act.2 That Act prohibits false or fraudulent claims
for payment to the United States, 31 U. S. C. 3729(a),
and authorizes civil actions to remedy such fraud to be
brought by the Attorney General, 3730(a), or by private
individuals in the Governments name, 3730(b)(1). The
Act provides, however, that [n]o court shall have jurisdic
tion over an action under this section based upon the
public disclosure of allegations or transactions . . . from
the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attor
ney General or the person bringing the action is an origi
1 Stone claimed the contrary, but the District Court found that he had
failed to establish that fact.
2 Qui tam is short for qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in
hac parte sequitur, which means who pursues this action on our Lord
the Kings behalf as well as his own.

Page 178 of 231

Page 57 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 179 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
nal source of the information. 3730(e)(4)(A). An origi

nal source is an individual who has direct and independ
ent knowledge of the information on which the allegations
are based and has voluntarily provided the information to
the Government before filing an action under this section
which is based on the information. 3730(e)(4)(B).
Stones complaint alleged that Rockwell was required to
comply with certain federal and state environmental laws
and regulations, including RCRA; that Rockwell commit
ted numerous violations of these laws and regulations
throughout the 1980s3; and that, in order to induce the
Government to make payments or approvals under Rockwells contract, Rockwell knowingly presented false and
fraudulent claims to the Government in violation of the
False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. 3729(a). As required under
the Act, Stone filed his complaint under seal and simulta
neously delivered to the Government a confidential disclo
sure statement describing substantially all material
evidence and information in his possession, 3730(b)(2).
The statement identified 26 environmental and safety
issues, only one of which involved pondcrete. With respect
to that issue, Stone explained in his statement that he had
3 The laws and regulations allegedly violated included DOE Order

Nos. 5480.2 (Dec. 1982), 5483.1 as superseded by 5483.1A (June 22,
1983), and 6430.1 (Dec. 12, 1983) (DOE General Design Criteria Man
ual); Colo. Rev. Stat. 255501 et seq. (1982) (Hazardous Substances),
257101 et seq. (1982 and Supp. 1988) (Air Quality Control Program),
257501 et seq. (Asbestos Control), 2515101 (Hazardous Waste
Management Act, 258201 (1982) (Water Quality Control Act), 2511
101 (1982 and Supp. 1988) (Radiation Control), 2922101 (Hazardous
Substance Incidents), 255503 (1982), 258506, 258608, 2515
308 through 2515310, and 2922108; the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. 651 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2011 et seq.; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, 42 U. S. C. 5801 et seq.; the Water Pollution Prevention
and Control Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C.
7401 et seq.; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U. S. C. 300f et seq.; and
regulations promulgated under these statutes.

Page 179 of 231

Page 58 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 180 of 231

reviewed the design for the pondcrete system and had

foreseen that the piping mechanism would not properly
remove the sludge, which in turn would lead to an inade
quate mixture of sludge and cement.
In December 1992, Rockwell moved to dismiss Stones
action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that
the action was based on publicly disclosed allegations and
that Stone was not an original source. The District Court
denied the motion because, in its view, Stone had direct
and independent knowledge that Rockwells compensation
was linked to its compliance with environmental, health
and safety regulations and that it allegedly concealed its
deficient performance so that it would continue to receive
payments. App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.
The Government initially declined to intervene in
Stones action, but later reversed course, and in November
1996, the District Court granted the Governments inter
vention. Several weeks later, at the suggestion of the
District Court, the Government and Stone filed a joint
amended complaint. As relevant here, the amended com
plaint alleged that Rockwell violated RCRA by storing
leaky pondcrete blocks, but did not allege that any defect
in the piping system (as predicted by Stone) caused insolid
pondcrete.4 Respondents clarified their allegations even
further in a statement of claims which became part of the
final pretrial order and which superseded their earlier
pleadings. This said that the pondcretes insolidity was
due to an incorrect cement/sludge ratio used in pondcrete
operations, as well as due to inadequate process controls
and inadequate inspection procedures. App. 470. It
continued:
4 In addition to the pondcrete allegations, respondents charged Rockwell with concealing problems with saltcrete (a mixture of cement and
salt from liquid waste treatment processes) and spray irrigation (a
method of disposing of waste water generated by the sewage treatment
plant at Rocky Flats).

Page 180 of 231

Page 59 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 181 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
During the winter of 1986, Rockwell replaced its then

pondcrete foreman, Norman Fryback, with Ron Teel.
Teel increased pondcrete production rates in part by,
among other things, reducing the amount of cement
added to the blocks. Following the May 23, 1988 spill,
Rockwell acknowledged that this reduced cement-to
sludge ratio was a major contributor to the existence
of insufficiently solid pondcrete blocks on the storage
pads. Id., at 476477.
The statement of claims again did not mention the piping
problem asserted by Stone years earlier.
Respondents False Claims Act claims went to trial in
1999. None of the witnesses Stone had identified during
discovery as having relevant knowledge testified at trial.
And none of the documents Stone provided to the Gov
ernment with his confidential disclosure statement was
introduced in evidence at trial. Nor did respondents allege
at trial that the defect in the piping system predicted by
Stone caused insolid pondcrete. To the contrary, during
closing arguments both Stones counsel and the Govern
ments counsel repeatedly explained to the jury that the
pondcrete failed because Rockwells new foreman used an
insufficient cement-to-sludge ratio in an effort to increase
pondcrete production.
The verdict form divided the False Claims Act count into
several different claims corresponding to different awardfee periods. The jury found in favor of respondents for the
three periods covering the pondcrete allegations (April 1,
1987, to September 30, 1988), and found for Rockwell as to
the remaining periods. The jury awarded damages of
$1,390,775.80, which the District Court trebled pursuant
to 31 U. S. C. 3729(a).
Rockwell filed a postverdict motion to dismiss Stones
claims under 3730(e)(4), arguing that the claims were
based on publicly disclosed allegations and that Stone was

Page 181 of 231

Page 60 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 182 of 231

not an original source. In response, Stone acknowledged

that his successful claims were based on publicly disclosed
allegations, but asserted original-source status.
The
District Court agreed with Stone. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in relevant
part, but remanded the case for the District Court to
determine whether Stone had disclosed his information to
the Government before filing his qui tam action, as
3730(e)(4)(B) required. On remand, the District Court
found that Stone had produced the 1982 engineering order
to the Government, but that the order was insufficient to
communicate Stones allegations. The District Court also
found that Stone had not carried his burden of proving
that he orally informed the FBI about his allegations
before filing suit. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit disagreed
with the District Courts conclusion and held (over the
dissent of Judge Briscoe) that the 1982 engineering order
sufficed to carry Stones burden of persuasion. 92 Fed.
Appx. 708. We granted certiorari, 548 U. S. ____ (2006), to
decide whether Stone was an original source.
II
Section 3730(e)(4)(A) provides that
[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under
this section based upon the public disclosure of allega
tions or transactions in a criminal, civil, or adminis
trative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or
Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit,
or investigation, or from the news media, unless the
action is brought by the Attorney General or the per
son bringing the action is an original source of the in
formation. (Footnote omitted.)
As discussed above, 3730(e)(4)(B) defines original
source as an individual who [1] has direct and independ
ent knowledge of the information on which the allegations

Page 182 of 231

Page 61 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 183 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
are based and [2] has voluntarily provided the information

to the Government before filing an action under this sec
tion which is based on the information. As this case
comes to the Court, it is conceded that the claims on which
Stone prevailed were based upon publicly disclosed allega
tions within the meaning of 3730(e)(4)(A). The question
is whether Stone qualified under the original-source ex
ception to the public-disclosure bar.
We begin with the possibility that little analysis is
required in this case, for Stone asserts that Rockwell
conceded his original-source status. Rockwell responds
that it conceded no such thing and that, even had it done
so, the concession would have been irrelevant because
3730(e)(4) is jurisdictional. We agree with the latter
proposition. It is true enough that the word jurisdiction
does not in every context connote subject-matter jurisdic
tion. Noting that jurisdiction is a word of many, too
many, meanings, we concluded in Steel Co. v. Citizens for
Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998), that establishing
the elements of an offense was not made a jurisdictional
matter merely because the statute creating the cause of
action was phrased as providing for jurisdiction over
such suits. Id., at 90 (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85
F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996)). Here, however, the
issue is not whether casting the creation of a cause of
action in jurisdictional terms somehow limits the general
grant of jurisdiction under which that cause of action
would normally be brought, but rather whether a clear
and explicit withdrawal of jurisdiction withdraws jurisdic
tion. It undoubtedly does so. Just last Term we stated
that, [i]f the Legislature clearly states that a threshold
limitation on a statutes scope shall count as jurisdictional,
the courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will
not be left to wrestle with the issue. Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515516 (2006) (footnote omitted).
Here the jurisdictional nature of the original-source re

Page 183 of 231

Page 62 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 184 of 231
10

quirement is clear ex visceribus verborum. Indeed, we

have already stated that 3730(e)(4) speaks to the power
of a particular court as well as the substantive rights of
the parties. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel.
Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 951 (1997).
Stones contrary position rests entirely on dicta from a
single Court of Appeals decision, see United States ex rel.
Fallon v. Accudyne Corp., 97 F. 3d 937, 940941 (CA7
1996). Accudyne thought it significant that jurisdiction
over False Claims Act cases is conferred by 28 U. S. C.
1331 and 1345 (the federal-question and United-States
as-plaintiff provisions of the Judicial Code) and 31
U. S. C. 3732(a) (the provision of the False Claims Act
establishing federal-court venue and conferring federalcourt jurisdiction over related state-law claims), rather
than 3730, which is the section referenced in
3730(e)(4). To eliminate jurisdiction, the court believed,
it is those jurisdiction-conferring sections that would have
to be referenced. We know of nothing in logic or authority
to support this. The jurisdiction-removing provision here
does not say no court shall have jurisdiction under this
section, but rather no court shall have jurisdiction over
an action under this section. That is surely the most
natural way to achieve the desired result of eliminating
jurisdiction over a category of False Claims Act actions
rather than listing all the conceivable provisions of the
United States Code whose conferral of jurisdiction is being
eliminated. (In addition to the provisions cited by the
Accudyne court, one might also have to mention the diver
sity-jurisdiction provision, 28 U. S. C. 1332, and the
supplemental-jurisdiction provision, 1367.)
Accudyne
next observed that the public-disclosure bar limits only
who may speak for the United States on a subject and who
if anyone gets a financial reward, not the categories of
disputes that may be resolved (a real jurisdictional
limit). 97 F. 3d, at 941. But this is a classic begging of

Page 184 of 231

Page 63 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 185 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
11
the question, which is precisely whether there has been

removed from the courts jurisdiction that category of
disputes consisting of False Claims Act qui tam suits
based on publicly disclosed allegations as to which the
relator is not an original source of the information. Noth
ing prevents Congress from defining the category of
excluded suits in any manner it wishes. See, e.g., 28
U. S. C. 1500 (no jurisdiction over any claim for or in
respect to which the plaintiff . . . has pending in any other
court any suit . . . against the United States). Lastly,
Accudyne asserted that the Supreme Court had held that
a similar reference to jurisdiction in the Norris-LaGuardia
Act, 29 U. S. C. 101, 104, limits remedies rather than
subject-matter jurisdiction. 97 F. 3d, at 941 (citing Bur
lington Northern R. Co. v. Maintenance of Way Employes,
481 U. S. 429, 444446 (1987)). But the language of the
Norris-LaGuardia Act is in fact not similar. It provides
that [n]o court of the United States shall have jurisdiction
to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent
injunction in any case involving or growing out of any
labor dispute . . . . 29 U. S. C. 104 (emphasis added). It
is facially a limitation upon the relief that can be accorded,
not a removal of jurisdiction over any case involving or
growing out of a labor dispute. Here, by contrast, the text
says [n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action
under this section.
Whether the point was conceded or not, therefore, we
may, and indeed must, decide whether Stone met the
jurisdictional requirement of being an original source.
III
We turn to the first requirement of original-source
status, that the relator have direct and independent
knowledge of the information on which the allegations are
based. 31 U. S. C. 3730(e)(4)(B). Because we have not
previously addressed this provision, several preliminary

Page 185 of 231

Page 64 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 186 of 231
12

questions require our attention.

A
First, does the phrase information on which the allega
tions are based refer to the information on which the
relators allegations are based or the information on which
the publicly disclosed allegations that triggered the publicdisclosure bar are based? The parties agree it is the for
mer. See Brief for Petitioners 26, n. 13; Brief for United
States 24, and n. 8; Brief for Respondent Stone 15, 21.
But in view of our conclusion that 3730(e)(4) is jurisdic
tional, we must satisfy ourselves that the parties position
is correct.
Though the question is hardly free from doubt,5 we
agree that the information to which subparagraph (B)
speaks is the information upon which the relators allega
tions are based. To begin with, subparagraph (B) standing
on its own suggests that disposition. The relator must
have direct and independent knowledge of the informa
tion on which the allegations are based, and he must
provid[e] the information to the Government before filing
an action under this section which is based on the infor
mation. Surely the information one would expect a rela
tor to provide to the Government before filing an action
. . . based on the information is the information underly
ing the relators claims.
Subparagraph (A) complicates matters. As described
earlier, it bars actions based on the public disclosure of
allegations or transactions and provides an exception for
5 The
Courts of Appeals have divided over the question. See United

States ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Science Servs. Co., 336
F. 3d 346, 353355 (CA5 2003) (describing the Courts of Appeals
divergent approaches). Only by demoting the actual text of 3730(e)(4)
to a footnote and then paraphrasing the statute in a way that assumes
his conclusion can JUSTICE STEVENS assert (without further analysis)
that the statutes meaning is plain. See post, at 1, 2 (dissenting
opinion).

Page 186 of 231

Page 65 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 187 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
13
cases brought by an original source of the information.

If the allegations referred to in subparagraph (B)s phrase
requiring direct and independent knowledge of the infor
mation on which the allegations are based, are the same
allegations referred to in subparagraph (A), then origi
nal-source status would depend on knowledge of informa
tion underlying the publicly disclosed allegations. The
principal textual difficulty with that interpretation is that
subparagraph (A) does not speak simply of allegations,
but of allegations or transactions. Had Congress wanted
to link original-source status to information underlying
the public disclosure, it would surely have used the identi
cal phrase, allegations or transactions; there is no con
ceivable reason to require direct and independent knowl
edge of publicly disclosed allegations but not of publicly
disclosed transactions.
The sense of the matter offers strong additional support
for this interpretation. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) bars actions
based on publicly disclosed allegations whether or not the
information on which those allegations are based has been
made public. It is difficult to understand why Congress
would care whether a relator knows about the information
underlying a publicly disclosed allegation (e.g., what a
confidential source told a newspaper reporter about insolid
pondcrete) when the relator has direct and independent
knowledge of different information supporting the same
allegation (e.g., that a defective process would inevitably
lead to insolid pondcrete). Not only would that make little
sense, it would raise nettlesome procedural problems,
placing courts in the position of comparing the relators
information with the often unknowable information on
which the public disclosure was based. Where that latter
information has not been disclosed (by reason, for exam
ple, of a reporters desire to protect his source), the relator
would presumably be out of court. To bar a relator with
direct and independent knowledge of information underly

Page 187 of 231

Page 66 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 188 of 231
14

ing his allegations just because no one can know what

information underlies the similar allegations of some other
person simply makes no sense.
The contrary conclusion of some lower courts rests on
the following logic: The term information in subpara
graph (B) must be read in tandem with the term informa
tion in subparagraph (A), and the term information in
subparagraph (A) refers to the information on which the
publicly disclosed allegations are based. See, e.g., United
States ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Science
Servs. Co., 336 F. 3d 346, 354 (CA5 2003). The major
premise of this reasoning seems true enough: informa
tion in (A) and (B) means the same thing. The minor
premise, howeverthat information in (A) refers to the
information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations
or transactionsis highly questionable. The complete
phrase at issue is unless . . . the person bringing the
action is an original source of the information. It seems
to us more likely (in light of the analysis set forth above)
that the information in question is the information under
lying the action referred to a few words earlier, to-wit, the
action based upon the public disclosure of allegations or
transactions referred to at the beginning of the provision.
On this interpretation, information in subparagraph (A)
and information on which the allegations are based in
subparagraph (B) are one and the same, viz., information
underlying the allegations of the relators action.
B
Having determined that the phrase information on
which the allegations are based refers to the relators
allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations, we
confront more textual ambiguity: Which of the relators
allegations are the relevant ones? Stones allegations
changed during the course of the litigation, yet he asks
that we look only to his original complaint. Rockwell

Page 188 of 231

Page 67 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 189 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
15
argues that Stone must satisfy the original-source excep

tion through all stages of the litigation.
In our view, the term allegations is not limited to the
allegations of the original complaint. It includes (at a
minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as
amended. The statute speaks not of the allegations in the
original complaint (or even the allegations in the com
plaint), but of the relators allegations simpliciter.
Absent some limitation of 3730(e)(4)s requirement to the
relators initial complaint, we will not infer one. Such a
limitation would leave the relator free to plead a trivial
theory of fraud for which he had some direct and inde
pendent knowledge and later amend the complaint to
include theories copied from the public domain or from
materials in the Governments possession. Even the
Government concedes that new allegations regarding a
fundamentally different fraudulent scheme require re
evaluation of the courts jurisdiction. See Brief for United
States 40; Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.
The rule that subject-matter jurisdiction depends on
the state of things at the time of the action brought,
Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824), does not
suggest a different interpretation. The state of things and
the originally alleged state of things are not synonymous;
demonstration that the original allegations were false will
defeat jurisdiction. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 701
(1891); Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 326 (1889). So
also will the withdrawal of those allegations, unless they
are replaced by others that establish jurisdiction. Thus,
when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then
voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the
amended complaint to determine jurisdiction. See Wellness Community-Nat. v. Wellness House, 70 F. 3d 46, 49
(CA7 1995); Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F. 2d 504,

Page 189 of 231

Page 68 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 190 of 231
16

508 (CA5 1984).6

Here, we have not only an amended complaint, but a
final pretrial order that superseded all prior pleadings and
controll[ed] the subsequent course of the action, Fed.
Rule Civ. Proc. 16(e). See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189,
190, n. 1 (1974) (where a claim was not included in the
complaint, but was included in the pretrial order, it is
irrelevant that the pleadings were never formally
amended (citing Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 15(b), 16)); Wilson
v. Muckala, 303 F. 3d 1207, 1215 (CA10 2002) ([C]laims,
issues, defenses, or theories of damages not included in
the pretrial order are waived even if they appeared in the
complaint and, conversely, the inclusion of a claim in the
pretrial order is deemed to amend any previous pleadings
which did not include that claim); Syrie v. Knoll Intl, 748
F. 2d 304, 308 (CA5 1984) ([I]ncorporation of a [new]
claim into the pre-trial order . . . amends the previous
pleadings to state [the new] claim). In these circum
stances, we look to the allegations as amendedhere, the
statement of claims in the final pretrial orderto deter
mine original-source status.
The Government objects that this approach risks driving
a wedge between the Government and relators. It worries
that future relators might decline to acquiesc[e] in the
Governments tactical decision to narrow the claims in a
case if that would eliminate jurisdiction with respect to
the relator. Brief for United States 44. Even if this policy
concern were valid, it would not induce us to determine
6 It
is true that, when a defendant removes a case to federal court

based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating
the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat
jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U. S. 343, 346,
357 (1988); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U. S.
283, 293 (1938). But removal cases raise forum-manipulation concerns
that simply do not exist when it is the plaintiff who chooses a federal
forum and then pleads away jurisdiction through amendment.

Page 190 of 231

Page 69 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 191 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
17
jurisdiction on the basis of whether the relator is an origi

nal source of information underlying allegations that he
no longer makes.
IV
Judged according to the principles set forth above,
Stones knowledge falls short. The only false claims ulti
mately found by the jury (and hence the only ones to
which our jurisdictional inquiry is pertinent to the out
come) involved false statements with respect to environ
mental, safety, and health compliance over a one-and-a
half-year period between April 1, 1987, and September 30,
1988. As described by Stone and the Government in the
final pretrial order, the only pertinent problem with re
spect to this period of time for which Stone claimed to
have direct and independent knowledge was insolid pond
crete. Because Stone was no longer employed by Rockwell
at the time, he did not know that the pondcrete was insolid; he did not know that pondcrete storage was even
subject to RCRA; he did not know that Rockwell would fail
to remedy the defect; he did not know that the insolid
pondcrete leaked while being stored onsite; and, of course,
he did not know that Rockwell made false statements to
the Government regarding pondcrete storage.
Stones prediction that the pondcrete would be insolid
because of a flaw in the piping system does not qualify as
direct and independent knowledge of the pondcrete
defect. Of course a qui tam relators misunderstanding of
why a concealed defect occurred would normally be imma
terial as long as he knew the defect actually existed. But
here Stone did not know that the pondcrete failed; he
predicted it. Even if a prediction can qualify as direct and
independent knowledge in some cases (a point we need not
address), it assuredly does not do so when its premise of
cause and effect is wrong. Stones prediction was a failed
prediction, disproved by Stones own allegations. As Stone

Page 191 of 231

Page 70 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 192 of 231
18

acknowledged, Rockwell was able to produce concrete

hard pondcrete using the machinery Stone said was
defective. According to respondents allegations in the
final pretrial order, the insolidity problem was caused by a
new foremans reduction of the cement-to-sludge ratio in
the winter of 1986, long after Stone had left Rocky Flats.
Stone counters that his original-source status with
respect to his spray-irrigation claim (which related to a
time period different from that for his pondcrete claim,
App. 492) provided jurisdiction with respect to all of his
claims. We disagree. Section 3730(e)(4) does not permit
jurisdiction in gross just because a relator is an original
source with respect to some claim. We, along with every
court to have addressed the question, conclude that
3730(e)(4) does not permit such claim smuggling. See
United States ex rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
205 F. 3d 97, 102 (CA3 2000); Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F. 3d
982, 990 (CA8 2003); Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC
Corp., 975 F. 2d 1412, 14151416, 1420 (CA9 1992). As
then-Judge Alito explained, [t]he plaintiffs decision to
join all of his or her claims in a single lawsuit should not
rescue claims that would have been doomed by section
(e)(4) if they had been asserted in a separate action. And
likewise, this joinder should not result in the dismissal of
claims that would have otherwise survived. SmithKline
Beecham, supra, at 102.
Because Stone did not have direct and independent
knowledge of the information upon which his allegations
were based, we need not decide whether Stone met the
second requirement of original-source status, that he have
voluntarily provided the information to the Government
before filing his action.
V
Respondents contend that even if Stone failed the origi
nal-source test as to his pondcrete allegations, the Gov

Page 192 of 231

Page 71 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 193 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
19
ernments intervention in his case provided an independ

ent basis of jurisdiction. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) permits
jurisdiction over an action based on publicly disclosed
allegations or transactions if the action is brought by the
Attorney General. Respondents say that any inquiry into
Stones original-source status with respect to amendments
to the complaint was unnecessary because the Govern
ment had intervened, making this an action brought by
the Attorney General.7 Even assuming that Stone was an
original source of allegations in his initial complaint, we
reject respondents intervention argument.
The False Claims Act contemplates two types of actions.
First, under 3730(a), [i]f the Attorney General finds that
a person has violated or is violating section 3729, the
Attorney General may bring a civil action under this
section against the person. Second, under 3730(b), [a]
person may bring an action for a violation of section 3729
for the person and for the United States Government.
When a private person brings an action under 3730(b),
the Government may elect to proceed with the action,
3730(b)(4)(A), or it may declin[e] to take over the action,
in which case the person bringing the action shall have the
right to conduct the action, 3730(b)(4)(B). The statute
thus draws a sharp distinction between actions brought by
the Attorney General under 3730(a) and actions brought
by a private person under 3730(b). An action brought by
a private person does not become one brought by the
Government just because the Government intervenes and
elects to proceed with the action. Section 3730 elsewhere
refers to the Governments proceed[ing] with an action
brought by a person under subsection (b)which makes
crystal clear the distinction between actions brought by
7 The Government includes a significant caveat: In its view, interven

tion does not cure any pre-existing defects in Stones initial complaint;
it only cures defects resulting from amendments to the pleadings.

Page 193 of 231

Page 72 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 194 of 231
20

the Government and actions brought by a relator where

the Government intervenes but does not oust the relator.
Does this conclusion cast into doubt the courts jurisdic
tion with respect to the Government as well? After all,
3730(e)(4)(A) bars jurisdiction over any action brought
under 3730, as this one was, unless the action is brought
(1) by the Attorney General or (2) by an original source;
and we have concluded that this is brought by neither.
Not even petitioners have suggested the bizarre result
that the Governments judgment must be set aside. It is
readily enough avoided, as common sense suggests it must
be, by holding that an action originally brought by a pri
vate person, which the Attorney General has joined, be
comes an action brought by the Attorney General once the
private person has been determined to lack the jurisdic
tional prerequisites for suit. The outcome would be simi
lar to that frequently produced in diversity-jurisdiction
cases, where the courts of appeals . . . have the authority
to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a dispensable
nondiverse party. Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group,
L. P., 541 U. S. 567, 573 (2004) (citing Newman-Green,
Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 837 (1989)); see
United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F. 2d 843, 845 (CA3
1979) ([T]here are instances when an intervenors claim
does not rise and fall with the claim of the original party);
7C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and
Procedure 1920, p. 491 (2d ed. 1986) ([A]n intervenor
can proceed to decision after a dismissal of the original
action . . . if there are independent grounds for jurisdiction
of the intervenors claim). What is cured here, by the
jurisdictional ruling regarding Stones claim, is the char
acterization of the action as one brought by an original
source. The elimination of Stone leaves in place an action
pursued only by the Attorney General, that can reasonably
be regarded as being brought by him for purposes of
3730(e)(4)(A).

Page 194 of 231

Page 73 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 195 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
21
*
*
*
We hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to
enter judgment in favor of Stone. We reverse the Tenth
Circuits judgment to the contrary.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.

Page 195 of 231

Page 74 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 196 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
STEVENS, J., dissenting

_________________
No. 051272
_________________
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[March 27, 2007]
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,

dissenting.
Any private citizen may bring an action to enforce the
False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. 37293733, unless the
information on which his allegations are based is already
in the public domain. Even if the information is publicly
available, however, the citizen may still sue if he was an
original source of that information. 3730(e)(4)(A) (No
court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this
section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or
transactions . . . unless the action is brought by the Attor
ney General or the person bringing the action is an origi
nal source of the information). Because I believe the
Court has misinterpreted these provisions to require that
an original source in a qui tam action have knowledge of
the actual facts underlying the allegations on which he
may ultimately prevail, I respectfully dissent.
In my view, a plain reading of the statutes provisions
specifically, 3730(e)(4)(A) and (B)makes clear that it is
the information underlying the publicly disclosed allega
tions, not the information underlying the allegations in
the relators complaint (original or amended), of which the
relator must be an original source.1 Moreover, the stat
1 Section
3730(e)(4)(A) states that

Page 196 of 231

Page 75 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 197 of 231

utes use of the article an, rather than the, in describ

ing the original source indicates that the relator need not
be the sole source of the information.
By contrast, the majoritys approach suggests that the
relator must have knowledge of actual facts supporting
the theory ultimately proven at trialin other words,
knowledge of the information underlying the prevailing
claims. See ante, at 17 (limiting the relevant jurisdictional
inquiry to those false claims ultimately found by the
jury). I disagree. Such a view is not supported by the
statute, which requires only that the relator have direct
and independent knowledge of the information on which
the publicly disclosed allegations are based and that the
relator provide such information to the Government in a
timely manner. As I read the statute, the jurisdictional
inquiry focuses on the facts in the public domain at the
time the action is commenced. If the process of discovery
leads to amended theories of recovery, amendments to the
original complaint would not affect jurisdiction that was
proper at the time of the original filing.2
No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based
upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal,
civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or
Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation,
or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney
General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the
information. (Footnote omitted.)
Section 3730(e)(4)(B) then states that
For purposes of this paragraph, original source means an individual
who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which
the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information
to the Government before filing an action under this section which is
based on the information.
2 The majoritys approach requires courts to reevaluate jurisdiction
over a qui tam action brought by an original source every time the
complaint is amended. Such an approach, the Government has argued,
will interfere with its ability to tailor the claims advanced as it sees
appropriate. By contrast, under the approach I would adopt, the

Page 197 of 231

Page 76 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 198 of 231
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007)
In this case, as the Court points out, the fact that Rockwell was storing thousands of insolid pondcrete blocks at
the Rocky Flats facility had been publicly disclosed by the
news media before Stone filed this lawsuit. Ante, at 3, 4.
In my view, the record establishes that Stone was an
original source of the allegations publicly disclosed by the
media in June 1989, even though he thought that the
deterioration of the pondcrete blocks would be caused by
poor engineering rather than a poor formula for the mix
ture. The search warrant that was executed on June 6,
1989, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affi
davit that was released to the news media on June 9,
1989, were both based, in part, on interviews with Stone
and on information Stone had provided to the Govern
ment, including the 1982 Engineering Order.
With respect to earlier media coverage of the pondcrete
leakage discovery in May 1988, however, Stones status as
an original source is less obvious. Stone first went to the
FBI with allegations of Rockwells environmental viola
tions in March 1986. App. 180. He subsequently met with
several FBI agents over the course of several years. Id., at
180182. During those meetings he provided the FBI with
thousands of pages of documents, including the Engineer
ing Order, in which he predicted that the pondcrete sys
tem design would not work. On the basis of that record, it
seems likely that Stone (1) had direct and independent
knowledge of the information on which the [publicly dis
closed] allegations [we]re based and (2) voluntarily pro
vided such information to the Government before filing
suit. It is, however, his burden to establish that he did so.
Because there has been no finding as to whether Stone
jurisdictional inquiry relates only to whether the relator was an origi

nal source of the information underlying the public disclosures, which
can easily be determined when an action is filed and need not be
revisited during later stages of the litigation.

Page 198 of 231

Page 77 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 199 of 231

was an original source as to those public disclosures, I

would vacate and remand for a determination whether
Stone was in fact an original source of the allegations
publicly disclosed by the media in 1988 and 1989.

Page 199 of 231

Page 78 of 78
June 28, 2016

03.30.2007
Page 200 of 231
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________________________________________________
STANLY J. CATERBONE
AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
PLAINTIFFS
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
v.
WENGER, ET AL
AMENDED DEFENDANTS LIST

(ADDITIONS)
Ms. Bachman Of the Lancaster County Assistance Office
Ms. Sheryl Crow
(DELETIONS)
Officer Thomas Gjurich, Lancaster City Police Department
Lancaster County District Magistrate
Judge Richard H. Simms
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION
CASE NO. 06-cv-4650
AMENDED (ADDITIONS) (DELETIONS) TO DEFENDANTS LIST
/sjc/________________________
Date: January 29, 2006

220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 1 of 3
Page 200 of 231
01/29/2007
June 28, 2016
Third
Circuit 15-3400
Page 201 of 231
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_________________________________________________________________________
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED DEFENDANTS LIST To The UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA has been served this 31ST day of January 2007, by first class
mail, Postage prepaid, by electronic mail upon, or by hand delivery:
Mr. Randall O. Wenger Of The
Lancaster County Office Of The Prothonotary
Lancaster, PA 17602
wengerr@co.laneaster.pa.us
Mr. Mathew Bomberger Office Of The
Lancaster County Public Defender
29 East King Street-Suite 213

Lancaster, Pa 17602

William G. Reuter
77 Donegal Business Center
Mount Joy, PA 17552
Lancaster County Judge Michael A. Georgelis
Of The Court of Common Pleas
Lancaster, PA 17602
Lancaster County Judge Luis Farina

Lancaster, PA 17602

Leo Eckert, Jr.
841 Stehman Road

Kelly S. Ballentine, Esq.
123 Locust Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Fax (717)299-8375

Judge Maynard Hamilton, Jr.
324 Beaver Valley Pike
Willow Street, PA 17584
Fax 717 464-2824

Judge Denise Commins
15 Geist Road
Lancaster, PA 17602

Judge Richard H. Simms
Lancaster, PA 17603

Stuart J. Mylin
Officer Ronald Bezzard Of The

East Lampeter Police Department
2205 Old Philadelphia Pike
Lancaster, PA 17602
Officer Thomas Gjurich

Of Lancaster City Bureau of Police
Lancaster, PA 17603
Officer Adam Cramer Of The Southern

3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Chief John Fiorill Of The Southern

3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Officer Robert Buser Of The Southern

3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Officer Robert M. Fedor Of The Southern

3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Lancaster County Sherriff S. Bourne

Lancaster, PA 17602
JoLynn Steinman, Postmaster

Conestoga Post Office
Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
Dauphin County District Magistrate Michael Smith
1281 South 28Th Street
County Detective Michael Landis
Lancaster County District Attorney Office
Lancaster, PA 17602
Officer Michael K. Schaefer Of Millersville Boro Police

10 Colonial Avenue
Mr. Donald Totaro
Lancaster County District Attorney
Lancaster, PA 17602
Nelson Brewster, Investigator
PA Attorney General Office/Civil Rights Enforcement
14th Floor, Strawberry Square
Page 2 of 3
Page 201 of 231
01/29/2007
June 28, 2016

Mrs. Wiegand
P.0 BOX 4967
832 Manor Street
Ms. JoLynn Stoy
P.O. Box 15530
Ms. Lynn Patch
P.O. Box 15530
Officer James McVey
Of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police
Lancaster, PA 17603
Ms. Kerri Egan of
Select Security/Access
Lancaster, PA 17602
Dr. Emily M. Pressley
Of the Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster. PA 17602
Ms. Sheryl Crow
C/0 Mr. Wendell W. Crow, Managing Partner
Crow, Reynolds, Shetley & McVey, LLP
Address: 308 First Street
P.O. Box 189
Kennett, MO 63857-0189
Page 202 of 231
Mr. James Doran

26 Blue Rock Road
Mr. Steven J. Sikking
Of the Eden Resort Inn
222 Eden Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Mr. John Buckwalter
Of the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.
8 West King Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Mr. Frank McCabe
Of the High Hotels
High Industries
1853 William Penn Way
Lancaster, PA 17601
Mr. Shawn Long
Of Barley Snyder, LLC
Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
Mr. David Pflumm
Of Pflumm Contractors, Inc.
54 South Duke Street
Mrs. Bleicher
P.0 BOX 4967
832 Manor Street
Ms. Bachman
P.0 BOX 4967
832 Manor Street
Date: January 29, 2007
/sjc/_________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
717-427-1821 facsimiles
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 3 of 3
Page 202 of 231
01/29/2007
June 28, 2016
Page 203 of 231
JUDICIAL
CONDUCTBOARD
PENNSYLVANIA
PLACE.301CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 403. HARRISBURG,
PA mot. m-234-7911
March 27,2006
Stanley Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
RE: Judicial Conduct Board Complaint No. 05-256

(Magisterial District Judge Leo H. Eckert, Jr. - Lancaster County)
Dear Mr. Caterbone:
The Board is presently reviewing your complaint.
In your complaint, you state that you secured a court reporter to transcribe the
hearing on your citation for Harassment held on May 10,2005. As your complaint
claims that District Judge Eckert displayed improper demeanor toward you at that time,
the Board is requesting that you provide a copy of the transcript for review.
As you privately arranged for a reporter, the transcript is not a part of the official
district court file. Therefore, the Board cannot obtain it on its own. Since you did not
include a copy with your complaint, I am requesting that you provide it at this time.
Please provide the additional requested information to the Board within

thirty (30) days from the date of this letter.
I remind you the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all proceedings of the
Board are confidential except when the subject of the investigation waives
confidentiality. Pa. Const. Art.V, 418(a)(8). The Board cannot provide status reports of
its investigation; however, you will be notified of the Board's decision on your complaint
following appropriate review.
Very truly yours,
FJP I1
Deputy Chief Counsel
..
I
Complj "1s I ea w lr the Boara are
..
ntormaton an0 proceed ngs relallng to a cornpla~nl'in0 ltrurds 131 me Board's de. oerat onr shall be c0nIacn:~a
SeePa.ConslAnV.818JCBRP17anoJCBRP18
-..
Recusal-.
Page 203 of 231
June 28, 2016
nc! p,nl~c intormal~on.A
-.
Case No. 16-05815
CULLEN
Page 204 of 231

amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
May 7, 2006
Mr. Joseph Masse
Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street
Suite 403
Dear Mr. Masse;
Respectfully,

Enclosures

Page 204 of 231

Page 1 of 28
June 28, 2016
05.07.2007
Page 205 of 231

amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
May 7, 2006
Mr. Joseph Masse
Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street
Suite 403
Dear Mr. Masse;
Respectfully,

Enclosures

Page 205 of 231

Page 1 of 28
June 28, 2016
05.07.2007
Page 206 of 231

717.427-1621 Fax

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
April 26, 2007

Judicial Council
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia Pa 19106-1790
Re:
Future Federal Courthouse in Lancaster County
Dear Sir or Madam:

With respect to your efforts of bringing a Federal Courthouse to downtown Lancaster, I
would be remiss if I did not share this information with you. In all due respect for the Federal
Courts, I would like to caution you regarding the conduct of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County Pennsylvania personnel. I assume many of whom may wish to seek employment, should
the opportunity arise.
I have had such horrendous experiences with respect to Court filings, rulings, and
procedures, I would hope that you would plan ahead to prevent the same problems from
occurring at the Federal level. Justice is the fabric or our nation, and it should be treated with
respect and honor.
Enclosed are some copies of correspondence that I would like to share with you in the
hope that when the Federal Courthouse in Lancaster is operational, there will be an opportunity
for me to conduct my litigation free from misconduct.
I look forward to your decision on a location, and seeing your efforts come to fruition.
Respectfully,
cc:
Rick Gray, Mayor of the City of Lancaster

Senator Arlen Specter
Randy Patterson, Lancaster City Director of Economic Development
U.S. Congressman Joseph Pitts
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Stengel
Enclosures
Page 206 of 231

Page 1 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 207 of 231
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant/06-5238-200

Lancaster County Prison 625 E. King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Mr. Dale R. Delinger
Clerk of Courts
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re: Criminal Court Documents
December 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Delinger,
I have received your letter dated December 26, 2006, and you are confusing me. I
have reason to believe that my documents are not being filed in your office or are not
being filed in a timely manner. I have had similar problems with your staff this past year
when I personally filed court documents at the Lancaster County Courthouse.
For the above reason, I am formally requesting a copy of all documents that I have
filed since October 30th, 2006, and sent to me at the prison. I am not receiving receipts
for all of my filings. This past summer my drivers license appeal and related documents
to Penn DOT are missing from your office.
I am also formally and officially requesting a transcript of the court record for all of
my court trials and appearances, as prescribed by law. The trial of CP-36-CR-00028432006 is under appeal and CP-36-CR-0003179-2006 is now formally being challenged for
civil rights violations under 1983.
In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 13, 76 S ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1959) An indigent
has a Constitutional Right to Free Transcript for Appeal of Right.
I would appreciate a quick response to these matters as they are material to
my Federal litigation in United States District Court case no.s 05-cv-2288 and 06-cv4650.

Page 207 of 231

Page 2 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 208 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
February 21, 2007
Prothonotary of Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re: Civil Action CI-00019-07 and CI-06-02271 Court Docket
Dear Mr. Wenger:
There is a problem within your office of the way that you are recording Court Orders by Judge
Michael Georgelis on the Docket for my civil action against Fulton Bank, CI-07-00019.
On February 1, 2007, I attended a meeting in the chambers of Judge Georgelis with Fulton Bank
attorney Mr. Shawn Long. Mr. Long was submitting an ORDER for DISMISSAL of my Petition To Set
Aside The Sale of Real Estate concerning my Sheriff Sale of December 20th, 2006. The property is
located at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga. During the meeting, Mr. Long acknowledged that the
Fulton Bank RESPONSE that I received the previous day on January 31, 2007, and that he was
submitting to Judge Georgelis had not yet been recorded in the Prothonotary.
On February 2nd, 2007, via 1st class mail, I received an ORDER signed by Judge Georgelis, DENIED
with prejudice, dated FEBRUARY 1, 2007. On February 6, 2007, my REPLY to the Fulton Bank
RESPONSE was recorded.
The problem arose when I pulled up the court docket on your computer, and conveniently the
ORDER was under the date of February 6, 2007, the same day my REPLY was recorded. This definitely
deceives the fact that Judge Georgelis signed that ORDER to Fulton Banks RESPONSE DENYING my
Petition, less than one day after I received it, and prior to the time that my REPLY was filed and
recorded. Your staff explained that it took from February 1st to February 6th for the ORDER to travel
from the 4th floor to the 2nd floor, and they used the date that they received the ORDER from Judge
Georgelis office. This is illegal and wrong. You are maliciously tainting the COURT RECORD.
During the meeting of February 1, 2007, I again requested that Judge Georgelis recuse himself
from this case. Without any opportunity to support my motion, he denied my request stating that he
has been sued by many people that come before him in Court, and that if he would allow himself to be
recused, he would have 6,000 inmates requesting the same.
Aside form the fact that Judge Georgelis is a DEFENDANT in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case number 06-cv-4650, he also preside over the case of William A.
Clark v. James H. Guerin, Chairman and CEO of International Signal & Control (ISC) in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas in 1989. Then, my former attorney, Joseph Roda, represented Mr.
William A. Clark, a former top legal advisor to International Signal & Control.
More importantly, International Signal & Control is central to many of my Federal civil actions filed
in the U.S. District Courts in Philadelphia beginning in May of 2005, and is central to my Federal False
Claims Act civil action 06-cv-3955 filed in October of 2006.
importance of my court actions and filings.

Page 208 of 231

Page 3 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 209 of 231
Page 2
February 21, 2007
May I suggest your preserve the integrity of the Courts and the Record, especially since this
matter is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, case number 71 MT 2007, and the Superior
Court.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc:

The Honorable Michael Georgelis

Enclosures
Page 209 of 231

Page 4 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 210 of 231
Page 210 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 5 of 12
04.26.2007
Page 211 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
February 22, 2007
Mr. Dale R. Denlinger
Clerk of Courts of Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re:
Motion for Continuance of February 15, 2007

CP-36-SA-0000160-2006
CP-36-SA-0000159-2006
Dear Mr. Wenger:

There is a problem within your office of the way that you are handling my criminal proceedings.
Yesterday, I had problems with the paperwork, which has always been a problem in your office, and I
requested the status of the above continuance. I was informed, the the Motion for Continuance was
never sent up to a Judge for a Ruling.
This is unfortunate, and given the history of problems that your staff causes me, I am formally
alleging foul play and malice within the Clerk of Courts to Obstruct Justice.
Most insulting, is the allegation by The Honorable Judge Reinaker on his ORDER of January 19, 2007
which he states the following: The Court notes that Defendant has deliberately failed to properly
identify the matters which form the basis of his request by refusing to provide the accurate docket
numbers. I have always maintained that it was your office that either was providing erroneous
numbers, or your office confusing me with the wrong docket numbers.
importance of my court actions and filings. You are hereby formally being notified of the Clerk of
Courts conduct, and its appearance of misconduct with relation to the attached filing.
May I suggest your preserve the integrity of the Courts and the Record, especially since some of
these matters are now before the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc: Mr. Donald Totaro
The Honorable Judge Dennis E. Reinaker

Page 211 of 231

Page 6 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 212 of 231
Page 212 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 7 of 12
04.26.2007
Page 213 of 231
amgroup01@msn.com
Printed: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:24 AM
From :
Sent :
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:10 PM
To :
oberholb@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
CC :
andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
Subject :
RE: We came to your home
Attachment : JudgeMcLaughlin05-2288ContinuanceORDERDeniedin3rdCircuitCourtofAppealApril172007.pdf (0.71 MB),

Dad_sFileApril242007.pdf (0.25 MB)
Hopefully a jury will decide, of course that is why you all lie, to keep me from ever getting to a jury. And you do lie.
Didn't you get the report of what happened this morning at about 5:00am? I had a digital Sony Recorder with an authentic
recording, which is required and already entered into the docket for trial in 2 weeks, stolen. Officer Pinnone took the report.
And why is it that the responding Officer is never from your sector? I surmise so that you don't have to file a report?
Now, it was my evidence concerning Officer Robert Busser of Conestoga Twp. Maybe you should question him to see if he
took it. He already stole $750.00 from me on April 5, 2006 (or one of his fellow responding Officers).
By the way, it is National Crime Victims Rights Week, and I am one, like it or not.
1. Treat victims with dignity and respect
2. Offer victim assistance services and support
3. Help victims understand and demand thier legal rights.
To: "Stan Caterbone" <amgroup01@msn.com>
CC: "Binderup, Chad " <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>,"Anders, Peter J" <andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:07:58 -0400
Mr. Caterbone,
Off. Binderup informed me that he told you he'd start work tomorrow at 10 but that didn't seem to fit your
schedule, or you couldn't commit to that. Please contact LCWC at the provided number for a response
from an officer. I cannot speak of what happened this weekend but I can tell you this. I am not lying and
we are NOT corrupt.
Regards,
Lt. Oberholtzer

Page 213 of 231

Page 8 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 214 of 231
-----Original Message----From: Stan Caterbone [mailto:amgroup01@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 15:34
To: Oberholtzer, Brent A
Cc: Anders, Peter J
Excuse me Sir, I was in the middle of a Superior Court brief that was due today, when Officer Binderup arrived at my
door. Me and Officer Binderup set up an appointment for tommorow at 10:00 am. I explained that I was busy,
and he agreed to that schedule.

On Saturday when I filed my complaint in your precinct, your desk sergant told me that someone would be at my residence
at 12:00 noon, and I waited all day. No one arrived.
What kind of Police Office are you, lying like this? I expect someone tommorrow at 10:00 am.
Are you all corrupt?
Stan J. Caterbone
CC: "Anders, Peter J" <andersp@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: We came to your home
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:01:04 -0400
Mr. Caterbone,
As I mentioned, I sent an officer to your home since you did not have a telephone. When Off. Binderup
arrived you would not speak to him. Consider our responsibility complete. You will need to come to the
police station for future requests of contact Lancaster County Wide Communications at 664-1180 for police
response.
Respectfully,
Lt. Brent Oberholtzer

Page 214 of 231

Page 9 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 215 of 231
Officials: Ex-bank best for federal courthouse
Pitts, Gray, Stengel all support East King Street site after tour of four possible locations.
By TOM MURSE
Lancaster New Era
Published: Apr 24, 2007 2:06 PM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, Pa - When it comes to finding a home for a federal courthouse in Lancaster City, elected officials here clearly
prefer the former Sovereign Bank building on East King Street.
The question is, will the feds go along with them?
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, U.S. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts and federal Judge Lawrence Stengel, who toured four potential sites Monday
afternoon, said housing a new courthouse at 23 E. King St. makes the most sense.
"It's the cheapest alternative. It's a great location. There's great parking already. It's available. You get in there right away," Pitts
said. "I think it could happen by the fall, but again you've got to give the courts and the GSA time to make a decision."
The GSA, or U.S. General Services Administration, is the branch of government that owns property and leases it to the federal courts
and other departments. It has the final say on which, if any, of the Lancaster sites will be selected for a courthouse.
The mayor's office is recommending the site to the GSA.
"My understanding of the process is we can provide information, and we've requested information in regards to that particular site,
that we will forward on to the GSA with a statement from the city that it is our preferred site," said Randy Patterson, the city's
director of economic development and neighborhood revitalization.
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who also went on the bus tour Monday, declined to say which of the four sites he liked best, but pledged
once again to bring a federal courthouse to the city.
"I think we're going to get it done," said the state's senior senator, noting that funding had already been approved for a Lancaster
court. "I'm not here wasting my time."
The three other proposed locations are the Bulova Technologies building at Queen and Orange streets; the Hager parking lot at North
Prince and West Grant streets; and a parking lot at North Prince and West Walnut streets.
Stengel said he, too, prefers the East King Street location.
"I certainly think there are great advantages to that site. It's capable of being secured. It's vacant. It's owned by the Girard Estate,
which has experience in leasing to government tenants," said Stengel, who lives in the county and commutes to Philadelphia.
"And it's about the right size for what we need to do, and it has the potential for secure parking and entry. It's in close proximity to
the Lancaster County Courthouse," Stengel added. "Those were the reasons articulated by the mayor's office, and I think they make
sense."
three-story building, said Patterson, who served as tour guide during the bus trip.
Specter said he met earlier this month in Washington, D.C., with the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals about
bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
Officials have discussed bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster for more than two decades, and have said many times that such a
decision was imminent. They said again today that they are optimistic it will happen soon.
"I don't think we're talking another decade. I would be surprised if it took us another five years," said Stengel. "It's the use of public
money, and so they're careful about how to do it ... It won't be within the next six months, but it's likely it could be within two
years."
Gray, who served on a local bar association panel in the 1980s that sought to bring a federal courthouse to the city, said he is

Page 215 of 231

Page 10 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 216 of 231
encouraged by the level of attention the issue has received.

"This is the most movement I've ever seen. Senator Specter has always been committed to it, but I've never seen so much activity,"
said Gray. "There's more positive energy surrounding this issue than I've seen in the last quarter century."
Gray, asked how soon he thinks the government will settle on a site, said: "If it does happen, my guess is it would happen within the
next year or so. The planets are all lining up right. And if it was the Sovereign building, it would happen a lot quicker than if it was
one of the other sites."
Specter: Time for U.S. courthouse

Officials look at four possible locations in city
By Brett Lovelace, Staff
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Apr 24, 2007 2:14 AM EST
LANCASTER, Pa. - U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter pledged Monday to bring a federal courthouse to downtown Lancaster, a long-discussed
proposal that has been delayed by problems with financing and finding a suitable location.
"I am determined to see that we move ahead and get this done," Specter said. "It has been in the planning stage for the better part
of two decades."
Specter took a look at four possible sites for a courthouse during a brief bus tour of the city. Along for the ride were Lancaster Mayor
Rick Gray; U.S. Rep. Joseph Pitts, who represents Lancaster county; U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, a former member of
the county bench; Randy Patterson, the city's director of community and economic development; and other city, state and federal
officials.
The four proposed locations include the former Sovereign Bank building, 23 E. King St; Bulova Technologies building, Queen and
Orange streets; Hager parking lot, North Prince and West Grant streets; and a parking lot at North Prince and West Walnut streets.
"Lancaster is a major metropolitan area," Specter said. "(Putting a federal courthouse here) has truly had a lot of problems, and
there are very tight budget constraints," Specter said.
"Candidly, there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape that has to be cut, but that's what Congressman Joe Pitts and Arlen Specter are
for."
Gray, a former lawyer, said he served in the 1980s on a committee formed to bring a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
He endorses the former bank building because it is close to the Lancaster County Courthouse, county offices, parking lots and
garages and the convention center and hotel being built in downtown Lancaster.
three-story building, according to Patterson, who served as tour guide during the bus trip.
Specter declined to say which of the sites he favored or how much the federal government is willing to spend on a courthouse here.
He did say, however, that he met earlier this month in Washington, D.C., with the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals about bringing a federal courthouse to Lancaster.
"It is a great inconvenience to people in this community who have cases in the federal court to have to travel to Philadelphia," he
said. "It takes police officers off the street when they have to spend several days in a courtroom in Philadelphia, and the litigants and
the lawyers ought to have the availability of a station here."
The bus tour was scheduled to start shortly before 3 p.m. It was briefly delayed while Specter and Gray snacked on ice cream at
Isaac's Deli, 25 N. Queen St.
Specter wanted a milk shake but had to settle for peanut butter ice cream because the restaurant does not serve shakes.
Stengel, who lives in Lancaster but has his courtroom in Philadelphia, is optimistic about a federal courthouse in Lancaster.

Page 216 of 231

Page 11 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 217 of 231
"I think we are close," Stengel said. "The strongest evidence of that is the people who are interested and the people who are pushing
for it.
"It's not happening because Judge Stengel wants it to happen. It's going to happen because Sen. Specter and Rep. Pitts are strongly
behind it."
Specter and U.S. Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. both attended an anti-gang conference in Lancaster last month.
Casey did not join Specter for Monday's tour but supports the courthouse project.
"While in Lancaster last month for a roundtable on youth violence, I discussed the need for a federal courthouse with local officials,"
Casey said in a statement. "Unfortunately, I had to be in Washington today and was unable to be in Lancaster.
"I will work with Sen. Specter, Congressman Pitts and local leaders to do everything I can to expedite a new federal courthouse in
Lancaster."
E-mail: blovelace@lnpnews.com

Page 217 of 231

Page 12 of 12
June 28, 2016
04.26.2007
Page 218 of 231
Page 218 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 219 of 231
Page 219 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 220 of 231
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
BOARD
PENNSYLVANIA
PLACE 3 0 1 C H E S T N U T S T R E E T S U I T E 403 H A R R I S B U R G , PA 17101 7 0 - 2 3 4 - 7 9 1 1
August 18,2006
MR. STANLEY CATERBONE

220 STOVE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Re: JCB Complaint No. 2006-355
Dcar MR. CATERBONE:
Please be advised that the Board has assigned Complaint No. 2006-355 to your
complaint. This complaint number should be referred to in any future correspondence
with us.
The Board does not and cannot act as an appellate or reviewing court to
investigate allegations of legal error. It cannot review, reverse, vacate, or in any way
modify a judicial decision nor can it intervene in ongoing litigation.
Complaints and other documents filed with the Board are not public information.
If you supply the Board with documents, then you should retain copies for your own use
since the Board does not return documents or other tangible items of evidence.
The Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all proceedings of the Board shall be
confidential except when the subject of the investigation waives confidentiality. Pa.
Const. Art. V, Section 18(a)(8). The Board cannot provide status reports of its
investigation; however, you will be notified of the decision of the Board following the
appropriate review.
Sincerely,
JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD
Page 220 of 231
June 28, 2016
Complaints flled with the Board are not public information. All information and proceedings relating to a complaint and records of the 6oard.s deliberations shall be confidential.
SeePa.Cons1.Art.V & 18;J.C.BR.P17;andJ.C.B.R.P18.
Page 221 of 231
JUDICIAL CONDUCT
BOARD
PENNSYLVANIA
PLACE301 CHESTNUT STREET.
SUITE
403 HARRISBURG,
PA in01' 717-234-7911
June 2,2006
STANLEY CATERBONE
220 STOVE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
Re: JCB Complaint No. 2006-215
Dear Mr. CATERBONE:
Please be advised that the Board has assigned Complaint No. 2006-215 to your
complaint. This complaint number should be referred to in any k r e correspondence
with us.
The Board does not and can not act as an appellate or reviewing couri to
investigate allegations of legal error. It can not review, reverse, vacate or in any way
modify a judicial decision nor can it intervene in ongoing litigation.
Complaints and other documents filed with the Board are not public information.
If you supply the Board with documents, then you should retain copies for your own use
since the Board does not return documents or other tangible items of evidence.
The Pennsylvania Constitution provides that all proceedings of the Board shall be
confidential except when the subject of the investigation waives confidentiality. Pa.
Const. Art. V, Section 18(a)(8). The Board can not provide status reports of its
investigation; however, you will be notified of the decision of the Board following the
appropriate review.
Sincerely,
Page 221 of 231
June 28, 2016
Cornplaints filed with the Board are not public information. All information and proceedings relating to a complaint and records of the Board's deliberations shall be confidential.
See Pa. Const. Art. V, 8 18, J.C.B.R.P 17; and J. C.B. R. P 18.
Page 222 of 231
Page 222 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 223 of 231
Page 223 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 224 of 231
Stan J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
July 14, 2006

Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street
Suite 403
Re: Complaint Nos. 2006-222
Thank you for your prompt and expeditious resolution to the problem with my complaints and
the corresponding identification number. It will make my filing system that much easier.
Concerning the above referenced complaint, please update my file and your process by
including the information included in the copy of the letter to the Lancaster County Public
Defenders Office.
Respectfully,
Stan Caterbone
Cc:
file
Enclosures
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
Page 224 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 225 of 231
Page 225 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 226 of 231
Page 226 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 227 of 231
Page 227 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 228 of 231
Page 228 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 229 of 231
Page 229 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 230 of 231
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Pennsylvania Place
301 Chestnut Street, Suite 403
Recd:
JCB No:
County:
(717)-234-7911
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print. If you wish to provide documents to support your allegations, please attach copies of those
documents. We cannot return documents. The Boards jurisdiction extends only to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices, Superior
and Commonwealth Court Judges, Common Pleas Court Judges, Philadelphia Municipal and Traffic Court Judges and Magisterial
District Judges. Once completed, you must sign and return this form to the address above.
NOTICE: The Judicial Conduct Board has no authority to change a Judges decisions or rulings. Our jurisdiction extends only to
conduct that violates the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of District Justices, which may be
found at our website at www.jcbpa.org.
Your Information:
Name: Stanley J. Caterbone
Address: 1250 Fremont Street
City: Lancaster
Telephone:
( 717 ) none
State: PA
Zip: 17603
Judicial Officers Information:

Name: See
Type of Judicial Officer:
Attached
Magisterial District Judge

County: Lancaster
Judge
Case Information: (If misconduct allegations relate to Court Proceedings.)

Case Name: Emergency
Case Has Been Appealed
Case Docket Number: CI-07-00366
Injunction
Your Attorney:
Opposing Attorney:
Witness:
Name: Pro Se
Name:
Name:
Address:
Address:
Address:
Phone:
Phone:
Phone:
I certify that I have read the information concerning the Judicial Conduct Boards function, jurisdiction, and
procedures included in the accompanying brochure. I further swear (or affirm) that the above information is
true and accurate. The statements in this complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904
(relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.)
Date
Your Signature
Please explain your complaint on the reverse of this from.
Page 230 of 231
June 28, 2016
Page 231 of 231
Please use this page to explain your complaint, providing as much detail as possible.
Attach additional pages if needed.
Please note, it is not required that you present your grievance to the Board in person. Personal interviews are not required and are
not usually necessary for our preliminary review, investigation, and understanding of grievances. If we need further information
relative to your grievances, you will be contacted by phone or letter and arrangements will be made for an interview if deemed
necessary.
Please see the attached document outlining my formal and offical complaints against the following:
Magisterial District Justices:
Ballentine
Commins
Eckert
Simms
Hamilton
Mylin
Court of Common Pleas Judges:

Reinaker
Cullen
Georgelis
Farina
A thorough review of all Criminal Complaint lodged by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvnia is Warranted.
The enclosed CD-ROM contains all materials necessary for this investigation. Please Note that All Criminal
Charges filed in September of 1987 have been dismissed by the Lancaster County District Attorney,
however I will not file for Expongement until all records are subpoenaed for the Federal Civil Litigation.
Revised: 08/10/2004
Page 231 of 231
June 28, 2016

Case No. 16-05715 Emergency Injunction Re CULLEN Motion To Recuse EXHIBIT Re Complaint Re Courthouse Employees - June 28, 2016

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

Case No. 16-05715 Emergency Injunction Re CULLEN Motion To Recuse EXHIBIT Re Complaint Re Courthouse Employees - June 28, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

April 26, 2007

Future Federal Courthouse in Lancaster County

Dear Sir or Madam:

Rick Gray, Mayor of the City of Lancaster

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant/06-5238-200

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

The Honorable Michael Georgelis

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Motion for Continuance of February 15, 2007

Dear Mr. Wenger:

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Printed: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:24 AM

Stan Caterbone <amgroup01@msn.com>

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:10 PM

RE: We came to your home

Attachment : JudgeMcLaughlin05-2288ContinuanceORDERDeniedin3rdCircuitCourtofAppealApril172007.pdf (0.71 MB),

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

and he agreed to that schedule.

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Officials: Ex-bank best for federal courthouse

Case No. 16-05815 CULLEN Recusal

June 28, 2016

Third Circuit 15-3400

Thursday, November 19, 2015

&. 2$ ! - ( &.