United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 39
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________________________________________
:
Stanley J. Caterbone
:
Advanced Media Group
:
CIVIL DIVISION
Petitioner
:
Case No.
15-03984
Related Case: Pennsylvania
Superior 1915 MDA 2015
:
v.
:
Lancaster County Crisis Intervention
:
Craig Stedman, Lancaster County District Attorney
Detective Clark Bearinger, Lancaster City Police
Lancaster City Police Department
Dr. Silvia Gratz, Chief Medical Officer and
Fairmount Behavioral Health System
:
Defendants
:
EXHIBIT re Change.org Petition by Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group

March 17, 2016
This exhibit, is intended to help the Court understand the complexity of the PETITIONER's
obligation to provide the Court with the evidence and insight to support the PETITIONER's claims
and statements.
These documents will also provide the Court with sufficient knowledge of the
PETITIONER's claim of the value of the PETITIONER's litigation of up to $50 million dollars as
stated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 05-23059. The APPELLANT does not intend to overburden
the Court with unnecessary filings, however this burden of supporting the claims and statements
falls on the shoulders of all those in the government that ignored the PETITIONER's pleas for help
to resolve these issues dating back to the days immediately following the meeting with
International Signal & Control, Plc., (ISC) Executive Larry Resch on June 23, 1987.
Date: March 18, 2015
15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition
/S/
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
(717) 669-2163
Page 1 of 39
Friday, March 18, 2016
For Your Information (FYI) the following is my Habeus Corpus for this case.
The Habeus
Corpus filed while at Fairmont Hospital is moot due to my release.
AND NOW, on this 10th day of December 2015, the PETITIONER, Stanley J.
Caterbone/Advanced Media Group, do hereby file the following pursuant to the Federal
Habeas Corpus statutes prescribed in 28 2242 as prescribed by law. The Plaintiff alleges
violations according to the 1867 interpretation of the federal habeas corpus statutes which
states: where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the
constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.
The Plaintiff alleges that he has been a prisoner of the state since 1987, and
that the activities surrounding the PETITIONER'S life since June of 2015 immediately
following the filing of an amicus curiae in the Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus Case of this same
said court, No. 14-02559, in which the PETITIONER was named MOVANT, has escalated into a
daily occurrence of assaults. Unfortunately while the PETITIONER has made many in person
complaints to just about every law enforcement agency, the most recent to the Manheim
Township Substation in Lancaster Township regarding an assault at the Manor Shopping
Center minutes previously (December 9, 2015 9:00pm), the pleas for help and assistance
have yielded nothing but more attacks to the PETITIONER'S person, property, electronics,
home, auto, reputation, intellectual property, and lastly his mental state-of-mind A BRUTAL
ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. The PETITIONER has already made claims of
COINTELPRO-like tactics in his filings in the U.S.C.A. Case No. 15-3400 against these same
said actors and perpetrators. The PETITIONER will provide evidence to support this writ and
offer a final remedy and redress in accordance with federal law.
The PETITIONER acknowledges that this petition may lead to a landmark decision,
however, the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, and the military
industrial complex had it coming for a very long time.
In fact, all things considered, they
may welcome the purging of these technologies, the technologies and tactics of U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control.
See my Press Release and Executive Summary for further
deliberations.
Page 2 of 39
JURISDICTION
Birth of the Modern Writ. In 1867, Congress substantially increased the jurisdiction
of federal courts to issue the writ by authorizing its issuance in all cases, state or federal,
where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the
constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.16 Originally, habeas corpus
permitted collateral attack upon a prisoner's conviction only if the sentencing court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. Shortly after 1867, however, the Supreme Court began to
recognize a growing number of circumstances where courts were said to have acted beyond
their jurisdiction because some constitutional violation had extinguished or "voided" their
jurisdiction.17 This development was of limited benefit to most prisoners, since most were
confined under state convictions and relatively few of the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution were thought to apply against the states. Even when a constitutional claim was
available, state prisoners could not be granted federal habeas relief until all possibility of
state judicial relief trial, appellate, and post conviction had been exhausted.181
FOOTNOTES: 1 16 That the several courts of the United States, and the several justices and
judges of such courts, within their respective jurisdictions, in addition to the authority already
conferred by law, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any
person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty
or law of the United States; and it shall be lawful for such person so restrained of his or her
liberty to apply to either of said justices or judges for a writ of habeas corpus, which
application shall be in writing and verified by affidavit, and shall set forth the facts concerning
the detention of the party applying, in whose custody he or she is detained, and by virtue of
what claim or authority, if known; and the said justice or judge to whom such application
shall be made shall forthwith award a writ of habeas corpus, unless it shall appear from the
petition itself that the party is not deprived of his or her liberty in contravention of the
constitution or laws of the United States, 14 Stat. 385-86 (1867). At the same time,
Congress modified and codified much of the procedure associated with the writ, including an
appellate provision that was soon thereafter repealed, 15 Stat. 44 (1868); see Ex parte
McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869).
17 See e.g.: Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S.(18 Wall.) 163 (1874). Lange had been convicted of an
offense punishable by a fine or term of imprisonment. The trial court had sentenced him to a
fine and a term of imprisonment. Lange paid his fine and was imprisoned. The Court held that
Page 3 of 39
once Lange had paid the fine the trial court lost all jurisdiction over the case and thus his
confinement was subject to the writ. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880). In Siebold,
although the statute in question was found to be within the power of Congress, the Court
held that had the prisoner been convicted under an unconstitutional law he would have been
entitled to discharge upon the writ.
Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 (1885). The Court held that Wilson was entitled to discharge
on the writ because the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction when it tried, convicted and
sentenced him to fifteen years hard labor based upon an information filed by the district
attorney rather than upon a grand jury indictment as required by the Fifth Amendment in the
case of all capital and otherwise infamous crimes. In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274 (1887). Snow
was convicted of three counts of cohabitation based on the same conduct during three
different periods of time. The Court found that the misconduct was one continuous offense
rather than three offenses. Since three sentences would constitute multiple punishment
contrary to the Fifth Amendment, the trial court had acted beyond its jurisdiction and the writ
should issue.
Date: March 18, 2015
/S/
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
(717) 669-2163
Page 4 of 39
Page 5 of 39
Page 6 of 39
Page 7 of 39
Page 8 of 39
Page 9 of 39
Page 10 of 39
Page 11 of 39
Page 12 of 39
Page 13 of 39
Page 14 of 39
Page 15 of 39
Page 16 of 39
Page 17 of 39
Page 18 of 39
Page 19 of 39
Page 20 of 39
Page 21 of 39
Page 22 of 39
Page 23 of 39
Page 24 of 39
Page 25 of 39
Page 26 of 39
Page 27 of 39
Page 28 of 39
Page 29 of 39
Page 30 of 39
Page 31 of 39
Page 32 of 39
Page 33 of 39
Page 34 of 39
Page 35 of 39
Page 36 of 39
Page 37 of 39
Page 38 of 39
Page 39 of 39

United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania

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

United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 39

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

EXHIBIT re Change.org Petition by Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 39

Corpus filed while at Fairmont Hospital is moot due to my release.

In fact, all things considered, they

See my Press Release and Executive Summary for further

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 39

Date: March 18, 2015

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 5 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 6 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 7 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 8 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 9 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 10 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 11 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 12 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 13 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 14 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 15 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 16 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 17 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 18 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 26 Filed 03/18/16 Page 19 of 39

15-03984 Statement re Change.org Petition

Friday, March 18, 2016