STAN J. CATERBONE PENNDOT SUSPENSION LETTER OF February 7, 2017 and EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE February 17, 2017

PENNDOT Drivers License Suspension Letter Page 1 of 43 February 17, 2017

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


COMMONWEALTH OF OFFICIAL USE ONLY
PENNSYLVANIA
JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD Recd:

Pennsylvania Judicial Center
601 Commonwealth Ave., Suite 3500 JCB No:
P.O. Box 62525
Harrisburg, PA 17120-0901 County:
(717)-234-7911
CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print. If you wish to provide documents to support your allegations, please attach copies of those
documents. We cannot return documents. The Boards jurisdiction extends only to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices, Superior
and Commonwealth Court Judges, Common Pleas Court Judges, Philadelphia Municipal and Traffic Court Judges and Magisterial
District Judges. Once completed, you must sign and return this form to the address above.
NOTICE: The Judicial Conduct Board has no authority to change a Judges decisions or rulings. Our jurisdiction extends only to
conduct that violates the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges, which
may be found at our website at www.jcbpa.org.
Your Information:
Name: Stan J. Caterbone
Address: 1250 Fremont Street Telephone:

( 717 ) 598-2200
City: Lancaster State: PA Zip: 17603
( )
Judicial Officers Information:
Name: President Judge Dennis Reinaker Type of Judicial Officer:
Magisterial District Judge
County: Lancaster
Judge
Case Information: (If misconduct allegations relate to Court Proceedings.) Case Has Been Appealed
Case Name: Commonwealth v. Stanley J. Caterbone Case Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016
Your Attorney: Opposing Attorney: Witness:
Name: Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Name: Name: Stan J. Caterbone
Address: same as above Address: Address:
Phone: same as above Phone: Phone:
I certify that I have read the information concerning the Judicial Conduct Boards function, jurisdiction, and
procedures included in the accompanying brochure. I further swear (or affirm) that the above information is true
and accurate. The statements in this complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities).
Date:_December 9, 2016________ Your Signature:___________________________________________
Please explain your complaint on the reverse of this form.

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT Page 1 of 37 Friday December 9, 2016
Please use this page to explain your complaint, providing as much detail as possible.
Attach additional pages if needed.
Please note, it is not required that you present your grievance to the Board in person. Personal interviews are not required and are
not usually necessary for our preliminary review, investigation, and understanding of grievances. If we need further information
relative to your grievances, you will be contacted by phone or letter and arrangements will be made for an interview if deemed
necessary.
1. On October 28, 2016 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se, mailed a NOTICE OF APEAL TO SUPERIOR
COURT via USPS Priority Mail Tracking No. 9405 5036 9930 0417 6700 86 to the CLERK OF
COURT of LANCASTER COUNTY. The tracking delivery confirmation reads Your item has been
delivered and is available at a PO Box at 8:28 am on October 31, 2016 in LANCASTER,
PA 17608. In it contained the NOTICE, an In Forma Pauperis Application, and a Money
Order for $75.00 from PNC Bank on Duke Street, across the street from the Lancaster
County Courthouse, No. 00677971.
2. On December 7, 2016 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se did an audit of Pennsylvania MDA Superior
Court cases and found no docket number for the filed appeal. A call was made to the
Prothonotary at Superior Court and the clerk also did an audit and confirmed there was no docket
number for the filed appeal.
3. On December 8 and December 9 I, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se, made repeated calls to the
Lancaster County Clerk of Court with no answer. I also requested the clerk at Superior Court to
inquirer, however they instructed me to make the calls.
4. This is not an isolated case, as you are aware. I have had many problems in the past with the
Clerk of Courts, in fact Ryan Aument, former Clerk of Courts, had to enlist the services of Mr.
Frankhouser, Attorney from Underhill and Brubaker, to defend against similar complaints. You
have copies of the correspondence in other case numbers.
5. This act amounts to extortion and theft by deception of the $75.00 of real monies.
6. This act amounts to a Civil Rights Violation of Obstruction of Justice for not granting me my
Constitutional Right To Appeal.
7. SEE THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR YOUR REVIEW.
Dated: December 9, 2016 _________________________________

Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
Revised: 06/01/2009
Appellate Courts Docket Sheets https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/Appellate.aspx
Appellate Courts Docket Sheets
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 assumes any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, errors or omissions on these docket sheets. Docket sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check, which
can only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Employers who do not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
Information Act (18 Pa.C.S. Section 9101 et seq.) may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
The webpage you are viewing is operated and maintained by Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System as a source of public information. The webpage
is not affiliated with any search system for public records provided by private organizations for which fees may be incurred. The ability to search for
and review information contained in these web docket sheets is a free public service.
Select a Docket Sheet Search Type from the dropdown (default search type is by Docket Number)
Search Type:
Enter the desired search criteria and click Search (available search criteria changes based upon the type selected above)
* Court Name:
and any combination of
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Attorney First Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed: through
Click the Print Preview icon to display the report

Docket Number Short Caption Case Status Filing Date
1219 MDA 2016 Caterbone, S. v. Lancaster City Bureau of Police Active 07/27/2016
1 of 1 12/7/2016 5:15 AM
Search Type:
* Court Name:
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed: through
No Records Found
1 of 1 12/7/2016 5:16 AM
Search Type:
* Court Name:
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed: through

1461 MDA 2006 Caterbone, S. et al v. Southern Reg. Police et al Closed 08/30/2006
1462 MDA 2006 Caterbone, S. v. Dept. of Transportation Closed 08/30/2006
1463 MDA 2006 Fulton Bank v. Caterbone, S. Closed 08/30/2006
950 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Totaro, D. et al Closed 05/24/2007
951 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Totato, D. et al Closed 05/24/2007
1103 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. v. Com of PA/Dept Trans Closed 06/12/2007
125 MDA 2007 Com. v. Caterbone, S. Closed 01/19/2007
1097 MDA 2007 Com v. Caterbone, S. Closed 06/15/2007
First Previous 1 2 Next Last
1 of 1 12/7/2016 5:17 AM
Search Type:
* Court Name:
District:
Docket Type:
Case Category:
Case Type:
Agency:
Organization Name:
Party Last Name:
Party First Name:
Attorney Last Name:
Trial Court County:
Trial Court Judge:
Case Status:
Date Filed: through

1565 MDA 2007 Caterbone, S. et al v. Lancaster General et al Closed 09/10/2007
234 MDA 2008 In Re: Petition for Review Closed 01/24/2008
783 MDA 2010 In Re: S. Caterbone Closed 05/12/2010
784 MDA 2010 In Re: S. Caterbone Closed 05/12/2010
1915 MDA 2015 Caterbone, S. & Adv. Media Grp. v. Lanc. Police Closed 11/02/2015
1561 MDA 2015 Caterbone, S. v. Residents of Lancaster County Closed 09/16/2015
First Previous 1 2 Next Last
1 of 1 12/7/2016 5:17 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 a repossession and REFUSED FURTHER NEGOTIONS REGARDING
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS AND HARASSMENT. 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. This tactic, in the end, would have effectively dismissed all legitimate claims of the
APPELLANT. 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. These documents will also provide the Court
with sufficient knowledge of the 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. 05-
23059. The APPELLANT does not intend to overburden the Court with unnecessary filings,
however this burden of supporting the claims and statements falls on the shoulders of all those in
the government that ignored the 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/oregon-
riaa-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
Case Corruption
No.CORRUPTION- Clerk
- Clerk
of Courts
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 of Courts
& Prothonot
NOTICE& Prothonot
Prothonotary
OF APPEAL Page
Page
Page20
Page 918
18
ofof
of
of128
2385
89 Monday 21,
17, 2016
Friday October 28,
CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights 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
Page 1 of 5
v.
Stanley J. Caterbone
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned: Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Initiation Date: 07/07/2016
OTN: LOTN: Originating Docket No: MJ-02301-TR-0000861-2016
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 Processing Status Complaint Date: 05/10/2016
10/05/2016 Sentenced/Penalty Imposed
10/05/2016 Awaiting Sentencing
07/07/2016 Awaiting Original Papers
07/07/2016 Awaiting Summary Appeal Trial
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. OTN
1 1 S 75 3322 Vehicle Turning Left 05/09/2016
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event Disposition Date Final Disposition
Sequence/Description Offense Disposition Grade Section
Sentencing Judge Sentence Date Credit For Time Served
Sentence/Diversion Program Type Incarceration/Diversionary Period Start Date
Sentence Conditions
Guilty by Trial (Lower Court) Defendant Was Present

Lower Court Disposition 06/10/2016 Not Final
1 / Vehicle Turning Left Guilty by Trial (Lower Court) S 75 3322
Albert, Scott E. 06/10/2016
Guilty
CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016
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
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Case No. only be provided
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION by
- Clerk- the
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 -Pennsylvania
Clerk
- of
Clerk
Judge
Clerk
Courts State
ofofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&Courts
Totaro
NOTICE Police.
ProthonotOF Moreover
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
APPEAL an
P employer
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
age 10 11
12
15
313
13who
of
of
of
of
ofdoes
61
69
8289 not comply with the provisions of the
128
2383
85 Criminal
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
MondayHistory
Friday Record 15,
October
October
October 14,
16,
17,21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
Information Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183.
CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
DOCKET
Traffic
Page 2 of 5
v.
DISPOSITION SENTENCING/PENALTIES
Disposition
Case Event Disposition Date Final Disposition
Sequence/Description Offense Disposition Grade Section
Sentencing Judge Sentence Date Credit For Time Served
Sentence/Diversion Program Type Incarceration/Diversionary Period Start Date
Sentence Conditions
Summary Appeal Trial 10/05/2016 Final Disposition
1 / Vehicle Turning Left Guilty S 75 3322
Totaro, Donald R. 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 Document Date Filed By
1 07/07/2016 Caterbone, Stanley J.

Notice of Summary Appeal Filed
1 09/06/2016 Lancaster County District Attorney's

Office
SA Hearing Notice Sent
Caterbone, Stanley J.
09/06/2016 First Class/Certified
Lancaster County District Attorney's
Office
09/06/2016 Hand Delivered
1 09/30/2016 Caterbone, Stanley J.

Motion for a 30-Day Continuance
1 10/05/2016 Totaro, Donald R.

Guilty
2 10/05/2016 Totaro, Donald R.

Order - Sentence/Penalty Imposed
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION by
- Clerk- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
Judge
Clerk
Courts State
ofofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&Courts
Totaro
NOTICE Police.
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
APPEAL an
P employer
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
age 11 12
13
16
414
14who
of
of
of
of
ofdoes
61
69
128
2383
85 Criminal
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
MondayHistory
Friday Record 15,
October
October
October 14,
16,
17,21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
DOCKET
Traffic
Page 3 of 5
v.
ENTRIES
Sequence Number CP Filed Date Document Date Filed By
1 10/13/2016 Pfursich, Jacquelyn E.

DL-21S to be Prepared
2 10/13/2016 Court of Common Pleas - Lancaster

County
Penalty Assessed
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION by
- Clerk- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
Judge
Clerk
Courts State
ofofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&Courts
Totaro
NOTICE Police.
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
APPEAL an
P employer
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
age 12 13
14
17
515
15who
of
of
of
of
ofdoes
61
69
128
2383
85 Criminal
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
MondayHistory
Friday Record 15,
October
October
October 14,
16,
17,21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
DOCKET
Traffic
Page 4 of 5
v.
CASE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Last Payment Date: Total of Last Payment:
Caterbone, Stanley J. Assessment Payments Adjustments Non Monetary Total
Defendant Payments
Costs/Fees
ATJ $4.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.00
CAT/MCARE/General Fund $45.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $45.00
CJES $2.25 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.25
Clerk Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211 $27.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27.50
(Lancaster)
Clerk of Court Auto Fee-Costs $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
6593AAB1211 (Lan)
Commonwealth Cost - HB627 (Act 167 $8.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8.55
of 1992)
County Court Cost (Act 204 of 1976) $21.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21.40
DA Administration Fee - $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00
6421AB130019021 (Lan)
DA Cost - Summary - 6411AB1211 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10.00
(Lancaster)
Emergency Medical Services (Act 45 of $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10.00
1985)
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 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00
(Lancaster)
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 $6.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6.68
(Lancaster)
Costs/Fees Totals: $213.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $213.18
Fines
Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License $12.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.50
Fund)
Title 75, Motor Vehicle (Motor License $12.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.50
Fund)
Fines Totals: $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00
Grand Totals: $238.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238.18
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION by
- Clerk- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
Judge
Clerk
Courts State
ofofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&Courts
Totaro
NOTICE Police.
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
APPEAL an
P employer
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
age 13 14
15
18
616
16who
of
of
of
of
ofdoes
61
69
128
2383
85 Criminal
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
MondayHistory
Friday Record 15,
October
October
October 14,
16,
17,21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
DOCKET
Traffic
Page 5 of 5
v.
** - Indicates assessment is subrogated
PUBLIC
Public
PUBLIC
PUBLIC
Corruption
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION by
- Clerk- the
Clerk
- of
Clerk
Judge
Clerk
Courts State
ofofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&Courts
Totaro
NOTICE Police.
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
APPEAL an
P employer
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
age 14 15
16
19
717
17who
of
of
of
of
ofdoes
61
69
128
2383
85 Criminal
Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
MondayHistory
Friday Record 15,
October
October
October 14,
16,
17,21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
PUBLIC
Public
Case Corruption
- Clerk
of Courts
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 of Courts
& Prothonot
NOTICE& Prothonot
OF APPEAL Page
PPage 23
21of
age 15 of
of23
128
89 21, 2016
Friday October 28,
PUBLIC
Public
Case Corruption
- Clerk
of Courts
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 of Courts
& Prothonot
NOTICE& Prothonot
OF APPEAL Page
PPage 24
22of
age 16 of
of23
128
89 21, 2016
Friday October 28,
PUBLIC
Public
Case Corruption
- Clerk
of Courts
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 of Courts
& Prothonot
NOTICE& Prothonot
OF APPEAL Page
PPage 25
23of
age 17 of
of23
128
89 21, 2016
Friday October 28,
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 CivilCivil
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Lancaster
July 7, 2016
XXXXXXXXXX October 28, 2016
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Page 1 of 5 Friday October 28, 2016

PUBLIC
Public
INPUBLIC
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
FORMACORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
PAUPERIS MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
APPLICATIONofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page57
36
44
66
58
60
64of
1 of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89 Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
October 21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
Lancaster

PUBLIC
Public
INPUBLIC
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
FORMACORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
PAUPERIS MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
APPLICATIONofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page58
37
45
67
59
61
65of
2 of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89 Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
October 21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct

PUBLIC
Public
INPUBLIC
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
FORMACORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
PAUPERIS MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
APPLICATIONofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page59
38
46
68
60
62
66of
3 of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89 Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
October 21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
REPOSESSED
See Attached Docket

PUBLIC
Public
INPUBLIC
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
FORMACORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
PAUPERIS MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
APPLICATIONofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page60
39
47
69
61
63
67of
4 of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89 Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
October 21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
Rights
Civil Rights
Violation
Rights Violation
and
and
Judicial
JudicialMisconduct
Misconduct
October 28, 2016
XXXXXXXXX

PUBLIC
Public
INPUBLIC
Summary
PUBLIC
Corruption
FORMACORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
CORRUPTION
Appeal
- Clerk
PAUPERIS MDJ
- Clerk
- of
Scott
Clerk
- Clerk
Judge
Courts
APPLICATIONofAlbert
ofCourts
ofD.
Courts
&
Courts
Totaro
Prothonot
&&Prothonot
Prothonotary
Prothonotary
Page
Page
Page
Page61
40
48
70
62
64
68of
5 of
of
of5
61
69
82
7128
83
85
89 Saturday
Sunday
Monday
Friday
Monday
Thursday
Friday
October
October
July15,
14,
16,
7,
17,
October 21,
17,
2015
2016
2016
28, 2016
USPS.com - USPS Tracking https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?tLabels=940550369930...
English 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 Available Actions

Postal Product: Features:
Priority Mail USPS Tracking 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
Accepted at USPS Origin

October 28, 2016 , 11:10 pm LANCASTER, PA 17603
Facility
Pre-Shipment Info Sent to

October 28, 2016
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

STAN J. CATERBONE PENNDOT SUSPENSION LETTER OF February 7, 2017 and EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE February 17, 2017

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

STAN J. CATERBONE PENNDOT SUSPENSION LETTER OF February 7, 2017 and EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE February 17, 2017

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PENNDOT Drivers License Suspension Letter Page 1 of 43 February 17, 2017

PENNDOT Drivers License Suspension Letter Page 2 of 43 February 17, 2017

PENNDOT Drivers License Suspension Letter Page 4 of 43 February 17, 2017

PENNDOT Drivers License Suspension Letter Page 7 of 43 February 17, 2017

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD Recd:

CONFIDENTIAL REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Address: 1250 Fremont Street Telephone:

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Stanley J. Caterbone Case Docket Number: CP-36-SA-0000219-2016

Your Attorney: Opposing Attorney: Witness:

Name: Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Name: Name: Stan J. Caterbone

Address: same as above Address: Address:

Phone: same as above Phone: Phone:

Date:_December 9, 2016________ Your Signature:___________________________________________

Please explain your complaint on the reverse of this form.

Dated: December 9, 2016 _________________________________

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

Click the Print Preview icon to display the report

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT Page 3 of 37 Friday December 9, 2016

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT Page 4 of 37 Friday December 9, 2016

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

Click the Print Preview icon to display the report

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT Page 5 of 37 Friday December 9, 2016

Appellate Courts Docket Sheets

Click the Print Preview icon to display the report

JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD COMPLAINT Page 6 of 37 Friday December 9, 2016

LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Dated October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 1 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 2 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Date: October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 3 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 4 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 5 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 6 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 7 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Where RICO laws might be applied1

RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December

Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016 NOTICE OF APPEALPage 8 of 23 Friday October 28, 2016

Guilty by Trial (Lower Court) Defendant Was Present

CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016

COMMONWEALTH INFORMATION ATTORNEY INFORMATION

Supreme Court No: Supreme Court No:

1 07/07/2016 Caterbone, Stanley J.

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

1 09/30/2016 Caterbone, Stanley J.

1 10/05/2016 Totaro, Donald R.

2 10/05/2016 Totaro, Donald R.

CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016

1 10/13/2016 Pfursich, Jacquelyn E.

2 10/13/2016 Court of Common Pleas - Lancaster

CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016

Costs/Fees Totals: $213.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $213.18

Fines Totals: $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00

Grand Totals: $238.18 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $238.18

CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016

CPCMS 9082 Printed: 10/14/2016

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Page 1 of 5 Friday October 28, 2016

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Page 2 of 5 Friday October 28, 2016

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Page 3 of 5 Friday October 28, 2016

See Attached Docket

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION Page 4 of 5 Friday October 28, 2016

October 28, 2016

Date:_December 9, 2016 Your Signature:___________________________________