Stanley J.

Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STANLEY J. CATERBONE

vs.

Docket No. __________

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department

LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP

ORDER
AND NOW, this __________ day of___________ , 2015, the Above named Defendants,
in part

or

in

whole,

shall

be

issued

citations

for violating

KIDNAPPING ; and 3503 CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

18

Pa.

C.S.A.

2901

The Issuing Authorities shall file the

appropriate citations for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

AND NOW, this __________ day of___________ , 2015, Chief Keith Sadler and Stan J.
Caterbone shall enter into MEDIATION with a accredited local or state agency for violating 18 Pa.
C.S.A. 2901 KIDNAPPING ; and 3503 CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

AND NOW, this __________ day of___________ , 2015, I am ORDERING the

EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Case No. 15-06985 in the Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas, be hereby GRANTED AND the Matter before the Superior Court be hereby
WITHDRAWN, for violating 18 Pa. C.S.A. 2901 KIDNAPPING ; and 3503 CRIMINAL
TRESPASS.
BY THE COURT:
________________________
J.
ATTEST:
___________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

1 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
vs.

Docket No. __________

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department

LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:
Petitioner, Stanley Caterbone, hereby petitions

the court for the

review of the

decision issued by Chief County Detective Michael Landis, Office of the Attorney for the
Commonwealth issued on August 31, 2015, not to file criminal charges from the Private Criminal
Complaint attached hereto.
2901. Kidnapping.
(a) Offense defined.--Except as provided in subsection (a.1), a person is guilty of kidnapping if he
unlawfully removes another a substantial distance under the circumstances from the place where he is found,
or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation, with any of the following
intentions:
(1) To hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage.
(2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter.
(3) To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another.
(4) To interfere with the performance by public officials of any governmental or political function.
3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.-(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or
separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under paragraph
(1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an
opening not designed for human access.

Date: September 23, 2015

_____________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
(717) 669-2163
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

2 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION:
The proper procedure for seeking approval of private criminal complaints is set forth in
Pa.R.Crim.P. 133 as follows:
(a) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer and the offense(s) charged include(s) a
misdemeanor or felony which does not involve a clear and present danger to any person or to the
community, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall
approve or disapprove without unreasonable delay.
(b) If the attorney for the Commonwealth
(1) Approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and
transmit it to the issuing authority;
(2) Disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and
return it to the affiant. Thereafter the affiant may file the complaint with a judge of a Court of
Common Pleas for approval or disapproval;
(3) Does not approve or disapprove within a reasonable period of time, the affiant may file the
complaint on a separate form with the issuing authority, noting thereon that a complaint is
pending before an attorney for the Commonwealth. The issuing authority shall determine whether
a reasonable period has elapsed, and when appropriate, shall defer action to allow the attorney
for the Commonwealth an additional period of time to respond.
In determining whether to approve or disapprove a private criminal complaint, the district
attorney may rely on either a legal assessment of the complaint, or wholly discretionary matters
of policy. Commonwealth v. Benz523 Pa. 203, 565 A.2d 764 (1989). When thedistrict attorney
rests the disapproval of a private criminal complaint on wholly discretionary matters of policy, this
Court will not disturb that determination, absent a gross abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v.
Pritchard,408 Pa. Super. 221, 596 A.2d 827 (1991). See also In Re Wood, 333 Pa. Super. 597,
602, 482 A.2d 1033, 1036 (1985) (quoting Commonwealth v. Eisemann, 276 Pa. Super. 543, 419
A.2d 591 (1980)) (prosecutorial discretion may depend on policy matters wholly apart from the
existence or non-existence of probable cause; courts are wary of supervising exercise of such
discretion). When the district attorney bases a dismissal solely on a lack of evidence,however, this
Court will apply a de novo standard of review because such a decision is not entitled to the same
deference afforded a policy decision not to prosecute, even where a prima facie case exists.
Commonwealth v. Benz, supra at 208 n.4,565 A.2d at 767 n.4. The special deference extended to
a policy decision not to prosecute arises from the deference accorded the discretionary use of
executive powers conferred in the district attorney. Id. The power to approve or disapprove
private criminal complaints granted under Pa.R.Crim.P. 133 to the district attorney is consistent
with the authority which that office regularly exercises in deciding to initiate or discontinue
prosecutions. In re Petition of Piscanio,235 Pa. Super. 490, 494, 344 A.2d 658, 660 (1975). The
requirements for the issuance of process pursuant to a criminal complaint are provided in
3 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Pa.R.Crim.P. 134.
ARGUEMENT
The proper procedure for seeking approval of private criminal complaints is set forth in
Pa.R.Crim.P. 133 as follows:
(a) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer and the offense(s) charged include(s) a
misdemeanor or felony which does not involve a clear and present danger to any person or to the
community, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall
approve or disapprove without unreasonable delay.
(b) If the attorney for the Commonwealth
(1) Approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and
transmit it to the issuing authority;
(2) Disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form
and return it to the affiant. Thereafter the affiant may file the complaint with a judge of a Court
of Common Pleas for approval or disapproval;
The Petitioner's Private Criminal Complaint was dismissed by the following statement by
Michael L. Landis, Chief County Detective: Pursuant to Rule 506 of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Criminal Procedure, the Private Criminal Complaint you submitted to our office
seeking to charge various police officers of the Lancaster Bureau of Police with criminal
offenses, has been reviewed by an Assistant District Attorney and has been
disapproved. The complaint is enclosed.
The above clearly does not satisfy Pa.R.Crim.P. 134, and/or other statutes that
include the rules for Private Criminal Complaints.

The above named defendants did engage in the following:

A. An Act of Malice and Recklace Disregard for the false statements in the 303 Hearing by
both Dr. Silvia Gratz and Lt. Clark Bearinger.
B. Conspiracy and Collusion to Obstruct Due Process in the Lisa Michelle Lambert Case,
No. 5:14-cv-02559 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania of which I am
named MOVANT, by not releasing medical records in a timely fashion. It has been
about 1 month and the staff continues to state that the invoice is on it's way.
C. Gross negligence in the manner in which psychiatric drugs were administered and the
misinformation with regards to dosage and strength.
D. Medical Malpractice in the lack of care when requesting help and treatment for illnesses
and ailments during the stay, with one incident when I begged to go to the emergency

4 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

room for not being able to breath.

E. Assault and Battery in providing an environment for chemicals to be used
against me, such as chloroform or something similar.
1. Petitioner was named the MOVAN in the Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus Corpus Case of 2014
on June 25, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania Case No. 14-02559.
2. Petitioner has been formerly and officially making complaints for computer hacking,
harassment, threats to person and property, etc., to the Lancaster City Police, the
Lancaster County District Attorney's Office, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, and
the FBI in Harrisburg prior to July 9, 2015.
3. Petitioner has filed civil complaints against the Lancaster City Police Department in both
federal (06-4650, 05-2288) and state (08-13373) courts since 2005.
4. Petitioner had formerly and officially attempted to engage Chief Kieth Sadler of the
Lancaster City Police Department into Mediation through the Lancaster Human Rights
Commission at 225 West King Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania and worked with intake
person Linda Struass prior to the year 2010.
5. Petitioner had introduced legislation to the Pennsylvania General Assembly through Michael
Sturla, House of Representatives, regarding organized stalking and electronic weapons in
2009 and again in 2015 prior to July 9, 2015.
6. Petitioner was a Federal Whistleblower in 1987 with regards to International Signal &
Control, or ISC.
7. Petitioner has been receiving Social Security Disability Benefits since 2008 for symptoms
and illnesses related to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control, and was declared disabled in
December of 2005 by the Social Security Administration. There was no medical or
psychiatric evaluations performed for the application and approval process, nor were there
any medical/psychiatric professionals listed in any documentation.
The Following Address the Federal Whistleblower and ISC Issues
8. ISC was indicted in 1991 for illegal arms transfers to Iraq and a $1 Billion Fraud.
9. Petitioner has been claiming and proving with a preponderance of evidence of a vast
criminal and civil conspiracy to cover-up his allegations and his public and official
disclosures.
10. The False Arrests and Prosecutorial Misconduct that Stan J. Caterbone was subject to in
1987 was an effort to cover-up the allegations made by Stan J. Caterbone in the Spring
and Summer of 1987 after the Meeting of June 23, 1987 with ISC and United Chem Con
Executive Larry Resch.
11. The ISC Fraud and Sales of Arms to Iraq Story by the ABC News Nightline with Ted Koppel
and the Financial Times of London in May, July, and September of 1991 was most likely

5 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

initiated by Lancaster Newspapers reporter Thomas Flannary.

12. Thomas Flannary's mysterious death in February of 2004 was either murder by poison or
was a cover story to hide the fact that he was a CIA operative used to control the flow of
information, disinformation, and propaganda. It is highly subject that he began his career
with Lancaster Newspapers in 1987 and is not a native Lancastrian.
13. The ISC merger was not completed until December of 1987, 3 months after the False
Arrests of Stan J. Caterbone.
14. The official meeting with the Pennsylvania Securities Commission Agent Howard Eisler in
September of 1987, which was solicited by Agent Eisler was an effort to illegally
interrogate Stan J. Caterbone without a legal subpoena.
15. In the months after the June 23, 1987 meeting with ISC Executive Larry Resch Stan J.
Caterbone had personally solicited a vast array of local, state, and federal officials,
including the FBI and Congressman Robert Walker, PA State Representative Gison
Armstrong for assistance in the retaliation and slander campaign that was in progress.
16. That there is credible linkage between the ISC Scandal, U.S. Sponsored Mind Control, Stan
J. Caterbone's family VICTIMIZATION, and LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
17. The Zook Murder Appeal proves that Lancaster County Detective Michael Landis, Judge
James Cullen, and Judge Farina of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas were all
involved in U.S. Sponsored Mind Control before 2004 and before Stan J. Caterbone went
public with his VICTIMIZATION of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control.
18. Bobby Ray Inman, former director of the National Security Agency (NSA) was on the Board
of Directors of ISC and was involved in U.S. Sponsored Mind Control Technologies through
his company S.A.I.C. Corporation. Bobby Ray Inman would later be selected by Former
President Bill Clinton for his Director of Defense, but would later remove himself due to
allegations and public scrutiny for his role in the ISC scandal.
19. In the Fall of 1991 Robert Gates was nominated for Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and during his televised confirmation hearings the was subject to brutal
array of questions concerning his participation in the ISC scandal.

He went on to be

nominated and later would serve both the Bush Administrations and the Obama
Administrations as Secretary of Defense until resigning in 2011.
20. The above finding of facts and evidence corroborates a vast conspiracy and criminal
enterprise that violates both civil and criminal RICO statutes and antitrust statutes.
21. The above would constitute treble damages for Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group in U.S. District
Courts, specifically in the Eastern District for Pennsylvania Case No. 05-2288, 06-4650, 14-02559; and
Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
22. Petitioner was taken into assaulted, arrested and taken into custody under the following
Pennsylvania Mental Health Laws and RegulationsPennsylvania Rules:
7301. Persons who may be subject to involuntary emergency examination and treatment

6 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

(a) Persons Subject. -- Whenever a person is severely mentally ill and in need of
immediate treatment, he may be made subject to involuntary emergency
examination and treatment. A person is severely mentally disabled when, as a result
of mental illness, his capacity to exercise self-control, judgment and discretion in
the conduct of his affairs and social relations or to care for his own personal needs is
so lessened that he poses a clear and present danger of harm to others or to
himself.
23. Detective Clark Bearinger did engage in a fraud with Lancaster County Crisis
Intervention or the County Administrator when he changed to a 7301.(b)
Determination of Clear and Present Danger in the Stanley J. Caterbone Petition
Statement.
24. Defendant's did approach Petitioner outside his residence on Fremont Street while
Petitioner was mowing his front lawn.
25. Petitioner did immediately go directly inside his residence and lock his doors in fear for his
safety and in fear of physical harm.
26. Petitioner did immediately go directly to his front bedroom on the second floor and tried
desperately to communicate with the Defendant's and talk them down and did warn the
Defendant's of his legal and civil rights.
27. Petitioner did also make declaratory statements that the assault was retaliatory for the
Petitioner's active role in the Lisa Michelle Lambert Case.
28. Petitioner did throw out his window to Defendants to read his Press Release for the
Organized Stalking Bill containing the docket to prove his being named as MOVANT by the
Courts in the Lisa Michelle Lambert Case.
29. Defendant's did illegally and recklessly break the Petitioner's door down, physically assault
the Petitioner and engage in an act of KIDNAPPING in removing Petitioner from his locked
residence.
30. Defendant's did further violate the Petitioner's civil rights by not allowing Petitioner to take
his files that were on his person at the time of the illegal assault with him to the hospitals.
31. Defendants did maliciously and with specific intent physically assault and torture the
Petitioner en route to the Lancaster General Hospital resulting in the Lancaster General
Hospital performing an x-ray and examination of the Petitioner's left should, right groin,
and back.
32. Petitioner was also subject to a brutal array of harassment and torture at the hands of the
Lancaster General Hospital and the attending physicians, duty nurse, and aids.

7 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

33. 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.
34. Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 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.

Date: September 23, 2015

_____________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
(717) 669-2163
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

8 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Lancaster County District Attorney

50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Service was executed on _______ day of September, 2015.

Date: September 23, 2015

_____________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
(717) 669-2163
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

9 of 9

Thursday, September 24, 2015