USPS Tracking: Product & Tracking Information Available Actions

USPS.
com - USPS Tracking
English
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=940550369930...
Customer Service
USPS Mobile
Register / Sign In
Still Have Questions?
USPS Tracking
Browse our FAQs
Get Easy Tracking Updates

Sign up for My USPS.
Tracking Number: 9405503699300417670086
Product & Tracking Information

Postal Product:
Features:
Priority Mail
USPS Tracking
Available Actions
Up to $50 insurance included
Text Updates
Restrictions Apply
Email Updates
DATE & TIME
STATUS OF ITEM
LOCATION
October 31, 2016 , 8:28 am
Delivered, PO Box
LANCASTER, PA 17608
Your item has been delivered and is available at a PO Box at 8:28 am on October 31, 2016 in
LANCASTER, PA 17608.
October 31, 2016 , 8:27 am
Arrived at Post Office
LANCASTER, PA 17603
October 29, 2016 , 10:58 am
Available for Pickup
LANCASTER, PA 17602
October 29, 2016 , 8:31 am
Forwarded
LANCASTER, PA
October 29, 2016 , 8:01 am
Arrived at Post Office
LANCASTER, PA 17601
October 29, 2016 , 1:33 am
Departed USPS Facility
LANCASTER, PA 17604
October 29, 2016 , 12:25 am
Arrived at USPS Facility
LANCASTER, PA 17604
October 28, 2016 , 11:10 pm
Accepted at USPS Origin

Facility
LANCASTER, PA 17603
October 28, 2016
Pre-Shipment Info Sent to

USPS, USPS Awaiting Item
Track Another Package
Manage Incoming Packages
Tracking (or receipt) number
Track all your packages from a dashboard.

No tracking numbers necessary.
Sign up for My USPS
1 of 2
12/7/2016 5:28 AM
USPS.com - USPS Tracking
2 of 2
https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=940550369930...
12/7/2016 5:28 AM
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CRIMINAL DIVISION CLERK OF COURT
___________________________________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone
APPELLANT
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AND NOW, on this 28th day of October, 2016, I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE, appearing pro se,
do hereby file this NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA as per the
ORDER of October 5, 2016 and do file the attached APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.
Attached is also a Money Order for the $75.00 filing fee as per your previous
instructions.
Dated October 28, 2016
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 1 of 23
Friday October 28, 2016
ACTIVE COURT CASES
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
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 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
ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

1. Judicial Misconduct
2. Selective and Retaliatory Discrimination under the 1990 Disabilities Act
3. Not Considering the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Docketed on September 30, 2016 as
seen in the Court Record
4. By Not Considering the Motion For Continuance in Advance the APPEALLANT was not given
the opportunity to attend the HEARING and was maliciously found GUILTY IN ABSTENTIA
as the APPEALLANT used his PaeDock Mobile App to check the Court Record Daily waiting
for a RULING on the MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE.
5. Using the Courts for Political Vendettas
6. Attempted Extortion of Real Monies
7. Libel and Slander
8. Collusion of COINTELPRO-LIKE Tactics with Law Enforcement
Date: October 28, 2016

___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-669-2163
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED

On August 3, 2016 the APPELLANT received a phone call from a Loan Representative of
Huntington Bank, Columbus, Ohio concerning the APPELLANT'S auto loan for his 2007 Honda CRV.
The APPELLANT as 11 phone calls back and forth up to and including yesterday, August 30, 2016.
In June of 2015 the APPELLANT borrowed some $12,000 for the auto, a 100,000 mile warranty
and GAP Insurance.
On December 8, 2015 the APPELLANT was rear ended in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania in a suspicious incident. The APPELLANT fixed all repairs for a nominal cost of $300
to a minimum degree noticeability. On May 7, 2016 the APPELLANT FINALLY received the payout
from NATIONWIDE insurance and accepted full liability, documented the Honda CRV as Totaled.
On May 10, 2016 three days later the APPEALLANT'S front end was demolished, again by a
suspicious incident causing the APPELLANT'S insurer to pay over $5,000 in repairs.
In August
Huntington Bank tried to convince the APPEALLANT that payment was due for July and August, yet
in July of 2016 there was not one communication from Huntington Bank. On or about August 18,
2016 the APPEALLANT gave the Huntington Bank Loan Officer a routing number and account
number to a checking account with over $9,000 in available cash to make a payment.
The
Huntington Bank Loan Officer refused to process the payment and instead, as usual KEPT
HARASSING the APPEALLANT. On Sunday, August 20, 2016 the APPEALLANT cleaned out the car
in
anticipation
of
repossession
and
REFUSED
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND HARASSMENT.
FURTHER
NEGOTIONS
REGARDING
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 another
suspicious incident occurred and left the front end severely damaged. On Monday the
APPEALLANT drove the Honda CRV to a parking garage in Harrisburg, notified
Huntington Bank and took a train home to Lancaster. The APPEALLANT has a bike.
AFFIDAVIT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 24(A)(1)

In 2015 the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas began a campaign of DENYING In
Forma Pauperis Applications, and demanding that current cases with legitimate In Forma Pauperis
Status be DENIED in an effort to again subvert the laws of due process and obstruction of justice.
The Superior Court had followed, as did the U.S. District Court in this case by Judge Diamond.
This was an outright effort to extort monies from the APPELLANT and in the long term make
service of the complaints cost prohibitive due to the fact that Pro Se Litigants with In Forma
Pauperis Status, by law, receive free service from the Lancaster County Sheriffs and the U.S.
Marshalls.
APPELLANT.
This tactic, in the end, would have effectively dismissed all legitimate claims of the
The Judges used the excuse of monies in bank accounts as the rationale for the
illegal tactic, however, attached are 5 cases of GRANTED In Forma Pauperis applications in both
the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and the United
States District Court with financial affidavits containing amounts of monies in bank accounts
exceeding $10,000.00, all prior to 2015.
This exhibit, like the previous EXHIBITS, is intended to help the Court understand the
complexity of the APPELLANT'S obligation to provide the Court with the evidence and insight to
support the APPELLANT'S claims and statements.
with
sufficient
knowledge
of
the
These documents will also provide the Court
APPELLANT'S
claim
of
the
value
of
the
Appellant's litigation of up to $50 million dollars as stated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 0523059.
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 APPELLANT'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.
This information could explain the COINTELPRO attributes of my situation and persons
under oath of law must refer this to the U.S. Attorney's Office and provide me with relief.
I am currently a recipient of the following type(s) of Benefits from the Social Security
Administration for Long Term Disability Benefits for illnesses and symptoms relating to U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control as evidenced by my documentation and the fact that no medical reports
or physicians were reported in the entire application process and there was never a psychiatric
evaluation for the same said purposes.
I am receiving a net monthly benefit of $1330.00 and
have been since April of 2008 and was declared disabled in December of 2005, the same said
month that I reported that I became the victim of full-time synthetic telepathy, as well as other
related symptoms and illnesses.
If the Court would consider the leqal circumstances surrounding my Whistleblowing activities and
the Federal False Claims Act filing of the APPELLANT as it relates to the past 28 years and the
myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District Attorney. The APPELLANT wil argue that it is
wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the APPELLANT In Forma Pauperis Status. The
APPELLANT has filed ample evidence of a pattern and relentless cycle of earning and accumulating
capital and assets, as well building substantial worth through his business interests, only to have
it all extorted through an elaborate civil and criminal scheme to defruad.
Therefore any
attempt to subject the APPELLANT to more court related fees is only a continuation of
that same said fraud.
Consideration should be given to Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,
where the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due
process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F
2d. 644) have concluded the following:
Even the probability of unfairness can result in a
defendant being deprived of his due process rights. The focus of these claims are recorded in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 05-2288 and 06-4650. In
addition the Petioner is the MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambrerrt Case and recently filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, 04-2559, which was recently appealed to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.
The preceding cases have been preserved by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
case no. 07-4474, see attached.

The prosecutorial misconduct the the APPELLANT has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the APPELLANT
from completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 1983 Civil Rights Acts and
18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting
constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide
for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are
ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of
individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from
federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241, 242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5,
15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
A case can be made for a RICO violation as defined in the case of United States v. Holck,
389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the
following: Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an
indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which
attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing
acts in furtherance of an overall plan. This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to
cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.
The attached 29 False Arrests, which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that
may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant
an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of
facts formed for the purpose
charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following
was supported: Arrestees allegations that the township (Conestoga) and its police officers were
acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestees constitutional rights
by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two
(2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5 th, 2006 and August
4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody. The preceding
pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.
In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law,
a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to
do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice
with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of United
States v. Holck, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple
conspiracies by the following: Governments, without committing variance between single
conspiracy charges in an indictment and its proof at trial may establish existence at
continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times and which
involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan. 1983 Civil
Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: The underlying purpose of the
scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations
to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations
when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to
strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state infringement and
protection from state and local government from federal interference, 18 U.S.C.A. 241,
242; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, 2: 42 U.S.C.A. 1981-1982,
1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and
8 state crimeswithin a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the
transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a

performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business
or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The
defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
Where RICO laws might be applied1
Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for
their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or
retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be
alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or
against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt
to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as
a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could
be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to
concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been
brought before the courts.
These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of
limitations has run out.
1References
RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December

2004). Retrieved on 2006-03-26. 1.
External links
RICO Act from Cornell University'sU. S. Code database
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html) Detail of Tanya
Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregonriaa-victim-fights-back- sues.html) Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act Categories: Articles with
weasel words | United States federal legislation | Organized crime terminology
Civil Rights Violation and Judicial Misconduct

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page20
18
of
of
of
128
85
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
Page
918
of
23
Monday
Friday October 28,
21,
17, 2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY

DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
SUMMARY APPEAL DOCKET

Traffic
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned:
Date Filed: 07/07/2016
OTN:
Page 1 of 5
Initiation Date: 07/07/2016
Originating Docket No: MJ-02301-TR-0000861-2016
LOTN:
Initial Issuing Authority: Scott E. Albert
Final Issuing Authority: Scott E. Albert
Arresting Agency: East Hempfield Twp Police Dept
Arresting Officer: Keen, Christopher Michael
Complaint/Incident #: E 0007452-4
Case Local Number Type(s)
Case Local Number(s)
STATUS INFORMATION
Case Status:
Closed
Status Date
10/05/2016
Processing Status
10/05/2016
Awaiting Sentencing
07/07/2016
Awaiting Original Papers
07/07/2016
Awaiting Summary Appeal Trial
Complaint Date:
05/10/2016
Sentenced/Penalty Imposed
DEFENDANT INFORMATION
Date Of Birth:
07/15/1958
City/State/Zip: Lancaster, PA 17603
Alias Name
Caterbone, Stanley Jay
Caterbone, Stanley Joseph
CASE PARTICIPANTS
Participant Type
Name
Defendant
Caterbone, Stanley J.
CHARGES
Seq.
Orig Seq.
Grade
Statute
Statute Description
Offense Dt.
75 3322
Vehicle Turning Left
05/09/2016
OTN
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description
Disposition Date
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date
Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type
Final Disposition
Grade
Section
Credit For Time Served
Start Date
Incarceration/Diversionary Period
Sentence Conditions
Guilty by Trial (Lower Court)
Lower Court Disposition

1 / Vehicle Turning Left
Albert, Scott E.
Defendant Was Present

06/10/2016
Guilty by Trial (Lower Court)
Not Final
S
75 3322
06/10/2016
Guilty
CPCMS 9082
Printed: 10/14/2016
Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
11
12
15
313
13
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
89 not comply with the provisions of the
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 10
23
October
28,
2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event
Sequence/Description
Page 2 of 5
Disposition Date
Offense Disposition
Sentence Date
Sentencing Judge
Sentence/Diversion Program Type
Final Disposition
Grade
Section
Credit For Time Served
Start Date
Incarceration/Diversionary Period
Sentence Conditions
Summary Appeal Trial
10/05/2016
Final Disposition
Guilty
1 / Vehicle Turning Left

Totaro, Donald R.
75 3322
10/05/2016
No Further Penalty
COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Name:
Name:
Supreme Court No:
Supreme Court No:

Rep. Status:
Phone Number(s):
ENTRIES
Sequence Number
CP Filed Date
07/07/2016
Document Date
Filed By
Notice of Summary Appeal Filed

1
09/06/2016
Lancaster County District Attorney's

Office
SA Hearing Notice Sent

09/06/2016
First Class/Certified
Lancaster County District Attorney's

Office
Hand Delivered
09/06/2016
1
09/30/2016
Motion for a 30-Day Continuance

1
10/05/2016
Totaro, Donald R.
10/05/2016
Totaro, Donald R.
Guilty
2
Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed
CPCMS 9082
Printed: 10/14/2016
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
12
13
16
414
14
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 11
23
October
28,
2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
ENTRIES
Document Date
Page 3 of 5
Sequence Number
CP Filed Date
Filed By
10/13/2016
Pfursich, Jacquelyn E.
10/13/2016
Court of Common Pleas - Lancaster

County
DL-21S to be Prepared
2
Penalty Assessed
CPCMS 9082
Printed: 10/14/2016
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
13
14
17
515
15
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 12
23
October
28,
2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Page 4 of 5
Last Payment Date:

Total of Last Payment:

Assessment
Payments
Adjustments
Defendant
Non Monetary
Payments
Total
Costs/Fees
ATJ
CAT/MCARE/General Fund
$4.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4.00
$45.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$45.00
$2.25
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.25
$27.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27.50
Clerk of Court Auto Fee-Costs

6593AAB1211 (Lan)
$5.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
Commonwealth Cost - HB627 (Act 167

of 1992)
$8.55
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.55
County Court Cost (Act 204 of 1976)
$21.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$21.40
DA Administration Fee 6421AB130019021 (Lan)
$25.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
DA Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$10.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
Emergency Medical Services (Act 45 of

1985)
$10.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10.00
JCPS
$21.25
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$21.25
Judicial Computer Project
$8.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.00
Sheriff Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.00
State Court Costs (Act 204 of 1976)
$8.55
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.55
Hearing Costs
$8.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8.00
Prosecution Cost - 6411AB1211

(Lancaster)
$6.68
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.68
$213.18
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$213.18
Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License

Fund)
$12.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.50
Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License

Fund)
$12.50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12.50
Fines Totals:
$25.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$25.00
Grand Totals:
$238.18
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$238.18
CJES
Clerk Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211
(Lancaster)
Costs/Fees Totals:
Fines
CPCMS 9082
Printed: 10/14/2016
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
14
15
18
616
16
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 13
23
October
28,
2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

DOCKET

Traffic
v.
Page 5 of 5
** - Indicates assessment is subrogated
CPCMS 9082
Printed: 10/14/2016
only
be provided
by
State
Police.
Moreover
an
employer
who
does
Criminal
History
Record 15,
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
-Pennsylvania
Judge
Clerk
Courts
ofofCourts
of
D.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
15
16
19
717
17
of
of
of
of
of
61
69
82
128
83
85
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Friday
October
October
14,
16,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
Case
No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF
APPEAL
P
age 14
23
October
28,
2016

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
23
21of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 15
Friday October 28,

21, 2016

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
24
22of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 16
Friday October 28,

21, 2016

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
25
23of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 17
Friday October 28,

21, 2016

Public
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
of Courts
& Prothonot
& Prothonot
Page
Page
22
20of
of
of23
128
89
Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
NOTICE
OF APPEAL
P
age 18
Friday October 28,

21, 2016
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Lancaster
XXXXXXXXXX
July 7, 2016
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Page 1 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page57
36
44
66
58
60
64of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
1
October 28, 2016

Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Lancaster

Page 2 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page58
37
45
67
59
61
65of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
2

Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

Page 3 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page59
38
46
68
60
62
66of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
3

Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
REPOSESSED
See Attached Docket

Page 4 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page60
39
47
69
61
63
67of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
4

Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
CivilCivil
Civil
Rights
Rights
Rights
Violation
Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
October 28, 2016
XXXXXXXXX

Page 5 of 5
PUBLIC
Public
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
ofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page61
40
48
70
62
64
68of
of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89
INPUBLIC
FORMA
PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
5

Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
October
28,
2016

USPS Tracking: Product & Tracking Information Available Actions

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

USPS Tracking: Product & Tracking Information Available Actions

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

USPS.

com - USPS Tracking

Still Have Questions?

Browse our FAQs

Get Easy Tracking Updates

Tracking Number: 9405503699300417670086

Product & Tracking Information

October 31, 2016 , 8:28 am

October 31, 2016 , 8:27 am

Arrived at Post Office

October 29, 2016 , 10:58 am

Available for Pickup

October 29, 2016 , 8:31 am

October 29, 2016 , 8:01 am

Arrived at Post Office

October 29, 2016 , 1:33 am

Departed USPS Facility

October 29, 2016 , 12:25 am

Arrived at USPS Facility

October 28, 2016 , 11:10 pm

Accepted at USPS Origin

October 28, 2016

Pre-Shipment Info Sent to

Track Another Package

Manage Incoming Packages

Tracking (or receipt) number

Track all your packages from a dashboard.

Sign up for My USPS

USPS.com - USPS Tracking

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CASE NO. Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dated October 28, 2016

1250 Fremont Street

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 1 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

ACTIVE COURT CASES

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 2 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Date: October 28, 2016

1250 Fremont Street

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 3 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED

On December 8, 2015 the APPELLANT was rear ended in Carlisle,

ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND HARASSMENT.

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 another

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 4 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

AFFIDAVIT THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 24(A)(1)

These documents will also provide the Court

I am receiving a net monthly benefit of $1330.00 and

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 5 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

Even the probability of unfairness can result in a

case no. 07-4474, see attached.

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 6 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

facts formed for the purpose

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 7 of 23

Friday October 28, 2016

transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a