Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 1 of 91
That being said there is a broader issue that is woven through the history of this
unprecedented case starting; with the original HABEUS CORPUS written and filed by
PETITIONER Lisa Michelle Lambert in 1997, the findings of U.S. District Judge Stewert
Dalzall's that this case contained one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the
English speaking language and releasing Lisa Michelle Lambert from prison; and ultimately
the contamination of wrongdoings in this case.
This again is another case of JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT and PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT at the WORST or a case of ERRORS and
OMMISSIONS at best regarding the adjudication of the APPELLANT'S original Amicus Curie
Brief and Motion for Summary Judgment in PETITIONER'S Lisa Michelle Lambert's Habeus
Corpus of May of 2014.
This case was of national importance and received national attention immediately
following the findings of U.S. District Judge Stewert Dalzall and the release of Lisa Michelle
Lambert from prison in 1997. A&E TV did a documentary, which aired on national television
titled American Justice: A Teenage Murder Mystery and also sells the DVD online today. See
Appendix H. The LA Times published a 3-part series beginning on November 10, 1997 by
Journalist Barry Seigel. See Appendix I.
It is in the public's best interest to restore integrity to the COURTS and to the
Prosecutors and Judges and the COURTS that are honest and fair; and provide the means to
which Lisa Michelle Lambert's meritorious plight for RELIEF and RELEASE from Prison can
then be accomplished, as it should.
I have enclosed a CD-ROM that contains every pertinent document that I could think of you
would require to consider my request and to perform your due diligence of my active situation. I pray
for your help in my advocacy for Lisa Michelle Lambert and to help right an injustice. I also believe that
President Elect Trump deserves that every person in this country conducts themselves as first an
AMERICAN, then a Republican or Democrat. This country needs our help to restore it back to the days
when we were the BEACON OF DEMOCRACY for everyone to follow.
Thank you and your lovely family for your service!
Respectfully,
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
Page 2 of 91
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle
Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa
Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen
Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary
Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 16-10157
Page 3 of 91
Page 4 of 91
AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, Pro Se , am the petitioner in the above-entitled case. In support of
my motion to proceed in forma pauperis, I state that because of my poverty I am unable to pay
the costs of this case or to give security therefor; and I believe I am entitled to redress.
1. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of
the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received
weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross
amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.
Income source
Amount expected
next month
You
Spouse
You
Spouse
Employment
Self-employment
Gifts
Alimony
Child Support
Unemployment payments
Public-assistance
(such as welfare)
Other (specify):
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
1,357.00
Page 5
2 of 91
45
62
70
88
1,357.00
1,357.00
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
2. List your employment history for the past two years, most recent rst. (Gross monthly pay
is before taxes or other deductions.)
Employer
Address
Dates of
Employment
3. List your spouses employment history for the past two years, most recent employer rst.
(Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)
Employer
Address
Dates of
Employment
Type of account
Members1st
TD Ameritrade
Checking
Money Market
5. List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing
and ordinary household furnishings.
X Home
D
Value 25% of 80,000.00
D Motor Vehicle #1
Year, make & model
Value
D Motor Vehicle #2
Year, make & model
Value
D Other assets
Description
Value
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 6
3 of 91
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
Page 7 of 91
You
Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments)
Your spouse
100.00
200.00
$
$
Homeowners or renters
Life
Health
Motor Vehicle
Other:
Office/Computer/Copying/Printing/Postage
300.00
Motor Vehicle
Credit card(s)
Department store(s)
Other:
Other (specify):
500.00
2,658.00
(specify):
Installment payments
Home Improvement
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 8
5 of 91
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
Page 9 of 91
No.
IN THE
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
PETITIONER
(Your Name)
vs.
RESPONDENT(S)
Stanley J. Caterbone
(Your Name)
1250 Fremont Street
(Address)
Lancaster, PA 17603
(Phone Number)
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page
Page10
7 of
of88
45
62
70
91
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
July 18, 2016 C.A. 16-1149 ORDER Present Chargaras, Jordan, and Venaskie [The foregoing motion for reconsideration of the Clerk's Order is construed as a motion to review
that order and is denied as meritless. The Clerk has the authority under 3d Cir. LAR 3.3 and Misc.
107.1(a) to dismiss an appeal for failure to satisfy the fee requirement.
Appellant received
written notice of the need to take care of his fee obligation, and he failed to respond with either
payment of the fees or a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Appellant's
contention that he is being unjustly taxed twice for the same appeal is erroneous Appellant
incurred a fee obligation by filling a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(e) (Upon filing a
notice of appeal, the appellant must pay the district clerk all required fees.).
He filed two
separate appeals (C.A. Nos. 15-3400 and 16-1149), and he incurred two fee obligations.
Moreover, we note that appellant suffered no monetary loss for his appeal at C.A. No. 15-3400 as
the Court granted his motion to voluntarily withdraw that appeal before his IFP motion was
considered or any fee remitted.
Even if we were to liberally construe appellant's filing as a motion to reopen, we would
deny it. Pursuant to 3d Cir. L.A.R Misc. 107.2(a), a motion to set aside an order of dismissal for
failure to prosecute must be filed within 10 days from the date of dismissal and must be justified
by a showing of good cause.
month after the dismissal order was entered. As such, his motion is clearly untimely. Additionally
the Appellant has failed to provide to the court an excuse for his untimely filing.
He simply
asserts that he wants the Court to do what it has already declined to do, that is reopen C.A. 153400. Accordingly, given appellant's dilatoriness and his failure to establish good cause for the
untimely filing, reopening is not warranted. By The Court.]
WHY DID THE COURT FAIL TO COMPLY WITH OR CONSIDER DOCKET ENTRY NO.
DECEMBER 31, 2015 - THE LETTER TO THE COURT REQUESTING TO RESCIND THE
MOTION TO DISMISS?
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page
Page11
8 of
of88
45
62
70
91
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
Page 12 of 91
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12
OPINIONS BELOW ........................................................................................................ 1
13
JURISDICTION...................................................................................................................
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................. 43
APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX E .............................................................................................................. 55
APPENDIX F .............................................................................................................. 60
APPENDIX G .............................................................................................................. 64
APPENDIX H .............................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................... 73
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 13
12 of 91
10
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
CASES
PAGE NUMBER
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965);
Appendix B -
OTHER
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 14
13 of 91
11
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
IN THE
OPINIONS BELOW
[X] For cases from federal courts:
The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix
the petition and is
to
to
[ ] reported at
; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
[ ] For cases from state courts:
The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
Appendix
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at
; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
The opinion of the
appears at Appendix
court
to the petition and is
[ ] reported at
; or,
[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
[ ] is unpublished.
1.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 15
14 of 91
12
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
JURISDICTION
[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:
, and a copy of the order denying rehearing
appears at Appendix
.
[ ] An extension of time to le the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted
to and including
(date) on
(date) in
Application No.
A
.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. 1257(a).
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 16
15 of 91
13
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
POINTER
v.
TEXAS.
No. 577.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 15, 1965.
Decided April 5, 1965.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
Orville A. Harlan, by appointment of the Court, 379 U.S. 911, argued the cause and filed a brief
for petitioner.
Gilbert J. Pena, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondent. With him
on the brief were Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant
Attorney General, Stanton Stone, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender
and Allo B. Crow, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Sixth Amendment provides in part that:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted
with the witnesses *401 against him . . . and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence."
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 17
14 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Two years ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, we held that the Fourteenth Amendment
makes the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel obligatory upon the States. The
question we find necessary to decide in this case is whether the Amendment's guarantee of a
defendant's right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him," which has been held to
include the right to cross-examine those witnesses, is also made applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The petitioner Pointer and one Dillard were arrested in Texas and taken before a state judge for a
preliminary hearing (in Texas called the "examining trial") on a charge of having robbed Kenneth
W. Phillips of $375 "by assault, or violence, or by putting in fear of life or bodily injury," in
violation of Texas Penal Code Art. 1408. At this hearing an Assistant District Attorney conducted
the prosecution and examined witnesses, but neither of the defendants, both of whom were
laymen, had a lawyer. Phillips as chief witness for the State gave his version of the alleged
robbery in detail, identifying petitioner as the man who had robbed him at gunpoint. Apparently
Dillard tried to cross-examine Phillips but Pointer did not, although Pointer was said to have tried
to cross-examine some other witnesses at the hearing. Petitioner was subsequently indicted on a
charge of having committed the robbery. Some time before the trial was held, Phillips moved to
California. After putting in evidence to show that Phillips had moved and did not intend to return
to Texas, the State at the trial offered the transcript of Phillips' testimony given at the preliminary
hearing as evidence against petitioner. Petitioner's counsel immediately objected to introduction of
the transcript, stating, "Your Honor, we will object to that, as it is a denial of the confrontment of
the witnesses against the Defendant." *402 Similar objections were repeatedly made by
petitioner's counsel but were overruled by the trial judge, apparently in part because, as the judge
viewed it, petitioner had been present at the preliminary hearing and therefore had been
"accorded the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses there against him." The Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, the highest state court to which the case could be taken, affirmed petitioner's
conviction, rejecting his contention that use of the transcript to convict him denied him rights
guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 375 S.W.2d 293. We granted certiorari to
consider the important constitutional question the case involves. 379 U.S. 815.
In this Court we do not find it necessary to decide one aspect of the question petitioner raises,
that is, whether failure to appoint counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing
unconstitutionally denied him the assistance of counsel within the meaning of Gideon v.
Wainwright, supra. In making that argument petitioner relies mainly on White v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 59, in which this Court reversed a conviction based in part upon evidence that the defendant
had pleaded guilty to the crime at a preliminary hearing where he was without counsel. Since the
preliminary hearing there, as in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, was one in which pleas to the
charge could be made, we held in White as in Hamilton that a preliminary proceeding of that
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 18
15 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
nature was so critical a stage in the prosecution that a defendant at that point was entitled to
counsel. But the State informs us that at a Texas preliminary hearing, such as is involved here,
pleas of guilty are not guilty are not accepted and that the judge decides only whether the
accused should be bound over to the grand jury and if so whether he should be admitted to bail.
Because of these significant differences in the procedures of the respective States, we cannot say
that the White case is necessarily controlling *403 as to the right to counsel. Whether there might
be other circumstances making this Texas preliminary hearing so critical to the defendant as to
call for appointment of counsel at that stage we need not decide on this record, and that question
we reserve. In this case the objections and arguments in the trial court as well as the arguments
in the Court of Criminal Appeals and before us make it clear that petitioner's objection is based
not so much on the fact that he had no lawyer when Phillips made his statement at the
preliminary hearing, as on the fact that use of the transcript of that statement at the trial denied
petitioner any opportunity to have the benefit of counsel's cross-examination of the principal
witness against him. It is that latter question which we decide here.
I.
The Sixth Amendment is a part of what is called our Bill of Rights. In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra,
in which this Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to the assistance of counsel is
obligatory upon the States, we did so on the ground that "a provision of the Bill of Rights which is
`fundamental and essential to a fair trial' is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth
Amendment." 372 U. S., at 342. And last Term in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, in holding that the
Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination was made applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth, we reiterated the holding of Gideon that the Sixth Amendment's right-to-counsel
guarantee is " `a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,' " and "thus was made obligatory on
the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." 378 U. S., at 6. See also Murphy v. Waterfront
Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52. We hold today that the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront
the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
*404 It cannot seriously be doubted at this late date that the right of cross-examination is
included in the right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him. And
probably no one, certainly no one experienced in the trial of lawsuits, would deny the value of
cross-examination in exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth in the trial of a criminal case.
See, e. g., 5 Wigmore, Evidence 1367 (3d ed. 1940). The fact that this right appears in the
Sixth Amendment of our Bill of Rights reflects the belief of the Framers of those liberties and
safeguards that confrontation was a fundamental right essential to a fair trial in a criminal
prosecution. Moreover, the decisions of this Court and other courts [*] throughout the years have
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 19
16 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 20
17 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
346 U.S. 156, 195-196. But of course since Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, it no longer can broadly
be said that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to state courts. And as this Court said in Malloy
v. Hogan, supra, "The Court has not hesitated to re-examine past decisions according the
Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which
was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme."
378 U. S., at 5. In the light of Gideon, Malloy, and other cases cited in those opinions holding
various provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the statements made in West and similar cases generally declaring that the Sixth
Amendment does not apply to the States can no longer be regarded as the law. We hold that
petitioner was entitled to be tried in accordance with the protection of the confrontation guarantee
of the Sixth Amendment, and that that guarantee, like the right against compelled selfincrimination, is "to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to
the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment." Malloy v.
Hogan, supra, 378 U. S., at 10.
II.
Under this Court's prior decisions, the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of confrontation and crossexamination was unquestionably denied petitioner in this case. As has been pointed out, a major
reason underlying the *407 constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with
crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. See, e. g., Dowdell v. United
States, 221 U.S. 325, 330; Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 474; Kirby v. United States, 174
U.S. 47, 55-56; Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-243. Cf. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574,
581; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cranch 290, 295. This Court has recognized the admissibility against an
accused of dying declarations, Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 151, and of testimony of a
deceased witness who has testified at a former trial, Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 240244. See also Dowdell v. United States, supra, 221 U. S., at 330; Kirby v. United States, supra,
174 U. S., at 61. Nothing we hold here is to the contrary. The case before us would be quite a
different one had Phillips' statement been taken at a full-fledged hearing at which petitioner had
been represented by counsel who had been given a complete and adequate opportunity to crossexamine. Compare Motes v. United States, supra, 178 U. S., at 474. There are other analogous
situations which might not fall within the scope of the constitutional rule requiring confrontation of
witnesses. The case before us, however, does not present any situation like those mentioned
above or others analogous to them. Because the transcript of Phillips' statement offered against
petitioner at his trial had not been taken at a time and under circumstances affording petitioner
through counsel an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Phillips, its introduction in a federal
court in a criminal case against Pointer would have amounted to denial of the privilege of
confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Since we hold that the right of an accused to
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 21
18 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
be confronted with the witnesses against him must be determined by the same standards whether
the right is denied in a federal or state proceeding, *408 it follows that use of the transcript to
convict petitioner denied him a constitutional right, and that his conviction must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring in the result.
I agree that in the circumstances the admission of the statement in question deprived the
petitioner of a right of "confrontation" assured by the Fourteenth Amendment. I cannot subscribe,
however, to the constitutional reasoning of the Court.
The Court holds that the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in federal
criminal trials is carried into state criminal cases by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is another
step in the onward march of the long-since discredited "incorporation" doctrine (see, e. g.,
Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original
Understanding, 2 Stan. L. Rev. 5 (1949); Frankfurter, Memorandum on "Incorporation" of the Bill
of Rights Into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 746
(1965)), which for some reason that I have not yet been able to fathom has come into the
sunlight in recent years. See, e. g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23;
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1.
For me this state judgment must be reversed because a right of confrontation is "implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, reflected in the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment independently of the Sixth.
While either of these constitutional approaches brings one to the same end result in this particular
case, there is a basic difference between the two in the kind of future constitutional development
they portend. The concept of Fourteenth Amendment due process embodied in Palko *409 and a
host of other thoughtful past decisions now rapidly falling into discard, recognizes that our
Constitution tolerates, indeed encourages, differences between the methods used to effectuate
legitimate federal and state concerns, subject to the requirements of fundamental fairness
"implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." The philosophy of "incorporation," on the other hand,
subordinates all such state differences to the particular requirements of the Federal Bill of Rights
(but see Ker v. California, supra, at 34) and increasingly subjects state legal processes to
enveloping federal judicial authority. "Selective" incorporation or "absorption" amounts to little
more than a diluted form of the full incorporation theory. Whereas it rejects full incorporation
because of recognition that not all of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights should be deemed
"fundamental," it at the same time ignores the possibility that not all phases of any given
guaranty described in the Bill of Rights are necessarily fundamental.
It is too often forgotten in these times that the American federal system is itself constitutionally
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 22
19 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
ordained, that it embodies values profoundly making for lasting liberties in this country, and that
its legitimate requirements demand continuing solid recognition in all phases of the work of this
Court. The "incorporation" doctrines, whether full blown or selective, are both historically and
constitutionally unsound and incompatible with the maintenance of our federal system on even
course.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring in the result.
I join in the judgment reversing this conviction, for the reason that the petitioner was denied the
opportunity to cross-examine, through counsel, the chief witness for the prosecution. But I do not
join in the Court's pronouncement which makes "the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to
confront the witnesses against him . . . obligatory *410 on the States." That questionable tour de
force seems to me entirely unnecessary to the decision of this case, which I think is directly
controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that no State shall "deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The right of defense counsel in a criminal case to cross-examine the prosecutor's living witnesses
is "[o]ne of the fundamental guarantees of life and liberty,"[1] and "one of the safeguards
essential to a fair trial."[2] It is, I think, as indispensable an ingredient as the "right to be tried in
a courtroom presided over by a judge."[3] Indeed, this Court has said so this very Term. Turner v.
Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-473.[4]
Here that right was completely denied. Therefore, as the Court correctly points out, we need not
consider the case which could be presented if Phillips' statement had been taken at a hearing at
which the petitioner's counsel was given a full opportunity to cross-examine. See West v.
Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, concurring.
I agree with the holding of the Court that "the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront
the witnesses against him is . . . a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment." Ante, at 403. I therefore join in the opinion and judgment of the Court.
My Brother HARLAN, while agreeing with the result reached by the Court, deplores the Court's
*411 reasoning as "another step in the onward march of the long-since discredited `incorporation'
doctrine," ante, at 408. Since I was not on the Court when the incorporation issue was joined, see
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, I deem it appropriate to set forth briefly my view on this
subject.
I need not recapitulate the arguments for or against incorporation whether "total" or "selective."
They have been set forth adequately elsewhere.[1] My Brother BLACK'S view of incorporation has
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 23
20 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
never commanded a majority of the Court, though in Adamson it was assented to by four Justices.
The Court in its decisions has followed a course whereby certain guarantees "have been taken
over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth
Amendment," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326, by a process which might aptly be
described as "a process of absorption." Ibid. See Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 154 (dissenting
opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN); Brennan, The Bill of Rights and the States, 36 N. Y. U. L. Rev.
761 (1961). Thus the Court has held that the Fourteenth *412 Amendment guarantees against
infringement by the States the liberties of the First Amendment,[2] the Fourth Amendment,[3]
the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment,[4] the Fifth Amendment's privilege against
self-incrimination,[5] the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments,[6]
and the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the assistance of counsel for an accused in a criminal
prosecution.[7]
With all deference to my Brother HARLAN, I cannot agree that this process has "come into the
sunlight in recent years." Ante, at 408. Rather, I believe that it has its origins at least as far back
as Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 99, where the Court stated that "it is possible that some of
the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action may also
be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of
law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226." This passage and the
authority cited make clear that what is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are "rights,"
which apply in every case, not solely in those cases where it seems "fair" to a majority of the
Court to afford the protection. Later cases reaffirm that the process of "absorption" is one of
extending "rights." See Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, and cases
cited by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN in his dissenting opinion in Cohen v. Hurley, supra, at 156. I
agree with these decisions, as is apparent from my votes in *413 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335; Malloy v. Hogan, supra, and Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, and my concurring
opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 297, and I subscribe to the process by
which fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights are absorbed by the Fourteenth Amendment
and thereby applied to the States.
Furthermore, I do not agree with my Brother HARLAN that once a provision of the Bill of Rights
has been held applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, it does not apply to the
States in full strength. Such a view would have the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the States
"only a `watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights.' "
Malloy v. Hogan, supra, at 10-11. It would allow the States greater latitude than the Federal
Government to abridge concededly fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution. While I
quite agree with Mr. Justice Brandeis that "[i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 24
21 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
that a . . . State may . . . serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments,"
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 280, 311 (dissenting opinion), I do not believe that
this includes the power to experiment with the fundamental liberties of citizens safeguarded by
the Bill of Rights. My Brother HARLAN'S view would also require this Court to make the extremely
subjective and excessively discretionary determination as to whether a practice, forbidden the
Federal Government by a fundamental constitutional guarantee, is, as viewed in the factual
circumstances surrounding each individual case, sufficiently repugnant to the notion of due
process as to be forbidden the States.
Finally, I do not see that my Brother HARLAN'S view would further any legitimate interests of
federalism. It would require this Court to intervene in the state judicial process with considerable
lack of predictability and with *414 a consequent likelihood of considerable friction. This is well
illustrated by the difficulties which were faced and were articulated by the state courts attempting
to apply this Court's now discarded rule of Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455. See Green, The Bill of
Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court, 46 Mich. L. Rev. 869, 897-898. These
difficulties led the Attorneys General of 22 States to urge that this Court overrule Betts v. Brady
and apply fully the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of right to counsel to the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, at 336. And, to deny to the States the
power to impair a fundamental constitutional right is not to increase federal power, but, rather, to
limit the power of both federal and state governments in favor of safeguarding the fundamental
rights and liberties of the individual. In my view this promotes rather than undermines the basic
policy of avoiding excess concentration of power in government, federal or state, which underlines
our concepts of federalism.
I adhere to and support the process of absorption by means of which the Court holds that certain
fundamental guarantees of the Bill of Rights are made obligatory on the States through the
Fourteenth Amendment. Although, as this case illustrates, there are differences among members
of the Court as to the theory by which the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental
liberties of individual citizens, it is noteworthy that there is a large area of agreement, both here
and in other cases, that certain basic rights are fundamentalnot to be denied the individual by
either the state or federal governments under the Constitution. See, e. g., Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296; NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449; Gideon v.
Wainwright, supra; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra; Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466.
NOTES
[*] See state and English cases collected in 5 Wigmore, Evidence 1367, 1395 (3d ed. 1940).
State constitutional and statutory provisions similar to the Sixth Amendment are collected in 5
Wigmore, supra, 1397, n. 1.
[1] Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 25
22 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 26
23 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
ORDERED that Mr. Caterbones Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and
Motions to File Exhibits or Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as
frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit
filingswhether electronic or in paper formatin the above-captioned case. The Clerk
shall not docket any such filings without my approval.
On September 30, 2015 APPELLANT filed an APPEAL to U.S.C.A. To the Third Circuit Case
No. 15-3400. On November 24, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone FILED a Motion for a 30 Day Extension
of Time, which was GRANTED. On December 14, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone FILED a LETTER to
the Clerk requesting to WITHDRAW appeal no. 15-3400 in the Third Circuit due among other
things the APPELLANT'S computer was taken by the GEEK SQUAD, whom refused to return it. On
December 17, 2015 APPELLANT FILED a LETTER to the Clerk CLARIFYING the Withdraw as a
MOTION to WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ISSUED AN ORDER DENIED MOTION TO REINSTATE the Appeal in the Third Circuit. On January
17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Case No.
14-02559 APPELLANT FILED a NOTICE OF APPEAL and U.S District Court, 14-02559, January 17,
2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Case No. 1402559 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 25 Notice of Appeal : (jpd, ) (Entered: 01/20/2016). On January
1
The Letter to Rescind was either hidden from FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE or FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE
ignored the Letter to Rescind. This would have preserved the entire Record of Case No. 15-3400 including EXHIBITS,
MOTIONS, ETC.,.
2
This DELETED AND REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and from DELIBERATIONS the entire the Record of Case No.
15-3400 including EXHIBITS, MOTIONS, ETC., which SUPPORTS AND PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR AFFIRMATION OF THE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in Case No. 14-02559 and a FAVORABLE Ruling in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Complainant, and Pro Se Appellant.
3
This DELETED AND REMOVED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and from DELIBERATIONS the entire the Record of Case No.
15-3400 including EXHIBITS, MOTIONS, ETC., which SUPPORTS AND PROVIDES EVIDENCE FOR AFFIRMATION OF THE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in Case No. 14-02559 and a FAVORABLE Ruling in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Complainant, and Pro Se Appellant.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 27
24 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
22, 2016 in the U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT Clerk Issues New Docket No. 16-1149.
On February 16, 2016 the Clerk ORDERED the APPEAL dismissed due to F.R.A.P. (3) a and
FRAP 3.3 and Misc 107.1(a) for failure to pay the filing fee for the Notice of Appeal. On March 15,
2016 APPELLANT filed a Motion for Reconsideration and finally on July 28, 2016 Judges Chargaras,
Jordan, and Venaskie ORDERED The foregoing motion for reconsideration of the Clerk's
Order is construed as a motion to review that order and is denied as meritless.
The
Clerk has the authority under 3d Cir. LAR 3.3 and Misc. 107.1(a) to dismiss an appeal
for failure to satisfy the fee requirement.
It is clear that the omission for considerations the Letter of December 31, 2015 instructing
the COURTS to rescind the Motion to Withdraw was a clear violation of APPELLANT'S right to due
process and right to appeal that set in motion filings and decisions which should be considered as
MOOT to the original APPEAL. The APPELLANT wishes the COURT to reverse this obstruction of
justice.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 28
25 of 91
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
That being said there is a broader issue that is woven through the history of this
unprecedented case starting; with the original HABEUS CORPUS written and filed by PETITIONER
Lisa Michelle Lambert in 1997, the findings of U.S. District Judge Stewert Dalzall's that this case
contained one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the English speaking language
and releasing Lisa Michelle Lambert from prison;
wrongdoings in this case.
Justice: A Teenage Murder Mystery and also sells the DVD online today. See Appendix H. The LA
Times published a 3-part series beginning on November 10, 1997 by Journalist Barry Seigel. See
Appendix I.
It is in the public's best interest to restore integrity to the COURTS and to the Prosecutors
and Judges and the COURTS that are honest and fair;
Michelle Lambert's meritorious plight for RELIEF and RELEASE from Prison can then be
accomplished, as it should.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 29
26 of 91
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
Page 30 of 91
Page 31 of 91
PROOF OF SERVICE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 32
29 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
October 2015
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543
CERTIORARI
I. Introduction
These instructions and forms are designed to assist petitioners who are proceeding in
forma pauperis and without the assistance of counsel. A copy of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, which establish the procedures that must be followed, is also enclosed.
Be sure to read the following Rules carefully:
Rules 10-14 (Petitioning for certiorari)
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 33
21 of 91
29
30
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
13.3. Filing in the Supreme Court means the actual receipt of documents by the Clerk;
or their deposit in the United States mail, with rst-class postage prepaid, on or before
the nal date allowed for ling; or their delivery to a third-party commercial carrier,
on or before the nal date allowed for ling, for delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar
days. See Rule 29.2.
IV. What To File
Unless you are an inmate conned in an institution and not represented by counsel,
le:
An original and ten copies of a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
an original and 10 copies of an afdavit or declaration in support thereof. See Rule 39.
An original and 10 copies of a petition for a writ of certiorari with an appendix
consisting of a copy of the judgment or decree you are asking this Court to review
including any order on rehearing, and copies of any opinions or orders by any courts or
administrative agencies that have previously considered your case. See Rule 14.1(i).
One afdavit or declaration showing that all opposing parties or their counsel have
been served with a copy of the papers led in this Court. See Rule 29.
If you are an inmate conned in an institution and not represented by counsel, you need
le only the original of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, afdavit or
declaration when needed in support of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pau
peris, the petition for a writ of certiorari, and proof of service.
If the court below appointed counsel in the current proceeding, no afdavit or declara
tion is required, but the motion should cite the provision of law under which counsel
was appointed, or a copy of the order of appointment should be appended to the motion.
See Rule 39.1.
The attached forms may be used for the original motion, afdavit or declaration, and
petition, and should be stapled together in that order. The proof of service should be
included as a detached sheet, and the form provided may be used.
V. Page Limitation
The petition for a writ of certiorari may not exceed 40 pages excluding the pages that
precede Page 1 of the form. The documents required to be contained in the appendix
to the petition do not count toward the page limit. See Rule 33.2(b).
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 34
22 of 91
30
31
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
I.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 35
23 of 91
31
32
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 36
24 of 91
32
33
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
decision could be had denied discretionary review, a copy of that order should
follow. If an order denying a timely led petition for rehearing starts the run
ning of the time for ling a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 13.3,
a copy of the order should be appended next.
As an example, if the state trial court ruled against you, the intermediate court
of appeals afrmed the decision of the trial court, the state supreme court denied
discretionary review and then denied a timely petition for rehearing, the appen
dices should appear in the following order:
Appendix A Decision of State Court of Appeals
Appendix B Decision of State Trial Court
Appendix C Decision of State Supreme Court Denying Review
Appendix D Order of State Supreme Court Denying Rehearing
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 37
25 of 91
33
34
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 38
26 of 91
34
35
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX A
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 39
36 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
COPY
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 40
27 of 91
35
37
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 41
28 of 91
36
38
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 42
29 of 91
37
39
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 43
30 of 91
38
40
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX B
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 44
41 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
Case: 15-3400
Document:
003112168218
Page:
1
Date OF
Filed:
12/31/2015
REQUEST
FOR
COMMUTATION OF
THE SENTENCE
LISA
MICHELLE
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
Re:
IMPORTANT
/S/
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se APPELLANT
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 45
31 of 91
39
42
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX C
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 46
43 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 47
32 of 91
40
44
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 48
33 of 91
41
45
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 49
34 of 91
42
46
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX D
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 50
47 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 51
35 of 91
43
48
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 52
36 of 91
44
49
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 53
37 of 91
45
50
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 54
38 of 91
46
51
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 55
39 of 91
47
52
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 56
40 of 91
48
53
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 57
41 of 91
49
54
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX E
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 58
55 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 59
42 of 91
50
56
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 60
43 of 91
51
57
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 61
44 of 91
52
58
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 62
45 of 91
53
59
45
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Sunday
November
October
October12,
10,
15,
9, 2016
APPENDIX F
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 63
60 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 15 OFFiled
1 of
3
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE 09/14/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
MICHELLE
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
ORDER
I previously dismissed Petitioners pro se motion for habeas relief so that she could file a
counseled motion.
Caterbonewho has nothing to do with Petitioner, her motion, or this casefiled a pro se
amicus brief in support of the dismissed motion. (Doc. No. 4.) Caterbone neither sought leave
to file, nor indicated that he had received the Parties consent to file an amicus brief. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 29(a).
The amicus briefalthough providing some arguments in apparent support of the
dismissed motionessentially focuses on the damages Caterbone allegedly suffered from his
years of torture as a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control or as a victim of gang-stalking or
organized stalking by more than 100 people. (Doc. No. 4 at 7, 9). He also includes a lengthy
discussion of the perplexing question of Stan Caterbones intelligence, or lack thereof, and his
work on a digital movie that is directly responsible for the development of the internet.
(Id. at 16-26). In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at mind control, including:
1) Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy; 2) Invading my
thoughts via remote sensing technologies; and 3) Making me mentally hear others voices
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 64
54 of 91
61
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 15 OFFiled
2 of
3
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE 09/14/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
MICHELLE
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
On
September 9, 2015, he also moved to file: 1) an email exchange with the subject Muslims Using
My Situation to Fight Against the USA; 2) a Wikipedia article on Entrapment; and 3) an
exhibit of billing statements of his estimated fees for his 2007 work on wholly unrelated federal
and state court cases. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14.)
Chambers, demanding to speak with me, and then abruptly hung up.
I have already denied Caterbones request to file documents electronically. (Doc. No. 9.)
He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.
Page 2 of 3
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 65
55 of 91
62
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 15 OFFiled
3 of
3
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE 09/14/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
MICHELLE
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.
Caterbones Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and Motions to File Exhibits or
Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED
that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit filingswhether electronic or in paper format
in the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not docket any such filings without my approval.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 3 of 3
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 66
56 of 91
63
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
APPENDIX G
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 67
64 of 91
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
1 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
Petitioner
v.
LYNN BISSONETTE, SUPERINTENDENT,
MCI-FRAMINGHAM,
and
CRAIG STEDMAN, THE DISTRICT ATfORNEY OF LANCASTER
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
and
KATHLEEN KANE, THE ATfORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents
S 17=n
F uu~t:
lY
SEP - 3 2D15
MICHAELE. KUNZ, Clerk
By
Dep. Clerk
(a) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A party may move for
summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-or the part of each claim or defense-on which
summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
(b) TIME TO FILE A MOTION. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise,
a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery,
II
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 68
57 of 91
65
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
2 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
Given the preponderance of evidence associated with the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS,
the courts must conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall's findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts
of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, now discloses
evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
in the County of Lancaster.
Criminal law may determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal enterprise. The MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS is of material interest to the Habeus Corpus
filed by Lisa Michelle Lambert in May of 2014, for the very fact that this MOVANT'S AMICUS and
STATEMENTS 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 MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, The Commonwealth must concede
and immediately release Lisa Michelle Lambert from incarceration in order to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. The Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of
Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it's own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of it's commitment to administer equalities of justice, not inequalities of justice, balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution of the
United States.
In addition the MOVANT must be restored to whole by administering SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS in
cases 05-2288; 06-4650; and all other cases filed by the MOVANT in this court. SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS must also be administered in Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas, and
other cases filed by the MOVANT in that said court.
2
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 69
58 of 91
66
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
3 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DALZELL
"I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused, subjected to a
massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive fight for the sovereignty of
my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties, and right of due access to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, in 1991, exhibiting the dire consequences of this complaint. These
allegations are substantiated through a preponderance of evidence including but not limited to over
10,000 documents, over 50 hours of recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A "Findings of Facts" is attached herewith providing merits and the facts pertaining to
this affidavit. These issues and incidents identified herein have attempted to conceal my disclosures of
International Signal & Control, Pie. However, the merits of the violations contained in this affidavit will
be proven incidental to the existence of any conspiracy.
The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial considerations would exceed $1 million. These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident and
business owner in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and have continued to the present. These issues
are a direct consequence of my public disclosure of fraud within International Signal & Control, Pie., 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., Pie.. 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, Pie., 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,
Pl~.,
plaintiff's actions should have taken the American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the
International Signal & Control, Pie., to cease and desist.
compromised the National Security of the United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiff's intent and motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens. Had the plaintiff
been protected under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United States troops may have
3
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 70
59 of 91
67
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
,jl
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
4 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
'
been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the operations of International Signal &
Control, Pie., 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, Pie,. On June 23, 1998, International Signal & Control,
Pie was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger with Ferranti International, of England. Such disclosures threatened the integrity of International Signal & Control's organization, and Mr. James Guerin
himself, consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if such disclosures provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the central criminal
activity in the in The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania.
3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse consequences
and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings. The dire consequences of the
plaintiff's failed business dealings will demonstrate and substantiate financial incentive and motive. Defendants responsible for administering undo influence and interference in the plaintiff's business and
commercial enterprises had financial interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing authority, Lancaster County had a great investment who's demise would facilitate grave consequences to it's
economic development.. Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less competition in the
mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the lender liability laws. The Steinman Enterprise's, Inc., would loose a pioneer in the information technologies industries, and would
protect the public domain from truthful disclosure. The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence -of
said perpetrators violating common laws governing intellectual property rights.
4. Given the plaintiff's continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in June of
I
1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the law with the opportunity for any and all remedial actions required under the federal and state statutes. The plaintiff will
successfully argue his rights to the courts to rightfully claim civil actions with regards to the totality of
these activities, so described in the following "Findings of Facts", regardless of any statute of limitations. Given the plaintiff's genuine efforts for due process has been inherently and maliciously obstructed, the courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions deserving to the
plaintiff.
5. Under current laws, the plaintiff's intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of discrediting the plaintiff's disclosures and obstructing the plaintiff's right to due process of the law. The
plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to enter into contract. The logic
and reason towards the plaintiff's activities and actions are a matter of record, demonstrated in the
"Findings of Facts", contained herein .. The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent
emotional consequences to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress
4
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 71
60 of 91
68
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
5 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
Syndrome. The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of the
activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the plaintiff
may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper interpretations of all laws, irrespective of
the plaintiff's alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff successfully argue that his "mental capacity" is
of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in it's malicious representations used to diminish the
credibility of the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were purposefully directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the activities of International Signal & Control, Pie., consequently obstructing the plaintiff's access to due process of the law.
Due to the fact that these activities to which the plaintiff's perpetrators were protecting were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would apply. To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime
with the exception of 2 speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial
misconduct during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23, 1987 and continuing to today.
7) Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must conclude
that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart
Dalzall's findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of this affidavit, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial
misconduct, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law must
now determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal enterprise. This
affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that this affidavit compromises
the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights .. In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa
Michelle Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. Commonwealth
must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it's own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of it's commitment to
administer equalities of justice, not inequalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything
less, would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole."
5
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 72
61 of 91
69
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
.#
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
Document 9 OF
Filed
6 ofMICHELLE
6
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION
THE09/03/15
SENTENCEPage
OF LISA
DRAFT
LAMBERT
COPY
scaterbone@live.com
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
6
Page 73
62 of 91
70
62
70
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
Tuesday
November
October 12,
10,
15, 2016
APPENDIX H
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 74
71 of 91
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
1 of 2
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75922
REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION OF THE SENTENCE OF LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT
Visit AETV.com
SEARCH:
SHOP BY SUBJECT
Exclusively at
The A&E Store
Get $1 Shipping on
your entire order!
$24.95
Intervention DVDs
Qty: 1
Gift Finder
Toys & Games
Gift Certificates
DVDs en Espaol
Closed Caption
Catalog Request
Child's Play,
Deadly Play
DVD
American
Justice set DVD
$59.95
$24.95
Murder In A
College Town
DVD
$24.95
PRODUCT DETAIL:
A Teenage Murder Mystery DVD
-->
It is one of the more extraordinary cases ever tried in Pennsylvania, not because of the crime,
which was certainly heinous, but for what has come afterwards. One woman has been convicted
twice, by the same judge, of the same crime, and has gone to jail twice.
AMERICAN JUSTICE recounts every step of the strange journey of Lisa Michelle Lambert in this
gripping program. Hear from Hazel Snow, the victim's mother, who says her daughter whispered
"Michelle did it" as she lay dying in her arms with a slit throat and a rope around her neck.
Examine the conflicting testimony that Lisa and her two codefendants have given. And unravel the
bizarre web of legal decisions that have made this case into one of the most complicated in the
history of Pennsylvania.
Featuring interviews with the prosecutors who tried the case, the Attorney General of
Pennsylvania, friends of the victim and Lisa herself, this is a fascinating look at a case that may
yet have surprises in store.
This DVD is one of the many titles in our DVD Library and is created in the DVD+R format.
This disc does not feature menu pages or special features like standard DVDs, simply the high
quality programming you've come to expect from us. Click here for more details.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Page 75
72 of 91
88
Page 1 of 4
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
05.28.2007
5/28/2007 3:35 PM
APPENDIX I
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Page 76
73 of 91
88
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 77
74 of 91
88
Page 1 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 78
75 of 91
88
Page 2 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 79
76 of 91
88
Page 3 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 80
77 of 91
88
Page 4 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 81
78 of 91
88
Page 5 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 82
79 of 91
88
Page 6 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 83
80 of 91
88
Page 7 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
again, this time before a court reporter: Well, when I was sitting in the
that I had seen Lawrence's {Butch's} car with passengers drive out of our
Det. Savage said that I wasn't to dwell on it. . . . I never thought anymore
there. . . . It all just came back.
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 84
81 of 91
88
Page 8 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 85
82 of 91
88
Page 9 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 86
83 of 91
88
Page 10 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 87
84 of 91
88
Page 11 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 88
85 of 91
88
Page 12 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 89
86 of 91
88
Page 13 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 90
87 of 91
88
Page 14 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
U.S.C.A.
To
President
16-1149
Obama
To US
re Lisa
Supreme
Lambert
Court
Advanced Media Group
Page 91
88 of 91
88
Page 15 of 15
Wednesday
Wednesday
November
October 12,
15, 2016
10/20/2007
P
usps.com
062S0000000314
Click-N-Ship
11/16/2016
0006
C000
STAN CATERBONE
AMG
1250 FREMONT ST
LANCASTER PA 17603-6812
SHIP
WASHINGTON DC 20500-0003
USPS TRACKING #
Instructions
USPS TRACKING # :
From:
To:
389217451
11/16/2016
11/16/2016
$6.45
$6.45
11/18/2016
STAN CATERBONE
AMG
1250 FREMONT ST
LANCASTER PA 17603-6812
BARACH OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20500-0003
* Retail Pricing Priority Mail rates apply. There is no fee for USPS Tracking service
on Priority Mail service with use of this electronic rate shipping label. Refunds for
unused postage paid labels can be requested online 30 days from the print date.
Thank you for shipping with the United States Postal Service!
Check the status of your shipment on the USPS Tracking page at usps.com