You are on page 1of 280

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 161

ctr.~~
!1ara1111er.t &surveiffar.ce

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment 8t
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

IN THE UNITED STATES U.S. DISTRICT COURT


FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: STANLEY JOSEPH CATERBONE


Movant

FILED
UUL'.192811

LUCYV. CHIN, Interim CID:


By
Oep

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-mc-49


BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-10517

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT re Press Release and Executive Summary re


CATERBONE v. the United States of America, et.al., July 16, 2016
AND NOW, on this 19rtt

day of July, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED

MEDIA GROUP, APPELLANTS, appearing pro se, do hereby file this MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT re

"Press Release and Executive Summary re CATERBONE v. the United States of America,
et.al., July 16, 2016" in response to the ORDER of June 28, 2016 by the Honorable Judge
Edward G. Smith. It is now 6:57pm on Monday, July 18, 2016 and the computer hackers

WOULD NOT allow mapquest on my computer find the Larry Holmes Building in Easton,
PA. I have no choice but to file this EXHIBIT in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on
July 19, 2016.

Freedom From Covert Harassment 8t Surveillance,


Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163

16-mc-49 Motion to File Exhibit

Page 1 of3

Monday July 19, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 161

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN dlSTRICTOf PENNSYLVANIA

fl LEO

~~L

- 8 ""''6
t.u 1

IN RE: STANLEY JOSEPH CATERBON8.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-mc-49

Appellant.

BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-105 l 7

iOIU>ER

1.;:::;.o;;..;;;:;;...;;;:;;.;;;..;;
I

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 2p 16, the prose appellant, Stanley Joseph Caterbone,
I

having filed a motion for electronic filing privileges (Doc. No. 6) and a motion for change of
venue on July 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 9): accordi1Jgly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

l.

The motion for electronic filing privileges (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. The

appellant may register as an ECF Filing User in the ECF System solely for purposes of this
action as pem1itted by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5. I .2(4)(b). The clerk of court shall send
the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Accoui1t Registration Form and Notification of Case Activity
1

Request Fonns to the appellant at his addre$S of record; and

2.

The motion for change of venue is DENlED. 2 The appel Iant shall appear for the

hearing cu1Tently scheduled for Tuesday, July 19, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. at The Holmes Building,

I 0 I Larry Holmes Drive, Easton, Pennsylv:ania 18042. 3


BY THE COURT:

Isl Edward G. Smith


EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

E\\frERED
JUL

-8 2.0\6

JW~~~KOFCOURT

1
The forms are also available online at: https://ecfpaed.uscourts.govihtml2/usl6000.html (last visited
2016).
!
~The court is always cognizant of the convenience of the paities when litigating cases and attempts to minimize any

undue hardships. Nonetheless. the court notes that i,t appears that the undersigned's courtroom in Easton.
Pennsylvania is only slightly farther away from the appellant"s residence t 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA) than
the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphi~.
3
The appellant mistakenly referenced the location ~s being in Allentown. Pennsylvania, in his motion.

16-rnc-49 Motion to File Exhibit

Page2of3

Monday July 19, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 3 of 161

EXIBIT

16-mc-49 Motion to File Exhibit

Page 3 of 3

Monday July 19, 2016

Case
2:16-mc-00049-EGS
of 161
Case
2:16-mc-00049-EGSDocument
Document1513 Filed
Filed07/19/16
07/16/16 Page
Page 41of2

cic~~
&silrveittar.ce
~ra111er.t

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

July 16, 2016


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, LANCASTER, PA - Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group
have given a NOTICE of COMPLAINT to the United States of America, et.al., regarding Civil
Rights Lawsuit which will be filed in Federal Courts, the Eastern District Court for Pennsylvania in the
near future.
On May 11, 2016 the article "Court rejects man's claim that Lancaster County's residents
are torturing him with mind control"By Matt Miller of Pennlive.com, reported the following:
"Rest easy, residents of Lancaster County. The state Superior Court says Stanley
Caterbone can't sue you for stalking him and messing with his mind. A panel of that court
deep-sixed Carterbone's case in an opinion Judge Paula Francisco Ott issued Tuesday. Quite frankly, Ott
wrote, Caterbone gave the state judges no firm explanation of what he was claiming or what sort of
remedy he was after. Her court's ruling upholds an August 2015 decision by county Judge Jeffery D.
Wright to dismiss Caterbone's lawsuit as frivolous. According to Ott, Caterbone, acting as his own
lawyer, filed the case in county court against the "residents of the county of Lancaster, Pennsylvania,"
seeking an order to halt abuse he claims he was suffering at their hands. The Lancaster man accused
countians of participating in "organized stalking and/or electronic and mind manipulation torture being
committed against him," Ott noted. Also, she wrote, Caterbone asked the county judge to enlist the
local news media in a campaign to inform countians (Lancaster) to stop mistreating him."
Since that article the "organized stalking and/or electronic and mind manipulation torture being
committed against him (Stan J. Caterbone)," has escalated in a fevered pitch that can only elicit one
outcome if left without countermeasures - murder, suicide, and or a prolonged deep psychosis.
After the collection of authentic transcripts from other Targeted Individuals, including NSA
Whistleblower Karen Stewart, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer Julianne McKinney, and expert, advocate,
and world renowned lecturer Dr. Nick Begich, Stan J. Caterbone is now ready to file the complaint. In
2009 President Barach Obama, Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of the
CIA, and the National Security Agency, or NSA were all named in a similar complaint in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas, case no. CI-08-13373, CATERBONE v. the Duke Street Business
Center, et.al.,. That case is still listed as OPEN in the Lancaster County Prothonotary Office.
The complaint will be filed under 42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.
In summary the statute reads Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section,
any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a

Page 1of2
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 1of276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case
2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 5 of 161
Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 13 Filed 07/16/16 Page 2 of 2
statute of the District of Columbia.
Case law involving the following will be cited:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Federal Sovereign Immunity Harvard Law School Federal Budget Policy Seminar
The Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine
U.S. Intellectual Property Law
RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
United States Bill of Rights
The Legal Prohibition Against Torture

The prohibition against torture is firmly embedded in customary international law, international
treaties signed by the United States, and in U.S. law. As the U.S. Department of State has noted, the
"United States has long been a vigorous supporter of the international fight against torture ... Every unit
of government at every level within the United States is committed, by law as well as by policy, to the
protection of the individual's life, liberty and physical integrity" [U.S. Department of State, "Initial
Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee Against Torture." Oct 15, 1999. (15 Nov.
2001)]. That commitment should not be abandoned. Indeed, it must be deepened as the world
watches how the U.S. responds to the challenges before it. If the U.S. were to condone torture by
government officials or foreign governments in its fight against terrorism, it would betray its own
principles, laws, and international treaty obligations. It would irreparably weaken its standing to oppose
torture elsewhere in the world. And it would provide a handy excuse to other governments to use
torture to pursue their own national security objectives. 1
A SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT CAN BE VIEWED AND DOWNLOADED AT:
https://www.scribd.com/document/318471926/STAN-J-CATERBONE-and-ADVANCEDMEDIA-GROUP-v-United-States-of-America-et-al-Executive-Summary-July-16-2016-Ver-2-0

LSI
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &. Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163
ACTIVE COURT CASES
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILilY re 15-3400 and 16-1149
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149;15-3400; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 15-03984; 14-02559; 05-2288; 06-4650
Superior Court of Pennsylvania AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No.
1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legalprohibition-against-torture

Page 2 of 2
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 2 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 6 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 3 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 7 of 161

dc~tffen
&surveittar.ce
~.r1,1111er.t

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment ll
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

IN THE UNITED STATES U.S. DISTRICT COURT


FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: STANLEY JOSEPH CATERBONE and
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Plaintiffs

v.

Case No.

United States of America, el.al.,


Defendants

42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or
omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District
of Columbia.
(R.S. 1979; Pub. L. 96-170. 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104-317. title III. 309(c), Oct. 19,
1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 4 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 8 of 161

Dated July 16, 2016

s
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@g mail .com
717-669-2163

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 5 of276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 9 of 161

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cover Page
1. Executive Summary
2. Updates for Executive Summary October 10, 2015
3. History of Federal Whistleblowing Case and Targeted Individual
4. ISC Players and The Courts and the United States Legal System
5. Family History
6. PROPOGANDA and The Public Record
7. Is Lancaster County Ground Zero for U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
8. Affidavit of Enjoinment of October 10, 2015
9. 29 FALSE ARRESTS 1987 to 2015
10. Drogannetti Act Claim
11. ILLEGAL NO-TRESPASS NOTICES
12. Stan Caterbone's Notorized Affidavit for FFCHS September 16, 2010 Redacted Version
13. Stan Caterbone's Detailed Victimization Affidavit of 2010
14. Samuel P Caterbone US Sponsored Mind Control Affidavit 1996
15. Sammy A. Caterbone Affidavit of US Sponsored Mind Control 1991
16. Sammy A. Caterbone 1982 CONSERVATORSHIP in Santa Barbara

2. ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION by Advanced Media Group Press Release July 4,


2015
1. Letter from Pennaylvania Representative Mike Sturla re Organized Stalking Bill of June
8, 2009
2. Notarized Affidavit for Press Release and Executive Summary of November 28, 2015
3. Letter from Kansas State Representative and Author Jim Guest to Tl's
4. Proposed Legislation
5. Richmond California Ban on Space Based Weapons May, 2015
3.

DECLARATION re Invoice to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter for Victimization of


U.S. Sponsored Torture Program July 15, 2016
1. USPS Confirmation re Change.Org Proposal re Targeted Individual Settlements with the
United States
2. January 1, 2010 Invoice to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
3. Statement of Interest of Amicus Curiae for Lisa Michelle Lambert
4. Stan J. Caterbone AFFIDAVIT of TARGETED INDIVIDUAL
5. Stan J. Caterbone Social Security Disability Award Letter for Symptoms and Illnesses
related to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
6. DOCKET Sheet for Open Case CI-08-13373 CATERBONE v. Duke Street Business
Center, et. al., Naming President Barrach Obama, the NSA, Robert Gates, etc., as
DEFENDANTS in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

4. STAN J. CATERBONE SWORN TESTIMONY of June 2016 in the Lancaster County


Bar Association Conference Room
1. Allstate Insurance Company Sworn Testimony of Stan J. Caterbone TRANSCRIPT
Volume 2 by Court Reporter of June 28, 2016
2. Allstate Insurance Company Sworn Testimony of Stan J. Caterbone TRANSCRIPT
Volume 1 by Court Reporter of June 9, 2016

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 6 of276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 10 of 161

5. Case Law
1. Federal Sovereign Immunity Harvard Law School Federal Budget Policy Seminar
2. The Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine
3. U.S. Intellectual Property Law
4. RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
5. United States Bill of Rights
6. The Legal Prohibition Against Torture

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 7 of276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 11 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

Page 8 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 12 of 161

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

October 10, 2015

Federal Whistleblower
and
Targeted Individual (Victim)
of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
Executive Summary
Updated on October 10, 2015

I remain,

Stan J. Caterbone

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant, and the Advanced Media
Group are victims of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and has been engaged in litigation in both
Federal and State courts seeking financial remedies and a resolution of his Civil Liberties and
his Constitutional Rights. In 1987 Stan J. Caterbone, while managing the financial firm the he
founded, Financial Management Group, Ltd., Stan J. Caterbone became a Federal Whistleblower
when, as a shareholder, he claimed fraud and misconduct within the international arms dealer
and local start-up International Signal 8r. Control, Pie., Some 4 years later ISC was indicted and
plead guilty to the 3rd largest fraud in U.S. history, some $1 Billion and selling arms to Irag via
South Africa. In June of 201S Stan J. Caterbone became the Movant in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case No. 5: 14-cv-02559-PD for the Habeus Corpus
Petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. The case is now before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, Case No. lS-3400.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.,

P~ge

9 of276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 13 of 161


am

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP


ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, LTD.,
8r.
STAN J. CATERBONE
Federal Whistleblower (Federal False Claims Act Violation in 1987 re ISC)
Targeted Individual of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
copyright 2009

"Ya know what, I am beginning to analyze this War on Terror and am having difficulty understanding
it all. To me the most effective fundamental fight against Extreme Terrorism is to reduce the motive; or the
Hatred Against America. No one seems to talk about that subject. How do we reduce that Hatred Towards
America and the West?
See, from my perspective, my situation is very disturbing. I mean we have the United States Torturing Me, a
U.S. Citizen for no good or valid reason. I have warned EVERYONE about using my situation to feed this
HATRED towards America.
Low and behold a week or so ago I have had several Muslims sign up as Followers to my
www.scribd.com/amqroup01 online webspace, which I use to post documents. The following being the most
prominent !KWAN Scope, "The Largest Muslim Brotherhood's Scope on the Web":
htto: llikhwanscope. net/main/
There have also been several Muslim individuals who signed up as followers around the same time, a week
or so ago. They have also signed up as followers on my www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone webspace.
You must understand, I am a VERY Patriotic Person and live a very patriotic life - I believe in the
U.S. Constitution and Our Founding Father's vision for America; I support Our Military and our
Troops; I believe in the Rule of Law; I am a Practicing Catholic, and have been my whole life; I
Believe in the TRUTH; I believe in Right v. Wrong; Good v. Evil; and finally I believe in God. What
do you believe in?"
Posted on the Yahoo Fulton Bank Stock Message Board, January 7, 2010

Date Updated:

October 10, 2015

Date Completed:
Date Initiated:

July 28, 2009


July 8, 2009

Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
scaterbone@ljve.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~ge

10 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 14 of 161


UDATE OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2015
In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group had to again return to local,
state, and federal courts. Again the obstruction of due process, the local gang stalking, torture,
trespass, thefts, and the like began in earnest.

From the fabricated Petition for Involuntary

Psychiatric Commitment of April 2010 by Detective Clark Bearinger, until January of 2015, Stan J.
Caterbone and Advanced Media Group had been in seclusion and in a state of rehabilitation and
rest due to the forced medication by Fairmount Behavioral Hospital and Dr. Silvia Gratz.

The

psychotropic drugs reduce your motor skills and put you in an extreme state of confusion.

By

the

end

of

the

summer

of

2010

every

social

media

site,

including

the

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com website was taken off-line due to the intimidation and


coercion by Detective Clark Bearinger.

In May Stan J. Caterbone had again endured the "Attacks" and "Torture" from the
employees of the Lancaster County Courthouse, and the Lancaster County Government Building.
Then soon after the Residents of Lancaster County engaged in a massive Organized Stalking
Campaign. In addition an extreme Computer Hacking Campaign was initiated and executed in
an effort to again SILENCE Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group.

And Again, the

Lancaster City Police Department took the lead role. As usual Stan J. Caterbone summoned state
and federal authorities for help and assistance, including direct communications with the White
House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and
Kathleen Kane, The Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, several U.S.
Congressmen, and of course the Lancaster County District Attorney's Office.

Since August 1,

2015 the Geek Squad had performed diagnostics and repairs six (6) times due to computer
hacking. On at least 2 occasions the entire hard drive had to be wiped clean and restored.

On June 23, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone was named MOVANT in the 2014 Habeus
Corpus Petition by Lisa Michelle Lambert, Case No. 14:02559 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after filing an Amicus on the case. Judge Paul
Diamond was presiding since it's filing in 2014. However, the Petition was not able to
be granted and the case was stalled on jurisdictional law based on new and compelling
evidence, or lack there of.

The Amicus was filed to cure that deficiency with direct

witness corroboration to the Prosecutorial Misconduct and Innocence of Lisa Michelle


Lambert.

In fact a working theory was filed that suggested that the East Lampeter

Police Department engaged in a strategy of "Entrapment" that lead to the unfortunate


murder in 1991. This, would of course, allow a wrongful death claim to be filed by the
Show family. The case is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 153400. There are three (3) questions that the Third Circuit may rule on; whether to free

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~ge

11 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 15 of 161


Lisa Michelle Lambert, or grant her her Habeus Corpus, and whether to grant Summary
Judgment to Stan J. Caterbone in all civil actions in both state and federal courts.

Two weeks later, on July 9, 2015, Detective Clark Bearinger filed another fabricated
Petition for Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment. And again Stan J. Caterbone endured 7 days in
the

Fairmount Behavioral

Hospital

in

Philadelphia.

However, this time there was

no

MANDATORY Treatment Program Ordered by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
So Stan J. Caterbone continued filing in the courts for assistance and resolution. In August, in a
desperate attempt to stop the local torture campaign, another Emergency Injunction was filed in
the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. On August 6, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone went so far
as to undertake a Professional Polygraph Test administered by Bonnie Lee of Polygraph Solutions
of West Chester, Pennsylvania. The test ended up being 4 grueling hours of torture and a scam of

$600.00.
On July 9th , 2015 a Private Criminal Complaint was filed against Detective Clark Bearinger,
Officer Williams, Officer Binderup, and 2 unidentified patrolman.

The Complaint contained

allegations of torture and abuse at every moment of contact.

The Lancaster City Police

Department were so desperate for retaliation from the Amicus filing in the Lisa Michelle Lambert
case, that they actually broke the door in of 1250 Fremont Street in order to execute the
fabricated 302 petition. The Complaint was denied by the Lancaster County District Attorney on
August ath . The Complaint is now under a Petition for Review by the Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas.
On August 17, 2015 another Emergency Injunction for Relief was filed in the Lancaster
County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 15-06985. The Injunction was heard by Judge Jeffrey
Wright, who dismissed it as frivolous. An appeal, MD 1561, is pending in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.

In addition, by September 26, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone had been granted Electronic Filing
Privileges in the local, state, and federal courts. This should alleviate the fraud and abuses of the
U.S. Postal Service and the computer hackers.

In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone identifies a trend that suggests that the Lancaster County
community-at-large was subject to either community targeting or community hypnosis.

The

community targeting theory is supported by experts Jullianne McKinney, Cheryl Welsh, and Dr.
John Hall. The community hypnosis theory is supported by direct personal relationships with the
Amazing Kreskin, Samuel P. Caterbone and Stan J. Caterbone.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 12 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 16 of 161


In September of 2015 Stan J. Caterbone begins to digitize a library of approximately 45
audio cassette tapes from his father, Samuel P. Caterbone. The tapes range in date from 1971 to
1996. The tapes prove an identical targeting campaign against both Samuel P. Caterbone and
Stan J. Caterbone.

In addition the tapes confirm that Steven P. Caterbone, brother of Stan J.

Caterbone, was most likely a target dating back to the early 1960's. In addition, the death of
Samuel P. Caterbone on July 20, 2001 was confirmed to be that of murder, not natural causes.
In the early 1990's Dr. Phillip Caterbone, brother, had been solicited by the National
Institute of Health, or NIH in Washington, D.C., for a fellowship to research and catalog a study to
find a genetic marker for depression in the CATERBONE family.

Phil interviewed all living

descendants and relatives of my father, Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., and took blood samples. I am
alleging that this was a deliberate act to continue the cover story of mental illness to distract and
provide plausible deniability for any linkage to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~ge

13 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 17 of 161


HISTORY
In 1987 Stan J. Caterbone went public with allegations of fraud within International Signal
and Control, or ISC as they were commonly referred.

After discussions with ISC and United

Chem Con officials (an !SC/James Guerin straw company), and as a shareholder of record since
1983 of ISC, Stan J. Caterbone had a meeting with an ISC executive on June 23, 1987, which
resulted in a 22 year legal odyssey. The discussions involved a joint venture with his company,
Financial Management Group, Ltd., or FMG, Ltd., but ended in disclosure of his recent public
allegations of fraud. Four years later, ISC founder and chairman James Guerin, and other officials
and companies pleaded guilty to a $1 Billion Dollar Fraud and export violations including the
selling of arms through South Africa to Iraq and Sadaam Hussein.

However, money, power,

influence and public corruption had been used to cover-up the activities and Federal False Claims
Act violations of Stan J. Caterbone for the next eighteen years. There ensued a total blockade of
all United States Courts for all redress and remedy available in accordance with federal, state, and
local laws.

This included recovery of his business interests; intellectual property; real estate;

personal and business real property; his unblemished and impressive reputation; and his most
valuable asset - the ability to produce income. This might be legally referred to as the Right-ToWork under federal statutes.

Notwithstanding, Stan J. Caterbone has never made a bad

investment or developed a business that did not make a profit over the next 22 years.

This

includes two real estate properties that were illegally seized through foreclosure proceedings.
Since 1987 Stan J. Caterbone has been a prisoner and enemy of the state.

ISC was a

Department of Defense (DOD) Contractor and a partner with United States Intelligence Agencies
since it's beginings in the early 1970's. One of it's first contracts was Project X with the National
Security Agency or NSA of Ft. Meade, Maryland.
In summary, the following are facts and part of the public record regarding
SIGNAL & CONTROL OR ISC:

INTERNATIONAL

Once the third (3rd) largest employer in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with
over 5,000 employees.
lames Guerin, founder and CEO was once the largest philanthropist to charitable
organizations in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The !SC/Ferranti Scandal was the third (3) largest white-collar fraud within the United
States as of 1992.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 14 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 18 of 161

The following are some of the public officials and politicians associated with ISC:
George H.W. Bush, former U.S. President, and Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA).
Robert Gates, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current
Secretary of Defense.
Bobby Ray Inman, former Board of Directors if ISC, former Director of the NSA, and
currently associated and directly involved with Mind Control Research organizations.
Alexander Haig, former U.S. Secretary of State, and ISC lobbyist and Board of
Directors?
Joseph McDade, former Pennsylvania House of Representative and Chair of the
Appropriations Committee who was later investigated for the United Chem Con
scandal.
Carlos Cardoen/Cardoen Industries, a joint venture partner with ISC and arms
merchant for the cluster bomb who eventually sold to Iraq and other Middle Eastern
Countries under U.S. sanctions.
ISC was credited with the design of the cluster bomb, and has patents filed in the U.S.
Patent Office.
In 1987 ISC completed the merger with the 3rd largest defense contractor of Great
Britain, Ferranti International; who paid $1 billion dollars for ISC and all of it's
subsidiaries.
ABC News/Financial Times aired 3 episodes on ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel
regarding the ISC/CIA defense weapons; technologies; and cluster bombs to Iraq
story and lead into the allegations that then nominee for the Director of CIA Robert
Gates was involved with ISC and the selling of arms to Iraq.
ABC News 20/20 aired a story on the ISC/CIA efforts to sell cluster bombs to Saadam
Hussein and Iraq on February 1, 1991 days after the start of the Persian Gulf War I,
with the initial bombing raid destroying a cluster bomb factory built in Iraq by
Carlos Cardoen.
On July 1st and 2nd of 1987 Stan J. Caterbone solicited the legal counsel of Lancaster
Attorney Joseph Roda for counsel regarding, FMG, Ltd., International Signal &
Control (ISC); Commonwealth Bank, etc., and was billed for his services. Joseph
Roda did absolutely nothing but refute Stan J. Caterbone's claims and would not
believe him.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),
Lancaster Attorney Joseph Roda represented William Clark, ISC's in-house legal
counsel, and never mentioned any conflict to Stan J. Caterbone in 1987.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas), James
Guerin deposited $1.75 million dollars into an escrow account at Fulton Bank,
Lancaster, County.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 15 of 276

Tues1SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 19 of 161


In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),
Christopher Underhill of Harman, Underhill & Brubaker, represented James
Guerin. In 2005 Christopher Underhill represented the Manheim Township Police
Department (05-cv-2288 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania) CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al.,.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),
Philadelphia Attorney Joseph Tate represented James Guerin and ISC, and in 2007
Joseph Tate represented Scooter Libby during his federal prosecution by U.S.
Special Prosecutor Fitzpatrick.

THE MANIFEST OF A COVER-UP


Not only did the allegations of fraud within ISC have to be silenced at a time when merger
negotiations were ongoing with Ferranti, but all of the fraud; extortion; public corruption;
burglaries; civil rights violations; anti-trust and intellectual property right violations; lender
liability torts; false arrests; false imprisonments; as well as other civil and criminal activities had
to be covered up and buried in bureaucratic red tape.
uncovered and discovered to this day.

Information and findings are still being

Contrary to popular belief, up until 1996 a grand jury

investigation into ISC was still ongoing. It is not known whether it has closed or not. All of these
activates constitute a RICO crime due to the pattern and organization of the perpetrators. The
pattern and source of the activities can be traced back to 1987, with subgroups changing over
time, but still engaging in the same practices. The following plan of action was followed in order
to perpetrate the cover-up:
Totally discredit Stan(ley) J. Caterbone and any and all allegations in every way
possible.
Fabricate a history of mental illness.
Fabricate a criminal record.
Attach his character and honesty with rumors and propaganda.
Extort and maintain his net worth to $ zero or load him with debts.
Keep him out of any profession and or occupation when and where possible.
Totally isolate him and disenfranchise him from his friends, colleagues, and family
into a life of solitaire.
Somehow persuade the community of Lancaster County to buy into this plan of
action through money, favors, etc.,
Always keep attorneys and anyone remotely involved with the legal community
away at times when efforts for justice are pursued.
When attempts to enter the U.S. legal system arise, isolate, harass, and extort
any monies and/or possessions of value.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 16 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 20 of 161

Change the history of events and the truth.

THE COURTS AND THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM


For 18 years, (from 1987 until 2005) it has always been fairly easy to keep these issues
from court dockets and judges.

During these years Stan J. Caterbone had solicited at least

twenty attorneys, some from large firms with national recognition in their respective fields of
specialties. Attorneys from New York City to Santa Barbara and San Diego California were visited
and consulted as well as a group of ex FBI agents who specialized in white collar crime that are
now globally recognized. However, the money and influence of persons and entities that wanted
these issues silence always prevailed. The issues were so complex and convoluted, and involved
such high profile politicians and U.S. agencies, it was far easier to state that there was no case, or
their were no claims that would result in remedy or redress. Between the Republican Party and
the Department of Defense, the CIA and the NSA, there was not an attorney that could not be
influenced. The obstruction of justice and due process in this case is most likely unprecedented in
nature and in malice.

However in 2005 that all changed when Stan J. Caterbone appeared as a pro se litigant
representing himself, without any counsel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in CATERBONE v. The Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or case no. 05-cv2288.

This case is still not settled and has been withdrawn by plaintiff Stan J.

Caterbone in October of 2008 after a successful ruling in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals (07-4474) in September of 2008. The case will be continued upon the security
of evidence and the cease and desist of obstruction of justice and due process. On May
16, 2005 at the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia, Stan J. Caterbone filed the case under seal.
One week later in the United States Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Reading,
Pennsylvania, again appearing as pro se, Stan J. Caterbone filed a petition for protection under
the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code, in case no. 05-23059.
These acts of entering the United States legal system with these issues triggered yet
another round of attempts to keep these cases from the courts and judges - Organized Stalking
with Directed Energy Devices and Weapons, built on a foundation of mental telepathy or total
Mind Control.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~ge

17 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 21 of 161


REMOTE VIEWING; ORGANIZED STALKING; DIRECTED ENERGY DEVICES AND
WEAPONS.
Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud
within ISC. This organized stalking and harassment was enough to drive an ordinary person to
suicide. As far back as the late 1980's Stan J. Caterbone knew that his mind was being read, or
"remotely viewed".

This was verified and confirmed when information only known to him, and

never written, spoken, or typed, was repeated by others. In 1998, while soliciting the counsel of
Philadelphia attorney Christina Rainville, (Rainville represented Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie
Show murder case), someone introduced the term remote viewing through an email. That was
the last time it was an issue until 2005. The term was researched, but that was the extent of the
topic.

Remote Viewers may have attempted to connect in a more direct and continuous way

without success.
In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental
telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices
and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim.
This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action
in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288.

This

assault began after the handlers remotely trained Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The
main difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that Stan J. Caterbone is
connected 24/7 with a person who declares that she is Interscope recording artist Sheryl Crow of
Kennett Missouri. Stan J. Caterbone has spent 3 years trying to validate and confirm this person
without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment.

See attached documents for

more information.
In 2006 or the beginning of 2007 Stan J. Caterbone began his extensive research into
mental telepathy; mind control technologies; remote viewing; and the CIA mind control program
labeled MK ULTRA and it's subprograms.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 18 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 22 of 161


FAMILY HISTORY
If you listen to the propaganda machine and the community of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, including professionals, the family history of Stan J. Caterbone goes something like
the following:
Father, Samuel Caterbone, Jr., Schizophrenic who ran out on his family
because of nervous breakdowns while trying to run a small dry cleaning
business.

He traveled the world looking for the Blessed Mother Mary and

Space Aliens.

He ended up living in government subsidized housing broke

and with a severe mental illness.


Brother, Samuel A. Caterbone, suffered from the very same illness has his
father, Schizophrenia, who finally killed himself trying to live in California.
Brother, Thomas W. Caterbone, suffered from the very same mental illness as
his brother, Stan J., Bipolar Mood Disorder, who ran a lawn business and
finally committed suicide at an early age.
Stan J. Caterbone, suffered from Bipolar Mood Disorder, or Manic Depression and
had a nervous breakdown in 1987 trying to compete in the financial services
industry. When he has his nervous breakdowns, he always threatens to sue
everyone in court and is deeply paranoid in thinking the whole world is
against him. He always spends all of his money during his fits of mania and
has delusions about his success as a businessman.

The Family History was formulated back in the 1960's when Samuel Caterbone, Jr.,
father of Stan J. Caterbone, became engaged in a black budget mind control program that began
during his service in the United States Navy as a radioman and air gunner.

Samuel Caterbone,

Jr., was most likely a direct product of MK ULTRA or one of it's subprograms. His brother, Samuel
A. Caterbone, was most likely part of the LSD experiments of MK ULTRA.

Stan J. Caterbone is

most likely part of a program sponsored by the Department of Defense Agencies, such as DARPA
or the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The facts of Stan J. Caterbone's intimate discussions
with both his father and brother over the years before they died, the totality of documents that
were preserved in their estate, including service records; letters; official court papers; high school
documents; and the like - all will prove that they were in fact part of MK ULTRA or one of it's
subprograms.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 19 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 23 of 161


The following are the facts and the real record of the family history:

Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., (Father) served in the Navy from 1943 to 1946 and
graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in Jacksonville, Florida.

He was an exceptional

student/athlete while attending Lancaster Catholic High School, participating in the band as well
as sports. He was also his senior class secretary/treasurer. After the Navy, he went on to build a
successful dry cleaning business, which he is credited with inventing a filtration system for the
He also developed a very good investment in real estate along the Manheim Pike,

solvents.

owning several properties.

By his own writings and from his personal accounts to me, he was

definitely a remote viewer or data miner for some U.S. Agency with telepathic abilities.

His

viewing is documented to have begun back in the early 1970's. He also suffered from organized
stalking, and was considered an enemy and prisoner of the state. Back in the 1960's, he was a
world traveler, this is documented by his passports. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., may have been a
covert carrier for someone in intelligence. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., had his mental health history
laced with electro shock therapy.
MK ULTRA.

Electro Shock Therapy Experiments is another subprogram of

In addition, and especially disturbing is his criminal record with the Lancaster City

Police Department and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.

In 1973 Samuel P.

Caterbone, Jr. was convicted of forging a 2 checks from the Caterbone Cleaners, Inc., checking
account.

The one check to Joe the Motorists Store at the Manor Shopping Center was never

entered into evidence, it was for a total of $70.00. The other check was made out to Lancaster
Attorney James Coho for $200.00 with "divorce proceedings" written in the memo. This was his
only criminal record. Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., was sentenced to one year probation by President
Judge William Johnstone.

However, on August 29, 1973 after nine months, Judge Johnstone

wrote an ORDER releasing him from probation and ordering him to "leave the vicinity of the
County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania". The President Judge of Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas literally threw my father out of Lancaster County for forging 2 checks from his own
corporation.

In 1987 I was arrested for stealing my own files from my own company, Financial

Management Group, Ltd., You can research the life of Candy Jones and Kate O'Brien to learn more
on this topic. Samuel Caterbone, Jr., has left enough writings and documentation to know that his
life fits the model for targeted individuals, complete with economic ruin, isolation, disenfranchised
from family and friends, and of course a fabricated mental illness history. You can view most of
his record online.

On or about May 18, 2001 Samuel P. Caterbone Jr., finally received an

inheritance from his mother's (Mary Caterbone) estate.

The check was for some $70,000.00.

The estate was probated in November of 2000. Some two weeks later, on Memorial Day Weekend
of 2001, he had called me to come to New York City to help care for him.
health until this time.
Julianne McKinney,

He was in perfect

In a matter of six (6) weeks he had succumbed to lung cancer.

As per

former intelligence officer for the U.S. Army and victim activist of U.S.

Sponsored Mind Control, the weapons are lethal enough to kill and "the one thing that I worry

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 20 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 24 of 161


about is that of dying of cancer" (paraphrase). There is no doubt now that my father's death was
a murder, not natural.
Samuel A. Caterbone, (Brother) served in the United States Air Force in 1968 to 1970.
In 1991, Stan J. Caterbone accused the United States Government of using his brother, Samuel
A. Caterbone for part of the LSD experiments on mind control, or MK ULTRA. A notarized letter of
October 23, 1991 was sent certified mail to the California Attorney General on the subject matter,
with a return letter from the California Attorney General on January 14, 1992.

By his own

admission before his death, Samuel A. Caterbone disclosed to Stan J. Caterbone of the "bad LSD"
trips while in the Air Force. Since his death of December 25, 1984, Stan J. Caterbone and others
questioned the classification of suicide, and made allegations of foul play that was ultimately
responsible for his death. Finally in a meeting in Santa Barbara, California with the Santa Barbara
Public Guardian's Office, an office admitted that the death was more likely due to foul plan than
suicide.

Samuel A. Caterbone was also an exceptional student and athlete while attending

Lancaster Catholic High School.

After playing varsity football as a sophomore, he had an

unfortunate accident while deer hunting the following November.

While in the woods in

Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, his hunting pants caught fire trying to stay warm.

It left him in the

Lancaster General Hospital for months, going through painful skin grafts and isolation.
hunting accident interrupted his athletic career and scared his legs for life.

The

The Schizophrenia

diagnosis was a combination of LSD flashbacks and organized stalking and harassment.

Thomas P. Caterbone, (Brother) had an unfortunate transaction at Fulton Bank that set
a course of action that resulted in a suicide. Although diagnosed with Bipolar Disease and Manic
Depression -- embezzled and extorted monies were most likely the reason for his suicide in 1996.
Fulton Bank was involved in a fraud that took $72,000 from a real estate settlement closing and
lead to his total financial ruin and collapse in June of 1995. The funds were never recovered and
Fulton Bank is a defendant for a wrongful death claim in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., 05-cv-2288.
FULTON BANK triggered a severe and lethal death blow to Thomas P. Caterbone, and as of this
day has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing or remorse. Thomas P. Caterbone was also an
exceptional athlete. Playing for Lancaster Catholic High School, Franklin and Marshall College, the
Harrisburg Patriots, and even the Philadelphia Eagles. Tom also coached football at J.P. Mccaskey
and Franklin and Marshall College.

Thomas P. Caterbone had a very successful lawn and

landscaping business before joining forces with John DePatto of United Financial Services and
selling residential mortgages.

John DePatto was the former head of Parent Bank, owned by

James Guerin and ISC. Parent Bank, owned by ISC also foreclosed on 2323 New Danville Pike,
Conestoga, Pennsylvania in 1988, which was owned by Stan J. Caterbone. Thousands of dollars
of equity was extorted in the process, despite still being short sold for a profit to Mr. Keith

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 21 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 25 of 161


Kirchner, an executive of Lancaster Newspapers and former graduate of Lancaster Catholic High
School.

Stan J. Caterbone is a remote viewer (at least one way in), is telepathic, and a
federal whistleblower with an exceptional entrepreneurial record in spite of all of his adversaries
and their assaults. In spite of the U.S. Sponsored mind control and torture, he has endured and
will prevail.

Legally, Stan J. Caterbone has been able to preserve his claims, and progress his

legal challenges and claims through both the federal and state court system appearing pro se,
without the aid or expense of additional legal counsel.

Some of his claims and briefs will most

likely be landmark decisions in years to come. Stan J. Caterbone was a 2-Sport MVP at Lancaster
Catholic High School, in both football and track. Stan J. Caterbone never received less than a B
grade in his four years of high school and had an 87+ average.

Stan J. Caterbone excelled in

computer technologies, taking his first full term course in 1975, while in high school and
continuing

into college at Millersville University, graduating with

administration in 1980.

a degree in

business

Stan J. Caterbone excelled profoundly at building his companies, first

beginning with Financial Management Group, Ltd., then working with Tony Bongiovi of Power
Station Studios and the "Digital Movie"; then building Advanced Media Group, Ltd..

Over the

years, despite the illegal seizures and foreclosures, Stan J. Caterbone has amassed a portfolio of
impressive real estate deals that have always paid off in profits, no matter how or when they
were sold.

The same was true of his businesses.

Financial Management Group, Ltd., was a

$20,000 dollar investment in 1986 and was still sold for approximately $100,000 two years later,
despite the false arrests and the extortion of most of it's real value and equity.

The mental health history and the criminal records were completely fabricated, and a
close review and investigation into the actual court records and hospital records can prove that in
very short fashion.

There are TWO (2) ways to quickly dispute the Mental Health History and

Record:

One - Review the word "Delusional; delusions; etc.,;

every instance of the word

used by mental health professionals, and the false reports by friends and family were associated
with facts, and matters of the official record, the complete opposite of the meaning of the word
"delusional". And they still exist to this very day.

Two - Review the 3 Fabricated Suicide Allegations of the following dates: August
10(?), 1987 at Burdette Tomlin Hospital (Cape May County New Jersey); February 18th(?), 2005
by Kerry Egan and the Southern Regional Police Department; and July 19, 2009 for the 302
Commitment by the Lancaster City Police Department at Lancaster General Hospital.

The Criminal Record is very similar, since 1987 Stanley J. Caterbone has had 31 false
arrests; formal charges and convictions dismissed prior to court proceedings or won on summary
appeals in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania; most of which Stan J. Caterbone appearing as

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 22 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 26 of 161


pro se (representing himself). These have resulted in civil complaints filed in 2008 in CATERBONE
v. The County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

THE PUBLIC RECORD


The Public Record is comprised of court filings and exhibits in U.S. Federal Courts;
Pennsylvania State Courts; and the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. In all some 40,000
pages of documents are now filed and electronically scanned or microfilmed in prothonotary
offices. In addition in both the U.S. Federal Courts and the Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas there are more than 11 hours of audio recordings; some 3,000 scanned images; and
several video broadcasts of the ISC News broadcasts all stored on a CD-ROM and filed as an
exhibit to some of the law suits filed by Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group, as
plaintiffs. Stan J. Caterbone has over 100 court docket sheet numbers in federal, state, and local
courts.
There are also Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation records; Department of Welfare
and Lancaster County Assistance Office records; Local Real Estate Tax records; Lancaster County
Tax Assessment records; Social Security Administration Benefits records; Lancaster Catholic High
School transcripts; Millersville University transcripts; all for Stan J. Caterbone, in addition to his
court filings.

For Samuel A. Caterbone, my brother, there are United States Air Force service

records; Lancaster Catholic High School transcripts; Millersville University transcripts; Social
Security Administration records; Santa Barbara County Guardian and Public Defender records;
and papers and documents persevered from his estate.

For Samuel P. Caterbone, my father, there are United States Naval records, Lancaster

Catholic High School transcripts; Social Security Administration records; Lancaster County
Assistance Office records; Local Real Estate Tax records; Lancaster County Tax Assessment
records; Samuel Caterbone Cleaners, Inc., corporate records; Real Estate Deeds and Mortgages;
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas civil and criminal records; and of course

papers and

documents persevered from his estate

PUBLIC WEBSITE ADDRESSES OF INTEREST:


www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
www.freedomffchs.com
https: //www. scri bd. com

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 23 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 27 of 161


DOCUMENTS ATTACHED FOR REVIEW

**

It is important to note that as of this writing, Remote Viewing has recently

been commercialized by corporate America, and certain Fortune 500 companies are
using Remote Viewers as consultants for trend analysis and market forecasts. This is
often the evolution of most technologies born out of the U.S. Department of Defense.
Top Secret experiments and the resulting technological advancements can stay
secretive for so long.

This has recently been used in a NBC story of the Television

drama "Medium" this last season.

On July 9, 2008 I had recorded an AM radio live

broadcast on WHAN Coast to Coast with a guest that was one of the leading Physicist
turned Remote Viewer and expert that testified to this same notion.

Dated: July 28, 2009


Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
scaterbone@I ive. com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
The following are no longer in service:
www.advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com
www.scribd.com/amgroupOl
www.facebook.com/scaterbone
www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone
www.mcvictimsworld.ning.com/profile/StanJCaterbone
http://www.youtube.com/advancedmediagroup

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 24 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 28 of 161


September 7, 2009

Stan J. Caterbone
Advance Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
Derrick Robinson
Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance
P.O. Box 9022
Cincinnati, Ohio 45209
Phone 1-800-571-5618
Fax 1-866-433-4170
email: info@freedomfchs.com

Re: Is County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania Ground Zero for Organized Stalking and
Covert Surveillance?
Derrick,
My pleasure. Derrick, I was trying to get group rates at our new Lancaster Convention Center
Marriot Hotel last week, just as a little fact finding mission. I have a theory that I would like to
send your way. I thought it would be very fruitful to bring some Tl's together for a conference,
unless you think the exposure would be harmful.
I believe that they try new models for harassment; organized stalking and surveillance on me
here in Lancaster. Remember, Lancaster is now one of the most "Watched Communities" in the
country. "With those cameras, the Safety Coalition will operate and monitor 165 cameras across
Lancaster City - making Lancaster the most watched city of its size in the nation." See article
attached, Watching you: City to add 105 more cameras.
I believe that Lancaster may be ground zero for some of the models of organized stalking and
harassment that we Tl's experience and wanted to get some reaction from Lancaster. Some
history on the Lancaster Convention Center. Dale High of High Industries is the lead partner in our
new convention center/hotel. It is first class all the way. Now in the late 1980's I was a joint
venture partner with Dale High in American Helix Technology Company/Advanced Media Group.
American Helix was a cd manufacturer and I and my company Advanced Media Group was the
CD-ROM division of American Helix. I was one of a handful of CD-ROM manufacturers in the
domestic United States back then. Also in 2005 I filed a civil action against the lead hotel, the
Eden Resort Inn, for trying to block the development and building of the Hotel/Convention Center,
see
attached.
Now, some history about Lancaster and the intelligence community. Back in the 1980's there were
several defense contractors located in Lancaster. the main being International Signal & Control,
which I, of course. blew the whistle on a billion dollar fraud and arms to Iraq.
Click here for an overview of ISC.
Click here to see the Lancaster Newspapers Archives regarding International Signal & Control. or
ISC.
Click here to view the live video of the WGAL-TV News Broadcast of October 31. 1991 the evening
of the ISC indictments. The U.S. Oepartment of Justice and other U.S. Agencies held a Press
Conference in the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse to announce the indictments and $ Billion
Dollar Fraud.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 25 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 29 of 161


Click here for Part 2 of the WGAL-TV 8 Broadcast.
Now politically, Lancaster is and has always been predominately Republican. Lancaster is one of
the oldest cities in the country and our courthouse was one of the first in this country. Lancaster
has one of the oldest fraternities of the Masons. Lancaster and the George W.Bush administration
has a close and very "interesting relationship". George H. Bush had a very close relationship with
ISC, and of course the NSA and CIA all had a very "close" relationship with International Signal &
Control, or ISC. The following are some transcripts for Ted Koppel and ABC News Nightline
regarding ISC and Arms to Iraq and the intelligence community. The transcripts are contained in
my Amicus for Case No. 2006-cv-2160 filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. Southern Division.
Now, Robert Gates, presently the Secretary of the United States Defense Department, and his
relationship to Lancaster. First of all, the attached video is the authentic transcript of Robert
Gates' confirmation hearing in September of 1991 for the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). If you fast forward to approximately 9:00:00 you will see the back and forth
questions from Senator Murkowski to Robert Gates regarding the allegations by several members
of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding his alleged involvement with ISC
and the Arms deals with Carlos Cardoen and the shipping of cluster bombs through South Africa
and on to Iraq. Of course, he denied all of the allegations.
Robert Gates also has relatives that live in Lancaster County, if fact he attended a wedding here a
few months ago. on May 3, 2009 at St. John Neuman Catholic Church in Manhiem Township.
Lancaster County. His wife has a niece that lives in Manheim Township.
Now, I'll give you the ABC News Nightline May 23, 1991 excerpt regarding ISC and the NSA,
National Security Agency:

"It all started legally, if covertly, back in 1974. That's when the National Security Agency, a supersecret U.S. Intelligence unit asked ISC to help complete project X, a chain of electronic listening
posts based at South Africa's Simonstown Naval Station. South Africa was using these posts to
follow Soviet submarine traffic off of the Cape of Good Hope. To ensure secrecy, ISC and the NSA
made sure shipments could not be tracked back to them. They created a company called Gamma
Systems Associates. In fact, this company was nothing more than a post office box at John F.
Kennedy Airport. Gamma was a cut-out .... But this sanctioned covert operation was stopped in
1977 when President Carter, a strong opponent of South Africa's apartheid regime, told U.S. firms
to stop any military-related business with Pretoria. But ISC continue shipping electronics, some
civilian, some military, to South Africa. The in the early 1980's, South Africa began to intensify its
efforts at ballistic missile development. For ISC, that was a golden opportunity because on of its
top executives was a man named Clyde Ivey, an American electronics expert who has been the
father of South Africa's missile program. Ivey had extraordinary contacts in the nations defense
structure. Begining in 1984, federal investigators say, senior ISC exeutives, including Ivey, began
regular contacts with CIA officials." You can read the rest. The entire transcript of the May 23,
1991 ABC News/Nightline broadcast.
Now remember, George H. Bush was director of CIA. "He served in this role for 357 days, from
January 30, 1976 to January 20, 1977.[22] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations,
including those based on investigations by Senator Frank Church's Committee regarding illegal
and unauthorized activities by the CIA, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the
agency's morale.[23] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy
Carter both as a Presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of
remaining in that position in a Carter administration[24] but it was not to be," according to
Wikipedia.
Now, lets get to Bobby Ray Inman, former Navy, Director of the National Security Agency (NSA),
former Director of International Signal & Control (ISC), and currently part of the Mind Control
industry. The following appears on the Welcome page of my website:

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 26 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 30 of 161


"S.A.I.C. involvement in 1993 American Para psychological Association meeting arrangements, via
their 'Cognitive Sciences Laboratory'. Science Applications International Corporation is a big time
defense contractor, has held the largest number of research contracts of any defense contractor.
Bobby Ray Inman (ISC Board of Directors) is on its board of directors, among others."
by John Porter, CIA Program on Mind Control copyright 1996. In 1994, after Bobby Ray Inman
requested to be withdrawn from consideration as Bill Clinton's first Defense Secretary, his critics
speculated that the decision was motivated by a desire to conceal his links to ISC. Inman was a
member of the so-called "shadow board" of the company which was allegedly either negligent or
approved the exports." by Wikipedia on International Signal and Control, (ISC).
Now, lets list the former Navy personnel:
George H. Bush, former President of the United States, former Director of CIA.
James Guerin, President and Founder of International Signal & Control.
Bobby Ray Inman, former Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Director of
International Signal & Control, (ISC).
My father, Samuel P. Cateronne, Jr.
His father, Samuel J. Caterbone, Sr.
George Noory, of Coast to Coast Radio (just anecdotal, nothing assumed or alleged).
George W. Bush flew with the Navy.
James Cross
I will Finish later and add more.

Next we get to Jim Guerin's attorney back in 1989 through at least 1992. His name was Joseph
Tate, of Philadelpha. This link will take you to a document regarding Joseph Tate. James Guerin
and Joseph Roda. Esq .. of Lancaster. my former attorney who said I fabricated everything back in
1987. The document contains a letter of September 12, 2005 from Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald regarding Scooter Libby, Former Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. the letter
involves Scooter Libby's Grand Jury Indictment for leaking Covert CIA Operative Valerie Plame
and eventually outing her.
Now in Austin Texas in July of 2005 I was detained by 2 Agents from The Defense Intelligence
Agency. I was merely visiting a Military Museum, that had old and vintage helicopters and
airplanes. near where my brother, Dr. Phillip Caterbone lived. I was visiting on my way to
California. While inside the museum 2 Agents from the Department of Defense Defense
Intelligence Agency escorted me outside to my Honda Oddesey and interrogated me making me
confirm that I was visiting and staying with my brother. They caused a problem for my brother's
Medical Practice by shaking up one of his secretaries. The reviewed my court documents for
CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison. et. al .. Case No. 2005-cv-0288 filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The demanded that I stay off all military bases
before releasing me.
In 2006 I was telepathic with an older NSA executive on many occasions who wanted to meet me
at the Clipper Stadium who told me he wanted to rent a facility in Lancaster for a training
exercise. I told him to to and see Dale High and the High Group for space at the Greenfield
Industrial Park. He said he was retiring and that our discussions were keeping him a few weeks
longer than expected. We had intimate discussions of my history and the Chesapeake Bay Area.
We also discussed Sheryl Crow, and he told me his wife was a fan. I turned him on to her new
album, Wildflower, and he said she liked it. We had to disengage because he was being harassed
by other telepathic assailants.
My former secretary (Susan Bare) at Pflumm Contractors, Inc., where I was controller and was
hired to rescue the company from near bankruptcy in 1993, told me that her husband, Ross Bare,
who grew up just some 10 or so doors from me, worked for the NSA. She disclosed this soon
a~er I hired her in 1994 or 1995.
I will finish later and add to this allegation. This is a work-in-progress.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 27 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 31 of 161

Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
www.advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com
www.scribd.com/amgroupOl
www.facebook.com/scaterbone
www.twitter.com/Sta nCaterbone
www.mcvictimsworld.ning.com/profile/StanJCaterbone
http://www.youtube.com/advancedmediagroup

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 28 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 32 of 161

AFFIDAVIT
BE IT ACKNOWLEDGED, that Stanley J. Caterbone, Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
FMG Advisory, and and all affiliates, Pro Financial Group, Ltd., Advanced Media Group, Advanced
Media Group, Ltd., Global Entertainment Group, Ltd., Power Productions I, Radio Science
Laboratories, Ltd., of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the undersigned deponent, being of legal
age, does hereby depose and say under oath as follows:
I am now convinced that the situation surrounding my litigation and all factors attributed
to my financial and professional demise bore out of the fact that my Father, Samuel P. Caterbone
was a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control, in the truest sense of the words.

The

whistleblowing activities of 1987 either were a coincidence or I was set up in the very beginning
by Pennsylvania State Senator Gibson Armstrong (former stock broker) in 1983 when he solicited
me to purchase the ISC stock.

The preceding would have been the perfect cover story for my

demise; that I was involved in a fraud.

Following this analysis would lead one to conclude that

the collateral damage from the activities of my financial ruin always left my fellow businesses in
financial ruin, for example Robert Kauffman and Michael Hartlett, partners, and the shareholders
and affiliated professionals of Financial Management Group, Ltd., Tony Bongiovi and Power Station
Studios, Jim and Lynn Cross as Cross Microwave Consultants, Dave Dering, Scott Robertson, and
James Boyer as American Helix/High Industries, Ralph Mazzochi and Gallo Rosa Restaurant;
Pflumm Contractors, Inc., Mike Caterbone's AIM Wholesaler's Business, Dr. Phillip Caterbone, D.O.
And associated Primary Care Practices of Austin, Texas, Sam Lombardo and Ralph Mazzochi as
S.N. Lombardo Associates for Lancaster Avenue Project, Sheryl Crow Singer Songwriter, my
immediate family, friends, and relatives.
Following this analysis would lead one to concur that the legal and financial remedies
would only be reconciled by the above named parties enjoining my civil litigation. This AFFIDAVIT
is to be considered a legal and binding document to accomplish that remedy.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 29 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 33 of 161

/IUr/Jfl;/r >N ~&'2-1

And I affirm that the ~i"! i!I 1 l!te eMeef!t e statements made upon information and belief,

and as to those I believe them to be true. Witness my hand under the penalties of perjury this
10th day of October, 2015.

Lancaster, PA
Signature

STATE OF

t..JJ./!Canler p.f/

Jn
-0(}- AJ9 \Ia
6

COUNTY
On

.Je r ,QH.

'N

{;J ldh

'51-ak .J_.l-

before me,
personally appeared
, personally know
me {or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within ins
nt and .acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorize capacity(i
Aft
his/her/their signature{s) on the instrument the person(s), or the enti upon behalbiMI the
person(s) acte e cuted the instrument.
Notary Public
WITNESS my
nd official
LANCASTER CITY, LANCASTER COUNTY

()tJ

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

My Commission Expires Dec 12, 201

Page 22 of 41
Page 30 of 276

Saturday, October 10, 2015


Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 34 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 31 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 35 of 161


l:l$~i'.~:l\'lD1iilllJ.WlfQ.il#:~WlOOlellt9Wl.l~llIIL

mJ.IWi

~Jmioou~@mrnm

~:;in

ii, C~t,qr,b<1111r!'fl!",, J!llvi;i; ~ 11;!tJg!:111i'!iil:


l'ltll\r.!lrri;i::~ M~di,;i. <Gtr\llii;rp
.
12!ij !Fn~mi::i1111t :$:tw'eq1t
L~~~cr,

PA li'iOl

rl

-~MG l"gc81' 8fiitB:~ Pfoto~,piav


t'llift "'WSC e~vBr"UiP,"''
,,

'".

"''

'

''fbleflall!~-~,r~AOM ~ntatn:s

:a~t;?ntle.~nf~~ail'C<ll!i :tll'beit~bll'li!il!l'l:l!ill!;
'.mif ,q,~ Q'fi' wtdlji,lllimlidi oollliLipMa Sllld'
; mi~~~lfJl.tow~rd ~:p~~~;fmdl my
bllll!!lill:!~ lmitm\918~ Itmm1!!r:llt1!1ilia!iY,

In

Thtfi~t.~n lt: i~,:a.o ir!li~l:oj!'!6;

my ;r~titikiir.i .~n~wii111$tore

.ne oo whota.

JJ~t i~ .!'i;i.kQ~'!c'\'lfA.9'l(;lllii
STANLEY JI. C'ATIERZICNE- PRO SE 11..IIlGA'.TOR
29 CRDllNAL CMARGIES DlSMISSlWITHDRAWN/NOTGUILTY

11!1187 m

:Zooa

t . or;fOL/ 1987 CC2706 T<!itl'l'Orlsth; TIU'eillS MJ. QUilShd 1 Dl&mis I Demur 5Lli!i
2. {)t/03/1187 Ct2901-i lllnlawtuU ~r:iilint-. M1 QiliiUihsd l Oismis I DM!lul' Sus

3. fR/([fJ/UUa Cc330ia2 Crimtoot 'Mischief a f3 ffaiJle PTossed I Wi!thd:rawn


4. ~/03/ 1187 ec-3502. fhir:v~ Ft qm1&11ed I t'lismlis I btii~ Sus
5. 09/'3/ 1987 Cd'.101~1 Roblm'y - Fl Quil\Shed J!>~is: /Dcmw $.is
fi. Ot/03/ 1t.S7 o:an1;. Thdt l>Y 1Uimhdf~mt o,. o~ ~13: Nome :Pi!'os; I Wi'tfidrilwn
ii. ot/0~111l87 c:a9J.3;!1 unv~ UR: Of. Qmtiipmcw n HOO~ Pros /WitllKfr.mn
'1. 09/DS/1981 CC;ff.!3i1:I; J.lnRinYkl!t UH Of Comp~ ~ F3 ~"Md' I Dli!mii- I DcmuF Sa'!$
tll. l2l05f,ZOH I ttl,S"i!I' f:"lli~llrJjJPgi-!l!111ii:!"~CJ;!nw~n~imi~ftm,i;~ Wit:h~r;1~ {ll.1;1wer C:.g&Jrt)
T

9. 12/!05{:1006 118 ~9~ A4- JIH!!ft Of ~Me~A,;t;:qpi:i!tjo-,f! Of Set.Wiee$ Witlldr&wr! ('IL(llWel!' court)
i:D. i2/ifi!!i/2Dll61l llBi~7D9flA'J! iHa:rrassml:tr:t ~ ~amm. ~l!it In An~r M.a:n.rter Wiilhdrawn. {ll;C}
11. Ol/23/2CJOl7 1 2li~21<11 lf/ilo 1P.lllrkPr.lg Or ~P.Pin!I IP-enQftted WitE'lid.~!lli [1,.o~ CO\lrt)
:t:z:. 0.1/:U/2007 1 ~~aoe M~~ Viohlt;oq WrtJ'ildtt!IW!'; C~wer eourt)
H. 01/ 23/2007 118 650'.l : Al Scatlil!!f' R'l!linbitsh Upon J.anllil/S'tireaim iJre :Dismli5Sed. ('.!Lower Caurt)
1S. en/ 23/2007 1 285w21Jfll 1No Parkling Oit Sto]lipin!J 111\l!l'mEtled Witlilidrawn t~LOW~if Court}
:Ut. OJ.I 23/2007 lL 28530a Meter V:loli!.Uan Will:hdnwn (Lower C:ollit't)
l.7. ![fl!J"ll1Jf2ll07" i 75'i 1543 !j :AtJilv"V~ije: oper~v"5u~Or.Revoked N>Gi:.Guilly
11if. 0'1./ Jl3/2QD' 11!fi7BG tt F Qper
WIO' ~~1ii f.ir1aoc Rils1t1Not !GuUty
~9'. OM~ia:ocn i .13 f S.5'03 !!iA.4;1 Pi!Pt'!fdl'Jf,EC:~mfu'tt Milzan;log;s;/Physli Off N@t Gm~ty
~o. 0,4/3:t!'J:2Q-1l7 '2 13 f '550/':Aj {!ilietrurtf1:1111 KlQh~ Nil;ot Gudlty
;u, 04/3-01'2007 '$/ l l ~210. .
ffilf'U.5mertt ~ ~~ or,~un~:d:-\W No Lr.Jtild !l>.Yf'!'i!J5C HillHf! !Pro~
22. 04:130)1itl'.IJ'7 175' .
. _.
- . !:.' Con:tmf DSl>lSCil! NO'~liu!1ty iNi;ilt@: 'Pros
i:'.J. il)5J<t.iiV2iUJ7 . M:i!:.19 I SlC4 Rl!!&iSit A.!"lfMl/Olfm baw e:tf0t"Q}.ii'.18/t)4J10Cl!G M71!H 2@
:24. O:SI U>/JOQ, .~ Ml J,8 . 9.06 !giitlt,,Makilll hpi5e!;i/ ~ 0.11fJt'INliJ' '18/>D>lf!1C!llt K'll:11'5120 N:elliri lil'ms
2~. OS/21:12111 i 7S, 1$4J.ifi' II\; il?riv' While Op~ \P'1Jv S,
ft,gvokoei!B ;Plot G11ifrty ,
itG>. Ut01/lml? 51~ ~3l1;tiA Hlt~~e. Driving; iOfif. ti'4
N;:JJh: ~l'Q:i;
'27.:I11:1:01l~d-d;7 75 . 380'3. Al"' OOJ:~ Gem tmp/l11t: of .01Civ'i'ng~Sillft:ily No1'1~ PfO$C
~~07/'0'.3/4t; TLOG!)UL.~
!!!nCM:r. su~~nn!lttr 'by ;p~rtiflsyMini!l Stilt~ Pl:!'liC'~
~. Q71D.3n00$ Tll:OOO'i83~--0:S rn.t~ 41~rg~ ~y p~~il)QT iP Cf~~~lq C4'.Unty

ilen

vnving:

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

'

Page 32 of 276
r"~<!;)UJ'f'I

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016


<i:lilWO!Jldl'; Ul.lUUSI

U/, LU o;J

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 36 of 161


l!lllJe = "I l.1"7 CRARGES.llHSM!SSR.OUl"DIF '1 t?Wtft&&D
. HD o 12,50t!THetlt'kEG1iONAL ?t:n.t-U CRARGBlliH'.SHlED'OR O\l'E:R'11'U!RNED OINI IAPPEAL

Ltt / Legal Information institUte


American Legall Etihic:s Ubr.ary
1
ABA Model Code of Profe$$lional ResponslibHitv
.
. ( 1993>)
.

ETHICAL CONSIDERAnONS
HC (E!thiciid Considw.atiOl'l:S} 7a:ll
The CMI adjudicawe prooess Ut primarity d;f!Sig-ned for thie :OO'Weimenll:. of disr:11utes between
p>!?iii'tiss, wlrli!e Ii.tie ctiitni1ru~I proeiass i~ d,g1gmed for th@ !Pn:tbed::ilot".J of society as a whole.
Thr>f!alt:erl'ling ro uisei 1 or uSing, 11'.hie crfminail ;prnoess oo roeircei adjustment of priivl!lbi! civil cll!lim:S
or rnn!Jrori;,iersles is a sub\ietsaon of t:hia11'.'. proc:ess;J6 furth0r,, th@ p!!rsori against wl!lom t:he
criminaa prooe:ss Is so rnlsuS!Jld may be d&tenoo from assertllng his legia~ rights and tlliUG thi@i
usef1..doo.ss of th@ clvn prooess in SAllttllng private disputes is imp.aired. As in all cas~ of a:tnsse
of judiclial p:roc~, the hmp_r;oper use of crimtinirU process tends hi. dim iilllstl p1JbHc oonfildignce Ill
our Jegal system.

praqonettl Aqt Cfajm


The Penosytvani.a legi!S:latLJre ~11aclted a wr<u~gfot 1,.1$e (If civil proteedinqs statuh! (Dragonettl!
Act) which pun5has lboth the elent and a.ttortJey for brii\gling .a wrongful civil action. 42 Pa.
C.5.A. 8351, ll!rt ii4l!iq. Th!! ~ti!!ments of a Dra;;tonetti Act daitn are:
1) that ltt:e und.etlying procef!din~s w~te trermiel~t@d in tha p1ail'itiff's favor;
2) 'that the id~ndant caused the -proceedings t.o ib-e fnstltuted agaEMt the plalntlff w~thout
"probabE~ cause"',: .and
3) that thie proaieding:s were

1~1 :S20

42

iP'a~

lns~ltllred

Wrongful Use of CwH

f'<r prlmartly an Improper i!HJirpose.

ProeeecUng~

Abuse of Proce5s; Fab:e Anest

C.S,A,. 8352.

A f:tlilli!'ltiff c;:an rec;Q-v~ \hE;: fQl!owing Q'~Ji;11~g'!$ In i!! Dra9a:netlj Ac.t dii5il'Jl;

t >harm from arrest or interfere.nee with ttie, us:e: of land or chattels;


2} h.atm frotfi any defamatory .st21terr1erat alleged as a bast.s for th@- proceeding;
3) expensed defending; ttu! ol'ig:iMll M:tion, 1r111:hKlll'llQ .attOtni!y':s fees;
4) any pecuniary toss f@SL.tlting From the! original jl~ooings:;
S} a11y efnotional diiStress ttlat is. eaused by the wrongful pro~eding; and
6} punitive damages

Hart v. O'MaHey (Supu. 1:gi94), aff'd (:1996). under ttle oragonettl Act "probabf-e cause"
mealfl~ that: [the person bringing die dadm] reasonably befireves ~n the e:<iistence of facts upon
which the cla~m Is tiased~ and either:

1} Rea~na:bry lbe01;ves tti.at

d.evefg~lng faw;

under

those facts the ~.1.atm may be vaFld 1-mtler the existing or

2) Believes tQ ttlis effect in rafiianoe lLIJ)l)ll tile advice Df touosel, s.(mght in good faitli and given

after full

disdos4,1r~

of all relevarJt f;;;el:$ within his kaowF.ed9e .;.nd ifif'ormatioo; or


~Ji good hitli thiat Ms pnxurememt, irtitiation or
conifinua~n of a avH eaose- ~ not in~nded to: n'!er~ly harass or maitcic.msfy injure tfle opposite

3) !Believes

a$ an attorney ot reQ:}:rdi,

party..

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 33 of 276
r~e"!Uliif'

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

oa""""""Y

Ut.aYUSI IV,"'" ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 37 of 161

scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
www.advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com
www.scribd.com/amqroup01
www.facebook.com/scaterbone
www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone
www.mcvictimsworld.ninq.com/nrofile/StanJCaterbone
http: //www.youtube.com/advancedmediaqroup

Stan J, Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

ILLEGAL NO TRESPASS NOTICES AGAINST


STAN l. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Violations of Public Accommodations Law re Discrimination
and Anti-Trust Violations with False Statements to Authorities
July 16, 2016
\l\lork-In-Progress

Community Stalking and Organized Libel/Slander Campaign Strategy - Issue a few every
year to support false arrests; false imprisonment; fabricated mental illness history. In addition to
isolate by prohibiting entrance to major entertainment venues with good live music. Prohibit from
defending against the lies and slander in public to a minimum. Also, destroy history of strong
Christian values and church attendance on a weekly basis by keeping away from church. The
Millersville University Graduate Studies No Trespass Notice was accommodated by the denial of
entitled benefits of LETA Job Training Education Course of the Paralegal program at HACC during
the same time period.

1. David Pflumm Properties by David Pflumm - Served by State Constable in June of


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

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 34 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 38 of 161

14. TGIF Friday's, Lancaster, by Manager, in January of 2010, No Formal Notice


15. Lucky Dog Restaurant and Bar, Lancaster, by Robert Donnelly, in January of 2010, No
Formal Notice
16. Saint Mary's Catholic Church, Lancaster, by Don Spica, Usher and Lancaster City Police
Department in Feb of 2010, No Formal Notice
17. O'Halloran's Bar, Lancaster, March 25, 2010 by Male Staff Employee. No Formal Notice.
18. Fulton Bank, Fulton Financial Corporation, March 26, 2010 by Susan Follmer, Security
Officer.
19.Lancaster General Hospital, Gary S. Gehman, MD, May 25, 2010, for recording Dr. Brian
Sullivan of Abbeyville Family Health re U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and posting on my
Wordpress Blog.
20.Tobias Frog Restaurant and Bar, August 8, 2015 by Owner of Establishment, reason
was for complaining of harassment and stalking.
21. Millersville University, July 9, 2015, served notice by Millersville University Police
Chief Pete Anders, for negotiating a civil rights complaint with Assistant to the President,
Debra Hoeckler
22.Village Nightclub, July of 20015, by George ........... , Owner, tried to enter several times,
with no reason and no written notice.
23.Lucky Dog Bar, August of 2015, met Abby and Keagan Pflumm outside, went inside and
was told by bartender to leave and not come back.
24.Barley Snyder, LLC Lancaster Office, receptionist Ms. Woods refused to let me
communicate with Attorney George Werner, who in 2011 entered appearance in 05-2288
for Fulton Bank in U.S. District Court.
25.Wennerstrom Property Management Company, June 2015, went to complain
regarding harassment, threats, etc., at 1252 Fremont Street and told to leave building.
26.Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Northwest Office Building, November 23, 2015,
Harrisburg, PA, Delivered COMPLAINT re Bars and Restaurants in Lancaster engaged in
Discrimination, Stalking, Harassment, Assaults, etc., Would not allow access to Legal
Counsel, and female who took complaint would not provide ID.
27.Southeast Medical Facilities and Brightside Church Office, February 2016, Would not
issue pain medication and filed a Private Criminal Complaint with the Lancaster County
District Attorney, no opinion as of yet.
28.Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office in Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA - I
arbitrarily received a phone call while delivering a CD-ROM to PA Attorney General Kathleen
Kane re "CORRUPTION OF JUDICIAL, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND POLmCIANS" of
Pennsylvania.
29.U.S. Federal Facilities per the National Security Agency Interrogation of March 9, 2016
at the NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland. Handcuffed and Interrogated for over an
hour and finally let go and told not to continue on to Washington, D.C. And said I was no
longer permitted to visit any U.S. Federal Facilities.
30.Lancaster Newspapers - In June of 2016 I arbitrarily received an email the day I was
supposed to participate in a "town meeting at LNP" and warned me that I was banned and
had been for years although in the year before I had meetings with editors regarding my
MOVANT standing in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case.
31. TELLUS360, May of 2016, I went to enter on a weekend night and the doorman told me
I could not enter that night without any explanation or reason.
32.Yorgos Restaurant and Bar, The owner, Mrs. Arbitrarily barred me during the month of
March, right before the false imprisonment at the NSA in Ft. Meade, Maryland
33.Annie Baily's Irish Pub, A bartender arbitrarily barred me in July, then they allowed me
in then again a so called "Manager" banned me again. I recorded the last incident.
34.Altana Club, Bar, and Meeting Space - On Thursday, July 14, 2016 Scott, the bartender
arbitrarily banned me, which again I recorded.
35. The Press Room Bar and Restaurant - A bartender arbitrarily barred me, then again on
Thursday July 14, 2016 another bartender banned me, which again I recorded.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 35 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 39 of 161

All of the above use the tactics of threats and harassment in order to invoke and provoke a
response worthy of arrest or involuntary psychiatric commitment. When the strategy fails they
resort in illegal verbal no trespass notices by low level employees. In the summer of 2015 a
Lancaster City Police Officer, while parked at the Sunnoco convenience store on the corner of West
Orange and Prince Street informed me that the establishments were required to provide written
notice, or they could not be enforced.
Downtown Lancaster Establishment's that have been endorsing and engaging in
WHOLESALE STALKING, HARASSMENT, AND COLLUSION TO PHYSICAL THREATS OF
VIOLENCE ON A REGULAR BASIS, 2005 to present:

Yorgos Restaurant and Bar


Mariott Bar at Penn Square
Annie Baily's Irish Pub
TELLIUS 360 Irish Pub, Nightclub, and now computer lab
Altana Club, Bar, and Meeting Space
Cigar Bar
O'Hallorans Bar and Restaurant
Lancaster Dispensing Company
The Press Room Bar and Restaurant
The Federal Taphouse
Lancaster City Police Department Headquarters

Dated: March 18, 2016

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 36 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 40 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 37 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 41 of 161

AFFIDAVIT
I,.

Address;

SnJ,.; (..e)'
{zst>

~. (}~'?:,@.~~!_ ... ,... rasiding at:

.~~~ {T.

City, State, zap Code:

~ 'lei!..,. f

'"----$-----~~

.a.

do hereby state that t am at least 18 years of ag@, that i am a citizen or a Jegat resident of the
United States of Amttiea,, that I am of sound mind,. and that I am the person whose signature
roUows on this Affidavit. The purpose nf this doatmef't Is fl) to ad\ilse Congress as well as state
and toctrl officials of organized stalking and cleetronte and mif!'d ma.nfputation to-tture being
committed apfnst me and (2) to request a state. local, or Congressional investigatfon and
hearing on the use of remotely-opet9ted directed energy attacks and mind co:ntrot technologies
on Americans fn this country.

Our Government Is responsible for prt>teetingits citizens from elements that coverttv harass,
torment; murdcr1 and -cause victims to commit suicide throush organized stalking and remote
electronic torture. Yet, unbiased research lndi<:ates that c;ettain elements of Government either
engage in these activities or protect those who perform them. 1seek the eomplete df.smantl:lng
of any offidaUy..sanetioned <:overt G1)ve.rnment torture programs> the passage of legislation
specifically outlfl:w1ngthat hfgh ..tech torture"' and the fun prosecution of any person, regardless
of his rank or position, who has violated my civll rights and my most basic human rights.

The assaults on my mtnd and body have been occurring for~ year(s) or _ _month(s) and
include, but are not limited to tile following (checked below}:

/blanketing my dweUing and

surroundin~ with electromagnetic eriergy,

Y: Invading my thoughts vi:a remote sensing technologies.


/

C.141401114!!1\"rlt . , " ,

_ makin.g me mentally~ others'~ through the microwave hearing effect.


...(deprh1ing me of $feep due to neutoiogfcaS Intervention.

~introducing poisonous.ps and radiation toxfns into my home. O#/~~nh GM E 1 lj,t:..1u~P~~ ~~, 61?:.

~having me stalked me en muse onfootand In vetdd~ o~ el.C~4(.)1~y


t::, vandalizing my home and/o.r car~
/tappfng my phones andhaddns my computer/

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~age

~ u~f 1su.A~ec:
38 of 276

r"-'

""1 llOM j

~6 A~

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

.---

--~

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 42 of 161

../ bfadttistfn1fn1iein the Jabor mattet.

~ *workpfa:ee mobbing"
../ bombarding my body with debtUtating etettrorde and mlttd manipufatfon effects.
~V'1 .Af&Wr+t- -r-.li-P~7'1Y
. ~

::::

~ z,,.-t.J ~ .F sev~ ~

The acts described above violate many laws aimed at protecting Americans. Some of these laws

are:
10 USC 921~ Article 121 i..tarGeny ancFwrottfffu~app~nafoA.
10 USC 920A, Artide-llGa--Stalting
18 2340 USC-Torb.lre

..

18 USC 241- Conspir:aO/ against righ~ of sovereigr:f,:.f.ree; Gttaqeated, spirit ctnd soul beings

18 use 242- O~privatio:n otrigbts under co.for of law

18VSC1117 -eonsplracy to Murder

1s use 1i.11-Muroer-

lS USC l~S- Olsdosure of information generally

42 USC 19il - CMI aetfon for deprivation of rights

42 USC 1985 - Conspiracy t9 interfere with c:ivi1 rights

II

31 USC 532.S -WhiSdeblowp protections

.
-

18 USC 1512 - &igaging in misfeadmg conduct


18 use 1503- lntimidati:ng a witness/vidim

18 use lSU- Tampering with a witness/victim


18 USC 1513- Retaliation against a witness/victim

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 39 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 43 of 161

18 use 1510 - Obstrud:fng 1 aiminal investtsation, conflict of lnterest roles in government


18 USC 1509 - Impeding due exercise of rights by attempting to prevent, obstruct, Impede and
Interfere with gme

18 USC 1622 -Subordination of perjury by procurfng another to commit perjury

AFflRMATION

l affirm that the sra~ents fn thts Affidavit concerning my torture and the results of that
torture ar~ true and correct. t ftuther affirm that tflose statements are based on my own direct
knowledge, personaf experience, research; and known and published historical fart.

Name Cprint}:=--....:..~~~.....llG.----.................- - -

oate: _ _'f_-_l~_-_;).o_io.._________

Stamp &. Seal:


.

HOWW. ttA1.
GLORIA COLOtj
NotaJV Publte

l.ANCAStER CJTY. lANCMTEI COUNTY

My Ccfrltn~IOfl EXplres Oee ll. 20U

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 40 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 44 of 161

AFFIDAVIT
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, Targeted Individual or TI, residing at: 1250 Fremont Street,
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 17603, do hereby state that I am at least 18 years of age, that I am
a citizen or a legal resident of the United States of America, that I am of sound mind, and that I
am the person whose signature follows on this Affidavit. The purpose of this document is (1) to
advise Congress as well as state and local officials of organized stalking and electronic and mind
manipulation torture being committed against me and (2) to request a state, local, or
Congressional investigation and hearing on the use of remotely-operated directed energy attacks
and mind control technologies on Americans in this country.

Our Government is responsible for protecting its citizens from elements that
covertly harass, torment, murder, and cause victims to commit suicide through
organized stalking and remote electronic torture. Yet, unbiased research indicates that
certain elements of Government either engage in these activities or protect those who perform
them. I seek the complete dismantling of any officially-sanctioned covert Government torture
programs, the passage of legislation specifically outlawing that high-tech torture, and the full
prosecution of any person, regardless of his rank or position, who has violated my civil rights and
my most basic human rights. The assaults on my mind and body have been occurring for 24
year(s) and include, but are not limited to the following victimization's:

1.
Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy.
Bombarding my body with debilitating electronic and mind manipulation effects.
Directed Energy Weapons Causing Severe Pain to Body and Brain. Began in at least 2005
and still continuing, with complaints to Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance, FFCHS
in 2009, and in cited in various state and federal court cases over the past several years.
Attacks causing severe artificial pain most likely from Directed Energy Devices synchronized with
telepathic harassment and organized stalking and harassment have been logged and reported to
law enforcement and medical professionals since 2008.
Prior to 2008 the attacks were
experienced and reported to medical professionals but the sources were not known. Also reported
attacks of pain to a family physician, emergency room personnel and psychiatrists.

2.
Invading my thoughts via remote sensing technologies. Was sent an autonomous
email in 1998 introducing the term remote viewing. Various technologies and tactics are being
used to create "emotional signatures" that induce various emotional states; a systematic complete
hacking of my mind.
3.
Making me mentally "hear" others' voices through the microwave hearing effect.
Synthetic and/or Mental Telepathy. First started to experience telepathy/synthetic telepathy
in 2005 with full-time 24/7 connection during the same time to present. When full-time telepathy
started a male conducted interrogations lasting several hours at a time concerning a wealth of
subjects including ISC/CIA Knowledge. Cannot disconnect from continuous conversations at all
times with one female person. The handlers know everything I know and experience in real time.
During 2006 and 2007 have been telepathic with some 10 or more persons, both male and female
for short durations. Can recall most conversations and subject matter with identities of who they
said they were. Interrogation type harassment is still being used telepathically to harass and for
some sleep deprivation. Made first complaints to DARPA, the FBI, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter
in 2007. Some conversations by the persons that are telepathic with me elude to some program
similar to the DARPA datalog program where they record your entire life. Everything that you try
to do on a daily basis is subject matter for conversation and harassment. Interference with
thought, harassment, and interrogation is used often times with electromagnetic weapon attacks
to the brain or body.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 41 of 276

Tues1SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 45 of 161

4.

Depriving me of sleep due to neurological intervention. Mostly Experienced Sleep


Deprivation Techniques during periods of time in 2008 to 2010. Mostly with attacks of pain from
Directed Energy Weapons to back, neck, head (brain); and heart on a few occasions; and with
harassment from telepathy.

5.
Introducing poisonous gas and radiation toxins into my home. First experienced
toxic gases (Chloroform?) in heavy doses in 2006-2007. Made complaints to the Lancaster City
Police Department and the Southern Regional Police. Experienced attacks that would cause
dizziness at home, in automobile and in public. Was informed it was being released through a
distribution system the size of fishing line. To counter attacks used cotton in nostrils and gas
mask. In 2009 experienced attacks of what is said to be sleeping gas, when attacked could not
open eyes. Took Pictures during some attacks.
6.

Having me stalked en masse on foot and in vehicles. vandalizing my home and/or


car. Gang Stalking or Organized Stalking began in 1987 and continues today. It includes
strangers using gestures such as finger under eye; various forms of harassment; and public
mobbing. Complaints have been filed in 1987; 1992;1998 and 2005 to 2010. Complaints were
made to various public officials and local, state, and federal agencies as mental duress. The terms
organized stalking, gang stalking, targeted individual, etc., was not learned until a few years ago.
The organized stalking and harassment followed in several states, some while traveling from
Lancaster, Pennsylvania to California. Tracking technologies may have been used and most likely
are still being used. Police were involved in most places.

7.

Tapping (Bugging) my phones. Complaints of phone tapping/tampering were made to


New Jersey Bell in 1987 with a service call to Stone Harbor, New Jersey to check lines and phones.
The same was done by a Bell Atlantic repairman in Conestoga, Pennsylvania in 1998. In 2004 a
complaint with a report number was filed with the Pennsylvania Attorney General Office in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Agent Amy Zelnick) regarding interference with phone calls and
impersonations by perps intercepting and rerouting calls. Computer Hacking complaints were filed
to local authorities in the County of Lancaster and the Cyber Crime unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in 2005 to 2010.

8.
Blacklisting me in the labor market. Filed complains of employment discrimination with
the Pennsylvania Attorney General in 2006 and the Lancaster County Human Relations
Commission in 2008.
9.
Workplace mobbing. Experienced in 1987 at Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
American Helix of High Industries in 1991 and Pflumm Contractors, Inc., in 1997/1998. Filed
complaints and logs as mental duress and harassment. Was forced out of all 3 organizations as a
result of the mobbing and harassment.
10. Public Mobbing. Public type mobbing and organized stalking and harassment was
perpetrated heavily in the years 2005 to 2010 in the following places: The Lancaster County
Courthouse, The Lancaster County Public Library, the Pennsylvania Career Link, and the Millersville
University Library and University Offices. I was given suspicious and illegal "No Trespass" Notices
in some 18 public places in Lancaster County in the years 2005 to 2009 without just cause. I was
complaining of stalking and harassing in most all of those public places. The Lancaster County
Public Library and the Millersville University took away my access to a computer after my personal
computers were vandalized and/or hacked inoperable. Fulton Bank took away my safe deposit
box. Others included my church of worship, various bars and restaurants and one attorneys office.
Complaints have been filed regarding the same in courts and with various authorities.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 42 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 46 of 161

11. Attempted Murder. Experienced with an attempt of vehicular homicide in 1991 after
National News Media reported ISC/CIA-NSA connection of "Arms to Irag". The incident involved a
vehicle changing lanes and direction and heading directly toward me in the wrong direction
running me off the road, narrowly missing a tree. I Filed the incident in federal courts and used
as a motion to seal federal case no. 05-2288 in 2005 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
12. Pet Killing. Cat was killed in 2005 with complaints to the Lancaster County Humane
Shelter and the Southern Regional Police Department.
13. Illegal Entries of Home/Properties. First in 1987 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, then
again in 1991; 1997-1998; and most serious in 2005 to 2010. Filed Police Reports and insurance
claims, most with the Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga, Pennsylvania , State
Farm and Harleysville Insurance Companies.
14. Illegal Repossessions.
Airplane in 1987 containing legal and business files.
Home/Property and Contents in 2006 also containing legal and business files and documents.

15. Physical Assaults. One attack and filed complaint with police report in Los Osos California
in 2005 and one in the City of Lancaster. Police reports were filed and obtained for both.
16. False Arrests. Experienced 7 in 1987 and more than 20 in 2005 and 2006 in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The false arrests were
charges that were all dismissed prior to court hearings.
17. False Imprisonments. Spent 7 to 10 days in Lancaster County Prison in 1987 with all
charges dismissed and again for some 60 days in 2006 with all charges dismissed. The 60 Days of
imprisonment of 2006 was triggered with a false report of missing a bail supervision meeting,
which was confirmed to be false in court; however bail was maliciously and purposefully reinstated
as secured instead of unsecured. The appropriate appeal was filed which secured my release after
some 60 days of false imprisonment. There were no charges that resulted in any convictions.
18. Psychiatric Abuses with False Suicide Allegations from Perpetrators/Stalkers. One
in 1987 resulting in a forced hospitalization for several hours by police in Stone Harbor, New
Jersey. And one again in February of 2005 resulting in police restraining me in my home and
abusing me. This one was a fraudulent and phony email sent to police by a perp. The Southern
Regional Police had to vacate after the email was proven to be a fraud.
19.

Vandalism to Property. First in 1987 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, then again in 1991;
1997-1998; and most serious in 2005 to 2010. Filed Police Reports and insurance claims, most
with the Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga, Pennsylvania and Harleysville
Insurance Company. 3 computers have been rendered inoperable since 2005 along with various
electronics equipment; dvd recorders; printers; household items; appliances; etc., Most insurance
claims have been paid. In the past years a wave of purchased items, online and in stores, were
received broken or the wrong item and all had to be returned. Some included items to secure my
property, and others included computer related items, others were household and clothing items.

20. Gas Lighting. The illegal entering of home and causing psychological duress by moving
items and or hiding items. First reported in 1998 to the Conestoga Police and continued to
present. Clothing was also manipulated and altered. The term "gas lighting" was only learned in
2010, although it was reported to police as harassment by neighbors of friends. The daily draining
of my hot tub was also used as a psychological warfare tactic and used to run up utility bills.
Numerous complaints were made to police in 2008 to 2010.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 43 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 47 of 161

21.

Thefts of Property. Not Yet Completed.

22. Vandalism to Car/Truck. Since 2005 have experienced years of gas siphoning, battery
outages, letting air out of tires, and wetting of inside of floor mats as psychological warfare tactics
by perps and stalkers. Made numerous complaints the Lancaster City Police Department.
23. Toxic Chemical Causing Running Nose. Experienced on regular basis in 2009 when in
public places. Was not in conjunction with cold/flu symptoms. Research states it is a tactic used
in organized stalking.
24. Computer Hacking. Computer Hacking complaints were filed to local authorities in the
County of Lancaster and the Cyber Crime unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2005 to
2010. Numerous complaint numbers have been secured. Complaints of cell phone hacking was
also reported in 2010. Websites and biogs were regularly hacked and sometimes taken off-line.
Electronic calenders, court documents, and financial records were often hacked causing many
problems of the years, including having to withdraw civil complaints.
25. Cyber Stalking. Most in 2005 to 2010.
Message Board, and the FBI Cyber Crime Unit.

Complaints to Microsoft legal counsel, Yahoo

26. Interference/Delay/Theft of U.S. Mails. First reported to U.S. Postmaster of mail


tampering and illegal changing of address in 1987. In 2008 to 2009 have made several more
complaints to the U.S. Postmaster Inspector General who claim to have begun investigations.
Some caused missed court hearings and other missed appointments and or meetings.
27. Electromagnetic Weapons Causing Severe Muscle Spasms/Cramps.
First
experienced in 2006 to present. One experience in 2006 was while I was in my hot tub and the
pain and cramp was so severe in my left calf muscle (you automatically bend over to rub it out,
which placed my head underwater) I had to crawl out of the hot tub before almost drowning.
28.

Electromagnetic Weapons Causing Sexual Stimulation. First experienced in 2005.

29. Forced Hospitalizations. Forced Hospitalizations in 1987 (2) one for 6 hours and one for
5 days; 2006 one for 3 days; 2009 one for several hours while in intensive care for emergency
surgery; and 2010 one for 8 days. Filed complaints to Citizens Commission for Human Rights in
1991 and 2008.
30. Manipulation and Theft of Documents. Numerous thefts and manipulation of all legal
and business documents both in paper and in electronic format have occurred since 1987.
Microfiche/Microfilming began in 1987 and other measures to secure documents have been
ongoing to present. Numerous complaints have been filed with law enforcement since 1987.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 44 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 48 of 161


Statement: I have been a Targeted Individual, TI, and Victim since 1987. In 1987 I blew the
whistle (public Allegations and Complaints to State and Federal Authorities of Fraud during merger
negotiations with British Defense Contractor Ferranti International) on an international defense
contractor named International Signal & Control, or ISC, who was selling arms (Everything from
Telemetry Systems to Cluster Bombs) to Iraq via South Africa and was convicted of a $1 Billion
dollar Fraud in 1992 by the United States Attorney and several other federal agencies. See
ABC/News 20/20 and Nightline in 1991. They were founded and headquartered in my hometown
of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I was a shareholder and was solicited by a top ISC Executives
(Convicted as a Mastermind of the Billion Dollar Fraud) to help finance some of their operations
through an affiliate called United Chem Con. ISC was a Department of Defense (DOD) Contractor
and a partner with United States Intelligence Agencies since it's beginnings in the early 1970's.
One of it's first contracts was Project X with the National Security Agency or NSA of Ft. Meade,
Maryland. Former Secretary of the Navy, Bobby Ray Inman was on the Board of Directors of ISC
and was also on the Board of Directors of Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC.
SAIC was a huge defense contractor that was the recipient of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or
DIA, program on Remote Viewing, which SAIC named Project Stargate. It was reported that
Bobby Ray Inman declined the nomination for Secretary of Defense under the first Clinton
Administration because of the ISC and Trecor scandals. In the early 1990's I was a subcontractor
on a project for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST called TIMIT.
The project developed speech
corpora for the development of computer based speech recognition systems. I was also involved
in the bidding of other Department of Defense contracts dealing with information technologies. In
1998 I was stalked and approached by an employee of the National Security Agency, or NSA in
York, Pennsylvania who said my problems were not with the NSA, but the "good ole boys". In
2005 I was detained by 2 Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA officers in a museum on a military
base in Austin, Texas and was questioned and interviewed regarding my civil actions filed in
federal court for several hours. I was released and told to stay off of all military bases. My
brother, a Family Physician in Austin Texas had to verify my travel plans and the fact that I was
staying with him prior to my release.
My father alleged he was part of U.S. Navy experiments in the 1940's and experienced
synthetic telepathy in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's as outlined in memos and documents he had
authored; and from my personal conversations with him prior to his death. Ms. Amy Fuchs of the
Disclosure Project confirmed that he was most likely given an ET experience via synthetic
telepathy. He died in 2001 in New York City of cancer. My brother was in the U.S. Air Force in the
late 1960's and I allege was a victim of the LSD experiments relating to MKULTRA in the late
1960's and a victim of murder (Suspicious Suicide with tainted medical reports) in Santa Barbara
California in 1984; Notarized Complaints were filed to the California Attorney General in 1991. He
made a declaration type statement prior to his death that he got "bad LSD" while in the U.S. Air
Force.
Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud
within ISC. As far back as the late 1980's I thought that my mind was being read, or "remotely
viewed". During the times that legal Counsel and attorneys were solicited in 1987, 1991, and
1997 Organized Stalking and Harassment and other forms of attacks experienced by Targeted
Individuals were severely increased. In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control turned into an allout assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of
directed energy devices and/or electromagnetic weapons. This assault was no coincidence in that
it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S. District Court, of CATERBONE v.
Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288.
This targeting has ruined every aspect of my life.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 45 of 276

Tues1SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 49 of 161

Some Perspectives
"The calculated and technological entry into another person's mind is an act of monumental barbarism which obliterates- perhaps with the twiddling of a dial - the history and civilization of
man's mental development. It is more than an abuse of human rights, it is the destruction of
meaning. For anyone who is forced into the hell of living with an unseen mental rapist, the effort
to stay sane is beyond the scope of tolerable endurance. The imaginative capacity of the ordinary
mind cannot encompass the horror of it. We have attempted to come to terms with the experiments of the Nazis in concentration camps. We now have the prospect of systematic control authorized by men who issue instructions through satellite communications for the destruction of
societies while they are driving new Jaguars and Mercedes, and going to the opera."
"On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive
Technology"by Carole Smith
Global Research, October 18, 2007; Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 2003.
"People have no comprehension of how lethal only one aspect (aside from the obvious of driving
the victim completely insane) of telepathy technology can be in disrupting and ruining an individual's life through the sabotaging of his/her daily activities. Everything an individual does begins
with a momentary thought. From the split second that thought is learned by the person on the
other end (telepathically) - the individual's right to privacy is not the real threat or loss. The real
lethal weapon is the advantage in disrupting or preventing the individual from accomplishing
whatever he/she is going to do before they actually do it. With a simple cell phone call or instant
message, the "Advanced Team" is in place to subvert; sabotage; manipulate; propagandize;
smear; disrupt; or even prevent the task or activity from being accomplished in any successful
manner. The perps are skilled at creating scenarios that are covertly arranged to simulate everyday occurrences to make the victim at fault for the loss or failure. Imagine the consequences
when these activities have legal and financial implications. With telepathy technology the need for
tracking and surveillance technology is greatly diminished and may even become obsolete. This is
not merely "Mind Invasive" Technology, as Carole Smith so eloquently wrote - this is "LIFE Invasive" Technology". Say Goodbye to any true sense of capitalism and free enterprise in the not to
distant future - unless of course someone stops these illegal and disastrous technology transfers
and leaks".
Stan J, Caterbone

Organized or Gang Stalking


"A system of organized psychological terror tactics used against a person who has become an enemy of an individual or a government. Subtle but effective techniques of stalking by multiple individuals and psychological intimidation and manipulation are used to slowly but surely drive the
target to make complaints to authorities who will see the complaints as bogus because of the
methods used against the target. As a result, the target gets labeled as mentally ill.
There are as many stalking tactics as there are targets as the multistalkers will tailor the stalking
to the individuals habits and individual personality. Some common examples or organized stalking
are: following the target on foot, by car and public transportation, crowding the target's space in a
public place, murmuring insults under the breath so only the target can hear, sitting in the car
outside the target's residence, starting "fights" in public with the target, doing "skits" on the
street which involves information only the target should know but has been found out via surveillance of the target, stealing and vandalism of the target's possessions."
Organized Stalking Website
"Organized Stalking is a form of terrorism used against an individual in a malicious attempt to
reduce the quality of a person's life so they will: have a nervous break-down, become incarcerated, institutionalized, experience constant mental, emotional, or physical pain, become homeless, and/or commit suicide. This is done using well-orchestrated accusations, lies, rumors, bogus
investigations, setups, framings, intimidation, overt or covert threats, vandalism, thefts, sabotage, torture, humiliation, emotional terror and general harassment. It is a "ganging up" by members of the community who follow an organizer and participate in a systematic "terrorizing" of an
individual." Mark M. Rich
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 46 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 50 of 161


The acts described above violate many laws aimed at protecting Americans. Some of these laws
include but are not limited to the following:
10 USC 921, Article 121 -- Larceny and wrongful appropriation
10 USC 920A, Article 120a -- Stalking
18 2340 USC -- Torture
18 USC 241 -- Conspiracy against rights of sovereign, free, God created, spirit and soul
beings
18 USC 213 -- Illegal Surreptitious entry
18 USC 242 -- Deprivation of rights under color of law
18 USC 35 -- Imparting or conveying false information
18 USC 1117 -- Conspiracy to Murder
18 USC 1111 -- Murder
18 USC 1905 -- Disclosure of information generally
42 USC 1983 -- Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 USC 1985 -- Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
31 USC 5328 -- Whistleblower protections
18 USC 1512 -- Engaging in misleading conduct
18 USC 1503 -- Intimidating a witness/victim
18 USC 1512 -- Tampering with a witness/victim
18 USC 1513 -- Retaliation against a witness/victim
18 USC 1510 -- Obstructing a criminal investigation, conflict of interest roles in
government
18 USC 1509 -- Impeding due exercise of rights by attempting to prevent, obstruct,
impede and Interfere with same
18 USC 1622 -- Subordination of perjury by procuring another to commit perjury
(Optional) I have attached a personal message _ _ _ (check).

AFFIRMATION
I affirm that the statements in this Affidavit concerning my torture and the results of
that torture are true and correct. I further affirm that those statements are based on
my own direct knowledge, personal experience, research, and known and published
historical fact.
Affiant (signature)

St:zut,,

/ ~~;u,

Name (print): __s_ta_n_J_._ca_t_er_b_on_e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __


Date: __J_u_ne_19_,_2_01_s_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
State of ___P_e_n_ns_y_lv_a_ni_a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ County of
Lancaster

Sworn before me this _ _1_9 _

day of __J_u_ne_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,

_ _ _S_ta_n_J_._C_at_e_rb_o_ne_-_l_w_a_s_a_n_ot_ary_.__fr_om_'9_4_-'9_8_,

Notary Public Exp. :

20_1_s

Don't Know When

Sta~al:
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance. All rights reserved. Copyright 2010 (This is an amended
form of the original Affidavit of September 2010 from Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance.)

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P_age 47 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 51 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 48 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 52 of 161

FIELD OF

D~EAMS

11

THIS STORY FIRST STARTED IN 1957


Video came in 1973 and Audio in 1984 and before that it was
sort of psychic with felt ~mpressions and today a Human Radio.
The same following information was given to the Doctor for
searching the internet and continues to be worth $1000.00.
Sam Caterbone
VIDEO
How can the eye project the same image on any surface and it
be a independent intellegent entity.
This eye projection exists every conscious moment with or
without my awareness.
I cannot accept the brain or mind to be responsible.
EYE PROJECTION IMAGE
Its own mobility of movement within the space of sight
independent of my eye control.
Two female facial images larger then a silver dollar on any wall
who simulate a computer orgin model with each having their
own personality.
A eye projection in vivid color that is lively and simulates
being of a computer control orgin.
For communication the eye projection uses a coded system of
colors and numbers.
EYE PROJECTION COMMUNICATION
The total eye projection is constanly flashing with dots in
color at a speed only a computer mind can interpert.
When directed to myself the dots appear so I can interpert.
The facial parts are used thru dots and facial expressions.
The clock posistions sometimes with hands are used for numbers
and time.
The two facial images are side by side and one is smaller and
can direct themselves to look up, down, to the side and
facing each other.
AUDIO
Male and female people talking in a audio pipeline at 3 locations
Each location has its own voice ID.
They use my eyes, my ears and talk about everything I know and
whereever I go and do it all better then I.
Audio sees Video and Video hears Audio.
Apartment 309, the mailing list and the envirement other then
309 is their conversation with TV and the local paper.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P~ge

THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 35 of41

49 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016


06/10/2007

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 53 of 161

INTEGRITY
This writing with the dateline September 1996
intends to focus on integrity, my integrity and allso your
integrity. Your lack of interest is obvious and I would say
this is the nineties and thi.s type of story doe-s not jell
regardless of value. Then again the investigative value
associated to the Extraterrestrial phenominon is a fact the
Media does concur with. Looking back at when this hi-profile
mailing list started in July 1994 and expanded to a final count
of fifty does suggest something. Whatever those conclusions
I can only imagine. However for the value contained in this
story this mailing list is most proper. Allso adding that I
think I am the most advanced in the phenomena of Extraterrestrial
information. Saying this because I am a legitimate and
scientific valid Human Radio. A Human Radio that operates in
the micro-range of biological radio frequency communication
that is both audio and video. A technology situation that is
not known to this World. My confidence of this value allows
this mailing situation to be taken one step further. Therefore
to encourage incentive to challenge this break-thru story a
special account of one thousand dollars has been opened with
the Core States Meridian Bank (717)569-8731. Showing I am
dead serious in being equal to the contemporary rational of
Aatronomers using radio telescopes to investigate the
Exraterrestrial. Finally a name and number will allow a phone
call at my expense to continue this writing on Integrity.
Remember the challenge $1000.00 to debunk my direct communication
with the Extraterrestrial that is both audio and viaeo. These
Extraterrestrials are people who are at a specific place
with technology.
Sam Caterbone
Dr.Taylor:
If you and your
of my Audio and
is recorded and
wrong I promise

colleagues can find a comparable Case History


Video situation anywhere on the Internet that
not hear-say and would prove the above hi-lite
to pay one-thousand dollars.
~~

,,--: .
/[I r-{K-rf~
c_, {l,,.?Y(_.7' --~

Su ~sc.~d:>t.d. ._ /tt+.I.,.~ be.itrt..


< ~1:.s 't ~ d.:t or ou.Jw/ ''qt

fJ.J

NOTARIAL SEAL
Joanne 8. Mav. Notarv Pub1ic
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.
Page 50 of 276
My Co'11miss1on Exp1 - J e 1997
('\' '(.

"'t"\ l.S

THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016


06/10/2007

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 54 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 51 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 55 of 161

AdvancedMedia Group, Ltd.


An JJ~fomialiotl Tiu:hmicgle Compan11

October 23 .t i:g9fl

calirornia state Attorney General's Off.ice

sacrentn, Calif>mia
Jte:

~e;xti>Qtie,, Samuel A ..

ll.133:oag

(;lii't.llta~ ID),

Deceased

Dear Sirs:
As per the enQl.oseU. dea:tb <;iertifiaate of December 25, 1984, which
states in ite;a. J:)5A . **~n4er...~nv~stigatlon .f l am he~~by fonially

and officially requesting: infor.;uition a:s t:o the findings of that


inve,atitflation.

Please l,Pldm=stand, tbat. in 'the :i,;_pring of 1~95 1 :t bad personally


vis.itad tbe 'C~~y J>.t Santa Bat'bara.'s PUblic GUard1an O:ff1e ror
the abaye inf-Oraa~'!on, howevet" they would did not provide any

ad<Utiobal inf"<>t:JDation.

For the reco~~ on December 27th, 1984, I bad received a phone call

f.rom. Charles. . sn:_yder Jr. I the mortician, upon receiving and


examining the body of the deceased, wbich arrived from Santa
Barbara., California~
.raised some concerns into an apparent discrepancy with
the .cause of death., as stated by the coroner_, John Carpenter.. Mr.
carpenter certified that the cause of death was "asphyxiation;

Mr. s.nyder

ligatu:@ . strangula-j;:.i$m;
In.vest!qati.-qn" ..

bisli<le-=bt1ng self with

belt;

;under

Ml" snyder .stat.ad to, in similar words, "Stan~ l have a problem,


the report ~ys that your brother hlll1g himself, yet there are no
11\arld.ngfii on y.our bi-others neck.,. tbQre ,sho\tld be s()i:lte ki.t\d of marks
from the bruise_s, there is a1ways s.ome kind of markings in hanging,,
r oa:nt rind any lllal"ks*.

I had: intilnate QisQUSsions with attorney Joseph Roda, of Lancaster,


pertaining to these matters.
Most importantl.y, while visitbiq with my brother in Santa Barbara,
gali.fomia; .he had informed me that be was qiven ~d LSD" while

in the .sexvi.ce,. and that was the reason fol: his mental condition.
l have alwavs known that he had often. times experienced
8 .flashbac.kstt11 and in that conversation. :iiay brother con.finned,, and
admitted that he often t:bies eXPerienc~ "flashbacks"..
And
flashback&" are medically proven to be a charactel:'istic of LSD

users ..

CA"fERBO-NE. v: -u~nited States of America, et.al.

Lancaster. PA 17601

P_age 52 of 276

TuescSSunday July

ff,"2016#0

FAX 717 3!12 7897

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 56 of 161

calif'orn!a state Attorney General,

October 23, 1991,

Page 2

1-.J.ight of the recent inf.omation concerning a.llegec1 "experimental


dr\1.g pro9ratAS adminifftered bt eertain bran.obes of the United States
Xi.l.itary, and th use of t:SD in the respective progrus, an.d my
int?ate conversations concerning ;p with my brother, I have
serious questions regardinq my brother"s d~ath.

Especially in regards to the alleged suicide, wb.ich as I have been


told J;>y :medical. professionals 1 is i~pO$Sible without any marking
on the victim's nac!k, if ind.eed asphyxiation by strangulation is
the cause of death.

so that r may J:Jring a conclusion to these issues, I would e.xpect


information regarding the "Investigationtt, apparently conducted by
Coroner Kenneth carpenter, be submitted to me in a timely fashion.
I would think that I, as

a~ltit&te~b1g:

a.11 matters reqardlnq my

brotherts death, be privilege to this lnfol:Jllat:ion ..

:tncidently.,, I' have-had. numerous::fabricated al1eqations of suicide,


Whidh have aiways been supported by the fact: that my brother
all~qedl.y colimitt.ed suicide, and I would 1ike this issue either
denied Qr eonfirtaed. lt has caused me a great deal of emotional
duressT especially when tme alle~t.io:ns of my suicide were proven
to be f.abrlca.ted.
l'.

may be reached at;

Stan J. Caterbone

615 Wyneroft Lane f 2


17603
(711) 392-3682 Phone
(717) 392-5032 Fax

Lancaster, PA

I appreciate
matters.

you~

immediate cooperation into these sensitive

Sincerely,

-~

erbone
Enclosqres

cc:

County of Santa Barbara,. Publ.ic Guardian Office


senator Bill Bradley I New Jersey
Charles S:nyder, Jr., Snyder Funeral Home
Congressman Robert Walker, Pennsylvania

Notary:

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TOBFOREMETHIS

DAY RF

lJCT l? 3 t99t . . .

~-m

mWIDf :; .

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

,!~1:ia_ :!"arv

11
. NIOf!M
PuhlJa
Page 53 of 276 itv. linca.~ 1

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016


My CommiSliiion Apire$ Aug. ?-- 1993

- l

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 57 of 161

l!L.~.b.! ~f!t~1;;~~.....2~~-~l!~ ...s;~qf?:~!~~~~=-' '

spJ,,a.of

t?;l@-t@.~011..AQ.d ..J.P.J;~~&...9.f......,... .

61\140-EL
,_- ., ANTHON'
. . . ,. . . . . . . . . .,.. CATE1$0N!,
... . . . .

---~#

~"'

.............

...._~

...- ........

~-~~-.-~,

TD

... - .....

ii;~--

,....,..,..;~~- -+.;-t-r,.~

Conse.rv"4itee.
..__ ,..,. .._. ................

"".'~"'&---~""""!"~;~........._,.,,,,

By....._.,.,...~.:.-~~'*"'""'""',.;.-.,,Fi.a..'.,,!*f"'-~"""""..

137839.
No."..._.,_......._..,.,.,.._.....,

"li.lol. .....

.. ...u.1..U"!',,.,..,, ...

~........ ,.._"t'' .... 1.

Clerk

l)(!pU\)"

'

.+tt...,. _ _ _ _ ,.. ....... ii

CITATJON

'!!~~ ... -

P.EO~ OJ'~ ~TEOF ~RN!Ai,

T~.....-_._.._._.,,...,__,___..~;:;Mtm.;J.ti..Al!~!IPNY~.,~?;~~9.!!~...~..........,,_............,~............................ .

YOU ABE HEREBY ClT'ED to be &hd appear in the Superior Co\U't of the$tate of C.lifo~ in and
for the County of &urta Barba.rat t the Courttoo.m

the,:~

at UwJ. Court Ha~

~ ~~ :CJty

lJL......,._

Santa
Barbara .. . . . . .... h-u.._ -*b .._:..,;. "D,._.s-- P -# 1'."..u ..;_1.. ....... ft'.;.:.~ ,,,_ n.- 2nd
......,--~~_;; ,- __ -'.J.~_.r.r-.r_~ 1...-~-----~~~.,- Vlr~~1~~ 'Y~ ~ ~''-~ ~~..-~y,. "'~--~~..
,..::..

-~~.<.;~

<

da7 of...li.9.t.emhs+.:. ....~

.. _,, ~-

fh,.f~..o'clock.-A.:...M., of tMC day' Ulen and there to show

cause. il ~you haW wlJ1...tlllt ;MPRoin~-~s~x~~: 9f.-X.QW:...J?.fil"..9!L


!i.nc1...~.s~~~-i....Jl,Q:t..):~ ..~.d...lf~.thfil .JUJ;fit~~~.~QltUJU:Jlices,
9.JZ...GID~...J2tller Dit.aQlLR.e:.SQD.......,SbQUld .no.t..J2~oi.nte4...C.O~iaJ;.p~f
~JU:..RB:iQn,,,

.and ..w~...t.b~ .P.ubl..ic.. ~a.mi.a.n_af...sa.n.ta._a.arhara

some .cther...4\1.itaplel'.Olll;,

com11:1

or...

,pe,r5an4....ahQ.uld not he .J:eappoi n.ted.. .conserxat:ax: ...at.-

ut&te ,

HOWARD C. MENZ~ County Cierk

it M. MllKEB

..----------Deput)r Clerk.

BJ----~-----

CL-U-Utsv. V/o

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

P.age 54 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 58 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 55 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 59 of 161


scaterbone@live.com
https://www.scribd.com/stanSj.Scaterbone

Stan J, Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717)669-2163

PRESS RELEASE
Saturday, .July 4, 2015
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Advanced Media Group and Stan J. Caterbone Proposed ORGANIZED
STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of
Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray.

The draft legislation is the work of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been
working on helping victims of these horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to
individuals who are being harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as
protections to keep individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by
electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons.
Stan J. Caterbone has been a victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and
direct energy weapons since 2005. He has also been telepathic since 2005. Stan J. Caterbone will
help introduce measures that also pertain to remote viewing; mental telepathy and synthetic
telepathy in more detail. Personal accounts of his pain and torture are also filed in various United
States federal and state courts.
We are urging you to contact your local representatives and support our efforts to pass this
legislation. Below you will find the listings of Pennsylvania State Representatives.

For More Information Please Contact Us At: scaterbone@live.com and visit our library of
documents at https: //www.scribd.com/stanSj.Scaterbone

The draft of the legislation can be found on the following page:

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 56 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document


Filed 07/19/16
Page
60 Court
of 161
Case 15
No. ~~-08-13373
Lan~aster
C~unty
of Common Pleay ._

~ ~

;_ MICHAEL STUR.IRMAN
HOUSE MAJORITY POLICY COMMITTEE

8".

(I

COMMITTEES

120 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING

RULES

P.O. BOX 202098 .


HARRISBURG, PENNSYl.VANIA 17120-2098
PHONE: (117) 787-3555
FAX: (117) 705-1923

CAPITOL PRESERVATION

CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION

lliE GRIEST BUILDING


8 NORTH QUEEN STREET

~se nf ~esenfatiues

SUITE 1100
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17603

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHONE: (717) 295-3157


FAX: (717) 295-7818

HARRISBURG

Stan I. Catemone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Dear Mr. Caterbone:..

my

staff.

Thank you for taking the tite to m~ with


office
It is nice to see your activism
in our local comrnw;tlty and I appreciate you making your voice known. Unfortunateiy ~
have decided not to support your bill. I d9 not think this is s~~ething that I can get
behind at this time. I do realize that you have done a lot of res.earch and a lot of hard

w0,rk.has g~ne into making your .case:. However,' it is iinp0rtant that~~ ~ citizens make
sure to keep our. government in check and one way to do it Is through peaceful activism
and ed~cation.. Respectfully the legislation that you have presented to me is not

so.methi_ng I can agrcii with at this time.


I would like to commend your organization for the important contribution it makes to our .
community, and hope that we can fin~ some com.Ilion ground on many of~e issues that
we face and will face in the future.

Sincerely,

p 111.to

s~

Rep. Mike Sturla


Majority Policy Chairman
96tfi District

PMS:ntb

nitro'0 r professional
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.
Adyanced Media Group

Page 57 of 276
.R.aae 1698 of 2571

I;!} PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

TuescSSunday July 17,

2016c~:...'11I

September 30, 2009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 61 of 161

Capitol Office
State Capitol
Jefferson City Mo.
573-751-0246

District Office
Second Street
King City Mo.
660-535-6664

May 21, 2009


To Whom It May Concern,

This letter is to ask for your help for the many constituents in our country who are being affected unjustly
by electronic weapons torture and covert harassment groups. Serious privacy rights violation and physical
injuries have been caused by the activities of these groups and their use of so-called non-lethal weapons on
men, women, and even children.
I am asking you to play a role in helping these victims and also stopping the massive movement in the use
ofVeri-chip and RFID technologies in tracking Americans.
Long before Veri-chip was known we were testing these devices on Americans, many without their
knowledge or consent.
There are new revelations of the cancer risk besides the privacy and human rights problems with the use of
Veri-chip and RF signals.
I am asking for your help in stopping these abuses and aiding those already affected.

Sincerely,
Rep. Jim Guest

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 58 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 62 of 161

COMES NOWi. Stanlev J,. Caterbon!f!J, herein

known

as the AFAAm ap pea rmg pro

s.e

a.nd APPELLANT in U.S.C.A Case No~ 15~3400~ ls ~licfenit o:f 1.2510 Fremont Street,

Lancaster, County of Lancster, state uf Pen:nsyl:vanla and who makes thJs his.
:statement i'lnd Genef.11L Affi.davit upo,11 oath and: affirmation of' betief and personal
knowLedge that the foll<>wtnv matters, facts. and thin~ set forth are true and coITect t.o the
.1

best of his knowledge;

The documeN1t titlle-d the

~Advan;Ced

f"'1ed!fia Gn1Uf!i Press

Relea~

re StaUdng

Legls~atDon

With Executive Summary Nt.Jvember 11, 2:~15"" c,cf!ltaJ1nin,g1 41 pages ls a true and .aiuthentrc

document with tn.re and it:orrect affida\ii'ts. The $temenitiS aod t:llei:;:h:irations contal:n.ed lrn the
affida:vits a:i the}t pertain to the AlfFIA~ iii re hIs swom testkn ony to the !best of his
knowledge~ The AFFJANT dtd prepare ai tl:st rJf 1perscn'.ls who. hav.@ lcl.enti'fled thernse~ves as
i
st.rch during relepathf.c c:001mu:nlUI:tlo.ns tl!t1i1?lng
the: past Hl years"' l:r; or about the year 2010.
'
The tlst. was written on ,l1J! yellow legal pad and itiras nt>t been located Of fOIJVld. It ts the belief
of the AFFIANT that the list was stoten or reloieated to ai ptace wttere it wut not tJ.e found.
W~thout spending. too much tirnl!, the AFf!Alf',ff wnt: list: !!IOml!' ,g:f those p...son1s; Sheryl
Crow, Jenifer Anlston,, Erfn Burirr:etter Agents of the Ceninl In:tetlir;gence Agency (3 or 4), ain
1

Officer of

the National s.ecuritv

black, femafes (2 or 3),

Ag~m;y, or NSA (65 and was retiring

nmotnv Mevtegh

Linda Davis Vega*

to Chesapeake Bay),

va.,ane Plume, female Umcaster

Otv Pntrce Ofrlcert Federal Agent, and h.ancHe.rs of the program. The AFFIANT bas made a
relentless effort to identity and confirm SllJCh persons... however after conducting reset9rch and

Usteoing to other quatffled experts, the AFFIANT no


or dis.cJedit the

long.er believes it is p\>sslbfe to

Identify

persons -on tile other side of tiatepathic communtcations

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 59 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 63 of 161

Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons Bill

Section 1. Short Title


This bill may be cited as the "Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons
Bill"
Section 2. Findings and Purpose
A) Findings

1) The constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their person. The Declaration
of Independence asserts as self-evident that all men have certain inalienable rights and that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2) As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928, "the framers of the Constitution sought
"to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations." It is for
this reason that they established, as against the government, the right to be let alone as "the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
3) The first principle of the Nuremberg Code states that with respect to human research, the
voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The Nuremberg Code further
asserts that such consent must be competent, informed, and comprehending.
4)There are current regulations implementing the obligations of the United States to adhere to
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane or
Degrading Treatment including all terms that are Subject to any reservations, understandings,
declarations, and provisions contained in the United States Senate resolution of ratification of the
Convention.
B) Purpose
To establish regulations and penalties for those who use any type of electronic frequency devices,
directed energy devices, implants, surveillance technology, and directed energy weapon to
purposefully cause any of the following: stalking, harassing, mental or physical harm, injury,
harmful surveillance, torture, diseases, and death to any United States citizen.
Section 3. Organized Stalking
If two or more persons willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or willfully and maliciously
harass another person and who make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in
reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, they are guilty of
the crime of organized stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one
year, or by not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment,
or by imprisonment in a federal prison.
If two or more persons violate subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order,
injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a)
against the same party, they shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or four years.

For the purposes of this section, "harass" means engages in a knowing and willful course of
conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the
person, or damages his personal property or possessions and that serves no legitimate purpose. *

**
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 60 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 64 of 161


For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means two or more acts occurring over a
period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected
activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that
performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern
of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and
conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear
for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, or personal property or possessions and
made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target
of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family or personal
property or possessions. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually
carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to
prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the
meaning of "credible threat."
For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic
telepathy devices.
The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any
contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the
intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of
the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his
or her immediate family.
For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, parent, child, any person
related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly
resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
Section 4. Punishment for threats
Any person or persons who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great
bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in
writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if
there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in
which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the
person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and
thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or
her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in a federal prison not to exceed
one year..

For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or
not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any
other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly
resided in the household.
"Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones,
computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices
Obscene, threatening or annoying communication
(a) Every person or persons who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes constant contact by
means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other
person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the
person or any member of his or her family, or any property or personal possessions is guilty of a
misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made
in good faith.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 61 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 65 of 161

(b) Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by
means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her
residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic
contact, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or
electronic contacts made in good faith.
(c)
Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by
means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her
place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a federal prison for not more than one year, or by both
that fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies only if one or both of the following
circumstances exist:
(1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court order, or any
combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.
(2) The person or persons makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of
an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of
work, totaling more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from
making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or electronic
contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former
spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had a
dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement relationship.
(d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed where
the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic
communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed
when the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the
recipient.
(e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a
telephone call requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a), (b),
or (c) upon receiving the return call.
(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person
or persons convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the
person participate in counseling.
(g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not
limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or
synthetic telepathy devices.

Section 5. Assault and battery with an electronic or directed energy weapon


Any person or persons who in the course of organized stalking and harassment, commits an assault
upon the person of another with an unauthorized directed energy weapon shall be punished by
imprisonment in a federal prison for two, three, or four years or by a fine not exceeding ten
thousand dollars ($10,000).
For the purposes of this section the term directed energy weapon is defined as any device that
directs a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams,
electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF)
energy radiation) against a person or any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means of
inflicting death or injury; or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health,
Page 62 of 276
Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 66 of 161


mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person via land-based, sea-based, or
space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies
directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood
management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or by expelling chemical or biological
agents in the vicinity of a person.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 63 of 276

Tues1SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 67 of 161

Richmond council passes resolution


supporting ban on space-based
weapons

~
9 comments
The Richmond City Council passed a resolution Tuesday supporting a ban on space-based
weapons after a lengthy discussion over whether individuals are being psychologically
and physically harmed by exotic government-patented attacks from high in the sky.
Councilmember Jovanka Beckles, a member of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA),
introduced the resolution, saying it begins to address concerns of a Richmond resident
who claims she's been targeted by "remote transmission" from space-based weaponry.
Others claiming to have suffered physical and psychological attacks traveled from around
the country to speak at Tuesday's council meeting. One speaker claimed to have been
zapped multiple times right before his testimony at council.
The resolution supports the Space Preservation Act and Space Preservation Treaty
permanently banning "space-based weapons," even though the legislation first introduced
by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2001 has never gained traction in Congress. It appears that
Richmond is the first municipality in the U.S. to take up this lofty issue in more than a
decade. In 2002, the City of Berkeley passed a similar resolution supporting the ban.
Conspiracy theorists believe the resolution is a step toward ensuring secret weaponry
such as chemtrails, which are trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft that supposedly
emit a chemical or biological agent, can no longer target unwitting citizens. For RPA
members on the council, the resolution is also an anti-war initiative.
RPA members on council, Gayle Mclaughlin and Eduardo Martinez, also voted in favor of
the resolution. Vice Mayor Jael Myrick and Councilmember Nat Bates were the final two
yes votes, although Bates claimed he was confused by the discussion.
"I'm going to support the resolution for the simple reason that we have voted on a lot of

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 64 of 276

TuescSSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 68 of 161

dumb ideas," Bates said.


Mayor Tom Butt voted no, saying he believes the conspiracy theory behind space-based
weapons is above the heads of city leaders and has taken time away from more pressing
city matters such as the budget deficit, potholes, and crime. Butt has complained in the
past about the RPA attempting to hijack council sessions to push a radical agenda
regardless of whether the issues are important to Richmond residents.
The mayor also pointed to a signed 1967 treaty banning the militarization of space.
The other dissenting vote came from Councilmember Vinay Pimple, who pointed out that
supporting a limitation on the ability of the U.S. to defend against attacks from longrange missiles might not be wise.
Pimple disputed what he called "knee-jerk" reactions from RPA members who depicted
President Ronald Reagan's proposed space-based anti-missile program of 1983, known as
the "Star Wars" initiative, as inherently evil. The Cold War initiative was intended to
defend against USSR missiles during the Cold War and was shelved not for the project's
moral ambiguity but its perceived effectiveness, Pimple said.
The idea behind Star Wars, Pimple said, "is you can knock out someone's weapons long
before they enter your air space. The U.S. used Patriot missiles to knock out Iraqi Scuds
targeting Israel and Saudi Arabia, he added.
RPA members, however, argued that this issue is not just about war but about the
individuals in the U.S. who believe governments are using futuristic weapons in space for
the purpose of inflicting pain and mind control. Martinez argued that they may very well
be telling the truth. He recalled a science fiction novel he wrote a paper on during college
that predicted truths 20 years in advance.
"It's easy for me to see that things which are wrong can happen because we have the
wrong mindset," Martinez said.
Myrick said he supported the resolution because he doesn't support war.
"The weaponization of space ... is something I think is extremely immoral and we should
not be as a nation engaging in," Myrick said. "Maybe some wars are unavoidable, that
may be true. But whatever we can do to get our country away from that mindset.. ... that's
why I support this resolution."
Amy Lee Anderson, a "targeted individual" who brought the matter to Beckles' attention,
was thankful that the council took up the issue.
"No where in the United States, no targeted individual can get this support," Anderson
said. "We just needed one person, one city. Because of that, you all our heroes. We are
dying within because the technology is so sophisticated. It's hard for someone who has
no experience to fathom it, it's so sophisticated."

Related posts:

1. Richmond councilmember pushes city resolution banning 'exotic' space-based


weapons
2. Dirty bomb drill in Richmond alarms conspiracy theorists. including Alex Jones
Comments

1. C'mon Richmond Standard .... your bias is showing!


CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 65 of 276

Tues<SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 69 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 66 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 70 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1of41

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP


ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, LTD.,

&.
STAN J. CATERBONE
Federal Whistleblower (Federal False Claims Act Violation in 1987 re ISC)
Targeted Individual of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
copyright 2009

"Ya know what, I am beginning to analyze this War on Terror and am having difficulty understanding
it all. To me the most effective fundamental fight against Extreme Terrorism is to reduce the motive; or the
Hatred Against America. No one seems to talk about that subject. How do we reduce that Hatred Towards
America and the West?
See, from my perspective, my situation is very disturbing. I mean we have the United States Torturing Me, a
U.S. Citizen for no good or valid reason. I have warned EVERYONE about using my situation to feed this
HATRED towards America.
Low and behold a week or so ago I have had several Muslims sign up as Followers to my
www.scribd.com/amqroup01 online webspace, which I use to post documents. The following being the most
prominent !KWAN Scope, "The Largest Muslim Brotherhood's Scope on the Web":
http: mkhwanscope. netlmajn/
There have also been several Muslim individuals who signed up as followers around the same time, a week
or so ago. They have also signed up as followers on my www.twitter.com/StanCaterbone webspace.
You must understand, I am a VERY Patriotic Person and live a very patriotic life - I believe in the
U.S. Constitution and Our Founding Father's vision for America; I support Our Military and our
Troops; I believe in the Rule of Law; I am a Practicing Catholic, and have been my whole life; I
Believe in the TRUTH; I believe in Right v. Wrong; Good v. Evil; and finally I believe in God. What
do you believe in?"
Posted on the Yahoo Fulton Bank Stock Message Board, January 7, 2010

Date Updated:

October 10, 2015

Date Completed:
Date Initiated:

July 28, 2009


July 8, 2009

Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
scaterbone@live.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 67 of 276

Tues1SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 71 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 41

STATEMENT
Statement Date
July 15, 2016
Customer ID:

0021

Advanced Media Group


1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
United States Department of Defense
Ash Carter

Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
cc: President Barrach Obama and Family

Date Due

Date

Reference

Description

Balance

Amount

Original Invoice to Robert M. Gates, Then Secretary


of Defense
01/1/2010

01/1/2010

23 Years of Service of unwitting experimentation


under U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
for the development and deployment
of U.S. Military weapons and systems and further
captivity in U.S. Sponsored Torture Program including
systematic implementation of obstruction of justice
and COINTELPRO-LIKE tactis.
$100,000.00 per Year 1

$2,300,000.00

See attached:
Federal Whistleblower and Targeted Individual of U.S Sponsored Mind
Control
Executive Summary, September 13, 2009 With Ground Zero
See Supporting Documentation by Visiting:

1. Memo to Secretary Robert Gates of April 7. 2009


2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/24371616/Submjssion-to-U-S-Department-of-Defense-WebsiteRe-U-S-Secreta ry-of-Defense-Robert-Gates-Apri I- 7- 2009

3. ISC & Pakistan Missie Project Called Khyber-Pass


4. http://www. scribd. com/doc/24366542/ISC-and-the-Pa kista n-Missle-Dea ls-of-1986-Ca lled5.

The-Khyber-Pass-Project
CIA Torture Investigations - EIT Program & SERE and U.S. Sponsored Mind Control by Stan J.
Caterbone. October 2. 2009 Used as Exhibit in Human Rights Complaint to U.N. Council for Human
Rights
6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/23900626/CIA-Torture-Inyestigatjons-EIT-Program-SERE-and-US-Sponsored-Mind-Control-by-Stan-Caterbone-October-2-2009

02/1/2010

02/1/2010

Finance Charge

19,166.66

$2,300,019.66

1 Fee for service does not include interest, penalties, or any damages to health and welfare of Stanley J.
Caterbone.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 68 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 72 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 41

TOTAL $2,300,019.66

07/15/2016

07/15/2016

30 Years of Service of unwitting experimentation


under U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
for the development and deployment
of U.S. Military weapons and systems and further
captivity in U.S. Sponsored Torture Program including
systematic implementation of obstruction of justice
and COINTELPRO-LIKE tactics.
$3,000,000.00
Death of 3 Family Members
Father, Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr.
Brother, Samuel A. Caterbone
Brother, Thomas P. Caterbone

$30,000,000.00
Change.Org Policy and Procedures Liability Valuations of March 17, 2016 (As Mailed to President Barrack
Obama via USPS Priority Mail9410803699300077975425 Your item was delivered at 4:45 am on April 4,
2016 in WASHINGTON, DC 20500 to 20500 WH PU. The item was signed for by M NALDO. :

The United States would provide $100,000 per year for documented Targeted
Individuals, payable in the form of an annuity with survivor benefits.
The United States would provide a $10 Million Lump Sum for Suspicious or Accidental
Death.
The United States would provide Medical Benefits for life.
The United States would provide an extra layer of security by law enforcement for persons,
property, identity, and cybersecurity of targeted individuals.
The United States newly formed U.S. Task Force for Targeted Individuals would take a
random sampling of 200 Targeted Individuals Cases Including Affidavits and
Documentation. They would then develop a baseline for evidence and required
documentation.
Settlement is fair considering the following case law:
Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peephole Video Lawsuit
1. Andrews sought $75 million from the owner of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt
University, where she was staying in 2008 when the incident occurred, and Michael
David Barrett, the stalker who booked hotel rooms next to her in Nashville and
Columbus, Ohio, and secretly recorded (via a peephole) and released videos of her
naked. Barrett, whom the jury found to be 51 % at fault, has to pay more than $28
million. Nashville Marriott owner West End Hotel Partners and former operator Windsor
Capital Group, which were found to be 49% at fault, have to pay more than $26 million.

TOTAL DUE:

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

$33,000,000.00

Page 69 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=9410803699300 ...

USPS.com - USPS Tracking

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 73 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 41

English

USPS Mobile

Customer Service

'HI, STAN

if!JUSPS.COM"

Q
Customer Service

USPS Tracking

>

Have questions? We're here to help.

Get Easy Tracking Updates ,


Sign up for My USPS.

Tracking Number: 9410803699300077975425

ln-Trnnsit
Expected Delivery Day: Friday, March 25, 2016 !

Product & Tracking Information


Postal Product:

Features:

Priority Mail 2-Day

Signature Confirmation

Available Actions
Proof of Delivery

Up to $50 insurance included

Restrictions. Apply f
Text Updates

March 24, 2016, 3:50 pm

Arrived at USPS
Destination Facility

Email Updates

CAPITOL
HEIGHTS, MD 20790

Your item arrived at our CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20790destination1ac1ltty on March 24, 2016 al 3:50
pm. The item 1s currently in transit to the dest1nat1on.

March 23, 2016, 9:41 pm

Arrived at USPS Origin


Facility

LANCASTER, PA 17604

March 23, 2016 , 8:26 pm

Accepted at USPS Origin


Facility

LANCASTER, PA 17603

March 22, 2016

Pre-Shipment Info Sent to


USPS

Track Another Package

Manage Incoming Packages

Tracking (or receipt) number

Track all your packages from a dashboard.


No tracking numbers necessary.

Sign up for My USPS

>

iiiUSPS.COM'
HELPRIL LINKS

ON ABOU'CUSPS.COM

OllfER USPS SITES

LEGAL INFORMATION

Contact Us

About USPS Home

Business Customer Gateway

Privacy Policy

Site Index

Newsroom

Postal Inspectors

Terms of Use

FAQs

USPS Service Updates

Inspector General

FOIA

Forms & Publications

Postal Explorer

No FEAR Act EEO Data

Government Services

National Postal Museum


Resources for Developers

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.


1 of2

Page 70 of 276

Search or Enter a Tracking Number

SSunday July 17, 2016


3/24/2016 4:46 PM

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 74 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document Aavaflij~ r0e~Mui:P,~jj!g:l.loecember 24, 2009
STATEMENT
Statement Date
January 1, 2010
Customer ID:

0021

Advanced Media Group


1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
United States Department of Defense
Dr. Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000

Description

Amount

Date

pate Due

Re(erence

01/1/2010

01/1/2010

23 Years of Service of unwitting experimentation


under U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
for the development and deployment
of U.S. Military weapons and systems
$100,000.00 per Year1

See attached:

Advanced Media Group


Smee 1989

www.scribd.com
Search: Stan caterbone
Management Consulting Services
Digital Technologies
.
, Information & Communications Technologies
Media & Entertainment Projects
Victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
Downtown Lancaster Revitalization
Movant for Lisa Michelle Lambert

Balance

$2,300,000.00

1. Lancaster Newspapers "Guess Who Came to


The Wedding" by John Rutter May 3, 2009
2. U.S. District Eastern District of Pennsylvania Civil
Docket For Case No. #:f:l4-cv-09559 Habeus
Corpus Petition for Lisa Michelle Lambert
3. For Documentation online visit my LIBRARY at
https://www.scribd.com/stan5j.5caterbone

Stan J. Caterbone
Pro Se Litigant
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
717-459-7588 fax
Donate to GoFundMe.com

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 71 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 75 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 41

Guess Who Came To The Wedding? u.s sufrnfornornrfoRa:IloGrnf


By Jon Rutter
Section: B
Page: B1
Sunday News (Lancaster, PA)
Published: May 3, 2009

LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - jrutter@lnpnews.com "Uncle Bob" slipped quietly into the Manheim Township
suburbs last weekend.
Uncle Bob is better known as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
He came to town Saturday, April 25, for a family wedding, said Monsignor Richard A. Youtz, who performed the
honors.
Gates arrived at St. John Neumann Catholic Church shortly before the 2:30 p.m. ceremony for Bryant Wilkie and
Vanessa Dziuba, according to Youtz.
The newlyweds live in Washington state, Youtz noted, but the wedding was held here because Dziuba and her
family are local.
Gates is Wilkie's uncle by marriage, the monsignor added.
"Very pleasant guy. I had never met him before. I went up to him after the wedding and said 'Oh, you're the
famous Uncle Bob.' He said, 'No I'm the infamous Uncle Bob.' "
Youtz said the white-haired, 65-year-old Gates is distinguished looking and not as tall as Youtz expected.
Gates is the single Cabinet holdover from the George W. Bush administration.
A former CIA director who entered the intelligence field during the Lyndon B. Johnson years, the secretary has
been called canny and low-key.
His visit to the church at 601 E. Delp Road reinforced his low-profile dossier.
Youtz said he learned that Gates and his wife, Becky, would attend the wedding only when a trio of very polite,
very discreet security agents showed up at the church the Thursday before.
The agents wanted to size up the site and see which doors were kept locked and which ones were not, Youtz
said.
'They were very nice young men. They just wanted to look at the compound here, as they called it. It was just a
routine thing for them .... They wanted us to know who they were so we were not taken off guard by the whole
thing."
He said he met Mrs. Gates - Wilkie's aunt - at the Friday night wedding rehearsal.
A wedding reception for about 150 people was held April 25 at Best Western Eden Resort & Suites, 222 Eden
Road, according to General Manager Mark Clossey.
The Pentagon chief was there, Clossey said. "He had a drink in Garfield's and attended the [reception] and left
shortly thereafter."
The celebration was "on the quiet side," Clossey said, and was intended to focus fanfare on the couple rather
than on Gates.
Government agents checked out the premises several days before the reception, he added.
Other details about the operation remain obscure.
While Youtz said he thought Gates was driven in by car, a civilian source reported "Secret Service" agents at
Lancaster Airport last weekend.
Airport Director David Eberly confirmed that there were a couple of large aircraft, including a military jet, parked
on the tarmac that Saturday.
However, he said, "I don't know who was on it. I didn't see any SecretrstfrWc'@!iihadded Eberly, who said the

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 72 of 276
IOTO

fli

nitro'Fprofessiona~
down!oadthefre,SSunday July 17, 2016~c'.:lc:'''

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 76 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 41

agency usually notifies him when it enters the airport. "If they were there, they were incognito."
But they weren't there, according to U.S. Secret Service spokesman Darrin Blackford. (There were agents
elsewhere in Pennsylvania at the time, Blackford added. They were protecting Jordanian King Abdullah II while
he was on a motorcycle trip.)
A local government official who spoke on condition of anonymity said U.S. Army Criminal Investigation
Command, or CID, personnel could have been mistaken for Secret Service agents.
"They probably talk into their wrists" too, the official said of the Army operatives.
CID spokesman Jeffrey Castro confirmed that the agency provides security for Gates. But Castro said he could
not comment on whether Gates or any CID agents were here last weekend.
According to its Web site, the U.S. Army Protective Services Battalion, under the CID in Fort Belvoir, Va.,
watches over key officials in the Department of Defense and the Army.
To order a reprint of this document go to lancasteronline.com/reprint

C:reat.~d

j'J
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 73 of 276
LOT 0

wlth

nitro'Fprofessiona~
downloadmetrnSSunday July 17, 2016oc':)'.1~,,

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 77 of 161

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE


Stan J. Caterbone, herein called CATERBONE ... Is a private citizen and the founder
and only shareholder of the United States incorporated business Advanced Media. Group, Ltd.,
and registrar of the fictitious name Advanced Media Group,

all

Pennsylvania corporations.

CATERBONE was a whistle-blower and shareholder in 1987 Involving the United States Defense Contractor International Signal & Control,

Pie.,

known as ISC. In 1992, International

Signal & Control was indicted and found guilty of among other things a Billion Dollar Fraud
and export violations concerning illegally shipping duster bomb technologies, missile defense
systems, and other defense systems to foreign interests including South Africa, Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Cluster bombs and related technologies are known to have been exported to
Iraq by the Chilean Arms Dealer Carlos Cardoen, a joint venture partner of International Signal & Control. The Central Intelligence Agency is confirmed to have been involved in a covert
program to arm Iraq during the 1980's with close ties to International Signal & Control, which
allege.dly included the help of the National Security Agency, a former end user of International Signal & Control technologies under the early 1980's program Project X.

A Presidential

Finding in 1984 by the Bush Administration was executed to implement the program of arming Saddam Hussein and Iraq with the cluster bomb technologies.

Serious allegations of

these programs were the focus of investigations that included the knowledge and supervision
of then appointed nominee for the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates
.......

Since 1987, CAlERBONE has been the victim of vast civil conspiracy that started in
1987 to cover-up allegations of fraud within International Signal & Control during the negotiations and merger of International Signal & Control and Ferranti International of

England~

CATERBONE alleges that warrant-less surveillance was used to obstruct justice and moot his
constitutional rights in an effort to divert attention away from his allegations of fraud within
International Signal & Control back 'in 19~7, and afterwards to the present as a means to
deny his access to the courts for remedy and relief, and Federal False Claims Act violations.
After finall,y accessing the State and Federal Courts as a pro se litigant, the vast conspiracy
obstructed every due process right that was afforded by the United States Constitution. The
business of Advanced Media Group has been greatly compromised. and intellectual property
stolen during the late 1980's and ear1y 1990's that included information technology contracts
with the United States Government.
3
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 74 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 78 of 161


The Interest of amicus in this case is ensuring that constitutional rights of private citizens are not compromised and justice subverted through information obtained from warrantless surveiUance upon which there is no just cause for any allegations ~r association with terrorism. Whistle-Blowers are inherently supportive of a system of checks and balances within
our government that go beyond our constitutional doctrines regarding the same.

Whistle-

Blowers ensure that the rule of law is universally applied to all government officials in all
branches of government. The Federal False Claims Act and its provisions protect individuals
from abuse of power, while providing relief and remedies for those that were wronged and
those that had the courage to cite a wrong.
It is too easy for present and future administrations to abuse their power and utilize
warrantless surveillance as a means of subverting and obstructing justice for those that are
engaged in Whistle-Blowing cases that concern National Security. Without the proper oversight and judicial review, a Whistle- Blower can be place on terrorist lists for malicious reasons
without the knowledge or just cause. This is in direct conflict with keeping our democracy
free of corruption while adhering to the spirit of the constitution in the manner our founding
fathers envisioned.
CATERBONE have been a Targeted Individual, TI, and Victim since 1987. In 1987 CATERBONE blew the whistle {public Allegations and Complaints to State and Federal Authorities
of Fraud during merger negotiations with British Defense Contractor Ferranti International)
on an international defense contractor named International Signal_ &. Control, or ISC, who was
seUing arms (Everything from Telemetrv Systems to Cluster Bombs) to Iraq via South Africa
and was convicted

o~

a $1 Billion dollar Fraud in 1992 by the United States Attorney and sev-

eral other federal agencies. See ABC/News 20/20 and Nightline in 1991. They were founded
and headq_uartered -in my hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. CATERBONE was a shareholder and was solicited by a top ISC Executives (Convicted as a Mastermind of the Billion
Dollar Fraud) to help finance some of their operations through an affiliate called United Chem
- Con.

ISC was a Deparbnent of Defense (DOD) Contractor and a partner with United States

Intelligence Agencies since -it's beginnings in the early 1970's. One of it's first contracts was
Project X with the National Security Agency or NSA of Ft. Meade, Maryland. Former Secretary of the Navy, Bobby Ray Inman was on the Board of Directors of ISC and was also on the
.
Board of Directors of Science Applications International corporation, or SAIC. SAIC was a
huge defense contractor that was the recipient of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA,
program on Remote Viewing, which SAIC named Project Stargate.

It was reported that

4
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 75 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 79 of 161


Bobby Ray Inman declined the nomination for Secretary of Defense under the first Clinton
Administration because of the ISC and Trecor scandals.

In the early 1990's I was a subcon-

tractor on a project for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST called TIMIT.
.

The project developed

speech corpora for the development of computer based speech recognition systems. I

~as

also involved in the bidding of other Department of Defense contracts dealing with infonnation technologies.. In 1998 I was stalked and approached by an employee of the National Security Ager:icv, or NSA in .York, Pennsylvania who said my problems were not with the NSA,
but the "good ole boysn.

In 2005 I was detained by 2 Oefense Intelligence Agency, or DIA

officers in. a museum on a military base in Austin, Texas and was questioned and interviewed
regarding my civil

~ctions

filed in federal -court. for several hours. CATERBONE was released

and told to stay off of all military bases. My brother, a Family Physician in Austin Texas had
to verify my travel plans and the fact that CATERBONE was staying with him prior to my release.
CATERBONE's father, Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr. alleged he was part of U.S. Navy expert-
ments in the 1940's and experienced synthetic telepathy in-the 1970's,.1980's and 1990's as
outlined in memos and documents .he had authored; and from my persona! conversations
with him prior to his death. Ms. Amy Fuchs of the Disclosure Project confinned that he was
most likely given an ET experience via synthetic telepathy. He died in 2001 in New York City
of cancer. My brother was in the .U.S. Air Force in the late 1960's and 1 aDege was a victim of
the LSD experiments relating to MKU~TRA in the late 1960's and a victim of murder (Suspicious Suicide with tainted mediCal reports) in Santa Barbara California in 1984; Notarized
Compl_aints were filed to the California Attorney General in 1991~ He made a declaration type
statement prior to his death that he got "bad LSD"_ while in the U.S. Air.Force.
Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud within ISC. As far back as the late 1980's I thought that my mind was being
read, or 0 remotely viewed 0 During the times that legal Counsel-and attorneys were solicited
in 1987, 1991, and 1997 Organized Stalking and Harassment and other fonns pf attacks experienced by Targeted Individuals were severety increased. In 2005 the U.S. spo_nsored mind
control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and
~orture

through the use of directed energy devices and/or electromagnetic weapons. This as-

sault was n.o coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in
U.S. District Court, of CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or OS-cv... 2288.
5
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 76 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 80 of 161

AFFIDAVIT of TARGETED INDIVIDUAL


.
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, Targeted Individual or TI, residing at: 1250 Fremont
Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 17603, do hereby state that I am at least 18 years of
age, that I am a citizen or a legal resident of the United States of America, that l am of
sound mind, and that I am the person whose signature follows on this Affidavit. The purpose
of this document is (1) to advise Congress as well as state and local officials of organized
stalking and electronic and mind manipulation torture being committed against me and (2) to
request a state, local, or Congressional investigation and hearing on the use of remotely-operated directed energy attacks and 'mind control technologies on Americans in this country.

Our Govemment is responsible for protecting its citizens from elements that
covertly harass, torment, murder, and cause victims to commit suicide through. organized stalking and remote electronic torture. Yet, unbiased research indicates that
certain elements of Government either engage in these activities or protect those who perform them. I seek the complete dismantling of any officially-sanctioned covert Government
torture programs, the passage of legislation specifically outlawing that high-tech torture, and
the fuU prosecution of any person, regardless of hi$ rank or position, who has violated my
civil rights and my most basic human rights. The assaults on my mind and body have been
occurring for 24 year(s) and ;nclude, but are not limited to the following victim,iza-

tion's:
I.Blanketing my dwelling and surrounding~ with electromagnetic energy. Bombarding my body with debilitating electronic and mind manipulatjon effects. Directed
Energy Weapons Causing Severe Pain to Body and Brain. Began in at least 2005 and
still continuing, with complaints to Freedom From Covert Harassment and Surveillance,
FFCHS in 2009, and in cited in various state and federal court cases over the past several
years.
Attacks causing severe artificial pain most likely from Directed Energy. Devices syn chronized with telepathic harassment and organized stalking and harassment have been
logged and reported to law enforcement and medical professionals since 2008. Prior to 2008
the attacks were experienced and reported to medical professionals but the sources were not
. known. Also reported attacks of pain to a family physician, emergency room p'etsonnel and
psychiatrists.

2.Invading niy thoughts via remote sensing technologies. Was sent an autonomous
email in 1998 introducing the term remote viewing. Various technologies and tactics are being used to create "emotional signatures" that induce various emotional states; a systematic
complete hacking of my mind.
3.Making me mentally hear" others' voices through the microwave haring: effect.
Synthetic and/or Mental Telepathy. First started to experience telepathy/synthetic telepathy in 20-05 with full-time 24/7 connection during the same time to present. When fulltime telepathy started a male conducted interrogations lasting several hours at a time concerning a wealth of subjects induding ISC/CIA Knowledge. Cannot disconnect from continuous conversations at an times with one female person. The handlers know everything I know
and experience in real time. During 2006 and 2007 have been telepathic with some 10 or
more persons, both male and female for short durations. Can recall most conversations and
subject matter with identities of who they said they were. Interrogation type harassment is
still being used telepathically to harass and for some sleep deprivation. Made first complaints
to DARPA, the FBI, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in 2007. Some conversations by the persons that are telepathic with me elude to some program similar to the DARPA datalog pro27
.
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 77 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 81 of 161


gram where they record your entire life. Everything that you try to do on a daily basis is subject m~tter for conversation and harassment. Interference with thought, harassment, and interrogation is used often times with electromagnetic weapon attacks to the brairi or body.
4.Depriving me of sleep due to neurological intervention. Mostly Experienced Sleep
Deprivation Techniques during periods of time in 2008 to 2010. Mostly with attacks of pain
from Directed Energy Weapons to back, neck, head (brain); and heart on a few occasions;
and with harassment from telepathy.

s.Introducing poisonous gas and radiation toxins into my home. First experienced
toxic gases (Chloroform?) in heavy doses in 2006-2007. Made complaints to the Lancaster
City Police Department and the Southern Regional Police. Expeiiepced attacks that would
cause dizziness at home, in automobile and in public. Was informed it was being released
through a distribution system the size of fishing line. To counter attacks used cotton in. nostrils and gas mask. In 2009 experienced attacks of what is said to be sleeping gas, when attacked could not open eyes. Took Pictures during some attacks.

6.Having me stalked.en masse on foot and in vehicles. vandalizing my home and/or


car. Gang Stalking or Organized Stalking began in 1987 and continues today. It includes
strangers using gestures such as finger under eye; various forms of harassment; and public
mobbing. Complaints have been filed in 1987; 1992;1998 and 2005 to 2010. Complaints
were made to various public officials and local, state, and federal agencies as mental duress.
The terms organized Stalking, gang stalking, targeted individual, etc., was not learned until a
few years ago. The organized sta,.king and harassment followed in several states, some while
traveling from Lancaster, Pennsylvania to California. Tracking technologies may have been
used and most likely are still being used. Police were involved in most places.
I

7.Tapping (lb1gging), my phones. Complaints of phone tapping/tampering were made to


New Jersey Bell in 1987 with a service call to Stone Harbor, New Jersey to check lines and
phories. The same was done by a Bell Atlantic repainnan iil Conestoga, Pennsylvania in
1998. In 2004 a complaint with a report number was filed with the Pennsylvania Attorney
General Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Agent Amy Zelnick) regarding interference with
phone calls and impersonations by perps intercepting and rerouting calls. Computer Hacking
complaints were filed to local authorities in the County 9f Lancaster and the Cyber Crime unit
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2005 to 2010.
--

8.Blacklisting me in the labor market. Filed complains of employment discrimination with


the Pennsylvania Attorney General In 2006 and the Lancaster County Human Relations Commission in 2008.

9.Workplace mobbing. Experienced in 1987 at Financial Management Group, Ltd., American


Helix of High lndustries in 1991 and Pflumm Contractors, Inc., in 1997/1998. Filed complaints. and logs as mental duress and harassment. Was forced out of all 3 organizations as a
result of the mobbing and harassment.

io.-Public .Mobbing;. Public ty.pe mobbing and organized stalking and

haras~ent was per-

petrated heavily in the years 2005 to 2010 in the following places: The Lancaster County
Courthouse; Tue Lancaster .County Public Library, the Pennsylvania Career Link, and the
MUlersville University. Library and University Offices. I was given suspicious. and illegal "No
Trespass" Notices in some 18 pub1ic places in Lancaster County in the years 2-005 to. 2009
without just cause. I was complaining of stalking and harassing in most all of those public
places. The Lancaster County Public Library and the Millersville University took away my acce~s to a computer after my personal computers were vandalized and/or hacked inoperable.
28
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 78 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 82 of 161


Fulton Bank took away my safe deposit box. Others included my church of worship, various
bars and restaurants and one attorneys office. Complaints have been filed regarding the
same in courts and with various authorities.
11.Attempted Murder. Experienced with an attempt of vehicular homicide in 1991 after National News Media reported ISC/OA-NSA connection of Anns to Irag". The incident involved
a vehicle changing lanes and direction and heading directly toward me in the wrong direction
running me off the road, narrowly missing a tree. I Filed the incident in federal court:s and
used as a motion to seal federal case no. 05-2288 in 2005 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
.

12.Pet Killing. Cat was killed In 2005 with complaints to the Lancaster County Humane Shelter and the Southern Regional Police Department.

13.lllegal Entries of Home/Properties. First in 1987 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, then
again in 1991; 1997-1998; and most serious in 2005 to 2010. Filed Police Reports and insurance claims, most with the Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga,
Pennsylvania , State Farm and Harleysville Insurance Companies.
14.lllegal Repossessions. Airplane in 1987 containing legal and business files. tfome/Property and Contents in 2006 also containing legal and .business files and documents.
15.Phys~eal Assaults. One attack and filed .complaint. with police report in Los Osos California
in 2005 and one in the City of Lancaster. Police reports were filed and obtained for both.

16.False Arrests. Experienced 7 in 1987 and more than 20 in 2005 and 2006 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The fa.lse arrests were
charges that were all dismissed prior to court hearings

. 17.False Imprisanments. Spent 7 to 10 days in Lancaster County Prison in 1987 with all
charges dismissed and again for some 60 days in 2006 with all charges dismissed .. The 60
Days of imprisonment of 2006 was triggered with a false report of missing a bail supervision
meeting, which was confirmed to be false in court; however bail was maliciously ar:id purposefully reinstated as secured instead of unsecur~~.. The appropriate appeal was filed which
secured my release after some 60 days of false imprisonment. There were no charges that
resulted in any convictions.

is.Psychiatric Abuses with False Suicide Allegations from Perpetrators/Sta.kers. One


in 198.7 resulting in a forced .hospitalization for several hours by police in Stone Harbor, New
Jersey. And on~ again in February of 2005 resulting in police restraining me in my home and
abusing me. This one was a fraudulent and phony email sent to police by a perp. The
Southern Regional Police had to vacate after the email was proven to be a fraud.

19.Vandalism to Property. first in 1987 in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, then again in 1991;
1997-1998; and most serious iil 2005 to 2010. Filed Police Reports and insurance claims,
most with the Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga, Pennsylvania and Har1eysville Insurance Company. 3 computers h?tve been rendered Inoperable since 2005 along. with
various electronics equipment; dvd recorders; printers; household items; appliances; etc., ,
Most insurance claims have been paid. In the past years a wave of purchased Items, online
and in stores, were received broken or the wrong item and all had to be returned. Some included items to secure my property, and others included computer related items, others were
household and clothing items.
29
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 79 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 83 of 161


20.Gas Ughting. The illegal entering of home and causing psychological duress by moving
items and or hiding items. First reported in 1998 to the Conestoga Police and continued to
present. Clothing was also. manipulated and altered. The term "gas lighting" was only
learned in 2010, although it was reported to police as harassment by neighbors of friends.
The daily draining of my hot tub was also used as a psychological warfare tactic and used to
run up utility bills. Numerous complaints were made to police in 2008 to 2010 .
. 21.Thefts of Property. Not Yet Completed.
22,Vandalism to car/Truck. Since 2005 have experienced years of gas siphoning, battery
outages, letting. air out of tires, and wetting of inside of floor mats as psychological warfare
tactics by perps and stalkers. Made numerous complaints the Lancaster City Police Department.
23.Toxic Chemical causing Running Nose. Experienced on regular basis in 2009 when in
publit ptaces. Was not in conjunction with cold/flu symptoms. Research states it is a tactic
used in organized stalking.
24.Computer Hacking. Computer Hacking complaints were filed to local authorities in the
County of Lancaster and the Cyber Crime unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2005
to 2010. N'umerous com.plaint numbers have been secured. Complaints of cell phone hacking was also reported in 2010. Websites and biogs were regularly hacked and sometimes
taken off-line. Electronic calenders, court documents, and financial records were often hacked

causing many problems of the years, induding having to withdraw civil complaints.
25.Cyber Stalking. Most in 2005 to 2010. Complaints to Microsoft legal counsel, Yahoo
Message Board, and the FBI Cyber Crime Unit.
26.Interference/Delay/Theft of U.S. Mails. First reported-to U.S. Postmaster of mail tampering and illegal changing of address in 1987. In 2008 to 2009 have made several more
mmplaints to the u~s. Postmaster Inspector General who cl"im to have begun investigations.

Some caused missed court hearings and other mi5sed appointments and or meeti~gs.
27.Electromagnetic Weapons Causing Severe MU$de Spasms/Cramps!' First expenenced in 2006 to present. One expenence in 2006 was while I was in my hot tub and the
pain and cramp was so severe in my left calf muscle (you automatically bend over to rub it
out, which placed my head underv.(ater) I had to crawl out of the hot tub berore a~most
drowning.
28.Electromagnetic Weapons Causing Sexual Stimulation. First experienced in 2005.
29.forced Hospitalizations. Forced HospitaliZatlons in 1987 (2) one for 6 hours and one for
5 days; 2006 one for 3 days; 2009 one for several hours while in intensive care for emergency surgery; and 2010 f)ne for 8 days. Filed complaints to Citizens Commission for Human
Rights in 1991 and 2008.

JO.Manipulation and Theft of Documerits. Numerous thefts and manipulation of all legal
and business documents both in paper and in electronic format have occurred since 1987.
Microfiche/Microfilming began in 1987 and other measures to secure documents have been
ongoing to present. Numerous complaints have been filed witlJ law enforcement since 1987.

30
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 80 of 276

ssunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 84 of 161


Statement

I have been a Targeted Individual, TI, and Victim since 1987. In 1987 I blew the whistle
(public Allegations and Complaints to State and Federal Authorities of Fraud during merger
negotiations with British Defense Contractor Ferranti International) on an international defense contractor named International Signal & Control, or ISC, who was selling arms
(Everything from Telemetry Systems to Cluster Bombs) to Iraq via South Africa and was convicted of a $1 Billion dollar Fraud in 199.2 by the United States Attorney and several other
federal agencies.

See ABC/News 20/20 and Nightline in 1991. They were founded and

headquartered in my hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I was a shareholder and was solicited by a top ISC Executives (Convicted as a Mastermind of the Billion Dollar Fraud) to help
finance some of their operations through an affiliate called United Chem Con.

ISC was a De-

partment of Defense {DOD) Contractor and a partner with United States Intelligence Agencies
since it's beginnings in the early 1970's. One of it's first contracts was Project X with the National Security Agency or NSA of Ft. Meade, Maryland. Former Secretary of the Navy, Bobby
Ray Inman was on the Board of Directors of ISC and was also on the Board of Directors of
Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. SAIC was a huge defense contractor
that was the recipient of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, program on Remote Viewing, which SAIC named Project Stargate. It was reported that Bobby Ray Inman declined the
nomination for Secretary of Defense under the first Clinton Administration because of the ISC
and Trecor scandals.

In the early 1990's I was a subcontractor on a project for the Defense

Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or NIST called TIMIT.

.The project developed speech corpora for the develop-

ment of computer based speech recognition systems. I was also involved in the bidding of
other Department of Defense contracts dealing with information technologies. In 1998 I was
stalked and approached by an employee of the National Security Agency, or NSA in York,
Pennsylvania who said my problems were not with the NSA, but the "good ale

boys~.

In

2005 I was detained by 2 Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA officers in a museum on a military base in Austin, Texas and was questioned and Interviewed regarding my civil actions
filed in federal court for several hours. I was released and told to sti;ly off of all military
bases. My brother, a Family Physician in Austin Texas had to verify my travel plans and the
fact that I was staying with him prior to my release.
My father alleged he was part of U.S. Navy experiments in the 1940's and experienced.
synthetic telepathy. in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's as outlined in memos and documents he
had authored; and from my personal conversations with him prior to his death. Ms. Amy

31
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 81 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 85 of 161


.

Fuchs of the Disclosure Project confirmed that he was most likely given an ET experience via
synthetic telepathy. He died in 2001 in New York City of cancer. My .brother was in the U.S.
Air Force in the late 1960's and I allege was a victim of the LSD experiments relating to
MKULTRA in the late 1960's and a victim of murder (Suspicious Suicide with tainted medical
reports) in Santa
Barbara California
In 1984; Notarized Complaints were filed to the califor.
.
nia Attorney General in 1991. He made a declaration type statement prior to his death that
he got "bad LSD" while in the U.S. Air Force.
Organized stalking

an~

harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of

fraud. within ISC. As far back as the late 1980's I thought that my mind was being read, or
0

remotely viewed 0 During the times that legal Counsel and attorneys were solicited in 1987,

1991, arid 1997 Organized Stalking and Harassment and other forms of attacks experienced
by Targeted Individuals were severely inaeased. In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control
turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture
through the use of directed energy devices and/or electromagnetic weapons. This assault
was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S.
District Court, of CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288.
This targeting has ruined every aspect of my life.

32
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 82 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 86 of 161

Some Perspectives
"The calculated and technological entry into .another person's mind is an act of monumental
barbarism which obliterates- perhaps with the twiddling of a dial - the history and civilization
of man's mental development. It is more than an abuse of human rights, it is the destruction

of meaning. For anyone who is forced into the hell of living with an uns~en mental rapist, the
effort to stay sane is beyond the scope of tolerable endurance. The imaginative capacity of
the ordinary mind cannot encompass the horror of it. We have attempted to come to terms
with the experiments of the Nazis in concentration camps. We now have the prospect of systematic control authorized by men who issue instructions through satellite communications
for the destruction of societies while they are driving new Jaguars and Mercedes, and going
to the opera."

"On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology"by Carole Smith Global Research, October 18, 2007; Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 2003.
"People have no comprehension of how lethal only one aspect (aside from the obvious of
driving the victim completely insane) of telepathy technology can be in disrupting and ruining
an in.dividual's life through the sabotaging of his/her dally activities. Everything an individual
does begins with a momentary thought. From the split second that thought is learned by the
person on the other end (telepathically) - the individual's right to privacy is not the real
threat or loss. The real lethal weapon is the advantage in disrupting or preventing. the individual from accomplishing whatever he/she is going to do before they

actu~lly

do it. With a

simple cell phone call or instant message,. the "Advanced Team" is in place to subvert; sabotage; manipulate; propagandize; smear; disrupt; or even prevent the task or activity from being accomplished in any successful manner. The perps are skilled at creating scenarios

~~t

are covertly arranged to simulate everyday occurrences to make the victim at fault for the
loss or failure. Imagine the consequences when these acti'vities have legal and financial implications.

With telepathy technology the need for tracking and surveillance technology is

greatly diminished and may even become obsolete. This is not merely "Mind Invasive" Technology, as Carole Smith so eloquently wrote - this ts "UFE Invasive" Technology". Say Goodbye to any true sense of capitalism and free enterprise in the not to distant future - unless of
course someone stops these illegal and disastrous technology transfers and leaks". Stan J.

Caterbone

33
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 83 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 87 of 161


Organized or Gang Stalking
"A system of organized psychological terror tactics used against a person who has become an
enemy of an individual or a government. Subtle but effective techniques of stalking by i:nultiple Individuals and psychological intimidation and manipulation are used to slowly but surely
'

drive the target to make complaints to authorities who will see the complain~ as bogus because of the methods used against the target. As a result, the target gets labeled as mentally

ill.
There are as many stalking tactics as there are targets as the multistalkers will tailor the
stalking to the individuals habits and individual personality. Some common examples or organized stalking are: following the target on foot, by car and public transportation, crowding
the target's space in a public place, murmuring insults under the breath so only the target
can hear, sitting in th.e car outside the target's residence, starting 0 fights 0 In publlc With the
target, doing 0 skits" on' the street which involves information only the target -should know but
.has been found out via surveillance of the target, stealing and vandalism of the target's posseSSions. 0
Organized Stalking Website
"Organized Stalking is a form of

~errorism

used against an individual in a malicious attempt

to ,reduce the quality of a person's life so they will: have a nervous break-down, become incarcerated, institutionalized, experience constant mental, emotional, or physical pain, become homeless, and/or commit suicide. This is done using well-orchestrated accusations,
lies, rumors, bogus investigations, setups, framings, intimidation, overt or covert threats,
vandalism, thefts, sabotage, torture, humiliation, emotional terror and general harassment. It
. is a "ganging up11 by members of the community who follow an organizer and participate in a
systematic "terrorizing 11 of an individual." Mark M. Rich

34
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 84 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 88 of 161

The acts described above violate many laW aimed at protecting Americans.
Some of these laws include but are not limited to the following:
10 USC 921, Article 121 -- Larceny and wrongful appropriation
10 use 920A, Article 120a - Stalking
18 2340 USC -- Torture
18 USC 241 -- Conspiracy against rights of sovereign, free, God created, spirit and soul beings
18 USC 213 -- Illegal Surreptitious entry
18

use 242 -- Deprivation of rights under color of law

18 USC.35 -- Imparting or conveying false information


. 18 USC.1117 -- Conspiracy to Murder

use 1111 -- Murder


18 use 1905 -- Disclosure of information generally
42 use 1983 -- Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 use 1985 -- Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
18

31 USC 5328 -- Whistleblower protections


18 USC 1512 -- Engaging in misleading conduct
18 USC 1503 -- Intimidating a witness/victim
18 USC 1512 -- Tampering with a witn.ess/victim
18 USC 1513 -- Retaliation against a witness/victim
18 USC 1510 -- Obstructing

a criminal investigation, conflict of interest roles in government

18 USC 1509 -- Impeding due exercise of rights by attempting to prevent, obstruct, impede
and Interfere with same
18 USC 1622 -- Subordination of perjury by procuring another to commit perjury

35
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 85 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 89 of 161

ILLEGAL NO TRESPASS NOTICES AGAINST


STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Violations of Public Accommodations Law re Discrimination
and Anti-Trust Violations with False Statements to Authorities
March 14, 2010
'Jl!ork-In-Progress
'

Community Stalking and Organiz.bd Libel/Slander Campaign Strategy - Jssue a few


.
.
!
every year to support false arrests; false imprisonment; fabricated mental illness history. In
.

addition to isolate by prohibiting entrance to major entertainment venues with good live mu1

sic. Prohibit from defending against the lies and slander in public to a minimum. Also, destroy history of strong Christian valueb and church attendance on a weekly basis by keeping
!
away from church. The Millersville 4niversity Graduate Studies No Trespass Notice was ac1

commodated by the denial of entitlecll benefits of LETA lob Training Education Course of the
I

Paralegal program at HACC during th~ same time period.

David Pflu~m Properties by David Pflumm - Served by State Constable in June of


. 2005, original not signed by Davi(I Pflumm
2. Eden Resort Inn, by Drew A'nthon, Owner - Sent via 1st Class Mail i"n 2005.
3. Ba.rley Snyder,. LLC Lancaster Office, by Shawn Long, Esq., Attorney representing
Fulton Bank in 2006 - Sent vi~ 1st Class Mall
4. Lancaster Newspap~rs, Inc~, by Steve Weaver, Manager in 2006, No Notice, Corraborated by Jack Buckwalter, C~airman and CEO and George Warner, Atty with Barley
.

Snyder, LLC, No Foa:ma.1 Noticej


5. Ruby Tuesday, Manor Shopping Center, Lancaster,- by Manager and Lanc~ster
City Police in 2006, No Formal JNotice
6. Alley Kat Restaurant andj Bar, Lancaster by Bartender Ms. Santinello, Brett
Stabley, and Lancaster City Police, No formal Notice in 2006
7. Village Nightclub, Lancaste~ by George in 2008, No Formal Notice
s. Marion Court Restaur~nt, i.ancaster, by Security Personnel, corroborated by Michael Geesey, in 2008, No Fori.nal Notice
9. Valentinos Cafe, Lancastetf, by Jeanine, Bartender,in 2008, corroborated by John
Valentino, Owner, No Formal Notice
10. Brunswick Hotel, Lancaster[, by Staff Employees, in 2008, No Formal Notice
11. Lancaster County Library and Duke Street Business Center, by Executive Direct1
or in March of 2009, by 1st Cla ss Mail
12. Anne Bailey's Restaurant ~nd Bar, Lancaster, by Manager in 2009, No Formal Notice
.
13. Millersville University Gra~uate Studies and Millersville University, Millersville, by Lori AuStin, Judicial.1ffalrs, via Certified Mail in June of 2009 .
14. TGIF Friday's, Lancaster, by Manager, in January of 2010, No Formal Notice
15. Lucky Dog Restaurant and1Bar, Lancaster, by Robert Donnelly, in January of 2010,
No Formal Notice

36
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 86 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 90 of 161


16. Saint Ma..Ys Catholic Church, Lancaster, by Don Spica, Usher and Lancaster City
Police Department in Feb of 2010, No Fonnal Notice

37
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 87 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 91 of 161

St'ANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE LITIGATOR

27 CRIMINAL CHARGES DISMISS/WnHDRAWN/NOT-GUILTV


1987TO 2007

09/01/1987 Cc2706 Terroristic Threats - Ml Quashed I Dismis I Demur Sus


09/03/1987 Cc2902-l Unlawful Restraint - Ml Qu~shed I Dismis I Demur Sus
09/03/1987 Cc3304a2 Criminal Mischief- F3 Nolle Prossed I Withdrawn
09/03/1987 Cc3502 Burglary - Fl Quashed I Dismis I Demur Sus
5. 09/03/1987 Cc370lal Robbery - Fl Quashed /Dismis /Demur Sus
6. 09/03/1987 Cc3921a Theft By Unlwf Taking Or Dispo -F3 Nolle Pros I Withdrawn
6. 09/03/1987 Cc3933al Unlawful Use Of Computer - F3 Nolle Pros /Withdrawn
7. 09/03/1987 Cc3933a2 Unlawful Use Of Computer - F3 Q1iashed / Disnis I Demur Sus
8. .12/05/2006 1 18 5503 A2 Disorderly Conduct-Unreasonable Noise - . Withdrawn
(Lower Court)

9. 12/05/2006 1 18 3926 A4 Theft Of Services-Acquisition Of Services Withdrawn


(Lower Court)
10. 12/05/2006 1 18 2709 A7 Harassment - Comm. Repeat In Another Manner Withdrawn (LC)
11. 01/23/2007 1 285-2ld No Parking Or Stopping Permitted Withdrawn (Lower Court)
12. 01/23/2007 1 285-30a Meter Violation Withdrawn (Lower Court)
14. 01/23/2007 118 6501 Al Scatter Rubbish Upon Land/Stream Etc Dismissed (Lower
Court)
15. 01/23/2007 1 285-21d No Parking Or Stopping Permitted Withdrawn (Lower Court)
16. 01/23/2007 1 285-30a Meter Violation Withdrawn (Lower Court)
17. 01/18/2007 1751543 A Drlv While Oper Prlv Susp Or Revoked Not Guilty
18. 01/18/2007 1751786 F Oper Veh W/O Req'd Financ Resp Not Guilty
19. 04/30/2007 118 5503 A4/ Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi Off Not Guilty
20. 04/30/2007 2 18 5507 A I Obstruction Highways Not Guilty
21. 04/30/2007 3/ 18 . 2709 A3 Harassment - Course Of Conduct W/No- Legiti Purpose
Nolle Pros
22. 04/30/2007 1 75 3111 A I Disregard Traffic Control Device Not Guilty Nolle Pros
23. 05/10/2007 M2 18 5104 Resist Arrest/Other Law Enforce 08/04/2006 K4775120
24. 05/10/2007 3 Ml 18 908 A Make Rep/Sell/Etc Off Weap 08/04/2006 K4775120 Nolle
Pros
25. 05/29/2007 1 75 1'543 A Driv While Oper Priv Susp Or Revoked Not Guilty
26. 11/0l/2007 S 75 3714 A Careless Driving 08/04/2006 Nolle Pros
27. 11/01/2007 75 3802 Al* DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely Nolle Pros
1.
2.
3.
4.

7 1987 CHARGES DISMISSED OUT OF 7 CHARGED


12 SOUTHERN REGIONAL POUCE CHARGES DISMISSED OR OVERTURN.ED ON APPEAL

38
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 88 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 92 of 161


cas.s~:$fi.11Ac~ lIDmwmmtt4l.2Fil8te6ID'2Sl$.Ei6P~412BfdJ~1

,.......,

Social Security Administration


-
Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance
Notice ofAward

Office of Central Operations


1500 Woodlawn Dnve
Baltimore,,_Manrland 21241-1500
Date: A~ 23,. 2009
.
Claim Number: .t.00..46-0959HA

STANLEY J CATBRBONE
1250 FREMONT STREET

LANCASTER, PA 17603-6812

I1ialU111l1ll.1II11111ll11ll11I11ln 11ll11l1l1l1l1 llu11 ul II

You are entitled to monthly <lisability benefits beginning April 2008.

The Date You Became Disabled


We found that you became disabled under our rules on December 1, 2005;
Our records show that you became disabled on December 1, 2005. By law, we
can pay benefits no earlier than 12 months before the month of filing. Since you
filed for benefits on April 8> 2009, monthly payments will begin April 2008.

WJiat"We"WillPa.YAmfWiiai-'-

z ...

.. . -

--

--

---

You. will receive.$21,464.00 around August 29, 2009.

This is the money you are due for April 2008 through July 2009.

Your n~xt payment of $1,379.00, which is for August 2009, will be


received on ot about the third Wednesday of Septeiber 2009.

After that you will receive $1;379.00 on or about the third Wednesday of
each month.

The day we make payments on this record is based on your date of birth.
Enclosure(s):
Pub 05-10153
Pub 05-10058

See Next Page

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 89 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 93 of 161


Page 2 of 4

200-46-0959HA

Your Benefits
The following chart shows your benefit amount(s) before any deductions or
rounding. The amount you actually receive(s) may differ from your full benefit
amount. When we figure how much to pay you, we mlist deduct certain
amounts, such as Medicare premiums. We must also round down to the nearest
dollar.
Beginning
Date

April
December

2008
2008

Benefit
Ainount
$1,304.30
$1,379.90

Reason
. Entitlement began
Cost-of-living adjustment

Other Social Secmity Benefits

The benefit described in this letter is the only one you can receive from Social
Security. If you think that you might qualify for another kind of Social Security
benefit in the future, you will have to file another application.
Yo~ Responsibilltie&

The decisions we made on your claim are based on information you gave us. If
this information cha:ilges, it could affect your benefits. For this reason, it is
important that you report changes tons right away.
We have encloseda pamphl~ nwhat You Neid To Xnbw-Wlieii:YpUOeLSociai - - -- - -
Security Disability Benefits". It will t.eil you what must be reported and how to
report. Please be sure to read the parts of the pamphlet which explain what to
do if you go to work o.r if your health improves. .
.
A provider of employment or vocational rehabilitation services may contact you
about getting help to go to work. The provider may be a State vocational
,., rehabilitation agency or a provider under contract with the Social Security
Administration.
~

If you go to work, special rules allow us to continue your cash payments and
health care coverage. For more informatiOn. about how work and earnings affect
disability benefits~ call or visit any Social Security office and ask for the following
publications;

Social Security - Working While Disabled... How We Can Help (SSA


Publication No. 05-10095).

Social Security - If You Are Blind-How We Can Help (SSA Publication


No. 05-10052).

-cATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 90 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 94 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 91 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 95 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 25 of 41

PROTHONOTARY OF LANCASTER COUNTY


George Alspach
Solicitor

Katherine Wood-Jacobs
Prothonotary

STANLEY J CATERBONE (et al.)


vs.
DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER AT LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY (et al.)

Case Number
Cl-08-13373

PROTHONOTARY DOCKET ENTRIES


12/03/2008

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE,
PRO SE.

12/03/2008

CAPTION ENTRY IS: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, STAN J. CATERBONE VS DUKE STREET
BUSINESS CENTER AT LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY, DIANE PAWLING BUSINESS REFERENCE
LINRARIAN OF DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, BILL HUDSON DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR/IT
MANAGER LIBRARY SYSTEM OF LANCASTER COUNTY, LANCASTER PUBLIC LIBRARY,
LANCASTER PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, HIGH FOUNDATION, UNIDENTIFIED BUSINESS
REFERENCE LIBRARIAN DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER

12/03/2008

COMPLAINT FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/03/2008

COPY OF COMPLAINT(1) HANDED TO PLAINTIFF AT COUNTER ON 12/3/08.

12/04/2008

EXHIBITS EXHIBIT C FILED. BY: STANLEY M. CATERBONE, PRO SE

12/08/2008

ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008, UPON PRESENTATION
AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION, REGARDING THE REQUEST OF
STANLEY J. CATERBONE TO FILE IFP SAID REQUEST IS GRANTED. BY THE COURT: JOSEPH C.
MADENSPACHER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236 NOTICE TO: BEVERLY J. POINTS, ESQ., STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, (6)

12/31/2008

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT. COMPLAINT REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL


0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/28/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER,


PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0210912009

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT C FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/11/2009

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT D FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/12/2009

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT E FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

0212012009

PRAECIPE TO FILE THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT F,G,H,I TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP.

0212612009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER,


PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/10/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT J FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/11/2009

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT K FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/12/2009

MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT L FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/18/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT M FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/24/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT N FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/24/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.


REINSTATED AS REQUESTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.

03/26/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT 0 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/27/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT P FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 92 of 276-r>r

-,._,....,., ...... ,...., ..... ._ ......... .,, ........ 1

._.'-""'....,.,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 96 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 26 of 41

04/01/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBITS Q;R;S;T;U;V FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/09/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A1 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/15/2009

ORDER (NO FEE) ENTERED AND FILED. AND NOW, THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, BASED UPON
THE ATTACHED FORENSIC REPORT, AND IT APPEARING THAT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
ACCEPTED BY THE PROTHONOTARY FOR FILING WERE SIGNED IN HUMAN BLOOD, THE
PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO STRIKE THE FILING OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIVIL
DOCKET RECORD AND IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THEY REMAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND FOR ANY APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE OFFICE OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY DETECTIVES AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY. THE DOCUMENTS AT Cl-08-13373 ARE: "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT W", "MOTION TO
FILE EXHIBIT X", "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Y" THE DOCUMENT AT Cl-07-03924 IS: "MOTION TO
FILE EXHIBIT Z" UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT NO DOCUMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF,
ACTING PRO SE, SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN INSPECTED BY AND
CLEARED AS FREE OF HEALTH HAZARDOUS TAINT BY THE SHERI FPS DEPARTMENT. BY THE
COURT: LOUIS J. FARINA, PRESIDENT JUDGE COPIES W/236 NOTICE HAND DELIVERED TO:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, JAN WALTERS, COUNTY DETECTIVE, RANDALL WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY, TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF, AND MAILED TO STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

04/17/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT W FILED BY: STANLELY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE


FILING DATE APRIL 17, 2009 AT 11:41 A.M.)

04/17/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT Y FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

04/17/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT X FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

04/20/2009

ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, THE ORDER ISSUED APRIL
15, 2009 IS VACATED AND SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING: CORRECTIVE ORDER: AND
NOW, THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, BASED UPON THE ATTACHED FORENSIC REPORT, AND IT
APPEARING THAT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ACCEPTED BY THE PROTHONOTARY FOR
FILING WERE SIGNED IN HUMAN BLOOD, THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO STRIKE THE
FILING OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIVIL DOCKET RECORD AND IT IS FURTHER
DIRECTED THAT THEY REMAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND FOR
ANY APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICE OF THE
LANCASTER COUNTY DETECTIVES AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THE DOCUMENTS
DOCKETED TO Cl-08-13373 ARE: "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT W" , "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT X'',
"MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Y", AND "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Z". UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF
COURT NO DOCUMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF, ACTING PRO SE, SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR
FILING UNTIL THEY BEEN INSPECTED BY AND CLEARED AS FREE OF HEALTH HAZARDOUS
TAINT BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. BY THE COURT: LOUIS J. FARINA, PRESIDENT JUDGE,
COPIES W/236 NOTICE TO: DISTRICT ATTORNEY (HAND DELIVERED) I JAN WALTERS, COUNTY
DETECTIVE (HAND DELIVERED), RANDALL WENGER, PROTHONOTARY (IN FILE-Cl-07-03924)
TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF (HAND DELIVERED), STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, (MAILED)

04/21/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A2 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/23/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT Z FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/23/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT ORGINALLY FILED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008 FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF
REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY

04/27/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-4 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/27/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-3 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/27/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBITS A-5 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/30/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-6 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/06/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-5 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/18/2009

PRAECIPE TO RENAME EXHIBIT A-5 OF MAY 6, 2009 TO EXHIBIT A-7 FILED BY STAN J.
CATERBONE.

05/18/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-8 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

0512012009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-9 FILED.

05/22/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS


REQUESTED. RANDALLO.WENGER,PROTHONOTARY

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 93 of 276.nr

\'-'! ...,.._,... ,., 1 '-"'"'"'"'. ,.,, .. ~,,,,..., , ,

,.._,..._,, ....,.,

(CORRECT

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 97 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 27 of 41

06/03/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-10. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/08/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-11. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0610912009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.


REINSTATED AS REQUESTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND ADD THE
FOLLOWING PARTIES TO THE CAPTION: DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT
STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF STUDENT
AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF JUDICIAL AFFAIRS,
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEACH
PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER, PH.D. HUMANTIES
LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, NATHANIEL
BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN ROCHAT, CHIEF OF POLICE, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT

0610912009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-12. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/11/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBT A-13. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al. .._,....,,,, .. Page


94 of 276
..... .._ ..........., ........... , ...... ,_,..,......,,. .nc
\~,

,~,

SSunday July 17, 2016

06/15/2009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 98 of 161

AME~&\iifidiQ~-r-0i004~:-EGfu~~~~p ~0.7ct1Sf~~O~~~f 41

STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE


AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINAN ICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BARAND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BARAND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA, LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL/ UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

,~, ~Jw

..

Page 95 of 276.nr

1 ~"'" . .., ... ..,, ........ ,,

~~_....,,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 99 of 161


0611512009

PRA~T2}~t~~~.d~_G1Sh Ffiloo.tJYiHttit.\1'12. c~6iliIE:+5RWsEP~~$J~-Qfi:Ms

REQUESTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND ADD THE FOLLOWING PARTIES TO


THE CAPTIONED: ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,

BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR, CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA, LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL I UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
06/17/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS


REQUESTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.

06/18/2009

AMENDED CAPTION ENTRY IS: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP I STAN J. CATERBONE VS. DUKE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page 96 of 276

.,,-} ~'-'~''')'-' ... '"- ....... .,,"'"''"'

'"''-''-'~

,r'f

SSunday July 17, 2016

0611812009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 100 of 161


PRA~T2'~t~7~~GT. RIDf;ltlffd.~ ASD1~ed=6WRVi1fuA!RaQeJ~~l

PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AND ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMES
TO THE CAPTIONED COMPLAINT: LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
06/24/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-14. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0612612009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-15. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/29/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-16. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/01/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-17. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0710212009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-18 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

0710712009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-19. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/13/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-20. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/14/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-21 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

07/14/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND TO ADD THE FOLLOWNG PARTIES TO
THE COMPLAINT. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOPITAL
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2 OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR. VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR
STREETS, LANCSTER, PENNSYLVANIA I BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY
AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.


Page 97 of 276.n(
-, .... , '""''-'""'''-'"""" .. ...,,, ..., ..... , ... ,,.
,.._.~,,_,...,_,,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

07/14/2009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 101 of 161

AME~&i;Jl.iidiQ~~~:-~~~~~~p ~Q7ctl.~~QO~rnl<~f 41

STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE


AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR, CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA, LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL/ UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BU REA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RESEACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.

Page
98 of. 276,nr:
. ., ... .,, ...,,.... ,

~""''''.,_,..,,...,

,~, .,~~,,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 102 of 161


Hou@~~ ~~R.~e~.G&SJ RaoQJ!tlW~R~a~F i;oo~@Ui15i~v1iR.@~~t.M1-tU

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT


07/16/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-22 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0711712009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-23 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/23/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-24 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/28/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-25 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0712912009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-26 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/03/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-27 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/03/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-28 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0810512009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-29 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0810712009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT AND TO ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMED PARTIES TO
THE COMPLAINT:STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO, LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR.
ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER,
PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C, LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M.
DANG, M.D., LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES
FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.;
DR. JOHN BLACK Ill, BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC,
BRIGHTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY
PRESSLEY, M.D., PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER,
PA..; DR. DANIEL MclNTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.;
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE,
LANCASTER EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..;
AMY MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA. FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al.


.,.,,

....,~

Page 99 of
276
,,_,,_,,_,_.._,_, ,nt

...... ,._.,,,,.._,, _..,.,,,,,,.._. ..... ,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

08/07/2009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 103 of 161

AME~~ii~eftij~i-0004~:-~$.Jc~~~~p ~Q.7ilf:i&o~~~f 41

STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE


AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BARAND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR, CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA, LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL/ UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RESEACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al, . , ............... ,.,Page


100 of 276 r
....._. ,.,.,,,,,.,.,,-u.
1

,.., .., ..... - , , . . .

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 104 of 161


Hou@~~ ~l1R~e~.~&$.J ~or;:i~eR'1=l~F FiLe~1~Hlil6E~v1iR.~~~1-41

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO,


LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M. DANG, M.D., LANCASTER
REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL
DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; DR. JOHN BLACK Ill,
BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC, BRIGHTSIDE
BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D., PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY PRESSLEY, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; DR. DANIEL
MclNTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE, LANCASTER
EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; AMY
MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.
08111/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-30 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/14/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-31 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/20/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-32 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF

08/31/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT AND TO KINDLY ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMED
PARTIES: LENS GRAFTERS; DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES; CARTRIDGE WORLD;
KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE; EYEMART EXPRESS STORE; DR. HARRY BREITMAN; OFFICE MAX
STORE; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA; LEON PANETIA, DIRECTOR CIA FILED BY STAN
J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL 0. WENGER, ESQ.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 101of276

\'-'I '-''-'"""'J~'"""'-'

,..,,,,.,.,._,,... ]

L'L.o._..-_..,

>

,c

SSunday July 17, 2016

08/31/2009

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 105 of 161

AME~&\iiite1iJJ~~~:-~~~~~p ~QJctl.~~o~Ii5<~f 41

STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE


AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTI NOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA, LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL/ UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BU REA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RES EACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 102 of 276

;VJ"-"<, ...... , .......... L .

""""-''''-'"-''!

''-"'~""-'''

<><c

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 106 of 161


Hou@~~ ~liR~@~.6~ ~o~~eRjj::l2>F i;oodi0,1.li16E~vuR.1~~L0fH4l

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO,


LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M. DANG, M.D., LANCASTER
REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL
DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; DR. JOHN BLACK Ill,
BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC, BRIGHTSIDE
BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D., PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY PRESSLEY, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; DR. DANIEL
MclNTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE, LANCASTER
EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; AMY
MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.,LENS
GRAFTERS, LANCASTER, PA., DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, OPTOMETRISTS,
LANCASTER, PA., CARTRIDGE WORLD, LANCASTER, PA., KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE,
LANCASTER, PA., EYEMART EXPRESS STORE, LANCASTER, PA., DR. HARRY BREITMAN,
LANCASTER, PA., OFFICE MAX STORE #854, LANCASTER, PA., CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, CIA, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA, LEON PANETTA, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA
09/03/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-33 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/16/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-34 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/16/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-35 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0912912009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-36 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

0912912009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER,


PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/02/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-37 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/06/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-38 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/13/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-39 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/16/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-40 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/19/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-41 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/21/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-42 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/23/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-43 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/28/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/30/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-44 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/10/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-45 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/20/2009

PRAECl~E TO FILE EXHIBIT A-47 FILED BY: STAN

CATERBONE v. Umted States of America, et.al

J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

Page 103 of 276

\,J '-''J'-''''1~'

... H'-.-

~>0<-~'""'"'J

~C

........... ><

''

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 107 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 37 of 41

11/20/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-48 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/20/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-46 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/25/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.

12/09/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-49 WITH CD-ROM AS EXHIBIT FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO
SE.

12/18/2009

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER,


PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/18/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-50. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/29/2009

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-51 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/29/2009

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (EMERGENCY) FOR RELIEF. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE,


PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.

12/29/2009

ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMlNARY EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR
RELIEF, THE REQUEST IS DENIED. PA. R.C.P. 1531 (A) PROVIDES, THAT A COURT MAY ISSUE AN
EX PARTE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ONLY AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE AND HEARING UNLESS IT
APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY
WILL BE SUSTAINED BEFORE NOTICE CAN BE GIVEN OR A HEARING HELD, IN WHICH CASE THE
COURT MAY ISSUE (THE) INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING OR WITHOUT NOTICE. IN
DETERMINING WHETHER (THE) INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AND WHETHER NOTICE OR
A HEARING SHOULD BE REQUIRED, THE COURT MAY ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE AVEMENTS OF
THE PLEADINGS OR PETITION AND MAY CONSIDER AFFIDAVITS OF PARTIES OR THIRD
PERSONS OR ANY OTHER PROOF WHICH THE COURT MAY REQUIRE. HERE, THE IRREPARABLE
HARM ALLEGED IS LOSS BY PLAINTIFF OF (1) PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE; (2)
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUSINESS ASSETS, AND COURT RELATED
ASSETS, INFORMATION, AND EVIDENCE; (3) PROTECTION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AT EVERY
LEVEL[:] LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL; (4) RELATIONSHIPS INCLUDING FAMILY[,] FRIENDS[,]
AND PROFESSIONAL; (5) TIME AND LIFE AS A NORMAL PERSON WOULD KNOW IT; (6) TIME WITH
MOTHER, WHO IS IN HER LAST STAGE OF LIFE ... ; (7) FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT[:]
COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN DENIED EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE HIS PERSONAL AND
BUSINESS ASSETS AT 1250 FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA[,] MAKING IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVEL OR LEAVE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME. .. ; (8) FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
MAY CONSTITUTE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MAY INVOKE THE FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
LAWS OF FREEDOM [SIC]; (9) FEMALE COMPANIONSHIP; (10) BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES; AND
(11) ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES. THE SOURCES OF THE ALLEGED IRREPARABLE HARM ARE
APPROXIMATELY 82 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, ELECTED OFFICIALS,
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, BUSINESS OF VARIOUS TYPES, MEDICAL PRACTICES AND
PRACTITIONERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND NUMEROUS PRINCIPLES, EMPLOYEES
AND AGENTS OF THE NAMED ENTITIES, WHICH ARE NAMED IN A PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
MADE PART OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. IN HIS REQUEST
FOR RELIEF,: THE COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM THE ABOVE IN THE FORM OF
SANCTIONS AND FINES FOR THOSE GUILTY OF EXTORTATION AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND
THOSE WITHHOLDING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES. COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF
FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT CONTINUE ABUSE OF PROCESS.
COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOUND GUILTY OF
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS. COMPLAINANT SEEKS RELIEF, IN AS MUCH AS THE
COURTS ARE ABLE, WITH REGARDS TO THE HARASSMENT AND TORTURE FROM THOSE
FOUND GUILTY OF SUCH CRIMES. GIVEN THE STRICT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTRY
OF EX PARTE RELIEF, THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S
PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT PROVIDE A CREDIBLE FACTUAL BASIS ON WHICH TO GRANT
RELIEF. WHILE PLAINTIFF MAY BELIEVE THE FACTUALAVEMENTSAND LEGAL
TRANSGRESSIONS TO BE PROVEN, THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT PROVIDED TO THE
COURT. MOREOVER, IN MANY INSTANCES, THE HARM CITED AND RELIEF REQUESTED ARE NOT
RATIONALLY RELATED TO THE PERSONS/ENTITIES IDENTIFIED, OR THEIR ALLEGED ACTS OR
OMISSIONS. WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED, A
CLEARER STATEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC HARM AND NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTOR'S BEHAVIOR,
AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AT WHICH ALL PARTIES MAY PRESENT PROOFS, INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF WILL NOT LIE. BY THE COURT: MARGARET C. MILLER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236 NOTICE
TO: STAN J. CATERBONE (1). MAILED ON 12/30/09.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


"L/

Page 104 of 276

~~'-''"J~U .. L

>

""'"'''-'''-"'!

'LO'-:'-'....,~'

SSunday July 17, 2016

01/04/2010

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 108 of 161


MO~~b.~~S1N~~~EEi~t111it16r''J:lm Page 38 of 41
RECONSIDERATIOIN FOR EX PARTE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29, 2009
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. (FORWARDED TO JUDGE MILLER ON JAN. 4, 2010)

01/06/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-52 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/07/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY RANDALL 0. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.

01111/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-53 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/19/2010

ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010, UPON CONSIDERATION
OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR RELIEF MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR EX PARTE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29,
2009, THE REQUEST IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: MARGARET C. MILLER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236
NOTICE TO: STAN J. CATERBONE/ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP (1 ). MAILED ON 1/21/10.

01/19/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/22/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-54 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/05/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-55 PLUS C-D ROM FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/16/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

02/18/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-56 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/19/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-57 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/22/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-58 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

03/04/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-59 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/09/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-61 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/09/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-60 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/10/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

03/10/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-62 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/17/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE PRAECIPE EXHIBIT A-64 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE,
DEFENDANT.

03/18/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-63 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/19/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

03/31/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-65 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/01/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-66 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/20/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J. CATTERBONE.

04/27/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-67 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/03/2010

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-68 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/11/2010

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, Prose.

08/31/2015

PRAECIPE, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/01/2015

PRAECIPE REINSTATE COMPLAINT, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, FILED BY STAN J.


CATERBONE

09/02/2015

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT TITLED "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT", FILED BY STAN J.
CATERBONE

09/10/2015

PRAECIPE, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/10/2015

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY KATHERINE WOOD JACOBS, PROTHONOTARY.

09/22/2015

PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/30/2015

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE: KINDLY REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT ORIGINALLY FILED ON


DECEMBER 3, 2008 IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al,.... , ..... ..,..... Page


105 of 276,,,c
...... ,_. ,..,, ..., .. .., ...... },
,~,

~~..,......,,,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 109 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Paae 39 of 41

10/02/2015

PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE: KINDLY REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT ORIGINALLY FILED" ON


DECEMBER 3, 2008 IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT.
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.

02/03/2016

PETITION - IFP- GENERAL: TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES


WITH AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL STATUS. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.
SENT TO JUDGE REINAKER ON 2/5/2016.

02/10/2016

ORDER (NO FEE) FILED.


AND NOW, THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED
PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL STATUS, IT IS HEREBY DENIED.
BY THE COURT: DENNIS E. REINAKER, PRESIDENT JUDGE
COPIES WITH 236 NOTICE MAILED TO STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ESQ., ON 2/10/16.

02/10/2016

IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED.

05/12/2016

Praecipe to file exhibit-Corroborating Expert And Former Nsa Whistleblower Karen Stewart's Disclosure
Of Electrogagnetic Weapons Used To Kill May 12 - Copy filed by Stan Caterbone

July 15, 2016

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 106 of 276

\'-'l'-'"''"''"1''""'"-''""'"''""-"1'"'""'""'" ,,,("

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 110 of 161


Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 p~~EJf 41

COMMONWEAf.~~iiJINS"~fEGS

. CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

COUNTY OF:
Mag1stena1 u1stnct Numoer:

MDJ Name: Hon.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

vs.
DEFENDANT:

Address:

NAME and ADDRESS

Telephone:

President Barach Obama


1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Docket No.:

_J

Date Filed:
OTN:
(Above to be completed by court personnel)

(Fill in defendant's name and address)

Notice: Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, your complaint may require approval by the attorney for the Commonwealth before it can be
accepted by the magisterial district court. If the attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves your complaint, you may
petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision of the attorney for the Commonwealth.

Fill in as much information as you have.

Cj'female
GI' Male

Registration Sticker (MM/YY)

1,

e endant s nver s 1cense um


State

Stan J. Caterbone
(Name of Complainant-Please Print or Type)

do hereby state: (check appropriate box)


1.

D
D

I accuse the above named defendant who lives at the address set forth above
I accuse the defendant whose name is unknown to me but who is described as

I accuse the defendant whose name and popular designation or nickname is unknown to me and whom I have
therefore designated as John Doe
with violating the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at

1250 Fremont Street and City of Lancaster, PA


(Place-Political Subdivision)

Collusion in Cointelpro Like Program against my person.


in

Lancaster

County on or about

January to Today
~~~~~~~.;_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Participants were: (if there were participants, place their names here, repeating the name of the above defendant)
Law Enforcment of Lancaster County; Residents of City and County of Lancaster, Downtown Restuarant and Bar
Proprietors, Lancaster City Police and Fireman.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page -.161 of 216

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 111 of 161


Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 12 Filed 07/15/16 Page 41of41

Defendant's Name:
Docket Number:
2.

The acts committed by the accused were:

PRIVATE
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

(Set forth a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offEnse charged. A citation to the statute allegedly violated, without more,
is not sufficient. In a summary case, you must cite the specific section and subsection of the statute or ordinance allegedly violated. The age of the victim at the
time of the offEnse may be included, if known. In addition, social security numbers and financial information (e.g. PINS) should not be listed. If the identity
of an account number must be established, list only the last four digits. 204 Pa.Code 213.1 - 213.7.)

All of which were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the Act of
Assembly, or in violation of
and
(Section)

(Subsection)

of the
(PA Statute)

3.

I ask that process be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges I have made.

4.

I verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and
belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. 4904)
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date

Signature of Complainant

Office of the Attorney for the Commonwealth D Approved


(Name of Attorney for Commonwealth-Please Pnnt or Type}

Disapproved because:

(Signature of Attorney for Commonwealth)

te

AND NOW, on this date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, I certify that the complaint has been properly completed and verified.

(Magisterial District)

(Issuing Authority)

AOPC 4118-10

Page 2 of 2

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 108 of 276

SEAL
SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 112 of 161

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 109 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 113 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

....--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,

EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OF


STANLEY J. CATERBONE
(VOLUME II)

2
3
4

5
6
7

TAKEN BY:

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

BEFORE:

DIANE A. SMITH, REPORTER


NOTARY PUBLIC

DATE:

JUNE 28, 2016, 9:25 A.M.

10

PLACE:
11

LANCASTER BAR ASSOCIATION

28 EAST ORANGE STREET


LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

12
13
14

15
L6

APPEARANCES:
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN
BY: CHRISTOPHER M. REESER, ESQUIRE

& GOGGIN

FOR - ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

L7
L8

19

~3

M
25

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 110 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 114 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

....---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----.

WITNESSES

EXAMINATION

2
3

STANLEY J. CATERBONE
BY:

MR. REESER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 111 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 115 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

.....-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,

1
2

STANLEY J. CATERBONE, called as a witness, being


duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION
THE WITNESS:

I wanted to try to give you some

background about why people are doing this to me.

MR. REESER:

THE WITNESS:

okay.
Here's one of the first things.

This is a book written by the chief of Police ex-wife.

BY MR. REESER:

ll.O

chief of Police of Lancaster?

Lancaster, yes.

she accused him of domestic

ll.2

abuse, and I've had the book for over a year.

other thing is this book here.

14

right now to get her out of prison.

And the

I have the only live case

ts

And why don't you read the title of the book.

16

Love, Murder and corruption in Lancaster county,

17

My Story by Lisa Michelle Lambert and David Brown.

18

communicate with Dave Brown a couple times a week.

19

who is David Brown?

>o

Her attorney that wrote the book.

Now if you're

~1

not familiar with this case, there were three teenagers

~2

that were involved in a murder back in 1992.

~3

federal judge named Stewart Dalzell released her saying

~4

there was so much prosecutorial misconduct in the case that

>5

she was actually innocent.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

In 1997, a

Now Pennsylvania appealed it,

Page 112 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 116 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

.....-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,

and they had to have another PCRA hearing in front of Larry

Stengel.

essentially, and she went back to prison.

well, he found -- he reversed everything


Now last June, I filed an Amicus on her behalf as

to move it in the case.

And I currently have a 3rd circuit

appeal case to get her out of prison.

controversial that 38,000 people signed a petition from

Lancaster to impeach the judge.

They never impeached him.

Now the case was so

of course, they lost.

But in 1997, the attorney that

lO

represented her had some dealings with me.

n.1
n.2
n.3

Christina Rainville.

b..4

suffered.

b..5

federal whistleblower for International signal control, the

11..6

firm selling arms to Iraq to a Black ops Program with the

l7

CIA and the NSA

I blew the whistle in '87 -- they were

11..8

indicted in '91

and the fact that I'm a victim of mind

b..9

control, there's ample reason and sufficient evidence of

Her name is

Now essentially my Amicus is based on a premise


that I suffered the same prosecutorial misconduct that she
Now you couple that with the fact that I'm the

why people break into my house and steal my things and


break my things.
Now I presented transcripts from Nick Begich, who
is a renowned expert in mind control, Karen Stewart, who is
a former NSA whistleblower who suffers the same
symptomatology as me, and Julianne McKinney, who is a

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 113 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 117 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---,

former intelligence officer of the u.s. Army.

suffer the same symptoms that I do.

security has been paying me disability benefits since 2008.

for mind control.

They all

In addition, social

Do you have a copy of the Disability

Determination?

sure, I have it in here.

can I take a look at it?

Yeah, it might take me a couple minutes to find

11

sure.

12

This injunction was filed yesterday at 4:24 p.m.

10

it.

13

in the Lancaster county courthouse.

I have 191 pages of

14

documentation with SSA.

15

Now through the application process, I applied in April of

16

'09 and received a check for $21,000 in August.

17

se.

Here is my letter, award letter.


I was pro

There were not psychiatric examinations.

18

May I take a look at that as you're talking?

19

Yes.

And there were no medical reports.

It was

all awarded on my documentation of mind control symptoms


and illnesses.
'09.

what they did was -- I applied in April of

They awarded me benefits in August of '09 and paid me

back one year, retroactive one year.


one year.

They can only do it

But they declared me disabled in December of

'05, which is when I declared that I became full-time

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 114 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 118 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---.6

telepathic and under harassment with electromagnetic

weapons.

3
4

That's what the '05 date is.


so I see, you know, the letter saying that you

became disabled under our rules on December 1, 2005.

Right.

It doesn't say anything as to why.

No, they don't do that.

They only -- what they do

is they give you an award letter and it either says

physical or mental, nothing beyond that because of HIPAA.

10

But if you go through all the documentation I have of the

11

entire process, you'll notice that there's no medical

12

reports submitted.

13

Joe Pitts' office to try to get them to give me a

14

psychiatric evaluation because I thought it was required.

15

They wouldn't give me one.

16

for mental illness, impossible.

17

And I begged them -- in fact, I went to

so it's impossible for it to be


It's just not.

You don't have a document anywhere from the social

18

security Administration that says we've determined that

19

you're disabled because of this condition?


A

>1
>2

physical.
Q

They don't do that.

It's either mental or

If I had one, I'd present it.


Yeah.

It seems to me I've seen things to the

>3

contrary where there's been a determination that somebody

~4

is disabled --

~5

well, they didn't give me any.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 115 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 119 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

....--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,

-- for a particular reason.

Now my father collected disability.

He was a

victim of MKUltra.

what is that?

That's where mind control came from, a CIA

program.

It started in the '50s.

okay.

You'll have to ask them.

I mean I understand what you're telling me about

lO

why was he a target?

your role as a federal whistleblower but -A

He was Navy, a very intelligent person.

He was a

l2

member of the Air Gunners squadron, which I have

13

documentation from him that he left, which is like a

14

special option.

15

school.

16

And he graduated with honors from their

so that could be why.


what I'd like to do is go back to what we were

17

doing before and discuss the items that were on Exhibit 1

18

that was marked at the first examination.

~9

started with that, two things.

Before I get

one, have you brought any

of the receipts from the items that were damaged or the


replacement items that you purchased?
A

can you guarantee me you're going to pay the

claim?
1>5

NO.

NO.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 116 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 120 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

....-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--...,8

1
2

okay.

that guarantee.

second, I don't have the ability to make


I mean I could say yes and I --

I'm not going to waste my time.

A11 right.

I didn't have to do it for previous insurance

claims like this.

All right.

second, you had sent me an email I

think indicating that you had other items to add?


A

10

so I'm not going to do it for this one.

Every day.

seriously, every day.

injunction takes care of everything.

I'm hoping this

so we'll see.

I'm not sure it has anything to do with this claim

It has everything to do with everything.

IL4

All right.

!LS

Let me read you the relief I'm requesting,

ll

IL2

IL6

but
And you filed --

emergency relief.

17

Filed in the 3rd circuit you said?

18

No, Lancaster county court of common Pleas.

IL9

oh, okay.

DO

I filed one in '09, and the judge ruled on it.

Dl

so

I'm hoping she will on this one.

~2

what is the docket number?

~3

I didn't get one yet.

>4

okay.

~5

I'll read it.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

I just filed it yesterday.

Relief sought by Plaintiff.

Page 117 of 276

The

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 121 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----,

complainant seeks immediate relief from the above in the

form of sanctions and fines for those guilty of extortion

and embezzlement and those withholding accounts

receivables.

law enforcement agencies that continue abuse of process.

complainant seeks immediate relief from public officials

for obstructing justice and due process.

relief inasmuch as the courts are able with regards to the

harassment and torture from those known of such crimes.

complainant seeks immediate relief from the

complainant seeks

lO

The complainant seeks relief from stalking and

[1

harassing neighbors and requires law enforcement to make

l2

sure households can identify all occupants and prove they

[3

are entitled to the lease and/or deed.

l4

seeks relief by awarding the complainant his pro se

ls

billings invoice.

[6

the complainant summary judgment in all cases filed before

[7

the Lancaster county court of common Pleas in retaliation

[8

for the arrogance of both the local law enforcement

19

community and the judicial system for the systematic abuse

>Q

of process and the extreme nature of the obstruction of

>1

justice, which in itself is responsible for putting the

~2

complainant's life in harm's way on a daily basis.

03

June 27th, 2016.

>4

)5

The complainant

The complainant seeks relief by awarding

All right.

changing gears.

Going back to the

list here of items that you've submitted.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 118 of 276

Date,

think we left

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 122 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

10

off talking about the cost of repairs for your computers

which were hacked.

going to move onto the next item, which is a wet dry vac.

so we talked about that.

okay.

Tell me about that.

Let's see what they did to that one.

And we're

oh, they

burnt the motor out.

okay.

when did that happen?

oh, boy, that happened fairly recently.


because I just replaced it.

10

happened

~1

March.

~2

on stonehill Road in Conestoga in 1995.

replaced it with was a compact unit.

11..4

broken was full-sized.

l5

power motor.

11..6

17

say it was 150.

That

I'm going to say

Now the wet dry vac I bought when I built my house


Now the one I

The one that was

I think it was, like, a two horse

The one I replaced it with I think was $69.

think the original price of the one

bought -- I want to

It was a craftsman, the original one.

18

It was 21-years-old?

~9

Yeah, yeah.

DO

okay.

Dl

oh, yeah.

1>2

And one day you started -- you tried to use it and

~3

it didn't work?
A

~5

Did you use it on a regular basis?

Yeah, worked the day before and then it didn't

work.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 119 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 123 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

11

okay.

I guess it was February.

cordless phone, tell me about that.


I have magicJack.

Are

you familiar with that?

No.

It's where you use the internet for your phone.

Like a voice over --

Yeah.

-- what do they call that -- vor?

only it's different in that they give you a module

11..0

that you connect to your computer.

b.1

All right.

b.2

Now what I did was -- they came out with a new

b.3

version where you connect it to your Comcast router so that

b.4

instead of -- before with the old version, you had to have

n.s

the computer on for the phone to work.

b.6

I upgraded to the new version and connected it to my

tl.7

Comcast server.

b.8

so I went to Radio shack and bought a new cordless phone.

b.9

well, it lasted a month and doesn't work anymore.

so I switched over.

so that means the magicJack is live 24/7.

~o

Did you take it back?

bl

NO.

b2

why not?

1>3

Just too busy.

what I do on that line -- I

1>4

forward it anyway to my cell phone number, and I was using

1>5

it just, you know, sporadically.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 120 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 124 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

12

r would think after a month they would -- they

would replace it?

They probably would.

I'm just too busy, just

priorities.

replace it.

r would think so.

oh, boy, what a mess that was.

r mean I could probably take it back now and


cable boxes and modem.
okay.

Let's see.

r guess in February or March I went to upgrade all my cable

boxes.

And at the same time, somebody from Comcast told me

lO

that if I hook up to Comcast Business I would get a more

Ll

secure internet connection and a faster connection.

L2

hook up to Comcast Business on a 60 day trial.

l3
l4
lS

me a box, a new

L6

r disconnected it.

L7

my cable boxes, but they never worked.

LS

back and forth to Comcast two or three times.

l9

techs would come out.

~O

I don't know if people put chips in them.

~1

they just sabotaged them or what.

so I

They send

or, in fact, no, they came out and

installed it -- a new router.

And after two weeks, they

reversed everything and said no, it's not more secure.

so

Then I went to Comcast and upgraded all


I mean I was going
service

They couldn't find the problem.

I don't know if

~2

You don't know why they're not working?

D3

Comcast doesn't even know why.

They couldn't

D4

even -- I'd get billed for HBO for three months, and I

)5

never had HBO.

I mean it wouldn't work.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 121 of 276

so

And I kept

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 125 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

13

getting on the phone with customer service spending two

hours -- one time two and a half hours, and it still didn't

work.

They still couldn't fix it.

okay.

How long ago was that?

That was probably two months ago, three months

ago, after the first of the year, probably the second

quarter.

Are they still trying to fix the problem?

LO

okay.

Ll

stopped trying.

mean

just -- you know.

The 100 dollar cost to replace, is that

just the value of the cable boxes and the modems or modem?

L2

Yeah,

guess what they did is they billed me.

L3

Comcast Business billed me.

They all billed me.

~4

yeah, that's basically what it is.

mean,

~5

They billed you more because it was a business --

L6

oh, yeah -- no, they billed me because they would

L7

not accept the return of the modem.

LS

then, and they wouldn't pick it up.

~9

couldn't return it

Do you have any written correspondence between

yourself and Comcast over the issue?


A
I

Yeah,

have notes.

have -- yeah,

have emails

guess, yeah.
Q

Do you have any of them with you?

No.

would you be willing to forward those to me?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 122 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 126 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

14

Yeah, I can dig those up, something pertaining to

that.

But it was a mess.

I even

think I recorded the one tech that came to my door.

He got

smart with me.

5
6

this.

I mean I forget exactly.

I had to throw him off my property.

I'm probably going to butcher the pronunciation of


Is it sakrete or sakrete?
oh, sakrete, yeah.

Listen what they did.

had

yard for a six foot wooden fence.

I was putting post holes -- putting posts in my back


And what these kids next

10

door were doing was they were going and wetting the bags,

Ill

ruining the whole bag.

~2

know how heavy sakrete is when it's hardened cement?

Now that's not the issue.

Do you

~3

Yeah, I got a sense for that.

11..4

I had to break it up and put it in buckets and

l5

take it out to the alley.

11..6

so basically they ruined the bags?

17

oh, yeah.

18

Made them unusable?

~9

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

"2

Is that $4 a bag or --

1>3

Yeah.

And you have $12 there?

That's not the half of it.

They filled in

)4

the holes before I could -- I had to dig the holes out two

'5

or three times.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 123 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 127 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

15

when you say they, again who is they?

I assume it's the people next door.

They are the

ones who sic the pit bull on me that I had to go to the

hospital for two weeks ago.

oh, gees.

oh, yeah.

Are you all right?

I had to go to the ER and take antibiotics for 10

w
u

days.
Q

okay.

The next item I have is just miscellaneous

clothes, $100?

l2

Yeah, they are always ruining my clothes.

13

Ruining them or stealing them?

14

Both.

15

when you say ruining them, what do you mean by

16

17

that?
A

They' 11 put spots on them so I can't wear them,

18

the shirts, or they'll shrink them.

l9

slippers they make big.

~O

kinds of tricks.

>4
>5

They've done that.

so I can't wear those.

My

I mean all

I'm sorry?

They made --

slippers big.

They made them big.

If you -- I have those three experts I mentioned.

so I can't wear them.

They all talk about -- the first thing they do in these

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 124 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 128 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

16

programs is break into your house, and it's impossible,

impossible to find out how they get in.

And I think we talked about this last time you

were here.

You don't have any signs of forced entry?

Forced entry?

Yes, a broken window --

NO

a broken door.

in '87, I did.

LO

well, I had forced entry by the

Lancaster city Police last July on a 302 warrant.

Yeah, you told me about that.

L2

But other than that, forced entry, no, no.

~3

L4

15
16

signs

of entry, but not forced.


Q

when you say signs of entry, you define that by

the fact things were missing?


A

Moved, missing, lights on that were off or off

17

that were on, things like that.

18

porch -- you know, if I go out in the evening, I'll leave

L9

my front porch light on.

~o

and, you know, hard to get in, you know, to see your key

~1

hole and things like that.


Q

The other night my

well, I came home and it's off


It's harassment.

The next item you have is vapor electronic

cigarettes?
A

"JS

oh, yeah, now they help you reduce smoking regular

cigarettes.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 125 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 129 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

17

These are the E-Cigs?

Yeah, but they are the pens with cartridges.

are expensive.

like at Turkey Hill or something.

that

or dry herbs.

nicotine.

think, I think one after that.

They

They are not the ones you buy in the store

they are three in one.

These are the ones

You can smoke waxes, oils

Now what I get is, like, six milligrams of

It's in liquid form.

They stole my fifth one I

A 11

w
u

oh, yeah, yeah, all from home, yeah, five of them.

I mean that sounds like the kind of thing

L2
13
14

15
16
17

from home?
I

mean I'm famous for leaving things behind at restaurants.


oh, no, no, no, no, no, I don't leave this behind.

No, no, they were stolen.


same thing, you don't know when they got in, how

they got in, but they are just not there anymore?
well, I mean in 2009 -- let me give you an

okay.

This is what I used to do.

I used to

18

example.

19

document daily in journals all the incidents that I'm

>o

describing.

I did that for about a year, very detailed,

>1

every day.

In 2010, I said I have enough documentation.

>2

That's it.

I mean it's a full-time job.

>3

those.

>4

Yeah.

>5

I can send you those.

I can send you

I mean I have those in PDF form.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

I mean I can email those to

Page 126 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 130 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

18

you.
It looks like this is something that's filed with

the court?

This whole thing is the emergency injunction.

All right.

well, I mean that should be available

online.

I'd say three days.

This is filed with the prothonotary --

Yes.

10

-- in civil court?

11

Yeah, I can show you the stamped pages.

I just

12

had to make copies.

My toner mysteriously went out, and

13

I'm waiting for a cartridge to be delivered today.

14

you page to the left, you'll see the three pages that were

15

stamped.

But if

16

That's not what I was supposed to get there.

17

There you go.

18
~9
~O
~1

down.
Q

If you swipe it

no, it's up and

There is four pages stamped there.


Yeah, it just has the time stamp on it.

It

doesn't have the docket number.


A

No, yeah, they didn't

I guess I could have

)2

maybe got them to give me a docket number, but they didn't.

>3

You know, I didn't push it.


Q

All right.

Here you can see the -- there's the state cover

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 127 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 131 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

19

sheet.

Yeah, they didn't stamp it with a docket number

either.

This is the civil cover sheet.

okay.

And this is the first page of the injunction.

Judge Margaret Miller ruled on mine in '09 and

essentially -- it was similar to this.

what she said was that I didn't provide her enough evidence

10

for her to rule in my favor.

11

she said.

12

victim of mind control.

13

because I got corroborating witnesses.

In a nutshell, that's what

Plus she said she didn't really believe I was a


But this time it's a lot different

14

okay.

15

Dr. Nick Begich.

L6

who are the corroborating witnesses?


He's an expert in mind control

technologies.

L7

where is he out of?

L8

Alaska.

L9

And essentially

Administration.

His father was killed by the Hoover


He was a u.s. congressman.

~O

what was the last name again?

~1

Begich, B-e-g-i-c-h.

I'm sorry.

Now his brother just

~2

finished a term in congress last year in the Senate.

D3

Anyway, his father back in -- I forget what year it was

J4

was traveling with the speaker of the House, Wayne Boggs,

)5

and they were both killed in a plane accident.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 128 of 276

And they

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 132 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

20

were raising hell about Hoover with his Cointel Program.

so anyway, Nick Begich began doing research on the HARP

Installation in Alaska, which is a 180 antenna array that

is the focus or the basis for electromagnetic weapons.

It's called HARP.

convinced the European Parliament to ban electromagnetic

weapons.

transcript of his lecture in October of 2015, and he gave a

lecture during the covert Harassment conference in Belgium.

[.O

Now back about eight years ago, he

so he's a renowned expert.

Now I have a

I think it was Belgium.

okay.

[.2

Yes, then I have Karen Stewart.

You mentioned her.

14

Karen Stewart is a former NSA whistleblower.

[.S

National security Agency when you say NSA?

16

Yeah, yeah.

Do you have other witnesses?

she blew the whistle in 2004.

Now

17

she just emailed me three weeks ago.

I emailed some

18

information, and she emailed me back and said thank you for

19

it.

~o

determined that some weaponry that was being used over in

Dl

Afghanistan and Iraq wasn't performing up to standards.

:>2

And she more or less drew attention to it to the U.S.

:>3

Military, and somebody took credit for her work.

:>4

became an NSA whistleblower.

>5

same problems I did, people breaking in her house,

Anyway, she -- essentially what happened was she

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

And she

Then she started having the

Page 129 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 133 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

21

electromagnetic weapon attacks, things like that.


Now the NSA is critical for two reasons.

I blew

the whistle on ISC, the Lancaster firm selling arms to

Iraq.

was with the NSA.

director of the NSA, was on their board of directors.

also owns a company that deals in mind control.

Bill Clinton nominated him to be the secretary of Defense,

and he withdrew because of the ISC scandal.

Their first program -- their first contract in 1973


Bobby Ray Inman, who was the former
He

In 1994,

Plus on March

10

9th, the NSA took me into custody, false imprisoned me for

11

an hour and a half and had eight security police

12

interrogate me for no reason.

13

of this year, March of this year?

14

Yeah, down in Fort Meade.

15

where is Fort Meade?

L6

That's the NSA.

L7

Is Fort Meade in Colorado?

L8

Maryland.

19

oh, I'm sorry.

>Q

Dogs at my car, handcuffed me, interrogated me and

~1

then told me I couldn't go down to Washington, D.C. and

~2

told me I wasn't allowed on federal property anymore, which

~3

was a lie.

:>4

of them.
Q

I walked away and essentially made a fool out


Karen Stewart, where is she located?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 130 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 134 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

22

well, she worked down in Fort Meade, Maryland, but

she since -- after she blew the whistle and started having

symptoms, she moved to Florida -- I believe that's where

she's at now -- with family.

okay.

I got a little sidetracked there.

Let me

bring you back to the next item, which is HVLP tips.

they related to the cigarettes?

8
9

A
sprayer.

Are

No, no, that's a high-volume, low-pressure paint


what they did was -- I bought a used one at the

lO

Reuse It store off of Pitney Road out near Greenfield

ll

Industrial Park.

l2

come with it, so different velocities for the paint, like

L3

smaller and larger.

L4

instruction manual and brushes to clean it.

LS

everything in a clear plastic bag to keep it all together.

16

I went to use the sprayer, and the bag was gone.

17

to go out and buy a brand-new HVLP.

18

one I bought -- I think I paid 60 for it.

l9
DQ

Dl

okay.

And I brought it home, and I put -- tips


It comes with three tips.

Tips.

so I put
so I had

It cost me $119.

The

You have a quantity lost two and then

estimated cost to replace 45.


A

It had an

what did you lose two of?

Yeah, what they did was they put the small

>2

tip in.

so I'm trying to spray stain for my fence, and,

)3

you know, you need the larger tip.

)4

thought I could replace the tips, but you can't.

>5

to replace the whole thing.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 131 of 276

But I said 45.

I
so I had

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 135 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

23

okay.

I don't mean to be redundant.

so I'm just

going to ask you

That's all right.

-- a blanket question here if it applies to all of

these items here, and I'll show it to you.

items, you don't have -- or you're not willing to produce a

receipt.

8
9

For all these

correct?
only if you give me a guarantee that you're going

to pay the claim.

LO

And I've to 1d you I can't do that.

Ll

okay.

L2

None of these items have been reported as lost or

L3

stolen or damaged to the police.

correct?

L4

To the police?

LS

Yes.

L6

I'm in this injunction accusing the police of

L7

trying to kill me.

No, I mean I can't.

18

A11 right.

19

That's what abuse of process is.

'0

>1

And none of these i terns


It's when the

police do not take your complaints.


Q

And for any of these items, you do not have -- you

'2

can't tell me specifically who it was who stole it or broke

'3

it or whatever the case may be?

>4

NO.

>s

All right.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

I'm not going to keep asking that

Page 132 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 136 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

24

1
2

question.
A

I can -- I can tell you this.

since 2006, the

neighbors at 1252 Fremont Street have been engaged in a

constant harassment and threat campaign no matter who is in

that house.

Has there been a change in

oh, yeah, three times.

Is it a rental house?

Yes.

10

Do you know who the current residents are?

11

No, they don't tell me the truth, no.

I mean I

12

filed a private criminal complaint against them in the

13

county D.A. 's office this year.

14

harass me.

15

happened June 10th.

L6

center on college Avenue.

L7

and 10 vicodin.

~9

They are Spanish.

They

They are the ones who sic the dog on me.

That

I went to Lancaster Regional Medical


Dr. Westphal gave me antibiotics

Now he wanted me to go through rabies

shots, but I didn't do it.

I said the dog wasn't rabid.

have the hospital report.


Q

The next item is a staple airgun?

Right.

That was theft.

They stole my staple airgun.


That wasn't damaged.

That was

theft?
A

Yeah, theft.

when was that?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

That was theft.

Page 133 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 137 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

2S

This all -- this all happened when I started

erecting the new six foot fence and a screened-in porch in

my back.

And I started construction March 10th.

so sometime after March 10th?

Yeah.

And I don't know if I asked you about the HVLP

tips.

But when were those taken?

I'm going to say in May.

of this year?

LO

Yeah.

L1

I also don't think I asked you about the five

L2
L3

vapor electronic cigarette cartridges.


A

okay.

bought my first one -- let me see.

L4

say that was all after January 1st.

LS

after January 1st.

L6

I bought one at the convenience store on Manor or

L7

Millersville Pike, Hershey Avenue.

L8

IL9
~o

g1
~2

I'd

Yeah, they were all

bought one downtown at Puff N' stuff.

In doing the math here, it looks like they go for

about SO to $60 a piece?


A

Yeah, some are -- that's the minimum.

last one I bought was $79.


Q

okay.

I think the

That's the minimum price.

The next one is a belt for $9.

Are we

~3

talking about, you know, a belt to hold your pants up, that

)4

kind of belt?
A

Yeah, yeah.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 134 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 138 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

26

Stolen, damaged?

stolen.

when?

within the past two months.

The next one is a 36 inch by 100 feet --

oh, yeah.

-- black screen?

That was to do my screened-in porch.

replace it.

~o

stolen?

Stolen.

l2
L3
L4

In fact, I just bought that -- I replaced

that probably a month ago.


Q

I'm sorry?

You just replaced the screen for the

screened-in porch?

LS

Yeah, it's a ro 11 .

16

Right.

17
18
19

'0
~1

I had to

roll.
A

It's 100 by

I'm familiar with them.

so it was on the

somebody just took the roll?


Yeah, it was in a plastic bag, yeah, plastic

sleeve, yeah, took the whole roll.


Q

okay.

And the last one is one pair of work

gloves?
A

Yeah.

I know what work gloves are.

Yeah.

Now here's what they do.

A lot of times

they'll steal it and then a week later they'll return it.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 135 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 139 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

27

I mean they play games like that.

It's psychological

warfare along with the theft and damages.

were any of these items ever returned to you?

some.

5
6

I mean I can't keep track.


Q

okay.

list.

possession.

some were.

Then they'd steal them again.


It's hard to keep track of it.

As of today, are -- here, I'll show you the

Tell me if any of those items are in your


Let's see.

well, some of these are damaged.

LO

wished they returned the vapor electronic cigarettes.

Ll

the work gloves they did return.

L2

them.

13

14

today?

15

16

there.

17

18

L9

>2
>3

I
Now

I found where they put

so they are in your possession at least as of


Yes, they are.

I don't know if they'll stay

Now is there anything that you would like to add

to supplement to this list?


A

As far as the list or evidence or what?

No, as far as the list of items.

Yeah, I could -- you know, I can update, yeah.

can send them to you.


Q

of anything that you would add to that list, would

~4

they all have been items in which were lost or damaged --

~5

stolen or damaged in the same way as the items that we've

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 136 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 140 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

28

discussed?

oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I got tired of making --

keeping lists.

But I -- well, let me do it now.

think.

okay.

morning -- I produced an exhibit, a DVD, a disk with this

case to the courts.

myself.

That happened this morning.

Let me see.

Let me

we talked about the new vapor pen.

Here is a for instance.

I went to -- this

so I have to make a copy today for

The DVD recorder doesn't work on my computer.


Yesterday

oh, this morning

LO

I found that two day's worth of photos in my phone were

Ll

missing from my computer.

L2

and on.

L3

anything substantial because I probably -- well, the toner

L4

cartridge.

LS

toner gets low, it will give you a warning that you need to

L6

soon replace your toner.

L7

document.

LS

out, but it never gave me the warning.

L9

capability of actually hacking into my copier because it's

I mean there is nothing -- I'm trying to think of


what happens is I have a copier.

off.

And when the

well, I'm producing this

And at the 611th page, it says black ink toner

a wireless copier.
Q

Yeah, you know, the list goes on

so they have the

so I had to order a new ink cartridge.

Now you did mention -- and I don't mean to cut you


Is there anything else that you want to talk about?

No.

All right.

Now you did mention that you had

submitted two similar claims to other insurers?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 137 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 141 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

29

Yeah, yeah.

Tell me about those.

They were in 'OS I was paid and '06.

I -- okay.

Conestoga, PA.

about the same, somewhere around $6,000.

schedule similar to this, and they paid from that schedule.

Now what they did was the one they paid the claim, but they

inflated the depreciation value.

It's when

It's when I lived at 220 stonehill Road,


The claims were about -- I think they were
I produced a

so I filed a complaint

10

with the Pennsylvania Insurance commission.

Now in 2006

11

no, 2007 or 8, after I moved to 1250 Fremont Street, I

12

tried to file a claim.

13

filing that on my mother's property casualty policy.

14

would have filed another claim.

But my brother blocked me from


so I

Now the insurance companies, they have a database

15

L6

of all the insurance claims that are paid out.

L7

familiar with that?

Are you

LB

NO.

19

Yeah, there's a database that actuaries use.

>o

don't know how you access it or what.

)1

have a correspondence from the southern Regional Police

>2

Department in 2006 -- 5 or 6 regarding all my complaints to

~3

them about incidents regarding vandalism and thefts.

>4

southern Regional Police covered Conestoga Township back

~5

then.

The other thing is I

Now

Now I went to try to find -- I know I had paperwork

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 138 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 142 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

30

on the claims.

I had copies of the checks, copies of the

claims, but I can't find them in my computer.

Do you remember who the insurers were?

Harleysville was for one, maybe both of them, you

know.

And they were the same type of claims.

Theft or damaged or

Just like this, yeah.

I tried to find them.

have backup disks now.

unfortunately, there is -- I have

three laptop drives and two external hard drives from 2005

lO

and 6 that are in my safety deposit box.

ll

equipment so that I could more or less connect those drives

12

to my computer and read them, but the equipment would come

13

and it won't work.

14

until I'm more secure with the computer hacking, I can't do

l5

anything with them.

l6

even though they took them from my current drive.

l7
l8
19

)0

okay.

you.

>3

so I have them stored.

But, you know,

But I'm sure the claims are in there

I don't think I have any more questions for

Is there anything that you'd like to add to this?


A

No.

If you could tell me what you want other than

the receipts.
Q

)2

I ordered

There was a letter sent to you I believe sometime

between the first examination and the second examination.


A

~4

morning.

>5

that.

I couldn't find it.

I tried to find it this

That's why I asked you what time.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 139 of 276

They stole

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 143 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

31

I don't think I have --

I think I have a hard copy, but I didn't want to

root through my file.

and I couldn't find it.

letter format because I scan everything?

6
7

I tried to find it on my computer


Did you email it or did it come in

I believe I was emailed a copy of it, but I

think -- I assume it was sent to you in letter format.

Are you talking about the one form Allstate --

Yes.

1.0

-- or the one from you?

11

No, no, the one from Allstate.

12

I have that.

13

That's what I'm talking about.

14

Yeah, I have that.

LS

That's right.

Yeah, I have

that.

16

They want a document filled out and --

17

Right.

18

-- forwarded back to them.

1.9

was I supposed to bring that today?

'0

It would have been helpful, but it's not

>1

mandatory.

'2

don't have to send it to me.

If you could get it back to Mr. Eisenhard.

You

'3

okay.

'4

Other than that, you know, I don't know that there

'5

was

whatever Allstate had requested.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 140 of 276

The only thing I

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 144 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

32

was looking for were the receipts.


A

MR. REESER:

3
4

okay.
okay.

And we're done.

Thank you

very much.

THE WITNESS:

(Whereupon, the examination concluded at 10:12

Yeah.

a.m.)

8
9

w
Ill
~2

13

14
15
16

17
18
~9

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 141 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 145 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

33

COUNTY OF DAUPHIN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

SS

I, Diane A. smith, a Notary Public, authorized to

administer oaths within and for the commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the

testimony of Stanley J. caterbone.

I further certify that before the taking of said

examination, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions

and answers were taken down stenographically by the said

Reporter-Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to

typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter.

I further certify that the said examination was

taken at the time and place specified in the caption sheet

hereof.

I further certify that I am not a relative or

employee or attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a

relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or

financially interested directly or indirectly in this

action.

I further certify that the said examination

constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the

said witness.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand


this 11th day of July, 2016.

Diane A. smith, Reporter


Notary Public

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 142 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 146 of 161


Stan J. Caterbone Testimony

34

2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13
14

15
L6

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 143 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 147 of 161


1

EXAMINATION UNDER OATH OF


STANLEY J. CATERBONE

TAKEN BY:

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

BEFORE:

DIANE F. FOLTZ, RMR


NOTARY PUBLIC

DATE:

JUNE 9, 2016, 9:15 A.M.

PLACE:

LANCASTER COUNTY BAR


ASSOCIATION
28 EAST ORANGE STREET
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

APPEARANCES:
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY: CHRISTOPHER M. REESER, ESQUIRE
FOR - ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 144 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 148 of 161


2
WITNESSES

NAME

STANLEY J. CATERBONE

BY: MR. REESER

EXAMINATION

5
6
7
8

10
11

EXHIBITS

12
13
14

CATERBONE EXHIBIT

15

1.

PRODUCED AND MARKED

13

LIST OF ITEMS

16
17

18
19

20
21
22

23
24

25

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 145 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 149 of 161


3

STANLEY J. CATERBONE, called as a witness, being

1
2

duly sworn, testified as follows:


EXAMINATION

BY MR. REESER:

Could you state your name, please?

Stanley J. Caterbone, C-a-t-e-r-b-o-n-e.

Would you mind if I called you Stan or Stanley?

Stan.

Stan, okay.

10

And my name's Chris Reeser.

You can

call me Chris.

11

All right.

12

I'm not a real formal guy.

I have been asked to

13

take a statement from you relative to an insurance claim

14

which I understood to have occurred as a result of

15

something on April 3rd of 2016, but by some correspondence

16

that I received from you, my understanding is that is not

17

the date of loss.

18
19

No.

That date is the date that I started the

spreadsheet --

20

Okay.

21

-- of the items lost or vandalized.

22

All right.

This statement is part of the process

23

of collecting information and evaluating the claim.

24

Allstate's policy, as does just about any insurance

25

company's policy, provides that part of the duty of an

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 146 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 150 of 161


4

insured is to give an examination under oath --

Okay.

-- at the request of the insured -- at the

request of the insurer, so that is what this is.

I've had --

Go ahead.

I've had -- I've collected on two or three

Go ahead.

policies with the same types of claims, and I've never been

put under oath --

10

11

12

So noted.

13

Okay.

14

And I'll ask you about that.

15

And I

16

All right.

17

I just, you know

18

All right.

19

-- have never experienced it.

20

Okay.

22

Sure.

23

This is part of what the insurer is allowed to

21

24
25

Okay.
on the record.

don't mind under oath.

Well

Well, a first time for everything.

This

is

ask of their insured.


A

Oh,

I don't mind at all.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 147 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 151 of 161


5

1
2

Okay.

Great.

So I'm going to ask you some

questions about that.

Okay.

I usually when I take these statements -- and

I've taken a couple of them -- have some information about

the claim.

claim.

Okay.

So --

10

Can I give you a brief history --

11

Go.

12

-- to put it in perspective?

13

Yeah.

14

I am a federal whistleblower.

I have very little information about this

Go.
I blew the whistle

15

on International Signal Control or ISC in 1987.

16

indicted in 1991 for a billion dollar fraud and selling

17

illegal arms to Iraq.

18

1987 they

Now,

They were

I was a shareholder, and in

19

I'm sorry.

20

Yes.

21

operations.

22

Okay.

23

Now, since -- I've been trying to get into

You were a shareholder in ISC?

They solicited me to finance some

So I'm a legitimate, bona fide whistleblower.

24

courts, hired various attorneys from '87 all the way up.

25

In 2005 I entered the federal court system as a pro se

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 148 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 152 of 161


6

litigant.

I filed my own claims.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, here's what happened.

I became a

victim of organized stalking, electronic harassment or mind

control technologies.

show you some expert testimony -- is that what they do is

they break into your home, vandalize, steal, move things

around.

policies making the same types of claims.

Now, what happens is -- and I'll

And since '05 I've collected on two or three

10

losses are not a single-day loss.

11

period of time.

Now, these

They happen over a

12

Okay.

13

And I can't give you dates as far as when what

14

was taken, when that was taken, but that's just a

15

background for your reference as far as this is not an

16

ordinary claim.

17

When you say they, who is they?

18

Well, I don't know, you know.

19

say.

20

be agents.

21

It could be neighbors.

It's impossible to

It could be police.

It could be anybody.
But you believe that they are all in conspiracy

22

to punish you because of your activity as a federal

23

whistleblower?

24
25

A
that.

It could

I'm going to refer you to documents to explain


As a victim of electronic harassment and gang

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 149 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 153 of 161


7

stalking, the victim -- part of the victimization is that

they break into your home.

Okay.

But you don't know who the they is?

Well, of course not.

Have you ever seen anybody in the act?

I have one person on a security camera video.

Okay.

That was in 2006.

And was there an insurance claim related to that?

10

Not to that particular person, no.

11

All right.

12

But there was a claim that year.

Harleysville

13

paid me once or twice, and there was another one.

But

14

unfortunately I'm also the victim of computer hacking.

15

These are all the reports from the past year on Geek Squad

16

and other companies reviewing and analyzing and fixing my

17

hard drives after they've been hacked.

18

Okay.

19

I filed about, oh, boy, since '06 or '07 probably

20

about four or five IC3 reports with the FBI.

21

I don't know what an IC3 report is.

22

It's an online complaint regarding anything

23

fraudulent online to the FBI.

24

Okay.

25

I've had face-to-face meetings with the FBI

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 150 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 154 of 161


8

probably about 15 times.

Locally?

Philly and Harrisburg.

Is there a particular agent that you meet with?

No.

Could you tell me the names of any of the agents

No.

that you meet with?

No.

Okay.

10

I can verify the meetings, I mean.

11

What -- what's the reason for the meetings?

12

Complaints

13

Okay.

14

-- about people, what they're doing to me.

15

You said you're a victim of electronic

16

harassment.

17

Okay.

18

What have been the other forms?

19

They use microwave technology, microwaves to

Now,

I understand what computer hacking is.


Electronic harassment.

20

alter your brain state.

21

cause extreme pain in any part of your body.

22

create synthetic telepathy.

23

with the weapons.

24
25

It causes extreme -- they can


They can

They can essentially kill you

Now, in the 1950's the Russians used it against


our -- the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, the same weapons.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 151 of 276

Now,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 155 of 161


9

in the 1970's there was what's called the Church Committee.

The CIA had to come clean on these programs.

supposed to have stopped them, but they didn't, and that's

-- there's Senate testimony.

then was Stansfield Turner.

Senate, and they admitted to all the programs that I'm

describing.

Okay.

MKUltra was the main program.

10

How do you know that?

11

How do I know what?

12

I mean, how do you know you're a victim of

13

The Director of the CIA back


He testified before the

microwave technology to alter your brain waves?

14
15

They were

Some nights I can't walk.

The pain is that bad.

What do you mean how do I know?

16

I mean, I don't know.

17

Don't get smart with me, or I'll walk out this

I don't know.

18

door.

19
20

I'm not being smart.

I'm trying

to understand this.

21

Okay.

22

How do I -- you know, how do I know I'm not?

23

Do you ever complain about it?

24

I mean, I have pain.

25

pain.

I don't know why I have

I just -- I'm trying to understand.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 152 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 156 of 161


10
1

Listen, yesterday I filed 300 pages in the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a case against Lancaster City

Police and the county residents.

Okay.

There are -- there is expert testimony in here

from, one, an NSA whistleblower named Karen Stewart who

will back up just about everything I say.

from a Julianne McKinney who is a former Army intelligence

officer.

The second is

The third is from a renowned expert named Nick

10

Begich whose father was killed by someone in the Hoover

11

Administration.

12

read them.

There are transcripts in here.

You can

13

Okay.

14

You can learn all about it.

15

May I have this?

16

No.

17

Okay.

18

Or I can give you it in electronic format.

19
20
21
22
23

You can make a copy.

have a PDF around my neck.


Q

Well,

I'll give you a copy.

I see that it's a Petition for Allowance of

Appeal which means that it's -A

I'm appealing a Superior Court decision to the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

24

Okay.

25

I'm a very successful litigator by the way.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 153 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 157 of 161


11

How

I'm the amicus for Kathleen Kane in her criminal

case in the Superior Court in Philadelphia.

movant for Lisa Michelle Lambert.

I'm also the

Okay.

I've got three Third Circuit cases now that are

8
9

10

awaiting decisions.
Q

And this is an appeal from the Lancaster County

Court of Common Pleas.

I assume it went then to the

Superior Court?

11

I took it to the Superior Court, right.

12

Okay.

13

They dismissed it --

14

Okay.

15

-- two weeks before oral arguments.

16

And what happened there?

Oral

arguments were scheduled for May 24th.

17

Okay.

18

They were scheduled since January.

Both cases

19

were arguably -- I mean, maliciously dismissed two weeks

20

before oral arguments.

21

before them.

22

23

Okay.

They didn't want me to appear

Give me some background.

you worked -- maybe I misheard you.

24

No.

25

Okay.

I mean, you said

Did you work for ISC?

You were a stockholder?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 154 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 158 of 161


12
1

Yes.

Okay.

He was a stockbroker back then.

he is?

Gib Armstrong sold me the stock in 1983.

Do you know who

Former Pennsylvania Senator.


Yeah, I'm familiar with the name.

Are you

employed right now?


A

No, I'm -- I collect Social Security disability

for symptoms and illnesses related to U.S. mind control,

documented, verified.

10

Huh.

11

They've been paying me since '08.

12

Okay.

13

for that?

Do they -- do they pay you by the month

Is it

14

You never heard of Social Security disability?

15

I have.

16

Yeah.

17

Okay.

18

My first check was for $21,000.

They paid me.

19

applied in '09.

20

'05 when I declared I was full-time telepathic, but they

21

could only pay me back one year.

22

to '09 in one check, and then I've been getting monthly

23

checks ever since.

24

25

Okay.

They declared me disabled in December of

So they paid me back '08

Well, let's talk about this claim a little

bit.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 155 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 159 of 161


13
1

Okay.

I'm going to have this marked as Exhibit 1.

I have a new one here.

Okay.

Well, why don't you -- why don't we mark

can I take that, or do you need that?

Yeah.

No.

Okay.

We won't mark the one I have.

Here.

That's updated.

MR. REESER:

Do you want to put a sticker

(List of items produced and marked Exhibit No.

13

1.)

14

BY MR. REESER:

16

Okay.

on there?

12

15

Every day I have stuff

missing.

10
11

This is for you.

All right.

Now,

I'm just going to go through

these items that you have --

17

Yeah.

18

-- listed in order from top to bottom.

19

You're

making a claim for a dishwasher?

20

Right.

21

Is this a dishwasher that was in your home?

22

Yeah, but you know -- I'm trying to think what

23

year that was actually broken.

24

Scratch the dishwasher off of that.

25

That might predate this.

The dishwasher is not being claimed, correct?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 156 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 160 of 161


14

Yes.

Yes, let's take that off.

All right.

And I should ask you this beforehand.

I kind of lost track.

filed to the Supreme Court listed an address of 1250

Freemont Street.

That's -- that's your home address?

Yes.

Okay.

No.

All right.

10

In fact,

11

claim.

12

13

Your brief or your petition that was

Does anybody else live there with you?

I sent a copy of the deed in with the

I believe I saw that, which I think there were a

number of grantees.

14

My brothers.

15

Okay.

16

No.

17

And they wouldn't be insured under the Allstate

18

But none of them live there?

policy?

19

Yeah, they're listed as other insureds.

20

Okay.

21

Yeah.

22

Okay.

23

Do any of these items -- are they owners

of any of the items?

24

No.

25

Okay.

I purchased the policy for everybody.


Front and back door locks?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 157 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15 Filed 07/19/16 Page 161 of 161


15

Right.

Tell me about that.

Okay.

In July of 2015 -- yeah, July, 2015, the

benevolent Lancaster City Police Department served me with

a 302 petition, but what they did was they broke into my

house, smashed in the front door.

to pay for all the locks and the door, but they didn't.
So I had to get a new front door, and I had to

9
10

Now, they were supposed

get all the locks changed in the front and back door,
rekeyed.

11

Okay.

12

Mental health warrant.

13

All right.

14

I've had about eight of them.

15

do.

302 petition?

That's what they

That's part of the slander campaign.

16

What do they --

17

That's pretty routine.

18

What do they claim?

19

Well,

20

Okay.

21

That's their -- that's their defense.

22

Is there a form of mental illness that they try

23

I'm mentally ill.

I make all this up.

to pin on you?

24

Oh, yeah.

25

What?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 158 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 115


16
1

Which one do you want?

Oh, there's been more than one?

Bipolar, schizophrenic, delusional disorder, you

5
6

What year?

name it.
Q

Okay.

Were you hospitalized or

institutionalized -Oh, yeah.

one in July?

as a result -- as a result of this one, the

10

Oh, yeah, Fairmont.

11

For how long?

12

Oh, that was about five

13

And how did that end?

14

They always -- they give me a hearing.

15

--

eight days, I guess.

Then they

have to release me.

16

Okay.

17

They're always pretty much the same.

It started

18

in '87.

19

Harbor Beach Patrol.

20

was making a movie with Tony Bongiovi who owns Power

21

Station Studios, one of the world's most famous recording

22

studios.

23

The first one was was somebody called up the Stone


My resume's in there.

In 1987 we're making a movie.

24

for an office down in Stone Harbor.

25

the movie in New Jersey on the boardwalk.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 159 of 276

But in 1987 I

I rented a home

We were going to shoot


Somebody called

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 115


17
1

the Stone Harbor Police Department and said I was running

to the beach to kill myself, totally made up, fabricated.

That's how it all started with the mental illness.

Okay.

Okay.

Smashed in your front door?

Oh, yeah, with -- like a drug raid.

So going back to the door for a second

I stood

there and took pictures of them as they came through.

Do you actually have the pictures?

10

Oh, yeah, it's part of it.

11

Part of?

12

The -- they're in here.

Oh, let me see.

No, they're in this one.

This one.

Where

13

are they?

No.

These

14

are black and white.

15

pages.

16

only reason you could do that is if someone -- is if you

17

knew that someone was in there with a gun to their head.

18

was in

19

trying to get them to get away from me quite honestly.

They're hard to see, but the next two

Totally illegal what they did.

The only way, the

I was in the upstairs window talking to them

20

Okay.

21

I filed a lawsuit against Lancaster City Police

22

in '08.

It's a federal lawsuit.

23

one of the documents I have here.

In fact,

that's part of

24

Is that still ongoing?

25

I withdrew without prejudice because of the

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 160 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 3 of 115


18
1

computer hacking, so I can re-file, go back to it any time

I want.

Okay.

Most of my lawsuits I withdrew without prejudice.

5
6

I just couldn't litigate with all the hacking.


Q

Can -- do you have any photographs that show the

damage to the door?

I mean, I see a door that's open.

see a police officer

Yeah.

10

-- apparently standing there.

11

Yeah.

12

Okay.

13

In fact,

Yeah, I do.

I bought the door at the Habitat reuse

14

it store.

But what happened was they charged me like $400

15

to change all the locks.

Wizard Lock did it.

16

Do you have -- do you have the receipt for that?

17

Yeah, I could dig that up.

18

You don't have it with you right now?

19

No.

20

You bought the door -- I'm sorry -- Habitat?

21

For Humanity.

22

Habitat?

23

Habitat for Humanity.

24

Oh, Habitat for Humanity.

25

The reuse it store.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

I'm a little hard of hearing.

Page 161 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 4 of 115


19
1

Reuse it.

Out on Old Philadelphia Pike back behind

Greenfield.

door than was on there.

The door looks brand new, I mean, a better

The door, the replacement door you bought there?

Yeah.

What about the original door, was that -- had

that been there for years?

No, that was done in 1996.

My mother was part of

10

the Lancaster City Homeowners Rehab or Revitalization or

11

Rehab Program where if you qualify, they'll come in and

12

rehab your home, bring it up to code and put a seven-year

13

lien on your house for the cost of the improvements.

14

year 10 -- 10 or 15 percent comes off, so if you stay in

15

the house for 7 years, it's all free.

16

17

So the doors are part of that.

18

Okay.

19

'96 at the time.

20

Each

see.

And you may have said this.

21

didn't get it.

22

that

I apologize if I

How much did you actually pay for the door

the replacement door?

23

$20.

24

$20?

25

Yes.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 162 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 5 of 115


20
1

But it cost you 400 to get the locks replaced?

Yeah.

And that was done again by?

Wizard.

Wizard.

Locks.

And you can get me the receipt?

Yeah.

And my question about that was going to be did

Yeah.

10

you report this to the police, but I guess given the

11

circumstances --

12

Here's the situation.

I've -- I've been

13

reporting to the police ever since it started, but usually

14

they're part of the program.

15

complaints.

16

to sue them.

17

Okay.

18

I have letters which are a part of the documents

They won't take my

I mean, I had to sue them.

That's why I had

19

going to the police explaining the vandalism and the

20

break-ins that they won't, you know, report on or

21

investigate or ...

22

And this happened July of '15?

23

July 8th, I think, yeah, 2015.

24

July 8th, 2015, okay.

25

Was there any other damage

done, physical damage to your house done --

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 163 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 6 of 115


21

No.

-- as a result of that incident?

Just the door.

Okay.

5
6

The next one I have on your list is an

Apple Video iPod.


A

Right.

What they did was I can't -- the menu

button doesn't work.

'05 or '06.

Okay.

10

I since bought a replacement for it.

11

All right.

12

Now, that iPod I bought back in 2006,

You bought -- this particular Apple

Video iPod you bought in '05 or '06?

13

Yeah.

14

Where did you buy it at?

15

I might have bought it at a Best Buy in Florida.

16

Okay.

17

Boy, 3, $400 probably.

18

Okay.

19

It's when they first came out, so the video iPods

20

Do you remember what you paid for it?

And then when did you --

were expensive.

21

Yeah.

22

No.

23

-- just an iPod?

24

Right, video iPod.

25

And then you noticed a problem with it when?

This wasn't an iPhone.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 164 of 276

This was --

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 7 of 115


22

The button, you can't push the button, the main

button.

Okay.

Oh, boy.

fall of '15.

Okay.

No.

-- Best Buy or a repair store?

No, you can't.

10

Why not?

11

Why?

12

I mean, if I had a problem with my iPhone and

14

I'm not going to pay to get it fixed.

15

Okay.

16

I bought a replacement.

17

Okay.

13

18
19
20

21
22
23

When did you discover that?


Let me think.

That was probably in the

Did you take it to --

No.

No.

--

Why is that -- I'm not -- I don't

understand why that's part of the insurance claim.


A

Because it was in my house and the house is

covered by the insurance.


Q

I mean, how do you know it just didn't -- I mean,

things wear down over time.


A

I mean --

I'm telling you the truth.

If you don't believe

24

me, that's fine, but don't -- don't harass me with

25

questions.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 165 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 8 of 115


23

I'm here to ask you questions, sir.

trying to get an understanding as to -- things wear out.

I told you what happened.

Okay.

They broke it.

They broke it?

Yes, someone broke it.

All right.

It's funny.

10

One day the button works, and the

next day it doesn't.

11

Okay.

12

Right.

13

How old

14

I've had probably three stolen.

15

Oh, it was stolen?

16

Oh, yeah.

17

Okay.

18

I don't remember.

19
20
21

I'm just

or four stolen.
Q

Okay.

Bluetooth headset for phone.

When?
In the past year.

I had three

I had to buy replacements.


Well, you list $60, and that sounds about

what the value of a new Bluetooth would be.

22

Oh, no.

23

Oh, okay.

24

Does it say three beside there?

25

No, it doesn't.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

No.

That's for three of them, I think.

Well, no.

Page 166 of 276

It says item number,

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 9 of 115


24
1

but they're consecutive.

not a quantity.

I'm assuming that's not -- that's

Oh, didn't the quantity print out?

that.

Oh, the quantity didn't print out.

be three.

No.

Let me see
That should

All right.

I paid like 20 bucks apiece for them up at Radio

Shack.

Maybe I didn't put the quantity in.

Do you have the receipts for them?

10

I'm not going to dig up all these receipts.

11

really not.

12

is harassment.

13
14

I'm a busy guy.

I'm

I can't be -- you know, this

Does that mean you don't have them, or you're

just not going to

--

you're not going to dig them up?

15

I'm not going to take the time to dig them up.

16

Okay.

17

I have all my receipts.

18

back to '80,

19

Okay.

20

I document everything.

21

I have my tax returns

'82.

I'm an expert in

information technologies.

22

Where in your house

23

I have worked all over the world for the record.

24

I did defense contracts, optical publishing.

25

of -- I was one of four companies in the late '80's, early

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 167 of 276

I was one

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 10 of 115


25
1

'90's that could manufacture CD-ROMs, me alone.

business.
Okay.

I know my

Where in your house were the headsets that

were stolen?

Where did I have them?

Yeah.

It depends where I was.

Where were they stolen from?

Most likely either the bedroom which is in the

10

In the bedroom, living room?

Yeah, the bedroom.

basement.

What do you mean?

Yeah.

11

Was there any sign of unlawful entry?

12

No, never is.

13

about that.

14

15

about these

16

I can '.t report to the police anymore.

17

Okay.

You'll read, the experts tell you

And I assume there was no report to the police

Is it fair to say that with regard to any

18

of these items you haven't -- so I don't have to keep

19

asking you this, that you didn't report it to the police?

20
21

They get emails from me, but, no, there's no

official report.

22

All right.

23

The last official report I made was two thousand

24
25

was July 8th of 2015.

I went down to the police again

to report the computer hacking, and that night at 11:30

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 168 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 11 of 115


26
1

they signed the mental health warrant on me --

Okay.

-- and gave me a bogus incident report.

All right.

The Bluetooth headsets, the three of

them were taken after that?

After what?

After the 302 petition.

Let me think.

Okay.

10
11
12

Yeah.

Yeah.

You don't have any idea who it was who

took them?
A

If I did I'd give you a name and report that to

everybody.

13

Okay.

14

Yes.

The hammer drill.


I'd say March 9th I started

They broke it.

I'm putting on a new

15

my -- I'd say in March, 2016.

16

screened-in porch on my back and a six-foot fence.

17

it worked.

18

buy a replacement.

The next day it didn't.

One day

So I had to go out and

19

How old was it?

20

I bought that one -- that's about the second or

21

third one they broke.

That one I bought on eBay in

22

probably -- when did I buy that one?

23

Do you still have it?

24

No.

25

Did you throw it out?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 169 of 276

Maybe '08.

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 12 of 115


27
1

Yeah.

All right.

You didn't take it someplace to see

if it could be fixed?

No.

What did you buy it for, how much?

How much?

How much.

Oh, boy.

10

don't know

That was a Dewalt.

$300 I think, 280.

New they're like

I probably paid -- I

think I paid 60 something for that, somewhere around $60

11

Okay.

12

-- on eBay.

13

And then did you buy a replacement for it?

14

Yeah.

15

What did that cost?

16

The replacement I bought at -- oh, the tool store

17

out there next to the off-track betting.

18

of it?

19

Harbor Freight?

20

Harbor Freight.

21

drill.

22

Harbor Tools.

Okay.

24

What is it?

25

Maybe 100?

23

What's the name

paid I

think 60 for the hammer

But you have -- you have 100 listed here,

so

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Maybe it was 100.

Page 170 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 13 of 115


28
1

Maybe.

Okay.

Reciprocating saw.

Yeah.

What they did was they rigged it so that

the blade doesn't stay in.

You can't use it.

It just --

When you turn it on it comes out?

Well, when you use it, it comes out when you're

sawing.

Okay.

You can't

you can't tighten it.

10

work, but it stopped.

11

I bought that at Lowe's.


Q

12

13

It used to

That replacement I bought -- I think

The one, the one that's broken or the one, the

replacement one?

14

The replacement.

15

Where did you buy the one that's broken?

16

Harbor Tools.

17

Harbor Freight?

18

Harbor Freight.

19

Okay.

20

23
24
25

When did

you buy that?

21

22

Just so we're on the same page.

'06.

Oh, boy.

'05.
Q

'05,
Okay.

Let's see.

I might have bought that in

'06.
Did you use that on a regular basis or

just once in a while?


A

What do you mean on a regular basis?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 171 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 14 of 115


29
1

Did you use it once a week?

No.

Okay.

No.

Did you use it --

No.

No.

No.

No.

Reciprocating saws I probably used less

than any other tool actually.

I mean, a couple times?

But if I have a project I might use it a lot in a

8
9

10
11

12

two-week span.
Q

Yeah.

I mean, some people are do-it-yourself,

fixer-upper kind of people, and some people -A

Well, I used to have a contracting business in

college.

13

All right.

14

Stan Caterbone Painting and Renovating.

15

But you bought this in '05,

16

'06?

I mean, I'm

assuming

17

Right.

18

-- you were out of college by then.

19

I'm just saying I have experience.

20
21
22

I'm not just

a do-it-yourselfer.
Q

Well, no.

My -- some people do a lot of work

with their tools, and other people --

23

Oh, I do.

24

-- don't.

25

do.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 172 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 15 of 115


30

1
2

Okay.

And that's what I'm getting at.

I'm

trying to understand.

I do.

I don't.

Okay.

So I could have something for ten years, and it

doesn't get any use at all.

No.

I understand.

And some people have it --

10

I use my tools.

11

-- for ten years, and they use it every day.

12

I use my stuff.

13

Fair enough.

And you got a replacement at

14

Lowe's, and you have $100 here.

15

paid for the replacement?

Is that about what you

16

Uh-huh.

17

Do you have the receipt?

18

Yeah.

19

Okay.

20

Is it fair to say you're not going to dig

that up?

21

No.

22

Okay.

23

I didn't have to for the other claims.

24
25

No.

I'm not going to do that.

I'm not

going to do it for your company.


Q

Okay.

IPhone SC, was that stolen?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 173 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 16 of 115


31
1

Broken.

When?

In fact,

I got scammed on that, the 5C, the end

of last year.

Here's what happened.

They broke it, right,

so I put it on eBay to sell it so someone could reprogram

it, the software.

broken on it because it functioned, everything, but the

software was not functioning.

I assumed the software was what was

Okay.

So I put it on eBay.

Right.

Somebody bought it.

10

They hacked my PayPal account.

So someone said that they

11

paid me with electronic funds.

Well, PayPal doesn't use

12

electronic funds.

13

the money.

PayPal you use your account to transfer

Right.

14

Like a Visa account?

15

What's that?

16

Or a PayPal account.

17

PayPal account.

18

Okay.

19

So what they did was they filed a claim saying

Oh, a PayPal account.

20

that I never sent them the iPhone.

I wasn't going to send

21

it until I got -- until I verified the money was in my

22

account.

23

Uh-huh.

24

But because my PayPal account was hacked, I

25

couldn't access my PayPal account.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 174 of 276

Right.

Now, in my

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 17 of 115


32
1

PayPal account I had a cash balance of like $400.

went and awarded them judgment.

judgment.

So eBay

In eBay terms I'm saying

Uh-huh.

So they took the $150 or whatever selling price

out of my account, so I'm out the phone, plus the $150.

Okay.

So they scammed me.

I file

All my accounts are hacked.

in all the courts I have electronic filing

10

privileges, Third Circuit, U.S. District Court, all the

11

state courts, the local courts.

12

which is the system where you file electronically

13

14

15

I've been hacked since, oh, boy, November.

Okay.

17

-- to get my dockets,

20

So

I got to run down to Philly every two weeks -Q

19

My PACER account

I'm familiar with PACER.

16

18

Right.

just to get dockets for all

my cases.
Q

Let me go back.

I'm -- you lost me on the phone

at some point.

21

Okay.

22

You had the phone.

23

phone?

24

Right, after it was unusable to me.

25

After it was unusable.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

You were looking to sell the

Page 175 of 276

Why was it unusable to

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 18 of 115


33
1

you?

Because there was a software problem?

It just didn't -- it wouldn't function for me.

Okay.

So I replaced it.

of Apple.

How old was the phone?


I went to Samsung.

I got out

I had too many problems with Apple.

How old --

Apple wouldn't fix it.

Apple wouldn't do this.

They were harassing me on every -- I called customer

service about it, and they had harassed me, and I had to

10

report that, so I said the hell with it.

11

Radio Shack, and under Sprint's program they would pay your

12

old phone off if you're on a contract.

13

have a Samsung.

14
15

So I went to

So I went and now I

How old was the phone at the time that you tried

to sell it through eBay?

16

A couple months old.

17

Okay.

18

Five months old I think.

19

Was it under any warranty program with Apple

I had a warranty through Verizon, but I had to

20
21
22

or

cut them out.

23

I don't follow you.

24

I had to get off of Verizon.

25

Okay.

So the phone wasn't fixable; you tried to

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 176 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 19 of 115


34
1

sell it; you got scammed on the PayPal?

Yeah.

And eBay basically ruled against you?

Yeah, I can't even access eBay.

I can't buy

anything on eBay anymore.

Okay.

I'm hacked, every -- all my online accounts.

Okay.

Banking, bank accounts, PayPal, eBay, PACER.

10

filed complaints with the FBI,. the Pennsylvania Attorney

11

General's Office, everybody.

12

When did this happen?

13

What happen?

14

The phone, the attempt to sell the phone.

15

I think January.

16

Of this year?

17

Yes,

18

Did you file a complaint with the Attorney

19

'16.

I think January.

General's Office or --

20

Oh.

21

About this situation?

22

I file complaints with them all the time.

23

Okay.

24

Like I say, I am the amicus for Kathleen Kane in

25

Superior Court Case 1164 EDA 2016.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 177 of 276

I filed an amicus brief

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 20 of 115


35
1

May 3rd, so I'm a party to the case now.

everything to me.

They have to file

Okay.

Service me everything.

And I understand, you know, that process to some

extent, but what does it have to do with this?

it has relevance, I'm all ears.

A
the NSA.

Okay.

I mean, if

I just don't know.

In 1998 I had a meeting with an agent from

I was complaining again about things, and he told

10

me, he said, listen, Stan.

11

it's the good old boys.

He goes it's not us.

He said

This was in 1998.

12

Now, when Kathleen Kane started in the press,

13

she's been saying that the good old boys are behind her

14

problems.

15

stated for the record what the NSA agent told me about the

16

good old boys and how it relates to what she was saying.

So November 12th I wrote her a letter, and I

17

Uh-huh.

Okay.

18

She replied back the next day, said she'd keep my

19

information on file.

Ever since then from November till a

20

month or so ago I'd go up there every two weeks and deliver

21

documents to Strawberry Square to the Attorney General's

22

Office.

23

Okay.

24

I finally thought, you know what, I'll put screen

25

Tell me about the screen door locks.

door locks on on my screen doors.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 178 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 21 of 115


36
1

Uh-huh.

It didn't stop anything.

They'd work.

Are they still there?

I had to replace one or two of them.

Did you do that yourself?

Oh, yeah.

Do they work now?

Yes.

They'd break them.

They wouldn't work.

Well, supposedly.

I mean, one time they

10

didn't work.

11

Okay.

12

Lowe's.

13

For $30 it looks like?

14

Yeah.

15

Yes.

16

That was within two months ago.

17

Okay.

18
19

Where did you buy the replacements?

Is that what's on there?


Okay.

When did you replace them?

Sleepy's foam mattress.

I'm sorry.

Foam

memory mattress.
A

Here's the situation with that.

On the record,

20

I've been suffering from back pain since '87.

21

say '98 I've been going to the doctors on and off for it.

22

Last year I got a handicapped placard, and in the process I

23

used my medical reports regarding my back.

24

handicapped placard, and I got a long-term placard which

25

means it doesn't renew until 2020.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 179 of 276

Since I'd

So I got a

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 22 of 115


37

Okay.

Now, what they were doing is that aside from the

electromagnetic weapons, people were using some type of

device to put under my seats and under my bed that causes

excruciating pain.
Now, since '05 I was going up and getting laser

6
7

treatments to Leola Family Health Clinic in Leola.

Did you say Leola?

Yes.

10

Thank you.

11

Now, the doctor there, the chiropractor, he's the

12

one that signed off on my handicapped placard.

13

Okay.

14

He verified that if they

15

magnets.

16

that's what the Sleepy's is for.

they could be using

It can throw my back out to cause pain.

17

All right.

18

Now, whether -- I mean, well, go ahead.

19

Have you actually found magnets?

21

No.

22

All right.

24
25

You ask

the questions.

20

23

So

You're not sure where they are within

the mattress?
A

I'm not sure.

No, I'm not.

No.

I'm not sure

how they do it, but they used to do it to my bicycle seat,

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 180 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 23 of 115


38

my car seat, my bed.

Other nights ...

3
4

Now, some nights I'm fine in the bed.

And you know when they're doing it based upon

when you have the pain?

Yes, it's the only way I know.

Okay.

What's the nature of your back problem?

Herniated disc, do you have a degenerative condition?

No.

Do you have -- I mean, you're going to a

10
11
12

chiropractor.
A

Is he -- is he treating you for anything?

I was getting laser treatments, but it stopped

being effective.

13

Okay.

14

So now the only treatment really is I'm applying

15

to Medicare.

16

house.

17

medicines.

18
19

I'm trying to get a whirlpool bath put in my

I'm trying to get them to pay for that.

Okay.

And pain

And what's the diagnosis other than -- I

mean, are you -- something other than back pain I presume?

20

I have that in here, I believe.

21

I'm going to get myself some more coffee over

22

there.

Would you like any coffee or water?

23

Water would be good.

24

I assume there's water in that pitcher.

25

If not,

I can go out and get you some.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 181 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 24 of 115


39
1

Let me see what document I have right here.

MR. REESER:

(Off the record.)

THE WITNESS:

with me.

BY MR. REESER:

And off the record.

No, I didn't bring my medical file

Okay.

If I know what?

If you know the answer to that question.

10

What was the question?

11

The question was what's the medical diagnosis?

12

Oh, it's a medical term.

13

That's fine.

14
15

That's all right.

I mean, if you know.

I can't.

If you don't -- if you don't know,

that's fine as well.


A

I went to

okay.

January 29th medical -- Med

16

Express Urgent Care issued me pain medications.

17

they issued me pain medications, all for back.

18

they issued me pain medications.

19

March 23rd
May 10th

In 2009 I was receiving pain medicines from

20

Dr. Sullivan at the Abbeyville Family Clinic on Abbeyille

21

Road for back pain, severe.

22

a walker some nights.

It gets severe.

I have to use

23

I think you said you went to Leola Chiropractic?

24

Yeah, Leola Family Health Clinic.

25

Family Health

Clinic.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 182 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 25 of 115


40
1

2
3

That's not a chiropractor.

That's a medical

doctor?
A

No, he's inside there.

It's a -- it's a facility

where they have different doctors.

Okay.

Dr. Newhart, Paul Newhart, he was giving me laser

treatments.

guess it was about laser therapy.

the NFL.

10

I saw an article in the paper in '05 or '06 I


Now they're using it for

But it was effective for a while, and then it

stopped being effective a couple years ago, so I stopped.

11

When did you buy the bed?

12

I bought the bed three months ago.

13

Where did you buy it at?

14

Sleepy's, Manor Shopping Center.

15

Okay.

16

Now, I put the bed on there.

You understand why

17

I put it on there?

18

wouldn't think anything's wrong with it, but I'm putting it

19

on to document just what I'm telling you.

20

Okay.

21

Oh, yeah.

Now, if you went and saw the bed, you

You still use the mattress?


Yeah, because it's a memory foam with

22

a -- it vibrates.

It moves in three different positions,

23

the head, the mid-section, and for my back it's great.

24

Queen size, king size?

25

Full.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 183 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 26 of 115


41

Is that smaller than queen?

Yeah, not by much though.

So if you're not having the back issues

Perfectly normal.

Then it's perfectly -- okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Yeah.

10

Okay.

11

Oh, which ones?

12

How many do you have?

13

How many did I have?

14

And $2,300, is that what you paid for

it?

Laptop computers.

How many are broken?

many's listed on there?

15

There's no number there.

16

Let me see.

17

How

I don't know why those quantities

aren't in there.

18

Yeah.

19

Let me see.

The policy goes -- the policy goes

20

back to '11, so it would have been one, two -- that would

21

be right.

Two.

22

Okay.

23

Two laptops, 400 bucks apiece.

24

right.

25

That's about

What kind of laptops, what brand?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 184 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 27 of 115


42

Oh, boy.

HP.

What happened to them?

They just sabotage them.

drives and everything.

usually.

6
7

What was the last one?

Compaq.

They fry the hard

They just fry them.

That's what this document is.

Viruses

It's all in there.

So they've crashed as a result of the viruses?

The hard drives have crashed?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Have you looked into replacing the hard drives?

10

It is -- cost, it's not effective.

It's not --

11

it's not worth it because by the time you pay to do that,

12

it's already outdated technology, so you're going to have

13

an old processor.

14
15
16

No,

You know, it just doesn't --

I -- I understand.

The economics of it

sometimes
A

So what happened, so in August of last year, the

17

last laptop I replaced, I got a one-year service for Geek

18

Squad.

I've been in there about 20 times.

19

The laptops --

20

Fixing -- fixing the one I have.

21

Okay.

22

Squad's fixing,

These aren't -- the ones that the Geek


they're not the HP or the Compaq?

23

Oh, no.

24

Okay.

25

That's a Lenovo I have now.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

No.

Page 185 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 28 of 115


43

The HP and the Compaq, how old were those?

Within a year, a year old.

When did they crash?

Well, the last one crashed August of 2015.

one before that was probably -- let's see.

Maybe 2012.

2013.

8
9

Compaq,

The
'15.

Probably two thousand and -- maybe '13.

Did you make any report to your insurance agent

or to Allstate about the one that crashed in '13 before --

10

No.

11

-- last month?

12

No.

13

it in bulk.

It's too time consuming.

14

litigation.

I'm too busy trying to defend myself and

15

everything else, too busy documenting things I have to

16

document.

17
18

I do -- no, this is the way I do this.

Okay.

I do

I'm too busy with

The next item you have is cost to repair

computers from hacking.

19

Right.

20

Which

21

Maybe

are you talking about the same

computers?

22

Yeah.

23

The --

24

I went to -- I went to other services after Geek

25

Squad was not performing their service effectively.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 186 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 29 of 115


44

Let me hold you up for a second now.

We talked

about the HP and the Compaq, and then you said you bought a

warranty in August to have a different computer serviced

by

A Lenovo.

-- the Geek Squad?

Right.

Denovo?

Lenovo.

10

Lenovo?

11

L-e-n-o-v-o.

12

Is that the one that you're making the claim to

13
14

have repaired?
A

I had that serviced, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah,

I had it

15

done by the people on Harrisburg Pike there.

16

moved, right there at The Grille there, near the campus.

17

forget what his name is.

18

Near F&M you mean?

19

Yeah, The Campus Grille.

He just
I

He had a computer

20

repair shop in there, but he just moved.

21

out to Liberty Place or somewhere.

22

And you paid $400 for that?

23

No.

24

Yeah.

25

Let me see.

I think he moved

That was -- to the repair?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Cost to repair computers from

Page 187 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 30 of 115


45
1

hacking.

years.

I guess that's cumulative over the past four

Okay.

That's probably what that is.

Avenue.

complaint to the Lancaster DA's Office.

the detective.

goes you're going to have to do something for me.

going to have to go get a private firm, analyze your

Here's what happened.

A Plus on Columbia

Last year I made a formal


Okay.

I met with

He goes, well, Stan, he goes, listen.

10

computer and get a report.

11

seen the detective since.

He

You're

I did that, paid for it, never

12

Okay.

13

He never returned my calls.

He never -- I guess

14

I called him out on it.

I guess he thought, you know, I

15

wasn't going to do it, or it was going to come back saying

16

there wasn't a virus in it or it wasn't hacked, but he was

17

wrong, so he flew the coop from me.

18

So the $400 is cumulative

19

Yes.

20

-- for three different computers?

21

Three or four.

22

And this would be over how many years span?

23

Three or four years.

24

Okay.

25

Do you have the bills for any of those

repairs?

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 188 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 31 of 115


46
1

A lot of them are in here.

I'm sorry?

A lot of them are in here.

Okay.

No.

Why not?

You can see them right now.

Oh, sure.

I'm getting tired.

10
11

I had a long week, so let's

wrap this up.


Q

12

items.

13

14

Could you send me copies of them?

I'm about two-thirds of the way through these

Let's make it another day then for the rest.

I've had enough.

15

Okay.

16

We can reschedule another time.

17

And I take it

I'll get a copy of the transcript?

18

I'll get you a copy of the transcript.

19

Great.

20

I would prefer to keep going.

21

No, I can't.

22
23
24
25

You don't mind breaking, do you?

I'm up since 4 o'clock most

mornings, so this is enough for me.


Q

Can you show me where those receipts are that

we've just talked about?


A

Let me see.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 189 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 32 of 115


47

Save you and me some time.

Okay.

In the folders that you're looking at right now,

That's $160.

are those copies of your receipts?


A

5
6

Here's one.

These are the copies of the reports from the

technical people.

Okay.

The Geek Squad was a one-time fee.

A Plus.

Okay.

Here's A Plus.

10

receipt.

11

Avenue.

12

service, the Geek Squad.

13

computer.

14

them where I got them.

Let's see.

Here's

Now I got to find the

This is what they wrote.


Okay.

Okay.

That's on Columbia

Here's my receipt for the tech


Here's my receipt for the actual

Can I have those receipts back?

I want to put

I don't want the stuff mixed up.

15

How can I get a copy of those receipts?

16

Just take them right now and get them.

17

Ask them to copy them, you'd be all right with

19

Sure.

20

Do you have other receipts for any of these other

21

items?

22

I have 30 years of receipts.

23

Here, I mean here in this building.

18

24
25

that?
Sure.

Do you have

them with you?


A

I don't know.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 190 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 33 of 115


48
1

Could you -- there was another one in there that

I was looking at.

piece of paper.

It was on an 11 -- 8 and a half by 11

Here, that was $160.

Let's see.

Let me go

through there quick and see if I can get the receipts.

Here's a receipt.

they changed my SIM card thinking that would stop the

hacking, but it didn't.

for -- that's just an in-take.

This is a Verizon.

This is a receipt, but it's not


These are the IC3 reports.

10

Let's see if the receipt's in here.

11

they're all the receipts I have.

12

Okay.

13

I believe.

14

What Verizon did was

Geek Squad.

No,

I mean, as far as the computers are

concerned.

15

And then there's no receipts in these documents?

16

Receipts for what?

17

Any of these items that we're talking about.

18

I don't know.

19

Okay.

20

I don't know.

21

I'll make copies of these.

22

I did not peruse all these files for receipts.

23

Would you like -- would you like me to make a

24
25

copy of that for your records?


A

No, I gave it to you.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 191 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 34 of 115


49

Okay.

I'm going to have to trust you.

changing documents on me all the time.

(Off the record. )

I got people

BY MR. REESER:

Okay.

Do you want to take these and copy them and bring

them back?

Or I can mail them back to you.

Sure.

10

Well, aren't we going to continue this?

11

Actually what I have to do is I have to report

12

back to Allstate, and they let me know if they want me to

13

continue it or not.

14
15

A
fine.

Okay.

You can take them then.

Mail them back.

16

Okay.

17

You're going to get educated.

18
19
20

Yeah, that'd be

And you will not -You're going to be

a changed man, trust me.


Q

You will not do the continuation, assuming we

have one, in the courthouse?

21

Why?

22

Because it's free.

23

Why don't we do it at Allstate's office, Allen's

24
25

office?
Q

Okay.

I'll see if I can arrange that.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 192 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 35 of 115


50

Or we can do it at my house.

1250 Freemont Street.

It's nice.

It's nice there.

You can come to


It's fixed up.

I have no problem with that.

All right.

I had enough of that courthouse.

Okay.

How long did this last?

Roughly an hour.

So it's about 20 after 10:00 roughly.

I don't know what time we

started.

10

That's pretty good.

11

So you want to adjourn for the day?

12

Yeah.

13

MR. REESER:

14

(The examination under oath was adjourned at

15

Okay.

Very good.

10: 19 a.m.)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 193 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 36 of 115


51
1

COUNTY OF DAUPHIN

2
3
4

SS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
I, Diane F. Foltz, a Notary Public, authorized to

administer oaths within and for the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the

testimony of Stanley J. Caterbone.

8
9

I further certify that before the taking of said


statement, the witness was duly sworn; that the questions

10

and answers were taken down stenographically by the said

11

Reporter-Notary Public, and afterwards reduced to

12

typewriting under the direction of the said Reporter.

13
14
15

I further certify the said statement was taken at the


time and place specified in the caption sheet hereof.
I further certify I am not a relative or employee or

16

attorney or counsel to any of the parties, or a relative or

17

employee of such attorney or counsel, or financially

18

interested directly or indirectly in this action.

19

I further certify that the said statement

20

constitutes a true record of the testimony given by the

21

said witness.

22
23

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand


this 13th day of June, 2016.

24
25

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Diane F. Foltz, RMR


Notary Public

Page 194 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 37 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 195 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 38 of 115

Harvard Law School


Federal Budget Policy Seminar

Briefing Paper No. 21

Federal Sovereign
Immunity

John Lobato
Jeffrey Theodore

DRAFT
Last updated: 5-14-06

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 196 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 39 of 115

In American Constitutional law, a doctrine known as sovereign immunity bars suits


against the federal and state governments in most circumstances. 1 The Supreme Court has had
many opportunities to explore the scope of the immunity enjoyed by the States. 2 However,
Congress has waived the federal government's immunity across a broad range of substantive
law, 3 and the Court, therefore, has had little opportunity to decide when claimants are entitled to
recover for deprivations despite the lack of Congressional consent. This paper attempts to
confront that question-to discover, if the FTCA, the Tucker Act, and other waivers of sovereign
immunity were repealed, in what circumstances and to what extent monetary relief would
nevertheless be available against the United States. Of course there will be no hard answers,
only what on balance can be inferred from the Court's characterization of various substantive
rights, its nineteenth-century jurisprudence, its dicta in more recent cases, and its state immunity
decisions. The paper opens with an overview of sovereign immunity, including common
justifications and criticisms. Part II discusses whether certain types of claim might overcome an
assertion of sovereign immunity. Finally, in Part III we discuss the degree to which suits against
officers under Ex Parle Young 4 may impact the treasury before sovereign immunity concerns
reassert to themselves to make that avenue unavailable.

I. Introductory

The Constitution nowhere refers to sovereign immunity. Rather, it is a doctrine from


English law that the Court has assumed was silently imported into American law.

See United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882); Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S.
1 (1890).
2
See, e.g., College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Exp. Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999); Florida
Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Exp. Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517
U.S. 44 (1996); Alden, 527 U.S. at 706.
3
See, e.g., Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b); Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491.
4
209 U.S. 123 (1908).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 197 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 40 of 115

[T]he doctrine is derived from the laws and practices of our English ancestors;
and ... is beyond question that from the time of Edward the First until now the
King of England was not suable in the courts of that country .... And while the
exemption of the United States and of the several States from being subjected as
defendants to ordinary actions in the courts has since that time been repeatedly
asserted here, the principle has never been discussed or the reasons for it given,
but it has always been treated as an established doctrine. 5
Sovereign immunity is a rule with many, varied rationales. One is that it is part of the
very nature of sovereignty to be immune from unconsented suits. 6 In Kawananakoa v.
Polyblank, 7 Justice Holmes attempted to go beyond the mere assertions that characterize the
Court's recent opinions: "A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception
or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as
against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends." 8 That argument can be
read either narrowly to establish immunity only in those cases where the substantive legal basis
for the claim is created by the sued entity or broadly to mean that the law creator is immune from
all suits, whatever the substantive basis. The broader claim does not follow logically, but
Holmes is ambiguous about which he advances: "the rights that exist are not created by Congress
or the Constitution, except to the extent of certain limitations of power." 9 It is unclear if "rights
that exist" refers to the specific rights at issue in the case-these involved a property dispute with
the applicable law made by the immune sovereign--or is a broader statement about the absence
of supervening rights in general. In any event, today more than ever we have Constitutional
rights that stand above Congress and so the broad interpretation cannot be saved on that ground.
Moreover, there is a difficulty even with the narrow construction of Holmes's argument. Just

Lee, 106 U.S. at 205-7.


See Alden 527 U.S. at 716; Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 54.
7
205 U.S. 349 (1907).
8
Id. at 353. Despite Holmes's "obsolete theory" language, this argument is reminiscent of those found in historical
English materials.
9
Id. at 353-54. For our purposes the quote should be read as if the term "Congress" were omitted. Kawananakoa
dealt with a territory and Congress stood above the territory as the Constitution stands above Congress.
6

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 198 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 41 of 115

because a sovereign creates the law does not mean that he should be immune to that law.
Certainly he can alter the law so as to avoid liability in the circumstances he prefers, but
changing the law for everyone is a very different thing from exempting only the law-maker. It
does not follow from the proposition that a law-maker can do the former to the conclusion that
he can do the latter. 10
More recent defenses of sovereign immunity have also focused on the putative harm to its
"dignity" that a government suffers when subjected to unconsented suits.

11

Alternatively,

commentators have argued that sovereign immunity facilitates the government's responsibility to
protect common resources by making individuals bear the costs of losses suffered by
governmental action. 12
Opponents of sovereign immunity object to the notion that a state, unlike every other
legal actor, should be exempt from sanction for "the most clearly lawless behavior." 13 They
argue that sovereign immunity is inappropriate in a democracy for it "inevitably places a lesser
value on administering justice to the individual than on giving government a license to act
arbitrarily." 14 Moreover, the arguments from sovereignty and dignity have no place in a polity in
which the people are sovereign.

10

A similar argument, also with some resonance in the English legal tradition, is that courts are the sovereign's
courts, and the judges his judges, and thus the sovereign cannot be sued in his own courts without his consent, see 2
DE LEGIBUS ET CONSUETUDINIBUS ANGLIAE 166-67, 304 (Samuel E. Thome ed. and trans., 1968-1977); 3 WILLIAM
HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LA w 462 (3d ed. 1922- ). This seems to have limited application to a
government of divided powers where the judiciary is independent of the legislature and the executive.
11
See, e.g., Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 58; Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 268 (1997).
12
David A. Webster, Beyond Federal Sovereign Immunity: 5 U.S.C. 702 Spells Relief, 49 OHIO ST. L.J. 725
(1988).
13
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 252 (1985).
14
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 54 (1994) (Stevens, J., concurring).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 199 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 42 of 115

Finally, there is a tremendous historical dispute over the precise form, extent, and
strength of sovereign immunity in England and America in the late eighteenth century and the
degree to which it was incorporated into the Constitution.

15

II. Individual Claims against the Federal Government


This Part discusses the various claims that may be able to overcome federal sovereign
immunity. Assuming the repeal of the various congressional waivers of sovereign immunity, in
what circumstances and to what extent will money damages remain available against the United
States? Addressing the question of sovereign immunity assumes that the government has
violated some protected right. We focus on the Takings Clause, unconstitutional taxation, and
violations of contracts. While not an exhaustive list of claims that could potentially overcome
sovereign immunity, these are the ones existing Supreme Court decisions have suggested are
likely to be the strongest.

a. The Takings Clause, Just Compensation, and Tax Rebate Claims


The Takings Clause of the Constitution states that ''No person shall be ... deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation." 16 This clause of the Constitution does not hinder the

15

This paper cannot survey the full range of historical arguments and interpretations. There are, however, two
views which appear regularly and are reducible to a concise form. Compare Alden, 527 U.S. at 713-15 ("[T]he
States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the
ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today .... The generation that designed and adopted our
federal system considered immunity from private suits central to sovereign dignity .... In reciting the prerogatives
of the Crown, Blackstone -- whose works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding
generation -- underscored the close and necessary relationship understood to exist between sovereignty and
immunity from suit."), with Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 259 ("The Framers never intended to constitutionalize the
doctrine of state sovereign immunity."). These same positions are echoed, often verbatim, throughout the Court's
sovereign immunity jurisprudence.
16
U.S. CONST. amend V. This Briefing Paper uses the term "Takings Clause," but the Takings Clause actually
consists of only the statement that private property shall not be taken for public use. The "Just Compensation"
clause follows and adds "without just compensation" as a qualifier. For purposes of this Part, the Just Compensation
Clause is addressed as a part of the Takings Clause, and addressed as a possible trigger for damages.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 200 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 43 of 115

government from actively taking property, but rather places a condition on such a taking.

17

While sovereign immunity may protect the government from suit by individuals, some
commentators argue that the Takings Clause creates a cause of action able to overcome
sovereign immunity.
A very plausible textual reading of the Takings Clause withdraws the immunity of the
government in cases where it, either through a physical encroachment or regulatory invasion,

18

takes property from a property owner. Under this view, the Constitution spells out the right to
make a claim against the government within the Fifth Amendment rather plainly. Dicta in
United States v. Clarke 19 appeared to endorse the view that a landowner has the right to bring an
action in inverse condemnation resulting from the "self-executing character of the constitutional

provision with respect to compensation." 2 Clarke and cases in line with its holding demonstrate
that the right to bring suit against the government is an inherent part of the Takings Clause. As a
result of government action, it appears there is a trigger provision allowing for the suit against
the government and, accordingly, lowering the shield of sovereign immunity with respect to
takings.
The more difficult question in the area of takings is the extent to which the Takings
Clause mandates monetary compensation. In other words, perhaps the Fifth Amendment serves
only as a limitation on the power of government action but does not serve as a remedial

17

See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194 (1985).
There is a large and extensive literature on the meaning of"property" for purposes of the Takings Clause. See
United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377-78 (describing the tension between common usage and
substantive uses). See generally Adam Mossof, What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together, 45 ARIZ. L.
REV. 371 (2003). While such a discussion is beyond the breadth of this Briefing Paper, it is of interest to note that
the rights discussed within this Part could be substantially expanded or contracted depending on the definition of
property that one uses.
19
445 U.S. 253 (1980).
20
Id. at 257. An action for "inverse condemnation" is one brought by a property owner for compensation from a
government agency which has taken the owner's property without formal condemnation proceedings. BLACK'S LAW
DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004).
18

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 201 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 44 of 115

provision. Commentators suggest that the "principles of sovereign immunity and just
compensation are on a collision course." 21 While the Supreme Court has never directly
addressed the issue of whether the Takings Clause implies its own remedy, there are dicta on the
subject in several of its opinions. In the case of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 22 the Court addressed the claim of a landowner that a
regulatory ordinance barring construction on the landowner's property effectively denied the
landowner the use of the property, which might give rise to compensation.

23

The claimant

brought an action of inverse condemnation for a temporary regulatory taking and was denied
compensation. 24 The case then revolved around the consenting state's system ofregulatory
takings.
While the Court's holding addressed a number of procedural issues with regard to the
denial of compensation, 25 dicta also addressed the issue of compensation with regard to
sovereign immunity. The United States Solicitor General confronted the Court with an argument
in an amicus brief that the Fifth Amendment does not require that a damage remedy be entered
against the government in the case of a "regulatory taking." 26 The Government contended that
the Fifth Amendment on its own, absent further congressional action, does not require a damage
remedy against the United States. 27 This was an issue not raised by the courts below, but that the
Solicitor General's office introduced because of the substantial constitutional uncertainty. The

21

Richard H. Seamon, The Asymmetry ofState Sovereign Immunity, 76 WASH. L. REV. 1067, 1067 (2001).
482 U.S. 304 (1987).
23
Id. at 307-309.
24 Id.
25
The issues presented to the Court consisted of (1) a determination of whether a previous decision by the California
Supreme Court that the Just Compensation Clause did not require compensation as a remedy for regulatory takings
was properly presented, and (2) in a case of a regulatory taking, whether the landowner may recover damages before
judicial determination of a regulatory taking. Id. at 310-11.
26
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 12, First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (No. 85-1199) ..
27
Id. at 18.
22

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 202 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 45 of 115

Solicitor General stated the question presented as "whether the Constitution itself embodies a
monetary remedy for governmental takings of property without just compensation." 28 While
conceding that the government does pay compensation in cases both of physical takings and of
regulatory takings, the Government contended that there is no right to have the courts mandate
payment as compensation for the taking. 29 The text is strictly prohibitory and so on its own
cannot authorize a monetary award against the government. 30 Accordingly, as a textual matter,
the Fifth Amendment imposes a limitation on the power of the government by requiring just
compensation, but does not prescribe a particular remedy for violations. 31
The argument of the Government, however, rested on more than just textual
interpretation-it also examined the issue of sovereign immunity. The Government argued that
the Constitution does not surrender the immunity of the United States, 32 and cited cases for the
proposition that the Constitution does not withhold sovereignty from the Government. 33 Previous
decisions of the Supreme Court lend credence to such an argument by demonstrating that
Congress possesses the power to bar suits for monetary relief against the United States
government where there is an alleged taking of property without just compensation. 34 Indeed,
most cases, Takings Clause violations are brought under the Tucker Act 35 or other statutory
provisions explicitly granting a waiver of sovereign immunity that set forth a mechanism for

Id.
Id. at 14.
30 Id.
2s
29

31

Id. The Solicitor General draws a parallel with other clauses in the Constitution, specifically within the Fifth
Amendment. Just as "indictment is not a remedy for the government's holding of a person to answer for an infamous
crime" and "due process is not a remedy for a deprivation oflife, liberty, or property," a similar construction would
"conclude that the availability of just compensation, while an essential condition of a constitutional taking, was not
prescribed by the Fifth Amendment as the judicial remedy for an unconstitutional one." Id. at 15.
32
Id. at 16 (citing THE FEDERALIST No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton)).
33
Id. (citing California v. Arizona, 440 U.S. 59, 61-62, 65 (1979)).
34
See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579, 580-582 (1934).
35
28 U.S.C. 1491.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 203 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 46 of 115

monetary relief. 36 According to the Government, it is within the power of Congress to waive
sovereign immunity in certain cases and set up the compensation mechanism available to
claimants, but the Fifth Amendment alone does not create a monetary compensation regime
through its own language.
In response to the Government's argument, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the
majority, penned the much-discussed footnote nine in First English. 37 The footnote is dicta
because sovereign immunity does not extend to counties or other local government bodies. 38
Nevertheless, Rehnquist rejected the argument of the Solicitor General that the Fifth Amendment
is merely prohibitory in nature and does not create any remedial measures. 39 He explained that
precedent clearly indicated that the Constitution creates a remedy where interference with
property rises to the level of a taking. 40 The Court found that it is an established principle of
Fifth Amendment constitutional interpretation that claims for just compensation are based in the
Constitution itself. 41 The Court quoted Jacobs v. United States 42 for the following proposition:
[T]he remedy did not qualify the right. It rested upon the Fifth Amendment. Statutory
recognition was not necessary. A promise to pay was not necessary. Such a promise was
implied because of the duty to pay imposed by the Amendment. The suits were thus
founded upon the Constitution of the United States. 43
Accordingly, the Court rejected the argument of the Solicitor General's brief that, in light of
sovereign immunity and original understanding the Fifth Amendment contains no mandatory
remedial trigger.
36

See, e.g., Schillingerv. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13 (1933) (suit
brought under Tucker Act for taking by flooding of property). See also, United States v. Clarke 445 U.S. 253 (1980)
(involving an interpretation of25 U.S.C. 357 on condemnation oflndian lands).
37
First English, 482 U.S. at 316 n.9.
38
See Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
39
First English, 482 U.S. at 316 n.9.
40
Id. (citing San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 655, n.21 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting)).
See also United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 257 (1980); Jacobs v. United States 290 U.S. 13 (1933).
41
First English, 482 U.S. at 315.
42
290 U.S. 13 (1933).
43
Id. at 16 (emphasis added by First English).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 204 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 47 of 115

The debate over the rights entailed by the Takings Clause relating to compensation did
not end with First English. Indeed, the issue is probably as murky now as it was before the
decision since most lower courts have acknowledged that the language in footnote nine was
merely dicta. The first problem is that the cases cited by the Court to rebut the self-execution
argument did not actually address the issue of sovereign immunity. 44 In fact, some older
Supreme Court cases seem to indicate the supremacy of sovereign immunity in the context of the
Takings Clause and just compensation. In Lynch, 45 the Court held that the Just Compensation
Clause does not abrogate the sovereign immunity of the federal govemment. 46 As a result, even
in the wake of First English, the Courts of Appeal have split on the issue. The Seventh Circuit
has stated, "It is true that [First English] holds that the Constitution requires a state to waive its
sovereign immunity to the extent necessary to allow claims to be filed against it for takings of
private property for public use." 47 However, the Fifth Circuit has held, "the Foundation's Fifth
Amendment inverse condemnation claim brought directly against the State of Texas is also
barred by the Eleventh Amendment." 48
Moreover, many commentators believe that the Court has retreated from the dicta in First
English. They argue that in a recent opinion 49 Goined by the only two signers of the First

English decision still on the Court) treated question as uncertain. 50 In any event, the Court has
repeatedly held that the assertion of a constitutional right is not itself sufficient basis for
overriding sovereign immunity-otherwise sovereign immunity would be a dead letter.
44

See Jacobs, 290 U.S. at 13; Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984); United States v.
Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261U.S.299 (1923); Monongahela
Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893).
45
292 U.S. at 571.
46
See id. at 579-582.
47
Lucien v. Johnson, 61F.3d573, 575 (7th Cir. 1995).
48
John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Found. v. Mauro, 21 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 1994).
49
See City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687, 714 (1999).
50
Our reading of Del Monte Dunes is that the comment was less a substantive retreat than a debating point:
conceding the issue for the sake argument so as to introduce another, independent criticism of the dissent.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 205 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 48 of 115

Academic literature continues to suggest that sovereign immunity does exist in the area of
Takings Clause compensation claims. 51 Of course this is inconsistent with the proposition in
First English that the Constitution requires compensation through the remedial provision of the

Just Compensation Clause. It is also worth nothing that such an interpretation of the Takings
Clause with respect to just compensation will affect the standing of all "property" in relation to

. agamst
. the government. 52
c1aims
There are extrinsic reasons to believe that this debate might be resolved in favor of
Takings Clause claims overcoming sovereign immunity. In the context of the Eleventh
Amendment, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity using its Fourteenth Amendment
powers but not its Commerce Clause powers. 53 This can be read to suggest that due process-type
guarantees enjoy a special precedence over sovereign immunity. Moreover, the Takings Clause
operates against the states only by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, which strengthens the
association. The force of this argument is somewhat weakened, however, by the fact that in
Seminole Tribe, the Court distinguished the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment

primarily on the grounds that the former contains language expressly directed toward the States.
And, the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment modifies pre-existing regimes of sovereign
immunity has no relevance the Takings Clause in the federal context, for the Fifth Amendment
has applied to the federal government since 1791, not by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We should be cautious before assuming that the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment can trump
state sovereign immunity extends to federal sovereign immunity.

51

See Seamon, supra note 21, at 1067 (suggesting that the States are immune from just-compensation suits brought
in federal court, but not those brought against them in their own courts).
52
As discussed previously, defining what constitutes property is beyond the scope of this Briefing Paper, but it is
important to note that an expansion of that definition with a corresponding right to compensation could broadly
abrogate sovereign immunity.
53
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976); Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 206 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 49 of 115

Another extrinsic consideration: Keio v. City ofNew London

54

expanded the power of the

government under the Takings Clause. 55 The analogous result in the remedy context is expansion
of sovereign immunity and disfavor of implied remedies.
The state of ambiguity in the takings area is analogous to the situation in tax rebate
actions, another Fifth Amendment claim. 56 In 1990 the Supreme Court ruled that unlawful
taxation constitutes a deprivation of property, and the Due Process Clause therefore requires
states to provide in their own courts either a pre- or post-deprivation remedy. 57 Four years later
the Court reaffirmed this holding and noted that while the Eleventh Amendment bars tax refund
claims in federal court, the Due Process Clause requires states to provide a state court remedy,
sovereign immunity "notwithstanding." 58 However, more recently the Court has cast doubt on
the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to provide a remedy and
effectively waive its immunity in this instance. In Alden v. Maine, the Court held that states
enjoy sovereign immunity in their own courts as well as federal courts. 59 As part of an argument
that this holding was consistent with existing precedents, the majority recharacterized Reich as
standing merely for the proposition that a state may not hold out the promise of a post54

125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005).


Keio, specifically, was an expansion of what constituted "public use." The Court determined that even a taking by
a private company for development could constitute "public use." See id at 2668.
56 The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. 1341 ("The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the
assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in
the courts of such State."), establishes another jurisdictional hurdle to bringing state tax claims in federal court. See
Arkansas v. Farm Credit Services, 520 U.S. 821, 825-26 (1997) ("We have interpreted and applied the Tax
Injunction Act as a 'jurisdictional rule' and a 'broad jurisdictional barrier.' ... [D]eclaratory relief is as violative of
the Tax Injunction Act as an injunction itself."). Two considerations are relevant to this paper. First, the Tax
Injunction Act applies only to state taxes, not federal taxes. Second, the jurisdictional bar posed by the Tax
Injunction Act is considered separately from the bar posed by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., FDIC v. New York,
928 F.2d 56 (2nd Cir. 1991); Hechinger Investment Co. v. Hechinger Liquidation Trust (In re Hechinger Investment
Co.), 335 F.3d 243 (3rd Cir. 2003); Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1998); Lipscomb v. Columbus Municipal
Separate School District, 269 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2001); Angel v. Kentucky, 314 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2002); Dame v.
Wisconsin, 137 F.3d 484 (7th Cir. 1998); May Trucking Co. v. Oregon Department of Transportation, 388 F.3d
1261 (9th Cir. 2004); American Petrofina Co. v. Nance, 859 F.2d 840 (10th Cir. 1988); Osceola v. Florida
Department of Revenue, 893 F.2d 1231 (11th Cir. 1990).
57
See McKesson Corp. v. Division of ABT, 496 U.S. 18 (1990).
58
Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 109-10 (1994).
59
527 U.S. 706 (1999).
55

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 207 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 50 of 115

deprivation remedy and then withdraw it after the taxpayer, relying on the prospect of a remedy,
has paid his taxes. 60 "In this context, due process requires the State to provide the remedy it has
promised." 61
b. Contracts with the Federal Government and the Contracts Clause
Sovereign immunity plays a significant role in the field of contract enforcement. The
Constitution provides that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law." 62 In the field of contracts, it is particularly difficult to analogize
between state and federal sovereign immunity because the substantive constitutional and
legislative provisions differ in the context of state and federal governments. This results in far
smaller source base for evaluating the role of sovereign immunity in federal contract claims.
The Contract Clause of the Constitution requires that "No State shall ... pass any ...
Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." 63 The Contract Clause, on its terms as well as
through interpretation by various courts, applies to states and local governments but not the
federal government.

64

Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that contractual obligations between

the nation and an individual are binding to the extent of the sovereign's "conscience" and do not
create an independent right of action. 65 This interpretation of the Contract Clause is appropriate
given the original purpose of the Clause-to prevent states from discharging contractual
obligations through debtor relief laws. 66 Although the Contract Clause applies only to states and
local governments, the Supreme Court has read contractual rights into the Fifth Amendment,

60

Id. at 740.
Id.
62
U.S. CONST. art. I, 9 cl. 7.
63
U.S. CONST. art. I, 10, cl. 1.
64
See ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAw: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES, 605 (2d ed. 2002). See also Esther
C. v. Ambach, 515 N.Y.S. 2d 997, 999 (1987).
65
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 580-81 (1934).
66
See CHEMERINSKY, supra note 54, at 605.
61

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 208 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 51 of 115

through the Takings and Due Process Clauses. 67 The vested contractual rights may constitute
protected "property," which cannot be taken without just compensation.

68

Accordingly, this

analysis falls under the previous discussion of property rights. 69 In the state and local
government context, the Court has fluctuated between strict standards 70 and more deferential
standards 71 regarding the states' ability to modify contractual obligations. Furthermore, within
the Contract Clause itself, there is no self-executing remedial provision, unlike what may exist
with the Just Compensation provision of the Takings Clause. The options for judicial
enforcement include both revocation of the applicable law and monetary compensation for
breach of contract.
Currently, the rights of individuals advancing contractual claims against the federal
government are largely governed by the Tucker Act. 72 That statute, passed in 1887, waives
sovereign immunity in lawsuits arising out of contracts to which the government, or its agencies,
are parties. 73 In consenting to suit, the Tucker Act qualifies the jurisdictional grounds on which
the cases may be brought. If the plaintiff seeks less than $10,000 in damages, the federal district
courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the United States Court of Federal Claims. 74 However,
if the damages are greater than $10,000, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction
over the controversy. 75 Where the government waives sovereign immunity under the Tucker

67

See id. at 579-580.


Id. at 579.
69
See supra Part II( a).
70
See U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431U.S.1 (1977) (finding that impairment ofcontractual obligations is
constitutional if "reasonable and necessary to support an important public purpose.").
71
See Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co, 459 U.S. 400 (1983) (creating a more deferential
three-part test with a threshold inquiry into "substantial impairment" of a contractual relationship).
72
28 u.s.c. 1491.
73
See id.
74 Id.
1s Id.
68

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 209 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 52 of 115

Act, contractual breaches are treated as if they arose at common law and the government as if it

were a pnvate party.

76

The Tucker Act does not actually create an unlimited right to recover in all cases. The
Supreme Court, in Burr v. FHA, 77 determined that Congress has the power to create agencies
capable of acting as private litigants in contract disputes, but to condition the agency's liability
on the use of agency funds and not funds from the general treasury. 78 Accordingly, this form of
"limited-liability" qualifies the waiver of immunity enacted by the Tucker Act. If Congress
creates such a "sue and be sued" agency, the judgment cannot exceed the amount of money
available to the agency. To the extent that it does, sovereign immunity attaches.

Burr's endorsement of Congress's ability to limit liability suggests that in the absence of
congressional waiver, there will be no basis for a claim against the federal government: the
Contract Clause cannot overcome the bar erected by sovereign immunity. Even the Tucker Act
does not create any cause of action against the government. Any such cause of action must be
based on the substantive law for which sovereign immunity is waived-in the case of the Tucker
Act, contract law. 79 Perhaps an individual seeking compensation from the government,
however, could bring a suit under the Takings Clause and demand just compensation under a
nouvelle definition of property. 80 In contract cases compensation would also depend on the right
vested in the individual claiming a breach of contract. If such a right is vested, that agreement
may become binding on future Congresses. 81

76

See Mobil Oil v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000).


309 U.S. 242 (1940).
78
See id.
79
See United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 397 (1976).
80
As discussed above, whether or not any compensation could actually arise from such a loss of property is a
debatable point, but it would provide an alternate theory for a plaintiff seeking relief.
81
See, e.g., United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 875-76 (1996); Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 266
(1935). The Court in Winstar, however, acknowledges that this power to create binding vested rights is uncertain.
77

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 210 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 53 of 115

The existence of the Tucker Act and the case law surrounding the Act demonstrate both
congressional and judicial acknowledgement of the sovereign immunity of the federal
government. Without the waiver of immunity, a plaintiff could not bring a claim against the
federal government. Plaintiffs have, however, attempted to bring cases involving contractual
rights against the government-most prominent among them claims for Social Security
benefits. 82 In Helvering v. Davis, 83 the Court determined that Social Security is merely a
program of government welfare spending, even though the benefits of the program, like a
contract, may seem earned. 84 Ye~rs later, in Flemming v. Nestor, 85 the Court reiterated many of
the same ideas, and rejected the argument that the payment of Social Security taxes generates a
property right in the accrued benefits. 86 These cases further demonstrate some unwillingness on
the part of the Court to vest contractual rights in individuals through claims against the federal
government.
c. Defaults on Debt
An interesting question is whether a suit to enforce payment on government bonds would
be able to overcome an assertion of sovereign immunity. The federal government's default on its
debt would arguably violate both the Takings and Contracts Clauses and thus give rise to a
particularly strong case that sovereign immunity would not apply. However, several
considerations caution against such a conclusion. First, recovery for a debt default requires the
payment of monies from the treasury to compensate for previous violations. This is the area in

82

Plaintiffs have advanced both contract and property theories in this regard.
301 U.S. 619 (1937).
84
Id. at 640.
85
363 U.S. 603 (1960).
86
Id. at 1372-73.
83

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 211 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 54 of 115

which sovereign immunity is at its strongest. 87 Moreover, the fact that the government would
have to deal with outraged bondholding voters and economic, market consequences might
encourage the Supreme Court to conclude that political safeguards are sufficient to protect
bondholders against default. The decision to default and risk the attendant increase in borrowing
costs and substantial economic dislocation seems like a judgment about macroeconomic policy
properly left to the political branches. Finally, analogy to the late nineteenth-century state bond
cases suggests that sovereign immunity applies to actions to recover debt. In rejecting various
suits, nominally against state officials, to force state governments to honor their debts, the Court
consistently held that the State was, as the party of interest to the contract, the real defendant and
thus that sovereign immunity attached. 88 It was taken as given that where the state was the
defendant, sovereign immunity would bar suit. 89 The State's obligation not to violate its
contracts "is subject to the other constitutional principle, of equal authority, contained in the 11th
Amendment, which secures to the State an immunity from suit. " 90

III. Ex Parte Young

Despite the sovereign's immunity to suits directly against it, there is a long tradition in
Anglo-American law of permitting challenges to official action by suing officers rather than the
state. 91 In 1908, the seminal case of Ex parte Young allowed suits nominally against state
officials, even though relief will in fact run against the state. The Court enjoined a state Attorney

87

See the discussion below of the limitation of damages in officer suits to prospective injunctive relief. Nor is the
fact that the default is continuing likely to help. See the discussion of Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 281 (1986),
below.
88
In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (1887); Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52 (1886); La. v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711 (1883).
89
In re Ayres, 123 U.S. at 487.
90
Id. at 503.
91
See Louis L. Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1963).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 212 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 55 of 115

General from bringing suit to enforce an unconstitutional state statute after reasoning that such
an enactment is void and therefore cannot impart the state's immunity to its official:
The use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of
complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not
affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal
act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the
State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If
the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the
Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into
conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case
stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to
the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to
him an~ immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United
States.
Although federal waivers of sovereign immunity result in fewer claims against federal officers,
in the absence of those waivers the logic of Ex parte Young is as appropriate in the context of
federal official action as it is in the context of state official action. 93
The Supreme Court's rightward drift since the 1970's has produced a string of decisions
substantially limiting the scope of Ex parte Young. Under the rule of Edelman v. Jordan, 94
plaintiffs can no longer receive monetary compensation in suits against state officials for past
violations of a legal duty. 95 "When the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from
the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign
immunity from suit even though individual officers are nominal defendants." 96 Among other

92

209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908). The Young doctrine relies on a legal fiction-officials are stripped of state
immunity and ostensibly held responsible for their individual conduct, but relief runs against the state. Ex parte
Young requires that "unconstitutional conduct by a state officer may be 'state action' for purposes of the Fourteenth
Amendment yet not attributable to the State for purposes of the Eleventh." Florida Department of State v. Treasure
Salvors, 458 U.S. 670, 685 (1982) (plurality opinion).
93
See generally Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Daniel J. Meltzer & David L. Shapiro, HART & WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL
COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 959 (5th ed. 2003).
94
415 U.S. 651(1974).
95
/d at 668.
96
Id. at 663 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 464 (1945)).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 213 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 56 of 115

things, this prevents the use of Ex parte Young to obtain tax refunds. 97 However, Edelman does
not bar actions for prospective relief-those suits that seek to enjoin state officials' future
conduct--even where there will be consequences to the state treasury, so long as,
The fiscal consequences to state treasuries ... were the necessary result of
compliance with decrees which by their terms were prospective in nature. State
officials, in order to shape their official conduct to the mandate of the Court's
decrees would more likely have to spend money from the state treasury than if
they had been left free to pursue their previous course of conduct. Such an
ancillary effect on the state treasury is a permissible and often an inevitable
consequence of the principle announced in Ex parte Young. 98
"Ancillary" fiscal consequences can include attorneys' fees and fines imposed to enforce
prospective, injunctive relief. 99 Declaratory relief is available or unavailable along the same
lines: once the state is in compliance with the law, though it becomes so only during litigation,
relief is unavailable under Ex parte Young. 100

Edelman and its progeny severely restrict the relief available under Ex parte Young.
However, there is still a significant prospect for judicial interference in state finances. While
post-collectment challenges to taxation seek retroactive relief and are thus unavailable, precollectment challenges remain within the terms of the exception. A 1952 case, Georgia Railroad
& Banking Co. v. Redwine, held that a suit to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes fell

within the Young exception. 101 This is still good law. Suits to enjoin the collection of taxes do
not seek compensation for past legal violations, but to prevent officials' taking future illegal
actions. The fiscal consequences are merely ancillary to the prospective judgment about the

97

Id. at 665.
Id. at 668.
99
See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 690 (1978) ("Federal courts are not reduced to issuing injunctions against state
officers and hoping for compliance .... Many of the court's most effective enforcement weapons involve financial
penalties.").
100
See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985).
101
342 U.S. 299 (1952)
98

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 214 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 57 of 115

legality of future conduct. Indeed, Edelman distinguished (and thus approved) several previous
cases that enjoined state officials against discontinuing welfare benefits. 102
It is unlikely, however, that the Rehnquist Court would, or the Roberts Court will,

countenance any imaginable degree of interference in government finances simply on the


grounds that it is ancillary to prospective relief. The law here is not entirely clear or consistent
but suggests the existence of some limits. In Papasan v. Allain, the Court refused to allow
plaintiffs to recover for a continuing breach of trust on the grounds that the recovery would in
effect be for an accrued monetary liability. 103 This would seem to make officer suits under Ex

parte Young unavailable as a means to recover for debt defaults. On the other hand, in Milliken
v. Bradley, the Court approved a remedial scheme that required future payments from the state
treasury to rectify past discrimination on the grounds that the funded programs operated
prospectively to bring about improved conditions. 104 More recently, in Missouri v. Jenkins, the
Court rejected a remedial plan that required the state to pay for increased teacher salaries and
quality education programs in the Kansas City, Missouri school district. 105 While Jenkins did
not discuss the sovereign immunity context, it reflects the same concerns that have motivated the
Court to restrict the reach of Ex parte Young.
In the Young context these concerns found their furthest expression in Idaho v. Coeur

d'Alene Tribe. 106 That case held that suits that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action
against a state's interests in its submerged lands implicate "special sovereignty interests" and
therefore fall outside the scope of Ex parte Young. At least one Court of Appeals has read this
opinion as an invitation to find new "special sovereignty interests" that also preclude resort to Ex
102

415 U.S. at 667.


478 U.S. 265, 281 (1986).
104
433 U.S. 267 (1977).
105
515 U.S. 70 (1995).
106
521 U.S. 261 (1997).
103

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 215 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 58 of 115

parte Young. 107 However, the Supreme Court appeared to tum back from this line of inquiry in a
2002 decision. It announced a '"straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an
ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective."'

108

Nowhere did it mention "special sovereignty interests," much less suggest that district courts
must ask in each suit under Ex parte Young whether the requested relief would implicate them.
What should be clear is that the precise contours of relief available under Ex parte Young
are not written in stone. They are subject to a malleable balancing act that weighs the
Supremacy Clause against the demands of sovereignty and is highly case specific. As Justice
Brennan has written,
The Court makes a valiant effort to set forth the principles that determine whether
a particular claim is or is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. To my mind,
the Court's restatement simply underscores the implausibility of the entire
venture, for it clearly demonstrates that the Court's Eleventh Amendment
jurisprudence consists of little more than a number of ad hoc and unmanageable
rules bearing little or no relation to one another or to any coherent framework;
indeed, the Court's best efforts to impose order on the cases in this area has
produced only the conclusion that "[fJor Eleventh Amendment purposes, the line
between permitted and prohibited suits will often be indistinct." This hodgepodge
produces no positive benefits to society. Its only effect is to impair or prevent
effective enforcement of federal law. It is highly unlikely that, having created a
system in which federal law was to be supreme, the Framers of the Constitution or
of the Eleventh Amendment nonetheless intended for that law to be unenforceable
in the broad class of cases now barred by this Court's precedents. In fact, as I
demonstrated last Term in Atascadero, the Framers intended no such thing. 109

When attempting to obtain remedies against the government, the doctrine of sovereign
immunity bars unconsented suit. There are perhaps a few sorts of claims that might overcome
sovereign immunity and allow suit against the state as if it were any other legal entity. This
107

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Lafaver, 150 F.3d 1178, 1191 (10th Cir. 1998).
Verizon Maryland v. Public Service Commission, 535 U.S. 635, 645 (quoting Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. at
296 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)).
109
Papasan, 478 U.S. at 293 (Brennan, J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in
part).
108

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 216 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 59 of 115

paper has discussed the possibility that takings cases, tax rebate claims, contracts cases, and bond
cases might create such exceptions to sovereign immunity. An option more generally available
but of more limited utility than suit directly against the state is suit against officers under Ex

parte Young. Because the state is not the defendant but relief in effect runs against it, the
plaintiff is able to get redress and can avoid the bar of sovereign immunity. However, the
Supreme Court has allowed sovereign immunity considerations to come in through the back door
and limit the remedies available in officer suits. A suit against an officer will be construed as a
suit against the state if it seeks remedies other than prospective injunctive relief. In that case, the
bar of sovereign immunity will attach. The state bond cases serve as examples of both functions
of sovereign immunity. It was understood that suit directly against the state was unavailable so
the plaintiffs attempted to sue state officers. The Court nevertheless held that the suit was in
effect against the state and decided that sovereign immunity therefore denied jurisdiction. 110
Ultimately, it is impossible to say precisely which claims overcome sovereign immunity
and allow citizens to vindicate their rights in court. Nevertheless, we can make some
generalizations: certain claims for prospective relief nominally addressed to officers are the
strongest route to obtaining relief, though not in the form of damages. For that, a claim based on
the Takings Clause is the least unlikely to defeat the bar posed by sovereign immunity.

110

The reasoning was slightly different than in contemporary cases. The nineteenth-century cases decided that suit
was against the state because the state was the party to the contract, while contemporary doctrine would decide that
the suit was against the state because it asked for money damage from the treasury for past violations.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 217 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 60 of 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(cases and judicial materials omitted)

Erwin Chemerinsky' CONSTITUTIONAL LA w: PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES (2d ed. 2002).


DE LEGIBUS ET CONSUETUDINIBUS ANGLIAE (Samuel E. Thome ed. and trans., 1968-1977).
Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Daniel J. Meltzer & David L. Shapiro, HART & WECHSLER'S THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM (5th ed. 2003).
THE FEDERALIST No. 81 (Alexander Hamilton).
WILLIAM HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (3d ed. 1922- ).
Louis L. Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 HARV. L. REV.
1 (1963).
Adam Mossof, What is Property? Putting the Pieces Back Together, 45 ARIZ. L. REV. 371
(2003).
Richard H. Seamon, The Asymmetry of State Sovereign Immunity, 76 WASH. L. REV. 1067,
(2001).
David A. Webster, Beyond Federal Sovereign Immunity: 5 USC. 702 Spells Relief, 49 OHIO
Sr. L.J. 725 (1988).

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 218 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 61 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 219 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 62 of 115

Castle doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place
- e.g., a vehicle or workplace, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting him or her, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to
and including deadly force) to defend himself or herself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.fl] The term is
most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
A person may have a duty to retreat to avoid violence if one can reasonably do so. Castle doctrines negate the duty to retreat when an individual is assaulted in a
place where that individual has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in
cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to him or herself or another".[JJ The castle doctrine is not a defined law
that can be invoked, but a set of principles which may be incorporated in some form in the law of many jurisdictions.
Justifiable homicide[ 2l inside one's home is distinct, as a matter of law, from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat therefrom. Because the mere occurrence of
trespassing-and occasionally a subjective requirement of fear-is sufficient to invoke the castle doctrine, the burden of proof of fact is much less challenging
than that of justifying a homicide. With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the
intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision
pertaining to one's domicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom. The use of this legal principle in the United States
has been controversial in relation to a number of cases in which it has been invoked, including the deaths of Japanese exchange student Yoshihiro Hattori and
Scottish businessman Andrew de Vries.

Contents
1 History
1.1 In early America
1.2 On the American frontier
1.3 Current position
2 Conditions of use
2.1 Immunity from civil lawsuit
2.2 Duty to retreat
2.3 Stand-your-ground
2.4 Culpability of intruder
3 State-by-state positions in the United States
3.1 States with a castle law
3.2 States with weak or no specific castle law
4 Outside the USA
4.1 Australia
4.2 Canada
4.3 England and Wales
4.4 Germany
4.5 Ireland
4.6 Israel
4.7 Italy
5 See also
5.1 History
5.2 Related sayings
6 Notes

History
The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic Pl In English common law the
term is derived from the dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle" (see Semayne's case). This concept was established as English law by the 17th
century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:41

For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge]J41
English common law came with colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine.l41The term has been used in England to imply a
person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, such as bailiffs having increasing powers of entry since the
late-20th century.CSJ
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an
exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. "If a
thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


1of11

Page 220 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 63 of 115

home-defender and must make restitution."[ 6H71

In early America
By the 18th century, many US state legal systems began by importing English common law such as Acts of Parliament
of2 Ed. III (Statute of Northampton), and 5 Rich. II (Forcible Entry Act 1381) in law since 1381-which imposed
criminal sanctions intending to discourage the resort to self-help.[ 8H91This required a threatened party to retreat,
whenever property was "involved" and resolve the issue by civil means.
Then as now, there were English politicians who were for or against the use of self-help over state-help. William
Blackstone, in Book 4, Chapter 16(10] of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, [I I] proclaims that the laws "leave
him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following
words:
And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles
it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of
ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;P 21 quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius,
quam domus uniusquisque civium?0 3l For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute
any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part
arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle
it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout,
or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other
case.
- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Not only was the doctrine considered to justify defense against neighbors and criminals, but any of the Crown's agents who attempted to enter without a proper
warrant as well. It should be noted that prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution share a common background with current castle
doctrine laws.
In 1841, The Preemption Act was passed to "appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands ... and to grant 'pre-emption rights' to individuals" who were
already living on federal lands (commonly referred to as "squatters"). During this same period, claim clubs sprung up all over the US advocating vigilance and
the castle doctrine. This was in concurrence with the culture of manifest destiny which led to westward expansion and the American Indian Wars, the last of
which ended by the 1920s.

On the American frontier


On the American frontier, the doctrine of no duty to retreat extended outside a residence. It asserted that a man in an altercation that he did not provoke was not
obliged to flee from his attacker, but was free to stand his ground and defend himself. A state Supreme Court justice wrote in 1877,P 4 1
Indeed, the tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when
assailed.
American West historian Richard M. Brown wrote that under the circumstances, for a man in the American West to flee under such circumstances would be
cowardly and un-American. Legendary dentist and gambler Doc Holliday successfully used this defense when he shot Billy Allen as he entered a saloon.
Holliday owed Allen $5 which Allen wanted paid and had threatened Holliday. Although Allen was unarmed at the time, Holliday had received reports that
Allen had been armed and looking for him earlier in the day. During the subsequent trial, Holliday asserted he was within his rights and the jury agreed. He was
acquitted on March 28, 1885P 41

Current position
Today, the majority of American states have construed their statutes of forcible entry, both penal and civil, in such a manner as to abrogate the common law
privilege to use force in the recovery of possession of land.f 15l A minority of states, however, have taken the view that their forcible entry statutes have not
deprived a defendant with the right to immediate possession of land of his common law privilege to use reasonable force to regain possession thereof.f 161
The term "make my day law" came to be used in the United States in about 1985 when Colorado passed a law that shielded people from any criminal or civil
liability for using force against a home invader, including deadly force.r17J (The law's nickname is a reference to the line "Go ahead, make my day" uttered by
actor Clint Eastwood's character "Dirty Harry" Callahan in the 1983 police film Sudden Impact.)

Conditions of use
Each jurisdiction incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws in different ways. The circumstance in which it may be invoked include the premises covered
(abode only, or other places too), the degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance required before deadly force can be used, etc. Typical conditions that apply to
some castle doctrine Jaws include:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


2of11

Page 221 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 64 of 115

duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some
states apply the Castle Doctrine ifthe occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.
In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law, themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not
use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.flSJ
In Colorado, the make-my-day statute provides the occupant with immunity from prosecution only for force used against a person who has made an unlawful
entry into the dwelling, but not against a person who remains unlawfully in the dwelling. [!9][ZOJ

Immunity from civil lawsuit


In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also
have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them).
Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender;
or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the
homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used
as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).
Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution,
however.

Duty to retreat
In US jurisdictions where the castle doctrine applies, there is no duty to retreat before deadly force is used against an intruder by a person in their home or, in
some jurisdictions, just simply where the person can legally be.f2 11

Stand-your-ground
Most states in the United States have stand-your-ground laws where individuals can use deadly force in any location one is legally allowed to be without first
attempting to retreat.

Culpability of intruder
In Colorado, the make-my-day statute "was not intended to justify use of physical force against persons who enter a dwelling accidentally or in good faith. "[201
In other words, "the unlawful entry element requires a culpable mental state of 'knowingly' on the part of the intruder. n(ZZJ

State-by-state positions in the United States


For each state in the US with a castle doctrine, an external link is provided to the text of the specific statute, if available. If a direct link is unavailable, for
example if the destination website uses JavaScript, the statute name and/or number is listed.

States with a castle law


Castle doctrine lays down that there is no duty to retreat from an intruder in one's home. A justifiable homicide which occurs inside one's home is distinct as a
matter of law (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Matter+of+law) from castle doctrine's no duty to retreat. As such, states with justifiable homicide
provisions in pertaining to one's domicile, do not in themselves authorize indiscriminate violence therein-the mere fact that one is trespassing is no defense per
se to justifying homicide.

In addition to the states listed below, the U.S. Territory of Guam has the Castle doctrine as Jaw.f231

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

3of11

Page 222 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 65 of 115

Notes

Statute

State

"Use of force in defense of a person.

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

13A-3-23

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend
himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a
degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A
person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using
deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to
subdivision (4), ifthe person reasonably believes that another person is: (1) Using or about
to use unlawful deadly physical force. (2) Using or about to use physical force against an
occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling. (3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first
or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible
sodomy. (4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and
forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear
power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally
licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a
person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the
person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical
force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
forcible act is occurring .... " http://www.usacarry.com
/alabama_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_law.html

11.81.335

"... a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330
may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person
reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against death,
serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery in any degree ... there is no duty
to leave the area if the person is(l) on premises that the person owns or leases. - See more
at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/11/l l .81./04./l l .81.335.#sthash.q4 l TlxXM.dpuf

13-411

"A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical
force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force
or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of
arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree
under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under
section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual
conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child
molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated
assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2. B. There is no duty to
retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by
subsection A of this section. C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the
purposes of this section if he the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the
offenses listed in subsection A of this section. D. This section is not limited to the use or
threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of
business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this
state where a person has a right to be. - See more at: http://www.azleg.gov
/fFormatDocument.asp?inDoc=llegtext/47leg/2r/laws/0199.htm&Session_ID=83

[24]

Penal Code 198.5

'

'

The General Assembly finds that the current laws regarding self-defense and the use of
deadly physical force in self-defense or in defense of another person are adequate in that the
law explicitly does not require a person to retreat from certain life-threatening
confrontations if a person cannot do so safely. However, the General Assembly finds that
there is currently not enough protection from civil liability for a person who rightfully uses
deadly physical force in self-defense or in defense of another person. The General
Assembly finds that a more robust civil immunity statute is necessary to protect a person
'
from civil damages stemming from an incident when he or she lawfully uses deadly
physical force in self-defense or in defense of another person.
"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his
or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death :
or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used
against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and
forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the,
force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
[2] (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&
sectionNum=l 98.5.)

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


4of11

Page 223 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 66 of 115


-

Notes

18-1-704

"... any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including
deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful
entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other
person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is
committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the
uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might
use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of
deadly physical force against an intruder. (http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado
/?app=00075&view=full&interface=1 &docinfo=off&searchtype=get&
search=C.R.S.+ 18-1-704.5)

Connecticut

Sec. 53a-20 (http://www.cga.ct.gov/201 l/pub


/chap951.htm#Sec53a-20.htm)

A person in possession or control of premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to


be in or upon such premises, is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another
person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other
person in or upon such premises; but he may use deadly physical force under such
circumstances only (1) in defense of a person as prescribed in section 53a-19, or (2) when
he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to
commit arson or any crime of violence, or (3) to the extent that he reasonably believes such
to be necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry by force into his dwelling as
defined in section 53a- l 00, or place of work, and for the sole purpose of such prevention or
termination.

Florida

776.013 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes
/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&
URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html)

Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or
great bodily harm.

Georgia

16-3-23. l

No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense. [3] (http://www.georgiapacking.org


/GaCode/?title= 16&chapter=3&section=23.1)

Hawaii

703-304 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
/hrscurrent/Vol l 4_Ch070 l -0853/HRS0703
/HRS_0703-0304.HTM)

No duty to retreat from dwelling/workplace.

Idaho

18-4009 (http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho
/2005/l 8ftoc/180400009 .html)

a justifiable homicide law in self-defense from violence-must prove intruder's intent


thereof

'

Illinois

720 ILCS 5 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation


/ilcs/ilcs4.asp ?DocName=072000050HArt. +7 &
ActlD= l 876&ChapAct=720)

Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of
dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.

Indiana

IC 35-41-3-2 (http://www.in.gov/legislative
/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html)

No duty to retreat from dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle. In 2012, an


amendment was made to the code to address the issue of force against a public servant. The
amendment states: "A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant
whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless: (1) the
person reasonably believes that the public servant is: (A) acting unlawfully; or (B) not
engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and (2) the force is
reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person."

Iowa

704. l (http://search.legis.state.iaus
/NXT/iclink.htrn ?c=704$s= 1$)

No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".

Kentucky

KRS 503.055 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes


/statute.aspx ?id= 19670)

No duty to retreat from dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

LA RS 14:20 (http://www.legis.state.la.us
/lss/lss.asp?doc=78338)

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a


motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32: 1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an
unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an
unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person
committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to
prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

Colorado

Louisiana

Maine

104 (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes

/17-a/titlel 7-asec104.html)

See Maryland self-defense. Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castledoctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based
on mixed case lawP61

Massachusetts

Section SA. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with
killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the
occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable
belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or

278-Sa (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl
/278-Sa.htrn)

Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to
stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly
force; duty to retreat not specifically removed[Z51

Maryland

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

5of11

Statute

State

Page 224 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 67 of 115


-

---

Notes

Statute

State

death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said
occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said
dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in
said dwelling.
768.21c Use of deadly force by individual in own dwelling; "dwelling" defined.

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

768.2lc (http://www.legislature.mi.gov
/%28S%28yn5bw45msck2da2vgll4o4rt%29%29
/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl768-21c)

609.065 (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us
/statutes/?id=609.065)

MS Code 97-3-15

(I) In cases in which section 2 of the self-defense act does not apply, the common law of
this state applies except that the duty to retreat before using deadly force is not required if
an individual is in his or her own dwelling or within the curtilage of that dwelling.
(2) As used in this section, "dwelling" means a structure or shelter that is used permanently
or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that
structure or shelter. [27]

No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no
duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode [281) This
isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat
was upheld.[29]

(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared
imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or
upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or
place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment,
if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully
and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle,
business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had
unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other
!
person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the
immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to
believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a
right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of
employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the
dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if
the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law
enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;
(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall
have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (I) (e) or (f) of this
section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact
shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use
of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.
(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil
cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense. [301

Missouri

563.031 (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes
/C500-599/5630000031.HTM)

Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the
building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or
immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent,
and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is
residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle.
The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court
costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action
brought by a plaintiff.
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

Montana

[4] (http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45
/3/45-3-103.htm) 45-3-103

Nevada

200.120 (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS200.htrnl#NRS200Sec 120)

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

6of11

(I) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and
to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent
or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of
force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is
necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a
forcible felony in the occupied structure.

''

200.120.
1. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in

Page 225 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 68 of 115

State

Statute

Notes

defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors,
by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who
manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to
enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to
any person dwelling or being therein.
2. A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1
if the person:
(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly
force is used.

New
Hampshire

[5] (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html
/LXIl/627 /627-4.htm)

Not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling, its curtilage, or anywhere
he or she has a right to be, and was not the initial aggressor. An individual may respond to a
threat of serious bodily injury or death by displaying a firearm or other method of
self-defense. Deadly force is justified if the aggressor is about to use unlawful, deadly
force, is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible
sex offense, or is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the
individual within their dwelling or its curtilage.

New Jersey

[6] (http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-thenew-jersey-code-of-crirninal-justice/3-4.html)

Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety,
etc. except not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor

PL 35.15(2)(a)(i) (http://law.onecle.com
/new-york/penal/PEN035.15_35.15.html)

Retreat required if actor knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others, he I
or she may avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, except that the actor is !
under no duty to retreat if he or she is in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor.
/

New York

Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

North
Carolina

14-51.3 (http://www.ncleg.net
/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection
/chapter_14/gs_l4-5 l .3.html)

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the !
extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or
herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is
justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies: (1) He or she reasonably
believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another. (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S.
14-51. 2. (http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_ l 4
/gs_l4-51.2.html) (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in
using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force,
unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail
bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the
officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law
or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law
enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
(2011-268, s. 1.)

When deadly force is used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such
force is necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury, or
the commission of a felony involving violence, An individual is not required to retreat
within or from that individual's dwelling or place of work or from an occupied motor home
or travel trailer, unless the individual was the original aggressor or is assailed by another
individual who the individual knows also dwells or works there or who is lawfully in the
North Dakota 12.1-05-07. [7] (http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode
motor home or travel trailer. Also, deadly force is permitted in defense of property when
/t12- lc05.pdf?20131030212707)
used by an individual in possession or control of a dwelling, place of work, or an occupied
motor home or travel trailer, or by an individual who is licensed or privileged to be there, if
the force is necessary to prevent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, or a felony
involving violence upon or in the dwelling, place of work, or occupied motor home or
travel trailer, and the use of force other than deadly force for these purposes would expose
any individual to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

- - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' = ' - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - " - - - - " - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------

Ohio

Oregon

127 SB 184 (http://archives.legislature.state.oh.us Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.13!] Section
2901.09
/bills.cfm?ID=l27_SB_184)

ORS [8] (https://www.oregonlegislature.gov


/bills_laws/ors/ors 161.html)

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


7of11

Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon
Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval
(http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S53457 .htm) that the law "sets out a specific
set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably
believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and
does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no

Page 226 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 69 of 115


-

State

Statute

Notes
means of escape)."

18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 5 505


(http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis
Pennsylvania /PN/Public/btCheck.cfm ?txtType=HTM&
sess Yr=201 l &sessind=O&billBody=H&
bil1Typ=B&bil1Nbr=0040)

Rhode Island

The most recent version of Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine legislation was signed into law
in June 2011. The law extends the right to self-defense up to and including deadly force in a
victim's dwelling (now including any attached porch, deck or patio), occupied vehicle, or
any other dwelling or vehicle that the victim legally occupies. A place of work is included
in the "castle" provision under certain circumstances. Use of deadly force is justifiable if
the "castle" area in the event that an assailant is "unlawfully and forcefully entering" or has
entered the "castle" area. Deadly force is also justifiable, subject to certain provisions, if a
person that legally enters the "castle" goes on to unlawfully attack a victim (when the
victim is resonably in fear of his/her life) or if the attacker attempts to kidnap anyone who
legally occupies the "castle". The victim must be in "legal possession" of a firearm or other
weapon to be justified in the use of that weapon. Use of deadly force to protect an innocent
third person is generally allowed in circumstances where the provisions for justifiable
self-defense are met. Victims who justifiably use force to defend themselves under the
provisions of the law are immune from civil liability for any injuries sustained by the
attacker during the incident. The new legislation also contains a stand your ground
provision when outside the "castle". Outside "castle areas" there is no duty to retreat if
confronted with a weapon.

11-8-8 (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes
/TITLE 11/11-8/11-8-8.HTM)

I
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

Texas

Penal Code Sec. 9.32


(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE
/htrn/PE.9.htrn#9.32)

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately
necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The
actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as
described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (A) unlawfully
and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's
occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with
force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or
attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (2) did not provoke the
person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal
activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (c) A person who has a right to be present
at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the
deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by
Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of
fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
76-2-405. Amended by Chapter 252, 1985 General Session. Force in defense of habitation.
i

Utah

[9] (http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2
/76-2-S405.htrnl)

( 1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful I
entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is 1'
intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if: (a) the entry is made or
attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he
reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or
offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he
reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal
violence; or (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose
of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the
commission of the felony. (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of
habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted
reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if
the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a
violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of
I
I
committing a felony.

55-7-22.

West Virginia

[ 1OJ (http://www.legis.state. wv. us/wvcode


/ChapterEntire.cfrn?chap=55&art=7&section=22) (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


8 of 11

Page 227 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 70 of 115


Statute

State

Notes

reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker toi
prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's or attacker's
unlawful entry if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill ,
or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the I
occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the I
home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to
retreat from an intruder or attacker in the circumstances described in subsection (a) of this
section.

I
i

~
Wisconsin

[I I] (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
/201 l/proposals/ab69)

Wyoming

[12] (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional
/gov-signs-castle-doctrinebill/article_65c56e68-273a-57fc-90eae3052bac0527.htrnl)

Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011) The civil immunity became Sec. 895.62,
Wis.Stats. and the criminal immunity became Sec. 939.48, Wis.Stats.

States with weak or no specific castle law


These states uphold castle doctrine in general, but may rely on case law instead of specific legislation, may enforce a duty to retreat, and may impose specific
restrictions on the use of deadly force:
District of Columbia
Nebraska - a bill was introduced in January 2012 that allowed deadly force against a person who broke into a house or occupied vehicle or who tried to
kidnap someone from a house or vehicle; however, the bill was revised to include only an affirmative defense from lawsuits pertaining to justifiable use
of force. l32H331
New Mexico - Limited Castle Doctrine for self-defense inside one's home established by court precedence in State v. Couch (1946). No civil immunity
from potential lawsuits by the aggressor or surviving relatives. In 2011, two bills (House Bill 228 and Senate Bill 29) would have granted civil immunity
to individuals who lawfully use lethal force in self-defense, both bills died in their respective chambers of the New Mexico Legislature.
South Dakota - "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him
or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." See South Dakota Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).l3 41
Vermontl351

Outside the USA


Australia
Australian states have differing self-defence laws. Under South Australian law, the general defence appears in sl5(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935
(SA) for defending a person's life, and sl5A(l) for defending property, subject to a hybrid test, i.e. the defendant honestly believed the threat to be imminent
and made an objectively reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances as the accused subjectively perceived them.l36J
In July 2003, the Rann Government (SA) introduced laws allowing householders to use "whatever force they deem necessary" when confronted with a home
invader. Householders who kill or injure a home invader escape prosecution provided they can prove they had a genuine belief that it was necessary to do so to
protect themselves or their family. The law was strongly opposed by then-Director of Public Prosecutions Paul Rofe, QC, and lawyer Marie Shaw, who is now a
District Court Judge.[371

Canada
By court ruling in 2011, a resident is permitted to use "reasonable and necessary" force in subduing an intruder in his or her private domicile or business. By
definition, killing the intruder is only an option if non-lethal means cannot be carried out, and excessive force with obvious intent to kill is not necessarily
defensible in court.l38l

England and Wales


In English common law a defendant may seek to avoid criminal or civil liability by claiming that he acted in self-defence.l391 This requires the jury to determine
whether the defendant believed that force was necessary to defend him or herself, his or her property, or to prevent a crime, and that the force used was
reasonab1e.r4o1 While there is no duty to retreat from an attacker and failure to do so is not conclusive evidence that a person did not act in self-defence, it may
still be considered by the jury as a relevant factor when assessing the merits of a self-defence claim. r391 The common law duty to retreat was repealed by the
Criminal Law Act 1967. This duty never existed when a person is somewhere he has a lawful right to be, but due to the repeal, now extends to public places,
etc.

Germany
German law allows self-defense against an unlawful attack.l41 1 Courts have interpreted this law as applicable to home invasion, including the use of lethal force

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


9of11

Page 228 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 71 of 115

against law enforcement in cases where the home owner was of the mistaken belief that the intrusion was an unlawful
attack on his life. r4z1

Ireland
Under the terms of the Defence and the Dwelling Act, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves
with force, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an offense
if he or she honestly believes they were there to commit a criminal act and a threat to life. However, there is a further
provision which requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that another reasonable person in the same
circumstances would likely employ. This provision acts as a safeguard against grossly disproportionate use of force,
while still allowing a person to use force in nearly all circumstances.

"Trespassers will be shot" sign in


England

The law was introduced in response to DPP v. Padraig Nally.f43 H44l The Act largely places previous Irish common law
jurisprudence regarding self-defense on a statutory footing. [451

Israel
Israeli law allows property owners to defend themselves with force.f46 l This law was introduced in response to the trial of Shai Dromi, an Israeli farmer who
shot Arab intruders on his farm late at night.[47 1

Italy
Italy passed a Jaw in 2005 that would allow property owners to defend themselves with force.f 481 The law practical application is however highly controversial:
Italian judiciary system is rather complex and using force is, more often than not, not recommended at all, since the property owner might get sued for
disproportionate use of force.f 491

See also

Duty to retreat, obligation to withdraw rather than attack, overridden by castle doctrine
Justifiable homicide, the blameless killing of a person, such as in self-defense.
Stand-your-ground law, which applies the castle doctrine to any place.
Self-defence (Australia)
Squatting in the United States
Trespasser

History
Claim club

Related sayings
a man's home is his castle
an Englishman's home is his castle

Notes
I 0. Blackstone's Commentaries - Book the Fourth - Chapter the Sixteenth : Of

1. "Assembly, No. 159, State of New Jersey, 213th Legislature, The "New Jersey
Self Defense Law"" (PDF). May 6, 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-19. "The "Castle
Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English
Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one
enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat
before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of
prosecution."
2. Black's Law Dictionary (http://thelawdictionary.org/homicide-justifiable
/#ixzz2aUEbROHM): This term applies to the blameless killing of a person, such
as in self-defense.
3. Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, 50. "To enter this house
with any malevolent intention was a sacrilege. The domicile was inviolable."
4. "An Englishman's home is his castle". Phrases.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
5. Philip Johnston (I I January 2009). "An Englishman's home is no longer his
castle". London: Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
6. Exodus 22:2-3
7. Exodus 22: 1-3 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0222.htm)
8. Dickinson v. Maguire, 9 Cal. 46 (http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/),
The Chief Justice of California during the ruling was David S. Terry, who
ironically, was later killed by order of Associate Supreme Court Justice Field
under the guise of self-defense.
9. Daluiso v. Boone, 71 Cal.2d 484 (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinionldaluisov-boone-27416) for English common Jaw history

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

10of11

Offenses Against the Habitations of Individuals (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb


/avalonlblackstone/bk4chl6.htm)
11. Some doctrines would be hotly debated as law as applied in the young
post-revolution United States. Example: "That the King can do no wrong, is a
necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution."
12. "Tully" was once a common abbreviation for Marcus Tullius Cicero.
13. What is more sacred, what more strongly guarded by every holy feeling, than a
man's own home?

14. Jay, Roger (August 14, 2006). "Spitting Lead in Leadville: Doc Holliday's Last
Stand". HistoryNet. Wild West Magazine. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
15. 1 Harper and James, op.cit. supra, at 3.15, p. 258; Prosser, Law of Torts (3d ed
1964) 23, p. 125. See e.g., Mason v. Hawes (1884) 52 Conn. 12, 16 [52
Am.Rep. 552]; Mcintyre v. Murphy (1908) 153 Mich. 342, 346-347 [116 N.W.
1003, 1004-1005, 15 Ann.Cas. 802]; Lobdell v. Keene (1901) 85 Minn. 90, 101
[88 N.W. 426, 430]; Strauel v. Lubeley (1915) 186 Mo.App. 638, 643-644 (172
S.W. 434, 435-436]; Mosseller v. Deaver (1890) 106 N.C. 494, 496-498 [11 S.E.
529, 530, 8 L.R.A. 537, 19 Am.St.Rep. 540]; Weatherly v. Manatt (1919) 72
Okla. 138, 139-140 (179 P. 470, 471]; Walgreen Co. v. Walton (1932) 16
Tenn.App. 213, 229 [64 S.W.2d 44, 53]; Ray v. Dyer (Tex.Civ.App. 1929) 20
S.W.2d 328, 330; Buchanan v. Crites (1944) 106 Utah 428, 436 (150 (71 Cal.2d
493] P.2d 100, 103]. See also Whitney v. Brown (1907) 75 Kan. 678, 681-683
[90 P. 277, 278, 11 L.R.A. N.S. 468, 12 Ann.Cas. 768]; Rest.2d Torts, 185,
com. a.) See Daluiso v. Boone, 71 Cal.2d 484 (http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion

Page 229 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 72 of 115

/daluiso-v-boone-27416)
16. "Shorter v. Shelton, 183 Va. 819, 826-827". Supreme Court of Virginia. April 23,
1945. Retrieved 2013-07-29. "It will be observed that the statute [of forcible
entry) does not in express terms deprive the owner of the common-law right to
take possession by reasonable force of premises to which he may be entitled."
17. Dirk Johnson (June 1, 1990). "'Make My Day': More Than a Threat". New York
Times. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
18. Reinhart, Christopher. "CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE".
http://www.cga.ct.gov. State of Connecticut. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
External link in I website= (help)
19. People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993)
20. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995)
21. Rhinehart, C, Castle Doctrine and Self-Defense (http://www.cgact.gov/2007/rpt
/2007-R-0052.htrn) Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative
Research.
22. People v. Zukowski, 260 P.3d 339 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011)
23. (February 10, 2014) - "BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Calvo Signs Castle Doctrine
Into Law" (http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140210/NEWSOl/140210003
/BREAKING-NEWS-Gov-Calvo-signs-Castle-Doctrine-into-law). Pacific Daily
News. Retrieved February 3, 2015.
24. http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Acts/Actl073.pdf
25. Physical force justification (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes
/17-a/titlel 7-Asecl07.htrnl)
26. http://house.state.md. us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_OOO l/sb076 l .pdf
27. "Michigan Legislature - Section 768.21c". legislature.mi.gov. Retrieved
2015-03-04.
28. "State of Minnesota v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 402 (Minn. 2001)".
29. "No. C8-98-86. - STATE v. CAROTHERS - MN Court of Appeals".
Caselaw.findlaw.com. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
30. http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&interface=l&
docinfo=off&searchtype=get&search=Miss.+Code+Ann.+%A7+97-3-15
31. "Senate Bills-Status Report of Legislation, SB 184". Retrieved 2008-08-09.
32. Moring, Rosann (March 29, 2012). "150 at rally over death of Florida teen". The
Daily Nonpariel. Retrieved 2012-04-17.
33. LTC. "Nebraska Legislature". nebraskalegislature.gov. Retrieved 2016-04-02.

34. http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&
S tatute=22- l 6-34
35. Dustin v. Cowdry (1851) 23 Vt. 631. 639-640. Official Vermont Reports, Vol.
23, Pg. 631 (Supreme Court of Vermont reporter). 1851. Retrieved July 27,
2013. "[H]ad the present plaintiff elected to have proceeded under the statute,
there can be no doubt, he might have subjected the defendants to punishment by
way of fine, obtained restitution of the possession, and sustained an action of
trespass, and recovered three fold damages for the expulsion and detention. And
if such be the undeniable rights of the parties, under the statute, it is difficult to
see, why, if the party waive all penalty under the statute, he may not sustain
trespass qu. cl. against the defendants, the same as against any other wrong
doers. Their [defendants'] right to possession gave them no more right to enter in
that manner [by force), than if they had been mere strangers .... "
36. "Criminal Law Consolidation (Self Defence) Amendment Act 2003" (PDF).
Government of South Australia. Retrieved 27 July 2013.
37. Accused to argue self defence I adelaidenow (http://www.news.com.au
/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21134744-2682,00.html). News.com.au
(2007-01-28). Retrieved on 2012-08-06.
38. Hopper, Tristan. "Homeowners not required to flee intruders: court". The
National Post. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
39. "CPS Guidance on Self-defence". Retrieved 18 March 2012.
40. "CPS Guidelines on Self-Defence". Retrieved 18 March 2012.
41. "Notwehrparagraph".
42. "BGH, 02.11.2011 - 2 StR 375/11".
43. Cullen, Paul (13 January 2012). "Law lets householders use reasonable force".
The Irish Times.
44. "Law allows 'reasonable force' defending home". RTE News. 13 January 2012.
45. http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/07 /20/the-crimi nal-law-defenceand-the-dwelling-bill-2010/
46. "Knesset Passes "Dromi Law"". Retrieved 18 March 2012.
47. Stoil, Rebecca Anna (24 June 2008). "New law allows shooting at burglars". The
Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 15 July 2009.
48. Italy approves self-defence law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.strn)
, BBCX, January 24, 2006.
49. [l] (http://www.diritto.it/docs/21686-la-riforma-della-legittima-difesa) Diritto.it,
commentary on the law

Retrieved from "https://en. wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_doctrine&oldid=726486646"


Categories: Criminal defenses

I Homicide I U.S. state criminal law I Legal doctrines and principles I Self-defense I Gun politics in the United States

This page was last modified on 22 June 2016, at 14:02.


Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


11of11

Page 230 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 1:49 AM

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 73 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 231of276

Sunday July 17, 2016

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 74 of 115

Home I Join AIPLA I Member Directory I Events Calendar I Contact Us I Shopping Cart I Login

A/Pl A
American Intellectual Property Law Association

Serving America's Legal and Creative Community


About AIPLA

Member Center

Who We Are

Connect With AIPLA:

U ii,. IJi:I

Search

AIPLA

Learning Center/Meetings

Resources

Committee Center

IP Policy & Advocacy

Global IP

AIPLA I About AIPLA I What is IP Law?

Join AIPLA
Reports from AIPLA's
President

ftjdikii9al

109

What is IP Law?

Advertising & Sponsorship


Opportunities
An Overview of Intellectual Property

Governance

What Is a Patent, a Trademark, and a Copyright?

News Room
What is IP Law?
AIPLA Annual Report
FAQs
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Diversity Statement
Contact Us

An Overview of Intellectual Property


Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The
kind of property that results from the fruits of mental labor is called intellectual
property. Rights and protections for owners of intellectual property are based on
federal patent, trademark and copyright laws and state trade secret laws. In
general, patents protect inventions of tangible things; copyrights protect various
forms of written and artistic expression; and trademarks protect a name or symbol
that identifies the source of goods or services.
The overview does not explain trade secret law. The details of this law, the
protection provided, and the liability for unauthorized use or disclosure depends
upon the State within which the reader resides. The law varies from State to State.
However, the reader should know that a trade secret may consist of any formula,
pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business and
which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do
not know or use it. (Restatement of Torts 757)
Back to TOP
I. Patents
What Is A Patent?
A patent is a document, issued by the federal government, that grants to its owner
a legally enforceable right to exclude others from practicing the invention described
and claimed in the document. Congress allows this right, for a term ending twenty
years from the date of filing of an application for patent, to encourage the public
disclosure of technical advances and as an incentive for investing in their
commercialization. Thus, the overall progress of technical innovation is favored,
while at the same time inventors are rewarded for their specific contributions. Like
other forms of property, the rights symbolized by a patent can be inherited, sold,
rented, mortgaged and even taxed. When a patent expires, or is held invalid, the
right to exclude the others ceases. The public is the ultimate beneficiary of the
technical advance.
Under What Conditions Is A Patent Granted?
Congress has specified that a patent will be granted if the inventor files a timely
application which adequately describes a new, useful and unobvious invention of
proper subject matter. To be timely, an application must be filed within one year of
certain acts (by the inventor or others) which place the invention in the hands of the
public i.e., patented or published anywhere in the world, on sale or in public use in
this country. This one-year grace period, however, is not available in most foreign
countries. A U.S. inventor who wants to obtain corresponding foreign patents must
first file an application in the U.S. before any divulgation, whether in written or oral
form, of the invention to the public. The description of the invention in the

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

1 of6

Page 232 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:34 AM

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 75 of 115


application must be complete enough to enable others to practice the invention.
Moreover, the application must describe the best manner ("best mode") known to
the inventor of carrying out the invention. The described invention must be new i.e.,
not invented first by another or identically known or used by others in this country
or patented or published anywhere in the world before the actual invention date
(not the application filing date). The invention also must be useful i.e., serve some
disclosed or generally known purpose.
The requirement of unobviousness means that the differences between the
invention and the prior public knowledge in its technical field must be such that a
person having ordinary skill in this field would not have found the invention obvious
at the time it was made. The proper subject matter of a patent is any product,
process, apparatus or composition, including living matter such as genetically
engineered bacteria or plants. Special provisions also permit patents directed to
certain distinct and new varieties of plants (Plant Patent) and new original and
ornamental designs for articles of manufacture (Design Patent). Purely mental
processes, newly discovered laws of nature and methods of doing business are not
proper subjects for a patent.
Back to TOP
Why Obtain A Patent?

Most inventors seek a patent to obtain the actual or potential commercial


advantages that go along with the right to exclude others. Given the high cost of
research and development, the opportunity to recoup these costs through
commercial exploitation of the invention may be the primary justification for
undertaking research in the first place.
Patent rights can be commercially exploited in two basic ways: (1) directly, by the
inventor's practice of the invention to obtain an exclusive marketplace advantage
(as where the patented technology results in a better product or produces an old
product less expensively) and/or (2) indirectly, by receiving income from the sale or
licensing of the patent.
It is important to note that a patent (i.e., the right to exclude others) does not give
the inventor the right to practice the invention. The inventor can practice his
invention only if by so doing he does not also practice the invention of an earlier
unexpired patent. While only one patent can be granted on a particular invention, it
is easy to see how more than one patent could be infringed by making a single
product. For example, consider that A has a patent on a new type of door and B
invents an improved door of this type with a special lock. B could not sell the
improved locking door since A's patent broadly covers all doors of this type. On the
other hand, A could not incorporate the improved lock in his basic door since B's
patent covers this combination. In these circumstances both A and B can be free to
practice the best technology (locking door) only if each grants a patent license to
the other.
The indirect exploitation of a patent may be exclusive, e.g., by selling all rights in
the patent or granting an exclusive license. Licenses can be non-exclusive,
allowing many parties, including the inventor, to practice the invention
simultaneously. A patent may also provide commercial advantages in addition to
the potential for an exclusive market position or licensing income. A patent often
lends business credibility to start up ventures and can open doors to both technical
assistance and financing necessary to bring a new product to market. An
improvement patent may also provide the barter necessary to cross license any
basic patents held by others which block the path to market.
Back to TOP

How to Obtain A Patent

Patents are obtained through a complex administrative proceeding in the United


States Patent and Trademark Office. Since the legal rules that govern this
proceeding are quite extensive and often complicated, it is strongly recommended
that an inventor seek the assistance of an experienced patent attorney before
beginning this process.
Before actually applying to the Patent and Trademark Office there are several
important preliminary steps that should be followed to prevent possible loss or
damage to future patent rights. One of the most important of these preliminary
steps is proper record keeping. Since United States patents are granted to the first
inventor, it may become necessary to prove when the invention was made. This is
best accomplished by making a complete record of the invention from the first idea

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


2 of 6

Page 233 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:34 AM

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 76 of 115


right up through development of commercial products. The invention record should
clearly describe the invention with words and pictures (photographs, sketches,
drawings, etc.) and should explain fully how it operates or is used. Each page of
invention record should be signed and dated in ink by the inventor. The record
should also be reviewed as it is made by at least one other trustworthy person who
is capable of understanding the invention, who should sign and date the record
under the notation read and understood by....
Another important preliminary step is the determination of whether the invention is
likely to be considered patentable by the Patent and Trademark Office, and if so,
whether a patent which might be granted would be broad enough in its coverage to
be worthwhile in a commercial sense. Such a preliminary evaluation of patentability
should be made by a patent attorney, based in part on the prior patents and other
materials located in a search of relevant records in the Patent and Trademark
Office. While the attorney's opinion that the invention should be patentable is not a
guarantee that the patent will be granted, if he finds that the invention probably is
not patentable or economically worthwhile, the considerable cost and effort of going
forward with the process can be avoided.
The next step in the process of obtaining a patent is the preparation of a patent
application. A patent application is a legal document, which must fully describe the
invention with words and, where appropriate, drawings, and which includes claims
which define the legal boundaries of the invention. It is essential to the validity of
the patent, and its ability to adequately protect the invention, that the invention be
described and claimed completely and precisely. Accordingly, the inventor should
tell the patent attorney everything about the invention, including what problems it
solves and what difficulties were overcome to make it work. Particularly important is
the duty to tell the attorney about prior patents or other prior inventions of which the
inventor is aware, so this information can be disclosed to the Patent and
Trademark Office. The patent application will also contain a Declaration and Power
of Attorney form which the inventor must sign indicating that he has read and
understood the application and affirming that he is the first inventor. The application
and a filing fee are then sent to the Patent and Trademark Office to effect a filing.
Congress has recently authorized a new form of preliminary patent application
known as a Provisional Application, which can be filed at a lower cost and without
claims and certain other formalities. This Provisional Application is not examined,
but must be replaced by a conventional application within a year. The benefit of this
new form of application is that it does not count in determining the expiration date
of the patent, which is measured from the date of filing of the conventional
application.
The filing of an application for a patent does not create any enforceable rights since
the courts will only stop an infringer after the patent is granted. Nevertheless,
marking a device Patent Pending or Patent Applied For may discourage potential
infringers since it puts them on notice that they may have to stop production once
the patent is granted. It is unlawful to use such a notice unless an application for
patent is actually pending in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. After the patent
has issued, it is also good practice to mark the products sold under the patent with
the patent number because it gives the inventor certain additional legal rights.
In the Patent and Trademark Office the application undergoes a process called
Examination. After an initial processing stage (which may take 6-9 months or more)
a Patent Examiner will review the application and write a letter (called an Office
Action) commenting on it. The First Office Action often is a refusal to grant the
patent, and the applicant then has an opportunity to modify the application to
overcome the Examiner's objections. With the inventor's help, the patent attorney
will reply in writing to the Office Action, usually making some changes and arguing
that others are not necessary. Typically, at least two such exchanges between
Patent Examiner and attorney are necessary to resolve all the legal and technical
issues. In general, it now takes an average of about 18-22 months from filing to
complete the examination process. During this period the application is kept secret,
i.e., only Government personnel and persons authorized by the inventor are
permitted to examine the file.
When the Examiner is satisfied that the application is in proper form and its claims
are allowable, the applicant is notified that a patent will be granted upon payment
of final government fees. In order to keep the patent in force until it expires it also is
necessary to pay progressively higher maintenance fees at 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2
years after the original grant.
While the patent grant makes the information in the application available to the
public, the inventor has the right to prevent others from making, using or selling
what is claimed for as long as the patent remains in force.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

3 of6

Page 234 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:34 AM

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 77 of 115


Back to TOP

II. Trademarks
Brand names, a synonym for trademarks and service marks, are important
intellectual properties upon which the public learns to rely to identify a source and a
standard of quality of the products or services it purchases. Trademarks and
service marks are words, phrases, designs, sounds or symbols. They are used on
or in association with goods and in association with services to be performed. The
public learns, through purchasing experience, that the goods or services bearing a
mark come from a single {but possibly anonymous) source and will meet an
expectation of a standard of quality that the goods or services sold under the mark
have met in the past. This predictability of a level of quality and reassurance of a
known source provides the owner or user of the mark with the benefit of good will
held by the public for the product or service that he offers. This goodwill is often the
cornerstone of the owner's business.
Trademark rights arise in one of two ways: either by filing a mark with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office based on a bona fide intent to make use of the
mark on a product or in association with a service that will soon be offered to the
public, or by actually using the mark in commerce on a product or in association
with a service.
Under the federal law, an application for registration may be filed based on actual
use of the mark or a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. The filing date
of an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register a
trademark or service mark which the applicant intends to use on a product or in
association with a service establishes a date of constructive use of the mark. The
act of filing the application, therefore, through constructive use, can create a
nationwide priority of rights in the mark against any other person who subsequently
adopts the same or a confusingly similar mark. The intent to use the mark must be
a bona fide intention or the application may be invalid and the applicant may be
subject to certain penalties for filing a fraudulent claim of intent. The constructive
use provided by the filing of the application claiming an intent to use the mark is
contingent upon the mark ultimately issuing as a federal registration. The federal
registration will be issued only after the applicant has made actual use of the mark
on the goods or in association with the service that it claims to have intent to use
when the filing takes place. Actual use of the mark must be made within six months
of the time that the Trademark Office issues a notice of allowance of the mark after
the application has been filed, although that period may be extended up to thirty
months in appropriate circumstances. When use is made and the federal
registration issues, the owner's rights in the mark are superior to all who have
adopted the same or a similar mark for the same or a similar product or service
subsequent to the filing date of the owner's application.
Obtaining a federal registration based on the bona fide intent to use the mark or
based on the actual use of the mark provides significant advantages. Among these
advantages are the following:
1. Federal registration confers the benefit of nationwide constructive use and, thus,
a right of priority, over all subsequent users or filers, as of the application filing date.
2. Registration is constructive notice; it prevents acquisition of common law rights
by innocent adoption and use of the same or a similar mark by another.
3. A certificate of registration creates a legal presumption and is sometimes
conclusive evidence of the registrant's right to exclusive use of the mark and the
validity of the mark's registration.
4. Registration permits the use of the " " symbol or other statutory designations of
registration.
5. Goods bearing a mark which infringes on a registered mark may be excluded
from entry into the U.S. by recordation with the U.S. Customs Service.
6. Registration furnishes the basis for foreign registration under a treaty known as
the Paris Convention.
Those who make use of trademarks or service marks without filing for federal
registration can obtain exclusive rights in those marks in the market in which the
marks are used, if the use is prior to the filing date of any federal registrant or any
other user in that market of a confusingly similar mark. This market may be small,
i.e., a town or part of a town, or large, i.e., the entire United States. A wider area,
referred to as the "zone of natural expansion," may also be granted to the prior

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

4of6

Page 235 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:34 AM

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 78 of 115


user if it can be shown that there were plans to expand before a junior user entered
the market.
An application for a federal registration of a trademark or service mark filed in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office is examined by government attorneys
to ensure that the mark is not likely, when used on or in connection with the goods
or services of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive
the consuming public that the goods or services bearing the mark have the same
source, origin or approval as those sold under a previously registered mark which
has not been abandoned or canceled. The Examiner also makes a determination
that the mark is not inherently incapable of performing the identification function of
a mark because, for example, it is the generic word for the product or service with
which it is used or because it is descriptive of the products or service with which it
is used.
Federal trademark registrations are valid for ten years and can be renewed for like
periods, provided the mark is constantly used. Failure to use a mark can cause the
rights in the mark to be lost. Such abandonment of the mark causes the mark to
lose its significance to the public as an identification of a single source and a
standard of quality.
The use of the registration symbol with a mark indicates that it is federally
registered. The symbol TM is often used with unregistered trademarks to give
notice to the public that the user is staking out a claim in the symbol as a
trademark, but such use is optional. The symbol SM may similarly be used to
designate a unregistered service mark.
Because trademarks and service marks can be licensed, they are a primary basis
for the franchising industry in the United States. The public comes to learn to
expect a certain quality standard from every facility, a fast food restaurant chain for
example, that bears the same name or service mark. As long as the mark's owner
maintains the same quality standards for each of the facilities bearing its name, it
can license the use of the name to many people.
Finally, there are special types of marks known as collective marks or membership
marks which identify organizations and their members and certification marks
which are used to identify the fact that a product or service meets a certain
acceptable standard, e.g., GOOD HOUSEKEEPING SEAL.
BacktoIQE

Ill. Copyrights
Copyright is a statutory property right which grants to creators ( authors ) certain
exclusive rights in their creations for a limited duration. Its purpose, as expressed in
the Constitution, is to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by providing
economic incentive for creative activity.
Copyright protects intangible original works of authorship which are fixed in a
tangible medium of expression. Put another way, copyright protects the expression
of ideas, but not the ideas themselves. Copyright protects works such as books,
pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, music, photographs, movies and computer
programs.
Copyright is often described as a bundle of rights, which include the right: (1) to
reproduce the copyrighted work; (2) to make derivative works (such as a movie
from a novel); (3) to distribute copyrighted works to the public; (4) to perform,
publicly, certain works (such as music); and, (5) to display, publicly, certain works
(such as paintings).
Copyright arises upon creation and, under current law, endures for the life of the
author plus 50 years. (The term of copyright for works created before 1978 is 75
years.) Copyright applies to both unpublished and published works.
Registration of a copyrighted work with the Copyright Office in Washington, D.C. is
not required for existence of the copyright; however, it is a prerequisite to a lawsuit
for copyright infringement and to certain legal remedies.
Copyright registration is simple and inexpensive. The registrant (who may be the
author, including an employer or other person for whom a work made for hire was
created, or a person or entity which has acquired the copyright) completes a
printed form provided by the Copyright Office and returns it to the Office with a
small fee and copies of the work. Transfers of copyright ownership (including
exclusive licenses) must be in writing to be valid. The familiar copyright notice is no
longer required on copies of works published after March 1, 1989. However, it is

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

5 of6

Page 236 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:34 AM

What is IP Law?

http://www.aipla.org/about/iplaw/Pages/default.aspx#top

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 79 of 115


still in The Copyright Owner's interest to place a copyright notice on publicly
distributed copies of published works. The notice should include the copyright
symbol ( ) or the word "Copyright" or its abbreviation (Copr.), followed by the year
of first publication of the work and the name of the Copyright Owner.
In summary, it is important to realize that patents, trademarks, and copyrights
constitute the basis on which the underlying intellectual property may be protected
in law. It is therefore important that a great degree of skill be exercised in drafting
the documents and following the procedures necessary for obtaining this
protection. By relying on a specialist in the field who has good standing and
recognized ability in his profession, the inventor or artist can be assured that the
intellectual property will be adequately protected.
Back to TOP

Featured Section Content


About AIPLA
Who We Are
Join AIPLA

Member Center
Contact Us
My AIPLA Profile

Learning Center/Meetings

Resources

Future Meetings Calendar


Webinars

AIPLA Career Center


AIPLA Direct
Programs & Awards
Alternative Dispute Resolution

Reports from AIPLA's President

Member Directory

Library

Advertising & Sponsorship Opportunities

Liaison Program

Surveys

Governance

Mentoring Program

2016 June Legal Secretaries and Administrators Conference

Resources for Students

News Room
What is IP Law?
AIPLA Annual Report

AIPLA Group Management Program


AIPLA Member Affinity Programs

2016 Patent Cooperation Treaty Seminar


2016 Partnering in Patents
2016 Annual Meeting

Related Links

Online Store
CLE Credit Information

Committee Center

Accessing Your Online Account

FAQs
Terms of Use

Privacy Policy
Diversity Statement

Exhibitor & Sponsorship Opportunities

Contact Us

IP Policy & Advocacy

Best Practices

A Guide to AIPLA's Committees


Update Committee Selections
Committee Leadership Handbook

Committee Pages

Congressional Advocacy
Executive Advocacy
International Advocacy

Global IP
AIPLA Global Activities
AIPLA Global Leadership
AIPLA Global Sector Committees

Judicial Advocacy

Global Education Events and Outreach

Industry and Foreign Office Cooperation


Global Advocacy

2016 AIPLA. All Rights Reserved. TERMS OF USE I PRIVACY POLICY


American Intellectual Property Law Association
241 18th Street South, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22202 IT: (703) 415-0780 F: (703) 415-0786 aipla@aipla.org

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

6of6

Page 237 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:34 AM

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 80 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 238 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 81 of 115

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the
RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal
penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal
organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a
syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing,
closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example,
murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.DJ
RICO was enacted by section 901 (a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L.
91-452 (http://legislink.org/us/pl-91-452), 84 Stat. 922 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-84-922),
enacted October 15, 1970), and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 (http://www.law.cornell.edu
/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96) as 18 U.S.C. 1961 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode
/text/18/1961 )-1968 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/l 968). G. Robert Blakey, an
adviser to the United States Senate Government Operations Committee, drafted the law under
the close supervision of the committee's chairman, Senator John Little McClellan. It was
enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, and signed into law by Richard
M. Nixon. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who
were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt


Organizations Act
~------------------------

Long title
Acronyms
(colloquial)
Nicknames

Summary
State laws
RICO predicate offenses
Application of RICO Jaws
Famous cases
5.1 Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
5.2 Frank Tieri
5.3 Catholic sex abuse cases
5.4 Gil Dozier
5.5 Key West PD
5.6 Michael Milken
5.7 Major League Baseball
5.8 Pro-life activists
5.9 Los Angeles Police Department
5.10 Mohawk Industries
5 .11 Latin Kings
5.12 Gambino crime family
5.13 Lucchese Crime Family
5.14 Chicago Outfit
5.15 Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella
5.16 Scott W. Rothstein
5.17 AccessHealthSource
5.18 FIFA
5.19 Drummond Company
6 International equivalents to RICO
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links

RICO

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970


the 91st United States Congress

Effective

October 15, 1970

Public law

91-452 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
/pkg/STATUTE-84/pdf/STATUTE84-Pg922-3.pdf)

Statutes at
Large

84 Stat. 922-3 (http://legislink.org/us/stat84-922-3) aka 84 Stat. 941

Titles
amended

18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure

u.s.c.

18 U.S.C. 1961 (https://www.law.comell.edu


/uscode/text/18/J 961 )--1968
(https://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/text/18
/1968)

Citations

Contents
1
2
3
4
5

OCCA

Enacted by

Beginning in 1972, 33 States adopted state RICO laws to be able to prosecute similar conduct.

An Act relating to the control of organized crime


in the United States

Codification

sections
created

Legislative history
Introduced in the Senate as S. 30 by John L. McOellan
(D-AR)
Passed the Senate on January 23, 1970 (74-1
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91-1970/s254))
Passed the House on October 7, 1970 (34 I -26
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/91- l 970/h367))
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on October
15, 1970

Summary
Under RICO, a person who has committed "at least two acts of racketeering activity" drawn from a list of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes
-within a IO-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an "enterprise". Those found guilty of
racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and
interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity."
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily
seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This
provision was placed in the Jaw because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

1 of6

Page 239 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:40 AM

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 82 of 115

ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.


In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it
difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior
as opposed to criminal actsPl
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an
"enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.l3l There must be one of four
specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern ofracketeering activity into the
enterprise (18 U .S.C. 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (b )); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection
(c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).f41In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator'
of the racketeers.l5l A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.l 6l
Both the criminal and civil components allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We
don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy
League diplomas."[2]
Initially, prosecutors were skeptical of using RICO, mainly because it was unproven. However, during the 1980s and 1990s, federal prosecutors used the law to
bring charges against several Mafia figures. The first major success was the Mafia Commission Trial, which resulted in several top leaders of New York City's
Five Families getting what amounted to life sentences. By the tum of the century, RICO cases resulted in virtually all of the top leaders of the New York Mafia
being sent to prison.

State laws
Beginning in 1972, 33 states, as well as Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, adopted state RICO laws to cover additional state offenses under a similar
scheme.Pl

RICO predicate offenses


Under the law, the meaning of racketeering activity is set out at 18 U.S.C. 1961 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961 ). As currently amended it
includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a
controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money
laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.

Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of
which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. The U.S. Supreme Court
has instructed federal courts to follow the continuity-plus-relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established
pattern. Predicate acts are related if they "have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are
interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events." (H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open
ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition.

Application of RICO laws


Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict
and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with
federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.
Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or
corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or
corporations who use 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.
Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


2of6

Page 240 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:40 AM

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 83 of 115

racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the
"Kingpin Statute". The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for Jong-term and elaborate conspiracies; whereas the RICO law covers a variety of
organized criminal behaviors. [81

Famous cases
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
In 1979 the United States Federal Government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of the Oakland charter of the Hells Angels using
RICO. In United States vs. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of
RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it
was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning
drugs and guns."[ 9][!01

Frank Tieri
On November 21, 1980, Genovese crime family boss Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Mafia boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.

Catholic sex abuse cases


In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for
abuses committed by those under their authority. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex
abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston,
prior to his assignment to Vatican City.1 11 ][1 21 In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in PennsylvaniaP 31

Gil Dozier
Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Gil Dozier, in office from 1976 to 1980, faced indictment with violations of both the Hobbs and the RICO
Jaws. He was accused of compelling companies doing business with his department to make campaign contributions on his behalf. On September 23, 1980, the
Baton Rouge-based United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana convicted Dozier of five counts of extortion and racketeering. The sentence
of ten years imprisonment, later upgraded to eighteen when other offenses were determined, and a $25,000 fine was suspended pending appeal, and Dozier
remained free on bail.D 41 He eventually served nearly four years until a presidential commutation freed him in 1986.U 5l

Key West PD
About June 1984 the Key West Police Department located in the County of Monroe, Florida, was declared a criminal enterprise under the federal RICO statutes
after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond
Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers.1 161 At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered
bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chiefs office at City Hall. [1 ?J

Michael Milken
On 29 March 1989 American financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into an allegation of
insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first
occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pleaded guilty to six lesser felonies of securities
fraud and tax evasion rather than risk spending the rest of his life in prison and ended up serving 22 months in prison. Milken was also ordered banned for life
from the securities industry.118]
On 7 September 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was threatened with RICO charges respondat superior, the legal doctrine that corporations
are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by entering an Alford plea to lesser felonies of stock parking and stock manipulation.
In a carefully worded plea, Drexel said it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations" made by the Government If Drexel had been indicted under RICO
statutes, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the
firm's other obligations-including the Joans that provided 96 percent of its capital base. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been
practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.l 191 By at
least one estimate, a RICO indictment would have destroyed the firm within a month.1201 Years later, Drexel president and CEO Fred Joseph said that Drexel
had no choice but to plead guilty because "a financial institution cannot survive a RICO indictment."121 1

Major League Baseball


In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud
Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a
move.[221 If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been responsible for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted two years,
successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration where the arbiters ruled in favor of
Major League Baseball,[231 permitting the move to Washington to take place.

Pro-life activists

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


3 of6

Page 241 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:40 AM

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 84 of 115

RICO laws were successfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 114 S. Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1994), a suit in which certain parties, including the
National Organization for Women, sought damages and an injunction against pro-life activists who physically block access to abortion clinics. The Court held
that a RICO enterprise does not need an economic motive, and that the Pro-Life Action Network could therefore qualify as a RICO enterprise. The Court
remanded for consideration of whether PLAN committed the requisite acts in a pattern of racketeering activity.

Los Angeles Police Department


In April 2000, federal judge William J. Rea in Los Angeles, ruling in one Rampart scandal case, said that the plaintiffs could pursue RICO claims against the
LAPD, an unprecedented finding. The idea that a police organization could be characterized as a racketeering enterprise shook up City Hall and further
damaged the already-tarnished image of the LAPD. However, in July 2001, U.S. District Judge Gary A. Feess said that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue
the LAPD under RICO because they are alleging personal injuries, rather than economic or property damage.241

Mohawk Industries
On April 26, 2006, the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, No. 05-465 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/05-465/), 547
U.S. 516 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/516/) (2006), which concerned what sort of corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk
Industries had allegedly hired illegal aliens, in violation of RICO. The court was asked to decide whether Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies,
constitutes an 'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO, but in June of that year dismissed the case and remanded it to Court of Appeals.C 25 l

Latin Kings
On August 20, 2006, in Tampa, Florida, most of the state leadership members of the street gang, the Latin Kings, were arrested in connection with RICO
conspiracy charges to engage in racketeering and currently await trial. The operation, called "Broken Crown", targeted statewide leadership of the Latin Kings.
The raid occurred at the Caribbean American Club. Along with Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Tampa Police Department, the State Attorney's Office,
the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were involved in the operation. Included in the
arrest were leader Gilberto Santana from Brooklyn NY, Captain Luis Hernandez from Miami FL, Affiliate Celina Hernandez, Affiliate Michael Rocca, Affiliate
Jessica Ramirez, Affiliate Reinaldo Arroyo, Affiliate Samual Alvarado, Omari Tolbert, Edwin DeLeon, and many others, totaling 39.

Gambino crime family


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

Lucchese Crime Family


In the mid 1990s, prosecuting attorneys Gregory O'Connell and Charles Rose used RICO charges to bring down the Lucchese family within an 18-month
period. Dismantling the Lucchese family had a profound financial impact on previously Mafia held businesses such as construction, garment, and garbage
hauling. Here they dominated and extorted money through taxes, dues, and fees. An example of this extortion was through the garbage business. Hauling of
garbage from the World Trade Center cost the building owners $1.2 million per year to be removed when the Mafia monopolized the business, as compared to
$150,000 per year when competitive bids could be sought.f26l

Chicago Outfit
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice's Operation Family Secrets indicted 15 Chicago Outfit (also known as the Outfit, the Chicago Mafia, the Chicago Mob,
or The Organization) members and associates under RICO predicates. Five defendants were convicted of RICO violations and other crimes. Six plead guilty,
two died before trial and one was too sick to be tried.

Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella


A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania handed down a 48-count indictment against former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges
Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella.271The judges were charged with RICO after allegedly committing acts of wire fraud, mail fraud, tax evasion, money
laundering, and honest services fraud. The judges were accused of taking kickbacks for housing juveniles, that the judges convicted of mostly petty crimes, at a
private detention center. The incident was dubbed by many local and national newspapers as the "Kids for cash scandal".281 On February 18, 2011, a federal
jury found Michael Ciavarella guilty of racketeering because of his involvement in accepting illegal payments from Robert Mericle, the developer of PA Child
Care, and Attorney Robert Powell, a co-owner of the facility. Ciavarella is facing 38 other counts in federal court.2 91

Scott W. Rothstein
Scott W. Rothstein is a disbarred lawyer and the former managing shareholder, chairman, and chief executive officer of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt
Adler law firm. He was accused of funding his philanthropy, political contributions, law furn salaries, and an extravagant lifestyle with a massive 1.2 billion
dollar Ponzi scheme. On December 1, 2009, Rothstein turned himself in to federal authorities and was subsequently arrested on charges related to RICO.f301
Although his arraignment plea was not guilty, Rothstein cooperated with the government and reversed his plea to guilty of five federal crimes on January 27,
2010. Bond was denied by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum, who ruled that due to his ability to forge documents, he was considered a flight risk.l3 1l
On June 9, 2010, Rothstein received a 50-year prison sentence after a hearing in federal court in Fort LauderdaJe.l32l

AccessHealthSource
Eleven defendants were indicted on RICO charges for allegedly assisting AccessHealthSource, a local health care provider, in obtaining and maintaining

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


4of6

Page 242 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:40 AM

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 85 of 115

lucrative contracts with local and state government entities in the city of El Paso, Texas, "through bribery of and kickbacks to elected officials or himself and
others, extortion under color of authority, fraudulent schemes and artifices, false pretenses, promises and representations and deprivation of the right of citizens
to the honest services of their elected local officials" (see indictment).[331

FIFA
Fourteen defendants affiliated with FIFA were indicted under the RICO act on 47 counts for "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies,
among other offenses, in connection with the defendants' participation in a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer."
The defendants include many current and former high-ranking officers of FIFA and its affiliate CONCACAF. The defendants had allegedly used the enterprise
as a front to collect millions of dollars in bribes which may have influenced Russia and Qatar's winning bids to host the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups
respectively.f3 4l

Drummond Company
In 2015, the Drummond Company sued attorneys Terrence P. Collingsworth and William R. Scherer, the advocacy group International Rights Advocates
(IRAdvocates), and Dutch businessman Albert van Bilderbeek, one of the owners of Llanos Oil, accusing them of violating RICO by alleging that Drummond
had worked alongside Autodefensas U nidas de Colombia to murder labor union leaders within proximity of their Colombian coal mines, which Drummond
denies. [35 1

International equivalents to RICO


The US RICO legislation has other equivalents in the rest of the world. In spite of Interpol having a standardized definition of RICO-like crimes, the
interpretation and national implementation in legislation (and enforcement) widely varies. Most nations cooperate with the US on RICO enforcement only
where their own related laws are specifically broken, but this is in line with the Interpol protocols for such matters.
By nation, alphabetically
In Australia the Australian Crime Commission has powers based on similar legislation and regulations.
In Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enforce rules and regulations that
cumulatively are equivalent to RICO.
New Zealand has a similar arrangement and commission to Australia.
Without other nations enforcing similar legislation to RICO many cross border RICO cases would not be possible. In the overall body of RICO cases that went
to trial, at least 50% have had some non-US enforcement component to them. The offshoring of money away from the US finance system as part racketeering
(and especially money laundering) is typically a major contributing factor to this.
However, other countries have laws that enable the government to seize property with unlawful origins. Mexico and Colombia both have specific laws that
define the participation in criminal organizations as a separate crime,!3 61 and separate laws that allow the seizure of goods related with these crimes.P7! This
latter provides a specific chapter titled "International Cooperation", which instructs Mexican authorities to cooperate with foreign authorities with respect to
organized crime assets within Mexico, and provides the framework by which Mexican authorities may politely request the cooperation of foreign authorities
with respect to assets located outside of Mexico, in terms of any international instruments they may be party to.
Arguably, this may be construed as allowing the application of the RICO Act in Mexico, provided the relevant international agreements exist among Mexico
and countries with RICO or RICO-equivalent provisions.

See also
Continuing Criminal Enterprise
Patriot Act
Criminal Tribes Act

References
I. 18 U.S. Code 1962(c); see also Criminal RICO Prosecutors Manual

(http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/rico.pdt),
elaborating that "A Defendant May Be Liable for a RICO Conspiracy Offense
Even if the Defendant Did Not Participate In the Operation or Management of
the Enterprise"
2. Sanders, Alain; Painton, Priscilla (August 21, 1989). "Law: Showdown At
Gucci". Time. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
3. Olsen,, William P. The Anti-Corruption Handbook: How to Protect Your
Business in the Global Marketplace. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4. 18 USC 1962.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

5 of 6

5. "As the Supreme Court noted in National Organization for Women, Inc. v.
Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1994), one commentator has used "the terms
'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' and 'perpetrator' to describe the four separate roles
the enterprise may play in 1962." (citing G. Robert Blakey, The RICO Civil
Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev.
237, 307-25 (1982). See page 32 of RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation
under the State Racketeering Statutes, John E. F1oyd, Section of Antitrust Law,
American Bar Association, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number
97-70903, ISBN 1-57073-396-1
6. Van Over, Gil. "Can You Be Subject to a RICO Claim?". Dealer Magazine.
Archived from the original on October 14, 2008. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
7. Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division. "Introduction: RICO State by
State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes, Second
Edition". American Bar Association. Retrieved February 15, 2014.
8. Carlson. K (1993). "Prosecuting Criminal Enterprises". National Criminal
Justice Reference Series (United States: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report): 12. Retrieved December 28, 2009.

Page 243 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:40 AM

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, the fre ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_lnfluenced_and_Corrupt_Organi ...

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 86 of 115

9. Barger, Ralph 'Sonny'; Zimmerman, Keith; Zimmerman, Kent (2000). Hell's


Angel: The Life and Times of Sonny Barger and The Hell's Angels Motorcycle
Club.
I 0. "Organized Crime Research". Klaus von Lampe. 2000. Retrieved December 8,
2007.
11. Weigel, David. "But Why Isn't Bernard Law in Jail? (Part 2)". Slate.com.
Retrieved April 24, 2012.
12. Mitered in the Mob? (http:l/www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp)
Archived (https:l/web.archive.org/web/20090425161208/http:
l/www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher032802.asp) April 25, 2009, at the
Wayback Machine.
13. http:l/www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/03/pennsyl vania-dioceseracketeering-lawsui t-sexual-abuse-clergy
14. "707 F.2d 862: United States vs. Dozier". law.justia.com. Retrieved May I,
2013.
15. "Inmate Locator". Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
16. "Key West Police Department Called a 'Criminal Enterprise' ". The New York
Times. July !, 1984. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
17. Klingener, Nancy (May 22, 2005). "From wrecking to smuggling to
development, corruption, investigations have long history". Key West Citizen.
Archived from the original on March 20, 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
18. Gerber, Jurg; Jensen, Eric L. (2007). Encyclopedia of White-collar Crime.
Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313335242. Retrieved August 16,
2014.
19. Stone, Dan G. (1990). April Fools: An Insider's Account of the Rise and
Collapse of Drexel Burnham. New York City: Donald I. Fine.
ISBN 1-55611-228-9.
20. Stewart, James B (1992). Den of Thieves (reprint ed.). Simon and Schuster.
p. 517. ISBN 0-671-79227-X.
21. Kornbluth, Jesse (1992). Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of
Michael Milken. New York City: William Morrow and Company.
ISBN 0-688-10937-3.

22. Chass, Murray (July 17, 2002). "Baseball: A Group's Racketeering Suit Brings
Baseball to Full Bristle". The New York Times. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
23. "Ruling clears way for move to D.C.". ESPN.com. Associated Press. January 15,
2004. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
24. Weinstein, Henry (July 13, 2001). "Use of RICO Law in Rampart Cases
Weakened". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 6, 2013.
25. "Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, Shirley, et al." (PDF). Supreme Court of
the United States. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
26. Volkman, Ernest (1998). Gangbusters: The Destruction of America's Last Mafia
Dynasty. 53 Shore Road, Winchester, MA 01890: Faber and Faber, Inc.
ISBN 0-571-19942-9.
27. "Indictment: United States v. Conahan and Ciavarella" (PDF). September 9,
2009. Retrieved September 12, 2009.
28. Morgan-Besecker, Terrie (September 10, 2009). "Ex-judges hit with 48 counts".
Times Leader. Retrieved September 11, 2009.
29. "Jury finds Ciavarella guilty on first of 39 counts". Times Leader. February 18,
2011. Retrieved February 18, 2011.
30. "Scott Rothstein Charging Document". Scribd.com. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
31. http:l/www.sun-sentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-12/50820067 .pdf
32. Weaver, Jay (June 9, 2010). "Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein gets 50-year
sentence". Miami Herald. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
33. Bracamontes, Ramon. "Public corruption: Feds allege bribery, kickbacks". El
Paso Times. Retrieved April 24, 2012.
34. "Nine FIFA Officials and Five Corporate Executives Indicted for Racketeering
Conspiracy and Corruption". United States Department of Justice. May 27,
2015. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
35. Kent Faulk, Drummond sues those claiming coal company involved in
Colombian deaths (http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2015/04
/drummond_sues_those_claiming_c.html), The Birmingham News, April 8, 2015
36. Ley Federal contra la Delincuencia Organizada, 28 October 1996 (in Spanish)
37. Ley de Extinci6n de Dominio, 30 April 2009 (in Spanish)

Further reading
Criminal RICO: 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968: A Manual for Federal Prosecutors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Division, Organized Crime
and Racketeering Section, [2009].
United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee No. 5. Organized Crime Control. Hearings ... Ninety-first Congress, Second
Session on S.30, and Related Proposals, Relating to the Control of Organized Crime in the U.S. [held] May 20, 21, 27; June JO, 11, 17; July 23, and
August 5, 1970. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

External links
RICO Act from Cornell University's U.S. Code database (http://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/btml/uscodel8/usc_sup_Ol_l8_IO_I_20_96.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act&oldid=729973240"


Categories: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act I 1970 in law I 9lst United States Congress I Organized crime terminology
I United States federal criminal legislation I American Mafia events I Inchoate offenses I United States federal public corruption crime

This page was last modified on 15 July 2016, at 21:12.


Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareA!ike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

6 of6

Page 244 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:40 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 87 of 115

'1

United States Bill of Rights


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
Proposed following the oftentimes bitter 1787-88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted
to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution
specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial
and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the
Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built
upon those found in several earlier documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English
Bill of Rights 1689, along with earlier documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

United States Bill of Rights

On June 8, 1789, Representative James Madison introduced nine amendments to the constitution in the House
of Representatives. [l J Among his recommendations Madison proposed opening up the Constitution and
inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article One, Section 9. Seven of these limitations
would become part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights amendments. Ultimately, on September 25, 1789,
Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution and submitted them to the states for
ratification. Contrary to Madison's original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the !f
Constitution, they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it. Articles Three through Twelve
Created
were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through
Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 7, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh
[ Ratified
Amendment. [ZJ Article One is technically still pending before the states.
/ Location

United States Bill of Rights

~utho~---

September 25, 1789


December 15, 1791
National Archives

Ma~i~~n

Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill
__James
______ _
of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal
government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the
early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The
process is known as incorporationPl
There are several original engrossed copies of the Bill of Rights still in existence. One of these is on permanent public display at the National Archives in
Washington, D.C.

Contents
I Background
I. I The Philadelphia Convention
1.2 The Anti-Federalists
1.3 The Federalists
1.4 Massachusetts compromise
2 Proposal and ratification
2.1 Anticipating amendments
2.2 Crafting amendments
2.3 Ratification process
3 Application
3.1 First Amendment
3.2 Second Amendment
3.3 Third Amendment
3.4 Fourth Amendment
3.5 Fifth Amendment
3.6 Sixth Amendment
3.7 Seventh Amendment
3.8 Eighth Amendment
3.9 Ninth Amendment
3.10 Tenth Amendment
4 Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Background
The Philadelphia Convention
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al
1of15

Page 245 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 88 of 115

Prior to the ratification and implementation of the United States Constitution, the thirteen sovereign states followed the Articles of Confederation, created by the
Second Continental Congress and ratified in 1781. However, the national government that operated under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to
adequately regulate the various conflicts that arose between the states.C41 The Philadelphia Convention set out to correct weaknesses of the Articles that had
been apparent even before the American Revolutionary War had been successfully concluded.f41
The convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although the Convention was purportedly intended only to
revise the Articles, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, was to create a
new government rather than fix the existing one. The convention convened in the Pennsylvania State House, and George Washington of Virginia was
unanimously elected as president of the convention.[ 51The55 delegates who drafted the Constitution are among the men known as the Founding Fathers of the
new nation. Thomas Jefferson, who was Minister to France during the convention, characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods."[41 Rhode Island
refused to send delegates to the convention.l61
On September 12, George Mason of Virginia suggested the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution modeled on previous state declarations, and Elbridge
Gerry of Massachusetts made it a formal motion.[71 However, the motion was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations after only a brief discussion.
Madison, then an opponent of a Bill of Rights, later explained the vote by calling the state bills of rights "parchment barriers" that offered only an illusion of
protection against tyranny.l81 Another delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been
dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist;[81 Hamilton echoed this point in Federalist No. 84.f91 Because Mason and
Gerry had emerged as opponents of the proposed new Constitution, their motion-introduced five days before the end of the convention-may also have been
seen by other delegates as a delaying tactic.DOI The quick rejection of this motion, however, later endangered the entire ratification process. Author David 0.
Stewart calls the omission of a Bill of Rights in the original Constitution as "a political blunder of the first magnitude"[IOJ while historian Jack N. Rakove calls
it "the one serious miscalculation the framers made as they looked ahead to the struggle over ratification" _[Ill
Thirty-nine delegates signed the finalized Constitution. Thirteen delegates left before it was completed, and three who remained at the convention until the end
refused to sign it: Mason, Gerry, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia.0 21 Afterward, the Constitution was presented to the Articles of Confederation Congress
with the request that it afterwards be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State by the people, for their assent and ratification.l 131

The Anti-Federalists
Following the Philadelphia Convention, some leading revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and
Richard Henry Lee publicly opposed the new frame of government, a position known as "Anti-Federalism".0 41 Elbridge
Gerry wrote the most popular Anti-Federalist tract, "Hon. Mr. Gerry's Objections", which went through 46 printings; the
essay particularly focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the proposed constitution. [l 51 Many were concerned that a
strong national government was a threat to individual rights and that the president would become a king. Jefferson wrote
to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us
secure what we can."[ 161 The pseudonymous Anti-Federalist "Brutus"[] wrote,
We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless in cases of rebellion - that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is
reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of
suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility?
It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the
general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard
against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution)l8J

, On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry spoke


before Vrrginia's ratification
convention in opposition to the
Constitution.

He continued with this observation:


Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.
So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under
this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state ofvassalage.l 191

The Federalists
Supporters of the Constitution, known as Federalists, opposed a bill of rights for much of the ratification period, in part due to the procedural uncertainties it
would create. [20J Madison argued against such an inclusion, suggesting that state governments were sufficient guarantors of personal liberty, in No. 46 of The
Federalist Papers, a series of essays promoting the Federalist position.l2 11Hamilton opposed a bill of rights in The Federalist No. 84, stating that "the
constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights. He stated that ratification did not mean the American people were
surrendering their rights, making protections unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of
particular reservations." Patrick Henry criticized the federalist point of view, writing that the legislature must be firmly informed "of the extent of the rights
retained by the people ... being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication."[221 Other anti-federalists pointed out that
earlier earlier political documents, in particular the Magna Carta had protected specific rights. In response, Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently
different:
Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


2of15

Page 246 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:43 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 89 of 115

rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was the Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.(231

Massachusetts compromise
In December 1787 and January 1788, five states-Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut
-ratified the Constitution with relative ease, though the bitter minority report of the Pennsylvania opposition was
widely circulated.l241 In contrast to its predecessors, the Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious, at one
point erupting into a fistfight between Federalist delegate Francis Dana and Anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry when the
latter was not allowed to speak.l25 l The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading
Anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also
propose amendments.f261 The convention's proposed amendments included a requirement for grand jury indictment in
capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not
expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment.[27 1
Following Massachusetts' lead, the Federalist minorities in both Virginia and New York were able to obtain ratification
in convention by linking ratification to recommended amendments.l2 8l A committee of the Virginia convention headed
by law professor George Wythe forwarded forty recommended amendments to Congress, twenty of which enumerated
individual rights and another twenty of which enumerated states' rights.f2 9l The latter amendments included limitations
on federal powers to levy taxes and regulate trade. l30l
A minority of the Constitution's critics, such as Maryland's Luther Martin, continued to oppose ratification.[311 However,
Martin's allies, such as New York's John Lansing, Jr., dropped moves to obstruct the Convention's process. They began
to take exception to the Constitution "as it was," seeking amendments. Several conventions saw supporters for
"amendments before" shift to a position of "amendments after" for the sake of staying in the Union. The New York
Anti-Federalist "circular letter" was sent to each state legislature proposing a second constitutional convention for
"amendments before", but it failed in the state legislatures. Ultimately, only North Carolina and Rhode Island waited for
amendments from Congress before ratifying.f2 81
Article Seven of the proposed Constitution set the terms by which the new frame of government would be established.
The new Constitution would become operational only when ratified by at least nine states (three-quarters of the thirteen
states), and would only be established between the states ratifying it.

George Washington's 1788 letter to


the Marquis de Lafayette observed,
"the Convention of Massachusetts
adopted the Constitution in toto; but
recommended a number of specific
, alterations and quieting
explanations." Source: Library of
Congress

The new Constitution would be inoperative unless ratified by at least nine states (three-quarters of the thirteen states).
Only then would it replace the existing government under the Articles of Confederation. It would apply only to those states that ratified it, and it would be valid
for all states joining after. Following contentious battles in several states, the proposed Constitution reached that nine state ratification plateau in June 1788. On
September 13, 1788, the Articles of Confederation Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified by more than enough states for the new system
to be implemented and directed the new government to meet in New York City on the first Wednesday in March the following year.l 32 l On March 4, 1789, the
new frame of government came into force with eleven of the thirteen states participating.

Proposal and ratification


Anticipating amendments
The lst United States Congress, which met in New York City's Federal Hall, was a triumph for the Federalists. The
Senate of eleven states contained 20 Federalists with only two Anti-Federalists, both from Virginia. The House included
48 Federalists to 11 Anti-Federalists, the latter of whom were from only four states: Massachusetts, New York, Vrrginia
and South Carolina.l3 31 Among the Virginia delegation to the House was James Madison, Patrick Henry's chief opponent
in the Virginia ratification battle. In retaliation for Madison's victory at that convention, Henry and other
Anti-Federalists, who controlled the Vrrginia House of Delegates had gerrymandered a hostile district for Madison's
planned congressional run and recruited Madison's future presidential successor, James Monroe, to oppose him.l3 4l
Madison defeated Monroe after offering a campaign pledge that he would introduce constitutional amendments
comprising a Bill of Rights at the First Congress.l3 51
Originally opposed to the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution, he had gradually come to understand the
importance of doing so during the often contentious ratification debates. By taking the initiative to propose amendments
himself through the Congress, he hoped to preempt a second constitutional convention that might, it was feared, undo
the difficult compromises of 1787, and open the entire Constitution to reconsideration, thus risking the dissolution of the
new federal government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, "The friends of the Constitution, some from an approbation of
particular amendments, others from a spirit of conciliation, are generally agreed that the System should be revised. But
Constitution" and first author of the
they wish the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty. u[36] He also felt that
Bill of Rights
amendments guaranteeing personal liberties would "give to the Government its due popularity and stability".[3 71 Finally,
he hoped that the amendments "would acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free government, and
as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion" .l 381 Historians continue to debate the degree to which
Madison considered the amendments of the Bill of Rights necessary, and to what degree he considered them politically expedient; in the outline of his address,
he wrote, "Bill of Rights-useful-not essential-".l 391
On the occasion of his April 30, 1789 inauguration as the nation's first president, George Washington addressed the subject of amending the Constitution. He
urged the legislators,

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


3of15

Page 247 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 90 of 115

whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the
future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for public harmony, will sufficiently influence your
deliberations on the question, how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.[4oH 4 IJ

Crafting amendments
James Madison introduced a series of Constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives for consideration. Among his proposals was one that would
have added introductory language stressing natural rights to the preamble.[421 Another would apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal
government. Several sought to protect individual personal rights by limiting various Constitutional powers of Congress. Like Washington, Madison urged
Congress to keep the revision to the Constitution "a moderate one", limited to protecting individual rights.l42l
Madison was deeply read in the history of government and used a range of sources in composing the amendments. The English Magna Carta of 1215 inspired
the right to petition and to trial by jury, for example, while the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided an early precedent for the right to keep and bear arms
(although this applied only to Protestants) and prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.[ 30l
The greatest influence on Madison's text, however, was existing state constitutions.l43 H441 Many of his amendments, including his proposed new preamble, were
based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights drafted by Anti-Federalist George Mason in 1776.[451 To reduce future opposition to ratification, Madison also
looked for recommendations shared by many states.[441 He did provide one, however, that no state had requested: "No state shall violate the equal rights of
conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. "[461He did not include an amendment that every state had asked for, one that
would have made tax assessments voluntary instead of contributions.l47 l
James Madison's proposed amendments to the Constitution:[481
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the
right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or
inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every
thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and in place thereof be inserted
these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to-,
after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than-, nor more than-, but each State shall, after
the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly. That in article 2nd, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the
compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives."
Fourthly. That in article 2nd, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on
account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any
manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of
the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by
petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where
it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places
to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation,
to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have
the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance
of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as
inserted merely for greater caution.
Fifthly. That in article 2nd, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience,
or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases
Sixthly. That article 3rd, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2nd, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the
value in controversy shall not amount to - dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise
re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


4of15

Page 248 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 91 of 115

Seventhly. That in article 3rd, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time
of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of
challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury
shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in
which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of
the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common
law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative
department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or
judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.
Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.
Federalist representatives were quick to attack Madison's proposal, fearing that any move to amend the new Constitution so soon after its implementation would
create an appearance of instability in the government. r491 The House, unlike the Senate, was open to the public, and members such as Fisher Ames warned that a
prolonged "dissection of the constitution" before the galleries could shake public confidence.C 50l A procedural battle followed, and after initially forwarding the
amendments to a select committee for revision, the House agreed to take Madison's proposal up as a full body beginning on July 21, 1789.f51 ll 52l
The eleven-member committee made some significant changes to Madison's nine proposed amendments, including eliminating most of his preamble, adding the
phrase "freedom of speech, and of the press", and adding what would become the Tenth Amendment, reserving powers to the states.C 531 The House debated the
amendments for eleven days. Roger Sherman of Connecticut persuaded the House to place the amendments at the Constitution's end so that the document would
"remain inviolate", rather than adding them throughout, as Madison had proposed.f54l!551 The amendments, revised and condensed from twenty to seventeen,
were approved and forwarded to the Senate on August 24, 1789.f561
The Senate edited these amendments still further, making 26 changes of its own. Madison's proposal to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as
the federal government was eliminated, and the seventeen amendments were condensed to twelve, which were approved on September 9, l 789.r57 1The Senate
also eliminated the last of Madison's proposed changes to the preamble.[581
On September 21, 1789, a House-Senate Conference Committee convened to resolve the numerous differences between the two Bill of Rights proposals. On
September 24, 1789, the committee issued this report, which finalized 12 Constitutional Amendments for House and Senate to consider. This final version was
approved by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, to be forwarded to the states on September 28. [59][60]
By the time the debates and legislative maneuvering that went into crafting the Bill of Rights amendments was done, many personal opinions had shifted. A
number of Federalists came out in support, thus silencing the Anti-Federalists' most effective critique. Many Anti-Federalists, in contrast, were now opposed,
realizing that Congressional approval of these amendments would greatly lessen the chances of a second constitutional convention.f61 1 Anti-Federalists such as
Richard Henry Lee also argued that the Bill left the most objectionable portions of the Constitution, such as the federal judiciary and direct taxation, intact.f621
Madison remained active in the progress of the amendments throughout the legislative process. Historian Gordon S. Wood writes that "there is no question that
it was Madison's personal prestige and his dogged persistence that saw the amendments through the Congress. There might have been a federal Constitution
without Madison but certainly no Bill of Rights. n[63][64]
Approval of the Bill of Rights in Congress and the Statesf65J
Seventeen Articles
Approved by the House
August 24, 1789

First Article:
After the first enumeration,
required by the first Article
of the Constitution, there
shall be one Representative
for every thirty thousand,
until the number shall
amount to one hundred,
after which the proportion
shall be so regulated by
Congress, that there shall be
not less than one hundred
Representatives, nor less
than one Representative for

Twelve Articles
Approved by the Senate
September 9, 1789

First Article:
After the first enumeration,
required by the first article
of the Constitution, there
shall be one Representative
for every thirty thousand,
until the number shall
amount to one hundred; to
which number one
Representative shall be
added for every subsequent
increase of forty thousand,
until the Representatives
shall amount to two

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


5of15

Twelve Articles
Approved by Congress
September 25, 1789

First Article:
After the first enumeration
required by the first article
of the Constitution, there
shall be one Representative
for every thirty thousand,
until the number shall
amount to one hundred,
after which the proportion
shall be so regulated by
Congress, that there shall be
not less than one hundred
Representatives, nor less
than one Representative for

Page 249 of 276

Ratification
Status

Pending:
Congressional
Apportionment
Amendment

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 92 of 115


every forty thousand
persons, until the number of
Representatives shall
amount to two hundred,
after which the proportion
shall be so regulated by
Congress, that there shall
not be less than two
hundred Representatives,
nor less than one
Representative for every
fifty thousand persons.

hundred, to which number


one Representative shall be
added for every subsequent
increase of sixty thousand
persons.

every forty thousand


persons, until the number of
Representatives shall
amount to two hundred;
after which the proportion
shall be so regulated by
Congress, that there shall
not be less than two
hundred Representatives,
nor more than one
Representative for every
fifty thousand persons.

Second Article:
No law varying the
compensation to the
members of Congress, shall
take effect, until an election
of Representatives shall
have intervened.

Second Article:
No law, varying the
compensation for the
services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take
effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have
intervened.

Second Article:
No law, varying the
compensation for the
services of the Senators and
Representatives, shall take
effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have
intervened.

Ratified:
May 7, 1992
Twenty-seventh
Amendment

Third Article:
Congress shall make no law
establishing religion or
prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, nor shall the rights
of Conscience be infringed.

Third Article:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.

Third Article:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
First Amendment

Fourth Article:
The Freedom of Speech,
and of the Press, and the
right of the People
peaceably to assemble, and
consult for their common
good, and to apply to the
Government for a redress of
grievances, shall not be
infringed.

(see Third Article above)

Fifth Article:
A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the
People, being the best
security of a free State, the
right of the People to keep
and bear arms, shall not be
infringed, but no one
religiously scrupulous of
bearing arms, shall be
compelled to render military
service in person.

Fourth Article:
A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the
security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

Fourth Article:
A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the
security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Second
Amendment

Sixth Article:
No soldier shall, in time of
peace, be quartered in any
house without the consent
of the owner, nor in time of

Fifth Article:
No soldier shall, in time of
peace, be quartered in any
house without the consent
of the owner, nor in time of

Fifth Article:
No soldier shall, in time of
peace, be quartered in any
house without the consent
of the owner, nor in time of

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Third Amendment

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


6of15

Page 250 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni ted_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 93 of 115


war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by Jaw.

war, but in a manner to be


prescribed by law.

war, but in a manner to be


prescribed by law.

Seventh Article:
The right of the People to
be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause
supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Sixth Article:
The right of the People to
be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause
supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Sixth Article:
The right of the People to
be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause
supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Fourth
Amendment

Eighth Article:
No person shall be subject,
except in case of
impeachment, to more than
one trial, or one punishment
for the same offense, nor
shall be compelled in any
criminal case, to be a
witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty
or property, without due
process of law; nor shall
private property be taken
for public use without just
compensation.

Seventh Article:
No person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war
or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal
case, to be a witnesses
against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due
process oflaw; nor shall
private property be taken
for public use without just
compensation.

Seventh Article:
No person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or
in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject
for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property,
without due process of Jaw;
nor shall private property be
taken for public use,
without just compensation.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Fifth Amendment

Ninth Article:
In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public
trial, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the
accusation, to be confronted
with the witnesses against
him, to have compulsory
process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and
to have the assistance of
counsel for his defence.

Eighth Article:
In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public
trial, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the
accusation, to be confronted
with the witnesses against
him, to have compulsory
process for obtaining
witnesses in his favour, and
to have the assistance of
counsel for his defence.

Eighth Article:
In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district
wherein the crime shall
have been committed,
which district shall have
been previously ascertained
by Jaw, and to be informed
of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be
confronted with the
witnesses against him; to
have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for
his defence.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Sixth Amendment

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

7of15

Page 251 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 94 of 115


Tenth Article:
The trial of all crimes
(except in cases of
impeachment, and in cases
arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia
when in actual service in
time of War or public
danger) shall be by an
Impartial Jury of the
Vicinage, with the requisite
of unanimity for conviction,
the right of challenge, and
other accostomed [sic]
requisites; and no person
shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherways [sic]
infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment
by a Grand Jury; but if a
crime be committed in a
place in the possession of an
enemy, or in which an
insurrection may prevail,
the indictment and trial may
by law be authorised in
some other place within the
same State.

(see Seventh Article above)

Eleventh Article:
No appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States,
shall be allowed, where the
value in controversy shall
not amount to one thousand
dollars, nor shall any fact,
triable by a Jury according
to the course of the common
law, be otherwise
re-examinable, than
according to the rules of
common law.

Ninth Article:
In suits at common law,
where the value in
controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of
trial by Jury shall be
preserved, and no fact, tried
by a Jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any court of
the United States, than
according to the rules of the
common law.

Twelfth Article:
In suits at common law, the
right of trial by Jury shall be
preserved.

(see Ninth Article above)

Thirteenth Article:
Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments
inflicted.

Tenth Article:
Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments
inflicted.

Ninth Article:
In suits at common law,
where the value in
controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of
trial by Jury shall be
preserved, and no fact, tried
by a Jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any court of
the United States, than
according to the rules of the
common law.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Seventh
Amendment

Tenth Article:
Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and
unusual punishments
inflicted.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Eighth
Amendment

Fourteenth Article:
No State shall infringe the
right of trial by Jury in
criminal cases, nor the
rights of conscience, nor the
freedom of speech, or of the
press.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


8of15

Page 252 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 95 of 115


Fifteenth Article:
The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain
rights, shall not be
construed to deny or
disparage others retained by
the people.

Eleventh Article:
The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be
construed to deny or
disparage others retained by
the people.

Eleventh Article:
The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be
construed to deny or
disparage others retained by
the people.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Ninth Amendment

Twelfth Article:
The powers not delegated to
the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are
reserved to the States
respectively, or to the
people.

Twelfth Article:
The powers not delegated to
the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are
reserved to the States
respectively, or to the
people.

Ratified:
December 15,
1791
Tenth Amendment

Sixteenth Article:
The powers delegated by
the Constitution to the
government of the United
States, shall be exercised as
therein appropriated, so that
the Legislative shall never
exercise the powers vested
in the Executive or Judicial;
nor the Executive the
powers vested in the
Legislative or Judicial; nor
the Judicial the powers
vested in the Legislative or
Executive.
Seventeenth Article:
The powers not delegated
by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it, to the
States, are reserved to the
States respectively.

Ratification process
The twelve articles of amendment approved by congress were officially submitted to the Legislatures of the several States for consideration on September 28,
1789. The following states ratified some or all of the amendments:f66H671
I. New Jersey- November 20, 1789 Articles One and Three through Twelve (Ratified Article Two on May 7, 1992)
2. Maryland - December I 9, 1789 Articles One through Twelve
3. North Carolina - December 22, 1789 Articles One through Twelve
4. South Carolina - January 19, 1790 Articles One through Twelve
5. New Hampshire- January 25, 1790 Articles One and Three through Twelve (Ratified Article Two on March 7, 1985)
6. Delaware - January 28, 1790 Articles Two through Twelve
7. New York - February 24, 1790 Articles One and Three through Twelve
8. Pennsylvania - March 10, 1790 Articles One and Three through Twelve
9. Rhode Island-June 7, 1790 Articles One and Three through Twelve (Ratified Article Two on June 10, 1993)
10. Vermont - November 3, 1791 Articles One through Twelve
11. Virginia - December 15, 1791 Articles One through Twelve

Having been approved by the requisite three-fourths of the several states, there being 14 States in the Union at the time (as Vermont had been admitted into the
Union on March 4, 1791 ),[621 the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments I through I 0 of the Constitution.
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson certified their adoption on March 1, 1792.681
As they had not yet been approved by 11 of the 14 states, the ratification of Article One (ratified by 10) and Article Two (ratified by 6) remained incomplete.
The ratification plateau they needed to reach soon rose to 12 of 15 states when Kentucky joined the Union (June 1, 1792). On June 27, 1792, the Kentucky
General Assembly ratified all 12 amendments, however this action did not come to light until 1997.
Article One came within one state of the number needed to become adopted into the Constitution on two occasions between 1789 and 1803. Despite coming
close to ratification early on, it has never received the approval of enough states to become part of the Constitution.631 As Congress did not attach a ratification
time limit to the article, it is still technically pending before the states. Since no state has approved it since 1792, ratification by an additional 27 states would
now be necessary for the article to be adopted.
Article Two, initially ratified by seven states through 1792 (including Kentucky), was not ratified by another state for eighty years. The Ohio General Assembly
ratified it on May 6, 1873 in protest of an unpopular Congressional pay raise.691 A century later, on March 6, 1978, the Wyoming Legislature also ratified the
article.POI Gregory Watson, a University of Texas at Austin undergraduate student, started a new push for the article's ratification with a letter-writing campaign

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


9of15

Page 253 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 96 of 115

to state legislatures.691 As a result, by May 1992, enough states had approved Article Two (38 of the 50 states in the Union) for it to become the Twentyseventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment's adoption was certified by Archivist of the United States Don W. Wilson and
subsequently affirmed by a vote of Congress on May 20, 1992. r71 1
Three states did not complete action on the twelve articles of amendment when they were initially put before the states. Connecticut and Georgia found a Bill of
Rights unnecessary and so refused to ratify. Both chambers of the Massachusetts General Court ratified a number of the amendments (the Senate adopted 10 of
12 and the House 9 of 12), but failed to reconcile their two lists or to send official notice to the Secretary of State of the ones they did agree upon.f72lf 621 All
three later ratified the Constitutional amendments originally known as Articles 3 through 12 as part of the 1939 commemoration of the Bill of Rights'
sesquicentennial: Massachusetts on March 2, Georgia on March 18, and Connecticut on April 19.621 Connecticut and Georgia would also later ratify Article
Two, on May 13, 1987 and February 2, 1988 respectively.

Application
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans
promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution."731 The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until
193I.f74 1Historian Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that
would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to
intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
[75][ 76H771In the twentieth century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment-a process known as
incorporation-beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in Git/ow v. New York (1925). f7 8l In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional
protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments. r791

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 30J
The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of
speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of
grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are
today.81 1
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State",
though the precise boundary ofthis separation remains in dispute. 81 1 Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court
decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a
series of exceptions to First Amendment protections. The Supreme Court overturned English common law precedent to increase the burden of proof for
defamation and libel suits, most notably in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).821 Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than
political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. 81 1
The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 )[ 831 and New York
Times v. United States ( 1971 ), [84] the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint-pre-publication censorship--in almost
all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by
this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.81 1

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.f 80l
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The concept of such a right existed within English common law long before the enactment of
the Bill ofRights.851 First codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (but there only applying to Protestants), this right was enshrined in fundamental laws
of several American states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776 Vrrginia Declaration of Rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Long a
controversial issue in American political, legal, and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other
effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." 861
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia". [871
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose".[881
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010),f 891 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the
federal government.f901

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


10of15

Page 254 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 97 of 115

Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.[ 80l
The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the
Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution, and, as of 2016, has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court
decision.[91)[92][93)

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized. [80)
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by
probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution.
Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement
officer who has sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a
criminal trial.l94l The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by Earl Warren
and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of William Rehnquist.[951

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.l80l
The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to due process, grand jury screening of criminal
indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in Miranda v.
Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by
police. [961

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [801
The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:

to a speedy and public trial


to trial by an impartial jury
to be informed of criminal charges
to confront witnesses
to compel witnesses to appear in court
to assistance of counsel [971

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that the amendment guaranteed the right to legal representation in all felony prosecutions in both state and
federal courts. [971

Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by
a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common lawJ80J

The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling
findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials. In Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment's requirements could be fulfilled by a jury with
a minimum of six members. The Seventh is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not to be incorporated (applied to the states).[9 81

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


11 of 15

Page 255 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 98 of 115

Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[80l
The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation.l 99l The most frequently
litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.[IOO][IOIJ This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme
Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases dealing with means of execution. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found capital
punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency" as public opinion changed; others found
certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the United States for several
years.ll02l Executions resumed following Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which found capital punishment to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete
sentencing guidelines.fl02J The Court has also found that some poor prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as in Estelle v. Gamble
(1976)P 00l

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.l 80l
The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not
an explicit and exhaustive list of individual rights. It was rarely mentioned in Supreme Court decisions before the second half of the 20th century, when it was
cited by several of the justices in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of
the right of marital privacy.l 103l This right was, in turn, the foundation upon which the Supreme Court built decisions in several landmark cases, including, Roe
v. Wade (1973), which overturned a Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which
invalidated a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.[ 80l
The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principles of separation of powers and federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the
Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather
preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government.[I04]

Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights


George Washington had fourteen handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states.1 1051 The copies
for Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania went missing.fl06J The New York copy is thought to have been destroyed in a fire.1 1071Two unidentified
copies of the missing four (thought to be the Georgia and Maryland copies) survive; one is in the National Archives, and the other is in the New York Public
Library.[I0 8][I09J North Carolina's copy was stolen from the State Capitol by a Union soldier following the Civil War. In an FBI sting operation, it was recovered
in 2003.fllO][lll] The copy retained by the First Congress has been on display (along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) in the Rotunda
for the Charters of Freedom room at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C. since December 13, 1952.D 121
After fifty years on display, signs of deterioration in the casing were noted, while the documents themselves appeared to be well preserved.D 131 Accordingly, the
casing was updated and the Rotunda rededicated on September I 7, 2003. In his dedicatory remarks, President George W. Bush stated, "The true [American]
revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power-the equality of each person before God, and the
responsibility of government to seeure the rights of all."f 114l
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 to be Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of
Rights.1 1151 In 1991, the Virginia copy of the Bill of Rights toured the country in honor of its bicentennial, visiting the capitals of all fifty states.[ 1161

See also

Anti-Federalism, Anti-Federalist Papers


Four Freedoms
Institute of Bill of Rights Law
Patients' [bill of] rights
Second Bill of Rights
Taxpayer Bill of Rights
Vrrginia Statute for Religious Freedom
We Hold These Truths

References
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al
12of15

Page 256 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 99 of 115

Notes
a. Probably Robert Yates[!?]

Citations
I. James Madison's Proposed Amendments to the Constitution. Annals of

Congress. June 8, 1789. http://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/education


/bill-of-rights/images/handout-2. pdf
2. "The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights". Washington D.C.: National
Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
3. "Bill of Rights - Facts & Summary". History.com. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
4. Lloyd, Gordon. "Introduction to the Constitutional Convention". Teaching
American History. Retrieved October 6, 2007.
5. Stewart, p. 47
6. Beeman, p. 59.
7. Beeman, p. 341.
8. Beeman, p. 343.
9. Rakove, p. 327
10. Stewart, p. 226
11. Rakove, p. 288
12. Beeman, p. 363
13. "Federal Convention, Resolution and Letter to the Continental Congress". The
Founders' Constitution. The University of Chicago Press. p. 195, Volume 1,
Chapter 6, Document 11. Retrieved March 6, 2014.
14. Labunski, p. 20
15. Labunski, p. 63
16. "Jefferson's letter to Madison, March 15, 1789". The Founders' Constitution.
Retrieved March 9, 2006.
17. Hamilton et al., p. 436
18. Brutus, p. 376
19. Brutus, p. 377
20. Rakove, p. 325
21. Labunski, p. 62
22. Rakove, p. 323
23. "On opposition to a Bill of Rigbts.". The Founders' Constitution. University of
Chicago Press. Retrieved February 28, 2006.
24. Labunski, pp. 59-60
25. Beeman, p. 388
26. Beeman, pp. 389-390
27. Beeman, p. 390
28. Maier, p. 431.
29. Labunksi, pp. 113-115
30. Brookhiser, p. 80
31. Maier, p. 430.
32. Maier, p. 429.
33. Maier, p. 433.
34. Brookhiser, p. 76
35.Labunski,pp. 159, 174
36.Labunski,p. 161
37. Labunski, p. 162
38. Brookhiser, p. 77
39. Labunski, p. 192
40. Labunski, p. 188
41. Gordon Lloyd. "Anticipating the Bill of Rights in the First Congress".
TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Ashland, Ohio: The Ashbrook Center at Ashland
University. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
42. Labunski, p. 198
43. Labunski, p. 199
44. Madison introduced "amendments culled mainly from state constitutions and
state ratifying convention proposals, especially Virginia's." Levy, p. 35
45. Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://www.loc.gov/rr/prograrn/bib/ourdocs
/mason.html). Library of Congress. Accessed July 12, 2013.
46. Ellis, Joseph J. (2015). The Quartet. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 210.
47. Ellis & 2015 212.
48. Gordon Lloyd. "Madison's Speech Proposing Amendments to the Constitution,
June 8, 1789". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Ashland, Ohio: The Ashbrook
Center at Ashland University. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
49. Labunski, pp. 203-05
50. Labunski, p. 215
51. Labunski, p. 20 I
52. Brookhiser, p. 81
53. Labunski, p. 217
54.Labunski,pp.218-20
55. Ellis & 2015 207.
56. Labunski, p. 235
57. Labunski, p. 237
58. Labunski, p. 221

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

13of15

59. Adamson, Barry (2008). Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the
Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History. Pelican Publishing. p. 93.
ISBN 9781455604586.
60. Graham, John Remington (2009). Free, Sovereign, and Independent States: The
Intended Meaning of the American Constitution. Foreword by Laura Tesh.
Footnote 54, pp. 193-194. ISBN 9781455604579.
61. Wood, p. 71
62. Levy, Leonard W. (1986). "Bill of Rights (United States)". Encyclopedia of the
American Constitution. - via HighBearn Research (subscription required).
Retrieved July 16, 2013.
63. Wood, p. 69
64. Ellis & 2015 206.
65. Gordon Lloyd. "The Four Stages of Approval of the Bill of Rights in Congress
and the States". TeachingAmericanHistory.org. Ashland, Ohio: The Ashbrook
Center at Ashland University. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
66. "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation,
Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 2013. p. 25. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
67. James J. Kilpatrick, ed. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and
Amendments Thereto. Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government.
p. 64.
68. Labunski, p. 255
69. Dean, John W. (September 27, 2002). "The Telling Tale of the Twenty-Seventh
Amendment". FindLaw. Retrieved June 23, 2014.
70. Bernstein, Richard B. (1992). "The Sleeper Wakes: The History and Legacy of
the Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Fordham Law Review 61 (3): 537. Retrieved
February 15, 2016.
71. Bernstein, Richard B. (2000). "Twenty-Seventh Amendment". Encyclopedia of
the American Constitution. - via HighBearn Research (subscription required).
Retrieved July 16, 2013.
72. Kaminski, John P.; Saladino, Gaspare J.; Leffier, Richard; Schoenleber, Charles
H.; Hogan, Margaret A. "The Documentary History of the Ratification of the
Constitution, Digital Edition" (PDF). Charlottesville: University of Vuginia
Press.
73. Wood, p. 72
74.Labunski,p.258
75.Labunski,pp.258-59
76. "Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore - 32 U.S. 243 (1833)".
Justia.com. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
77. Levy, Leonard W. (January I, 2000). "BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE 7
Peters 243 (1833)". Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.
- via HighBearn Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 11, 20! 3.
78.Labunski,p.259
79. Deloria, Vme Jr. (2000). "American Indians and the Constitution". Encyclopedia
of the American Constitution. - via HighBearn Research (subscription required).
Retrieved July 16, 2013.
80. "Bill of Rights Transcript". Archives.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2010.
81. Cox, Archibald (1986). "First Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. - via HighBearn Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16,
2013.
82. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases
/federal/us/3 76/254/) ( 1964)
83. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal
/us/283/697 /) (1931)
84. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (https://supreme.justia.com
/cases/federal/us/403n 13{) ( 1971)
85. McAffee, Thomas B.; Michael J. Quinlan (March 1997). "Bringing Forward The
Rigbt To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The
Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781.
86. 92 U.S. 542 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542{) (1875)
87. 307 U.S. 174 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174{) (1939)
88. 554 U.S. 570 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&
court=US&vol=554&page=570) (2008)
89. 561 U.S. 3025 (https://supremejustia.com/us/561/08-152!/index.htrnl) (2010)
90. Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2010). "Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4
Ruling". The New York Times. Retrieved December 17, 2012.
91. "The Third Amendment". Revolutionary War and Beyond. September 7, 2012.
Retrieved 26 February 2014.
92. Mahoney, Dennis J. (1986). "Third Amendment". Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. - via HighBearn Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 15,
2013.

Page 257 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:43 AM

https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 100 of 115

93. "Third Amendment". U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History. - via HighBeam


Research (subscription required). January 1, 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
94. "Exclusionary rule". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
95. "Fourth Amendment". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
96. "Fifth Amendment". Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. - via HighBeam
Research (subscription required). January 1, 2006. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
97. "The Sixth Amendment". Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech
to Flag Burning. - via HighBeam Research (subscription required). January 1,
2008. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
98. Mahoney, Dennis J. (1986). "Seventh Amendment". Encyclopedia of the
American Constitution. - via HighBeam Research (subscription required).
Retrieved July 15, 2013.
99. Bessler, p. 194
100. Krantz, Sheldon (1986). "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". Encyclopedia of the
American Constitution. - via HighBeam Research (subscription required).
Retrieved July 16, 2013.
101. "U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History". UXL Encyclopedia of American
History. January 1, 2009. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
102. Weisberg, Robert (1986). "Capital Punishment". Encyclopedia of the American
Constitution. - via HighBeam Research (subscription required). Retrieved July 16,
2013.
103. "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation,
Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Alalysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 2013. pp. 1738-1739. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
104. "Tenth Amendment". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved July 19, 2013.

105. Frieden, Terry (March 19, 2003). "FBI recovers original copy of Bill of Rights".
CNN. Retrieved April 25, 2008.
106. "Bill of Rights FAQs" (PDF). constitutioncenter.org. National Constitution
Center. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
107. "Background on the Bill of Rights and the New York Ratification of the Bill of
Rights". U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 2007. Retrieved
July 28, 2008.
108. "Primary Documents in American History: The Bill of Rights". The Library of
Congress.
109. "History of the Bill of Rights" (http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com
/history-bill-of-rights.html) History of the Bill of Rights: Where are they today?
110. "Treasures of Carolina: Stories from the State Archives Opens Oct. 24".
ncdcr.gov. North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
Retrieved February 15, 2016.
111. "The U.S. Marshals Service Takes Possession of North Carolina's Copy of the
Bill of Rights". U.S. Marshals Service. Retrieved July 28, 2008.
112. Parkinson, Hilary (December 13, 2011). "A homecoming for six pages of
parchment". The National Archives. Retrieved February 15, 2016.
113. Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler and Catherine Nicholson," A New Era Begins for the
Charters of Freedom.". March 14, 2006. Prologue, Fall 2003.
114. For Know-It-Alls (2008). The United States Bill of Rights for Know-It-Alls.
Filiquarian Publishing, LLC. p. 27. ISBN 1599862255.
115. Grier, Peter (December 15, 2009). "Bill of Rights Day: what Obama says about
it". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved July 10, 2013.
116. "Bill of Rights Tour Opens in Kansas City". The Nevada Daily Mail. September
18, 1991. Retrieved July 11, 2013.

Bibliography

Amar, Akhil Reed (1998). The Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.
Beeman, Richard (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House.
Bessler, John D. (2012). Cruel and Unusual: The American Death Penalty and the Founders' Eighth Amendment. UPNE.
Brookhiser, Richard (2011) James Madison. Basic Books.
Brutus (1787) "To the Citizens of the State of New York". In The Complete Anti-Federalist, Volume I (2008). Ed. Herbert J. Storing. University of Chicago Press.
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John (2003) The Federalist: With Letters of Brutus. Ed. Terence Ball. Cambridge University Press.
Labunski, Richard E. (2006). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press.
Levy, Leonard W. (1999). Origins of the Bill of Rights. Yale University Press.
Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788. Simon and Schuster.
Rakove, Jack N. (1996). Original Meanings. Alfred A. Knopf.
Stewart, David 0. (2007). The Summer of 1787. Simon and Schuster.
Wood, Gordon S. (2009). Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. Oxford University Press.

Further reading

Berkin, Carol. The Bill of Rights: The Fight to Secure America's Liberties (Simon & Schuster, 2015). 259 pp.
Bodenhamer, David J .; James W. Ely (May 2008). The Bill of Rights in modem America. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-21991-6.
Bordewich, Fergus M. The First Congress: How James Madison, George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the Government (2016) on 1789-91.
Schwartz, Bernard (January 1, 1992). The great rights of mankind: a history of the American Bill of Rights. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-945612-28-5.
Smith, Rich (July 2, 2007). The Bill of Rights: Defining Our Freedoms. ABDO. ISBN 978-1-59928-913-7.
Stair, Nancy L. (January 2003). The Bill of Rights: a primary source investigation into the first ten amendments of the Constitution. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 53.
ISBN 978-0-8239-3800-1.

External links
National Archives: The full text of the United States Bill of Rights (http://www.atchives.gov/exhibits/charters
/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Footnote.com (pattners with the National Archives): Online viewer with High-resolution image of the original
document (http://www.footnote.com/viewer.php?image=43467l1)
Library of Congress: Bill of Rights and related resources (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs
/billofrights.html)
Alexander Hatnilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575-81 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents
lbill_of_rightss7 .html), on opposition to the Bill of Rights
TeachingAmericanHistory.org - Bill of Rights (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/)
United States Bill of Rights at Project Gutenberg
ie. Bill of Rights (https://librivox.org/seatch ?title=Bill+of+Rights&author=MADISON&reader=&keywords=&
genre_id=O&status=all&project_type=either&recorded_language=&sort_order=catalog_date&search_page=l&
search_form=advanced) public domain audiobook at LibriVox

r--i

i ...~

\!1

Wikimedia Commons has


media related to United
States Bill of Rights.
Wikisource has original
text related to this article:
United States Bill of
Rights

-----------~

>);

------

Wikiquote has quotations


related to: United Stoles

!~_____ _!!_ill of_!_!_"'!___

__ __ __

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Bill_of_Rights&oldid=728879744"


Categories: 1st United States Congress I 1791 in American politics I 1791 in American law I Amendments to the United States Constitution
I American Enlightenment I George Mason I History of the United States (1789-1849) J James Madison I National human rights instruments

I Official documents of the United States I Presidency of George Washington I United States Constitution
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

14of15

Page 258 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:43 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 101 of 115

This page was last modified on 8 July 2016, at 08:02.


Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareA!ike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


15of15

Page 259 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7/16/2016 2:43 AM

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 102 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 260 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 103 of 115

MARCH 11, 2003 3:51 PM EST

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture

Last Updated on June 1, 2004

What is torture?
What laws prohibit torture?
Do non-citizens in the U.S. have the same right not to be tortured as U.S. citizens?
Can a person be compelled to provide evidence?
Can limited physical force be used during interrogations?
Is the use of"truth serums" permitted?
Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?

Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives?


Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited?
May the U.S. send detainees to other countries to be questioned?
What are the remedies against torture?
During his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke about the horrifying torture techniques Saddam Hussein has inflicted on prisoners in
Iraq. He described the use of electric shock, burning with hot irons, acid, and rape. He said that the Iraqi government tortured children to get their
parents to confess to crimes. President Bush concluded: "If this isn't evil, then evil has no meaning."

There is now strong evidence that the United States itself has engaged in
torture and condoned its use by others as part of its war against terrorism.
Photographs of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, hooded, naked,
attached to wires, attacked by dogs, forced to simulate sex acts and assume
humiliating and painful postitions, and presided over by smiling U.S. military
personnel have shocked the world. Other incidents of abuse and even murder
have come to light and received new attention.

Although President Bush apologized for the Abu Ghraib incident and military
investigations are proceeding against the individuals involved in these incidents
and others, there as yet has been no commitment by the United States to prosecute

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


1 of9

Page 261 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 104 of 115

J.llt:: llWllUC:I Ul :SU\.:11 Ull:lUC:lll:S lC:pUILC:U 111 UU:: lllC:WC::t.

since 2002, confidential and internal reports of abuse to superior officers

II

with responsibility for prison policies, and statements that guards were instructed
to "soften up" prisoners for interrogation, all suggest that these
incidents are indicative of a policy condoning or tolerant of torture, official
denials notwithstanding.
Long before the Abu Ghraib scandal, newspapers such as the New York Times and
the Washington Post published credible reports, based on interviews
with former detainees and unnamed U.S. officials, alleging that U.S. agents
abused
terrorist suspects or handed them over to foreign governments with documented
records of torture. None of the reported allegations suggest the United States
has utilized such horrific techniques as electric shock or burning. They do,
however, suggest that the United States has been willing to inflict other forms
of physical or mental pain in an effort to obtain intelligence from captured
terrorist suspects.
According to a December 26, 2002 story in the Washington Post, "U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations" captured al-Qaeda operatives
and Taliban commanders held at the U.S.-occupied Bagram air base in Afghanistan are subjected to physical and psychological "stress and duress"
techniques, including being held blindfolded or hooded, bound in awkward painful positions, and deprived of sleep for prolonged periods. Prior to
interrogation, some captives have been beaten. One unnamed U.S. official quoted in the Washington Post stated, "If you don't violate someone's
human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."
U.S. papers have also reported that the United States handed over some suspects to countries with documented histories of torture. One U.S.
official directly involved in the rendition of suspects to third countries told Washington Post reporters that he knew they were likely to be
tortured. The story suggested that CIA officials are willing to use the fruits of intelligence foreign countries obtained using torture. On March 4.
2003, the Wall

Street Journal, in an article entitled "How do U.S. Interrogators make a Captured Terrorist Talk?," quoted a senior federal law-enforcer as saying
that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's alleged leader of terrorist operations against the United States, would be interrogated "in some other
country that'll let us pistol whip this guy."
Men who had been held under American custody at Bagram have described standing
naked, their faces hooded, their arms raised, and chained to the ceiling, their
feet shackled for days on end (thirteen days in the case of one of them) without
being allowed to sleep. The U.S. military has begun a criminal investigation
into the deaths two Afghan men held at Bagram, both of whom died as a result
of blunt force injuries. An U.S. Army pathologist reportedly classified the
deaths as homicides. (See, New

York Times, "Threats and Responses: Prisonsers; U.S. Military Investigating


Death of Afghan in Custody," March 4, 2003, and Washington
Post,"Army Probing Deaths of 2 Afghan Prisoners," March 5, 2003.)
On March 6, 2003, President Bush told visiting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello that the United States is not
using torture on al-Qaeda detainees. To date, however, no senior administration official has refuted the specific allegations of abusive
interrogations presented in the media. No senior administration official has unequivocally stated that it is against U.S. policy to engage in the
techniques described in media accounts or to send detainees to countries where they are likely to be tortured. No official has said that U.S. agents
who use torture, who are complicit in its use, or who send suspects to countries where they are tortured, will be held accountable.
The recent capture of high-ranking al-Qaeda suspects has rekindled a debate
in the United States about whether torture is or should be used during their

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

2of9

Page 262 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/1 lnegal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 105 of 115

=-.., ..-.

"""~ ~~,, ~ .......... ,.........~......~, w ..~II

to the temptation to sacrifice certain fundamental rights. But that temptation


must be vigorously resisted. The right not to be tortured or mistreated is
not a luxury to be dispensed with in difficult times, but the very essence
of a society worth defending.

President Bush has said that the war on terrorism is about values; he has pledged that as it fights, the United States will always stand for "the
non-negotiable demands of human dignity." Standing for human dignity means rejecting torture and other forms of ill treatment.

Rejecting torture does not mean forgoing effective interrogations of terrorist suspects. Patient, skillful, professional interrogations obtain critical
information without relying on cruelty or inhuman or degrading treatment. Indeed, most seasoned interrogators recognize that torture is not only
immoral and illegal, but ineffective and unnecessary as well. Given that people being tortured will say anything to stop the pain, the information
yielded from torture is often false or of dubious reliability.

The prohibition against torture is firmly embedded in customary international law, international treaties signed by the United States, and in U.S.
law. As the U.S. Department of State has noted, the "United States has long been a vigorous supporter of the international fight against
torture... Every unit of government at every level within the United States is committed, by law as well as by policy, to the protection of the
individual's life, liberty and physical integrity" [U.S. Department of State, "Initial Report of the United States of America to the UN Committee
Against Torture." Oct is, 1999 (15 Nov. 2001)]. That commitment should not be abandoned. Indeed, it must be deepened as the world watches
how the U.S. responds to the challenges before it. If the U.S. were to condone torture by government officials or foreign governments in its fight
against terrorism, it would betray its own principles, laws, and international treaty obligations. It would irreparably weaken its standing to oppose
torture elsewhere in the world. And it would provide a handy excuse to other governments to use torture to pursue their own national security
objectives.

In this paper, Human Rights Watch provides an overview of the international and national prohibitions against torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment, with a focus on the prohibition as it applies to the interrogation of detainees. What is torture? What laws prohibit torture?
Do non-citizens in the U.S. have the same right not to be tortured as U.S. citizens? Can a person be compelled to provide evidence? Can limited
physical force be used during interrogations? Is the use of "truth serums" permitted? Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?
Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives? Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited? May the U.S. send
detainees to other countries to be questioned? What are the remedies against torture?

Q: What is torture?

The Convention against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession. ..." (Art. 1). It may be ""mfiicted by or at the
instigation of or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
The prohibition against torture under international law applies to many measures-e.g.
beating on the soles of the feet; electric shock applied to genitals and nipples;
rape; near drowning through submersion in water; near suffocation by plastic
bags tied around the head; burning; whipping; needles inserted under fingernails;
mutilation; hanging by feet or hands for prolonged periods.

International law also prohibits mistreatment that does not meet the definition
of torture, either because less severe physical or mental pain is inflicted,
or because the necessary purpose of the ill-treatment is not present. It affirms
the right of every person not to be subjected to crue~ inhuman or degrading
treatment. Examples of such prohibited mistreatment include being forced to
stand spread eagled against the wall; being subjected to bright lights or
blindfolding; being subjected to continuous loud noise; being deprived of sleep,
food or drink: beine: subiected to forced constant standine: or crouchine:: or

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

3 of9

Page 263 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7116/2016 2:45 AM

https ://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/l 1/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 106 of 115

II

LULL.WC.

The prohibition against torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment


is not limited to acts causing physical pain or injury. It includes acts that
cause mental suffering-e.g. through threats against family or loved ones. As
the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, coercion can be mental as well as physical...the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an
0

unconstitutional inquisition Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448, (1966) citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361U.S.199 (1960). As discussed
below, the use of mind-altering drugs to compel a person to provide information would at least amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under
the Convention against Torture.
Q: What laws prohibit torture?

Torture is universally condemned, and whatever its actual practice, no country publicly supports torture or opposes its eradication. The
prohibition against torture is well established under customary international law as jus cogens; that is, it has the highest standing in customary law
and is so fundamental as to supercede all other treaties and customary laws (except laws that are also jus cogens). Criminal acts that are jus cogens
are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that any state can exercise its jurisdiction, regardless of where the crime took place, the nationality
of the perpetrator or the nationality of the victim.
In 1948, following the horrific abuses of World War II, the General Assembly of the United Nations inserted the prohibition against torture in the
landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment." This ban on torture and other ill-treatment has subsequently been incorporated into the extensive network of
international and regional human rights treaties. It is contained in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
ratified by 153 countries, including the United States in 1992, and in the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (the Convention against Torture), ratified by 136 countries, including the United States in 1994- It is also codified in the
European Convention for the Protection of Hunian Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the African Charter on Hunian and Peoples' Rights, and
the American Convention on Human Rights.
The prohibition against torture is also fundamental to humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war), which governs the conduct of parties
during anned conflict. An important element of international humanitarian law is the duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and
other noncombatants, including soldiers who are captured or who have laid down their arms. Torture of such protected persons is absolutely
forbidden. Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans violence of life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" as well as "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular huntlliating and degrading treatment. The use of
force to obtain information is specifically prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: No physical or moral coercion shall be
exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties."
0

According to the 1999 Initial Report of the United States to the U.N. Committee against Torture, in the United States, the use of torture "is
categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority... No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or
military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form ... Every
act of torture within the meaning of the [Convention against Torture] is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who
commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes."
Although no single provision of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits torture as a means to extract information, secure a confession, punish
for an act committed, intimidate or coerce, or for any reason based on discrimination, there is no question that torture violates rights established
by the Bill of Rights. The U.S. courts have located constitutional protections against interrogations under torture in the Fourth Amendment's right
to be free of unreasonable search or seizure (which encompasses the right not be abused by the police), the Fifth Amendment's right against
self-incrimination (which encompasses the right to remain silent during interrogations), the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of
due process (ensuring fundamental fairness in criminal justice system), and the Eighth Amendment's right to be free of cruel or unusual
punishment. In numerous cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has condemned the use of force amounting to torture or other forms of ill treatment
during interrogations, including such practices as whipping, slapping, depriving a victim of food, water, or sleep, keeping him naked or in a small
cell for prolonged periods, holding a gun to his head, or threatening him with mob violence. Torture would also violate state constitutions, whose
provisions generally parallel the protections set forth in the federal Bill of Rights.

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

4of9

Page 264 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/1 l/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 107 of 115

assault, rape), regardless of whether committed by public officials or private individuals. In addition, states typically have specific laws that
criminalize acts by public officials that constitute abuses of authority, "official oppression," or the unlawful infliction of bodily injury. The principal
federal law that would apply to torture against detainees is 18 U.S.C. 242, which makes it a criminal offense for any public official to willfully to
deprive a person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Q: Do non-citizens in the U.S. have the same right not to be tortured as U.S. citizens?

Yes. Neither international nor domestic law conditions the right not to be
subjected to torture on citizenship or nationality. No detainee held by U.S.
authorities-regardless of nationality, regardless of whether held in the U.S.
or in another country, and regardless of whether the person is deemed a combatant
or civilian-may be tortured. All applicable international law applies to
U.S. officials operating abroad, including the Convention against Torture and
the Geneva Conventions. The prohibition against torture is universal and covers
all countries both regarding U.S. citizens and persons of other nationalities.

Q: Can a person be compelled to provide evidence?

Using force or the infliction of pain to overcome an individual's desire to maintain silent during interrogations not only violates the victim's right
to be free from torture but also his or her right not to speak during an interrogation. The right against being compelled to testify against oneself is
contained in Article 14 of the ICCPR. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution also affirms the right against self-incrimination. This right
has been interpreted to include the right to remain silent during custodial interrogations, regardless of whether the information sought would be
incriminating. There are only extremely limited exceptions to the right to remain silent. For example, the threat of imprisonment can be used to
lawfully compel a witness to speak in grand jury proceedings provided the witness has been granted some form of immunity, i.e. protection against
having the testimony used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings. But these exceptions to the right against self-incrimination do not in
any sense permit violations of the separate right to be free of torture. Torture is never permitted to overcome a witness's desire to remain silent.

Recognizing the potential for abuse during interrogations, U.S. courts have
constructed special rules to diminish the likelihood of coerced testimony.
They have, for example, ruled that coerced statements are not admissible at
trial-whether they are deemed compelled in violation of the Fifth Amendment's
privilege against self-incrimination or "involuntary" in violation of the right to due process. The U.S. Supreme Court in i966 also established a rule
requiring the police who seek to question detainees to inform them of their "Miranda" rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present
during the questioning [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)]. In explaining the need for this rule, the Court noted the continuing police
practice of using physical force to extract confessions, citing, as an example, a case in which police beat, kicked and burned with lighted cigarette
butts a potential witness under interrogation.

The Convention against Torture provides that any statement that has been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any
proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Q: can limited physical force be used during interrogations?

Force can never be used to pressure a detainee to speak, even if it seems only slight or moderate.

The absolute injunction against force has practical as well as moral underpinnings. Historical practice shows there is no such thing as a "little bit"
of physical pressure to compel someone to speak during an interrogation. Once a degree of force is permitted, interrogators face an overwhelming
temptation to continue applying as much force as is necessary to acquire the sought-for information.

Q: Is the use of"truth serums" permitted?

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

5 of9

Page 265 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/l l/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 108 of 115

-= =.c -==

-="' ~. ~, """~''

w~u

..

==~

"'

u
w< =I"''"""""'" w - =
<-<
u
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture expressly defines torture as including nthe use of methods upon a person intended to

obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish."
The prohibition against the ill-treatment of persons under interrogation is
rooted in respect for human dignity and the inviolability of the human body
and mind. To force a person to talk through the application of drugs is as
much a denial of human dignity as to coerce talk through the use of physical
force. Securing testimony through the involuntary administration of drugs would
also violate the right against self-incrimination if it were not done under
a grant of use immunity. But even if such immunity were given-thus solving
the problem of self-incrimination-drugging would still be prohibited because
of its inhuman and degrading nature. Because of its profound compromise of
the human personality, the use of drugs is quite different from the forcible
taking of physical evidence-hair, blood, DNA, etc.-which is permitted under
U.S. and international law.
The administration of any of the drugs identified as having the potential for causing a person to talk is an involved medical procedure requiring
delivery of the drug intravenously over a period that can range from two to twelve hours. The international Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant
to the Role of Health Personnel provide that the participation of doctors or other medical practitioners in the administration of such drugs for
interrogation purposes would violate medical ethics.
The use of truth serums is not an authorized method of interrogation in the United States. Under U.S. law, confessions made under the influence
of truth serums are not nvoluntaryn and are consequently inadmissible as evidence Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963).
Investigators are not severely handicapped by not being able to use ntruth serums.n While certain drugs may reduce a person's inhibitions against
talking, they do not guarantee that the person will in fact tell the truth. Under the influence of such drugs, people may become highly suggestible,
picking up cues from the interrogators and agreeing to information that is not true; they may relate fantasies; and they may still be able to
deliberately mislead. According to a study by medical and legal experts:

experimental and clinical findings indicate that only individuals who have conscious and unconscious reasons for doing so are inclined

to confess and yield to interrogation under drug influence. On the other hand, some are able to withhold information and some,
especially character neurotics, are able to lie. Others are so suggestible they will describe, in response to suggestive questioning,
behavior which never in fact occurred. ... But drugs are not 'truth sera.' They lessen inhibitions to verbalization and stimulate
unrepressed expression not only of fact but of fancy and suggestions as well. Thus the material produced is not 'truth' in the sense that
it conforms to empirical fa~ [Dession, Freedman, Donnelly, and Redlich, nDrug Induced Revelation and Criminal Investigation,'' 62
Yale L.J. 315, 319 (1953)].

As another expert noted, nthe intravenous injection of a drug by a physician in a hospital may appear more scientific than the drinking of large

amounts of bourbon in a tavern, but the end result displayed in the subject's speech may be no more reliable.n MacDonald, "Truth Serums,n
Crim. L.C.& P.S. 259 (1955). U.S. courts have generally ruled the use of truth serums is not a ntrustworthy truth-extracting proceduren and have
held evidence thus acquired is inadmissible, regardless of whether the drugs were administered voluntarily or involuntarily. E.g., Lindsey v. U.S.,
237 F.2d 893, 897 (9th Cir.1956).
Q: Are there any situations in which torture is permitted?

Under customary international law as well as underintemational human rights treaties, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is
prohibited at all times and in all circumstances. It is a non-derogable right, one of those core rights that may never be suspended, even during
times of war, when national security is threatened, or during other public emergencies.

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

6of9

Page 266 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/l 1/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 109 of 115

II

1IU111 Cl ::i.upcuu1 Ullll.:C1 Ul yuurn..: Cl.UUlUULy.

The European Court of Human Rights has applied the prohibition against torture contained in European Convention on Human Rights in several
cases involving alleged terrorists. As it noted in one case, "The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modem times in
protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture
or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct." (Chahal v. United Kingdom, Nov. 15, 1996)
Similarly, the Committee against Torture, reviewing Israel's use of torture as a method of interrogation against suspected Palestinian terrorists,
stated, "The Committee acknowledges the terrible dilemma that Israel confronts in dealing with terrorist threats to its security, but as a State
party to the Convention Israel is precluded from raising before this Committee exceptional circumstances as justification for [prohibited] acts"
[United Nations Committee against Torture. "Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture" (1997), A/52/44,paras.253-260. (15
Nov. 2001).]
Q: Shouldn't torture be permitted if its use will save lives?

Some people argue that the goal of saving innocent lives must override a person's right not to be tortured. This argument is presented in its
starkest form in the "ticking bomb" scenario: a bomb has been set to explode that will kill thousands of people and a detained person is known to
have information on where the bomb is and how to defuse it. Is torture justified in such a case to force the detainee to talk? Those who say that it
is argue that governments should be permitted to choose torture as the lesser of two evils in such a situation.
The international community, however, rejected the use of torture even in the "ticking bomb" case. International human rights law - as well as U.S.
law - do not contain any exceptions to the prohibition against torture.

There are practical as well as moral reasons for not permitting a "ticking bomb" -or terrorist attack -- exception to the ban on torture. Although
such an exception might appear to be highly limited, experience shows that the exception readily becomes the standard practice. For example,
how imminent must the attack be to trigger the exception and justify torture - an hour, a week, a year? How certain must the government be that
the detainee actually has the necessary information? Under the utilitarian logic that the end (saving many innocent lives) justifies the means,
torture should be permitted even if the disaster might not occur until some point in the future, and it should be permitted against as many people
as is necessary to secure the information that could be used to avert the disaster.
Israel provides a good example of how this logic works in practice. For years Israel justified its use of torture - what it called "moderate physical
force" - by citing the "ticking bomb" scenario. But despite a genuine security threat, Israeli security forces rarely if ever were able to identify a
particular suspect with knowledge about a particular bomb set to explode imminently. Rather, they ended up applying the scenario metaphorically
to justify torturing virtually every Palestinian security detainee - thousands of people - on the theory that they might know something about some
unspecified, future terrorist act. In 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the use of torture, although the practice seems to have increased in
the past year.
In addition, the ticking bomb scenario offers no logical limitations on how much or what kind of torture would be permitted. If the detainee does
not talk when shaken or hit, why shouldn't the government move unto more severe measures, such as the application of electric shocks? Why not
threaten to rape tlie suspect's wife or to torture his children? Once torture is allowed, setting limits is extraordinarily difficult.
Q: Does the U.S. lose valuable information if torture is prohibited?

Torture is as likely to yield false information as it is to yield tlie truth. Cesare Beccaria, the eighteentli century philosopher whose critique of
torture remains influential today, observed that wilen a person is tortured, tlie "impression of pain... may increase to such a degree, that, occupying
tlie mind entirely, it will compel tlie sufferer to use tlie shortest method of freeing himself from torment... [H]e will accuse himself of crimes of
which he is innocent." Beccaria also pointed out the problem of using torture to discover tlie accused's accomplices: "Will not the man who [under
torture falsely] accuses himself yet more readily accuse otliers?" [Beccaria, Cesare, Of Crimes and Punishments. (15 Nov. 2001).] . Contemporary
law enforcement professionals concur. Oliver Ravel, former deputy director of the FBI, has stated tliat force is not effective: "people will even
admit they killed tlieir grandmotlier, just to stop the beatings.'' Indeed, the unreliability of forced confessions was one of tlie principal reasons that

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

7 of9

Page 267 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:45 AM

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/l 1/legal-prohibition-against-torture

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 110 of 115

Q; May the U.S. send detainees to other countries to be questioned?

The United States may not send detainees to another country to be questioned by police or security forces who use torture or cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment during their interrogation. Article 3 of the Convention against Torture expressly prohibits sending a person to another state
"where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." Human Rights Watch believes that the
U.S. government would be complicit in torture - in essence, aiding and abetting torture - if it sent detainees to another country aware that they
might be tortured there. The purpose of U.S. human rights commitments would be circumvented if the U.S. government could effectively
subcontract interrogation techniques that it is prohibited from using itself.
Q: What are the remedies against torture?

Under U.S. law, victims of torture can sue in state or federal court for damages. But there are numerous practical obstacles to such lawsuits including the difficulty of securing evidence of torture and the financial costs of legal representation - as well as legal and procedural impediments
to a successful conclusion. Moreover, even if a case is successful and damages are awarded, the financial compensation does not undo the harm
done - the experience of torture and its often ongoing physical, psychological, and emotional consequences. Officials who engage in torture including those who give the orders as well as those who carry them out - can and should be prosecuted criminally as well as disciplinarily
sanctioned. Nevertheless, history counsels that the decision to prosecute public officials, the actual charges brought, and the penalties sought are
often influenced by such extra-legal considerations as public sympathy for the victim or support for the officials and the political context in which
the crime took place. The best "remedy" for torture is thus prevention. U.S. officials should resolutely resist any temptation or encouragement to
use torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against detainees held and questioned in connection with its campaign against terrorism.

Region I Country United States


Topic Terrorism I Counterterrorism, Torture

More Reading
JULY 15, 2018

Statements

France: Despicable Attack in Nice

II

JULY 14, 2016

Dispatches

Dispatches: The US Veterans Who Can't Return Home


Antonio Ginatta
Advocacy Director, US Program

Reports
-

MAY18,2016

MAY19,2018

'"- .._ - -

- - " - - -Ill

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al


8 of9

Page 268 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016


7116/2016 2:45 AM

The Legal Prohibition Against Torture I Human Rights Watch

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 111 of 115

Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work
CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

9of9

Page 269 of 276

SSunday July 17, 2016

7/16/2016 2:45 AM

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 112 of 115

CHAPTER
DIVIDER

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 270 of 276

Sunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 113 of 115

cic~P
!!ara1111er.t &surveiffar.ce

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment S.. Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163

April 20, 2016


Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography
Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.
In 1987 I became a federal whistleblower for the case of local defense contractor International Signal
and Control, or ISC. ISC was a black ops program for the NSA and CIA that was convicted in 1992 for
an elaborate scheme to arm Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries with a broad array of weapons,
most notably cluster bombs. It was the third larges fraud in U.S. History at that time. I have been a
victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005.
I had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S. Sponsored Mind Control turned into an all-out
assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; hacking of all electronic devices; vandilism and thefts
of personal property, extortions, intellectual property violations, obstruction of justice; violations of due
process; thefts and modifications of court documents; and pain and torture through the use of directed
energy devices and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted
victim. This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal
action in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This
assault began after the handlers remotely trained/sychronized Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy.
The main difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that I am connected 24/7 with
the same person who declares telepathically she is a known celebrity. Over the course of 10 years I
have been telepathic with at least 20 known persons and have spent 10 years trying to validate and
confirm their identities without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment and act on the
numerous formal complaints that are filed in their respective offices. Most complaints are focused on
the routine victimization's of a targeted individual including but not limited to stalking, harassment,
threats, vandalism, thefts, extortion, burglaries, false imprisonments, fabricated mental health warrants
or involuntary commitments, pain and torture to the body, and most often the cause of obstruction of
justice is the computer hacking.
I have a very sophisticated and authentic library of evidence of the use of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
technologies on my father and brother that dates back to the 1940's while my father was in the U.S.
Navy after he graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in Florida, including an affidavit motorized
and authenticated by my father in 1996. My brother served in the U.S. Air force and was victim to LSD
experiments of the infamous MKULTRA program in the late 1960's.
In 2015 I filed an amicus curie on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert who was convicted in 1992 of the
murder of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I currently am in litigation in the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa Michelle Lambert published her book titled
"Corruption in Lancaster County - My Story", which is available in bookstores and on Amazon.com. I
am in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave Brown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 271 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 114 of 115

In 2009 I Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL
to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster
Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work of Missouri House of Representative Jim
Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these horrendous crimes for years. The bill will
provide protections to individuals who are being harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and
assaulted; as well as protections to keep individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured,
and killed by electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy
weapons. I again reintroduced the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015 and frequented
the Pennsylvania Capitol trying to find support and a sponsor; which I still do to this day.

In 2006 I began his role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which is listed as "FULT" on the
NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group, Ltd., a full service financial firm,
Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the success in developing the strategic vision for his company and
the experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public offering efforts in dealing with Fulton
Financial. I have been in recent discussions with the Fulton Financial Board of Directors with regards to
various complaints dealing with such issues as the Resource Bank acquisition and the subprime failures.
I believe that Fulton Financial needs management to become more aggressive in it's strategic planning
and the performance it expects from it's management team in order to increase shareholder value.
Expanding the footprint of the regional bank has not yielded an increase to the bottom line that is
consistent with the expectations of shareholders. Lancaster County has seen several local banking
institutions acquired by larger regional banks, thus increasing the competition Fulton Financial will see in
it's local marketplace as well as in it's regional footprint.

In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in current litigation in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Third District
Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania Superior Court, the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
These litigations include violations of intellectual property rights, anti-trust violations, and interference
of contracts relating to several business interests. Central to this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital
Technologies, Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG Advisory, Ltd., and it's affiliated businesses along
with a Federal False Claims Act or Federal Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal
and Control, Pie., CISC) the $!Billion Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South
Africa and Irag. This litigation dates back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was
solicited by ISC executives for professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of
RICO Civil Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.

In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to withhold the
Tourism Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center & Marriot. We also
proposed an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel Brunswick and Lancaster
Square to all of the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County Convention Center is finally under
construction with a March 2009 Opening date.

In 2005 I was selected to attend the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City after submission of
an essay with and application. I received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey, Chief Executive Officer of
the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2005 I began our philanthropic endeavors by spending our energies and working with such
organizations as; ONE.org, Livestrong.org, WoundedWarriors.org, The Clinton Global Initiative,
Lancaster Convention Center Authority, Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, Tom's Project Hope, People to
People International, GlobalWarming.org, Contact Lancaster/24 Hour Suicide Hotline, Schreiber Pediatric
Center, and numerous others.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 272 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-1 Filed 07/19/16 Page 115 of 115

In 2004 I embarked on our past endeavors in the music and entertainment industries with an emphasis
on assisting for the fair and equitable distribution of artists rights and royalties in the fight against
electronic piracy. We have attempted to assist in developing new business models to address the
convergence of physical and electronic mediums; as it displaces royalties and revenues for those
creating, promoting, and delivering a range of entertainment content via wireless networks.

In 2000 to 2002 I developed an array of marketing and communication tools for wholesalers of the
AIM Investment Group and managed several communication programs for several of the company
wholesalers throughout the United States and Costa Rica. We also began a Day Trading project that
lasted until 2004 with success.

In 1999 I developed a comprehensive business plan to develop the former Sprecher Brewery. known as
the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This plan was developed in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the Revitalization of Downtown
Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 I contributed to the debate, research, and implementation of strategies to counter the effects
of the global Y2K threat to the worlds computer technologies. I attended the U.S. Sponsored Y2K
symposium and Conference in Washington. D.C. hosted by the Senate Y2K Subcommittee and Senator
William Bennett.
In 1998 I had began to administer the charity giving of Tom's Project Hope, a non-profit organization
promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide prevention. We had provided funding
for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact Lancaster (The 24/7 Suicide Prevention
Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable organizations and faith based charities.
The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to schools, non profit organizations, faith based
initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational support for the prevention of suicide and to bring
awareness to mental illness problems.
In 1996 I had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that I was controller of
Pflumm Contractors, Inc., I was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to computerized their
accounting and records management from top to bottom. I had also provided consulting for the
computerization of accounting and payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of Washington Baro. I was
retained to evaluate and develop an action plan to migrate the Informations Technologies of the Jay
Group, formally of Ronks. PA, now relocated to a new $26 Million Dollar headquarters located in West
Hempfield Township of Lancaster County. The Jay Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies
hosted by the AS 400 computer and server. I was consulting on the merits of migrating to a PC based
real time networking system throughout the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group employees
some 500 employees with revenues in excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 I was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as controller, and was responsible for saving the
company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time, due to several unpaid contracts, the company was
facing extreme pressure from lenders and the bonding insurance company. We were responsible for
implementing computerized accounting, accounting and contract policies and procedures, human
resource policies and procedures, marketing strategies, performance measurement reporting, and
negotiate for the payment of unpaid contracts. The bonding company was especially problematic, since
it was the lifeline to continue work and bidding for public contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County
demanded a complete accounting of the operations in order to stave off a default on the notes and loans
it was holding. We essentially revamped the entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an
increase in profits of 3 to 4 times its previous years, and record revenues.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 273 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-2 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 4

In 1991 I was elected to People to People International and the Citizen Ambassador Program, which
was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was founded to "To give
specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together and effectively
communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-face scientific, technical,
and professional exchanges throughout the world. In 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, the State
Department established a non-profit private foundation to administer the program. We were scheduled
to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to discuss printing and publishing technologies with
scientists and technicians around the world.

In 1990 I had worked on developing voice recognition systems for the government's technology think
tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). I co-authored the article "Escaping the Unix
Tar Pit" with a scientist from NIST that was published in the magazine "DISC", then one of the leading
publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most all call centers deploy that technology whenever you
call an 800 number, and voice recognition is prevalent in all types of applications involving
telecommunications.
In 1989 I had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was one of only 5 or 6 U.S. domestic
companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We did business with commercial
companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and foreign companies. I performed services
and contracts for the Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of Standards & Technology
(NIST), Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the
Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM, Microsoft, AMP, Commodore
Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers, and a host of others. I also was working with R.R,
Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing various interactive mapping technologies, which is now a
major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is the premier provider of mapping software and applications for
the internet and is often used in delivering maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had
arranged for High Industries to sell American Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly.
We had brokered a deal and the executives from Donnelly's Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to
discuss the deal and perform due diligence of the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield
Industrial Park.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as executive producer
of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be delivered in a digital format; the
first of it's kind. We had originated the marketing for the technology, and created the concept for the
Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which would follow the copyright and marketing formula
of the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording industry
featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of Philadelphia was the lead
patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station Studios was the brainchild of Tony
Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown when he was 15. Tony and Power Station
Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the country, and were responsible for developing Bon
Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper,
Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones, Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station
Studios had produced the original Sound Track for the original "Star Wars" motion picture. It was
released for distribution and was the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace technologies. * We had
developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with us in delivering the Digital
Movie and it's related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was to include the commercialization
of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the recording industry simultaneously with the
release of the Digital Movie.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 274 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-2 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 4

I also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo for the
technology, similar to the DOLBY sound system's trademark. The acronym's stand for the Power Station
Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a portable medium, a
compact disc.

In 1987 I had a created and developed FMG Mortgage Banking, a company that was funded by a major
banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to finance projects from $3 to $100 million dollars.
Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had quickly received solicitations from developers across
the country. We were also very attractive to companies that wanted to raise capital that include both
debt and equity. Through my company, FMG, we could raise equity funding through private placements,
and debt funding through FMG Mortgage Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood,
California to secure financing of their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North
Carolina. We had secured refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the
midst of replacing the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We had meetings and
discussions with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his debt portfolio. We were
quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to California. We also had a number of
other prominent local developers seeking our competitive funding, including Owen Kugal, High
Industries, and the Marty Sponaugle a partner of The Fisher Group (owner of the Rt. 30 Outlets). We
were constantly told that our financing packages were more competitive than local institutions.

In 1986 I had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd (FMG); a large financial services organization
comprised of a variety of professionals operating in one location. We had developed a stock purchase
program for where everyone had the opportunity for equity ownership in the new firm. FMG had
financial planners, investment managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability insurance services,
tax preparers, and estate planners operating out of our corporate headquarters in Lancaster. In one
year, we had 24 people on staff, had approximately 12 offices in Pennsylvania, and
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and our
advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees from the
other professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at about $3 to $4
million.

In 1985 I developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the first Free Agent Camp for the
Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution to the teams scouting departments.
(See Washington Post % page article of March 24, 1985) Current camps were dependant on the team
scouts to travel from state to state looking for recruits. We had developed a strategy of video taping the
camp and the distributing a copy, free of charge to the teams, to all of the scouting departments for
teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My brother was signed at that camp by the Ottawa
Roughriders of the CFL, and went on to be a leading receiver while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues
most prominent quarterbacks. My brother also played 2 years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino
was starting quarterback. We were a Certified Agent for the National Football League Players
Association. Gene Upshaw, the President of the NFLPA had given me some helpful hints for my camp,
while we were at a Conference for agents of the NFL. The Washington Post wrote a full-page article
about our camp and associated it with other camps that were questionable about their practices.
Actually, that was the very reason for our camp. We had attended many other camps around the
country that were not very well organized and attracted few if any scouts. We had about 60 participants,
with one player coming from as far away as Hawaii. We held the camp at Lancaster Catholic, with a
professional production company filming the entire camp, while I did the editing and produced the video.
The well respected and widely acclaimed professional football scout, Gil Brandt, of the Dallas Cowboys,
had given me support for my camp during some conversations We had with him and said he looked
forward to reviewing the tapes for any hopeful recruits.

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 275 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-2 Filed 07/19/16 Page 3 of 4

In 1985 I was elected Vice President of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the International
Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter by increasing membership 3to 4 times.
We had personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally syndicated Financial Planner, Ms.
Alexandria Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major fundraiser. More than 150 professionals
attended the dinner event that was held at the Eden Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong
discussed financial planning and how all of the professions needed to work together in order to be most
effective for their clients. We attracted a wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers,
accountants, realtors, tax specialists, estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has
become evident that financial planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us
from Blue Ball National Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 I had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy Weill, former President of Citi Group (the
largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of several associates asked to help advise on the future
of Financial Planning and how it would impact the brokerage and the investment industry at large. Mr.
Weil was performing due diligence for the merger of American Express and IDS (Investors Diversified
Services). We were at that time a national leader in the company in delivering Fee Based Financial
Planning Services, which was a new concept in the investment community and mainstream investors.
That concept is now widely held by most investment advisers.
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania

1250 Fremont Street


Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@I ive .com
717-669-2163
ACTIVE COURT CASES
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149;15-3400; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 15-03984; 14-02559; 05-2288; 06-4650
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157

CATERBONE v. United States of America, et.al

Page 276 of 276

WecSunday July 17, 2016

Case 2:16-mc-00049-EGS Document 15-2 Filed 07/19/16 Page 4 of 4