Documents For Recovery of 220 Stone Hill Road Property and Equity of $67,000 Plus Interest March - 0

220 Stone Hill Road Documented
Fair Market Values In Year 2006

Average From 4 Fair Market Values = $217,454.25
1.
220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

ZESTIMATE: $213,999
Value Range: $194,739 - $301,739
02/24/2006
1.

ZESTIMATE: $220,866
09/21/2006
2.
FULTON BANK FORM 1099-A

Fair Market Value of Property (Box 4): $250,000
Tax Year 2006
3.
REALTY TRANSFER TAX

STATEMENT OF VALUE
Box 6. Fair Market Value = 184,952.00
$ 217,454.25 Average Fair Market Value
$ 156,000.00 Sheriff Sale Price of Auction
$ 61,454.25 Fair Market Value Not Realized (Extortion)
$ 89,125.78 Mortgage Balance As of June 2005
$ 44,111,04 Total Attorney Fees and Costs
$ 20,000.00 Estimated Overcharge By Barley Snyder, LLC
$
3,000.00 Estimated Overcharge By Sheriffs Department
$ 84,454.25 Amount Owed By Fulton Bank And Lancaster

County Sheriffs Department
$ 17,306.80 Amount of Disbursement
$ 67,147.45 Balance Due
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 1 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 2 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 3 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 4 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 5 of 22
05.13.2007
Zillow.com - Data & Graphs - Real Estate Value, Local Real Estate Trends
http://www.zillow.com/Charts.z?chartDuration=1year&zpid=9692127

ZESTIMATE:
$213,999
Value Range: $194,739 - $301,739
Market Value Change Show: $ Dollar | % Percentage

Time frame: 1yr| 5yr| 10yr|
Compare:
This home
17516
Conestoga
Lancaster
PA
USA
Show sales
Zestimate Rankings
This home at $213,999 is valued higher than:
Zindex (Median Zestimate)
64% of homes in 17516 ZIP code
$186,718
63% of homes in Conestoga
$186,674
72% of homes in Lancaster County
$169,051
65% of homes in PA state
$186,373
40% of homes in United States
$261,421
1 of 2ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 6 of 22
2/24/2006
4:12 PM
05.13.2007
Zillow - 220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516
1 of 4
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?city=Conestoga&state=PA&z...
Welcome amgroup01! (Not amgroup01? Sign out.)

ZESTIMATE: $220,866
View large map

View maps side-by-side
Map comparable homes
Home Facts
Public Facts
Owner's Facts
Page 12 of 22
05.13.2007
9/21/2006 11:58 AM
Page 16 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 17 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 18 of 22
05.13.2007
RW-183 EX (344)
RECORDER'S USE ONLY
REALTY TRANSFER TAX

STATEMENT OF VALUE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BUREAU OF INDIVIDUAL TAXES
DEPT. 280603
HARRISBURG, PA 17128-0603
\ ,t~q.ga
ctm
i ,,
SS~ZIOY
Number
Page Number
See Reverse for Instructions
a\I \
Date Recorded
01
Complete each section and fite in duplicate with Recorder of Deeds when (1) the full valuelconsideration is not set forth in the deed, (2) when the
deed is without consideration, or by gift, or (3) a tax exemption is claimed. A Statement of Value is not required if the transfer is wholly exempt from
tax based on: (1) family relationship or (2) public utility easement. If more space is needed, attach additional sheet{s).
A. CORRESPONDENT - All inquiries may be directed to the following person:

Name
Telephone Number.
Shelby Shepro
street ~ddress
City
100 South 7th Street
8. TRANSFER DATA
717-859-3311 x 14
State
Akron
PA
Date of Acceptance of Document
17501
I ~ a r u l a ' ~ r o ~ e r tLLC.
ies,
anc caster County
1 Street Address
100 South 7th Street
Street Address
50 N. Duke Street
State
City
Lancaster
C. PROPERlY LOCATION
PA
Zip code---
State
City
Akron
17602
Street Address
PA
Zip Code
17501
City, Township, Borough
220 Stone Hi Road
Conestoga Township
County
School D i s M
Lancaster
D. VALUATlON DATA
Penn Manor
1. Actual Cash Consideration
2. Other Consideration
3. Total Consideration
5. Common Level Ratio Factor
6. Fair Market Value
Tax Parcel Number
120-32523-0-0000
+0
156,000
<. County Assessed Value
151,600.00
E. EXEMPTION DATA
= 156,000
x 1.22
l a . Amount of Exemption Claimed
Zip Code
1-5-07
I Grantee(s)/Lessee(s)
Grantor(sYLessor(s)
Sheriff of
= 184,952.00
1b. Percentage of Interest Conveyed
100
2% FMV~S3t699.04
--
2. Check Appropriate Box Below for Exemption Claimed
Will or intestate succession

(Name of Decedent)
(Estate File Number)
Transfer to Industrial Development Agency.

Transfer to a trust. (Attach complete copy of trust agreement identifying all beneficiaries.)
--
Transfer between principal and agent. (Attach complete copy of agencylstraw party agreement.)
Transfers to the Commonwealth, the United States and Instrumentalitiesby gift, dedication, condemnation or in lieu
of condemnation. (If condemnation or in lieu of condemnation, attach copy of resolution.)
Transfer from mortgagor to a holder of a mortgage in default. Mortgage Book Number
, Page Number
Corrective or confirmatory deed. (Attach complete copy of the prior deed being corrected or confirmed.)
Statutory corporate consolidation, merger or division. (Attach copy of articles.)
Other (Please explain exemption claimed, if other than listed above.)
--
--
Under penalties of law, I declare that Ihave examlned this Statement, Including accompanylng Information, and to the best
of my kn~wledgeand bellef, it i s true, correct end complete.
COMLETE
FOR^
FAILURE TO
THIS
PROPERLY OR AT~ACHAPPLICABLE DOCUMENTATION MAY RESULT IN
THE RECORDER'S REFUSAL TO RECORD THE DEED.
Page 19 of 22
05.13.2007
LISTENING.
FEDERAL ID NUMBER: 23 92 421

DIRECT INOUIRIBS TO: 880-!85-8664
P.0.Box 4887, hais&, PA 176044887
YOUR TAXPAYRR
I
2 8 ~ 4 NUMBER
6 - 0 9 5 9:
AMLEY J CATIZBBOEE
1
1
0 STONE HILL RD
CONESTOGA PA 17516-9543
TAX YEAR 2006
ILITY
PD COHESTOGA PA 1 7 k p
CIPAL OUTSTANDING (BOX 2):

250,000.00
Page 20 of 22
BRAN^
BOX 5 ) : YES
00001
8 ,368.53
05.13.2007
Page 21 of 22
05.13.2007
Page 22 of 22
05.13.2007
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
mailto:amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
TIMELINE OF EVENTS
October of 2006
??
October 14th, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone files a RICO complaint in the United States District Court
against Shawn Long, attorney for Fulton Bank, MDJ Leo Eckert, Commins,
Simms, Case No. 4650.
??
October 17th, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone attends a Bail Supervision (of the Lancaster County Sheriffs
Department) Intake meeting at the Bail Administrators Office in the Lancaster
County Courthouse
o Stan Caterbone serves the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department, the
Lancaster County District Attorneys Office, and the Lancaster County Public
Defenders Office Civil Actions.
o The Lancaster County Public Defenders Office literally took the Certificate of
Service signing sheet from Stan Caterbone and Stan Caterbone immediately
told Judge Joseph Madenspacher about the incident while he walked to the Bus
Terminal to go the Office of MDJ Commins. The document was never returned
even after several emails to the contrary by the Public Defender, Mr. Karl.
?? October 20th, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone files a Federal False Claims Act for Whistle-Blowing against
ISC in the United States District Court, Case No. *******

o The Pennsylvania Superior Court received a Brief for the Appeal Challenging
the Fulton Bank Judgment of June 29, 2006.

o The Pennsylvania Superior Court sends a letter to Stan Caterbone requesting
o
o
o
o
(7) more copies of the brief, which Stan Caterbone will not receive until
January 4th, 2007.
an amended complaint to Stan Caterbones Southern Regional Police
Department Civil Action was due in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County.
the Unsecured Bail Bond was revoked by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern
Regional Police Department
(2) Bench Warrants were issued for the Arrest of Stan Caterbone by Adam
Cramer and MDJ Leo Eckert, Jr.
Stan Caterbone filed the Amended Complaint and mailed it from the Bausman
Post Office Substation, and did not go to the Lancaster County Courthouse in
fear it would not get filed.
(2) PA Constable arrest Stan Caterbone and take him to MDJ Eckerts Office on
the (5) Bench warrants for summary citations
NOVMEBER OF 2006
??
November 1st, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone appears before Judge Paul K. Allison who reinstates his Bail
Bond as Secured, which required Stan Caterbone to post $5,000 to get out of
the Lancaster County Prison instead of just signing an Unsecured Bail Bond,
which should have happened.
??
November 6th, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone files his first Appeal for Reconsideration to the ORDER of Judge
Paul K. Allison to Reinstate the Bail Bond as Unsecured
??
November 20th, 2006:

o The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
records 28 U. S. C. 2241 Habeas Corpus Petition Case No. 06-5138
(Challenging the Detainer and Imprisonment) filed from the Lancaster County
Prison on November 14th, 2006. This case is still pending.
??

o Judge Paul K. Allison Denies Stan Caterbones Appeal to Reinstate Bail as
Unsecured
DECEMBER OF 2006
??
December 2nd, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone files an Appeal to Judge Paul K. Allison ORDER of November
30th, 2006.
??
December 4th, 2006:

o the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department is ORDERED to transport Stan
Caterbone to both residences, 1250 Fremont Street, and 220 Stone Hill Road
to obtain files and evidence for a Trial, as a Pro Se Litigant and representing
himself on the East Lampeter Township summary citations. There were no
Sheriff Sale Posting on 220 Stone Hill Road, and both residences look fine
?? December 5th, 2006:

o The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal publishes the Story The Next Sound You
??
Hear regarding former business partner Tony Bongiovi, which is central to

all of the litigation in the United States District Courts. The worlds of pro audio
and consumer electronics were bridged at New York City's Avatar Studios in
December, where Bongiovi Acoustics unveiled the Digital Power Station car
radio. Demonstrated by audio icon Tony Bongiovi (pictured) in Avatars Studio
A (former Power Station Studios), the patent-pending technology being
manufactured by JVC made a very impressive debut.
December 6th, 2007:
o Honda Financial repossess a Honda Odyssey stored at the St. Dennis Towing
Companys facility from August 31, 2006; the Honda was take because of the
illegal repossession of the drivers license and there were no funds available for
the tow that was just a few blocks away. The Honda was protected under the
pending Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition, and was conveniently taken while
incarcerated. The St. Dennis Towing Company was charging $25.00 per day.
?? December 8th, 2006:

o Stan Caterbone files a Writ of Mandamus against Magisterial District Justice
Leo H. Eckert, Jr, and Mary Commins for the fraudulent activities leading to
the false imprisonment of October 30th, 2006, and Bench Warrants.
?? December 12th,:
o Stan Caterbone files for Continuances in all of the following Civil Complaints in
the
Commonwealth
Court
of
Common
Pleas
of
Lancaster
County,
Pennsylvania: CI-06-07330; CI-06-08742; CI-06-08490; CI-06-07376; CI-0607188; CI-06-06658; CI-06-04939; CI-06-03403; CI-06-03401; CI-06-03349.
??
December 13th, 2006:

o the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department and Chief John Fiorill tried to get
Stan Caterbone to change his address to the Lancaster County Prison and
Judge Perezous refused to get ORDER Stan Caterbone to comply with the
demand and Judge Perezous CONTINUED the Appeal Hearing because Stan
Caterbone did not have any files to conduct a Trial
??

o the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department refused Stan Caterbone to wear his
suit into the courtroom, or take his files into the Pre-Trial Conference before
Judge Farina
o On December 20th the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department and Fulton Bank
conduct a Sheriff Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road with NO notification before or
after the SALE to Stan Caterbone and sold the property to Central Penn
Settlement Company of Akron, Pennsylvania.
??

o Judge Paul K. Allison overturned his previous ORDER and Granted Stan
Caterbone his Appeal ORDER and signed the Unsecured Bail ORDER and the
RELEASE from Lancaster County Prison.
??

o Stan Caterbone is RELEASED from Lancaster County Prison, and walks to the
Lancaster County Courthouse to report to Court Administration and the
Prothonotary Office to get a print out of all of the Civil Dockets for all cases in
Civil Court, including the Fulton Bank Foreclosure and finds out for the first
time that the Sheriff Sale on December 20th took place.
JANUARY OF 2007
??
January 2, 2007:
o Stan Caterbone files and records (4:09pm) a Petition To Set Aside Sale for 220
Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County
Sheriffs Department.
?? January 4th, 2007:

o
Stan Caterbone visits 220 Stone Hill Road and finds 2 unidentified individuals
on his property loading the entire contents of 220 Stone Hill Road onto 2
moving trucks, to an unidentified location, and is ordered off the Property for
Trespassing.
The 2 individuals said they were from Noble Real Estate
Company. Mr. Joseph Caterbone accompanied him as a witness and driver.
Stan Caterbone retrieves his mail from the Conestoga Post Office from dating
back to October 25th, 2006 up to the present and temporarily forwards mail to
1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA.
Stan Caterbone visits the Lancaster County Sheriff Lt. Lancaster about the
incident at 220 Stone Hill Road and is told that Southern Regional Police have
already responded, and would not give any information about the incident.
Stan Caterbone files and records an Addendum to the Petition To Set Aside
Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the
Lancaster County Sheriffs Department regarding the theft of all of his personal
possessions, including business files of Advanced Media Group, and all Legal
files and evidentiary assets for all pending litigation.
Judge Cullen rules for a Continuance in Criminal Case No. ***********
?? January 7th , 2007:

o Stan Caterbone files a claim with Harleysville Insurance Homeowners Policy
HOAI 93468 for the theft of his personal possessions and the property at Stone
Hill Road.
Stan Caterbone files for a Change of Venue for the Hearing scheduled for
January 18th, 2007 in Intercourse before Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus.
Stan Caterbone does not have all of his evidentiary files and no transportation
because of the illegal revocation of his Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Bus
Pass.
o Stan Caterbone files an Emergency Petition for Food Stamps and other in the
o
o
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster after his Food Stamps and
Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Pass was illegally terminated, thus leaving
him without food and transportation for all court preceding.
Stan Caterbone files for a Continuance for Summary charges by District Justice
Leo H. Eckert Jr., a Defendant in U.S. District Civil Action 06-4650, scheduled
for January 18th, 2007.*******
Stan Caterbone files and sends his Brief to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
for the challenge to the Stone Hill Road Foreclosure.

o Stan Caterbone files for Continuance in all of his pending Civil Actions before
the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 052288; 06-4650; 06-5138; 06-4734; 06-CV-4154; 06-5117; 06-2236; 0523059BKY
Stan Caterbone files for a Change of Venue and Continuanc for Summary
Citations (TR-0008735-2006; TR-0008578-2006; TR-0008721-2006; TR0008503-2006; TR-0007528-2006) Scheduled for a Hearing on January 23,
2007 before District Magistrate Richard H. Simms, a Defendant in U.S. District
Civil Action 06-4650.
?? January 8th, 2007:*************

o Stan Caterbone files an Emergency Petition for Food Stamps and other in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster after his Food Stamps and
Red Rose Transit Authority Monthly Pass was illegally terminated, thus leaving
him without food and transportation for all court proceedings.
Stan Caterbone files and sends his Brief to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
for the challenge to the Stone Hill Road Foreclosure.

o
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from the Lancaster County Sheritts Office
that states: On December 20,2007 your property located at 220 Stone Hill
Rd. was sold at Sheriff Sale to a third party buyer, Central Penn Property
Services, Inc. for $156,000.00. Attached, you will find a Schedule of
Distribution, which we are required to do. On this schedule you will see that
there is a balance of proceeds to be paid to you, Stanley J. Caterbone. You,
the defendant, will receive this balance of $17,306.80, however, you have
served Sheriff Bergman with a petition to set aside the sale (PARCP 3132).
Please note that we, the Sheriffs Office, do not have a dated and signed copy
by the court of your petition. At the advice of our solicitor, the distribution of
any payouts regarding this property will not be made until the matter is
resolved.
Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department embezzles over
$50,000 in Fees and Costs associated with the Sale Proceeds. The Mortgage
in Defualt was only in the amount of $97,000.00, plus all of the belongings.
Stan Caterbone receives a letter from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
notifying him that AND NOW, this fourth day of January, 2007 the appeal in
this matter is DISMISSED for failure to file a brief.
Stan Caterbone receives DENIAL ORDERS from his attempts to Change Venue
and Continue the Hearings for January 18th, 2007, signed by Judge Dennis
Reinaker of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania.
SUPPORTIVE CASE LAW:

Conspiracy To Obstruct Justice
PRO SE & IN FORMA PAUPERIS
?? Commonwealth v. Haggentstaller, 699 A. 2d 767 (Pa Superior, 1997), Pro Se Appellant
sought review of Conviction for violation of County for violation of County ordinance with
Rule of Appellant Procedure, court conducted a thorough, independent review of the
record, and found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
??
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief
failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not
substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore
considered the merits of the case.
??
Pa. R. App. P. Rule 552, 561 Indigent 16.2 In Forma Pauperis, Griffen v. Illinois, 351
U.S. 12, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956) states Indigent has right to free Trial
Transcript for Appeal of Right.
DUE PROCESS
??
In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process,
as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore,
the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded
the following:
Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being
deprived of his due process rights.

??
The first issue to address is that of the Plaintiffs right to due process, as prescribed by
law. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due
process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means.
Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644)
have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant
being deprived of his due process rights.
CIVIL RIGHTS
?? 1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose
of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional
violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional
violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring
violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state
infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference,
18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42
U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
??
In Ascolese v. Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351, the case supports the
notion that One of the principal purposes of 1983 was to give remedy to parties
deprived of Constitutional Rights, privileges, and immunities by Officials abuse of his or
her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate
Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983.
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
?? In the case of United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines
single or multiple conspiracies by the following:
Governments, without committing
variance between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may
establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at
different times and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of
an overall plan. This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to cover-up my
International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.
??
Under Pennsylvania Law, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by

acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful combination
has been in front of facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North Wales
Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following was supported: Arrestees
allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its police officers were acting in concert
and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees constitutional rights by
subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the
two (2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006
and August 4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in
custody. The preceding pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.
??
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law,
a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to
do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of
malice with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of
United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or
multiple conspiracies by the following: Governments, without committing variance
between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish
existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times
and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan.
??
1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose
of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional
violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional
violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring
violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state
infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference,
18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42
U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
ANIT-TRUST
?? The Following violations constitute a legitimate Anti-Trust violation under Title 15 of the
Federal Statutes. In private Anti-Trust actions, Plaintiff, in addition to proving violations
and an injury, must also show that a violation and an injury must also prove that the
violation was direct and material to the cause of injury suffered; however, the Plaintiffs
burden in causations issues is not as heavy as the Plaintiff only needs to show a casual
relation with reasonable probability to a fair degree of certainty (Anderson Foreign Motors,
Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributors, Inc., D.C. Mass 1979, 475. Supp.).
SHERIFF SALES
??
Rule 3132 Setting Aside the Sale states: Upon petition of any party in interest before
delivery of the personal property or of the sheriffs deed to real property, the court may,
upon proper cause shown, set aside the sale and order a resale or enter any other order
which may be just and proper under the circumstances.
Zillow - 220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516
http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?zprop=9692127
Charts & Data

ZESTIMATE: $225,961 What's this?
Value Range: $196,586 - $271,153
30-day change: -$3,117
Last updated: 08/08/2007
Recent sale and tax

Sold 03/12/2007:
$195,000*
2007 Property Tax:
$2,822
See all charts & data
Home Q&A
Have a question?
With Home Q&A, you can ask a question or share information.
See all Q&A
Ask a question
Nationwide Appraisal Co
24-48 Hour Turnaround in USA Fast and Easy Online Ordering

www.eliteappraisalmanagement.com
About us
Blog
Jobs
Labs
API Network
Link to us
Press
Legal
Feedback
Help
About Zestimate values & accuracy
Local Real Estate
Quarterly Reports
Advertisers
RE Pros
Lenders New!
2006-2007 Zillow.com, All Rights Reserved
2 of 2
8/18/2007 12:42 PM
2/7/2007
STONE HILL ROAD COSTS
CONTRACT PRICE
S. Yinger
1/23/1995
Cath Cieling
2 Skylights
Superior Walls
2/21/1995
Kitchen Credit
Flooring Credit
Deck Credit
2/17/1995
20 Outlets
2 Phone & Cable
Laundry Tub
Frost Free Faucet
Well Overage
Move Bath Wall
TOTALS
($1,700.00)
($1,500.00)
($900.00)
$420.00
$20.00
$125.00
$40.00
$275.00
$100.00
($1,070.00)
2/28/1995
3/4/1995
2/25/1995
2/20/1995
3/8/1995
3/11/1995
3/14/1995
3/17/1995
Siding Labor
Deck Labor
Deck Labor & nails
Siding Labor
Nails/Labor
Siding Labor
Deck Railing/Kitchen
Kitchen
Heckingers
2/3/1995
2/15/1995
3/18/1995
3/2/1995
3/14/1995
2/7/1995
Poly
Med Cabinet
Paint/Lat s/g doors
Flat Latex Walls
2/10/1995
2/14/1995
2/14/1995
2/10/1995
2/24/1995
2/25/1995
3/3/1995
3/18/1995
Bolts
128lf 1X6 Cedar/Tyve
120 lf 1X4
120 lf 1X6
4X6X12 Post
(3) 2X10X8 1-12
40 lf Window Sill,Bolt
5 Sheet Luan
TOTALS
J. H. BRUBAKER
COUNTY LINE QUARRY
$56,159.00
$695.00
$119.00
$450.00
$200.00
$260.00
$400.00
$318.75
$400.00
$695.00
$119.00
$450.00
$200.00
$260.00
$400.00
$318.75
$400.00
$72.08
$94.34
$51.84
$135.68
$23.29
$1,200.00 2 Tanks
Septic Tanks
$6.57
$348.16
$98.90
$159.00
$22.00
$61.15
$146.49
$55.00
$897.27
Walls
Garage/Gables
Trim Out
Facia
$72.08
$94.34
$51.84
$135.68
$23.29
$1,200.00
$897.27
60 Tons 2B Stone
78Tons 3A Modified
21 Tons 2B
21 Tons 2B
65 Tons 3A
TOTALS
$562.35
$631.25
$183.56
$185.48
$499.69
$2,062.33
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
Stone
2/3/1995
2/3/1995
2/18/1995
2/20/1995
2/14/1995
2/25/1995
3/1/1995
3/6/1995
3/6/1995
3/6/1995
$1,946.11
$15.90
$184.12
$640.07
$78.95
$615.01
$578.12
$279.97
$79.27
$15.65
$4,433.17
$108.39
Siding
Trim
Trim Out
Deck
Soffit
Deck
Deck & Deck Rail
Siding & Trim
Siding
Utilities
3/3/1995
2700 lf 1X8 Cedar Sid

Del Fee
340 lf 1X4 Cedar
468 lf 2X10X12 Deck
120 lf 1X12
(80) 1X6X12 Decking
168 Picket/22 Deck
450 lfSide & 124lf Tri
110 lf Siding
40lf PVC Conduit
TOTALS
1 Box Stainless Nails
3/2/1995
3/15/1995
3/3/1995
3/17/1995
Appliances
Garbage/Gar Ope/Va
10 Gal Primer
150 Ft Wire
Tile Showplace
Color Time
Fariview Ave Rent
2/16/1995
3/15/1995
3/21/1995
3/24/1995
3/23/1995
80 syds & Pad

30 syds
Quarry, morter, wboa
Grout Cleaner
Tile Cutter
$1,099.00
$405.05
$286.19
$19.68
$50.57
$1,099.00
$405.05
$286.19
$19.68
$50.57
KITCHEN
Steve Miller
Phesant Hall
TRIPAC
Builders Square
84 Lumber
3/24/1995
3/24/1995
2/14/1995
3/12/1995
3/21/1995
Formica
Formica Adhesive
Kitchen Cabinets
Particle Board Count
Glue
$204.33
$47.11
$2,457.60
$98.94
$6.98
$204.33
$47.11
$2,457.60
$98.94
$6.98
B&C Fastners
J.H. Brubaker
Sears
Sherwin Williams
AA Electric
Flooring
S & S Mills
$562.35
$631.25
$183.56
$185.48
$499.69
$183.56
$185.48
$499.69
$1,946.11
$15.90
$184.12
$640.07
$78.95
$615.01
$578.12
$279.97
$79.27
$15.65
$900.00
$1,132.65
$3,577.44
Siding
$219.00
$337.00
$167.99 Paint
$39.75
TOTAL-OUT-OF-CONTRACT
PURCHASE ORDERS
$1,200.00
$6.57
$348.16
$98.90
$159.00
$22.00
61.15
146.49
55
1/31/1995
1/30/1995
2/3/1995
2/9/1995
2/16/1995
CARTER LUMBER
AMOUNT
$800.00
$600.00
$650.00
Billy Sprecher
Gerald Shuman
Gerald Shuman
Brian Langsett
Brian Langsett
Billy Sprecher
Billy Sprecher
Brian Langsett
MONARCH
DATE
PAID
$57,229.00
$108.39 Pd Brian
$219.00
$337.00
$167.99
$219.00
$1,099.00
$2,457.00
$17,320.58
TOTAL NOT PAID
$6,542.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Page 1
$73,479.58
717.427-1621 Fax
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiffs
:
:
:
v.
:
:
Mr. Donald Totaro,
:
Lancaster County District Attorney
:
Mr. Thomas Corbett,
:
CASE NO. 07-00366
Attorney General of Pennsylvania
:
CIVIL DIVISION
The Lancaster County Commissioners
:
The Lancaster County Assistance Office
:
The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
:
Fulton Bank
:
Sheriffs Office of Lancaster County Pennsylvania
:
The Honorable Judge Dennis Reinaker
:
The Honorable Judge Cullen
:
The Honorable President Judge Louis Farina
:
Magisterial District Justice Leo H. Eckert, Jr.
:
Magisterial District Justice Mary Commins
:
Officer Adam Cramer,
:
of the Southern Regional Police Department
:
Gail Parenteau, of Bongiovi Acoustics
:
Mr. Edward Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
:
Defendants
:
:
__________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 72
09/05/2007
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
AND NOW on this 16th, day of 2007, I, Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff, AND Pro Se Litigant1, do
hereby file before the Court an Emergency Injunction for relief against the Defendants that have conspired to
Obstruct Justice, Deny the Plaintiff of Due Process2, deny his Right to Access the Courts, deny his Right to pursue
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Civil Action Case Nos. 05-2288 and 06-4734;
deny his Right to pursue Civil Complaints in the Commonwealth Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania Case No.s: CI-06-07330; CI-06-08742; CI-06-08490; CI-06-07376; CI-06-07188; CI-06-06658;
CI-06-04939; CI-06-03403; CI-06-03401; CI-06-03349, AND Superior Court Cases 1461 MDA 2006; 1462 MDA
2006; and 1463 MDA 2006.
The Defendants have conspired to falsely imprison the Plaintiff in order to execute many of these
violations.
The Defendants have committed fraud, embezzlement, and theft of the Plaintiffs Real Property,
Personal Possessions, Business Assets of Advanced Media Group, 1991 Doge Truck, and Distribution Funds in the
Foreclosure and Sheriff Sale of 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania.
The Defendants have also conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of Food Stamps and a Monthly Pass for Red
Rose Transit Authority, thus leaving the Plaintiff without food and transportation. The Plaintiff is at extreme risk of
attending Hearings and Court Mandated Meetings, which may result in violations of the Plaintiffs Conditions of the
Bail Supervision Agreements, thus providing a means to re-incarcerate the Plaintiff in the Lancaster County Prison.
The Civil Conspiracy by and of itself has been a vast campaign to defame, libel, and slander the Plaintiff
and the Advanced Media Group. Prosecutorial Misconduct and False Statement to Authorities are abundant.
The Plaintiff has and continues to experience irreparable harm in the Continuation of Criminal Preceedings;
while key evidentiary materials were stolen and are missing, and Motions for Continuances are DENIED.
The
Plaintiff is malnourished, indigent, and unable to pay for postage to communicate with the Courts. the Sheriffs
Office abused its Power and Discretion in withholding Distribution Funds without any Court Mandates or Orders.
The Plaintiff seeks all available financial remedy, and redress in accordance with state and federal statutes
as prescribed by law, and requests the Court to Continue ALL Criminal Hearings and Trials until further notice.
Date: January 16, 2007
/sjc/________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-427-1821 facsimiles
amgroup01@msn.com
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with
Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to
review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.
In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially
fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry
v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a
defendant being deprived of his due process rights.
The first issue to address is that of the Plaintiffs right to due process, as prescribed by law. In Pederson v. South
Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is
exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F
2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being
deprived of his due process rights.
Page 2 of 16
Page 2 of 72
09/05/2007
__________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
JULY OF 2006
July 23rd, 2006:

o PLAINTIFF speaks with Governor Ed Rendell at a Campaign Speech at Binns Park, in
Downtown Lancaster, and requests his assistance in his Civil Rights Obstruction of
Justice Complaint filed a few weeks earlier in the Office of Attorney General.
OCTOBER OF 2006
October 14th, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF files a RICO complaint in the United States District Court against Shawn Long, attorney
for Fulton Bank, MDJ Leo Eckert, Commins, Simms, Case No. 4650.
October 17th, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF attends a Bail Supervision (of the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department) Intake
meeting at the Bail Administrators Office in the Lancaster County Courthouse
PLAINTIFF serves the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department, the Lancaster County District
Attorneys Office, and the Lancaster County Public Defenders Office Civil Actions.
The Lancaster County Public Defenders Office literally took the Certificate of Service signing sheet
from PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF immediately told Judge Joseph Madenspacher about the incident
while he walked to the Bus Terminal to go the Office of MDJ Commins. The document was never
returned even after several emails to the contrary by the Public Defender, Mr. Karl.
October 20th, 2006:
PLAINTIFF files a Federal False Claims Act for Whistle-Blowing against ISC in the United States
District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 06-4734.
October 26th, 2006:

The Pennsylvania Superior Court received a Brief for the Appeal Challenging the Fulton Bank
Judgment of June 29, 2006.
October 30th, 2006:
The Pennsylvania Superior Court sends a letter to PLAINTIFF requesting (7) more copies of the
brief, which PLAINTIFF will not receive until January 4th, 2007.
An amended complaint to PLAINTIFFs Southern Regional Police Department Civil Action, Case No.
06-3401, is due in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County on exactly this date.
Page 3 of 16
Page 3 of 72
09/05/2007
An Unsecured Bail Bond was revoked by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police
Department and (2) Bench Warrants were issued for the Arrest of PLAINTIFF by Adam Cramer of
the Southern Regional Police Department and MDJ Leo Eckert, Jr..
PLAINTIFF filed the Amended Complaint and mailed it from the Bausman Post Office Substation,
and did not go to the Lancaster County Courthouse in fear it would not get filed.
At 2:20pm (2) PA Constable arrest and apprehend the PLAINTIFF at 1250 Fremont Street,
Lancaster, PA, and take him to Magisterial District Justice Eckerts Office on the (5) Bench
warrants for summary citations and then COMMITT The PLAINTIFF to the Lancaster County Prison,
stating that an Indigent Hearing will be held within 10 days, and challenges the PLAINTIFFS
Indigent status and his Superior Court Cases. Magisterial District Justice Eckert complains to the
PLAINTIFF about being named a Defendant in Federal Case No. 06-4650, and remarks that the
PLAINTIFF may have to be taken to Dauphin County Prison for suing all of the District Justices in
Lancaster County. He also said You are not even close to getting to the Superior Court.
NOVMEBER OF 2006
November 1st, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF appears before Judge Paul K. Allison who reinstates his Bail Bond as Secured, which
required PLAINTIFF to post $5,000 to get out of the Lancaster County Prison instead of just
signing an Unsecured Bail Bond, which should have happened, and is not released from the
Lancaster County Prison, as expected.
November 6th, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF files his first Appeal for Reconsideration to the ORDER of Judge Paul K. Allison to
Reinstate the Bail Bond as Unsecured, and Release him from Lancaster County Prison.
November 8th, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF is transported to Magisterial District Justice Leo H. Eckert, Jr., and signs a document
that was missed on October 30th, 2006, and is not given an Indigent Hearing as promised.

o
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania records 28 U. S. C. 2241
Habeas Corpus Petition Case No. 06-5138 (Challenging the Detainer and Imprisonment) filed from
the Lancaster County Prison on November 14th, 2006. This case is still pending.

o
Judge Paul K. Allison Denies PLAINTIFFs Appeal to Reinstate Bail as Unsecured

DECEMBER OF 2006
December 2nd, 2006:

o
PLAINTIFF files an Appeal to Judge Paul K. Allison ORDER of November 30th, 2006.
Page 4 of 16
Page 4 of 72
09/05/2007
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY .I.CATERBONE
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP,
Plaintiffs,
V.
MR. DONALD TOTARO,
LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24'
day of Januarv ,2007, pursuant to the authority granted
under Rule 240Q) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and upon determining that the
action for which in forma pauperis status is sought to enable its filing without the payment of
costs is frivolous, the pro se plaintiffs petition is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL K. ALLISON
JUDGE
Attest:
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDEROR DECREE

PURSUANTTO PA R.C.F! NO. 236
NOTIFICATION -THE TsTTACHED DOCUMENT
HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE
PROTHONOTARV OF ANCASTEPCO., PA
DATF l - d ~ i 7
Page 5 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 6 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 7 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 8 of 72
09/05/2007
717.427-1621 Fax
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________________________________________
:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
CIVIL DIVISION
v.
:
CASE NO. CI-07-00366
:
MR. DONALD TOTARO,
:
LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al. :
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT
TH
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff, on this 24
day of May 2007, do hereby
APPEAL to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania the above referenced Case the ORDER
of February 21, 2007, for the Motion For Reconsideration by the Honorable Judge
Paul K. Allison, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
This Appeal to the Superior Court according to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4).
Date: May 24, 2007
_____________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-427-1821 facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 9 of 72
09/05/2007
____________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been
served this 24th day of May, 2007, by first class mail, Postage prepaid, or by electronic mail
upon, or by hand deliver to:
The Honorable Judge Louis J. Farina
Lancaster County Courthouse
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Christine E. Munion
Francis R. Gartner & Associates
100 West Elm Street, Suite 200
Conshohocken, PA 19428
cmunion@travelers.com
Attorneys For:
Magisterial District Judge Leo Eckert, Jr.

841 Stehman Road
Millersville, PA 17551
Mr. Donald Totaro

The Sheriffs Department of Lancaster County
Magisterial District Judge M. Cornmins

15 Giest Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Diana C. Clark .
Assistant Counsel
Attorney I.D. No. 465 14
Department of Public Welfare
Office of General Counsel
Third Floor West
Health & Welfare Building
Harrisburg, PA 17 120
(717) 783-2800
Attorney For Pennsylvania Department of Welfare
Cheryl Kovally, Esquire

LAVERY FAHERTY YOUNG &
PATTERSON
225 Market Street, Suite 304
P.O. Box 1245
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245
Attorneys For:
Officer Adam Cramer
Southern Regional Police Department:

Parenteau Guidance
132 East 35th Street, Suite 3J
New York, NY 10016;
Thomas Corbett
The Pennsylvania Attorney General
14'~Floor, Strawberry Lane
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Stephanie Carfley
Barley Snyder, LLC
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Attorneys For Fulton Bank
Parula Properties, LLC

100 South Seventh Street
Akron, PA 17501
Lancaster, PA 17602
The Honorable Judge James P. Cullen

Lancaster, PA 17602
Date: May 24, 2007
_____________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 10 of 72
09/05/2007
EXHIBIT A
Page 11 of 72
09/05/2007
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ADVANCED ?S,EDIA GROUP,
Plaintiffs,
NO. CI-07-00366
V.
MR. DON.4LD TOTARO:

LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :
<?
-.
~-
.-
&
<
-. .
et al.,
~-
~L
Defendants.
, . ~
<
-.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21"
day of Februarv ,2007, the Motion for Reconsideration of
order dated January 24,2007 is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
JUDGE
Attest:
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER OR DECREE

PURSUANTTO PA. R.C.P.NO. 236
NOTIFICATION-THEATTACHED DOCUMWT
HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE
i!
,PROTHONOTARY OF LANCASTER CG., )
DATE: d - I l c ' 7
~~-
Page 12 of 72
09/05/2007
Copies to:
1250 Fremont St., Lancaster, PA 17603
Donald Totaro, District Attorney
Thomas Corbett, Attorney General
Lancaster County Commissioners
Lancaster County Assistance Office
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
Fulton Bank
Sheriffs Office of Lancaster County
Magisterial District Judge Leo H. Eckert, Jr.
Magisterial District Judge Commins
Officer Adam Cramer
Southern Regional Police Dept.
C/OCheryl Kovaly, Esquire
Edward Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
Page 13 of 72
09/05/2007
Office of Prothonotary of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

NOTICE OF ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT, ORDER OR DECREE
Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff
Case Number Cl-07-00366
Mr. Donald Totaro, Lancaster County

District Attorney, et al, Defendants
Pursuant to requirements of Pennsylvania Civil Procedural Rule #236, you are notified that
there was entered in this office today, in the above-captioned case
@order or Decree denying the In Forma Paupris (IFP) petition of January 24, 2007
The petitioner is required to pay the filing fee of 112.00 for commencing the action or taking
the appeal. The Party required to pay the fee may not without leave of court take any further
steps in the action or appeal so long as the fees remain unpaid. Not sooner than 10 days
after the notice of denial of the petition pursuant to rule 236, the prothonotary shall enter a
judgment of non pros in the action or strike the appeal i f the fee remains unpaid. The action
or appeal shall be reinstated only by the court for good cause shown.
Date:February 27,2007
PROTHONOTARY
Mailed: February 27, 2007

To:Stanley Caterbone
1250 Fremont St.
Lancaster, Pa 17603
Page 14 of 72
09/05/2007
EXHIBIT B
Page 15 of 72
09/05/2007
amgroup01@msn.com
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
March 1, 2007
Paul K. Allison
Judge, Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re:
CI-07-00366; Motion for Reconsideration of order dated January 24,2007 is DENIED.
Dear Mr. Allison;

Enough is enough. What do you think you are doing with my civil litigation? On February 27th, 2006
you denied my Appeal for Reconsideration to proceed In Forma Pauperis for the civil action CI-07-00366, and
demanded that I pay $112.00 in Court Filing Fees or the case will be dismissed. Why is it that you are above
the law and I am beneath it?
You are the most inexpensive Attorney the Defendants of CI-07-00366 could buy.
On January 24th, 2007 you denied my In Forma Pauperis Application because upon determining that
the action for which in forma pauperis status is sought to enable its filing without the payment of costs is
frivolous, the pro se plaintiffs petition is DENIED.
Dauphin County recently GRANTED my In Forma Pauperis Application on February 21, 2007. I have
been granted In Forma Pauperis status in the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. I have been granted In Forma Pauperis status in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. I
have been granted In Forma Pauperis status in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas at least twenty
times in the past year. I also meet the criteria for In Forma Pauperis status in the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania for my case against Fulton Bank (MT 71 2007); my legal challenge to the judgment that was
executed in August regarding the Foreclosure and Sheriff Sale of December 20, 2006. This was my residence
and property at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, where all my possessions were stolen.
On February 28th, I filed the following Plaintiffs Answers To Defendants Fulton Banks Preliminary
Objections To Plaintiffs' Complaint for civil action CI-07-00366, which despite your Opinion, is legally entitled to In
Forma Pauperis status. The pleading includes the following:
Fulton Bank: Although not entirely clear, Plaintiffs appear to be alleging in the Complaint that
the
Defendants, including Fulton Bank, conspired to deprive Plaintiff, Stanley Caterbone of his due
process and civil rights and possibly to violate the antitrust laws.
My Answer:
1. PLAINTIFF Stanley J. Caterbone was illegally imprisoned on October 30, 2007 until
December 29, 2007, and the decision by the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison on December
28, 2007 to release Defendant Stanley J. Caterbone proved that Judge Paul K. Allisons
decision on November 1, 2006 to reinstate the unsecured bail bond as secured was at least
erroneous and with possible malice and misconduct.
2.
Defendants knowingly conducted a Sherriff Sale on December 20, 2007, while PLAINTIFF
Stanley J. Caterbone had successfully filed an Appeal (MDA 1463 2006) the Judgment and
Foreclosure to the Pennsylvania Superior Court with no decision or opinion yet rendered.
The Defendant was still in the midst of the Superior Court Appeal. DEFENDANT Fulton
Banks attorney Shawn M. Long was copied on all Superior Court correspondence. That is a
violation of due process and access to the Court.
Page 16 of 72
09/05/2007
3.
The matter is being litigated, now in both the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and also the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in case number MT 71-2007. The Sheriff sale of December
20, 2006, was a direct cause of the PLAINTIFFs loosing all possessions accumulated
throughout his lifetime, automobile, evidentiary materials and files (dating back to 1983)
to all present and past litigation, including those civil complaints against Fulton Bank in the
United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, due to at least theft by
deception. That litigation in Federal Court includes violations of anti-trust laws.
4. The fact that the PLAINTIFFs no longer contains all Court related materials are a violation of
due process, access to the Courts, and obstruction of justice.
5.
The PLAINTIFFs have reported the theft of the possessions and evidence to law
enforcement (PA State Police, Lancaster County District Attorney, Southern Regional Police,
Lancaster County Detectives, Lancaster County Sheriff Department) and have an open claim
with Harleysville Insurance Company relating to the same, number M0-702274.
6.
Fulton Banks Attorneys maliciously filed a No Trespass Notice against the DEFENDANT,
Stanley J. Caterbone, on September 7, 2006, without any cause, in an effort to slander,
libel, harass; and violate his access to the Court, by impeding his ability to hand deliver
Service upon Fulton Bank.
Fulton Bank: Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Fulton Bank upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, Fulton Bank files the following Preliminary Objections:
My Answer:
In addition to the Answer to Number 5, There are several claims against Fulton Bank upon
which relief can be granted. The PLAINTIFFs lost the right to proceed with the Appeal process
to the judgment and the foreclosure, and the Fair Market Value, as detailed in 2006 Form 1099A, was listed at $250,000. The loss in equity of an additional $94, 000, (Fair Market Value less
Gross Sale Proceeds of $156,000) was extortion due to the illegality of the Sheriff Sale and the
Illegal detention. In addition, the DEFENDANT Fulton Bank charged legal fees and costs for the
Foreclosure in excess of $25, 000, which is out of the ordinary and excessive.
As stated, loosing all possessions accumulated throughout his lifetime through illicit means is
frivolous? Extortion of funds is frivolous? A Sheriff Sale that is under Appeal in the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania and is not stayed until an opinion is rendered is frivolous? You are incompetent, at least, and
criminal at most, if I may be so blunt.
I have no money to pay the $112.00 of Court fees. I eat at food kitchen at the Episcopal Church next
to the Lancaster County Library in the mornings. I am waiting for my appeal hearings for my Food Stamps and
Bus Pass, which were suspiciously terminated before I got illegally locked up at the Lancaster County Prison, in
October. I have very little food to eat. I owe $50.00 to Magisterial District Judge Ballentine tomorrow, and do
not know how I am going to pay her. I have applied at McDonalds for a job at least five times, and countless
other local companies.
bread.
I was lucky and made $40 shoveling snow, enough to pay for my Superior Court postage, and some
Is this all retaliation for the Affidavit that I filed in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case, which I took
exception at the prosecutorial misconduct?
Or, is this in retaliation for my whistle-blowing activities in 1987, against International Signal & Control?
Or, could it be because of my support of the Lancaster County Convention Center?
Yesterday, in the elevator of the Lancaster County Courthouse, Magisterial District Justice Bruce Roth
(whom I never met) asked who I was and said Oh youll probably sue me, you sue everyone. I emphatically
stated that I have never sued anyone without just cause, and he yelled at me right in front of a Lancaster
County Sheriff. This was totally uncalled for, and was libelous. Is this the strategy in Lancaster County to
discredit my litigation by pretending that my civil actions are frivolous?
Let me start from the beginning of my problems with you people in the Lancaster County Courthouse.
The following is from an email to Mr. Bergman, Lancaster County Sheriff on May 6, 2005 after I filed a lawsuit
Page 17 of 72
09/05/2007
against Drew Anthon of the Eden Resort Inn for announcing his intention to withhold the county hotel room tax
for the development of the Lancaster County Convention Center.
May 6, 2005 - After arriving at your office, she said she could not accept my check from my non-profit
foundation, Project Hope, which was the same account which the original check was from. After a heated
discussion, and verbal abuse from your sheriffs, I paid $150 cash, upon which I was immediately literally
picked up by 2 of your sheriffs and thrown out of the courthouse and onto the streets and told to
"Get out of here".
Please study and review the enclosed attached documents.
County Courthouse will not get away with this criminal conspiracy.
You and your cronies at the Lancaster
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc:
Enclosures
Copies to (when funds available or by email):
Thomas Corbett, Attorney General
Lancaster County Assistance Office
Fulton Bank
Officer Adam Cramer
Southern Regional Police Department
C/O Cheryl Kovaly, Esquire
Page 18 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 19 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 20 of 72
09/05/2007
Copies to:
'&ey
J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont St., Lancaster, PA 17603
Thomas Corbett, Attorney General,
Carcaster County Assistance Office
Fulton Bank
Officer Adam Cramer
Southern Regional Police Dept.
C/OCheryl Kovaly, Esquire
Page 21 of 72
09/05/2007
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
CIVIL DIVISION
v.
:
C.P. Lancaster County
:
No. CI-07-00366
:
MR. DONALD TOTARO,
:
No. 951 MDA 2007
LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al. :
No. 950 MDA 2007
Defendants.
APPELLANTS SHOW CAUSE FROM JUNE 27, 2007 ORDER
The APPELLANT is the subject of an unprecedented attack of intimidation, retaliation, and

harassment resulting in one of the direst cases of obstruction of justice mounted in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and the County of Lancaster. The prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct is
unprecedented in both the scope of activity and motive. The APPELLANT will show cause that these
activities are to disrupt, deter, and undermine the APPELLANTS Constitutional right to due process and
access to the Courts.
These activities, when effectively reviewed and examined, will prove to be the reason that the
APPELLANT has difficulty filing any appeals on a timely basis, and any court related filing without
technical difficulties. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at large, has legal and financial exposure
with regards to the APPELLANTS Federal False Claims and Whistle-Blowing activities in the case of
International Signal & Control, Plc, (ISC) that dates back to 1987.
Since the APPELLANT filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 05-2288), these activities were increased in both occurrences and
arrogance. It must be noted that the APPELLANT had a previous attempt at justice thwarted in 1998.
Page 22 of 72
09/05/2007
The same issues that were never formally presented in any United States District Court, or any
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, are now at issue.
It is ironic that on Thursday, July 5, 2007, it was publicly disclosed that a United States District
Court Judge, Judge Sean McLaughlin, granted Lisa Michelle Lambert her right to a jury trial regarding a
sexual abuse case that dates back to 1996.
These allegations were previously dismissed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as frivolous and without merit.
Judge McLaughlin, similar to the
findings of United States District Judge Stuart Dalzall, found otherwise and stated "Plaintiff paints a
disturbing picture," McLaughlin wrote, saying Lambert alleged Cambridge Springs was a "virtual haven
of sexual activity between Department of Corrections employees and inmates." Judge McLaughlin also
found that a former prison superintendent and official "fostered an attitude of acquiescence toward
such pervasive misconduct."
The APPELLANT filed an Affidavit to Ms. Christina Rainville, the pro bono counsel for Lisa
Michelle Lambert, in 1998 that will prove the APPELLANTS past attempts at justice regarding the
issues presented to this Court as being both a motive of his perpetrators and a record of this continued
misconduct and criminal activity to deny the APPELLANT his right to due process and access to the
courts. In totality this amounts to an unprecedented case of obstruction of justice.
In the 1998 affidavit the APPELLANT wrote the following:
I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following
affidavit concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally
abused, subjected to a massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an
exhaustive fight for the sovereignty of my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil
liberties, and right of due access to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, in
1991,
exhibiting
the
dire
consequences
of
this
complaint.
These
allegations
are
substantiated through a preponderance of evidence including but not limited to over

10,000 documents, over 50 hours of recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on
several digital mediums. A Findings of Facts is attached herewith providing merits and
the facts pertaining to this affidavit.
These issues and incidents identified herein have
attempted to conceal my disclosures of International Signal & Control, Pls.,. However, the
merits of the violations contained in this affidavit
will be proven incidental to the
existence of any conspiracy.

The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial
considerations would exceed $1 million.
These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident and business owner
Page 23 of 72
09/05/2007
in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania., and have continued to the present. These issues are a
direct consequence of my public disclosure of fraud within International Signal & Control,
Plc., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which were in compliance with federal and
state statutes governing my shareholder rights granted in 1983, when I purchased my
interests in International Signal & Control., Plc.. I will also prove intentional undo
influence against family and friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with
malicious and self serving accusations of insanity.
I conclude that the courts must
provide me with fair access to the law, and most certainly, the process must void any
technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the conclusions.
Such
arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our Constitution.
1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the
scope of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of
the United States. The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of
International Signal & Control, including the illegal transfer of arms and technologies to
an end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by virtue that said activities
posed a direct compromise to the National Security of the United States.; the plaintiff
will argue that his public allegations of misconduct within the operations of International
Signal & Control, Plc., as early as June of 1987 ; demonstrated actions were proven to
protect the National Security of the United States..
The activities of International Signal
& Control, Pls., placed American troops in harms way. The plaintiffs actions should have
taken the American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the International
Signal & Control, Plc., to cease and desist. .
All activities contained herein have greatly compromised the National Security of the
United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiffs intent
and motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens.
Had the plaintiff been
protected under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United
States troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the
operations of International Signal & Control, Plc., in as early as 1987.
2. The plaintiff will successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial
misconduct were directed at intimidating the plaintiff from continuing his public
disclosures regarding illegal activities within International Signal & Control, Plc,.
On
June 23, 1998, International Signal & Control, Plc was negotiating for the $ billion
merger with Ferranti International, of England.
Such disclosures threatened the
integrity of International Signal & Controls organization, and Mr. James Guerin himself,
consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if such
Page 24 of 72
09/05/2007
disclosures provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later
became the central criminal activity in the in The United States District Court For The
Eastern District Of Pennsylvania
3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse
consequences and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings.
The dire consequences of the plaintiffs failed business dealings will demonstrate and
substantiate financial incentive and motive.
Defendants responsible for administering
undo influence and interference in the plaintiffs business and commercial enterprises
had financial interests.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing authority,
Lancaster County had a great investment whose demise would facilitate grave
consequences to its economic development. .
Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon)
would have less competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial
services, violating the lender liability laws. The Steinman Enterprises, Inc., would loose
a pioneer in the information technologies industries, and would protect the public
domain from truthful disclosure.
The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence of
said perpetrators violating common laws governing intellectual property rights.

4. Given the plaintiffs continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning
in June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to
the law with the opportunity for any and all remedial actions required under the federal
and state statutes.
The plaintiff will successfully argue his rights to the courts to
rightfully claim civil actions with regards to the totality of these activities, so described
in the following Findings of Facts, regardless of any statute of limitations. Given the
plaintiffs genuine efforts for due process has been inherently and maliciously
obstructed, the courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions
deserving to the plaintiff.
5. Under current laws, The plaintiffs intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of
discrediting the plaintiffs disclosures and obstructing the plaintiffs right to due process
of the law.
The plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws
to enter into contract. The logic and reason towards the plaintiffs activities and actions
are a matter of record, demonstrated in the Findings of Facts, contained herein..
The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent emotional consequences
to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of
the activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental
deficiency the plaintiff may or may not have.
Page 25 of 72
The courts must provide for the proper

09/05/2007
interpretations of all laws, irrespective of the plaintiffs alleged intellectual capacity. The
plaintiff successfully argue that his mental capacity is of very little legal consequence,
if any; other than in its malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the
plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were
purposefully directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the
activities of International Signal & Control, Plc., consequently obstructing the plaintiffs
access to due process of the law.
Due to the fact that these activities to which the
plaintiffs perpetrators were protecting were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would
apply.
To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime with the exception of 2
speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial misconduct
during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23, 1987 and continuing to
today.
7. Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must
conclude that
In The United
States District Court For The Eastern District
of
Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzalls findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa
Lambert case identifying acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of this
affidavit, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law must
now determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal
enterprise (RICO). This affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very
fact that this affidavit compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip
the scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights.
In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle
Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish.
The
Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the
superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by its own admission of
wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of its commitment to administer equalities of justice,
not inequalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the
full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and
impugning the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole
to so that justice may be restored to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to the
County of Lancaster.
Page 26 of 72
09/05/2007
In 1998 the APPELLANT foresaw the attempt by the Courts to use the technical deficiencies as a
means to supersede the merits of his claims and right to remedy and justice. This is demonstrated in
the following excerpt from the 1998 affidavit:
I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most certainly, the
process must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the conclusions.
Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our Constitution.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania clearly lacks credibility with regards to civil and criminal
proceedings with the APPELLANT. This is proven by the fact that the APPELLANT has had 27 criminal
citations withdrawn, Nolle Pros, or overturned since 1987, and most in the past six months.
The
APPELLANT has successfully litigated a majority as a pro se litigant.

Furthermore, in the past week, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Lancaster County
District Attorneys Office had impugned its own integrity and obstructed justice in the two cases
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stanley J. Caterbone CP-36-CR-0004771-2006; CP-36-CR0003179-2006. The following email to Court Appointed Attorney Paul G. Campbell of July 2, 2007,
clearly presents the circumstances:
July 2, 2007
To: Paul G. Campbell
Dear Paul,
I dont know who is lying after what happened today before the Call of the Trial List in
Courtroom Number 10. As per our meeting of June 13, 2007, you declared that the Lancaster
County Assistant District Attorney Deborah Muzereus agreed to Nolle Prosed all of the
associated charges on case number 4771-06 and that on July 2, 2007 in front of a Judge during
the Call of the Trial List the agreement would be accepted and executed. In addition, you
promised me a copy of a confirmation letter regarding your that agreement from you to the
Lancaster County District Attorneys Office.
You also said that you sent me a copy of the confirmation letter. I never received any
correspondence from you since that meeting on June 13, 2007. Today, before I left the
courtroom, you informed me that the Lancaster County Assistant Attorney, Deborah Muzereus
said that the charges would be Nolle Prosed later and the case would be continued.
I spoke to Deborah Muzereus outside the courtroom after I walked out and asked her
what was going on. She said that she was waiting for the ruling on our post-trial motion for
case no. 3179-06 and that she could not deal with this case right now. I asked her why she lied
about the Nolle Prosed deal and she said she did not have time. I reminded her that I do not
Page 27 of 72
09/05/2007
like being lied to and that she is an Officer or the Court. I expect that today you would send me
a copy of the confirmation letter, which you already told me today that you would. I also expect
that you would send me a copy of every document that you have received regarding this case
with the exception of discovery, including the Continuance that was supposed to be filed today.
In light of todays problem, I would expect you to file a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charges
that contain your arguments that caused the Lancaster County District Attorney to agree to
Nolle Prosed the charges. I would also like the date and time of the meeting, which that
agreement took, place.
I would expect you to mail these items before July 4th, or make arrangements to deliver them
to me before the same.
On July 3, 2007, Judge James P. Cullen issued an ORDER that continues the pre-trial
investigation for case no. CP-36-CR-0003179-2006 and scheduled a hearing of oral arguments for
August 7, 2007 for the Post Trial Motion to Acquit after Court Appointed Attorney Janice Longer
informed the APPELLANT that Judge James P. Cullen was moving to issue a retrial. This can be verified
when the Probation and Parole Office discontinued efforts for the Pre Sentence Investigation and
canceled a psychological evaluation for the APPELLANT.
The tandem effect is that after several
motions by the APPELLANT for Judge Cullen to recuse himself from case no. CP-36-CR-0003179-2006,
which is also contained in the Post Trial Motion to Acquit, Judge James P. Cullen has essentially
obstructed justice due to the fact that he is a defendant in this case. Judge Cullen also continues to
place the APPELLANT as a Defendant in criminal proceedings by not making a ruling on the Post Trial
Motion to Acquit after both sides presented written arguments.
Judge James P. Cullen must be
compelled to recuse himself from any and all cases when a clear conflict of interest is present.
Another instance where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania impugned its own integrity is
found in the case no. 360234927-002M Stanley J. Caterbone v. the Department of Public Welfare and
the Bureau of Appeals and Hearings. In this instance Administrative Law Judge Robert S. Rosen ruled
against the APPELLANT in a challenge to the DPW discontinuance of Food Stamp Benefits and cited
that the APPELLANT had failed to supply documents to the ALJ Rosen. The APPELLANT produced a
United States Postal Priority Mail Confirmation that proved ALJ Rosen had misrepresented the truth.
Further Arrogance by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was demonstrated when on July 2, 2007,
the Department of Public Welfare DENIED the APPELLANTS appeal for rehearing and reconsideration
in a clear and overt effort to cover up ALJ Rosens blatant disregard for the truth and the law.
In July of 2006 the APPELLANT emailed the President of the United States, President George
W. Bush. The email contained the following:
Page 28 of 72
09/05/2007
As soon as I frame my arguments for a petition for your Impeachment, I will forward to
your Attorney General. I am tired of living in a county and state where there is no Rule of Law.
The APPELLANT was sending a message about the dire nature of the obstruction of justice and
the fact that the APPELLANT had justified suspicion of the Administrations possible overt intimidation
in the APPELLANTS Federal Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case No. 05-23059 and continued wrongdoing by
the Department of Justice Office of the Trustee.
These allegations are described in various Federal
Court filings and briefs.

On July 3, 2007, in an American Research Group Poll presented on the FOX News Network,
45% of those polled favored the start of impeachment proceedings against the President, while only
46% did not favor starting impeachment proceedings. For Vice President Dick Cheney, 54% of those
polled favored the start of impeachment proceedings. THE APPELLANT clearly is not lacking in political
prowess and vision, and must not be intimidated and retaliated against for such views and opinions.
Complacency by Law Enforcement and Justice Officials in upholding the APPELLANTS Constitutional
and Civil Rights may be construed is some courts as being a violation of RICO statutes, among others.
The Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution both guarantee the
APPELLANT a right to the Courts to resolve the allegations and complaints through discovery and
interrogatories and upon merit a right to trial by jury. It is these fundamental procedures that are
constantly subverted in a malicious and calculated manner in order to prevent rulings on the merits
of the APPELLANTS complaints, thus subverting the rule of law and obstructing justice.
The APPELLANT has clearly shown cause for the Superior Court to allow this Appeal to proceed
to the panel assigned to decide on the merits of the appeal.
Date: June 7, 2007
_____________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 29 of 72
09/05/2007
__________________________________________________________________________________
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the APPELLANTS SHOW CAUSE FROM
JUNE 27, 2007 ORDER has been served this 7th day of July 2007, by first class mail, Postage
prepaid, or by electronic mail upon, or by hand deliver to:
Christine E. Munion
100 West Elm Street, Suite 200
Attorneys For:
Mr. Donald Totaro
The Honorable Judge Louis J. Farina

Lancaster, PA 17602
Magisterial District Judge Leo Eckert, Jr.
841 Stehman Road
Millersville, PA 17551

The Sheriffs Department of Lancaster County
Diana C. Clark .
Assistant Counsel
Attorney I.D. No. 465 14
Department of Public Welfare
Office of General Counsel
Third Floor West
Health & Welfare Building
Harrisburg, PA 17 120
(717) 783-2800
Attorney For Pennsylvania Department of Welfare
Parula Properties, LLC

100 South Seventh Street
Akron, PA 17501
Stephanie Carfley
Barley Snyder, LLC
Lancaster, PA 17602
Attorneys For Fulton Bank

Lancaster, PA 17602

Lancaster, PA 17602
Cheryl Kovally, Esquire

Lavery Faherty Young & Patterson
225 Market Street, Suite 304
P.O. Box 1245
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245
Attorneys For:
Officer Adam Cramer
Southern Regional Police Department:
Parenteau Guidance
132 East 35th Street, Suite 3J
New York, NY 10016
Thomas Corbett
The Pennsylvania Attorney General
14th Floor, Strawberry Lane
Date: July 7, 2007
Magisterial District Judge M. Cornmins

15 Giest Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Governor Edward Rendell

225 Main Capitol Building
_____________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 30 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 31 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 32 of 72
09/05/2007
BARLEY SNYDER LLC

Stephanie Carfley,
Esquire Court I.D. No.
79136 126 East King
Street Lancaster, PA
17602 (717) 399-1536
Attorneys for
Defendant Fulton
Bank
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP,
Plaintiffs
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MR. DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster

County District Attorney, et al.,
Defendants
No. CI-07-00366
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE FULTON BANK'S CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF MATTERS
COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
On or about June 21, 2007, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed two (2) separate
documents, bearing the same caption and case number, and both entitled "Statement
of Matters Complained." These documents appear to address: (1) this Honorable
Court's
February
21,
2007
Order
denying
Plaintiffs/Appellants'
Motion
for
Reconsideration of the Order dated January 24, 2007, which denied Plaintiffs' Petition
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and (2) the entry of a judgment of Non Pros by the
Lancaster County Prothonotary on or about May 11, 2007. In accordance with this
Honorable Court's Order of June 5, 2007, Defendant/Appellee Fulton Bank ("Fulton")
hereby files the following Consolidated Response to Plaintiffs/Appellants' Statement of
Matters Complained of on Appeal:
Page 33 of 72
09/05/2007
APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS:

1.
The appeal will question the validity of the ORDER Denying the Appellant
In Forma Pauperis Status by citing the civil action as Frivolous.

RESPONSE: Denied. It is denied that the Trial Court made an error of law,
as suggested by Plaintiffs/Appellants in denying In Forma Pauperis Status to
Stanley J. Caterbone on the basis that the civil action filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants
was frivolous. To the contrary, the Trial Court made no error of law, but rather
carefully followed the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and well established
case precedent. Petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are controlled by
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240. Rule 240(j) which provides:
If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding
or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the petition
may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of
poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or
appeal is frivolous.
A frivolous action has been defined as one that "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Note to Pa. R.C.P. 240, citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319,109 S. Ct. 1827 (1989). An action is frivolous under this provision, if, on its
face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action. Keller v. Kinsley, 415 Pa. Super.
366, 609 A.2d 567 (1992).
In
the
instant
case,
the
Trial
Court
properly
found
that
Plaintiffs/Appellants' lawsuit did not set forth a valid cause of action and was thus,
frivolous under Rule 240(j). Based upon this finding, the Trial Court appropriately
denied the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. By way of further response,
Fulton filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint filed in this matter, asserting
that Plaintiffs/Appellants had failed to state a
Page 34 of 72
09/05/2007
valid claim upon which relief could be granted. Fulton incorporates by

reference herein its Preliminary Objections and Brief as support for the Trial
Court's finding that Plaintiffs/Appellants' Complaint, on its face, did not set
forth a valid cause of action against the Defendants.
2.
The Appellant was not given any reason as to what was Frivolous and
suspects that the judiciary was abusing it's [sic] power and discretion to have the
Appellant's civil action dismissed, thus advancing the interests of the Defendants on
the civil action which include the District Attorney, Fulton Bank, the Lancaster County
Sheriffs and others.
RESPONSE; Denied. It is denied that the Trial Court committed an error
of law or abused its power and discretion in determining that the civil action
filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants was frivolous. It is further denied that the Trial
Court made such a determination to advance the interests of the Defendants
in this case. To the contrary, the Trial Court acted appropriately and in
accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and wellestablished case law in determining that the instant lawsuit was frivolous.
Fulton incorporates by reference its response to Paragraph 1 above as though
set forth at length herein.
3.
The significant factors revolve around the fact that most of these
Defendants would also be unjustly enriched by not having to defend the case, but also
would be unjustly enriched because of the other cases in which they are defendant's
[sic] against the Appellant.
RESPONSE: Denied. It is denied that the Trial Court committed an error
of law or abused its power and discretion in determining that the civil action
Page 35 of 72
09/05/2007
filed by Plaintiffs/Appellants was frivolous. It is further denied that the Trial

Court made such a determination
so
as
to
"unjustly
enrich"
the
Defendants. Moreover, it is denied that Defendants would be "unjustly

enriched" by not having to defend against this case and/or because of
the other cases in which they are Defendants. To the contrary, the Trial
Court properly found that the action was frivolous and denied In Forma
Pauperis Status to Plaintiff/Appellant Caterbone in accordance with Pa.
R.C.P. 240(j), given that Plaintiffs/Appellants' Complaint failed to set
forth
valid
cause
of
action.
Support
for
the
finding
that
Plaintiffs/Appellants' Complaint fails to state a valid claim can be found

in the Preliminary Objections and Brief filed on behalf of Fulton, which
are incorporated by reference herein. Fulton also incorporates by
reference its response to Paragraph 1 above as though set forth at
length herein.
4.
The Appellant has been charged with numerous criminal citations and
is a Defendant against the Lancaster County District Attorney and the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
RESPONSE: This paragraph does not appear to raise any issue for
appeal
and
instead,
is
simply
statement
of
the
status
of
Plaintiff/Appellant Cater-bone's criminal cases. Furthermore, this "issue"

does not pertain to Fulton. Therefore, no response to this paragraph on
behalf of Fulton is required.
5.
It should be noted that to date the Appellant has had 27 criminal charges
withdrawn, dismissed, and/or not guilty verdicts returned, thus providing for numerous
Page 36 of 72
09/05/2007
false arrest and false imprisonment complaints.

RESPONSE: This paragraph does not appear to raise any issue for
appeal
and
instead,
is
simply
statement
of
the
status
of
Plaintiff/Appellant Caterbone's criminal cases. Furthermore, this "issue"

does not pertain to Fulton. Therefore, no response to this paragraph on
behalf of Fulton is required.
APPEAL FROM ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF NQN PROS:

1.
The appeal will question 'the validity of the Judgment and whether the
ORDER was used to intimidate, harass, and harm the Appellant and his litigation in
other court cases.
RESPONSE; Denied. It is denied that the Prothonotary abused its
discretion or made any error of law in entering a judgment of Non Pros
in the above-referenced matter, as suggested by Plaintiffs/Appellants. It
is further denied that the judgment was used to intimidate, harass, and
harm Plaintiff/Appellant Caterbone and/or his litigation in other court
cases. Rule 240(c)(l)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that if the court denies a petition for in forma pauperis status,
"the petitioner shall pay the filing fee for commencing the action or
taking the appeal" and that "[a] party required to pay such fee may not
without leave of court take any further steps in the action or appeal so
long as the fee remains unpaid." See Pa. R.C.P. 240(c)(l)(ii). The Rule
further states that "[n]ot sooner than ten days after notice of the denial
of the petition pursuant to Rule 236, the prothonotary shall enter a
Page 37 of 72
09/05/2007
judgment of non pros in the action or strike the appeal if the fee remains
unpaid." Id. (emphasis added).
In the instant case, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs/Appellants'
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Order dated January 24, 2007.
The Trial Court denied Plaintiffs/Appellants' Motion for Reconsideration
of that Order by Order dated February 21, 2007. Notice of entry of the
Orders
was
sent
on
January
25,
2007
and
February
27,
2007,
respectively. See Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros dated March
14,2007. Plaintiffs/Appellants failed to file the required filing fee to
proceed with the case within the ten (10) day period allowed by Rule
240; therefore, the Prothonotary properly, and in accordance with the
directive of Pa. R.C.P. 240(c)(l)(ii), entered a judgment of Non Pros on or
about March 14,2007. Following the entry of Non Pros and pursuant to a
Praecipe to Enter Judgment in Accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 3021(a)(3) filed
on behalf of all Defendants, the Prothonotary entered judgment for
Defendants and against Plaintiffs on or about May 11, 2007. The
Prothonotary acted appropriately in this regard and the entry of
judgment in favor of Defendants is valid.
2.
There will also be questions of Slander and Libel.
RESPONSE; Denied. It is denied that questions of slander and libel

have been raised by, or are in any way relevant to, the instant appeal.
Plaintiffs/Appellants have not properly brought claims for slander and
libel in the underlying proceeding, and these claims were not addressed
by the Trial Court in its Orders or by the Prothonotary in connection with
Page 38 of 72
09/05/2007
its entry of Non Pros. Additionally, pursuant to the judicial privilege, a

person is entitled to absolute immunity for "communications which are
issued in the regular course of judicial proceedings and which are pertinent
and material to the redress or relief sought." Post v. Mendel, 510 Pa. 213,
507 A.2d 351,355 (1986) (emphasis in original). This privilege is extended
not only to parties so that they are not deterred from using the courts,
but also to judges so that they may "administer the law without fear of
consequences,"
"to
witnesses
to
encourage
their
complete
and
unintimidated testimony in court, and to counsel to enable him to best

represent his client's interests." Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442
Pa. 319, 275 A.2d 53, 56 (1971). Accordingly, to the extent that
Plaintiffs/Appellants are claiming "slander" or "libel" arising out of the
issuance of orders by the Trial Court or the entry of judgment by the
Prothonotary, these claims lack merit.
By way of further response, at all
times relevant hereto, the Trial Court and the Prothonotary acted
appropriately and in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure and well-established case law.
3.
The Prothonotary's abuse of power and integrity will be questioned since
Mr. Wenger is a Defendant in Caterbone v. Wenger, et. al., Case No. 06-4650 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
RESPONSE: Denied. It is denied that the Prothonotary abused its
power and integrity by entering a judgment of Non Pros against
Plaintiffs/Appellants in the above-referenced matter. To the contrary,
the Prothonotary properly entered a judgment of Non Pros against
Page 39 of 72
09/05/2007
Plaintiffs/Appellants in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 240(c)(l)(ii) given

their failure to timely pay the required fees to proceed with this case.
Fulton incorporates by reference its response to Paragraph 1 above as
though set forth at length herein.
4.
The Lancaster County Prothonotary may be unjustly enriched due to any
adverse judgments against the Appellant.

RESPONSE: Denied. The allegations of this paragraph do not
pertain to Fulton. Therefore, no response to this paragraph on behalf of
Fulton is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied
that the Lancaster County Prothonotary has been "unjustly enriched" by
the entry of judgment against Plaintiffs/Appellants. To the contrary, the
Prothonotary
properly
entered
judgment
of
Non
Pros
against
Plaintiffs/Appellants in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 240(c)(l)(ii) given their

failure to timely pay the required fees to proceed with this case. Fulton
incorporates by reference its response to Paragraph 1 above as though set
forth at length herein.
BARLEY SNYDIR LLC

Date:
-J <J \^\
1
Stephanid Carfley,'
AttorneysMpr Defend
Fulton Bank
Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
(717)399-1536 Court I.D.
No. 79136
Page 40 of 72
09/05/2007
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal has been served this 2nd day
of July, 2007, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon:
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
BARLEY SNYDER LLC

Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
(717)299-5201 Court I.D.
No. 79136
Page 41 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 42 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 43 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 44 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 45 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 46 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 47 of 72
09/05/2007
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
_________________________________________________________________________
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF
Plaintiffs
v.
Mr. Donald Totaro,
Mr. Thomas Corbett,
Fulton Bank
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Supreme Ct No. 433 MT 2007

Superior Ct# 951 MDA
Trial Ct CI-07-00366
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

Petition for allowance of appeal from the ORDER of the Superior Court case number 950 MDA 2007.
Parties:
Christine Munion
100 West Elm St. Suite 200
(610) 397-4620
Page 48 of 72
09/05/2007
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

CERTIIFICATE Of MAILING
Received From
Affix in
postage and
postmark
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA
17603
One piece of ordinary mail addressed to:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Address:
248 MAL 2007
434 Main Capitol Building

P.O. Box 624
Harrisburg, PA
17108
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSMASTER
POD FORM 3817

NOV. 1963
*GPO 1963 OF-712-835

Comm., Ct., No. 63 Comm. Dkt.1973
Page 49 of 72
09/05/2007
Paul K. Allison, Judge

Court of Common Pleas
Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
Respectfully submitted,
Date: September 4, 2007
______________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 50 of 72
09/05/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 3
COPY OF SUPERIOR COURT ORDER OF JULY 17, 2007.
PAGE 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .. Page 8

EXHIBIT A
. Page 9
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Page 51 of 72
09/05/2007
__________________________________________________________________________________________
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, the PETITIONER, on this 15th Day of August 2007, do hereby request a
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania, Middle District.
Pa.R.A.P 1115(a)(1)(a)(2) & Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(3).
The PETITIONER is requesting that the
ORDER of July 17, 2007, issued by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which stated As there is no
indication that appellant sought relief from judgement of non pros, the above captioned appeal is
hereby DISMISSED (952 MDA 2007). And Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby
quashed as untimely file on May 24, 2007 from order entered on January 24, 2007(951 MDA 2007).
Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(3). The questions presented for review is whether the PETITIONER was ever
given an opportunity without undo influence and malice in preparing an appeal1.
PETITIONER has
made numerous complaint regarding computer hacking, theft of the files and evidentiary materials of
these cases, undo influence, public corruption and such activities that have precluded the PETITIONER
from fulfilling the requirements and ORDERS of the Courts2.
The PETITIONER has proven and
supported his allegations of criminal trespass and the theft of all of the PETITIONERS real property,
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to
comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede
the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.
In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as
Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States
District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the
probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights.
2
1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the
scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain
redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal
proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between
protection of individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government
from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5,
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. In Ascolese v.
Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351, the case supports the notion that One of the
principal purposes of 1983 was to give remedy to parties deprived of Constitutional Rights,
privileges, and immunities by Officials abuse of his or her position, that is to provide remedy against
individual officials who violate Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983
3
On January 4, 2007 the PETITIONER was illegally forced off his property and threatened with criminal
trespass by employees of Parula Properties and the Southern Regional Police were summoned. Parula
Properties were loading and stealing all of the possessions and contents of 220 Stone Hill Road,
Conestoga, in moving vans. This was before the Sheriff Deed was transferred on February 1st, 2007;
before the distribution of funds held in escrow by the Lancaster County Sheriffs Office; and there was
no eviction notice served on the PETITIONER. In the Notice of Sheriff Sale filed on July 30, 2007 by
Fulton Bank it stated the following: You have the right to remain in the property until the full amount
Page 52 of 72
09/05/2007
possessions, legal files, documents, and evidentiary materials. The Courts must allow the PETITIONER
to appeal this case and have his arguments ruled upon the merits and pleadings. Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(4)
& Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(5) 1115(c).
These questions should be reviewed as well as the full record4 of these matters due to the
appearance of improprieties and misconduct, and the direct violations of the PETITIONERS civil rights
in obstructing the PETITIONERS right to challenge the lower court original dismissal5 by using the
frivolous opinion for the In Forma Pauperis Application that was submitted with the original complaint
in these cases6. The trail court judge, Paul K. Allison, used this to dismiss the original complaint which
is at best a miscarriage of justice, and if reviewed further may be an indictable criminal offense78.
due is paid to the Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time, the buyer may bring
legal proceedings to evict you.
Commonwealth v. Haggentstaller, 699 A. 2d 767 (Pa Superior, 1997), Pro Se Appellant sought review
of Conviction for violation of County for violation of County ordinance with Rule of Appellant Procedure,
court conducted a thorough, independent review of the record, and found sufficient evidence to
sustain the conviction.
4
Under Pennsylvania Law, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and
circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of
facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the
same case the following was supported: Arrestees allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its
police officers were acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees
constitutional rights by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution
and the two (2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and
August 4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The
preceding pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.
5
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a plaintiff
must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an unlawful act or
to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with intent to injure the person,
his/her property and or business. In the case of United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal
responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the following: Governments, without
committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may
establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times
and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan
6
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A
7
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO) is a
United States federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of
an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title
18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1961 through 18 U.S.C. 1968.
Page 53 of 72
09/05/2007
The PETITIONER is requesting that the Supreme Court provide relief by remanding this case
back to the Trial Court with protection of the PETITIONERS right to due process and access to the
courts, with an ORDER providing that the original complaint be reinstated and the allegations be
properly adjudicated with all matters litigated.
______________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 54 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 55 of 72
09/05/2007
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF
APPEAL has been served this 5th day of September, 2007, by hand delivery:
Mr. Donald Totaro

Lancaster, PA 17602
Christine Munion - Served by U.S. Mail
100 West Elm St. Suite 200
(610) 397-4620
Judge Paul K. Allison
Lancaster, PA 17602

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 56 of 72
09/05/2007
amgroup01@msn.com
Blog: http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/
Video Biography at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=advancedmediagroup
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
September 4, 2007
Mr. Donald Totaro
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re:
Computer and Online Hacking

Case No. 433/432 MT 2007
950/951 MDA 2007
CI-07-0366
Dear Mr. Totaro:

Today I must file and cure a defective filing for Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case no.
432 MT 2007 and 433 MT 2007, CATERBONE & ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP v. TOTARO et al. As I
review my requirements I have noticed that there are inconsistencies with what the
Prothonotary has returned to cure the defects.
I now am under the suspicion that every filing in the Superior and Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit Court, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
Eastern Pennsylvania; is in the need of an investigation.
I have made personal pleas to the Lancaster City Police, the Southern Regional Police
Department, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-Internet
Crime Unit), Philadelphia and Harrisburg, at least 3 detectives of the Lancaster County District
Attorneys Office, the Lancaster County Sheriff, and the Courts.
I have made so many complaints to law enforcement officers that have fallen on deaf
ears, I now must try to get enough public exposure to help quell this ongoing problem. I cannot
even use the Internet without incident.
Now, I know why everyone refuses to investigate, or do anything about this problem,
most of you are DEFENDANTS. I would again urge you to follow the rule of law. I am not
beneath the law, and you Sir, are not above it.
I remain,
Stan J. Caterbone
cc:
Mr. Michael Landis, Chief of the Lancaster County Detectives
Page 57 of 72
09/05/2007
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
_________________________________________________________________________
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
__________________________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF
Plaintiffs
v.
Mr. Donald Totaro,
Mr. Thomas Corbett,
Fulton Bank
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Supreme Ct No. 432 MT 2007

Superior Ct# 950 MDA
Trial Ct CI-07-00366

Petition for allowance of appeal from the ORDER of the Superior Court case number 950 MDA 2007.
Parties:
Mr. Donald Totaro

District Attorney
District Attorneys Office
Lancaster, PA 17602
Page 58 of 72
09/05/2007
Paul K. Allison, Judge

Court of Common Pleas
Lancaster County
Lancaster, PA 17602
______________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 59 of 72
09/05/2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 3
COPY OF SUPERIOR COURT ORDER OF JULY 17, 2007.
PAGE 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .. Page 8

EXHIBIT A
. Page 9
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Page 60 of 72
09/05/2007
__________________________________________________________________________________________
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, the PETITIONER, on this 15th Day of August 2007, do hereby request a
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania from the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania, Middle District.
Pa.R.A.P 1115(a)(1)(a)(2) & Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(3).
The PETITIONER is requesting that the
ORDER of July 17, 2007, issued by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which stated As there is no
indication that appellant sought relief from judgement of non pros, the above captioned appeal is
hereby DISMISSED (952 MDA 2007). And Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby
quashed as untimely file on May 24, 2007 from order entered on January 24, 2007(951 MDA 2007).
Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(3). The questions presented for review is whether the PETITIONER was ever
given an opportunity without undo influence and malice in preparing an appeal1.
PETITIONER has
made numerous complaint regarding computer hacking, theft of the files and evidentiary materials of
these cases, undo influence, public corruption and such activities that have precluded the PETITIONER
from fulfilling the requirements and ORDERS of the Courts2.
The PETITIONER has proven and
supported his allegations of criminal trespass and the theft of all of the PETITIONERS real property,
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to
comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede
the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.
In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as
Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States
District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the
probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights.
2
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. In Ascolese v.
Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351, the case supports the notion that One of the
principal purposes of 1983 was to give remedy to parties deprived of Constitutional Rights,
privileges, and immunities by Officials abuse of his or her position, that is to provide remedy against
individual officials who violate Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. 1983
3
On January 4, 2007 the PETITIONER was illegally forced off his property and threatened with criminal
trespass by employees of Parula Properties and the Southern Regional Police were summoned. Parula
Properties were loading and stealing all of the possessions and contents of 220 Stone Hill Road,
Conestoga, in moving vans. This was before the Sheriff Deed was transferred on February 1st, 2007;
before the distribution of funds held in escrow by the Lancaster County Sheriffs Office; and there was
no eviction notice served on the PETITIONER. In the Notice of Sheriff Sale filed on July 30, 2007 by
Fulton Bank it stated the following: You have the right to remain in the property until the full amount
Page 61 of 72
09/05/2007
possessions, legal files, documents, and evidentiary materials. The Courts must allow the PETITIONER
to appeal this case and have his arguments ruled upon the merits and pleadings. Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(4)
& Pa.R.A.P. 1115(a)(5) 1115(c).
These questions should be reviewed as well as the full record4 of these matters due to the
appearance of improprieties and misconduct, and the direct violations of the PETITIONERS civil rights
in obstructing the PETITIONERS right to challenge the lower court original dismissal5 by using the
frivolous opinion for the In Forma Pauperis Application that was submitted with the original complaint
in these cases6. The trail court judge, Paul K. Allison, used this to dismiss the original complaint which
is at best a miscarriage of justice, and if reviewed further may be an indictable criminal offense78.
due is paid to the Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At that time, the buyer may bring
legal proceedings to evict you.
Commonwealth v. Haggentstaller, 699 A. 2d 767 (Pa Superior, 1997), Pro Se Appellant sought review
of Conviction for violation of County for violation of County ordinance with Rule of Appellant Procedure,
court conducted a thorough, independent review of the record, and found sufficient evidence to
sustain the conviction.
4
Under Pennsylvania Law, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and
circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of
facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the
same case the following was supported: Arrestees allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its
police officers were acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees
constitutional rights by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution
and the two (2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and
August 4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The
preceding pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.
5
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a plaintiff
must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an unlawful act or
to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with intent to injure the person,
his/her property and or business. In the case of United States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal
responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the following: Governments, without
committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may
establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times
and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan
6
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A
7
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO) is a
United States federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of
an ongoing criminal organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control
Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title
18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. 1961 through 18 U.S.C. 1968.
Page 62 of 72
09/05/2007
The PETITIONER is requesting that the Supreme Court provide relief by remanding this case
back to the Trial Court with protection of the PETITIONERS right to due process and access to the
courts, with an ORDER providing that the original complaint be reinstated and the allegations be
properly adjudicated with all matters litigated.
Date: August 14, 2007
______________________________
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 63 of 72
09/05/2007
Page 64 of 72
09/05/2007
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF
APPEAL has been served this 5th day of September, 2007, by hand delivery:
Mr. Donald Totaro

Lancaster, PA 17602
Judge Paul K. Allison
Lancaster, PA 17602

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 65 of 72
09/05/2007
amgroup01@msn.com
Blog: http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/
Video Biography at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=advancedmediagroup
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
September 4, 2007
Mr. Donald Totaro
Lancaster, PA 17602
Re:
Computer and Online Hacking

Case No. 433/432 MT 2007
950/951 MDA 2007
CI-07-0366
Dear Mr. Totaro:

Today I must file and cure a defective filing for Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case no.
432 MT 2007 and 433 MT 2007, CATERBONE & ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP v. TOTARO et al. As I
review my requirements I have noticed that there are inconsistencies with what the
Prothonotary has returned to cure the defects.
I now am under the suspicion that every filing in the Superior and Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit Court, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
Eastern Pennsylvania; is in the need of an investigation.
I have made personal pleas to the Lancaster City Police, the Southern Regional Police
Department, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI-Internet
Crime Unit), Philadelphia and Harrisburg, at least 3 detectives of the Lancaster County District
Attorneys Office, the Lancaster County Sheriff, and the Courts.
I have made so many complaints to law enforcement officers that have fallen on deaf
ears, I now must try to get enough public exposure to help quell this ongoing problem. I cannot
even use the Internet without incident.
Now, I know why everyone refuses to investigate, or do anything about this problem,
most of you are DEFENDANTS. I would again urge you to follow the rule of law. I am not
beneath the law, and you Sir, are not above it.
I remain,
Stan J. Caterbone
cc:
Mr. Michael Landis, Chief of the Lancaster County Detectives
Page 66 of 72
09/05/2007
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Middle District
Case No. 432 MT 2007
v.
Donald Totaro, et al
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 553, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
As certified in the accompanying Verified Statement [Pa.R.A.P. 561],
Petitioner is unable to retain counsel or to pay the costs of this
proceeding.
Signature
Date
., Pro Se Litigant
Page 67 of 72
09/05/2007
In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Middle District
Case No. 432 MT 2007

v.
Donald Totaro, et al
IFP Verified Statement

Stanley J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group, Petitioner in the above-captioned
matter, states under the penalties provided by 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 that: Because of
my financial condition I am unable to pay the following fees and costs:
1. retention of counsel;
2. cost of reproducing transcripts and records; and,
3. other fees and costs associated with this application for a
The following statements relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs of
prosecuting this appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
(I have already been granted IFP in Superior and Supreme Courts w/ no change in
financial condition):
1. I am not presently employed except for the prison work detail for
which I receive an average monthly pay of $
. Not Applicable
2. I have received no other income within the past twelve months
except: None
3. I have no cash of savings account nor do I own any real estate,
stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles or other valuable property.
Stocks, bonds Non-Marketable-_996,000_Shares_Advanced Media Group;
17,308.45 Cashiers Check_Held_In_Escrow_For_Litigation (Disbursement
From Foreclosure See Superior Court 1463 MDA 2006, CI-07-00019 MT 71
Petition To Set Aside Sale Currently Under Appeal;1 Share Fulton Financial
Corporation $12.67
Page 68 of 72
09/05/2007
4. I have approximately $ _____ in my prison account; Not Applicable

5. I have the following debts and obligations: Approximately $ 50,000
unsecured loans in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy not written off, 05-23059.
6. The following
support: None
persons
are
dependent
me
for
Date
Signature
upon
Page 69 of 72
09/05/2007
FILING
FILED
PETITION - IFP GENERAL
1/16/2007 TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES WITH AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL STATUS. FILED BY STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.
COMPLAINT
1/16/2007 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.
CAPTION ENTRY
IS:
1/16/2007 STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP VS MR. DONALD TOTARO, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, MR. THOMAS CORBETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE LANCASTER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE LANCASTER COUNTY ASSISTANCE O FFICE, THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WELFARE, FULTON BANK, SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF LANCASTER COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, THE HONORABLE JUDGE
DENNIS REINAKER, THE HONORABLE JUDGE CULLEN, THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT LOUIS FARINA, MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT JUSTICE LEO H. ECKERT, JR., MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUSTICE MARY COMMINS, OFFICER ADAM
CRAMER, OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, GAIL PARENTEAU, OF BONGIOVI ACOUSTICS, MR.
EDWARD RENDELL, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADDENDUM TO
1/23/2007 EXHIBITS. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
PRAECIPE-ENTER
APPEARANCE
1/23/2007 OF STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. OF BARLEY, SNYDER LLP ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, FULTON BANK. FILED BY:
STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
ORDER (NO FEE)
1/24/2007 FILED. AND NOW, THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2007, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER RULE
240(j) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND UPON DETERMINING THAT THE ACTION FOR
WHICH IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IS SOUGHT TO ENABLE ITS FILING WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF COSTS IS
FRIVOLOUS, THE PRO SE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: PAUL K. ALLISON, JUDGE. CC'S
W/236 NOTICES TO: SEE FILE FOR COMPLETE LISTING
COPIES WITH
RULE 236
NOTICES
1/25/2007 OF IFP LETTER SENT TO STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP ON 1/25/2007
APPEAL
1/29/2007 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED JANUARY 24TH, 2007 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF.
PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS
2/8/2007
BRIEF
2/20/2007 OF DEFENDANT FULTON BANK IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. FILED BY:
STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
COPIES WITH
RULE 236
NOTICES
2/26/2007 FOR THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED JANUARY 24, 2007 WHICH WAS DENIED.
ORDER (NO FEE)
2/26/2007 AND NOW, THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2007, THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED
JANUARY 24, 2007 IS DENIED. BY THE COURT, PAUL K. ALLISON, JUDGE. COPIES W/236 NOTICES TO: STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, DONALD TOTARO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THOMAS CORBETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, LANCASTER
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, FULTON BANK, SHERIFF'S OFFICE
OF LANCASTER COUONTY, THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENNIS REINAKER, THE HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES P.
CULLEN, THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT JUDGE LOUIS FARINA, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE LEO H. ECKER, JR.,
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE COMMINS, OFFICER ADAM CRAMER, SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPT., GAIL
PARENTEAU, OF BONGIOVI ACOUSTICS, EDWARD RENDELL, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANSWER
2/28/2007 OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANTS FULTON BANK'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. FILED
BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
JUDGMENT-NON
PROS
3/9/2007
PRAECIPE-ENTER
APPEARANCE
3/12/2007 OF CHRISTINE E. MUNION, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS. FILED BY: CHRISTINE E. MUNION, ESQ.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
PRAECIPE FILED
TO ASSIGN
3/13/2007 DEFENDANT FULTON BANK'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO THE COURT FOR
DISPOSITION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. FILED BY: STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. (DOES NOT NEED ASSIGNED
AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS DATED MARCH 9, 2007)
ADDENDUM TO
3/16/2007 DEFENDANTS LIST. FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
ADDENDUM TO
4/24/2007 COMPLAINT. FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME. (SEE FILE OF
CI-06-07330 FOR ENTIRE DOCUMENT).
JUDGMENT-NON
PROS
5/11/2007 PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R.C.P. 3021(a)(3). KINDLY ENTER JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ON THE JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS
RENDERED PURSUANT TO Pa.C.S.A. 240(c)(1)(ii) ON MARCH 9, 2007. FILED BY: CHRISTINE E. MUNION, ESQ.
JUDGMENT ENTERED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
MAILED TO: ALL COUNSEL AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES ON ATTACHED LIST - STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET
OF DEFENDANT FULTON BANK TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT. FILED BY: STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE OF THE SAME.
FILING FEES REMAINING UNPAID AT LEAST TEN DAYS AFTER THE RULE 236 NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF
PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS PETITION, JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS IN THE ABOVE ACTION IS ENTERED
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 240(c) (1) (ii). MAILED MARCH 14, 2007
Page 70 of 72
09/05/2007
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, FULTON BANK, THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENNIS REINAKER, THE HONORABLE
JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN, THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT JUDGE FARINA, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE LEO
ECKERT, JR., MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE M. COMMINS AND CHERYL KOVALLY, ESQ.
APPEAL TO
HIGHER COURT
5/24/2007 FILED. NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM THE JUDGMENT OF NON-PROS
ORDERED THE 11TH DAY OF MAY BY THE PROTHONOTARY OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WITH
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
APPEAL TO
HIGHER COURT
5/24/2007 FILED. NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR C OURT OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 21, 2007
FOR THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
PRO SE.
ORDER (NO FEE)
6/6/2007
STATEMENT OF
6/21/2007 MATTERS COMPLAINED. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF SAME.
STATEMENT OF
6/21/2007 MATTERS COMPLAINED. FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBNE, PRO SE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
RESPONSE
7/2/2007
OPINION
7/16/2007 FILED. BY THE COURT: PAUL K. ALLISON, JUDGE. COPIES W/236 NOTICE SENT TO: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO
SE, DONALD TOTARO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THOMAS CORBETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, LANCASTER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY ASSISTANCE OFFICE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
FULTON BANK, SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF LANCASTER CO., THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENNIS REINAKER, THE
HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN, THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT JUDGE LOUIS FARINA, MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT JUDGE LEO H. ECKERT, JR., MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE COMMINS, OFFICER ADAM CRAMER,
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPT., C /O CHERYL KOVALY, ESQ., GAIL PARENTEAU OF BONGIOVI ACOUSTICS,
EDWARD RENDELL, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA
FILED. AND NOW, THIS JUNE 5, 2007, THE PLAINTIFF HAVING FILED HIS APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT IS
DIRECTED TO FILE NO LATER THAN JUNE 21, 2007, A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON
APPEAL, PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. NO. 1925(B). THE DEFENDANTS ARE DIRECTED TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THAT
STATEMENT NO LATER THAN JULY 2, 2007. BY THE COURT: JUDGE PAUL K. ALLISON. CC'S W/236 NOTICES TO:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE (2), DONALD TOTARO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY (1), THOMAS CORBETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
(1), LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (1), LANCASTER COUNTY ASSISTANCE OFFICE (1), PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE (1), FULTON BANK (1), SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF LANCASTER COUNTY (1), THE
HONORABLE JUDGE DENNIS REINAKER (1), THE HONORABLE JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN (1), THE HONORABLE
PRESIDENT JUDGE LOUIS FARINA (1), MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE LEO H. ECKERT, JR. (1), MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMINS (1), OFFICER ADAM CRAMER (1), GAIL PARENTEAU, OF BONGIOVI ACOUSTICS (1),
EDWARD RENDELL, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA (1)
(CONSOLIDATED) OF DEFENDANT/APPELLEE FULTON BANK TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATTERS

COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL. FILED BY: STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQ. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAME.
RECORD SENT TO 7/17/2007 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - NOS. 950 MDA 2007 & 951 MDA 2007. COPY OF THE LIST OF RECORD
DOCUMENTS SENT TO: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, DONALD R. TOTARO, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND CHRISTINE E. MUNION, ESQ. OF FRANCIS R. GARTNER & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COPY
OF
7/18/2007 ORDER FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - NO. 951 MDA 2007 FILED. APPELLANT, PLAINTIFF
BELOW, FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2007, AND ENTERED ON THE
DOCKET ON FEBRUARY 26, 2007, THAT DENIED HIS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A PRIOR ORDER. THE
PRIOR ORDER, ENTERED JANUARY 24, 2007, DENIED APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS. APPELLANT FILED HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL ON MAY 24, 2007. AN APPEAL DOES NOT LIE FROM AN
ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION BUT MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE UNDERLYING APPEALABLE ORDER.
COMMONWEALTH V. WROTEN, 580 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 1990), APPEAL DENIED, 593 A.2d 422 (Pa. 1991); SEE
ALSO CHEATHEM V. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, 743 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 1999) (MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION DOES NOT TOLL APPEAL PERIOD UNLESS THE TRIAL COURT EXPRESSLY GRANTS
RECONSIDERATION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE APPEALABLE ORDER). A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN
30 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF THE ORDER FROM WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN. PA.R.A.P. 903(a). THIS COURT HAS
NO JURISDICTIO N TO EXCUSE A FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY NOTICE OF APPEAL. VALLEY FORGE CENTER
ASSOCIATES V. RIB-IT/K.P., INC., 693 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997). ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED
APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED AS UNTIMELY FILED ON MAY 24, 2007 FROM THE ORDER ENTERED ON JANUARY 24,
2007. PER CURIAM.
CERTIFIED COPY
OF
7/18/2007 ORDER FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - NO. 950 MDA 2007 FILED. APPELLANT, PLAINTIFF
BELOW, FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE MAY 11, 2007 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON THE NON PROS ENT ERED
PREVIOUSLY ON MARCH 14, 2007. A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS IS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPEALABLE. A PETITION TO
STRIKE OFF OR OPEN THE NON PROS, PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 3051, MUST BE FILED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
ISSUES FOR APPEAL. SAHUTSKY V. MYCHAK, GECKLE & WELKER, P.C., 900 A.2d 866 (Pa. Super. 2006), APPEAL
DENIED, 916 A.2d 1103 (Pa. 2007); KRELL V. SILVER, 817 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2003), APPEAL DENIED, 830
A.2d 976 (Pa. 2003). FAILURE TO SEEK RELIEF IN THE TRIAL COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF NON PROS RESULTS
IN A WAIVER OF CLAIMS ON APPEAL. SAHUTSKY V. H.H. KNOEBEL SONS, 782 A.2d 996 (Pa. 2001). AS THERE IS
NO INDICATION THAT APPELLANT SOUGHT RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT OF NON PROS, THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED
APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED. PER CURIAM.
RECORD
RETURNED
7/24/2007 FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA - NOS. 950/951 MDA 2007. MEMORANDUM FILED. CASES
DISMISSED JULY 17, 2007.
Page 71 of 72
09/05/2007
CaseCI-07-00366Desc:STANLEY J CATERBONE VS DONALD TOTAROFiled:1/16/2007Type:GENERAL

CIVIL ACTIONBack to Party search results
HomeHelpParty SearchDirect Docket DisplayExitLancaster County Portal
Page 72 of 72
09/05/2007
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 7, 2007
Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company
Richard Plum III
355 Maple Avenue
Harleysville PA 19438-2297
http://www.harleysvillegroup.com/
Re: HOMEOWNERS POLICY HOAI 93468
Dear Mr. Plum:
As per the above referenced Homeowners Policy and Coverages, enclosed are materials supporting
my claims for the theft of both the property at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania, 17516, and all of
the contents. The above incident has been reported to the following law enforcement agencies: on January 4,
2007 The Southern Regional Police Department, of Conestoga, Pennsylvania; Cpl. Lynam of the Pennsylvania
State Police Department (E. King Street Barracks) on the evening of January 4, 2007; and Lancaster County
Detective Mr. Walters of the Lancaster County District Attorney Office on January 5, 2007.
I received no notices to vacate the residence, nor any notifications from anyone regarding the Sheriffs
Sale since April of 2006. I have received a letter from Karen Brarnblett, Esq. Prothonotary and James D
McCullough, Esq. Deputy Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1463 MDA 2006)
requesting 7 more copies of my Brief in support of my Appeal to the Foreclosure (Civil Action CI-06-02271).
The copies of the Brief will be submitted on Monday, January 8, 2007. The only information that I have is that
Central Penn Property Services, Inc., was the highest bidder on December 20, 2006, as seen on my Lancaster
County Banner Civil Docket Report. The Lancaster County Sheriffs Department would not provide me with
any information other than the name of the highest bidder.
Enclosed are photographs that I took on January 4, 2007 of 2 individuals who threw me off of my
property and said they would report me for trespassing, while they were loading the contents of my residence
in 2 Penske Rental trucks. The whereabouts of my personal possessions are unknown. Mr. Joseph
Caterbone of Union Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania accompanied me on January 4, 2007 to my property.
The attached are recorded Civil Actions filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania regarding the same.
Please reply via email and letter with my claim number. I have no telephone or cell phone at this time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone
Cc:
file
Enclosures
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply
with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review
the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.
Harleyswlle Preferred Insurance Company

355 Maple Avenue
Harleysvllle PA 19438-2297
w harleysvtllegroupcom
HOMEOWNERS POLICY
HOAI 93468
Policy Term
01120/07 to 01120108
12:01 A M Standard Time
lssue Date
12/01/06
Reason for lssue Renewal
Named Insured
Stanley Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga PA 17516
For assistance please contact your agent

MURRAY INSURANCE ASSOC INC
at 7173975271
(Agent Code 71-6652)
PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY Fulton Bank

POLICY PREMIUMS
COVERAGES & LIMITS

Section I - Property
A - Dwelling
B - Other Structures
C - Personal Property
D Loss of Use
$171,000
$17,100
$119,700
$34,200
Section Il -Liability
E - Personal Liability
F - Medical Payments
$300.000
$ 1 ,000
Basic Coverages
Increased Liability
Full House Insurance Coverage
Personal Prop Replacement Cost
Replace or Repair Cost - Cov A
$367.00
$12.00
$27.00
$18.00
$5.00
Per Occurrence
Per Person
DEDUCTIBLES
DISCOUNTS
$ 500 deductible applies to loss covered by Section I
Protective Device Credit
$8.00
TOTAL POLICY PREMIUM
$42 1. oo
INSURED LOCATION
Lot 5 Stone Hill Rd Lancaster
Pa
17516
RATING INFORMATION
One family
Built in 1995
PA Territory 12
Located in Fire District Conestoga
Frame construction
Protection Class 88
Distance to nearest fire hydrant unknown
Fire district tax code : 36
MORTGAGEES
Fulton Bank
Its Succ &/Or Asgns
PO Box 5762
Cincinnati OH 45201
Account 32032986
FORMS, ENDORSEMENTS AND ENCLOSURES

H00003
(0491)
Special Form
Continued on reverse side

F-305% (0600)
Direct 6111
INSURED'S COPY
PAGE
Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Middle District
Karen Brarnblett, Esq.
Prothonotary
James D McCullough, Esq.
Depuly Prothonotary
100 Pine Street, Suite 400

(717) 772-1294
WEBSITE: w.superior.eoun.rtate.paaus
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 30,2006
TO:
Stanley Caterbone
FROM: James D. McCullough, Deputy Prothonotary

Superior Court of Penna.
Middle District
RE:
Fulton Bank v. Caterbone, S ,

1463 MDA 2006
Returned herein are the briefs and/or reproduced records for the above-captioned
matter for compliance with the following Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure:
Pa. R.A.P. 124 & 2171 Method of Reproduction
Pa. R.A.P. 2172 Cover Page
Pa. R.A.P. 2173 Numbering of Pages
Pa. R.A.P. 21 74 Table of ContentsiCitations
Premature filing - Paperbooks Returned
Pa. R.A.P. 21 1 l(b) Appended Opinions below or 1925(a), or in the alternative,
a statement that there has been no opinion delivered by the court relating to the
determination under review within 10 days from the original filing date, or briefs
will be considered as late briefs and counsel will not be permitted to argue in
accordance with published Superior Court I.O.P. Rule 65.34(B).
Other - We need 7 copies of this brief, also all copies need to be bound on the
left like a book and if you use staples they must be covered with tape.
c: Stanely Caterbone
Shawn Long, Esq.
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
: CIVIL DIVISION
v.
: CASE NO. _____________
:
:
Fulton Bank
:
Lancaster County Sheriffs Department
:
PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE OF REAL ESTATE
Pursuant to PA Rule 3132, I Stanley J. Caterbone, Plaintiff, and Land Owner, do hereby
file a petition to Set Aside the Sale of Real Estate, known as Execution Number CI-06-02271,
Property #56, located at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania, 17516, A/K/A Lot #5
Stone Hill Road, that was executed on December 20, 2006. Rule 3132 Setting Aside the Sale
states: Upon petition of any party in interest before delivery of the personal property or of
the sheriffs deed to real property, the court may, upon proper cause shown, set aside the
sale and order a resale or enter any other order which may be just and proper under the
circumstances.
/sjc/________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 1 of 34
01/02/2007
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE
If I may please the court, I need to address the reasons that the sale of the
aforementioned real estate, my personal residence should be vacated and set aside. The first
issue to address is that of my right to due process, as prescribed by law. In Pederson v.
South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially
fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States
District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following:
Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his
due process rights.
Since October 30th, 2006 until December 29th, 2006, the Plaintiff has been illegally
detained in the Lancaster County Prison, and was unable to attend to matters regarding the
sale of said real estate, and most importantly his due process to protect his residence and
belongings.
The judgment and civil action of Fulton Bank vs. Stanley J. Caterbone was
appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Case No. 1463 MDA 2006. The matter is
also the subject of litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al (05-2288); and Caterbone v.
Wenger, et al (06-4650).
On December 28th, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison overturned his ruling of November 30th,
2006 and released the Plaintiff from the Lancaster County Prison in his ORDER of December
28th, 2006. The subject of appeal was not a prison sentence, but rather the revocation of an
unsecured bail bond that was allegedly violated causing the Plaintiff to be incarcerated for
sixty (60) days, without merit or justification.
The Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of his civil rights and a concerted effort to
extort his property and holdings as a means of intimidation, harassment, and a fundamental
means of obstructing his access to the Courts and his continued litigation. 1983 Civil Rights
Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of
protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain
redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state
criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance
Page 2 of 34
01/02/2007
between protection of individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and
local government from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art.
2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil
Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. In Ascolese v. Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351,
the case supports the notion that One of the principal purposes of 1983 was to give
remedy to parties deprived of Constitutional Rights, privileges, and immunities by Officials
abuse of his or her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate
On June 13, 2006 United States District Court Judge Honorable Judge Mary J.
McLaughlin, in a ORDER AND MEMORANDUM cited the following causes of actions against the
Defendant Fulton Bank: The plaintiff has arguably asserted claims against Fulton Bank for:
(1) breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and/or unjust enrichment, for its actions toward the
plaintiff in 1990; and (2) fraud or wrongful death, for its actions toward the plaintiff's brother
in 1996. The Plaintiff will successfully cure the time barred deficiencies in due time, and will
identify other claims and causes of actions when his rights to due process and access to the
courts are protected.
The Plaintiff has also named the Lancaster County Sheriffs Department, the agent for
the sale of said properties, as a defendant in the May 16, 2005 filing of Caterbone v.
Lancaster County Prison, et al (05-2288), and has recently been victim to numerous
additional Constitutional violations identified below:
On December 4th, 2006, the Honorable Judge Louis Farina had personally authorized
and instructed the Lancaster County Sherriffs Department to transport me from the
Lancaster County Prison to both of my domiciles at 1250 Fremont Street (Lancaster) and 220
Stone Hill Road (Conestoga) in order to obtain files, documents, and a suit for the Plaintiffs
trial (Docket No. 2843-06) on December 5th, 2006 in your courtroom. The Lancaster County
Sherriffs Department had been instructed, and agreed to keep the suit at the 4th floor of the
Lancaster County Courthouse for future Court appearances.
In the matter of a few minutes, just prior to entering the courtroom on December
20th, 2006, the Lancaster County Sherriffs Department violated both the Plaintiffs right to
due process and my right to access the courts. The Pennsylvania and the United States
Constitutions protect both of these rights.
In addition, the Lancaster County Sherriffs
Page 3 of 34
01/02/2007
Department are a named defendant in Caterbone v. Wenger, et al, of the United States
District Court of Pennsylvania (05-cv-2288 and 06-cv-4650). Because of the preceding facts,
the Lancaster County Sherriffs Department had violated several 1983 Civil Rights
violations. They include but are not limited to: retaliatory actions; abuse of power; and
dereliction of duty. The Lancaster County Sherriffs Department refused to allow the Plaintiff
to wear my suit and bring my files into your courtroom, both of which the Plaintiff had always
done before. There was no reason other than a flat out refusal. To make matters worst, the
Plaintiff had to appear in the courtroom wearing his prison uniform because the Plaintiff did
not change into his street clothes before being transported to the Courthouse. The Plaintiff
is alleging that this was very deliberate and malicious and was meant to intimidate and
harass the Plaintiff prior to entering your courtroom.
Contained in the legal files was a notepad with a list of items that the Plaintiff wanted
to discuss with the Honorable Judge Farina during the Trial List Conference when asked if the
Plaintiff if was prepared for trial. The Plaintiff had not taken the time to memorize the list of
items and had failed to discuss major issues with the Honor. One of the most important
issues involves the matter of subpoena of witnesses from prison. As importantly, making the
Plaintiff appear in my Lancaster County Prison uniform in front of your honor and the twenty
(20) or so persons in the courtroom at that time constitutes defamation of character against
the Plaintiffs person and the Plaintiffs company Advanced Media Group.
These acts were very deliberate and very calculated. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18
U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting
constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to
provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal
proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance
between protection of individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and
local government from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art.
2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil
Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. In Ascolese v. Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351,
the case supports the notion that One of the principal purposes of 1983 was to give
remedy to parties deprived of Constitutional Rights, privileges, and immunities by Officials
abuse of his or her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate
Page 4 of 34
01/02/2007
In all due respect, the Plaintiff does not understand the arrogance, the intimidation, or
the prosecutorial-judicial misconduct of the courts and of the PA Commonwealth (Lancaster
District Attorneys Office). The Courts are all well aware that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
currently in litigation in the United States District Court, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Commonwealth Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania with legitimate civil actions seeking financial redress. This includes the
Plaintiffs Federal False Claims Act regarding International Signal & Control, Plc., or ISC (2nd
or 3rd largest employer of Lancaster County with over 5,000 employees).
Ever since the Plaintiff filed Federal case, no. 05-cv-2288, in the United States District
Court on May 16, 2005, the Plaintiff has been the victim of abuses, constitutional violations,
and lies and fabrications of all of the arresting officers that appear before the courts.
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania
Law, a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent
to do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice
with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business.
In the case of United
States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple
conspiracies by the following: Governments, without committing variance between single
conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at
continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times and which
involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan. This
illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to cover-up my International Signal &
Control, Plc., whistle-blowing activities; which are the subject of Caterbone v. Lancaster
County Prison, et al (2005).
The Plaintiff submits the attached exhibits A and B as evidence for considerations of
the Courts, and requests the Court to yield due process of the law to this PETITION.
Page 5 of 34
01/02/2007
ORDER OF THE COURT
ON this ________ day of January 2007, the Sale of Real Estate, known as Execution
Number
CI-06-02271,
Property
#56,
located
at
220
Stone
Hill
Road,
Conestoga,
Pennsylvania, 17516, A/K/A Lot #5 Stone Hill Road, that was executed on December 20,
2006, purchased by Central Penn Property Services, Inc., is hereby vacated and the Plaintiff
is GRANTED a STAY of One Hundred & Twenty days (120), and is required to report to the
Courts the progress of the civil actions that are material to Fulton Bank and/or submit a plan
of action to sell the aforesaid property, free of interest.
________________________________
THE COURT
Page 6 of 34
01/02/2007
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE OF
REAL ESTATE has been served this 3rd day of January, 2007 by first class mail, Postage
Long. Shawn Michael

Bar No.: 83774 Law Firm: Barley Snyder, LLC
Address: 126 E King Street
Lancaster. PA 17602-2893
Phone No.: (717)399-1512 Fax No.: (717)291-4660
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address: slong@barley.com
The Lancaster County Sheriffs Department
Mr. Terry Bergman
Lancaster, PA 17602
/sjc/______________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 25 of 34
01/02/2007
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 34
01/02/2007
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
THIS IS A TYPED VERSION OF AN ORGINAL APPEAL WRITTEN IN THE LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
:
:
: CRIMINAL DIVISION
v.
: CASE NO. 4771-2006
:
:
:
:
:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
AND now on this 2nd day of December 2006, I, Stanley J. Caterbone do hereby file an appeal the
ORDER denying the Defendants Motion to Reset bail issued by the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison on
the 30th Day of November, 2006.
Date: December 2, 2006
/sjc/________________________
Lancaster County Prison
625 E. King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road
717-431-8184
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 8 of 34
01/02/2007
__________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF
__________________________________________________________________
1. On October 30, 2006 at approximately 2:00 pm at the residence of Yolanda Caterbone at 1250
Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, the Defendant was apprehended by (2) PA
Constables.
2. The apprehension began when (1) PA Constable who did not identify himself and was in old
street clothes began pounding on the door and ringing the door bell while also turning the door
knob trying to break into the residence. The PA Constable was a black male.
3.
The defendant stood about 15 feet from the door and watched the PA Constable on his color
video surveillance monitor and began to fear the unknown intruder.
The defendant did not
have a phone.
4. After about 10 minutes the PA Constable stopped and retreated away from the door to the door
to the side of 1252 Fremont Street to confer with another PA Constable while the Defendant
watched. He noticed another PA Constable at the rear of 1250 Fremont Street.
5. For the first time the Defendant determined that the (2) PA Constables were (2) Lancaster City
Police Detectives. Lancaster City Police Officer James McVey promised the Defendant during a
meeting at the Lancaster City Police Station that Detectives would be contacting him to
investigate computer hacking and the theft of confidential legal papers at 1250 Fremont Street.
The Defendant reported multiple times to law enforcement that computer hackers were
destroying and or downloading files and removing dates of court hearings on the Defendants
electronic calendars on the computer and portable Ipod.
6. The Defendant went out the front door to confront the (2) men and was immediately placed
under handcuffs and escorted to a vehicle. The (2) PA Constables had no identification visible
that was visible and there were several neighbors outside their houses watching.
7. The (2) PA Constables, identified as Weinholdt and Williams (black male), transported the
defendant to MDJ Leo Eckert Jr.s office and was very hostile and prejudiced towards the
Defendants innocence.
8. The Defendant arrived at MDJ Eckerts office at 841 Stehman Road, Millersville, Pennsylvania,
Page 9 of 34
01/02/2007
17551, (717) 872-4367.
Weinholdt made a remark about that a Southern Regional Police
cruiser was already in MDJ Eckerts parking lot. Upon Weinholdt parking the Defendant refused
to get out of the vehicle until the Constables would verify that Southern Regional Police Sgt.
Busser was not inside MDJ Eckerts office. The Defendant explained the prior incidents of abuse
against Busser and his fear of being in his presence.
Williams went into the office and
confirmed that the Southern Regional Policemen was not Sgt. Busser.
9. The Defendant was placed into a holding cell for approximately 20-30 minutes. The Defendant
was then escorted to the office of MDJ Eckert, Jr. with Williams, Weinhodt, and an unidentified
Southern Regional Policeman present.
The Southern Regional Police Department Officer was
not Adam Cramer or Officer Fedor.

10. The Defendant signed not guilty pleas to the following citations:
A) Docket No. NT-000561-06 Filed on 08/07/2006 For 5503 A4 Disorderly Conduct
I)The Defendant went to the Conestoga Post Office to get his mail (the Defendants
mailbox was stolen) and a postal worker refused. The Defendant went to
the Southern Regional Police Department to file a complaint and spoke to
Chief Fiorill. A few days later this citation was filed.
B) Docket No. NT-000569-06 Filed on 08/11/2006 for S18 2709 A3 Harassment
I)Filed for postal worker who was actually harassing Defendant.
C) Docket No. NT-000562-06 Filed on 08/07/2006 for S18 A Obstructing Highway and
or Public Passages
I)The Defendant pulled directly beside a U.S. Postal delivery car about a block
away from the Defendants residence on Stone Hill Road in Conestoga and
requested that his mail. The Postal delivery person (male) did not have his
mail and left it at the Postal Station (Conestoga Post Office). The Defendant
informed the Postal carrier that the mailbox could be replaced any day and
that it was his responsibility to deliver his mail on a daily basis and when his
mail box is erected, the mail can be immediately placed in his box. After a
few minutes the Defendant drove away.
There was no other vehicles on
Stone Hill Road at the time and the Postal delivery person had clear passage
to the front and to the rear.
D) Docket No. 0002184-06 Filed on 09/05/2006 for 75 1786 A Driving under
suspension
I)The Defendant did not turn his drivers license into Penn DOT because as
prescribed by law, the Defendants suspension was currently under appeal
Page 10 of 34
01/02/2007
in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Defendant also received a letter

from Penn DOT Office that did not contain a required form and contacted
Penn DOT of the deficiency by the Penn DOT office.
The defendants
drivers license should not be under suspension according to Penn DOT

statutes.
E) Docket No. TR-0002183-06 Filed on 09/05/2006 S 75 1786 Driving without
required financial responsibility
I)The Defendant was in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in United States Bankruptcy Court
and had a previous meeting with an Agent for Donegal Mutual about the
issuance of the policy confirmation card and a claim.
11. All (5) citations were accompanied with bench warrants issued on October 12, 2006 and
numbered: P4870424-06; P4870511-2; P4870502-0;P3003269-3; P3003268-2.
12. MDJ Eckert, Jr. assigned fines and costs of ($1,610.00) One Thousand Six Hundred & Ten Dollars
as collateral (100%) for bail.
13. The Defendant explained to MDJ Eckert, Jr. that he was confused by his paperwork from his office
and was waiting on hearing dates for the offenses. The Defendant also demanded copies of his entire
cases from his office a month or so earlier without success.
14. The Defendant declared his indigent status and his In Forma Pauperis status in the Court of
Common Pleas, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Defendant also cited his food stamps and his Chapter 11
Bankruptcy as proof.
15. MDJ Eckert, Jr., questioned his financial disclosure and insisted the Defendant had more cash
holdings than the Defendants Nineteen Dollars and Thirty-Four Cents ($19.34) in his pocket.
MDJ
Eckert, Jr., informed the Defendant that he was going to jail until and Indigent Hearing could be held
in Ten (10) days. The Defendant was taken back to the holding cell, in handcuffs.
16. While being placed in the holding cell, MDJ Eckert, Jr.,
made disparaging and incriminating
remarks about the U.S. District case no. 06-cv-4650 and the Defendants suit against him and other
Lancaster County District Magistrates Judges. He said Well since you filed a suit against every District
Magistrate in Lancaster County, well have to send you to Dauphin County.
17. At approximately 5:00 pm on October 30, 2006, the Defendant was transported to Lancaster
County Prison.
Page 11 of 34
01/02/2007
18. The Defendant was issued a Detainer on October 31, 2006 for the $1,610.00 and was committed
for Bail Not Posted.
19. The Detainer listed the Defendants address as 1230 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania,
rather than 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania. It also listed the wrong social security
number as 200-46-1959 and the wrong middle name as Jay instead of Joseph.
20. On October 30, 2006, a second Detainer and Bench Warrant was issued by Officer Adam Cramer of
the Southern Regional Police Department Warrant No. 36-BW-0002823-2006 and Docket No. CP-36CR-00004771-2006.
21. The Detainer listed the reason for the Detainer as The Bail Administration revoked the bail and
issued a Bench Warrant: (Revoked Bail was issued at $5,000.00 unsecured with non-monetary
conditions).
22. On November 1st, 2006, the Defendant had a Hearing before the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison,
as stated in a mandatory 72 hour hearing clause.
23. The Assistant Attorney disclosed that the disclosed to the Honorable Judge Allison that the
Defendant failed to attend a meeting with the Bail Administrator. The Defendant objected, as a pro se
litigant, that on October 20th , 2006, the Defendant attended a meeting with the Bail Administrator and
that the Defendant was given an appointment by the receptionist for another meeting for November
6th, 2006 at 10:00 am on a pink slip of paper.
24. The Assistant District Attorney stated that the Defendant failed to appear another time on October
17th, 2006.
The Defendant responded that he did in fact attend that meeting and even signed the
Agreement of Conditions and let it on the desk of Ms. Morales before leaving. Another staff member
of the Bail Administration Office was agitating the Defendant.
25. The Honorable Judge Allison reinstated the bail at $5,000.00 secured rather then unsecured as
previously executed with the Honorable MDJ Commins on Giest Road, Leola, Pennsylvania.
26. The Defendant was removed from the Courtroom unaware of the difference in a hastily fashion
without an opportunity for an explanation or an objection as to why the Defendant was now required
to post monetary conditions when it was proven the meeting (Bail Administrator) was attended as
prescribed in the Bail Bond Agreement.
27. On November 4th, 2006, the Defendant filed an appeal for reconsideration before the Honorable
Judge Paul K. Allison to reinstate and reset bail as unsecured.
Page 12 of 34
01/02/2007
28. The Defendant is also alleging prosecutorial misconduct and other retaliatory tactics by the
Southern Regional Police Department and Officer Adam Cramer when the 2nd Detainer was issued on
October 30, 2006.
29. By October 30th, 2006, the Defendant was ordered to amend the Civil Action of Caterbone v.
Southern Regional Police Department et al, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. By
2:00 pm on October 30th, 2006, the Defendant had completed the amended complaint and prepared
the filing for the Lancaster County Prothonotary and the Attorney of Record for the Southern Regional
Police Department.
30. The Defendant did not want to take the chance of having any problems with traveling to the
Lancaster County Courthouse to file the complaint and was totally unaware of any outstanding Bench
Warrants. The Defendant decided to ride his bike instead to the United States Postal Substation in
Bausman, Pennsylvania to mail the amended complaint via 1st class mail.
31. The Defendant chose the right option to file the amended compliant via mail.
Had the
Pennsylvania Constable apprehended the Defendant prior to reaching the Bausman Postal Substation,
the amended complaint would have been sitting in the Lancaster County Prison.
32.
The financial implications that the amended complaint has to Conestoga Township has the
potential of costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars as prescribed by law.

33. The Defendant alleges that the Southern Regional Police Department wanted to obstruct the
Defendant by revoking the unsecured bail bond without a proper reason and prevent the filing of the
amended complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
34. The Southern Regional Police Department has used a similar criminal tactic on April 5th, 2006,
when the Defendant was enroute to the Lancaster County Courthouse to file the original civil action
against the Southern Regional Police Debarment, et al.
Officers Fedor and Sgt. Busser filed a
fraudulent 302 Commitment document and apprehended the Defendant prior to reaching the Lancaster
County Courthouse and transporting the Defendant to the Lancaster General Hospital.
35. The Defendant filed the civil action (Southern Regional Police Department) on April 10th, 2006, and
against the Lancaster General Hospital. Barley and Snyder, LLC filed an appearance for the Lancaster
General Hospital, et al, but defaulted.
36. The Defendant also alleges retaliatory action by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional
Police Department for the October 20th, 2006 Federal Civil Action (06-cv-4650), which he is a
Page 13 of 34
01/02/2007
Defendant.
37. The Prosecution, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Lancaster District Attorneys Office
are also the subject of a Federal False Claims Act regarding International Signal and Control, PLC.,
(ISC) and the Defendants whistle blowing activities of 1987. The civil action was filed recently filed on
October 20th, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both
are also named in the Federal Action of Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al, with case no. 05dv-2288 filed on May 16th, 2005.
38. The Defendants incarceration is suspect to retaliatory prosecution and obstruction of justice and
intimidation regarding several Lancaster County Departments that are Defendants of a civil action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (05-cv-2288; 06-cv-4650;
and the Federal False Claims Act of October 20th 2006), There was no reason cited by the Lancaster
County District Attorney on November 1st, 2006, that warrants the downgrading of the unsecured bail
bond to a secured bail bond with monetary conditions.
39. The Lancaster County Sheriffs Department, which administrates a portion of the Bail
Administration policy and rules, are also a named defendant in Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison,
et al, (05-cv-2288) filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Bail Administration employee had committed perjury on November 1st, 2006, before the Honorable
Judge Paul K. Allison.
40. The Defendant has been at odds with the Lancaster County Commissioners position and efforts to
halt the efforts of the development of the Lancaster County Convention Center.
In 2005, the
Defendant filed a civil action in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in Project Hope/Advanced
Media Group v. Drew Anthon and the Eden Resorts Inn for the Hoteliers refusal to pay the Lancaster
County Convention Center excise taxes. The Defendant was a former business partner with S. Dale
High and had a meeting with the Law firm of Nettleton and Finefrock (referred by former Mayor Charlie
Smithgall), and they were of the opinion that the Defendant had legal standing and they also disclosed
that County Commissioner Richard Shellenberger had taken a bribe of $200,000.00 to halt the efforts
of the Lancaster County Convention Center.
The Defendant filed a document with the Lancaster
County District Attorneys Office in 2006 alleging bribery.
The Defendant alleges that the criminal
citations and Bench Warrants have been retaliatory and have not allowed the Defendant to be in
litigation free from conspiracy as a violation of statute 263 42 1985 (2) C, a RICO civil rights
violation.
41. The Bench Warrants and fraudulent incarceration is also obstructing the Defendant from litigating
an appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Fulton Bank v. Stanley J. Caterbone, which involved a
mortgage foreclosure and a scheduled sheriff sale on December 20th, 2006.
Page 14 of 34
Fulton Bank is also a

01/02/2007
named from 1987 and has been named by the Honorable Judge Mary McLaughlin of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of several causes of actions in case 05-dv-2288
including being unjustly enriched and a participant in a wrongful death action.
42. This corruption must cease immediately.
43. The Detainer issued by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police Department, which
was issued because the Bail Administrator revoked the unsecured bail bond contained the following
false statements to authorities:
A) DUI Defendant had a Breathalyzer result of .073 (.08 legal limit) after consuming
mouthwash and had a total of three (3) drinks in three (3) or more hours.
B) Resisting Arrest The Defendant immediately got out of his vehicle and raised his arms
above his head and stood still. Officer Cramer ordered the Defendant into the vehicle
and refused to exit until the Pennsylvania Police were summoned.
C) Offensive Weapons The Defendant had a wood hatchet for cutting vines behind the
passengers seat of his Honda Odyssey van. The Defendant used the tool extensively to
reduce the vines that smother trees in the Defendants 2.5 acre wooded property.
D) Careless Driving An unidentified vehicle was tailing The Defendant, so he put on his
turn signal to turn into the Pine View Dairy so the vehicle would pass him.
Officer
Cramer followed and put on his flashing lights in the driveway.
/sjc/________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
717-431-8184
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 15 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 16 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 17 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 18 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 19 of 34
01/02/2007
EXHIBIT B
Page 20 of 34
01/02/2007
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
:
: CRIMINAL DIVISION
v.
: CASE NO. TR-2183-06
:
TR-2184-06
:
TR-561-06
:
TR-560-06
:
TR-569-06
:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND now on this 8th day of December 2006, I, Stanley J. Caterbone, the petitioner, do
hereby petition the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, for a Writ of
Mandamus against the Honorable Magisterial District Justice Leo H. Eckert Jr., of 841
Stehman Road, Millersville, Pennsylvania, 17551.
On October 30th, 2006, the petitioner had (2) Detainers executed upon him thereby
committing him to Lancaster County Prison, in Lancaster County, where the Petitioner is still
incarcerated. The Petitioner has not been sentenced to serve any jail time.
On October 30th, 2006, the Petitioner had an amended complaint to the civil action of
Caterbone v. Southern Regional Police Department, et al, due in the Court of Common Pleas,
Page 21 of 34
01/02/2007
of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
At approximately 2:00 pm, the Petitioner mailed that
amended complaint from the Bausman Post Office Substation to the Lancaster County
Prothonotary Office.
At approximately 3:15 pm (2) Pennsylvania Constables apprehended
the Petitioner and transported him to MDJ Leo H. Eckerts Office on a Bench Warrant.
The Petitioner pleaded not guilty to (5) citations issued by the Southern Regional Police
Department and the Millersville Borough Police Department. All (5) citations are the result of
false statements to authorities.
MDJ Eckert, Jr., assigned the maximum amount of 100% of the fines and costs as
collateral and demanded $1,600.00 bail be posted. The Petitioner informed MDJ Eckert, Jr.,
that he was indigent and had In Forma Pauperis status in local, state, and federal courts.
MDJ Eckert, Jr., challenged the Petitioner and made disparaging and harassing remarks of the
Petitioners Federal Civil suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, case no. 06-cv-4650.
MDJ Eckert, Jr., told the Petitioner that he was
committing him to the Lancaster County Prison for 10 days until an Indigent Hearing could be
held. The Petitioner was transported back to MDJ Eckert, Jr., Office on November 7th, 2006,
and was requested to sign a document that was missed on October 30th, 2006, for a
signature. MDJ Eckert, Jr., argued with the Petitioner about missing a meeting with the Bail
Administrators Office.
The Petitioner kept telling MDJ Eckert, Jr., that he attended the
meeting. The Petitioner was returned to the Lancaster County Prison without any Indigent
Hearing, as scheduled. The Petitioner also informed MDJ Eckert, Jr., on October 30th, 2006,
of his meetings with law enforcement officers, including Officer James McVey of the Lancaster
City Police Department, Detective Michael Landis of the Lancaster District Attorneys Office,
and the FBI in Harrisburg, about the computer hacking of his electronic calendar containing
all meetings and appointments. No one ever followed up on the complaints.
/sjc/________________________
625 E. King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road
717-431-8184
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 22 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 23 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 24 of 34
01/02/2007
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
:
: CRIMINAL DIVISION
v.
: CASE NO. 4771-2006
:
:
:
:
:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND now on this 8th day of December 2006, I, Stanley J. Caterbone, the petitioner, do
hereby petition the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, for a Writ of
Mandamus against the Honorable Magisterial District Justice Commins, of 15 Geist Road,
Lancaster Pennsylvania, 17601.
On October 30th, 2006, the petitioner had (2) Detainers executed upon him thereby
committing him to Lancaster County Prison, in Lancaster County, where the Petitioner is still
incarcerated. The Petitioner has not been sentenced to serve any jail time.
On October 30th, 2006, the Petitioner was apprehended and served with a Bench
Warrant with Docket No. 36-CR-0004771-06 and Warrant Control No. 36-BW-000283-2006.
Page 26 of 34
01/02/2007
The warrant was used for a Detainer in Lancaster County Prison. The Detainer was issued
because the Bail Administrator revoked a $5,000.00 Unsecured Bail Bond for citations issued
by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police Department. The Bail Administrator
revoked the unsecured non-monetary bail bond alleging that the Petitioner failed to attend
the Intake Meeting of October 17th, 2006.
On November 1st, 2006, before the Honorable
Judge Paul K. Allison, the Petitioner proved in testimony that he had attended the meeting
and did comply with the conditions of the bail bond.
On Monday, October 2nd, 2006, MDJ Commins placed the Petitioner on Bail Supervision
without notifying the Petitioner during the execution of the unsecured bail bond, and without
any cause or justification. The Petitioner received a letter from the Court of Common Pleas,
Madeline Morales, Intake Officer, on or about October 10th, 2006, instructing him to attend
the Intake Meeting on October 17th, 2006, at 10:00 am.
The Petitioner arrived at MDJ
Commins office at approximately 9:40 am and MDJ Commins said she knew nothing about a
Hearing and instructed the Petitioner the Petitioner that he should to the Lancaster County
Courthouse. The Petitioner waited for the next bus and arrived at the Courthouse at about
11:00 am, and attended an Intake Meeting with Madeline Morales. The Petitioner proved he
was not a flight risk and complied with the condition. If you look at the letter, It is written as
if the meeting was scheduled at MDJ Commins Office, unless you are familiar with these
matters, which the Petitioner was not.
MDJ Commins abused her power in placing the Petitioner under Bail Supervision and
allegedly is helping the Southern Regional Police Department slander and libel the Petitioner,
and discredit the Petitioners Civil Action against the Southern Regional Police Department
filed in April of 2006.
/sjc/________________________
625 E. King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road
717-431-8184
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 27 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 28 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 29 of 34
01/02/2007
Page 30 of 34
01/02/2007
IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petition and Affidavit of Financial Status
(Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure Rule 240)
1. I am the plaintiff in the above matter and because of my financial condition am unable to pay the
fees and costs of prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding.
2. I am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay the costs
Litigation.
3. 1 represent that the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs is true and
correct:
(a) Name:
Address:
220 Stone Hill Road
Social Security Number:
200-46-0959
(b) Employment
If you are presently employed, state:
Employer:
Advanced Media Group, Owner
Address:
220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA
17516
Salary or wages per month: $0.00 Currently in Litigation See Notes

Type of work:
If you are presently unemployed. state
Date of last employment:
(c) Other income within the past twelve months Relationship:
Business or profession: Advanced Media Group has no income at this time
See Bankruptcy Petition 05-23059, U.S. District Court For The Eastern
District of Pennsylvania Civil Actions 05-2288 and 06-1538
Other self-employment:
Interest:
Dividends:
Pensions and Annuities:
Social Security benefits:
Support payments:
Disability payments:
Unemployment compensation and supplemental
benefits:
Workman's compensation:
Public assistance: Food Stamps approximately $154.00 per month
Other:
(d) Other Contributions to household support
(Wife)(Husband) Name: ______________________
If your (wife)(husband) is employed, state
Employer:
Salary or wages per month:
Type of work:
Contributions from children:
Contributions from parents:
Other contributions:
Page 31 of 34
01/02/2007
(e)- Property owned:

Cash:
Checking Account:
Savings Account:
Certificate of Deposit
$0.00
$-301.00
$0.00
$0.00
Real estate (including home):

Motor vehicle
$-74.00
$165,000.000
Make:
Dodge Pick Up , Year: 1991
Cost:
$2,700.00
Amount Owed $ 0.00
Stocks; bonds: 9996,000 shares Advanced Media Group non marketable securities these shares are
subject to litigation in the united states district court for the eastern district of Pennsylvania civil action
05-2288, there is no tangible value to the plaintiff until this case is completely adjucated.
Other:
(f) Debts and obligations
Mortgage:
Rent:
Loans: Credit Cards Other:
$97,000
$40,000 Yolanda Caterbone - $25,000
$3,000.00 current accounts payable
(g) Persons dependent upon you for support

(Wife)(Husband) Name:
Children, if any:
Name:
Age:
Date of last employment:
Salary or wages per month: Other persons:
Type of work: Name:
4. I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial
circumstances, which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein.
5. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa:C.S. , relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: ________________________
___/sjc/___________________________
Petitioner
(i) The Praecipe required by subdivision (d) shall be substantially in the following form:
Page 32 of 34
01/02/2007
PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
To the Prothonotary:
Kindly allow , Stanley J. Caterbone,
(Plaintiff), to proceed in forma pauperis.
I, Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant, attorney for the party proceeding in forma pauperis, certify
that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal service to the
party.
(j) If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a
party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the
petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegations of poverty is untrue or if it is
satisfied that the action proceeding or appeal is frivolous.
________/sjc/_____________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, Pa 17516
717-427-1621 Facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 33 of 34
01/02/2007
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
On this day of ______________________, 2007 upon consideration of the attached Petition

and Affidavit of Financial Status, it is hereby Ordered that the Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, IS
permitted to proceed with the filing of his/her action or appeal In Forma Pauperis, and shall not be
required to pay the costs or fees payable in connection with such matter, but conditioned upon his/her
payment of such costs from the proceeds of an financial recovery in this case.
______________________________
BY THE COURT
Page 34 of 34
01/02/2007
717.427-1621 Fax
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
LANCASTER COUNTY
__________________________________________________________________________
:
:
: CIVIL DIVISION
v.
: CASE NO. CI-07-00019
:
:
Fulton Bank
:
Lancaster County Sheriffs Department
:
ADDENDUM TO
PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE OF REAL ESTATE
On January 4th, 2007, Plaintiff was able to obtain his mail at the United States Post
Office in Conestoga, Pennsylvania, and received a letter from the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania dated October 30, 2007, requesting (7) additional copies of briefs for the case
of Fulton Bank v. Caterbone, S. Case No. 1463 MDA 2006, which is the Appeal for the
Mortgage Foreclosure and Sheriff sale being petitioned to be set aside by the courts. The
Plaintiff, who successfully overturned his incarceration through an Appeal and an ORDER by
the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison (December 28, 2006), was not able to answer the
Superior Court request because of the false imprisonment and was not able to obtain the
address of the Superior Court to request a Continuance or Leave.
The Plaintiff has a right to
due process and access to the Courts to Appeal the Judgment and Foreclosure. Any criminal
charges should be referred to the proper authorities, including extortion, theft, and burglary.
Page 1 of 11
01/06/2007
The Plaintiff now alleges that the sale was totally illegal due to the fact that Mr. Shawn
Long, Esq. of Barley Snyder, LLC., attorney of record for Fulton Bank, was made aware of the
request and was serviced by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania the letter of October 30,
2006.
As importantly, on January 4th, 2007 at approximately 1:15 pm, the Plaintiff and Mr.
Joseph Caterbone, of Lancaster, visited the property for inspection and found (2) unidentified
individuals loading the entire contents of personal holdings, belongings, Legal Files, and the
business assets of Advanced Media Group into (2) Penske Moving Trucks with Indiana License
plates. The individuals refused to allow the Plaintiff on the property, and ordered the Plaintiff
and Mr. Joseph Caterbone off of the premises without giving any explanation except that they
were working for Noble Real Estate. The Plaintiff took (2) pictures of the individuals and
the trucks.
The buyer on the record of sale of December 20, 2006, was Central Penn Title
Company of Akron, Pennsylvania.
There was no settlement for the property and the Plaintiff
was not served nor received any Distribution Schedule.

The Plaintiff went directly to the Conestoga Post Office for his mail from October of
2006, and then went to the Lancaster County Courthouse to report for trial before the
Honorable Judge Cullen. The Plaintiff stopped into the Office of the Lancaster County Sheriffs
Department and spoke to Mr. Lancaster about the problem, and he informed the Plaintiff that
Southern Regional Police Department was responding to the property. The Plaintiff refused
to call the Southern Regional Police Department because of current litigation and an
adversarial relationship.
The Plaintiff then went to report the problem with Lancaster
Assistant District Attorney Ms. Deborah Muzereus on the 5th floor, and she refused to speak
to the Plaintiff and ordered him to Courtroom 1 for trial.
The Plaintiff alerted the situation and requested a continuance from the Honorable
Judge Cullen, who refused. The Plaintiff arrived home from trial at approximately 6:00 pm,
and called the Pennsylvania State Police from the home of Mr. Joseph Caterbone, and spoke
to Cpl. Lynam of the Lancaster Barracks who would not assist the Plaintiff in the matter. Cpl.
Lynam kept questioning the owner of the property, and the Plaintiff repeated that the
Page 2 of 11
01/06/2007
The Plaintiff will forward a copy of the Brief to the Pennsylvania Superior Court as
requested.
/sjc/________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 3 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 4 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 5 of 11
01/06/2007
EXHIBIT D
Page 6 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 7 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 8 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 9 of 11
01/06/2007
Page 10 of 11
01/06/2007
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE OF
REAL ESTATE has been served this 5nd day of January, 2007 by first class mail, Postage
Long. Shawn Michael

Bar No.: 83774 Law Firm: Barley Snyder, LLC
Address: 126 E King Street
Lancaster. PA 17602-2893
Phone No.: (717)399-1512 Fax No.: (717)291-4660
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address: slong@barley.com
The Lancaster County Sheriffs Department
Mr. Terry Bergman
Lancaster, PA 17602
/sjc/______________________________
220 Stone Hill Road
amgroup01@msn.com
Page 11 of 11
01/06/2007

Documents For Recovery of 220 Stone Hill Road Property and Equity of $67,000 Plus Interest March - 0

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Documents For Recovery of 220 Stone Hill Road Property and Equity of $67,000 Plus Interest March - 0

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

220 Stone Hill Road Documented

Fair Market Values In Year 2006

220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

FULTON BANK FORM 1099-A

REALTY TRANSFER TAX

3,000.00 Estimated Overcharge By Sheriffs Department

$ 84,454.25 Amount Owed By Fulton Bank And Lancaster

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

Value Range: $194,739 - $301,739

Market Value Change Show: $ Dollar | % Percentage

Zindex (Median Zestimate)

64% of homes in 17516 ZIP code

63% of homes in Conestoga

72% of homes in Lancaster County

65% of homes in PA state

40% of homes in United States

1 of 2ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Zillow - 220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

Welcome amgroup01! (Not amgroup01? Sign out.)

220 Stone Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516

View large map

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

RECORDER'S USE ONLY

REALTY TRANSFER TAX

See Reverse for Instructions

A. CORRESPONDENT - All inquiries may be directed to the following person:

100 South 7th Street

Date of Acceptance of Document

anc caster County

City, Township, Borough

220 Stone Hi Road

1. Actual Cash Consideration

5. Common Level Ratio Factor

6. Fair Market Value

Tax Parcel Number

l a . Amount of Exemption Claimed

1b. Percentage of Interest Conveyed

2. Check Appropriate Box Below for Exemption Claimed

Will or intestate succession

(Estate File Number)

Transfer to Industrial Development Agency.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

FEDERAL ID NUMBER: 23 92 421

TAX YEAR 2006

CIPAL OUTSTANDING (BOX 2):

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

October 14th, 2006:

October 17th, 2006:

?? October 20th, 2006:

?? October 26th, 2006:

?? October 30th, 2006:

November 1st, 2006: