advanced media group and stan j. caterbone legal document re tolling the statute of limitations for...

7/23/2019 Advanced Media Group and Stan J. Caterbone Legal Document re Tolling the Statute of Limitations for ALL Claims …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-media-group-and-stan-j-caterbone-legal-document-re-tolling-the-statute 1/112

1

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com [email protected]

717.731.8184 Phone717.427-1621 Fax

Stan Caterbone Advanced Media Group220 Stone Hill RoadConestoga, PA 17516

July 9, 2006

DO I HAVE A RICO CLAIM?

This is by far the most common question that I receive at www.Ricoact.com . There is no simpleanswer to this question because the answer depends upon the unique facts of each case.

I have found, however, that a large percentage of potential RICO claims are undermined by the

following considerations:

?? A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way toput this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context ofcivil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimeslisted in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). The RICO Act refers to such criminal activity asracketeering activity. RICO claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, brokenpromises, negligence, defective product design, failed business transactions, or anynumber of other factual scenarios that may give rise to other claims under the commonlaw. This being said, a RICO claim can be based upon violations of the criminal mail andwire fraud statutes. The mail and wire fraud statutes are very broad. Some creative

lawyers have succeeded in arguing that the mail and wire fraud statutes have beenviolated by fact patterns that superficially appear to give rise only to claims of negligence,breach of contract, and other actions giving rise to common law rights. If a RICO claim isbased only upon violations of the mail or wire fraud statutes, however, courts are likely tosubject the claims to stricter scrutiny. Courts look more favorably upon RICO claimsbased upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of

justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails andwires.

??

RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a RICOclaim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a "pattern" ofcriminal activity. A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions thatbear no relationship to each other will not give rise to a RICO claim. The United StatesSupreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a "pattern" only if they arerelated and continuous. In order to be "related," the criminal acts must involve the samevictims, have the same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or berelated in some other fashion. A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the criminalactions occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of indefinite duration.The former patterns are referred to as closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns are

Advanced Media Group re RICO of 112 July 9, 2006



2

referred to as open-ended patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by acriminal act, you will not have a RICO claim unless that criminal act is part of a largerpattern of criminal activity.

?? Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered orreasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago. Manypeople are mistaken that civil RICO claims are not subject to a statute of limitations. True,Congress failed to include a statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act, but theUnited States Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-yearstatute of limitations on all civil RICO claims. Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins torun when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Manypeople also believe that the statute of limitations is reset every time a new criminal act iscommitted - this is not true. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury, thevictim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its claim and bring suit. Avictim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from filing suit in the face of known injuries. Thatbeing said, however, there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend therunning of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that areessential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the statute of limitationsmay be tolled. In addition, acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may toll therunning of the statute of limitations. All tolling doctrines are based upon whether it is fair,under the circumstances, to bar the victim's claims on the basis of the running of thestatute of limitations. Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of rackeeting, thatcauses new and independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those newand independent injuries.

Of course, these are merely general considerations. Consult with an attorney to determine whether the

facts of your particular case give rise to a RICO claim.




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Plaintiff

v. No. 05-CV-2288

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, JURY TRIALDEMANDEDSTONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT,COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK (LC. MELLON BANK),

SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT,LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,FULTON BANK

Defendant

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO FULTON BANK’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE HONORABLE MARY A. McLAUGHLIN

FULTON BANK RESPONSE

Defendant, Fulton Bank, by and through its attorneys, Barley Snyder, LLC, hereby files the

following Response in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable

Mary A. McLaughlin: On or about June 2,2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an ex parte

meeting with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin "to discuss the problems of preceding, this

action without obstruction of justice; and to amend the original complaint as discussedpreviously." See Plaintiffs Motion. However, Plaintiff provides no justification whatsoever for

his request for an ex parte meeting with the Court. Rather, Plaintiff apparently labors under

the false assumption that by proceeding pro se he is absolved of all responsibility to comply

with the rules. Such is not the case. The fact that Plaintiff decided to be his own lawyer does

not excuse him from following the rules of civil procedure or entitle him to any particular




Confidential Page 2 6/12/2006

advantage for lack of legal training. "The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse

the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of

procedural and substantive law." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,834 n. 46,95 S.Ct.

2525,2541 n. 46,45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).

In the instant case, Plaintiff has no greater right to be heard than he would have if he were

represented by counsel. As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff, in essence, stands in the place of an

attorney. Plaintiffs request for an ex parte meeting with the Court in this case violates Rule

3.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because it is clear that Plaintiff seeks to influence

the Court with his version of events, without providing defense counsel any opportunity to

respond.' Since an ex parte meeting with the Court would violate the Rules of Professional

Conduct and provide Plaintiff an unfair advantage over Defendants, Plaintiffs request for

such a meeting should be refused.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The following is copy of an Affidavit that was filed on January 31, 1998 in the chambers of

Honorable Stewart Dalzell in a desperate attempt for due process of the issues contained

herein. In November of 1997 the PLAINTIFF sought the counsel of Ms. Christina Rainville

while employed by the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis. This was the last

attempt by the PLAINTIFF of seeking competent legal counsel. Ms. Rainville acknowledged

and communicated to the PLAINTIFF that the firm had barred her from representing any

additional clients from Lancaster County shortly after the PLAINTIFF’s solicitation; which she

had plenty of solicitations from other potential Lancaster County clients. In the document

titled “Plaintiff Finding of Facts” it is clearly documented that the PLAINTIFF did attempt to

solicit and retain several competent lawyers since 1987, all of who displayed conflicts of

interests, and some went so far as to violate rules of ethics concerning client/attorney

privilege. PLAINTIFF’s filing as Pro Se Litigant was the only alternative available that would

protect and preserve the PLAINTIFF’s legal standing and right to due process. The following

excerpt from the Affidavit will demonstrate to the court a factual account of the events that

precluded and provided the Plaintiff the legal standing to file the original complaint on May

16, 2005.





AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DALZELL

“I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit

concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused,

subjected to a massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive

fight for the sovereignty of my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties, and

right of due access to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, in 1991, exhibiting

the dire consequences of this complaint. These allegations are substantiated through a

preponderance of evidence including but not limited to over 10,000 documents, over 50

hours of recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A

“Findings of Facts” is attached herewith providing merits and the facts pertaining to this

affidavit. These issues and incidents identified herein have attempted to conceal mydisclosures of International Signal & Control, Plc. However, the merits of the violations

contained in this affidavit will be proven incidental to the existence of any conspiracy.

The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial

considerations would exceed $1 million.

These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident and business owner in

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and have continued to the present. These issues are a

direct consequence of my public disclosure of fraud within International Signal & Control,

Plc., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which were in compliance with federal and state

statutes governing my shareholder rights granted in 1983, when I purchased my interests in

International Signal & Control., Plc.. I will also prove intentional undo influence against

family and friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and self-

serving accusations of “insanity”. I conc lude that the courts m ust pro vide me with fai r

access to the law, and most certainly , the process must void any technical

def ic iencies found in this f i l ing as being material to the conclus io ns. Such arrogance

by the Courts wo uld only ch al lenge the judic ia l integri ty of our Con st i tut ion .”





1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the

scope of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the

United States. The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of

International Signal & Control, including the illegal transfer of arms and technologies to an

end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by virtue that “said activities posed

a direct compromise to the National Security of the United States”.; the plaintiff will argue

that his public allegations of misconduct within the operations of International Signal &

Control, Plc., as early as June of 1987 ;demonstrated actions were proven to protect the

National Security of the United States.. The activities of International Signal & Control,

Pls., placed American troops in harms way. The plaintiff’s actions should have taken the

American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the International Signal &

Control, Plc., to cease and desist. .

All activities contained herein have greatly compromised the National Security of the

United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiff’s intent and

motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens. Had the plaintiff been protected

under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United

States troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the

operations of International Signal & Control, Plc., in as early as 1987.

2. The plaintiff will successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial

misconduct were directed at intimidating the plaintiff from continuing his public

disclosures regarding illegal activities within International Signal & Control, Plc,. On June

23, 1998, International Signal & Control, Plc was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger

with Ferranti International, of England. Such disclosures threatened the integrity of

International Signal & Control’s organization, and Mr. James Guerin himself, ,

consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if such disclosures

provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the

central criminal activity in the in The United States District Court For The Eastern District

Of Pennsylvania.





3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse

consequences and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings.

The dire consequences of the plaintiff’s failed business dealings will demonstrate and

substantiate financial incentive and motive. Defendants responsible for administering

undo influence and interference in the plaintiff’s business and commercial enterprises had

financial interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing authority, Lancaster

County had a great investment who’s demise would facilitate grave consequences to it’s

economic development. . Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less

competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violat ing the

lender l iabi l i ty laws . The Steinman Enterprise’s, Inc., would loose a pioneer in the

information technologies industries, and would protect the public domain from truthful

disclosure. The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence of said perpetrators violating

common laws governing intellectual property rights.

4. Given the plaintiff’s continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in

June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the

law with the opportunity for any and all remedial actions required under the federal and

state statutes. The plaintiff will successfully argue his rights to the courts to rightfully

claim civil actions with regards to the totality of these activities, so described in the

following “Findings of Facts”, regardless of any statute of limitations. Given the plaintiff’s

genuine efforts for due process has been inherently and maliciously obstructed, the

courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions deserving to the

plaintiff.

5. Under current laws, the plaintiff’s intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of

discrediting the plaintiff’s disclosures and obstructing the plaintiff’s right to due process of

the law. The plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to

enter into contract. The logic and reason towards the plaintiff’s activities and actions are

a matter of record, demonstrated in the “Findings of Facts”, contained herein..

The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent emotional consequences

to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.





The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of the

activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the

plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper interpretations of all

laws, irrespective of the plaintiff’s alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff successfully

argue that his “mental capacity” is of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in it’s

malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were

purposefully directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the

activities of International Signal & Control, Plc., consequently obstructing the plaintiff’s

access to due process of the law. Due to the fact that these activities to which the

plaintiff’s perpetrators were protecting were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would

apply.

To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime with the exception of 2

speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial misconduct

during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23, 1987 and continuing to

today.

7) Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must

conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall’s findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa

Lambert case identifying acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of this affidavit,

now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law must now

determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal

enterprise. This affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that

this affidavit compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales

of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights..

In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle

Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. The





Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior

matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it’s own admission of wrongdoing,

assuring the peoples of it’s commitment to administer equalities of justice, not inequalities

of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of

jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the

Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole.”

I was not defending the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert, but rather assaulting

the judicial integrity of the Lancaster County Judicial System, from first-hand experience;

and making the point that such conduct eludes every major stakeholder from the truth

and justice – prosecution and defense alike.





PLAINTIFF’S REPLY

PLAINTIFF filed the original complaint on May 16, 2005 prematurely due to the undo

influence and intimidation of several DEFENDANTS’ and other persons, entities, and or

organizations; specifically the threat of a fabricated criminal prosecution. PLAINTIFF readily

recognized the deficiencies in the filing and the lack of a formal complaint (affidavit andfinding of facts only), and had repeatedly requested information and procedural guidance

from the Court during the course of time that had elapsed until the ORDER of the Honor on

January 7, 2006. This had seemed especially difficult in light of the fact that the original filing

was sealed. In 1998 PLAINTIFF stated to the courts the following: “I conclude that the

cou rts mu st prov ide me with fai r access to the law, and mo st certainly , the proc ess

mu st void any tech nical def ic iencies foun d in this f i l ing as being m ateria l to the

con clus ions . Such arrogance by the Courts wo uld only chal lenge the judic ia l integri ty

of our Const i tut ion ”. PLAINTIFF acknowledges that the preceding statement contains an

emotional response to the situation, and readily requests that the Court interprets the legal

intention and merits of the PLAINTIFF’s request for a fair and reasonable access to the Court

to hear and adjudicate the PLAINTIFF’s complaint.

PLAINTIFF has filed numerous formal complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

Internet Crime Complaint Center. Those complaints identified as; I05120608348825 ;

I05120804514805; and I06010506177009. Additionally complaints were filed with the

Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga, and the Lancaster County District

Attorney’s Office with Chief Detective Michael J. Landis during the course of the last 2 years,

where the PLAINTIFF’S computer and online broadband connections was hacked. At times

when PLAINTIFF attempted to search and find Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal and

Pennsylvania) and related subject matters, including but not limited to the effective service

for DEFENDANTS, certain provisions were missing and or replaced with erroneous and

misinformation, thus resulting in an improper Certificate of Service and violation of the Rules

of Civil Procedure relating to the Service of the complaint.

Plaintiff deliberately provided no response to all previous Motions to Dismiss filed by several

DEFENDANTS due to the vagueness of the ORDER of January 7, 2006 instructing the

PLAINTIFF to only serve all DEFENDANTS with the complaint. That ORDER stated: “IT IS





HEREBY ORDERED that the plaint i f f shall serve the summo ns and comp laint on o r

before January 25, 2006. If the plaint i f f does n ot do so, the Court wi l l dism iss the

com plaint wi thout p rejudice. The Court wi l l consider the plaint i f f 's request to amend

the com plaint and for a hearing after the summo ns and comp laint are served” .

The court provided not instructions or demands of the PLAINTIFF to proceed with any

additional motions, responses, and or replies after the effectively serving the original

complaint to all of the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF will argue that continuing with litigating

the original complaint bears no purpose, nor serves any interests of the Court in providing

the PLAINTIFF with due process and access to the Courts due to the fact that the original

complaint was not appropriately formulated to ensure that the PLAINTIFF’S allegations of

misconduct and violations of Federal Law were constructed sufficiently for the Court.

PLAINTIFF, on June 2, 2006, appropriately and formally requested that meeting with theCourt to amend the original complaint in the “Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable

Mary A. McLaughlin”.

PLAINTIFF seeks no advantage, special treatment, nor special considerations from the

Court. PLAINTIFF is seeking the ex parte meeting for procedural guidance to amend the

original complaint and to address the ramifications of the sealing of the complaint with

special regards to issues of National Security and documented and factual threats on the

PLAINTIFF’s life . The following is the excerpt from the PLAINTIFF’s Finding of Facts:

“Ju ne 11, 1991 - Stan Caterbone left the Stone Harbor Marina at approximately 12:30 am en route to

Lancaster, Pa, to retrieve some files concerning the ISC cover-up. Upon driving north on Route 47

(the normal route to Lancaster), approximately 10 miles outside the Cape May county Courthouse,

Stan Caterbone noticed a car following him closely. Suspicious, Stan Caterbone decreased his speed

from 55 mph to 35 mph, in order for the car to pass him. However, the car remained directly behind,

adjusting the speed accordingly. In an effort to elude the car, without raising suspicion, Stan

Caterbone gradually increased his speed, while also increasing the distance between the cars,

resulting in the loss of his taillights to the ensuing vehicle - Because of the winding road, Stan

Caterbone looked for an abrupt turn-off, in hopes of dashing the eluding vehicle, by loosing sight of





his taillights. There was little or no traffic on the route during the early morning hours, and Stan

Caterbone stopped at an intersection, and noticed that the headlights of the ensuing vehicle were not

visible in his rear view mirror, meaning that his taillights were also not visible to the ensuing vehicle.

Immediately upon pulling from the intersection, Stan Caterbone noticed a narrow dirt road that lead

into a field of small trees, the perfect place to sit for the ensuing auto to pass him, unnoticed. The

ensuing vehicle pulled to the intersection, and continued north on route 47, in the direction of

Lancaster. Stan Caterbone sat in his vehicle a few minutes, until continuing on his travel, north on

Route 47. Approximately five (5) minutes later, a car traveling in excess of SS mph, approached Stan

Caterbone, traveling south on the same road (2 lanes) As the two cars approached each other, and

approximately 30 yards from reaching each other, the approaching vehicle drove directly into the lane

of Stan Caterbone, with its high beams on, and continued straight for his vehicle, or what appeared to

be a head-on-collision. Stan Caterbone drove off of the berm of the road, missing a line of trees by

less than 12 inches (eluding a life threatening disaster), and passed the vehicle that was still in the

northbound lane, heading south. Stan Caterbone, shaking and sweating furiously, noticed the cars

brake lights go on, and the car apparently turned around, and began pursuing Stan Caterbone again.

Stan Caterbone drove as fast as he could to Route 55, hoping to find traffic in order to hide and loose

the pursuing car. Stan Caterbone arrived in Lancaster, at approximately 3:00 am, and again noticed a

car sitting in the parking lot of the vacant "Sportsman's Den", at the intersection of the New Danville

Pike and Prince Streets. Upon driving west on Hershey Avenue, Stan Caterbone noticed the car

following him. In an effort to identify the license plate, Stan Caterbone made a few turns in the area of

Hamilton Watch, and followed the car heading north on S. West End Avenue. The car was a late

model, gold or tan, Cougar or possibly a Buick Park Avenue. Stan Caterbone watched the car

increase his speed, and finally changed directions and proceeded to his residence, and parked a few

blocks away, and walked through the woods, to his apartment in the Hershey Heritage complex. Stan

Caterbone then used a flashlight, in order not to reveal his presence, and returned to his vehicle,

sometime in the early morning, during daylight.





WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stanley J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group respectfully requests

that Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin be

affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se LitigantDated: June 9, 2006220 Stone Hill RoadConestoga, PA 174516717-431-8184717-427-1821 [email protected] www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

.





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STANLEY J. CATERBONE,Plaintiff

v. No. 05-CV-2288

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, JURY TRIALDEMANDEDSTONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT,COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK (LC. MELLON BANK),SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT,

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,FULTON BANKDefendant

ORDER

AND NOW, this - day of ,2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting

with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, and Fulton Bank's response thereto, it is herebyORDERED AND DECREED that the Motion is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________Mary A. McLaughlin, J.





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Response toMotion for Ex Parte Meeting has been served this 12th day of June, 2006, by first class mail,Postage prepaid, upon:

Michael DonahueHarbor Police Administration Building9508 2nd AvenueStone Harbor. NJ 08247

Stephen Basse, Esquire Stuart A. Weiss, Esquire817 East Landis Avenue George M. Gowen, 111, EsquireVineland, NJ 08360 Cozen O'Connor

1900 Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA 1 9103

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Response toMotion for Ex Parte Meeting has been served in person to the offices below on this 12 th dayof June ,2006,:

Howard L. Kelin, Esquire George T. Brubaker, EsquireKegel, Kelin, Almy & Grimm Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker, LLP24 North Lime Street 221 East Chestnut StreetLancaster, PA 17602 Lancaster, PA 17602

Sfephanie Carfley, Esquire

Attorneys for Defendant Fulton Bank126 East King StreetLancaster, PA 17602-2893(717) 299-5201

Respectfully submitted,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se LitigantDated: June 9, 2006220 Stone Hill RoadConestoga, PA 174516717-431-8184717-427-1821 [email protected] www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com




Finacial Management Group, LTD

755 Oregon Pike

L a m a s t e r , P

17601

717)

569 5555

Robert Kauffman, Pr es id en t

Mickel

N

mrt le t t , Execut ive

V i c e

Pres iden t

P. Alan Loss Board

of

Directors

R o b e r t Long, Board of Di re ct or s

Peter Peneros, Broker

Defamation

of

Charac te r

Slander

Mental Duress

M a l i c e

Unfair CaTpet i t ion

Wrongful Interfere-

with Busi Relations

Wrongful I n t e r f e r e m w i t h C o n t r a ct s

_.

Trezpass to Perssn

Burglary

Theft

Criminal Mischief

Invasion of Pr ivacy

Trezpass to Personal Proper ty

Undoinf l u e m

Fraud

Conspiracy

E M x z z l m n t

Breach of C ont rac t

Ex to r t ion

Forgery

S b r h o l d e r F re ez e- c ut




Cornno-lth

M t l ~ 1

ank

Penn m a r e

Lancaster P 176432

W ll o n Bank

Pit tsburg P

Parent Carpany

Mike W o l f Executive Vice

President

of Comnercial Lending

f w

PE JBLOS

U ;ATIONS.:

Defamation o f Character

Slander

Mental Duress

a l i e

Un fair Cocrpetition

Wrongfu l In t e r f e r e ~ z i th Business Relations

Wrongful Inter feren ce w it h Contracts

Trespass t o Person

T M t

Criminal Mischief

Invasion o f Privacy

Trespass

to

Personal Property

ndoinf

uenoe

Fraud

Conspiracy

EntEzzlement

Breach of Contract

Extor t ion




Ckc e Smith Execxltive Vice President

ete

Wolfson Sal-n


Slander

Mental Xlress

Malice

Unfair Conpetit ion

Wrowful Interference w ith Busi- Re latiom

Wrowful Interference w it h Contracts

r e s p a s

to

Person

.

Theft

C r i m i m l

Mischief

Invasion of Privacy

Trespass

to

Personal Property

Urdoinf uence

Fraud

Corqsiracy

EmSezzlement

Breach o f Contract

Ex to r t ion




Farrcers F1-t Bank

L l t r t z

P 17512

Pete Richter Pkrmger

of

La-ter

hcpping

Center Branch

Glenn N e ls n President

r Aw

455

PLLE ~.ICNS:

Defamation

of Character

Slaoder

Mental Duress

Mall03

Unfalr Corrpetr t i o n

Wrongful Inte rfere nce w lt h Busi- Re lations

Wrongful Inte rfere nce w lt h Contracts

T r e z p a s t o Pemn

ary

Theft

Invaslon of Prlvacy

Trespass t o Perzonal Prope rty

Undolnfluence

Fraud

Cor?zplracy

Breach of Contract

Extor t ion




Hunllton Bank

Oregon Plke

Lamaster PA 176 1

Chris Izzo Loan O ff ic er

Corestates Cre dit Card M ni n is tr at or


Slander

Mental Duress

Malice

Unfair Conpeti ion

Wrongful Interfe ren ce w it h Business Relations

Wrongful In terfe ren ce w it h Contracts

Tr t Person

Tr to Personal Prcperty

.

Undoinf luence

Fraud

C o q i r a c y

Breach of Contract

Extor t ion




F u l t o n ank

?6tl O l d Hickory

B r a n c h

Stor L a n c a s t e r . P 176 1

U n f a i r Conpeti t i o n

W ro ng f u l I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s R e l a t i o m

W ron gfu l I n t e r f e r e w i t h C o n t r a c t s

U n d o i n f l u e m

F r a u d

C o m i r a c y

rkezzlement

B r e a c h of C o n t r a c t

E x t o r t i o n

or

Brc




Berdett T m l ln

Hospital

Cape Nay County Courthouse

Stone

Harbor NJ 8247

Social Worker

Psych ia t r is t

1

Psych ia t r is t 2

WEG T IONS

Defamation of Character

Slarder

k n t a l Duress

alice

Unfalr Carpetr t lon

Wrongful In ter fere- w l th Bu sine s Re lat iow

Wrongful Inte rfere nce w it h Contracts

T n z s p a s s

to erson

I r w a~ lo n f Prrvacy

Trespass

to

Percsml Property

Undolnf uence

Fraud

Cow pi acy

Breach of Contract

~ o r g s r y

Neg11gsnce




Avalon Police D epa rW nt

Avalon, N 8247

O ff ic e r Dean

Fat Aswrciate

Defamation o f Charac ter

Slander

Mental Duress

Malice

Unfair Conpetit ion

Wrongful Inte rfere nce w it h Business Relations

Wrongful Interfe rence w ith Contracts

Trespass

to

Percan

Burglary

.

Theft

Cr imina l M ix h i e f

Itwasion o f Privacy

Tr- to Personal Property

Undoinf u e n z

Fraud

Conspiracy

En '&ezz lmn t

Breach o f Contract

Ex to r t ion

Forsew

Sharholder Freeze-out

m l i g e n c e




k n h i m Towrship Pol i ce Deparbnent

i r c l e Drive

Lancas ter

P

176 1

Detect iv e Mathias

O f f i c e r

Of f i ce r

2

Off icer

O f f i c e r 4

Defamation of Ch ara cte r

Slander

k n t a l

hres r

M a l i c e

Wrongful Int er f ere nc e wi th Business Rel a t i ons

Wrongful Inte r fere - wi th Con trac ts

T r e s p a s s

to

Person

8urglat-y

Thef t

C r i m i n a l

Mischief

Invasion of Privacy

T r e s p a s s to Personal Proper ty

j Undoinf l u e m

Conspiracy

Breach of Con trac t

Negligznce




Laneaster Pollce Department

W Ch e s t rw t S t r e e t

Laneas te r P 176 2

Defamation

o

Charac te r

Slander

Mental Du

Malioe

Wrongful In t e r f e re nce wi th Bus iness Re l a t io w

Wrongful In t e r f e re nce wi th Con t rac ts

Tr- t Person

Undoinfluence

Fraud

Conspiracy

Breach o Co n t r a c t

Negligence




ocsh

R c d a E s q .

3 1 C l p k r

Build ing

36 E

i y treet

L a m a s t e r P 17602

717) 397 5791

Defamation of C har act er

S lander

k n t a l

Duress

Malice

Unfair

Conpet i t i on

Wrongful In terfe re- wit h Business Re la t i om

Wrongful In terfe re- wit h Con trac ts

Undoinfluence

Fraud

Colqr i racy

Embezzlenmt

Breach of Cont ract

Ex to r t i o n

S h a r b l d e r F r ee ze -c ut

N e g l i s n c e




ou S c ~ l l e r ,

sq.

V a lo r e M c A ll i st e r W i x o r e l a n d G ou ld V e s p e r Sctwartz

Northfield N

609) 64-1111

Mental Duress

M a l i c e

Unfai r Gorrpe t l t ion

Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s R e l a t i o n s

Wrongful In t e r f e re nce wi th Co nt ra c t s

Undoinf luen ce

Fraud

Conspiracy

m z z l e m e n t

Breach of C o n t r a c t

E x t o r t i o n

Negligence




D r W r s h a l l L e v ir e ffl P

l a 1 T i l t o n

Road

N or t h f i e l d N

653) 646 2011

D e f a m t i on of C ha r a c t e r

S l ande r

Mental Xlresr

Malice

U nf a i r C a r pe t i t i on

Wrongful In t e r fe ren ce wi th Bus iness

Relations

Wrongful

Interference

w i t h C o n t r a c t s

T r e a s s to Person

Invas ion of P r i va c y

Undoinf l u e e

Fraud

C o m i r a c y

F d x z z l m n t

Breach o C o n t r a c t

E x t o r t i on

Neglige-



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-media-group-and-stan-j-caterbone-legal-document-re-tolling-the-statute 30/112Advanced Media Group re RICO of 112 July 9, 2006



United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock... https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?5367473982984

of 2 7/6/2006 2:32

A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD

United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-03689-AB

IN RE: STANLEY L. CATERBONE

Assigned to: HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY

Related Case: 2:06-cv-01538-AB

Cause: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA

Date Filed: 07/15/2005

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 422 Bankruptcy Appeal

(801)

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Appellant

STANLEY CATERBONE represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

220 STONE HILL ROAD

CONESTOGA, PA 19516PRO SE

V.

Debtor-in-Possess

STANLEY CATERBONE represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

(See above for address)

PRO SE

Trustee

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE represented by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE

833 CHESTNUT ST., STE. 500

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107

PRO SE

KEVIN CALLAHAN

833 CHESTNUT STREET

SUITE 500


215-597-4411 LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

11/14/2005 7 Letter from U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT re: received original record on

11/10/05. (afm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)





of 2 7/6/2006 2:32

11/07/2005 Original Bankruptcy Record returned to the Bankruptcy Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (afm, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)

10/06/2005 6 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REINSTATED IN THE U.S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT PROVIDED

THAT DEBTOR-APPELLANT COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND

REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBTORS SEEKING

RELIEF UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CODE.. SIGNED BY JUDGE

ANITA B. BRODY ON 10/5/05. 10/7/05 ENTERED AND COPIES

MAILED.(afm, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)

10/03/2005 5 RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

DEBTOR'S BANKRUPTCY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REINSTATED

by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

(Attachments: # 1 COS) (afm, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)

09/23/2005 4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, WHY IN LIGHT

OF DEBTOR-APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL (BKY. DOCKET

#12) AND BRIEF (DOCKET #3), THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BEREINSTATED IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRPUTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. SIGNED BY

JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ON 09/21/2005. 09/23/2005 ENTERED

AND COPIES VIA ECF AND U.S. MAIL.(mo, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)

07/28/2005 3 BRIEF TO ORDER TO DISMISS ON 6/13/05 by STANLEY

CATERBONE. (afm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)

07/15/2005 2 Briefing Schedule 7/18/05 Entered and copies mailed. (tj, ) (Entered:

07/18/2005)

07/15/2005 1 Certificate of Appeal of STANLEY CATERBONE from the order ofBankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Twardowski. (tj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/06/2006 14:31:03

PACER

Login:

am3189 Client Code:

Description:Docket

Report

Search

Criteria:2:05-cv-03689-AB

Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08




United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/frameme

of 1 7/6/2006 2:40

Query • Reports • Utilities • Logout





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

SUSPENSE



CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02288-MAM

CATERBONE v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN

Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights


Jury Demand: Defendant

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other


Plaintiff

STANLEY J. CATERBONE represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

220 STONE HILL ROAD

CONESTOGA, PA 17516

USPRO SE

V.

Defendant

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON

TERMINATED: 06/13/2006

represented by ROBERT W. HALLINGER

APPEL & YOST LLP

33 NORTH DUKE ST

LANCASTER, PA 17602

717-394-0521

Email: [email protected]

LEAD ATTORNEY


Defendant

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT.

represented by CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL

HARTMAN UNDERHILL &

BRUBAKER LLP

221 E. CHESTNUT ST.

LANCASTER, PA 17602-2782

717-299-7254Fax: 717-299-3160


LEAD ATTORNEY


Defendant





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPT.


Defendant

AVALON POLICE EPT.


represented by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III

SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE, SINGER

& MAHONEY30 S. 17TH ST

STE 1700


215-972-8015


LEAD ATTORNEY


PATRICIA BAXTER

SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER &

MAHONEY, LTD.

UNITED PLAZA

30 SOUTH 17TH STREET

SUITE 1700


215-399-2007



Defendant

COMMONWEALTH NATIONALBANK

i.e. MELLON BANK

represented by GEORGE M. GOWEN, III COZEN O'CONNOR

1900 MARKET STREET


215-665-2000

Fax: 215-665-2013


LEAD ATTORNEY


STUART A. WEISS

COZEN O'CONNOR1900 MARKET STREET


215-665-2000



Defendant





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE

DEPT.


Defendant

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS

DEPT. TERMINATED: 06/13/2006

Defendant

FULTON BANK represented by STEPHANIE CARFLEY

BARLEY SNYDER SENFT &

COHEN LLC

126 EAST KING ST


TEL 717-299-5201

Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


06/30/2006 36 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF LANCASTER

COUNTY PRISON IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE

MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. 7/3/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,

AND E-MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)

06/30/2006 35 AFFIDAVIT of Howard Kelin by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.

(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

06/30/2006 34 AFFIDAVIT of Vincent Guarini by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.


06/30/2006 33 Memorandum in Support re 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON. (HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:

06/30/2006)

06/30/2006 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON.Certificate of Service.(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:

06/30/2006)

06/19/2006 31 ORDER THAT TO THE THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF

REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN HIS

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT, THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MOTION TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SAID MOTION IS GRANTED.

SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/19/06. 6/19/06

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered:





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

06/19/2006)

06/14/2006 30 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for ex parte meeting

with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, filed by plff STANLEY J.

CATERBONE, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)

06/13/2006 29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

OF MELLON BANK, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DET ANDFULTON BANK ARE GRANTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN A

MEMORANDUM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S

COMPLAINT IS ALSO DISMISSED AS TO DEFTS SOUTHERN

REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, STONE HARBOR POLICE

DEPARTMENT, AVALON POLICE DEPT, LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON AND LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF

TODAY'S DATE. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION

FOR AN EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE COURT IS DENIED AS

MOOT.. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON

6/13/06.6/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(lvj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/05/2006 28 RESPONSE to Motion re [26] MOTION for Ex Parte Meeting filed by

FULTON BANK, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 6/7/2006 (np).

(Entered: 06/05/2006)

06/02/2006 27 RESPONSE in Opposition re [26] MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP

POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered:

06/02/2006)06/01/2006 26 MOTION FOR A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS OF

PRCEDING THIS ACTION WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,

FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE, CERTIFICATES OF

SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

04/26/2006 25 NOTICE of Appearance by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III on behalf of

AVALON POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE (SWAYZE, WALTER) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/26/2006 24 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICIA BAXTER on behalf of AVALON

POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(BAXTER, PATRICIA) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/12/2006 23 ORDER THAT THE CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN CIVIL SUSPENSE

UNTIL 5/11/06. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON

4/11/06. ) 4/12/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND

E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/10/2006 22 NOTICE by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE for continuance. (gn, )

(Entered: 04/10/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

03/06/2006 21 Request for MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Be Granted

filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., Certificate of Service.

(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/7/2006 (np). (Entered:

03/06/2006)

02/23/2006 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL

BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of Law# 3 Certificate of

Service)(WEISS, STUART) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

02/09/2006 19 ORDER THAT MOTION OF DEFT MELLON BANK FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY

FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR MELLON'S

RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY 14 DAYS. .

SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/9/06.2/9/06

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 18 BRIEF in Support re 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK,

Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 2/13/2006(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK.Certificate of Service.

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE)

(Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 16 Praecipe to Enter Appearance by FULTON BANK; Jury Demand,

Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 2/9/2006

(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/08/2006 15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK.Memorandum, Certificate ofService. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of

Law# 3 Certificate of Service)(GOWEN, GEORGE) (Entered:

02/08/2006)

02/06/2006 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT. re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, 13 Memorandum of Law in Support

(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 13 Memorandum of Law in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss by

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL,

CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT..Brief, Affidavit, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A# 2 Exhibit B)(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 11 Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT., Certificate of Service. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER)

Modified on 2/7/2006 (np). (Entered: 02/06/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

01/23/2006 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re served

summons and complaint upon deft Avalon Police Dept. by certified mail (

no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Lancaster County Prison by certified

mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon

Bank, N.A.) by certified mail (no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered:

01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Stone Harbor Police Dept. by certified

mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Manheim Township Police Dept. by

certified mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


Summons and Complaint upon deft Lancaster County Sheriffs Dept by

certified mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/23/2006 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re

Summons and Complaint was served upon Fulton Bank by certified mail

(no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/06/2006 3 ORDER THAT THE PLFF SHALL SERVE THE SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 1/25/06. IF THE PLFF DOES NOT DO

SO, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE PLFF'S REQUEST

TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND FOR A HEARING AFTER THE

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVICED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT

UNDER SEAL IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A.

MCLAUGHLIN ON 1/5/06.) 1/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES

MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

05/16/2005 2 MOTION TO SEAL THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J.

CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

05/16/2005 Summons Issued as to defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., STONE HARBOR

POLICE DEPT., AVALON POLICE EPT., COMMONWEALTH

NATIONAL BANK, SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.,

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. Forwarded To: pro se on

5/16/05 (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

05/16/2005 1 COMPLAINT against defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY




LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt

number 916844.), filed by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, )

(Entered: 01/12/2006)


Transaction Receipt

07/06/2006 14:35:36

PACER

Login:am3189 Client Code:

Description: DocketReport

SearchCriteria:

2:05-cv-02288-MAM

Billable

Pages:3 Cost: 0.24




Live Database Area - Docket Report https://ecf.paeb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?7487369034722

of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

APPEAL, FeeDue

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Reading)

Bankruptcy Petition #: 05-23059-ref

Assigned to: Judge Richard E. Fehling

Chapter 11

Voluntary

Asset


Debtor

Stanley J. Caterbone

220 Stone Hill Road

Conestoga, PA 17516

SSN: xxx-xx-0959

represented by Stanley J. Caterbone

PRO SE

U.S. Trustee

United States Trustee

Office of the U.S. Trustee

833 Chestnut Street

Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-4411

represented by DAVE P. ADAMS

USDOJ

833 Chestnut Street

Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 597-4411

Email:

[email protected]

Filing Date # Docket Text

06/29/2006 66 Hearing Held - RE: Motion to Dismiss Case, or Conversion of Case to

Chapter 7 Filed by United States Trustee (related document(s),60).

**MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT ; US Trustee's Brief

due 7/21/2006, Debtor's brief due 9/1/2006*** (P., Cathy) (Entered:

06/29/2006)

06/22/2006 65 Debtor's Objection/Answer to United States Trustee's Motion to

Dismiss or Convert Case to Chapter 7 ; Answer and Exhibits Filed by

Stanley J. Caterbone ***CD Disc received with pleading contains 2

files, one of the files could not be opened and therefore unable to

attach to entry*** (related document(s)60). (Attachments: # 1

Exhibits A to E# 2 docket) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/23/2006)

06/08/2006 64 Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding

Documents sent to US Trustee's Office. (P., Cathy) (Entered:

06/08/2006)





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

06/02/2006 63 BNC Certificate of Mailing. - U.S. Trustee Notice of Motion. Number

of Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 61)). No. of

Notices: 33. Service Date 06/02/2006. (Admin.) (Entered:

06/03/2006)

05/30/2006 62 Certificate of Service of Motion to Convert/Dismiss and Notice Filed

by DAVE P. ADAMS on behalf of United States Trustee (related

document(s)61, 60). (ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 61 Notice of Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 7, Motion to Dismiss

Case60 Filed by United States Trustee. Hearing scheduled for

6/29/2006 at 11:00 AM at mad - Courtroom 1, Third Floor.

(ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 60 Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 7 . Fee Amount $15.00, Motion

to Dismiss Case Filed by United States Trustee Represented by DAVE

P. ADAMS (Counsel). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2Proposed Order) (ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/03/2006 59 Order (copy) entered in District Court within Appeal CV-06-1538 ;

Ordered that the Appellant's motion for continuance is Denied as

Moot (continuance previously granted). (P., Cathy) (Entered:

05/23/2006)

04/14/2006 58 Copy of Notice. NOTICE: The record on appeal from the Bankruptcy

court in the above captioned case was entered on the docket in this

office on April 11, 2006 and has been assigned to the Hon. Anita B.

Brody. The following is the schedule for filing briefs with this office:

1) The appellant shall serve and file his brief within 15 days after entry

of the appeal on the docket. 2) The appellee shall serve and file his

brief within 15 days after service of the brief of the appellant. 3) The

appellant may serve and file a reply brief within 10 days after service

of the brief of the appellee. See original on case no. 06-cv-1538. (P.,

Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2006)

04/13/2006 57 BNC Certificate of Mailing - PDF Document. (related document(s)

(Related Doc # 55)). No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 04/13/2006.

(Admin.) (Entered: 04/14/2006)

04/13/2006 56 District Court Acknowledgement of receiving Bankruptcy Appeal

Signed by Deputy Clerk Steve Tomas - Civil Action #06-1538 -

Notice of Appeal of Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for

Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga,

PA (related document(s)44). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/13/2006)





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

04/10/2006 55 Order DENYING Debtor's Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Request

for Continuance) because nothing is presently pending before this

Court that would be subject to being stayed (related document #53) ;

FURTHER ORDERED that any further or future motion or request to

stay proceedings filed by Debtor shall specify precisely what

proceeding or proceedings he is seeking to stay and shall forth in full

all grounds for seeking such a stay. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/11/2006)

04/10/2006 54 Transmission of Record on Appeal re Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting

Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road,

Conestoga, PA to U.S. District Court (related documents 44 Notice of

Appeal, , ) (related document(s)44). (L., Eleanor) (Entered:

04/10/2006)

04/10/2006 53 Request for Continuance of Chapter 11 Case Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/10/2006)




03/31/2006 51 Order DENYING Debtor's (Second) Request for Hearing because

nothing is pending before this Court on which a hearing might be held.

(related document(s)50). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/31/2006)

03/30/2006 50 Debtor's Request for Hearing with Bankruptcy Judge Filed by Stanley

J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/30/2006)




03/20/2006 48 Order DENYING Debtor's Request for Hearing because nothing is

pending before this Court on which a hearing might be held. (related

document(s)47). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

03/20/2006 47 Debtor Request for Hearing, and Certificate of Service thereto Filed

by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/20/2006)




03/17/2006 45 Attach PDF Document: Copy of Debtor's Notice of Appeal - RE:

Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for Relief from Stay





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA Filed by

Fulton Bank (related document(s)44). (P., Cathy) (Entered:

03/17/2006)

03/17/2006 44 Notice of Appeal - RE: Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for

Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga,

PA Filed by Fulton Bank ; Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone (related document(s)42). Appellant Designation due by

3/27/2006. Transmission of record on appeal to District Court Due

Date:4/10/2006 ; copies to Judge Richard Fehling, Shawn Long, Esq,

Unted States Trustee's Office, Debtor Stanley Caterbone. **FEE

AMOUNT $255 NOT PAID**(P., Cathy) ***Modified on 3/20/2006,

Exhibit A referenced in the notice of appeal was not included or

attached to the pleading*** (P., Cathy). (Entered: 03/17/2006)


(Related Doc # 42)). No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 02/25/2006.(Admin.) (Entered: 02/26/2006)

02/23/2006 42 Order Granting Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220

Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA Filed by Fulton Bank Represented by

SHAWN M. LONG (Related Doc # 31) (R., Sara) (Entered:

02/23/2006)

02/21/2006 Hearing Held on 31 Motion for Relief from Stay Filed by Fulton Bank

Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Matter Taken Under

Advisement. (S., Barbara) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

02/10/2006 41 Monthly Operating Report for Filing for the month of January 2006

Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/10/2006)

02/02/2006 40 BNC Certificate of Mailing - Added Creditor Status Order. Number of

Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 37)). No. of

Notices: 4. Service Date 02/02/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

02/02/2006 39 Debtor's Response to Motion of Fulton Bank for Relief From Stay ;

Response and Exhibits thereto Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone (related

document(s)31). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-C# 2 Exhibits D-I# 3Exhibits J-M) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/03/2006)

02/02/2006 38 Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - RE: Amended

Schedules (related document(s)35). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/02/2006)

01/31/2006 37 Order Entered that if a certificate of service of the amended schedules

or amended matrix is not filed within 20 days from the date of this





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

order, the case will be closed without such amendment - RE:

Amended Schedule F filed 1/30/2006. (P., Cathy) (Entered:

01/31/2006)

01/30/2006 36 Advanced Media Group Income Statements for the year 2005 Filed by

Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Reports) (P.,

Cathy) (Entered: 01/31/2006)

01/30/2006 35 Amended Schedule F (creditor added) Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone ;

Receipt Number 20074148, Fee Amount $26.00 (P., Cathy) (Entered:

01/31/2006)

01/24/2006 33 Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice for Service of Papers,

Receipt of Notices, and Inclusion on Notice List by SHAWN M.

LONG Filed by SHAWN M. LONG on behalf of Fulton Bank.

(LONG, SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/24/2006 32 Notice of (related document(s): 31 Motion for Relief from Stay. Fee

Amount $150,) Filed by Fulton Bank. Hearing scheduled for

2/21/2006 at 09:30 AM at mad - Courtroom 1, Third Floor. (LONG,

SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/24/2006 Receipt of Motion for Relief From Stay(05-23059-tmt)

[motion,mrlfsty] ( 150.00) Filing Fee. Receipt number 4303314. Fee

amount 150.00. (U.S. Treasury) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/24/2006 31 Motion for Relief from Stay. Fee Amount $150, Filed by Fulton Bank Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Objections due by

2/8/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B- Note and Mortgage# 2

Proposed Order # 3 Certification of Service and Notice) (LONG,

SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/23/2006 34 Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - RE: Amended

Schedules and Response to Creditor Status Order (related


01/11/2006 30 BNC Certificate of Mailing - Added Creditor Status Order. Number of

Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 29)). No. of Notices: 24. Service Date 01/11/2006. (Admin.) (Entered:

01/12/2006)

01/09/2006 29 Order Entered that if a certificate of service of the amended schedules

or amended matrix is not filed within 20 days from the date of this

order, the case will be closed without such amendment (Regarding

amendments filed 12/15/2005) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 01/09/2006)





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

12/16/2005 28 Meeting of Creditors Held December 15, 2005. (ADAMS, DAVE)

(Entered: 12/16/2005)

12/15/2005 27 Amended Schedules F & G Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone ; Receipt

Number 20074028, Fee Amount $26.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered:

12/16/2005)

12/15/2005 26 Response dated 12/14/2005 Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding

HEMAP Appeal Hearing Request. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 12/16/2005)

11/29/2005 25 Letter (dated 11/3/2005) Filed by Debtor Stanley J. Caterbone

addressed to Department of Justice, US Trustee Office - RE:

Summation on reason to file under chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

(P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

11/29/2005 Receipt of Final Installment Payment. Receipt Number 20073978, Fee

Amount $839.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/29/2005)

11/18/2005 24 BNC Certificate of Mailing - Meeting of Creditors. Number of Notices

Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 23)). No. of Notices: 25.

Service Date 11/18/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/19/2005)

11/16/2005 23 Meeting of Creditors . 341(a) meeting to be held on 12/15/2005 at

12:30 PM at 3cnfrm - 3rd Floor Conference Room. Last day to

oppose discharge or dischargeability is 2/13/2006. (E., Carol)

(Entered: 11/16/2005)

11/10/2005 22 BNC Certificate of Mailing - Hearing to Show Cause. Number of

Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 20)). No. of

Notices: 18. Service Date 11/10/2005. (Admin.) (Entered:

11/11/2005)

11/10/2005 Appeal Returned from District Court - RE: Appeal Case #

05-CV-3689 regarding dismissal of case.(related document(s)12). (P.,





11/08/2005 20 Notice of Hearing to Show Cause why this case should not be

Dismissed for Debtor's Failure to Timely Pay Filing Fees for Chapter

11 Voluntary Petition in the total amount of $839.00. Show Cause

hearing to be held on 12/1/2005 at 11:00 AM at mad - Courtroom 1,

Third Floor. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/08/2005)





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17




10/05/2005 19 Final Order By District Court Judge Anita B. Brody - RE: Notice of

Appeal (CA-05-3689) Regarding 6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case

for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required Document ; ORDER

REINSTATING CASE TO US BANKRUPTCY COURT (related


10/05/2005 17 Attach PDF Document for BNC noticing: Copy of District Court

Order to Show Cause (related document(s)16). (P., Cathy) (Entered:

10/05/2005)

09/21/2005 16 District Court Order entered within Civil Action # 05-CV-3689 Notice

of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding 6/13/2005 Order

Dismissing Case Re: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Stanley J.Caterbone ; The Trustee is ORDERED to show cause by 10/3/2005

why this case should not be reinstated in the US Bankruptcy Court.

(related document(s)12). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 09/30/2005)

07/19/2005 15 District Court Acknowledgement of receiving Bankruptcy Appeal.

Signed by Deputy Clerk: Steve Tomas ; Civil Action # 05-CV-3689 -

RE: Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding

6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case (related document(s)12). (P.,


07/12/2005 14 Transmission of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related

documents 12 Notice of Appeal) (related document(s)12). (F., Anitra)

(Entered: 07/14/2005)

07/01/2005 13 Appellant Designation of Contents For Inclusion in Record On

Appeal, and Findings of Fact Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone .

(Attachments: # 1 Findings of Fact, 1983-1987# 2 Findings of Fact,

1988-2003# 3 Findings of Fact, 2004-present)(P., Cathy) (Entered:

07/01/2005)

07/01/2005 Receipt Number 20073451, Fee Amount $255.00 - Notice of Appealregarding Dismissal Order. (related document(s)12). (P., Cathy)

(Entered: 07/01/2005)

06/21/2005 12 Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding 6/13/2005

Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required

Documents (related document(s)9). Appellant Designation due by

7/1/2005. Transmission of record on appeal to District Court Due





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

Date:7/15/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) **$255.00 FILING FEE

NOT PAID** ; copies to Judge Thomas M. Twardowski, United

States Trustee's Office, Debtor Stanley Caterbone. (P., Cathy)

(Entered: 06/21/2005)

06/21/2005 Matrix Filed. Number of pages filed: 1, Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone .

(P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/21/2005)

06/21/2005 11 Summary of Schedules, Schedules A-J, Statement of Financial Affairs

Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of

Financial Affairs# 2 Finance Statements# 3 Matrix) (P., Cathy)

(Entered: 06/21/2005)




06/13/2005 9 Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required

Documents. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/13/2005)




06/02/2005 7 Order Granting Application To Pay Filing Fees In Installments.

(Related Doc # 4) ; Total amount due $839.00, First Installment

Payment in the amount of $215 due by 8/1/2005, Second InstallmentPayment in the amount of $215.00 due by 8/30/2005, Third

Installment Payment in the amount of $209.00 due by 9/15/2005, Final

Installment Payment in the amount of $200.00 due by 9/20/2005. (P.,


05/25/2005 6 BNC Certificate of Mailing - Voluntary Petition. Number of Notices

Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 5)). No. of Notices: 2.

Service Date 05/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/26/2005)

05/23/2005 5 Order Entered that unless the missing documents:20 Largest

Unsecured Creditors due 6/7/2005. List of Equity Security Holdersdue 6/7/2005. Inventory of Property due 6/7/2005. Matrix due

6/7/2005. Schedules A-J due 6/7/2005. Statement of Financial Affairs

due 6/7/2005. Summary of schedules due 6/7/2005 are filed within 15

days of the date of the petition, or unless a timely request for an

extension time is submitted, this case may be dismissed.. (P., Betty)

(Entered: 05/23/2005)





of 9 7/8/2006 4:17

05/23/2005 4 Application to Pay Filing Fee in Installments Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone Represented by Self(Counsel). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Order) (P., Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

05/23/2005 3 Pro Se Statement Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Betty) (Entered:

05/23/2005)

05/23/2005 2 Statement of Social Security Number Received. Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone . (P., Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

05/23/2005 1 Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition. Receipt Number 0, Fee Amount $0.00

Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone. 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors due

6/7/2005. List of Equity Security Holders due 6/7/2005. Inventory of

Property due 6/7/2005. Matrix due 6/7/2005. Schedules A-J due

6/7/2005. Statement of Financial Affairs due 6/7/2005. Summary of

schedules due 6/7/2005. Incomplete Filings due by 6/7/2005. (P.,

Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)


Transaction Receipt

07/08/2006 15:58:29

PACER

Login:am3189

Client

Code:

Description:Docket

Report

Search

Criteria:

05-23059-ref Fil or Ent: filed

Doc From: 0 Doc To:

99999999 Term: included

Format: HTML

Billable

Pages:5 Cost: 0.40





of 3 7/6/2006 2:29

STANDARD



CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-01538-AB

IN RE: CATERBONE

Assigned to: HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY

Related Case: 2:05-cv-03689-AB

Case in other court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court E.D. of

Pennsylvania, 05-23059

Cause: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA


Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 422 Bankruptcy Appeal

(801)


Appellant


220 STONE HILL ROADCONESTOGA, PA 17516

US

PRO SE

V.

Appellee

FULTON BANK represented by SHAWN M. LONG


COHEN126 EAST KING STREET

LANCASTER, PA 17602

717-399-1512


LEAD ATTORNEY


V.

Debtor-in-Possess


(See above for address)

PRO SE

Trustee

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE represented by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

833 CHESTNUT STREET

SUITE 500





of 3 7/6/2006 2:29


PRO SE


06/12/2006 8 Reply Brief of the Fulton Bank's Answer to Appeal, filed by STANLEY J.


05/30/2006 7 Appellee's BRIEF by FULTON BANK. Appellant Reply Brief due by

6/6/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(LONG, SHAWN)

(Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/15/2006 6 ANSWER to Complaint by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered:

05/16/2006)

05/03/2006 5 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S

MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE

MOTION IS DENIED AS MOOT.SIGNED BY JUDGE ANITA B.

BRODY ON 05/03/06.05/03/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,

E-MAILED (ldb, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)

04/26/2006 4 MOTION FOR A (15) DAY CONTINUANCE OF THE COURT

PROCEEDING, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/25/2006 3 ORDER - UPON CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S REQUEST

FOR ANE EXTENSION OF TIME, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) THE

REQUEST IS GRANTED; (2) THE APPELLANT SHALL SERVE AND

FILE HIS BRIEF ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2006; (3) THE APPELLE

SHALL SERVE AND FILE HIS BRIEF WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTERSERVICE OF THE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT; (4) THE

APPELLANT MAY SERVE AND FILE A REPLY BRIEF WITHIN 10

DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE..

SIGNED BY JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ON 4/24/2006. 4/25/2006

ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF AND U.S. MAIL(mo, ) Modified on

4/28/2006 (mo, ). (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/11/2006 2 Briefing Schedule 4/12/06 Entered and copies mailed. (ss, ) Additional

attachment(s) added on 4/12/2006 (ss, ). (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/11/2006 1 Certificate of Appeal of STANLEY J. CATERBONE from the order of

Bankruptcy Judge RICHARD E. FEHLING (No. 05-23059). (ss, )

(Entered: 04/12/2006)


Transaction Receipt





of 3 7/6/2006 2:29

07/06/2006 14:28:25

PACER


Description:Docket

Report

Search

Criteria:2:06-cv-01538-AB

Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08




Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, t... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_

of 4 7/9/2006 5:31

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from RICO (law))

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words".

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO) is a United States

federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal

organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No.

91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code,

18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968.

It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar , whichfeatured a notorious gangster named "Rico." The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, has refused to

confirm or deny this.[1]

Contents

1 Summary

2 RICO offenses and definitions

3 Where RICO laws might be applied

4 Famous cases

5 References

6 External links

Summary

Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within

a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar

purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000

and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any

business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining

order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put

up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or

more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the

defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between





of 4 7/9/2006 5:31

the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or

State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481

RICO offenses and definitions

Racketeering activity means:

Any act or threat involving gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in

obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the

Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more

than one year;

Any act which is indictable under a wide variety of specific provisions of title 18 of the United States Code

relating to bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery,

racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, etc.

Any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on

payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds),

Any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this

title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment,

buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States,

Any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,

Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in

and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United

States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such

section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or

Any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the

effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment)

after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;

Where RICO laws might be applied

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of

the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed

against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or

intelligence agencies.

The RICO laws can be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or

corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals

or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged

abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against

whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers

and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and

retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of limitations has run out.





of 4 7/9/2006 5:31

Famous cases

On November 21, 1980, Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Cosa Nostra boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.

In 1988, the owner of Florida Title Insurance, Inc. in Panama City, Florida sent copies of proposed qui.tam suit

against 32 defendants with 12 Counts of Racketeering to the Justice Department as required, just to get them

returned in a plain manila envelope with no cover letter regarding the RICO Act violations involving a competitor

company, the IRS, with the IRS Agent threatening the life of Plaintiff on behalf of defendants and others. IRS

Agent was found dead just days after being served by U.S. Marshals. Autopsy was conducted by Coroner later

convicted of Murder. Case went before numerous Federal Judges in Northern District of Florida, who denied all

motions including one for discovery conference, seizure of assets due to the defendant's failure to appear, 11th

Circuit on Appeal with 15 minute argument (first hearing) with most spent trying to get the Government to have an

independent autopsy of the IRS Agent and was denied access to Supreme Court due to minute error in spacing and

Clerical Abuse of Discretion in pro.ce case.

In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montréal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act

against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig

and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move. If found guilty,

Major League Baseball could have been found liable for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted

for two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It waseventually sent to arbitration and settled for an undisclosed sum, permitting the move to Washington to take place.

This happened notably after Loria, now owner of the Florida Marlins, had received a significant financial boost

after winning the World Series and Selig refused to permit the Expos to engage in September callups, effectively

ending their chances at making the playoffs.

RICO laws were cited in NOW v. Scheidler , a suit in which certain parties sought damages and an injunction

against anti-abortion activists who physically block access to abortion clinics.

In 2005, Tanya Andersen of Oregon responded to a lawsuit on behalf of Atlantic Records by in turn suing them

under the RICO laws. Her suit alleges that RIAA members, in this particular case Atlantic, engaged in illegal

computer trespass, extortion, and unfair trade practices under Oregon state law.

On April 26, 2006 the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerned what sort of

corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had alledgely hired illegal alliens, in violation of

RICO. The court will decide whether or not Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an

'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO.

References

^ RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December 2004).

Retrieved on 2006-03-26.

1.

External links

RICO Act from Cornell University's U. S. Code database

(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html)

Detail of Tanya Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records

(http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act"

Categories: Articles with weasel words | United States federal legislation | Organized crime terminology | 1970 in





of 4 7/9/2006 5:31

law

This page was last modified 15:49, 5 July 2006.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for

details.)

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR

TH EASTERN

DISTRICT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Y J . CATERBONE

v.

'&EL

NO.

05-2288

ORDER

----

AND

NOW, this 5th day of January,

~ FOG

pon--

tion of the plaintiff s December

17, 2005

letter to the

t requesting to amend the complaint and for a hearing, wherea

complaint was filed and summons were issued to the pro se

ntiff on May

16, 2005,

and whereas the plaintiff has not serv

120

days after filing the

-

..

.

. . .

.

- ,

t, as required by ~ i l e(m) o the ~ e h e r k U l kf Civil

T S HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve th

and complaint on or before January

25, 2006.

f the

ntiff does not do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint

prejudice. The Court will consider the plaintiff s reque

or a hearing after the summons and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the plaintiff s motion to

le the complaint under seal (Docket No.

2

is

DENIED. A

docume

a

civil action may be filed under seal only if the action is

a

federal statute that prescribes the sealing



1 5 (a)

1)

f the Local Rules of Civil Procedure; Pansv

v.

Boro

23

F.3d 772 786 3d Cir. 1994). The party seek

tiality may establish good cause by showing that disclos

work a clearly defined and serious injury to that party;

broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated

by

specific examples

reasoning, are insufficient. Id Even when judged

rds by which courts judge p~ se

the plaintiff has not brought suit under a statute th

equires t h e - s U g _ o f the-record,

or +own good cause for doin

The plaintiff alleges that several threats have been made o

life, but does not provide any facts to support this

n, or explain how these alleged threats relate to his

BY

THE

COURT:





STANLEY J. CATERBONE CIVIL ACTION

NO. 05-2288

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, ET AL.

MOTION

I hereby request a meeting, ex parte, with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin as per theORDER of January 6th, 2006. The PLAINTIFF requests the meeting to discuss theproblems of preceding this action without obstruction of justice; and to amend the originalcomplaint as discussed previously.

DATED: May 30, 2006 __________________________ Advanced Media GroupStanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se220 Stone Hill RoadConestoga, PA 17516717-431-8184717-421-1621 Facsimile




EXHIBIT A




EXHIBIT B




January 13, 2005

Stanley J. Caterbone (pro se)

220 Stone Hill Road

Conestoga, PA 17516

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin

Room # 13614601 Market Street, Room 2609

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1748

Phone: (215) 597-7704Fax: (215) 597-6390 600

Re: Case No. 05-2288

Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,

I have received your court order of January 5, and will proceed accordingly.

In addition, I would like to inform you of a recent complaint IFCC Complaint Referral

Report Complaint Number: I06010506177009.

Please see attached.

Respectfully,

Stanley J. Caterbone

Attachment: IFCC Complaint No.

Cc: file

Mr. Hugh Ward, Department of Justice, Office of Trustee

Honorable Judge Thomas M. Twardowski, United States Bankruptcy

Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR

TH EASTERN

DISTRICT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Y J . CATERBONE

v.

'&EL

NO.

05-2288

ORDER

----

AND

NOW, this 5th day of January,

~ FOG

pon--

tion of the plaintiff s December

17, 2005

letter to the

t requesting to amend the complaint and for a hearing, wherea

complaint was filed and summons were issued to the pro se

ntiff on May

16, 2005,

and whereas the plaintiff has not serv

120

days after filing the

-

..

.

. . .

.

- ,

t, as required by ~ i l e(m) o the ~ e h e r k U l kf Civil

T S HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve th

and complaint on or before January

25, 2006.

f the

ntiff does not do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint

prejudice. The Court will consider the plaintiff s reque

or a hearing after the summons and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the plaintiff s motion to

le the complaint under seal (Docket No.

2

is

DENIED. A

docume

a

civil action may be filed under seal only if the action is

a

federal statute that prescribes the sealing



1 5 (a)

1)

f the Local Rules of Civil Procedure; Pansv

v.

Boro

23

F.3d 772 786 3d Cir. 1994). The party seek

tiality may establish good cause by showing that disclos

work a clearly defined and serious injury to that party;

broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated

by

specific examples

reasoning, are insufficient. Id Even when judged

rds by which courts judge p~ se

the plaintiff has not brought suit under a statute th

equires t h e - s U g _ o f the-record,

or +own good cause for doin

The plaintiff alleges that several threats have been made o

life, but does not provide any facts to support this

n, or explain how these alleged threats relate to his

BY

THE

COURT:



IFCC COMPLAINT REFERRAL REPORT

Complaint Number: I06010506177009

The following information was provided by the victim and will be forwarded to the appropriate lawenforcement or regulatory agency.

International Fraud

Date of Complaint: 1/5/2006 6:17:08 AM

Victim InformationBusiness Name: Advanced Media Group

Name: Stan Caterbone CaterboneDOB: 07/15/1958Gender: MPhone #: 717-799-5915Email: [email protected]

Address: 220 Stone Hill RoadConestoga, PA 17516

Live in city limits: NoCounty: LancasterCountry: USA

Do you have pertinent documents in paper form? Yes

Please indicate who your local law enforcement agency is:Southern Regional Police Department

Please List the easiest way and most convenient time to contact you:cell phone, email, anytime

Information about the Business that victimized you.Name:Gender: U

Phone #:Current Email: Address:Country: USA

Contact between you and the Person/company that victimized you.Type of Contact: Web PageDate of Contact: 01/30/2005




Total money lost on contact date: $2,200.00

Money lost in total: $0.00

Contact Information:

On January 30 I had planned to visit Los Cabos, Mexico, for a businesstrip. I had used the Internet to locate the airport (PTO) for thatdestination to locate and book the necessary travel accommodations. ¿PVR¿(Puerto Vallarta, Mexico) appeared on several Google searches as thatairport. I accordingly booked flight itinerary and tickets for that trip.On January 31 I booked a flight from Houston Hobby airport to ¿PVR¿

(Continental Flight 1768, Seat 10D). I had some knowledge of the PTOsystem, having the national register for PTO¿s when I had my planeoperating, the Piper Navajo Chieftain, in 1987. I had logged severalflights, as far away as Atlanta, and booked it for charter to several clients.

¿PVR¿ was not, in fact, the airport for that destination. I had consumedan estimated $2,000 in expenses for that trip, and never was able to travelto Los Cabos as planned. I was denied a car rental after landing in ¿PVR¿without any lodging accommodations. I had to spend 3 evenings in the ¿PVR¿airport because of no lodging accommodations. The only accommodation Icould find was at a price of $389.00 (Marriot Hotel) per night, well beyondmy budget.

I was not allowed fair access to certain return flights to Houston Hobbyairport, and was in a constant state of intimidation by the agents at ¿PVR¿that were under the employ of Continental Airlines. Continental Airlinesmade no attempt to remedy any of these problems, or make any attempt toaccommodate my concerns or complaints.

Southwest Airlines conveniently lost my only piece of carryon luggage fromPhiladelphia to Houston, on January 31 (Flight 1950/2646); which containedmy only seasonal clothing, as well as legal and business files of the

Advanced Media Group, and related computer hardware. I had to purchaseshorts, t-shirts, and sandals, because of that mishap. Southwest Airlinesmade no real attempt to transport the lost baggage to ¿PVR¿, where I neededit, and tried to use acts of intimidation during my filing of that claim inthe Houston Hobby office of Southwest Airlines. (Southwest Airlines LostBaggage Claim Report number 1000777444).

I estimate that the lost monies for this mishap to be approximately $2,200.The airfare alone was $1500. Car rental fees (Avis) were approximately

$170. Clothing and other related accessories were approximately $100.00.Food expenses were approximately $200.

upon finally arriving back at the Philadelphia Airport, my battery had been




tampered with, and my final trip home was extended an additional 3 hours,this was after the delay of another 4 hours by the Southwest flight fromOrlando to Philadelphia.

I had been randomly selected for ¿private¿ searches by the Homeland

Security agents upon every stop, and in Houston, Texas, was accused by aninspection device (false positive reading) as carrying a plastic explosivein my carry-on luggage, and was treated as such.

In addition, a portable storage device was also corrupted during thisprocess, via the Internet.

Spending New Years Eve in the ¿PVR¿ airport, cold with only rigid, hard,and very uncomfortable seating, with no one that understood English, allthe while experiencing extreme back pain (currently under a physician¿scare and treatment) ---- priceless.

Description of how you were defrauded:On January 30 I had planned to visit Los Cabos, Mexico, for a businesstrip. I had used the Internet to locate the airport (PTO) for thatdestination to locate and book the necessary travel accommodations.¿PVR¿ (Puerto Vallarta, Mexico) appeared on several Google searches asthat airport. I accordingly booked flight itinerary and tickets forthat trip. On January 31 I booked a flight from Houston Hobby airportto ¿PVR¿ (Continental Flight 1768, Seat 10D). I had some knowledge ofthe PTO system, having the national register for PTO¿s when I had myplane operating, the Piper Navajo Chieftain, in 1987. I had loggedseveral flights, as far away as Atlanta, and booked it for charter toseveral clients.

¿PVR¿ was not, in fact, the airport for that destination. I hadconsumed an estimated $2,000 in expenses for that trip, and never wasable to travel to Los Cabos as planned. I was denied a car rentalafter landing in ¿PVR¿ without any lodging accommodations. I had tospend 3 evenings in the ¿PVR¿ airport because of no lodgingaccommodations. The only accommodation I could find was at a price of$389.00 (Marriot Hotel) per night, well beyond my budget.

I was not allowed fair access to certain return flights to HoustonHobby airport, and was in a constant state of intimidation by theagents at ¿PVR¿ that were under the employ of Continental Airlines.Continental Airlines made no attempt to remedy any of these problems,or make any attempt to accommodate my concerns or complaints.

Southwest Airlines conveniently lost my only piece of carryon luggage




from Philadelphia to Houston, on January 31 (Flight 1950/2646); whichcontained my only seasonal clothing, as well as legal and businessfiles of the Advanced Media Group, and related computer hardware. Ihad to purchase shorts, t-shirts, and sandals, because of that mishap.Southwest Airlines made no real attempt to transport the lost baggage

to ¿PVR¿, where I needed it, and tried to use acts of intimidationduring my filing of that claim in the Houston Hobby office ofSouthwest Airlines. (Southwest Airlines Lost Baggage Claim Reportnumber 1000777444).

I estimate that the lost monies for this mishap to be approximately$2,200. The airfare alone was $1500. Car rental fees (Avis) wereapproximately $170. Clothing and other related accessories wereapproximately $100.00. Food expenses were approximately $200.

upon finally arriving back at the Philadelphia Airport, my battery had

been tampered with, and my final trip home was extended an additional3 hours, this was after the delay of another 4 hours by the Southwestflight from Orlando to Philadelphia.

I had been randomly selected for ¿private¿ searches by the HomelandSecurity agents upon every stop, and in Houston, Texas, was accused byan inspection device (false positive reading) as carrying a plasticexplosive in my carry-on luggage, and was treated as such.

In addition, a portable storage device was also corrupted during thisprocess, via the Internet.

Spending New Years Eve in the ¿PVR¿ airport, cold with only rigid,hard, and very uncomfortable seating, with no one that understoodEnglish, all the while experiencing extreme back pain (currently undera physician¿s care and treatment) ---- priceless.



http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/advanced-media-group-and-stan-j-caterbone-legal-document-re-tolling-the-statute 82/112Advanced Media Group re RICO of 112 July 9, 2006



S - Print Shipping Labels - Label Confirmation https://sss-web.usps.com/cns/answerQu

1/13/2006

Refunds can be requested for unused labels up to 10 days after the print date. If you have any questionscontact us.

Delivery Confirmation™ Label Number: 0103 8555 7496 6813 6070



Total (3 Domestic Labels): $12.15

Please print this page for your records or refer to your Shipping History for details. You will also receive a confirmationemail.

3 Domestic Labels successfully printed. Total (charged): $12.15

Printed Label Summary

Transaction #: 60062626 Option Chosen : PostageCredit Card: VISA 6125 Print Date/Time : 1/13/06 5:40:07 PM CST

StandardizedDelivery

Add ress

PackageInformation

ServiceOptions

Price

Batch(1 of 3) HUGH J. WARDU.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE833 CHESTNUT STSTE 500PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107-4414

Weight: 0 lbs. 6 oz.Shipping Date: 01/13/06From: 17516

Priority Mail Flat RateEnv: $4.05

Delivery Confirm.: No Charge

Label Total: $4.05

Batch(2 of 3)

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, CLEUNITED STATES DISTRI601 MARKET ST RM 260U.S. COURTHOUSEPHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1732


Priority Mail Flat RateEnv:

$4.05


Label Total: $4.05

Batch(3 of 3)

JUDGE T. M. TWARDOWSU.S. BANKRUPTCY COUR400 WASHINGTON STREADING, PA 19601-3915


Priority Mail Flat RateEnv:

$4.05


Label Total: $4.05

Save time online - Order a Scale! Order Self-Adhesive Labels! Order Free Shipping Supplies!See Frequently Asked Questions for additional information and customer support.

Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service®




United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/frameme

of 1 7/6/2006 2:40

Query • Reports • Utilities • Logout





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

SUSPENSE



CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02288-MAM

CATERBONE v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN

Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights


Jury Demand: Defendant

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other


Plaintiff


220 STONE HILL ROAD

CONESTOGA, PA 17516

USPRO SE

V.

Defendant

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON


represented by ROBERT W. HALLINGER

APPEL & YOST LLP

33 NORTH DUKE ST

LANCASTER, PA 17602

717-394-0521


LEAD ATTORNEY


Defendant

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT.

represented by CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL

HARTMAN UNDERHILL &

BRUBAKER LLP

221 E. CHESTNUT ST.


717-299-7254Fax: 717-299-3160


LEAD ATTORNEY


Defendant





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPT.


Defendant

AVALON POLICE EPT.


represented by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III

SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE, SINGER

& MAHONEY30 S. 17TH ST

STE 1700


215-972-8015


LEAD ATTORNEY


PATRICIA BAXTER

SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER &

MAHONEY, LTD.

UNITED PLAZA

30 SOUTH 17TH STREET

SUITE 1700


215-399-2007



Defendant

COMMONWEALTH NATIONALBANK

i.e. MELLON BANK

represented by GEORGE M. GOWEN, III COZEN O'CONNOR

1900 MARKET STREET


215-665-2000

Fax: 215-665-2013


LEAD ATTORNEY


STUART A. WEISS

COZEN O'CONNOR1900 MARKET STREET


215-665-2000



Defendant





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE

DEPT.


Defendant

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS

DEPT. TERMINATED: 06/13/2006

Defendant

FULTON BANK represented by STEPHANIE CARFLEY


COHEN LLC

126 EAST KING ST


TEL 717-299-5201

Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


06/30/2006 36 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF LANCASTER

COUNTY PRISON IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE

MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. 7/3/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,

AND E-MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)

06/30/2006 35 AFFIDAVIT of Howard Kelin by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.


06/30/2006 34 AFFIDAVIT of Vincent Guarini by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.


06/30/2006 33 Memorandum in Support re 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON. (HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:

06/30/2006)

06/30/2006 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON.Certificate of Service.(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:

06/30/2006)

06/19/2006 31 ORDER THAT TO THE THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF

REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN HIS

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT, THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MOTION TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SAID MOTION IS GRANTED.

SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/19/06. 6/19/06

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered:





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

06/19/2006)

06/14/2006 30 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for ex parte meeting

with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, filed by plff STANLEY J.


06/13/2006 29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

OF MELLON BANK, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DET ANDFULTON BANK ARE GRANTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN A

MEMORANDUM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S

COMPLAINT IS ALSO DISMISSED AS TO DEFTS SOUTHERN

REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, STONE HARBOR POLICE

DEPARTMENT, AVALON POLICE DEPT, LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON AND LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF

TODAY'S DATE. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION

FOR AN EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE COURT IS DENIED AS

MOOT.. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON

6/13/06.6/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(lvj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)

06/05/2006 28 RESPONSE to Motion re [26] MOTION for Ex Parte Meeting filed by

FULTON BANK, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 6/7/2006 (np).

(Entered: 06/05/2006)

06/02/2006 27 RESPONSE in Opposition re [26] MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP

POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered:

06/02/2006)06/01/2006 26 MOTION FOR A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS OF

PRCEDING THIS ACTION WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,

FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE, CERTIFICATES OF

SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

04/26/2006 25 NOTICE of Appearance by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III on behalf of

AVALON POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE (SWAYZE, WALTER) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/26/2006 24 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICIA BAXTER on behalf of AVALON

POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(BAXTER, PATRICIA) (Entered: 04/26/2006)

04/12/2006 23 ORDER THAT THE CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN CIVIL SUSPENSE

UNTIL 5/11/06. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON

4/11/06. ) 4/12/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND

E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

04/10/2006 22 NOTICE by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE for continuance. (gn, )

(Entered: 04/10/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

03/06/2006 21 Request for MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Be Granted

filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., Certificate of Service.

(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/7/2006 (np). (Entered:

03/06/2006)

02/23/2006 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL

BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of

Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of Law# 3 Certificate of

Service)(WEISS, STUART) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

02/09/2006 19 ORDER THAT MOTION OF DEFT MELLON BANK FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY

FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR MELLON'S

RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY 14 DAYS. .

SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/9/06.2/9/06

ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 18 BRIEF in Support re 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK,

Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 2/13/2006(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK.Certificate of Service.

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE)

(Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/09/2006 16 Praecipe to Enter Appearance by FULTON BANK; Jury Demand,

Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 2/9/2006

(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)

02/08/2006 15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK.Memorandum, Certificate ofService. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of

Law# 3 Certificate of Service)(GOWEN, GEORGE) (Entered:

02/08/2006)

02/06/2006 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT. re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, 13 Memorandum of Law in Support

(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 13 Memorandum of Law in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss by

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL,

CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT..Brief, Affidavit, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A# 2 Exhibit B)(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)

02/06/2006 11 Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT., Certificate of Service. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER)

Modified on 2/7/2006 (np). (Entered: 02/06/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40


summons and complaint upon deft Avalon Police Dept. by certified mail (

no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Lancaster County Prison by certified

mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon

Bank, N.A.) by certified mail (no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered:

01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Stone Harbor Police Dept. by certified

mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


summons and complaint upon deft Manheim Township Police Dept. by

certified mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)


Summons and Complaint upon deft Lancaster County Sheriffs Dept by

certified mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/23/2006 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re

Summons and Complaint was served upon Fulton Bank by certified mail

(no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

01/06/2006 3 ORDER THAT THE PLFF SHALL SERVE THE SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 1/25/06. IF THE PLFF DOES NOT DO

SO, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE PLFF'S REQUEST

TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND FOR A HEARING AFTER THE

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVICED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT

UNDER SEAL IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A.

MCLAUGHLIN ON 1/5/06.) 1/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES

MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

05/16/2005 2 MOTION TO SEAL THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J.

CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)

05/16/2005 Summons Issued as to defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY




LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. Forwarded To: pro se on

5/16/05 (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)





of 7 7/6/2006 2:40

05/16/2005 1 COMPLAINT against defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY




LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt

number 916844.), filed by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, )

(Entered: 01/12/2006)


Transaction Receipt

07/06/2006 14:35:36

PACER


Description: DocketReport

SearchCriteria:

2:05-cv-02288-MAM

Billable

Pages:3 Cost: 0.24






STANLEY J. C TERBONE 3 CIVIL

ACTION

v

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, et al.

NO. 0 5 - 2 2 8 8

XTJ NOW this 6fh of Tune, 2 r 0 6 , upon consideration

of the motion to dismiss of Lancaster County Prison

Doc.

No. 32 .

whereas the Court dismissed the complaint as to Lancaster County

Prison on June 12, 2 0 0 6 ,

and whereas the plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED

as MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

MARY -A. MCLAUGHLIN, J






STANLEY J. CATERBONE \ L E D

CIVIL ACTION

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, et a1 . h id c -

i

NO. 05-2288

T h , c A ~ ? . 5 ~ ~ .

I ii

9Je. ' , 2 i I <

y /

MEMORANDUM

ND

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff has made numerous allegations

against numerous defendants in his eighty-seven page complaint

The Court will dismiss the complaint as to moving defendants Me

Bank (named as Commonwealth National Bank ), Manheim Township

Police Department, and Fulton Bank for failure to state

a

claim

The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to non-moving

defendants Southern Regional Police Department, Stone Harbor Po

Department, AValOn Police Department, Lancaster County Prison a

Lancaster County Sheriff's Department for failure to serve the

complaint and summons.

I. Failure to State a Claim

Each of the moving defendants has moved to dismiss o

the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state a timely claim

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit peh&K

1

The pro se plaintiff has not opposed any @L RB

motions to dismiss. By letter to the Court dated March 2 2006

request filed March 6 2006 and letter to the Court dated April

2006 Fulton Bank, Manheim Township, and Mellon Bank respective

requested that their motions be granted as uncontested, pursuant

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.l(c). The United States Court o

Appeals for the ~hird ircuit has indicated, however, that cour

should not grant motions to dismiss against unrepresented partie

without undertaking a merits analysis: stackhouse v. ~azu;kiewi

951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991).



limitations defense in a motio

under Rule 12(b) 6) if the time-bar is apparent on the

complaint. Robinson v. Johnson, 313

F.3d 128, 135 (3d C

The plaintiff's eighty-seven page complaint contains

allegations regarding numerous persons and entities. The

ntiff's sole allegation against Mellon Bank/Commonwealth

k, however, is that it wrongfully repossessed the

airplane in July 1987.'

According to the complaint,

k loaned the plaintiff $97,000 towards the purchase of an

in June 1987. The following month, before any payments

ue, the Bank allegedly repossessed the plane, with all of

tiff's personal and business files on board. The plaintiff

nk sought to harm the plaintiff's business to

e banking and financial

vices businesses, in violation of the 'lender liability laws.

25, 31, 34, 37, 83, 3.)

The plaintiff named Commonwealth National Bank

Mellon Bank) as the defendant, but apparently attempted t

service by sending a copy of the complaint to Legal

Mellon Bank, N.A. (Doc. No. 8 . According to Mellon

k, Mellon formerly owned Commonwealth National. For the

of its current motion, Mellon accepted the plaintiff's

tion of Commonwealth National's actions to Mellon.

lon's Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 1 n.1.)

The Court assumes that the plaintiff intended to name

as a defendant for the actions of Commonwealth Natio

and will consider and grant Mellon Bank's motion to dismis

If

the plaintiff intended to sue only Commonwealt

nk, however, the complaint would be dismissed as to

Advanced Media Group re RICO of 112 July 9 2006



The plaintiff has not explicitly asserted any cause

n against the Bank. Construing the allegations in the

aint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, however

asserted claims against the Bank for

replevin, trespass, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty

reposse~

Plaintiffs bringing any of these claims must do so

years.

ee

42 Pa. C.S. 5524(3) and

7 )

two year statute of limitations on any action for

g, detaining or injuring personal property, including acti

ecific recovery thereof,'' and [alny other action or

to recover damages for injury to person or property

is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortio

action or proceeding sounding in trespass,

deceit or fraud ); Glaziers Glassworkers Union Loca

252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridqe SeC., 93 F.3d 1171, 1186 (3d

(a breach of fiduciary duty is tortious conduct, subject

year statute of limitations) 42 Pa.C.S.

§

5525(a) (imposin

statute of limitations on actions based on written,

ress, or implied contracts). The plaintiff initiated this

t in May 2005, over seventeen years after the alleged

ssion. It is clear from the face of the complaint that t

tiff's claims against the Bank are time-barred.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.

P. 12(b) (61, a court accepts all facts and allegations list

complaint as true and construes them in the light most

ble to the plaintiff.

H.J.

Inc.

v.

Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492

229, 249 (1989); Rocks v. City of ~hiladel~hia,68 F.2d 64

Ad d M di G RICO P f J l



With respect to the Manheim Township Police Departm

the plaintiff has alleged that: (11 when the plaintiff asked f

help regarding the repossession of his airplane in July 1987,

Department's response was to ask what bank branch repossessed

aircraft ; 2) on or around September 3, 1987, Detective Larry

Sigler falsely charged the plaintiff with making terroristic

threats;

3)

on the same day, after the plaintiff was arrested

taking his own files from his own office, Detective Larry Mathi

refused to take his statement or inform him of the charges agai

him, and unnamed officers used excessive force against him; and

in January 1991, a Lt. Madenspacher called the plaintiff regard

his letter to the Department of Defense about alleged blackmail

occurring in 1987, but failed to attend a scheduled meeting.

(Compl. at 5-6, 33, 39-40, 59.)

Again construing the allegations in the complaint in

light most favorable to the plaintiff, he has arguably asserted

1) assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicio

prosecution and/or malicious abuse of process claims arising ou

the charges and arrest in September 1987; and (2) civil rights

claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising out of the Department's

actions or inactions in July and September 1987,

and January 19

The plaintiff's claims against the Manheim Township

Police Department are also time-barred. Plaintiffs must bring

claims for intentional torts such as assault, battery, false

imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and/or malici

abuse of process within two years. 42 Pa. C.S. 5524(1).

Plaintiffs must also bring any 1983 civil rights claims withi




years. Garvin v. Citv of Philadel~hia, 54 F.3d 215, 220 (

1

1983 claims are subject to Pennsylvania's two sta

governing personal injury actions). The plainti

is lawsuit more than fourteen years after his last

interaction with the Manheim Township Police Department.

Finally, the plaintiff has alleged that Fulton Bank:

involved in some sort of collusion in 1987; 2 ) embezzled

his checking account in 1990, did not credit the

ore than 60 days, and never credited the lost inte

3 )

refused

to

allow the plaintiff's brother, Thomas

ne, to deposit check in 1996, on the grounds that no fu

available, and was therefore responsible for his

death later that year. The plaintiff has also

in February 2005: a) he had difficulty accessing

nts and was told that he had to pay for

those statements; and

b)

a bank customer representati

him that when a customer wants to deposit a check for

funds are available, the bank must give the customer a

siting the check or waiting until there are

Finally, the plaintiff has included in his complaint wha

6 2005 article from the Intelligencer Journ

k as a limited partner in Penn Square

s, an alleged stakeholder in a proposed Lancaster County

n Center. (Compl. at 6 a ) , 55-56, 80-81, 86.)

4 The complaint states that the plaintiff rescind

or due process immediately after loosing [sic] his home

business, but it also states that the plaintiff began to




The plaintiff has

arguably asserted claims against

on Bank for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and/or un

nt, for its actions toward the plaintiff in 1990; and (

ud or wrongful death, for its actions toward the plaintiff's

1996. These claims are time barred as well. As

ere is a two-year statute of limitations on

breach of fiduciary duty or fraud. 42 Pa. C.S. 3

(7). There is a four-year statute of limitations o

which is a quasi-contractual claim. 42 Pa.

5525(4). Finally, there is a two-year statue of limitations

s for wrongful death. 42 Pa. C.S. 5524(2).

The plaintiff's reference to collusion in

1987

on

Fulton Bank is too vague to state a claim for anything,

under the liberal notice pleading standards. Likewise, th

ntiff's allegations regarding his ability to access certain

statements in February 2005 does not state any recogniza

im. The plaintiff does not allege that it was illegal for

atements, or

for Fulton Bank to say that it charged. The plaintif

only that he found the charge disheartening, in light o

rofit status of the account holder. (Compl. at

81.

ilarly, the plaintiff's allegations regarding Fulton Bank's

on depositing checks with insufficient funds, and its sta

limited partner in Penn Square Partners, do not state any

against Fulton Bank.

Ad d M di G RICO P 106 f 112 J l 9 2006



Failure to Serve the Comolaint

The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to the

dants because

the plaintiff has failed to properly

e the complaint and summons, and has therefore failed to co

ourt's January 5 2006 Order. The plaintiff bears th

f showing that service was valid. Grand Entertainment

w, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d

476,

488 (3d Ci

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that he

the Southern Regional Police Department.

For each of the other defendants, the plaintiff file

of Service, certifying that the plaintiff mailed

pleadingn to certain a named or unnamed individual(s)

h the defendant, via certified mail.

The

plainti

service were improper as to the Lancaster County

ia) Prison and Sheriff's Department, and the Stone

(New Jersey) Police department^ ^ Each of the

Rule 4(j) 2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Service upon a state, municipal corporation or other

governmental organization subject

to

suit shall be

effected by deliverinq a copy of the summons and of

complaint to its chief executive officer r y servi

the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed b

Mellon Bank, Manheim Township Police Department

moved to dismiss for improper service.

e Court is dismissing the complaint as against them fo

aim, the Court need not decide the sufficie

Ad d M di G RICO P 107 f 112 J l 9 2006



the law of that state for the service of summons or

other like process upon any such defendant.

R Civ. P. 4 j) 2) emphasis added)

Rule 422(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proce

Service of original process upon a political subdivi

shall be made by handins a cowv to

1)

an agent duly authorized by the political

subdivision to receive service of process, or

(2) the person in charge at the office of the

defendant,

3) the mayor, or the president, chairman, secretar

clerk of the tax levying body thereof

R Civ. 0 422(b) (emphasis added)

Here, the plaintiff attempted to serve the Lancaster

iff s Department by mailing a copy of the

to Howard L. Kelin at Kegel, Kelin, Almy Grimm, LLP

aster, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff s attempt at service wa

under the federal and Pennsylvania rules of civil

a copy of the complaint and summons were not

served upon an appropriate person.

The New Jersey Court Rules also provide that the prim

obtaining in personam jurisdiction over a public body

summons and

int on the public body s presiding officer, clerk or

retary, or on a person authorized by appointment or by law to

e service of process on the public body s behalf. N.J. Co

By letter dated February

2, 2006

(on which the

cc d), Mr. Kelin informed the Court that he had be

Interim Special

Counsel to Lancaster County, but was n




R 4 :4-4 a)

1)

and 8) New Jersey permits plaintiffs to make

service by mail, but provides that service by mail is only

effective if the defendant answers the complaint or otherwise

appears in response thereto. If defendant does not answer or

appear within 60 days following mailed service, the plaintiff m

make personal service. N.J. Court R 4:4-4(c).

The plaintiff attempted to serve the Stone Harbor Po

Department by mailing the complaint to Michael Donahue, an atto

at law in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, on January 17, 2006 The

plaintiff also attempted to serve the Avalon Police Department

mailing the complaint to Stephen Basse, an attorney at law in

Vineland, New Jersey, on that date. The plaintiff s attempts t

make service by mail were ineffective under federal or New Jers

law because neither the Stone Harbor or Avalon Police Departmen

have answered or otherwise responded to the complaint in well o

6 days. Moreover, the plaintiff has not shown that Mr Donahu

Mr. Basse are the appropriate persons to receive service for th

public bodies.




-*

r . v . .

consdderation

of

the

plaintitrr8Sot ca

for

C O ~ C ~ Q ~ .DOC.

2 2 . T S HEREBY

ORDERED

that the c

supense until ~ a y a l , 006.

t .

..

\ > -

1

-.,+

8

-.

, ..,

BY TH COURT





FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

J. CATERBONE CIVIL ACTION

v

COUNTY

PRISON.

NO. 05 2288

ORDER

FilEP UN 9

.. . ~. . . ~~. ~ ~ .~~ . .

AND NOW this 19th day of June, 2006, upon

ation of the plaintiff s reply brief in support of his

for an ex parte meeting with the Court,

IT

IS HEREBY

that, to the extent that the plaintiff is requesting

int: 1) the request shall be

ed a motion to file an amended complaint; and 2

the motion

GRANTED. Although the Court dismissed many of the claims in

e original complaint as time-barred, and the plaintiff has no

posed amended complaint to demonstrate that he wi

to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint, the

is entitled to amend his pleadings once as a matter o

re a responsive pleading is served. Fed.

R.

Civ. P.

v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d

Cir

2000 .

NO

pleading has yet been filed in this case

BY

TEE COURT:



Advanced Media Group220 Stone Hill Road

Conestoga, PA 17516

May 26, 2006

United States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaHonorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlinRoom # 13614601 Market Street, Room 2609Philadelphia, PA 19106-1748Fax: (215) 597-6390 600

Re: Civil Action No. 05-2288

Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin:

Attached is evidence of a widespread effort to obstruct justice and deny me fair access and due process concerning my currentpending litigation before your court and other matters before other courts. I filed a Forma Pauperis in The Court of CommonPleas of Lancaster County relating to obstruction of justice. The Judge denied my request, without a reason, contrary to rule240, and the courts have left me without any access to the courts because I do not have any funds available to file an appeal.

I am having difficulty conducting my affairs and am seeking the courts to protect my constitutional rights relating to thesematters.

I am unsure of the formal and technical manner to file such a motion and request. Please advise.

Respectfully,

Stan J. Caterbone, Pro SeAdvanced Media Group