FINAL-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 CASE NO. 15-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE August 11, 2017

DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-327-1566
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
_______________________________________________
SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM,

MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAID
ULLAH (AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN

BRUCE JESSEN
Defendants.
_________________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017
STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
BY JUDGE JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
_______________________________
Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed,
and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (WhistleBlower) with allegations
of misconduct and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa.
(ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in
1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the
aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose
public corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and
malicious attacks on our person, our property, and our business. We continue our fight
for justice through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our
right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member of the
media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no
longer have access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster
County and Lancaster City Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 1 of 84

85 Saturday August 12, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
(And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
Dated AUGUST 11, 2017
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
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. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 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. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; 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. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157

DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se

DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se

DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se

by STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
17-1904 STAMPS
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page
PageNo.
No.11
6 of
of84
17 Saturday
Monday
August
July 24,
12, 2017
17-1904 STAMPS
PageNo.
No.12
7 of
of84
17 Saturday
Monday
August
July 24,
12, 2017
17-1904 STAMPS
PageNo.
No.13
8 of
of84
17 Saturday
Monday
August
July 24,
12, 2017
17-1904 STAMPS
PageNo.
No.14
9 of
of84
17 Saturday
Monday
August
July 24,
12, 2017
A LANDMARK ABUSEDRAFT
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 10
19 of 84
11 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 11
26 of 84
17
12 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
MOTION INRECONSIDERATION
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 64 12
66
65 of 106
27
18
13 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 65 13
67
66 of 106
28
19
14 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 66 14
68
67 of 106
29
20
15 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
ARGUEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

AND REVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF AUGUST 4, 2017
ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

BEFORE THE COURT is a pro se Application for Amicus Curie (ECF No.
237) and proposed Brief on Behalf of Amici Curiae Stanley J. Caterbone and
Advanced Media Group In Support of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 237-1). No
request was made by the court or the parties for the submission of amicus
curiae briefs. The court has performed a cursory review of the proposed filing,
finds it would not aid the court, and does not serve the purpose of a 'friend of
the court' brief. Amicus curiae briefs are uncommon at the trial level, but
Supreme Court Rule 37 provides: An amicus curiae brief that brins to the
attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by
the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiea brief
that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not
favored.
IT IS HERBY ORDERED:
1. The Application (ECF No. 237) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk shall STRIKE the Application (ECF No. 237) and supporting
exhibits from the record and they shall not be considered by the court.
3. No amicus curiae briefs shall be filed in this matter without first obtaining
leave of court. Any such request shall also state that counsel for each
side has been contacted concerning the request, and shall state whether
counsel consents to the filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to counsel and Mr. Caterbone.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2017.
_______________________________
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 15

16 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
THE COURT HAS PERFORMED A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FILING,

FINDS IT WOULD NOT AID THE COURT, AND DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF
A 'FRIEND OF THE COURT' BRIEF. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS ARE UNCOMMON AT
THE TRIAL LEVEL, BUT SUPREME COURT RULE 37 PROVIDES: AN AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF THAT BRINS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT RELEVANT
MATTER NOT ALREADY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION BY THE PARTIES MAY BE
OF CONSIDERABLE HELP TO THE COURT. AN AMICUS CURIEA BRIEF THAT DOES
NOT SERVE THIS PURPOSE BURDENS THE COURT, AND ITS FILING IS NOT
FAVORED By Judge Justin L. Quackenbush
ARGUEMENTS
1. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PROVIDE A BONA FIDE

PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WITHIN
THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OR CIA. THE CONDUCT IN
QUESTION DIRECTLY INVOLVES THE INTEROGATION PROGRAM IN
QUESTION. STAN J. CATERBONE MAINTAINS HIS STATEMENT THAT THE
SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY BEGAN IN EARNEST IN 2005 AND BEGAN WITH
MONTHS OF NOTHING LESS THAN HOURS OF INTEROGATIONS BY CIA
HANDLERS, BY THIER OWN ADMISSION.
2. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT EVIDENCE A COVERT
DOMESTIC TORTURE PROGRAM (MK-ULTRA LIKE), THAT IS DIRECTLY
LINKED TO THAT SAME PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY DEFENDANT'S JAMES
ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN BRUCE JESSEN.
3. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
FILING THE COURT HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABOVE AND IS
REQUIRED BY LAW TO REFER ANY CRIMINAL MATTERS TO THE
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. SEE THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW SECTION.
A. WHILE VIRTUALLY ANY ACTION CAN BECOME A CONCURRENT
CRIMINAL/CIVIL MATTER, A NUMBER OF FEDERAL STATUTES
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH A DUAL TRACK. THESE STATUTES
INCLUDE: THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-3, 15, 15(A) (1988)
(ANTITRUST); THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77T (1988);
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988), AND; THE
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 ET SEQ.
4. THE OREDER MAY BE UNLAWFUL RETALIOTORY CONDUCT BY THE COURT.
5. DUE TO THE ABUSE OF PROCESS BY THE FBI AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SINCE AND BEGINING IN 1987, IN DEALING
WITH STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, THE ORDER MY
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
6. CURRENTLY STAN J. CATERBONE IS IN LITIGATION IN THE U.S.C.A.
THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CASE NO. 17-1904, CATERBONE v.
The NSA, et.al.,. THE CASE IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR
EMERGENCY RELIEF AND LISTS THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
A. THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OR NSA
B. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
C. LT. CLARK BEARINGER OF THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
D. THE LANCASTER COUNT SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
E. THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
F. LANCASTER CITY MAYOR RICHARD GRAY

17 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
G. THE LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

H. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
I. THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
J. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE
K. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGAION, FBI
L. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA
M. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
N. UNITED STATES DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DIA
O. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCY, DARPA OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
7. CASE NO 17-1904 WAS FILED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CLEAR PATH AND
WAY FORWARD TO CONTINUE THE MYRIAD OF CIVIL CLAIMS, DATING
BACK TO 1987 IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. THE CIVIL ACTIONS
ARISE FROM HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS,
AND ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS WITH LEGITIMATE LEGAL AND FINANCIAL
ESTIMATES OF $40 TO $120 MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
8. THE EFFORTS BY FEDERAL AND STATE JUDGES TO USE THE FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT SYSTEM TO DISCREDIT AND DEFAME STAN J. CATERBONE
AMOUNT TO A PARAMOUNT CASE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
9. STAN J. CATERBONE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO LITIGATE A WAY
FORWARD IN THE COURTS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BEING VICTIMIZED
BY PERPETRATORS WHO VANDALIZE, DAMAGE, AND OR STEAL VITAL
ELECTRONICS; COMPUTER HACKERS WHO HACK MOST IF NOT ALL ONLINE
ACCOUNTS, SPECIFICALLY THE PACER ACCOUNT USED TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY IN THE COURTS. THESE ISSUES MAKE IT NEAR
IMPOSSIBLE TO ADHERE TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE GUIDELINES AND
PROCEDURES FOR FILING REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION TO FILING PRO
SE, THE COURTS MUST USE THE BEST LIGHT DOCTRINE OF CIVIL
PROCEURE FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS.
ON AUGUST 9, 2017 CNN REPORTED THAT COVERT MICROWAVE WEAPONS

WERE USED AGAINST UNITED STATES DIPLOMATS OF THE U.S. EMBASSY IN
CUBA. CANADIAN DIPLOMATS WERE ALSO TARGETED. THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME IN UNITED STATES HISTORY WHERE THESE WEAPONS AND TECNOLOGIES
WERE REPORTED TO BE IN EXISTENCE IN REAL TIME. ON PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS, SUCH AS WHEN THE UNITED STATES EMABASSY IN MOSCOW WAS
TARGETED IN THE 1950'S, IT WAS DECADES UNTIL THESE EVENTS WERE MADE
PUBLIC. THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE FROM LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS. SEE
THE DOCUMENT TITLED Legal Implications of the 1959 Soviet Microwave
Bombardment of the U.S Embassy January 17, 2017 ATTACHED HEREIN.
________________________
U.S. EMBASSY IN CUBA HIT BY COVERT ACCOUSTIC WEAPONS, Canadian
diplomat in Cuba also suffered hearing loss lancasteronline, AUGUST 10, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) The Canadian government said Thursday that at least one
Canadian diplomat in Cuba also has been treated for hearing loss following
disclosures that a group of American diplomats in Havana suffered severe
hearing loss that U.S. officials believe was caused by an advanced sonic device.
Global Affairs Canada spokeswoman Brianne Maxwell said Canadian officials "are aware

18 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
of unusual symptoms affecting Canadian and US diplomatic personnel and their families
in Havana. The government is actively working including with US and Cuban
authorities - to ascertain the cause."
Maxwell added that officials don't have any reason to believe Canadian tourists and other
visitors could be affected.
Canada helped broker talks between Cuba and the United States that led to
restored diplomatic relations.
In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of
hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several
of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of
President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel
their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of
investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an
advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been
deployed either inside or outside their residences.
It was not immediately clear if the device was a weapon used in a deliberate attack, or
had some other purpose.
The U.S. officials weren't authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on
condition of anonymity.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the U.S. retaliated by expelling two
Cuban diplomats from their embassy in Washington on May 23. She did not say how
many U.S. diplomats were affected or confirm they had suffered hearing loss, saying only
that they had "a variety of physical symptoms."
The Cuban government said in a lengthy statement late Wednesday that "Cuba has never
permitted, nor will permit, that Cuban territory be used for any action against accredited
diplomatic officials or their families, with no exception."
The statement from the Cuban Foreign Ministry said it had been informed of the incidents
on Feb. 17 and had launched an "exhaustive, high-priority, urgent investigation at the
behest of the highest level of the Cuban government."
It said the decision to expel two Cuban diplomats was "unjustified and baseless."
The ministry said it had created an expert committee to analyze the incidents and had
reinforced security around the U.S. embassy and U.S. diplomatic residences.
"Cuba is universally considered a safe destination for visitors and foreign diplomats,
including U.S. citizens," the statement said.
U.S. officials told The Associated Press that about five diplomats, several with spouses,
had been affected and that no children had been involved. The FBI and Diplomatic
Security Service are investigating.
Cuba employs a state security apparatus that keeps many people under surveillance and
U.S. diplomats are among the most closely monitored people on the island. Like virtually
all foreign diplomats in Cuba, the victims of the incidents lived in housing owned and
maintained by the Cuban government.
However, officials familiar with the probe said investigators were looking into the

19 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
possibilities that the incidents were carried out by a third country such as Russia,
possibly operating without the knowledge of Cuba's formal chain of command.
Nauert said investigators did not yet have a definitive explanation for the incidents but
stressed they take them "very seriously," as shown by the Cuban diplomats' expulsions.
"We requested their departure as a reciprocal measure since some U.S. personnel's
assignments in Havana had to be curtailed due to these incidents," she said. "Under the
Vienna Convention, Cuba has an obligation to take measures to protect diplomats."
U.S. diplomats in Cuba said they suffered occasional harassment for years after the
restoration of limited ties with the communist government in the 1970s, harassment
reciprocated by U.S. agents against Cuban diplomats in Washington. The use of sonic
devices to intentionally harm diplomats would be unprecedented.

Gillies reported from Toronto and Weissenstein reported from Havana.
THE FOLLOWING LINK IS THE CNN BROADCAST ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OF

STAN J. CATERBONE:
CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST 10, 2017

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0juctekK3k
After reading the global research article titled SIRHAN SIRHAN: a reel bad
arab? The alleged killer of ROBERT F. KENNEDY dated July 20, 2017 STAN J.
CATERBONE prepared and filed an amicus brief in support of william f. Pepper's
petition to obtain redress for SIRHAN SIRHAN based on the premis that SIRHAN
SIRHAN was a victim of the COVERT CIA MK-ULTRA PROGRAM. In addition
STAN J. CATERBONE has authored similar amicus briefs in similar cases, most
notably the following:
1. THE ACLU V. THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, NSA CASE NO. 2006-CV-
2095 IN EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2. APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AUGUST 5, 2017
3. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 3575 EDA 2016
KATHLEEN KANE AMICUS
STAN J. CATERBONE has also, AS PRO SE MOVANT for the nationally

acclaimed case of LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT, as MOVANT in the U.S. DISTRICT
COURT CASE NO. 14-02559 FOR THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA taken that case to the U.S. SUPREME COURT IN CASE NO. 16-
2288. The case was denied in the January 6, 2017 CONFERENCE OF THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
In the matter of the the ESTEBAN SANTIAGO, FT. LAUDERDALE SHOOTER

CASE, in which ESTABAN SANTIAGO had made claims of being a victim of U. S.
SPONSORED MIND CONTROL TO THE FBI IN THE FBI FILED OFFICE IN ALASKA
in the months prior to the shooting, STAN J. CATERBONE has proved ERIC
COHEN, THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEFENDER assigned to the case an
extensive library of over 3 gigabytes of research and testimonial evidence of
U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL.

20 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
SEE THE DIGITAL FILES OF THE ABOVE AMICUS FILINGS ON THE

SUPPORTIVE DVD.

21 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
CASE LAW
IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

COURSE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS? By ONLINE LAW LIBRARY
It depends. In certain circumstances, clients are obligated to make a criminal referral of
suspected criminal conduct. Additionally, counsel may have obligations under the cannon
of ethics to do the same.
All financial institutions operating in the United States (including U.S. branches and
agencies of foreign banks) are required to make a report of suspicious activity involving:
Insider abuse involving any amount;
Violations aggregating $5,000 or more where a suspect can be identified;
Violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect;
Transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering
or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. See 31 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. (Bank Secrecy
Act); 31 C.F.R. Part 103 et seq.
Additionally, Rule 1.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct indicates that a lawyer may
reveal information relating to representation of a client to the extent that the lawyer
reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the client from committing an act that the
lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death, bodily harm or substantial injury to
the financial interest or property of another. The comments to Rule 1.6 indicate that a
lawyer's decision not to take such preventative action does not violate the Rule; rather
that the lawyer has "professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent such
consequences." Such an exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as
the nature of the lawyer's relationship with the client and with those who might be
injured by the client, the lawyer's own involvement in the transaction and factors that
may extenuate the conduct in question. Comment to Rule 1.6. "Where practical, the
lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action", and "[in] any case a
disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to the purpose." Id.
Unlike private attorneys, government attorneys who learn of a government employee's
previous criminal conduct have a statutory obligation to report such conduct. 28 U.S.C.
535(b); In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 2482 (1997). However, private attorneys cannot be required to report and cannot be
required to divulge information relating to past criminal activity, even pursuant to the
government's subpoena power. In re: Grand Jury Matters, 593 F. Supp. 103 (D.N.H.),
affirmed by, 751 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1984) (Government not permitted to subpoena criminal
defense attorneys regarding details of representation relative to state felony trials where
same defendants were being investigated for same acts by Federal grand jury).
Finally, section 4 of the criminal code makes it a felony to conceal knowledge of, and fail
to report, a felony cognizable by a court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. 4. This
felony is seldom prosecuted and is most often used as a vehicle for a plea agreement
when the parties are looking to plea to a three year felony.
Is the Government empowered to conduct parallel proceedings?
Yes. In United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970), the Supreme Court stated that "[I]t
would stultify enforcement of federal law to require a government agency . . . invariably
to choose either to forgo recommendation of a criminal prosecution once it seeks civil

22 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
relief, or to defer civil proceedings pending the ultimate outcome of a criminal trial."
Federal statutes which provide for parallel proceedings
WHILE VIRTUALLY ANY ACTION CAN BECOME A CONCURRENT CRIMINAL/CIVIL
MATTER, A NUMBER OF FEDERAL STATUTES EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH A
DUAL TRACK. THESE STATUTES INCLUDE: THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-3,
15, 15(A) (1988) (ANTITRUST); THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77T
(1988); THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988), AND; THE
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1961 ET SEQ.
Is the District Court empowered to stay the civil proceedings in favor of the
criminal proceedings?
Yes. The Supreme Court has indicated that a district court may stay civil proceedings in
favor of a criminal trial "when the interests of justice seem to require such action."
Kordel, 397 U.S. at 12, n.27 (1970). Because adverse inferences may be drawn in a civil
case from the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.
308 (1976), the court may stay the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. See
SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S.
993 (1980) ("[A] noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's
fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination."); Dienstag v. Bronsen, 49 F.R.D.
327, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (civil discovery stayed because necessary to protect
defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination); United States v. A
Certain Parcel of Land, 781 F. Supp. 830, 834 (D.N.H. 1992) (discovery stayed in civil
forfeiture action because protective order would not sufficiently protect Fifth Amendment
privilege).
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to the following factors:
1. the private interests of the plaintiff in the civil litigation without a stay;
2. the interests and burdens on the defendant with a stay;
3. the convenience of the courts;
4. interests of non-parties to the civil litigation; and
5. the public's interest. See, e.g., Keating v. OTS, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 827 (1995); FSLIC v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902-903 (9th
Cir. 1989); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87
F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
However, there is no absolute constitutional right to a stay of a civil proceeding pending
disposition of a related criminal matter. Arthurs v. Stern, 560 F.2d 477 (1st Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1030 (1978); see also In re: Melissa M., 127 N.H. 710, 712 (1986)
(citing federal cases). The law recognizes "the principle that protection of the public
interest may often require proceedings simultaneously on two fronts, and that it would
unduly compromise the public interest to force the government to choose between a civil
and criminal course of action." Mainelli v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 606, 615 (D.R.I.
1985); see also United States v. Lot 5, 23 F.3rd 359, 364-65 (11th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1076 (1995); Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899,
902-03 (9th Cir. 1989).
In addition to staying parallel civil proceedings in favor of criminal proceedings, District
Courts may also issue protective orders, or require other conditions, to limit discovery
between parallel proceedings. In re: Grand Jury Subpoena v. Doe, 103 F.3d 234, 239 (2d
Cir. 1996); Andover Data Svs. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d
Cir. 1989); In re: Film Recovery Sys., Inc., 804 F.2d 386, 388, (7th Cir. 1986).

23 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

enforcement proceeding waive the privilege for purposes of subsequent civil
proceedings?
Yes, most of the time. As a general rule, when a company chooses to do a voluntary
disclosure to a governmental entity in order to avoid a federal enforcement proceeding,
that disclosure constitutes a waiver of any privilege in subsequent civil litigation. See In
re Steinhardt Partners, C.P., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993); Westinghouse Elec. Corp v.
Republic of Phillippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1425 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Martin Marietta Corp.,
856 F.2d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 (1989); Permian Corp.
v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (D.C. Cir. 1981). One circuit has held that the
disclosure is a waver with regard to that governmental entity alone. In Diversified
Industries Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1978) (en banc), the Court held that a
corporation's prior disclosure of privileged materials to the SEC constituted a waiver of
the privilege only to the SEC. Accordingly, a subsequent discovery demand by a civil
litigant for the information was denied. The majority rule, and the assumption under
which the disclosing party should operate, is that the disclosure constitutes a subject
matter waiver of any applicable privilege in any other proceeding.
Does the "critical self analysis privilege"such as it issurvive a federal
subpoena?
The self-evaluative privilege in the employment discrimination context has been
recognized within the First Circuit. See O'Connor v. Chrysler Corp., 86 F.R.D. 211 (D.
Mass. 1980); Jackson v. Harvard University, 111 F.R.D. 472 (D. Mass. 1986), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 848 (1990); Whittingham v. Amherst College, 164 F.R.D. 124 (D. Mass.
1995).
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton noted the clash of strong countervailing policies: "If
subjective materials constituting self critical analysis are subject to disclosure during
discovery, this disclosure would tend to have a chilling effect on employers' voluntary
compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. On the other hand,. . . plaintiffs
must be permitted to obtain information sufficient to enable them to prove employment
discrimination where such discrimination exists." Id. at 217. Keeton concluded, however,
that "[a] lack of confidentiality almost inevitably will result in some cramping of the
investigative process, simply because the incentives for any institution to engage in self-
evaluative investigation pale considerably with the knowledge that the results may be
used against it." Id. at 217-18.
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton set forth "potential guideposts" for the application of the
privilege:
1. materials protected have generally been those prepared for mandatory
governmental reports;
2. only subjective evaluative materials have been protected;
3. objective data in those same reports have not been protected; and
4. in sensitivity to plaintiff's need for such materials, courts have denied discovery
only where the policy favoring exclusion has clearly outweighed plaintiffs' need."
Id. at 217.
In Whittingham v. Amherst College, the Massachusetts District Court did away with the
requirement that the internal investigation and reports be mandated by the government,
and extended the privilege to include voluntary internal investigations. 164 F.R.D. 124,
129-130 (D. Mass. 1995).
More importantly, the self-evaluative privilege has almost never been successfully

24 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
asserted against a governmental subpoena. See id; FTC v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 210-
11 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Noall, 587 F.2d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 441 U.S. 923 (1979); Reich v. Hercules, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 367, 371 (D.N.J.
1994); Thomas F. O'Neil & Adam H. Charnes, The Embryonic Self-Evaluative Privilege: A
Primer For Health Care Lawyers, 5 Annals Health L. 33 (1996).
Who is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination
An individual may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. A
corporation has no protection under the Fifth Amendment privilege. See Curcio v. United
States, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944). A
recognized exception to this rule is where the only corporate custodian of records may
violate his own rights against self-incrimination by responding to questions put to the
corporation. Curcio, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957). Also, an employee may invoke the
privilege if the specter of individual liability exists. In re Corrugated Container Anti-trust
Litigation, 609 F.2d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 1979).
How does the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination affect a civil action?
In the federal context, it is well settled that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response
to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318
(1976) ; United States v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 310-11 (3d Cir. 1996), reh'g en banc
denied, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244 (3d Cir. 1997); National Acceptance Co. of Am. v.
Batchalter, 705 F.2d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 1983). The admission or denial of such evidence
turns on whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110,
121 (2d Cir. 1997).
The Second Circuit has previously approved of the admission of an assertion of the Fifth
Amendment in similar circumstances. Brink's, Inc. v. The City of New York, 717 F.2d 700
(2d Cir. 1983). In Brink's, the City discovered that approximately $1 million in parking
meter revenue was missing from the amounts collected by Brink's under a contract with
the City. A key issue for the claim against Brink's was the extent of defendant's
knowledge of thefts of the meter money by its employees. Several Brink's employees had
already been convicted or had pleaded guilty to theft and related charges. At trial, the
City called them to the stand, knowing that they would invoke the Fifth Amendment. The
trial court allowed the testimony to go forward, over Brink's objection, and the Second
Circuit affirmed.
The court ruled that the refusal to answer questions upon asserting Fifth Amendment
privilege is relevant evidence from which the trier of fact in a civil action may draw
whatever inferences are reasonable under the circumstances. 717 F.2d at 710. It
engaged in the familiar prejudice versus probative value analysis under F.R.E. 403. Id.
On the probative value side, the witnesses' invocation of the privilege in response to
questions about their knowledge and participation in the thefts was admissible, due to
the high probative value of this evidence. Id. The court found that the employees'
knowledge of the thefts was a key issue in allowing the jury to draw an inference
regarding Brink's knowledge or negligence. Id.
On the prejudice side, the court observed that prejudice in this context means
"inflammatory" evidence, rather than evidence which is merely harmful to the party's
position. Id. By ruling that the evidence was admissible, the court concluded that Fifth

25 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Amendment assertions, while possibly harmful to a party's position or credibility, are not
inflammatory. The court thereby necessarily found that the evidence's probative value
outweighed any prejudice.
The refusal of a party to answer or testify on Fifth Amendment grounds should be
admitted where the unanswered questions lie close to substantive issues of the case. In
East Coast Novelty Co. v. The City of New York, 842 F. Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), a case
concerning the seizure of plaintiff's entire inventory of fireworks by the New York City
Police Department, the court upheld the finding of a negative inference from plaintiff's
invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Establishing that the plaintiff company was a front
organization for organized crime was a key element of the City's case. The refusal of the
two principals of the plaintiff corporation to answer deposition questions concerning their
alleged involvement in organized crime, as well as their alleged violations of state and
federal fireworks laws, was considered sufficiently probative ("obviously relevant") that
adverse inferences were drawn against them. Id. at 121.
Similarly, in First Interregional Equity Corp. v. Haughton, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12813
(S.D.N.Y. 1993), a defendant alleged to have defrauded plaintiff corporation out of
several hundred thousand dollars by manipulating the price of certain shares of common
stock, refused to answer questions regarding documents linking her to several of the
transactions at issue. The court stated that allowing the "invocation of the privilege here
as a defense strategy without permitting plaintiffs to draw inferences from the use of the
privilege is inappropriate." Id. at *10. "The arguable harshness of the practice is
mitigated by the ability of the person invoking the privilege to explain why he did so or to
show by other evidence that his response would not have incriminated him." Id. If the
refused questions lie at the heart of the matter in dispute, such refusal will generally be
considered sufficiently probative for admission of any invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
Finally, when independent corroborative evidence of wrong-doing is shown, the courts
usually allow the adverse inference to be drawn from the invocation of the privilege.
United States v. Nagelberg, 772 F. Supp. 120, 123 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
This issue is treated differently by New Hampshire Courts however. In Fischer v. Hooper,
143 N.H. 585 (1999), the Court discussed New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 512, which
prohibits the jury in both civil and criminal cases from drawing negative inferences from
the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. (citing 2 J. Weinstein, et al,
Weinstein's Evidence 513 (1996)). Rule 512(b) requires that civil proceedings before a
jury be conducted, to the extent practicable, "so as to facilitate the making of claims of
privilege without the knowledge of the jury." The Court held that the trial court erred in
requiring the defendant in the civil tort action to invoke his right against self-
incrimination in the presence of the jury, and that the court could have dealt with the
issue of the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right without the jury's
knowledge, thereby satisfying Rule 512(b). In summary, the Court held that Rule 512
and the Court's previous holding in State v. Bell, 112 N.H. 444, 448 (1972) required trial
courts "to take reasonable steps to insure that the jury is unaware that a witness has
invoked the privilege against self-incrimination." Id. at 596.
Discovery Issues in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The scope and nature of permissible discovery in the civil and criminal proceedings differ
significantly. See, e.g., Digital Equip. Corp. v. Currie Enters., 142 F.R.D. 8, 13 (D. Mass.
1991) (summarizing differences between civil and criminal discovery). What can be
obtained through criminal discovery is much narrower than allowed in civil actions. As a
result, parallel civil proceedings may benefit the prosecution. Courts are mindful of this
dynamic and will act to prevent circumvention of the limited criminal discovery rules. For

26 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
example, in Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 517
U.S. 820 (1963), the Court stated "[a] litigant should not be allowed to make use of the
liberal discovery procedures applicable to a civil suit as a dodge to avoid the restrictions
on criminal discovery and thereby obtain documents he would not otherwise be entitled
to for use in his criminal suit." See also United States v. Tison, 780 F.2d 1569, 1572
(11th Cir. 1986) (civil proceeding stayed for three years in order to prevent
circumvention of criminal discovery provisions in parallel proceeding); In re Eisenberg,
654 F.2d 1107, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1981) (liberal civil discovery procedures not a back door
to information otherwise beyond the reach of criminal discovery rules).
Can an agency of the federal government obtain information from a parallel
criminal proceeding for use in its civil action?
There are significant limitations imposed on such activity. The government may not
utilize grand jury proceedings to augment its efforts in the civil context. United States v.
Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958) (If the prosecution was using criminal
procedures to elicit evidence in a civil case, "it would be flouting the policy of the law.");
2 Sara Sun Beale & William C. Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice, 8.03, at 9-12 (1996)
(noting that grand jury cannot be used to collect evidence for civil purposes).
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also restricts how prosecutors may
share information obtained through grand jury proceedings with other government
agencies. The Rule does allow disclosure of grand jury evidence to "an attorney for the
government for use in the performance of such attorney's duty." Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i). The
term "attorney for the government" generally includes attorneys for DOJ's Criminal
Division, but does not include Civil Division attorneys. United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc.,
463 U.S. 418 (1983). Rule 6(d) further allows disclosure of grand jury evidence to
governmental personnel whose assistance is necessary to the criminal investigation, but
limits the scope of its use to the criminal investigation at hand. The prosecutor must
disclosure the names of any such "other government personnel" to the court prior to
disclosure. Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii). These limitations were motivated by "the fear that such
indirect agency access will lead to misuse of the grand jury to enforce noncriminal
Federal laws,'" without prohibiting the government's use of such information obtained by
means of legitimate grand jury proceedings. United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, 485
(1983) (relying on and discussing legislative history of amendment to Rule 6(e), at S.
Rep. No. 95-354, p. 8 (1977)).
Dated AUGUST 11, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566

27 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Stanley J. Caterbone is a private citizen and the majority shareholder of the United States
incorporated business Advanced Media Group. Stanley J. Caterbone was a whistle-blower and
shareholder in 1987 involving the United States Defense Contractor International Signal & Control,
Plc., known as ISC. In 1992, International Signal & Control was indicted and found guilty of
among other things a Billion Dollar Fraud and export violations concerning illegally shipping cluster
bomb technologies, missile defense systems, and other defense systems to foreign interests
including South Africa, Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Cluster bombs and related technologies are
known to have been exported to Iraq by the Chilean Arms Dealer Carlos Cardoen, a joint venture
partner of International Signal & Control. The Central Intelligence Agency is confirmed to have
been involved in a covert program to arm Iraq during the 1980s with close ties to International
Signal & Control, which allegedly included the help of the National Security Agency, a former end
user of International Signal & Control technologies under the early 1980s program Project X. A
Presidential Finding in 1984 by the Bush Administration was executed to implement the program
of arming Saddam Hussein and Iraq with the cluster bomb technologies. Serious allegations of
these programs were the focus of investigations that included the knowledge and supervision of
then appointed nominee for the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates.
Since 1987, Stanley J. Caterbone has been the victim of vast civil conspiracy that started in
1987 to cover-up allegations of fraud within International Signal & Control during the negotiations
and merger of International Signal & Control and Ferranti International of England. Stanley J.
Caterbone alleges that warrantless surveillance was used to obstruct justice and moot his
constitutional rights in an effort to divert attention away from his allegations of fraud within
International Signal & Control back in 1987, and afterwards to the present as a means to deny his
access to the courts for remedy and relief, and Federal False Claims Act violations. The business of
Advanced Media Group has been greatly compromised and intellectual property stolen during the
late 1980s and early 1990s that included information technology contracts with the United States
Government.
Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud
within ISC. This organized stalking and harassment was enough to drive an ordinary person to
suicide. As far back as the late 1980's Stan J. Caterbone knew that his mind was being read, or
"remotely viewed". This was verified and confirmed when information only known to him, and
never written, spoken, or typed, was repeated by others. In 1998, while soliciting the counsel of
Philadelphia attorney Christina Rainville, (Rainville represented Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie
Show murder case), someone introduced the term remote viewing through an email. That was
the last time it was an issue until 2005. The term was researched, but that was the extent of the

28 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
topic. Remote Viewers may have attempted to connect in a more direct and continuous way
without success.
In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy;
synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices and weapons
that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim. This assault was
no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S. District
Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This assault began after
the handlers remotely trained Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The main difference
opposed to most other victims of this technology is that Stan J. Caterbone is connected 24/7 with
a person who declares that she is Interscope recording artist Sheryl Crow of Kennett Missouri.
Stan J. Caterbone has spent 3 years trying to validate and confirm this person without success.
Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment. See attached documents for more information.
In 2006 or the beginning of 2007 Stan J. Caterbone began his extensive research into
mental telepathy; mind control technologies; remote viewing; and the CIA mind control program
labeled MK ULTRA and it's subprograms.
In January of 2006, Stanley J. Caterbone was detained at every airport security check
point, which was during a policy of random checks, and taken out of line during travel from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Houston, Texas, and on to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. At the Houston
Airport, Stanley J. Caterbone was falsely accused of carrying plastics explosives and taken to an
interview room by Homeland Security officials. Stanley J. Caterbone was also detained for three
days in Mexico, and was not provided with an opportunity to gain access to a flight out of the
country by Mexican Officials.
Today, Stan J. Caterbone is a pro se litigant in several state and local courts, in an effort to
be restored to whole since the WHISTLEBLOWING of 1987. Most notable is CATERBONE v. The
National Security Agency, NSA, et.al. In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT CASE NO. 17-1904. That case is a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
FILED TO IMMEDIATELY HALT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IS BEING ADMINISTERED
THROUGHT THE ILLEGAL COINTELPRO PROGRAM COUPELD WITH THE TORTURE PROGRAM.

29 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
The following are the effects of the ILLEGAL AND LANDMARK COINTELPRO PROGRAM
COUPELD WITH THE TORTURE PROGRAM:
4. AS CONTAINED IN THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. 08-
13373 WHERE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WAS ADDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S LIST ON
JANUARY 23, 2017 AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL COURT CASES; THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IS UTILIZING AN ILLEGAL COINTELPRO PROGRAM TO HARASS THE
APPELLANT, STAN J. CATERBONE AND OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY DIRECTLING CAUSING IT
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THOSE SAME CIVIL ACTIONS.
5. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SIGNED (3) EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT BROADENED THE
POWERS OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COINCIDE WITH THE
ABOVE.
6. THE FACT THAT COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE'S HISTORY WITH THE LANCASTER
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT TRACES BACK TO THE 1960'S WITH THE TARGETING OF
COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE'S FATHER, SAMUEL CATERBONE, JR. IN THE VERY
SAME MANNER AS THE CURRENT TARGETING OF COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE
TODAY IS REASON ENOUGH TO HAVE SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS IN ALL CIVIL ACTIONS IN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IMMEDIATELY ORDERED.
7. THE TARGETING CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. AN UPRECEDENTED HARASSMENT PROGRAM CARRIED OUT BY RESIDENTS,
NEIGHBORS, STALKING GROUPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND OTHERS.
B. AN UNPRECEDENTED HACKING PROGRAM OF ALL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT.
C. AN UNPRECEDENTED TORTURE PROGRAM UTILIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC AND OTHER
EXOTIC WEAPONS DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
D. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN DESIGNED TO DRAIN THE APPELLANT STAN J.
CATERBONE OF ALL CASH RESOURCES, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A CASH POSITION
OF SOME $60,000.00 IN JUNE OF 2015 TO NOTHING TODAY.
E. THE UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF FALSE STATEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF 1252
FREMONT STREET AND THE PERJURED STATEMENTS OF LANCASTER CITY POLICE IN
RECENT CRIMINAL SUMMARY OFFENSES FILED IN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ADAM
WITKONIS COURT.
F. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF DAILY HARASSMENTS AND THREATS BY THE
RESIDENTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET, WHICH HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE 2006.
G. UN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAING OF THREATS OF PHYSICL HARM IN PUBLIC SPACES.
H. THE UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF THE BREAKING AND ENTERING INTO THE
RESIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE CAUSING VANDALISM,
THEFTS, POISONING OF FOOD, AND THE STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF COCK ROACHES

30 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
ON A DAILY BASIS. THIS ALSO INVOLVES THE THEFT AND MANIPULATION OF COURT
FILINGS AND EVIDENCE.
I. THE ABOVE ARE ALL FACILITATED AND SUPPORTED WITH VIOLATIONS OF DUE
PROCESS IN THE COMPLAINTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
J. 1. , COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SEAM RECIEVING RETALIOTROY
ADVERSE AND HARASSING TREATMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT 1. , I, COMPLAINTANT
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, AM THE AMICUS FOR FORMER PENNSYLVANIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE IN CASE NO. 3575 EDA 2016 IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF SUPERIOR COURT, CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION.
THE CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR AN

UNPRECDENTED LANDMARK CASE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ANTI-TRUST
VIOLATIONS.
It is too easy for present and future administrations to abuse their power and utilize
warrantless surveillance as a means of subverting and obstructing justice for those that are
engaged in Whistle-Blowing cases that concern National Security. Without the proper oversight
and judicial review, a Whistle Blower can be place on terrorist lists for malicious reasons without
the knowledge or just cause. This is in direct conflict with keeping our democracy free of
corruption while adhering to the spirit of the constitution in the manner our founding fathers
envisioned.
The interest of amicus in this case is ensuring that constitutional rights of private citizens
are not compromised and justice subverted through information obtained from warrantless
surveillance upon which there is no just cause for any allegations or association with terrorism.
Whistle-Blowers are inherently supportive of a system of checks and balances within our
government that go beyond our constitutional doctrines regarding the same. Whistle-Blowers
ensure that the rule of law is universally applied to all government officials in all branches of
government. The Federal False Claims Act and its provisions protect individuals from abuse of
power, while providing relief and remedies for those that were wronged and those that had the
courage to cite a wrong.

31 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIE
Synthetic Telepathy Coupled with Electromagnetic Weapons used for pain have been
the ELECTRONIC WEAPONS OF CHOICE by the PERPETRATORS committing these haneus
crimes against AMICUS, STAN J. CATERBONE since at least 2005. My father, U.S. Navy
1943 to 1946) was a victim of MK-ULTRA and experienced the same effects since at
least the early 1960's and my brother, Sammy, (U.S. Air Force 1969-19710 received the
same victimization through the use of the LSD experiments of the same program.
AMICUS, STAN J. CATERBONE is relevant to this case and should be granted legal
standing for the very fact that the initial time of connection with the SYNTHETIC
TELEPATHY consisted of months of NON-STOP INTERROGATIONS BY MALE SUBJECTS
WHO IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS CIA OPERATIVES. The interrogations lasted hours
upon hours at a time and covered just about every aspect of AMICUS STAN J.
CATERBONE'S life. The HANDLERS, for lack of a better term, not only focused on the
WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES OF ISC IN 1987, but also covered mundane everday
experiences, as a form to harass and torture.
In late spring of 2005, the HANDLERS introduce females to the sessions. To this
day, the torture consists of the same, interrogations mixed in with harassment, sex, and
humor. It is the opinion of AMICUS STAN J. CATERBONE, that the only way to keep from
desensitizing and numbing to the harassment and pain is to experience pleasure and
laughter so as to keep the magnitude of the pain at it's highest level. THIS CAN BE
SUBSANTIATED AND VALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION UNDER HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTED AMICUS STAN J.
CATERBONE DISABILITY BENEFITS IN AUGUST OF 2009 FOR SYMPTOMS AND
ILLNESSES RELATED TO U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL, AND IN FACT STATED IN THE
AWARD LETTER THAT DISABILITY WAS DETERMINED TO BEGIN IN DECEMBER OF 2005;
THE DATE AMICUS STAN J. CATERBONE DECLARED THAT THE SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY
HAD GONE FULL-TIME 24/7, WITHOUT INTERUPTION, TO THIS DAY.
The following article by psychologist JEFFREY KAYE along with the other exhibits
that detail the use of U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL, or behavioral modification
programs, will substantiate that these illegal and criminal techniques were being used,
without any means to verify or evidence, on the prisoner detainees.

32 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Smoking Gun on CIA Torture Conspiracy? Human Experimentation

Central to EIT Program
Posted By Jeffrey Kaye On September 27, 2009 @ 4:26 pm In Torture | 4 Comments

photo by johnnyalive via flickr
A close reading of the CIAs Inspector General Report and the Senate Intelligence Committees
narrative on the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) torture memos reveals a more detailed picture of
the CIAs involvement in the construction of those documents.
What emerges is consistent with recent charges of CIA experimentation on prisoners, and of the
overall experimental quality of the torture program itself. It also points to a crucial piece of
analysis by the CIAs Office of Technical Services, a memo which may or may not include
damning medical and psychological evidence of the damaging effects of SERE techniques, and
which the IG report maintains was utilized in substantial part in the drafting of the August 1,
2002 Bybee memos. If one is looking for a smoking gun in the torture scandal, in my opinion, one
doesnt have to look much further than this.
The quote below is from the April 22, 2009 Senate Intelligence Committee narrative of the Office
of Legal Counsels opinions on the CIAs interrogation program. Please keep in mind as you read
the quote and the added bolded emphasis, that recent documentation has shown that for years
the CIA and Special Operations had researchers studying the effects of SERE training.
Moreover, the research had been published in peer-reviewed journals, in part because the
research was also meant to add to the psychiatric communitys understanding of the mechanisms
of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Some of the research had also been published in the June 2000
edition of Special Warfare, The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School.
So, keeping this all in mind, consider the following from the Intel Committees narrative (emphasis
added): According to CIA records, because the CIA believed that Abu Zubaydah was withholding
imminent threat information during the initial interrogation sessions, attorneys from the CIAs
Office of General Counsel met with the Attorney General, the National Security Adviser, the
Deputy National Security adviser, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, and the
Counsel to the President in mid-May 2002 to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation
methods that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence
community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including
waterboarding.
The CIAs Office of General Counsel subsequently asked OLC to prepare an opinion about the legality of its
proposed techniques. To enable OLC to review the legality of the techniques, the CIA provided OLC with
written and oral descriptions of the proposed techniques. The CIA also provided OLC with information
about any medical and psychological effects of DoDs Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(SERE) School, which is a military training program during which military personnel receive counter-
interrogation training.
While the fact that the OLC accepted at face value the CIAs statements regarding the safety or the effects of
the interrogation procedures they were proposing is no surprise to anyone who has read the torture memos
and evidence of the unprofessionalism and bias of the memos authors the degree to which the
conspiracy (by CIA or OLC, or both) to withhold evidence of the real effects of the Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques (EITs) by the CIA has never been made more concrete than now.
To my knowledge, we do not have the specific document wherein the CIA provides the medical and
psychological effects of SERE school. I have been told that this document is still classified. But it seems
possible that the CIA did pass on the details of the research that was available to it, including the debilitating
effects of SERE techniques, which sent stress hormone levels, according to one research report, some of the
greatest ever documented in humans. Another report cited neuroendocrine changes [that] may have
significant implications for subsequent responses to stress.

33 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
One of the authors of these reports, Charles A. Morgan, III, M.D., who has identified himself in certain
settings as a Senior Research Scientist on the CIAs Behavioral Science Staff, has criticized my coverage of
CIA experiments on the psychological and physiological effects of SERE training upon human subjects. While
he could not specify what aspects of this coverage he felt were inaccurate and misleading, he did insist:
The research conducted by our research team at the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is
not, and never has been, conducted for any other purpose than to help us understand the pathophysiology of
stress disorders and we might better help in the treatment of veterans.
In making his mea culpa, Dr. Morgan never mentions that some of this research was funded (over $400,000)
by the Army and the Office of Naval Research. He doesnt mention his acquaintance with great people who
do military interrogations. He also forgets to cite his book contribution, where he states (emphasis added):
The SERE training environment affords the military services the opportunity to collaborate with various
other government agencies in exploring old and new techniques in gathering human intelligence.
Of course, he neither confirms nor denies his affiliation with the CIA, an affiliation which I have traced to the
CIAs Science and Technology directorate, through his association (large PDF) with the Intelligence
Technology Innovation Center, which is a research organization under the CIAs authority that answers
directly to the CIAs Science and Technology directorate. But most of all, Dr. Morgans arrows fall way short
of his target, as I have never accused him of personal involvement in the reverse-engineering of SERE
techniques for use in the torture program.
What is disturbing is his seeming lack of concern over the possiblity that the research he helped conduct was
either used to further experiments upon torture victims in the CIAs clandestine prisons, or contrariwise, was
withheld from Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who relied upon CIA advice concerning the effects of
techniques derived from the SERE schools.
What is indisputable is that by virtue of his position, Dr. Morgan had access to CIA officials just at the time
that another department of the CIA, one to which he is affiliated, was, according to the CIAs own Office of
Inspector General Report (large PDF) involved in vetting the SERE techniques for use in interrogations. The
other department was the Office of Technical Services (OTS), part of the CIAs Science and Technology
Directorate. This, by the way, is the same division that was responsible for the MKULTRA experiments of the
1950s and 1960s. From the OIG report:
CTC [CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center], with the assistance of the Office of Technical Service (OTS),
proposed certain more coercive physical techniques to use on AbuZubaydah.
CIAs OTS obtained data on the use of the proposed EITs and their potential long-term psychological effects
on detainees. OTS input was based in part on information solicited from a number of psychologists and
knowledgeable academics in the area of psychopathology.
OTS also solicited input from DoD/Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) regarding techniques used in its
SERE training and any subsequent psychological effects on students. DoD/JPRA concluded no long-term
psychological effects resulted from use of the EITs, including the most taxing technique, the waterboard, on
SERE students. The OTS analysis was used by OGC [DoD's Office of General Counsel] in evaluating the
legality of techniques.
OTSs solicitation of information on SERE from JPRA elicited some sort of feedback from JPRA, which
supposedly told OTS that SERE training caused no long-term effects. The IG Report does not say if this was
in the form of a memo and only speaks of OTSs analysis. In any case, we should not confuse any OTS
analysis with the information provided by JPRA itself to the Office of General Counsel, which produced a
number of memorandum and attachments in late July 2003. Marcy Wheeler has been analyzing the timing of
these JPRA items, including the fact that one of these key documents is missing.
The CIA IG Report is relating a story whose emphasis differs from that produced in the narrative of the
Senate Armed Services Committee investigation (PDF) into SERE torture. In the latter, JPRA is
the main culprit in providing cover for the supposed safety of using SERE techniques. Yet, in the OIG account
it looks like the CIA used DOD/JRRA as a cover for the safety of techniques that it knew were in fact harmful
from their own analysis of the data. Moreover, it was the OTS analysis that was used in substantial part
as the basis of the August 1, 2002 memo approving the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs).
That legal opinion was based, in substantial part, on OTS analysis and the experience and expertise of non-
Agency personnel and academics concerning whether long-term psychological effects would result from use

34 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
of the proposed techniques.
Moreover, the CIAs Office of Medical Services was frozen out of the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of
EITs, and not even provided with a copy of the OTS report given to the White House Office of Legal Counsel.
Such compartmentalization of information is indicative of a covert operation, such as a Special Access
Program (SAP). This SAP would have included personnel in CIAs CTC, OTS, OGC, and Directorate of
Operations, also portions of DOD (JPRA and Special Operations Command),
and probably the White Houses OLC, Office of the Vice President, and National Security Council. It seems
highly likely that the CIA report to the OLC on the medical and psychological effects of the SERE school
program, mentioned in the Senate Intelligence Committee narrative quote above, is in fact the OTS report,
which came from the same CIA directorate to which Dr. Morgan belongs. This does not speak to Morgans
foreknowledge of what would be used, nor to the amount of his involvement. But it does speak to the
likelihood that the government research he conducted (with others) was available and likely used by his
associates in the CIA.
To what purpose was this information used? It seems Dr. Morgan has serendipitously given us the answer
himself: exploring old and new techniques in gathering human intelligence. The CIA appears to have used
torture to conduct what Physicians for Human Rights, in a white paper (PDF) recently published, called
possible unethical human experimentation, [which] urgently needs to be thoroughly investigated. The
government should declassify the OTS report, and bring the process of investigating the CIAs role in the
torture conspiracy fully into public purview.
This report was originally published on FireDogLake.com.

Jeffrey Kaye, a psychologist living in Northern California and a regular contributor The Public Record,
has been blogging at Daily Kos since May 2005, and maintains a personal blog, Invictus. E-mail Mr.
Kaye at sfpsych at gmail dot com.
AUGUST 1, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?

35 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
EXHIBITS

36 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 6
1-1-1977
Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave

Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy
Larry B. Guthrie
Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr

Part of the Environmental Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Larry B. Guthrie, Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy , 1 B.C.
Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 91 (1977), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol1/iss1/6
This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law
School. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.1 36
37
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
Legal ImpHcations of the Soviet Microwave

Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy
INTRODUCTION
.Although the U.S. embassy in Moscow has been the target of

Soviet microwave bombardment at least since 1959/ it has only
been the publicity surrounding the former U.S. Ambassador to
the Soviet Union, Walter Stoessel's health that has brought this
practice to public prominence.2 The primary concern about such
radiation is the health of the staff, employees, and families
within the embassy who are subjected to it. While the recent
radiation levels have been relatively Iowa and are of the type
associated with the use of radio, and television stations (non-
ionizing, as compared to X-rays or Gamma rays 4) little is
1 Microwave radiation was discovered within the embassy during Vice President
Nixon'. visit to Moscow in 1959, NY Times, May 1, 1976, at 21, col. 2.
2 Bpeculation and conjecture between Btoellel's reported "strange blood ailment,"
Bolton Globe, February 16, 1976, at 1, col. 1, and the microwave radiation were
preeeded and fueled by reports of recent increases in the radiation levels found in
the emba.llay, 'NY Times, February ll, 1976, at 16, col. 4. Before the Stoenel inci
dent, however, it was Jack Anderson who "broke" the story of the "MOIcow Big
w" in Kay of 1972. Washington Post, May 10, 1972, at B10, col. 2.
a Levels have been 1811 than two microwatts per square centimeter since protests
were made in February, 1976, and aluminum aereens which have been inatalled hall
reduced this to Iell than 1 mierowatt per square centimeter inaide the emb...,..
NY Times, July 8, 1976, at 1, col. 1; Telephone Conversation with State Depart-
ment oflleial, Dixie Grimes, December 2, 1976. These levels are to be compared, how
ever with the high of 18 microwatts per square centimeter in 1975, NY Times,
April 26, 1976, at 5, col. 1 and perhaps as high as 400 microwatts per square centi
meter'in earlier years, Paul Brodeur, Microwave8 11, The New Yorker, December
20,1976, at 47, col. 2 (hereinafter cited as Microwave8 II).
4 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, vol. 6, pp. 65152, vol. 15, 389 (15th ed. 1975) j
NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, coL 8.
91
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.2 37
38
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
92 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOUltNAL [VoL 1, No.1
known of the long range medical effects of prolonged exposure

to low levels of microwave radiation, but recent studies sight
possible dangers:1 The State Department is concerned enough
at least to have commissioned Johns Hopkins University to con-
duct research on 600 embassy employees in order to deter-
mine the medical effects, if any, of past exposure they may have
received. II
This article will examine the legal effects of the microwave
bombardment. The analysis will attempt to resolve the follow-
ing issues: I. whether the radiation bombardment is a prima
facie T violation of international law, so as to give rise to Soviet
responsibility of some kind; II. whether any defenses are avail-
able to the Soviets for their actions; III. what remedies may
exist for the United States.
I. Is THE RADIATION BOMBARDMENT A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW so AS TO GIVE RISE TO SOVIET RESPONSI-
BILITY!
The relevant international law encompassing microwave bom-

bardment of an embassy is the Vienna Convention on Diplo-
matic Relations (hereinafter, "Vienna Convention").8 Al-
though only arguably binding as representing customary inter-
. national law for non-signatories,' the Vienna Convention is
II HearingB on Radiation Control fOT Health and Safety Act of 1967 Before the
Senate Commerce Committee, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part 2 at 963 (1968) (herein-
after cited as 1968 Hearings); BUREAU OP RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH, SYMPOSIUM ON
THE BIOLOGICAL EpPECTS AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OP MICROWAVE RADIATION,
June 1970, Print by the Depa.rtment of H.E.W. (hereinafter cited as SYMPOSIUM).
II Dixie Grimes conversation, B1lpra note 3; NY Times, July 2, 1976, at 20, col. 2;
Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1, col. 6.
T A prima facie violation will herein be considered to constitute: any set of facts
sufficient to make out a violation of international law if no defenses were available.
8United Nations Doc. A/CONF 20/13, April 16,1961; 55 Am. J. Int'I. L. 1064
(1961).
'D'AMATO. THE CONCEPT OP CUSTOM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 103-66 (1971)
(hereinafter cited as D'AMATO); IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OP PUBLIC INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW, 12 (2nd ed. 1973) (hereinafter cited as BROWNLIE); P.J. O'KEEl'E,
Immunities of the Diplomatic Family, 25 INT'L & COMPo L.Q. 329, at 330 (1976)
(hereinafte.r cited as O'Keefe).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.3 38
39
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICBOWAVE BOMBARDMENT 93
clearly law between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as they have both
ratified it.lO
If the radiation bombardment is a violation of the Vienna
Oonvention it would have to be in violation of those articles con-
fering the privilege of inviolability upon the embassy premises,ll
the Ambassador,12 his residence 18 or his staff.14
A. Inviolability of the Diplomatic Agent

Article 29 of the Vienna Convention states:
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He
shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The
receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his per-
son, freedom or dignity.
It should be remembered that the underlying purpose of in-
violability like all the privileges and immunities bestowed by
the Convention "is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the
efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as
representing States." 111 In accord with that reasoning the priv-
ilege of inviolability is premised on the assumption that the
mission can operate more efficiently if its agents are free from
harm and insult. IS To achieve this end a duty is imposed upon
the receiving State which requires it to "offer the entitled per-
10 U.S.S.R. ratification March 28, 1964, effective April 24, 1964. 500 U.N.T.S.
96, 204 (1964). U.S.A. ratification effective December 13, 1972. U.S.T. 23.3.3227;
T.I.A.S. 7502. Bee D' AMATO, 8upra note 9, at 107.
11 Vienna Convention, 8upra note 8, Art. 22.
12 Id. Art. 29.
13Id. Art. 30.
14 Id. Art. 37.
111 Id. Preamble; The theory of ne impediatur legatio or "functional theory" is
now one of the predominant conceptual bases for diplomatic privileges and im-
munities (having supplanted the theory of exterritoriality). This theory satisfies
"the need of states for independence and freedom of action, which requires that
their diplomatic representatives be exempt from all exercise of authority which
might impede the performance of their functions." Preuss. Capacity for Lega-
tion and the Theoretical Ba8is of Diplomatic Immunitie8, 10 N.Y.U.L.Q.REV. 170, at
187 (1933) (hereinafter cited as Preuss).
16 O'Keefe, 8upra note 9, at 343; League of Nations Committee of Experts for
the Progressive Codification of International Law. Diplomatic Privilege8 and Im-
munities, 20 AM. J. INT'L. L. Spec. Supp. 149 (1926).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.4 39
40
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
94 BoSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JO'OBNAL [Vol. I, No.1
son all the protection that is necessary to safeguard him in his

life and the pursuit of his occupation." 11
The difficulty arises, of course, in determining the extent of
this duty to protect the diplomat. With respect to the crucial
words: "shall treat him with due respect and shall take all ap-
propriate steps to prevent ... " one commentator has pointed
out,
In a practical sense, the determination of "appropriate
steps" must rest with the receiving State. This is the only
authority capable of assessing accurately the extent of the
danger posed by any threat and the response necessary to
thwart it.11
However true this may be, its validity can be questioned, when
applied to dangers other than those posed by non-officials or
officials acting ultra vires. In other words, as a practical matter
only the receiving State itself can determine the scope of its
duty to protect the diplomat from non-official actions against
him. But is the receiving State also to determine the scope of
its duty to protect the diplomat from official actions against him'
What is, the scope and effect of this phrase'
Each State will have its own interpretation, but whether the
sending State, the host State, or some third party ultimately
- determines how far this duty to protect from harm of insult
extends, it is submitted that an objective standard should be
used. The following principles have been suggested: 1) the mere
presence of damage does not, ipso facto, impose responsibility
upon the receiving State. 2) The receiving State's duty is some-
what greater than the due diligence owed to prevent injuries to
aliens. 3) The obligation would have to be directly propor-
tional to the predictability of the commission of harm or insult,
or in other words, the greater the risk, the greater the duty.10
In applying such principles to obtain an objective standard
several points should be noted: first, as previously stated,20 the
IT 0 'Keefe, IUfWG note 9, at 344.
IBld.
10 8 CANADIAN Y.B. OJ' I.T'L L. 356 (1970).
10 866 text aeeompan,.ing note 16, IUprG.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.5 40
41
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICROWAVE BOMBARDlIU:NT 95
duty owed to the agent extends not only to harm (injury to

body), but to insult (injury to dignity) as well. Second, there
exists in most industrialized nations safety standards for maxi-
mum microwave irradiation exposure, developed for industrial
occupational safety. Thus, from a legal standpoint, if the duty
owed to a diplomatic agent is greater than that which is owed to
aliens, and if the predictability of the harm or insult is also a
factor in determining the duty owed, then at minimum it would
seem a duty to prevent harm arises on the part of the receiving
state at the moment when recognized safety levels of radiation
in the sending state's embassy exceeds domestic safety levels,
for it is for the purpose of preventing harm that those standards
are established.
However sound this hypothesis may be in the abstract, when
it is applied to the specific facts of the U.S. embassy's situation
in Moscow, several conceptual difficulties arise. Consider: 1) the
U.S. safety standard is 10,000 microwatts per square centimeter
(micro W Icm 2 ) , 2) the Soviet safety standard is 10 micro
W Icm 2, and 3) the exposure levels in the U.S. embassy have
at times surpassed the Soviet standard, but have not come near
the U.S. standard.21 Does a duty arise because the Soviet stand-
ard has been exceeded T Is the U.S. estopped from claiming a
duty exists because the U.S. standard has not been exceeded'
To answer these questions it is necessary to analyze the ob-
jectives behind each country's safety standard, keeping in mind
the legal standard the host State must ultimately meet (viz. pre-
vention of harm and insult 22).
The U.S. standard of 10,000 micro W Icm 2 was first proposed
in 1953 23 and was based on theoretical grounds with an assump-
21 Reports of high levels of exposure have ranged anywhere from 18 microwatts

per square centimeter to 400 microwatts per square centimeter, 8ee note 3, supra.
22 Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 29. It is in fact the objectives which
those safety standards represent, and not the standards themselves which is germane
in determining the legal standard. So the mere fact that a country has not estab
lished a safety standard would not relieve it of its duty; the reasons underlying
safety standards exist irrespective of whether standards have been adopted. Adopted
standards is merely a starting place.
23 Paul Brodeur, Microwave8 I, The New Yorker, December 13, 1976, at 78, col. 3
(hereinafter cited as Microwave8 I).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.6 41
42
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
96 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [VoL 1, No.1
tion (generally accepted at the time) that the only effects of

microwave irradiation were thermal ones (microwaves tend to
heat organic tissue). It was also assnmed that since microwaves,
unlike x-rays and Gamma-rays, are nonionizing they have no
accumulative biomedical effect.
However, in the 24 years since the current U.S. standard was
proposed, there have been competent medical studies which
seriously undermine the assumptions upon which the standard
is based." For example, Dr. Milton Zaret, a practicing ophthal-
mologist and associate professor of ophthalmology at the New
York University-Bellevue Medical Center, who has done exten-
sive microwave research both independently and for the U.S.
government, has stated:
"Th& American National Standard Institute's standard is
not a safe standard. Instead it is a statement defining the
highest possible degree of occupational risk. It was based
solely on whole body thermal burden calculations. It ignored
the question of organ lJensitivity and delayed effects follow-
ing chronic low level exposure." H
Professor Herman Schwann of the University of Pennsylvania,

who first proposed the U.S. standard has said, "Noone knows
if standards of safe exposure, which may be adequate for adults,
. are safe for children." 2, .
In contrast to the U.S., the Soviet and Eastern Bloc countries
have based their safety standards not on theoretical postula-
24 Professor Russel Carpenter, for one has conducted experiments which contradict
both these RssumptiollB which caBts doubt upon the validity of that standard to
prevent harm. Proflll8Or Carpenter testified as to the results of his experiments
on microwave irradiation of the eyes of rabbits before the U.S. Senate Commerce
Committee: ". . . the effect of microwave power on the eye can be cumulative, so
that sinlle episodes of exposure to radiation which are not of themselves harmful,
may beeome hazardous if they are repeated sufficiently often. . . . Microwave cata-
racts are not merely the reault of microwave heating, but are caused by some other
property of this radiation." 1968 H earing8, 8upra note 5 at 96364 (emphasis
added).
211 HeariagB on the Effectivenes8 of the 1968 Radiation Control for Health and
Safety Act Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., at 101
(1978) (hereinafter cited as 1973 Hearings).
2G 1968 Hearings, supra note 5, at 700. Two children were sent home from the
U.S. Ewbasey in Moscow for blood tests in June, 1976. NY Times, June 26, 1976,
at 3, col. 1.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.7 42
43
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] 97
tions, but on field observation, surveys and experimentation. At

the 1970 Symposium on the Biological Effects and Health Im-
plications of Microwave Radiation, Karel Marha of Czecho-
slovakia explained how their 10 micro W /cm2 standard was
developed:
From the point of protecting people against possible
damaging effects of electromagnetic fields, naturally the
threshold biological effects of the field intensity are of im-
portance. In respect of the heat effect it is agreed that heat-
ing of the organism occurs at power densities of 10-15 [thou-
sand] [micro] W/crn2 in animals as well as man. This level
for thermal effects is in agreement with theoretical calcu-
lations.
For cataract induction 10 [thousand] [micro] W/cml ;
for changes in auditory apparatus 1 [thousand] [micro]
W /cm2 ; for feeling of pain in the skin .6 [thousand] [micro]
W/cml
For microwave frequencies biological effects may be in-
duced at power densities as low as .1 [thousand] [micro]
W /cm2 Considering the large differences observed in
the sensitivity of different people an additional safety factor
of 10 was applied to arrive at the value of 10 micro W/cm2
. . . . These maximum admissible values of irradiation
admissible in Czechoslovakia were decided so as to prevent
not only damage to the organism, but to prevent unpleasant
SUbjective feelings as well.27
Thus the fact that the U.S. safety standard at most is meant
only to be protective against harm, coupled with the fact that
its effectiveness of achieving even this limited goal is question-
able, shows that the U.S. safety standard cannot adequately be
used to meet the legal standard of preventing harm and insult.
On the other hand, the question of whether the legal standard
may even be below the U.S.S.R. 's safety standard is still open.
Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., standards have been estab-
lished assuming steady frequency and relatively short term
irra,diation. This is because the standards are set primarily for
industry, where it is assumed the worker would be exposed to
just one frequency of microwaves for a maximum of eight hours
17 SYKPOBIUK,8'Upra note 5, at 189, 190.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.8 43
44
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
98 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAw JOUBNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
a day. However, the" Moscow Signal" (as the microwave bom-

bardment of the U.S. Embassy is sometimes called) is carried
on around the clock and is generated at multiple frequencies
with widely fluctuating patterns.2S Both U.S.29 and Eastern
Bloc Countries 80 agree that the safety standards break down
under such conditions. For example, Czechoslovakia lowers their
standard to 1 micro W Icm2 when it is assumed exposure is at
certain pulsed frequencies for 24 hour periods. 81
The above considerations demonstrate that the host State's
duty to prevent harm to the diplomat may arise when micro-
wave levels are as low as 1 micro W Icm 2 , and clearly arise at
levels of 10 micro W Icm2, but as has been often repeated, the
duty owed by the host State extends to prevent insult as well as
harm. For this aspect of the duty other considerations such as
the knowledge that physical harm can be induced by microwave
irradiation without any conscious awareness by the subject,U
lack of any consent on the part of those being irradiated, the
intentional aspect of the irradiation they are being exposed to,88
and the lack of any real medical certainty to the possible extent
of damage being inflicted upon them are all relevant factors and
combine to support a conclusion that: as long as there is a com-
petent medical basis which can support reasonable doubts as to
the safety of prolonged irradiation of humans, then it is reason-
ably foreseeable that the dignity of humans subjected to any
levels of intentional exposure without his or her consent would
be affronted. Consequently a corresponding duty would arise on
the part of the host State to prevent such indignity.
But regardless of the acceptability of this last conclusion that
any level of intentional irradiation is a dereliction of the host
State's duty, it is submitted that in the present situation, the
fact that the 10 micro W Icm 2 safety standard has been exceeded
is sufficient to state, prima facie, that the Soviet Union has
28 Microwave. 11, aupra note 3, at 47.
28 SYlIPOSruM, aupra note 5, at 20.
so leI., at 189.
SlId., at 190.
82 1968 Hearing., aupra 'note 5, at 964.
88 NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col. 3.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.9 44
45
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MlC&OWAVE BOMBARDMENT 99
failed in its responsibility to either treat the diplomatic agent

"with due respect" or to take" all appropriate steps to prevent
any attack on his person or dignity."
B. Inviolability 0/ the Premises

Article 22 of the Vienna Convention states:
1. The premises of the Mission shall be inviolable. The
agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except
with the consent of the head of the Mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the Mission
against any intrusion of damage and to prevent any disturb-
ance of the peace of the Mission or impairment of its dignity.
Paragraph two of this Article imposes a duty on the host

state to prevent any impairment of the dignity of the Mission's
premises. This paragraph can be used both, as a basis for
strengthening the conclusion just reached (that the microwave
bombardment violates the host state's duty to the diplomatic
agent), and as a basis for arguing that the bombardment is also
in violation of the host state's duty to the diplomatic mission
itself. To reduce the amount of radiation penetrating into the
U.S. embassy, it has been necessary to install aluminum screens
on all the embassy windows.84 It appears that these screens not
only accentuate the indignity imposed upon the diplomatic
agents, by acting as a constant reminder of the microwaves' un-
seen presence, but the screens ~lso mar the dignity of the embas-
sy itself by physically symbolizing to visitors and passerbys the
fact that the embassy is being subjected to treatment against its
consent.
However, a more consequential question concerning Article
22 is not so much whether the microwave radiation imposes an
indignity upon the premises, but whether it constitutes an im-
permissible "entry" within the meaning of paragraph one. It
should first be pointed out that article 22 does not put the em-
bassy premises outside the territorial limits of the receiving
84 NY Times, April 26, 1976, at 5, col. I.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1045
46
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
100 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. I, No.1
State, but merely makes them inviolable. 311 Although technically

still under the jurisdiction of the receiving State, inviolability
prohibits all nonconsenual entries onto the embassy premises,
and places the duty of conformance upon the receiving State.
The duty of the receiving State to the sending State is the
positive one of preventing entry upon the premises of a mis-
sion by persons clothed with government authority.... Pro-
tection against invasion of the premises of a mission or of a
member of a mission means protection against any attempt
to enter the premises against the will of the chief or other
members of the mission. The duty, however, goes further
than that. The receiving State is under a duty to protect
the premises against any acts tending to interfere with the
enjoyment or possession of such premises.86
This excerpt from a draft containing language identical ill
material respects to Article 22, supports a construction of the
phrase" agents of the receiving State may not enter ... " is to
be considered interpretive and explanative of inviolability rather
than a specific prohibition in addition to inviolabilty. Noncon-
sensual entries by agents are specifically limited as this repre-
sents the most notorious violation of the concerns behind in-
violability, those concerns being "to ensure the efficient per-
formance of the functions of diplomatic missions" 87 by pre-
venting interference "with the enjoyment or possession of such
premises. " 88
The fact that nonconsensual entries by agents are spe-
cifically proscribed does not preclude the possibility that non-
consensual entries of microwaves might not also be pro-
scribed. Although microwaves are not specifically limited
by the words of Article 22, the same concerns which lead to
the specific limitation of agents are nonetheless present in the
311 The principle of exterritoriality has been generally discredited as a fiction

without basis in law or fact. 7 WHITEMAN, DIGEST 01' INTERNATIONAL LAW 353 et
Beq. (1970) (hereinafter cited as WHITEMAN) ; PREUSS, 8'Upra note 15, at 183.
36 Harvard Research Paper. 26 AM. J. INT'L L. SUPP. 56 (1932) (hereinafter
cited as Harvard Research Paper).
87 Vienna Convention, 8'Upra note 8, Preamble.
88 Harvard Research Paper,8'Upra note 36.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1146
47
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICROWAVE BOMBARDMENT 101
case of microwaves. And microwave bombardments can violate

these concerns just as easily, although perhaps not as notori-
ously, as the agents of the host state, for it is clear that certain
levels of microwave irradiation can interfere with the enjoy-
ment of the premises.1I1
In the case of the host State's agents the effect of requiring
the mission's consent is that of giving control to the sending
state of who may and who may not enter the mission. I.e., it is
the sending Sta~e who is given the right to decide how much in-
terference with the enjoyment of their premises they will or will
not tolerate from the host State's agents (at least within the
embassy's premises). Since the same concerns that are present
with respect to "agents" are present with respect to "micro-
waves," the reasons which give the sending State the right
to decide what kind and how many agents are to be allowed
on the premises also argue for giving the sending State ~
the right to decide what kind and how much radiation is
to be allowed in its airspace. In other words, the concerns
behind inviolability require that consent be given by the mis-
sion before any microwave bombardment by the host state could
take place, and failure to obtain such consent would be in viola-
tion of Article 22.
The above argument is of necessity based on an interpolative
reading of Article 22,as the presence of microwaves was not an
explicit concern of the Convention's parties. It therefore is
open to the infirmities associated with such construction. For
instance, it would most likely be attacked on the ground that
prohibition against entry in Article 22 is directed at "the agents
of the receiving state" and to construe microwaves as "agents"
contravenes the "ordinary meaning" principle of treaty inter-
89 For example, "Typical symptoms are pains in the head and eyes, fatigue con-
nected with overall weakness, dizziness, and vertigo when standing for a longer
period. Sleep at night is restive and superficial, there is sleepiness during the day.
Exposed individuals are subject to changing moods, they often become irritated
to the point of becoming intolerable. Hypochondric reactions are manifested along
with feelings of fear. Sometimes those affected feel nervous tension or, on the
contrary mental depression connected with inhibition of intellectual functions mainly
decreased memory." SYMPOSIUM, supra note 5, at 188; OF. Boston Globe, May 31,
1977, at 9, col. 2.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1247
48
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
102 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & CoXPARATlVB LAw JOURNAL [Vol. 1, No. 1
pretation.fO However, "the doctrine of ordinary meaning in-

volves only a presumption; a meaning other than the ordinary
may be established, but the proponent of the special meaning
has a burden of proof. "fl The previous analysis has attempted
to overcome this presumption by arguing that the underlying
principle (if not the words) of Article 22 has been violated by
the entry of microwaves into the embassy without its consent.
Hence to obviate violating the principle (and a fortiori the
parties' intention), the words which are meant to effectuate that
principle should be given a broader than ordinary meaning!2
Yet even if this argument ultimately fails to meet its burden of
overcoming the ordinary meaning of Article 22, this in no way
affects the previous inviolability arguments based on Article 29.
It might also be noted that similar personal inviolability argu-
ments can be made with respect to the inviolability ?f the fami-
lies and staff of the diplomatic agents!a
C. Soviet Responsibility
If the Soviet microwave bombardment of the U.S. embassy
does co~stitute violations of the Convention as the prior anal-
ysis suggests, does this give rise to any responsibility on the
part of the Soviets! To quote from the Chorzow Factory case,"
" ... it is a principle of international law, and even a general
conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves
an obligation to make reparation ... the Court has already said
that reparation is the indispensible complement of a failure to
fa BaowNLR, ftpm note 9, at 607.
flIt!.
d As baa been said by Profeaaor Lauterpaeht, "The common intention [of the
parties] in relation to the particular ease must be derived from the common inten-
tion of the treaty as a whole - from ita policy, ita object, and ita spirit." H. LAUTD-
PACBT. XXVI BlllTlSH Y.B. INT'L L. 48, 79-80 (1949). "Furthermore, what i8
clear and unambiguous may not neeeaaarily be comprehensive. Hence even when
the language of the treaty i8 clear it still remains to decide whether every category
of event baa been comprised exclusivcly within it." 1 D.P. O'CONNELL, INTERNA-
TIONAL LAw, 272-73 (1965).
fa Vienna Convention, ftpra note 8, Art. 37, gives the same immunities to the
diplomatie agent's family and stail as Article 29 gives to him.
.. P.C.LT. Ber. A. No.9, at 21 (1927); BROWNLIlC, ftpra note 9, at 420.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1348
49
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICBOWAVE BOMBARl>MENT 103
apply a convention, and there is no necessity for this to be stated

in the convention itself."
In general the elements of responsibility may be summed up
as follows: "
1) An act or omission in violation of international law,
(or put somewhat differently, conduct on the part of a State
contrary to that required of it by given international obli-
gation) ;
2) The unlawful act, as a general rule, must be imputable
to the legal person of the State; that is to say, the conduct
in question must be attributed to those organs or agents of
the State's which are qualified by municipal law to accom-
plish "State acts";
3) resultant damage to the claimant State either directly,
in the person of its nationals, or both.'6
The first element has been shown in the Soviet's dereliction of
their duty concerning inviolability. The second element may
have been difficult to meet if it were not for Soviet acknowledge-
ment that they are responsible for the microwave radiation.'T
The third element is met by damage done directly to the U.S.
by affronting the dignity of its officials and embassy premises,
and could also be met if physical harm can be shown to have
resulted to any U.S. citizen while at the embassy as a result of
being irradiated. In the latter case, particular items of financial
loss directly resulting from the radiation would have to be
proved,'8 whereas no proof of financial loss is necessary for the
violation of the diplomatic immunity of inviolability49.
'II A. FREEMAN, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES POR DENIAL OF JUSTICB,

22 (Kraus reprint 1970) (hereinafter cited as FREEMAN).
'6 Defenses to a State's responsibility are generally considered separately. BROWN-
LIE, at 442, 8'Upra note 9. For analysis see text accompanying notes 5067, infra.
'T The Soviets admitted using microwaves after having denied it for 15 years,
NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col. 3. Just one week earlier the Soviets,
while acknowledging radiation presence in the embassy, claimed it was due to nearby
industrial enterprises and was compounded by the embassy's roof antennas. NY
Times, February 19, 1976, at 3, col. 6.
'8 In such situations some authorities add a fourth element, viz. the exhaustion
of local remedies, but there is dispute over this point. FREEMAN, supra note 45,
at 22, fn.1.
'9 BaowNLIE, 8'Upra note 9, 44445.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1449
50
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
104 BOSTON CoLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & CololPA&ATIVE LAW JOlmNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
II. ABE THEBE ANY DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THE SOVIETS FOR

THE1B ACTIONS 7
When the Soviets acknowledged aiming microwaves at the

U.S. embassy, they defended their action by claiming it is neces-
sary in order to interfere and block the U.S. listening devices
located on the embassy premises:io The U.S. has apparently ac-
cepted this as' at least the primary purpose behind the radia-
tion,lil discounting other speculated reason.1i2
Given the nature of their justification the Soviets most likely
would classify their actions as a retortion.IiB Inconsistent with
such a claim, however, is the fact, as shown previously, that
their actions are in contravention of international law. "Retor-
tion is retaliation by one State for a harmful though lawful act
of another State by a harmful and lawful act of the same or
similar nature. " Ii4
At best the Soviet's action could be termed a reprisal.1Ii "Re-
prisals, in contradistinction to retortion, are measures which
would, taken in isolation, be unlawful, but may be taken excep-
tionally when one State violated the rights of another State, for
the sole purpose of forcing the delinquent State to abide by
law." 1i6 Thus, for the Soviet's bombardment to be justified by
reprisal it must be shown inte,. alia that the U.S. 's eavesdrop-
- ping actions from the embassy premises are also illegal.
. Generally mere eavesdropping on another country's commu-
nications is not "normally" considered to be an international
GO NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col 3.
iiI The "impairment purpose" would be consistent with the facta that it does
interfere with the listening devices and the beams are highly directional. NY Times,
May 2, 1976, at 9, coli.
Ii2 E.g., deliberately used to induce illneBB or to recharge hidden bugging device..
I d.; BUT SD Boston Globe, May 81, 1977, at 1, col 8.
53 The Soviets discount any dangerous eft'ccts of the microwave radiation by show-
ing it is of the type found near TV and radar stations and much leBB dangerous
than X-rays. Id. But, for a polemic against this view Bee Mi/J1'otDCJ111J11 II, IIUprCJ note 3,
at 66-72.
Ii4Mu SORENSEN (eel.), MANUAL 01' PuBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAw, 758 (1968).
(Emphasis added, hereinafter cited as SORNSEN).
MId.
1i6Id.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1550
51
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICB.OWAVE BOMBARDMENT 105
wrong:" However, "normally" this is only the general rule

when the listening is being done from contiguous land not under
the jurisdiction of the State whose emissions are being heard. 1I8
Since a foreign embassy is still technically considered within the
sovereign jurisdiction of the host country,1I9 eavesdropping from'
the embassy premises may not as easily fall within the inter-
national toleration of such practices.
Article 41 of the Vienna Convention states in part, "The
premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incom-
patible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the
present Convention". Is eavesdropping a use of the premises
which is compatible with the diplomatic function f Recourse
could be had to Article 3 of the Convention which states:
1. The functions of a diplomatic mission consist inter alia in :
(d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and devel-

opments in the receiving State and reporting thereon to the
Government of the sending State.
But this is circuitous and of no real help as it merely changes

the form of the question back to the oriS'inaI, i.e., is eavesdrop-
ping lawful activity'
Assuming, arguendo, that eavesdropping from the embassy
is unlawful; that alone is not enough to justify the Soviets bom-
bardment of microwaves as a reprisal. Another condition of
reprisals is that it "must be proportionate to the injury suf-
fered, that is, they cannot result in losses and injury dispropor-
tionately greater than those caused by the delinquent State... " 80
It is with this condition that an attempt to characterize the
bombardment as a reprisal meets great difficulty. It is submitted
117 Rubin, Alfred. Beisure of the Pueblo: Bome International Law ..t1spects, 114
Congo Bec. 2350 (February 6, 1968); 68 AM. J. INT'L L. 227, at 241 (1974); 18
INT'L & COMPo L. Q. 961, at 968 (1969).
118Id.
119 Bee note 35, supra, which points out the disrepute of the exterritoriality doctrine.
But, compare Soviet domestic law: premises occupied by diplomatic miBBions .
enjoy exterritorial rights. " Harvard Research Paper, supra note 36.
SO SORENSEN, supra note 54, at 753.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1651
52
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
106 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATlVE LAW JOUltNAL [Vol. I, No.1
that the two actions can be differentiated by the fact that eaves-
dropping seems to be an entirely passive activity whereas the
radiation bombardment is clearly active. This alone shows little,
but certainly where reprisals are concerned, other passive acts
would be preferable to active ones.
Secondly, the U.S. violation would be that of Article 41, para-
graph 3 of the Vienna Convention which prohibits using the
diplomatic mission in a manner inconsistent with the function
of the mission. 81 The Soviet violation would be that of the in-
violability of the diplomatic agents,82 families, staff 83 and of
the premises itself." The disproportionality of these two "vio-
lations" is illustrated by the commentary of the International
Law Commission to Article 40 paragraph 3 811 of the "Draft
Articles on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities":
Paragraph 3 stipulates that the premises of the mission
shall be used only for the legitimate purposes for which they
are intended. Failure to fulfill the duty laid down in this
article does not render article 20 (inviolability of the mission
premises) inoperative, but on the other hand, that inviola-
bility does not authorize a use of the premises which is in-
coD;lpatible with the functions of the mission."
The purport of this statement would seem to all but preclude
the Soviet's action being justified as a reprisal. The privilege of
. inviolability can in no way be deemed to sanction or authorize
using the embassy premises improperly (e.g., eavesdropping),
81 "The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible
with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by
other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force be
tween the sending and receiving state." Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 41.
It should be remembered that for purposes of analysis it has been IJ8sumed this
eavesdropping is a violation of international law. No claim is being made as to
whether eavesdropping from an embassy would violate Article 41 in absence of
such an assumption.
62 Vienna Convention, ""'pra note 8, Art. 29.
681d., Art. 37.
"14., Art.22.
M Draft Article 40 paragraph 3 was adopted by the Vienna Convention as Article
41 paragraph 3 with only immaterial grammatical changes being made in its wording.
II YEARBOOK OF THE INT'L L. COMM. 78, at 104 (1958).
"ld.; WHITEMAN supra note 35, at 360-61.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1752
53
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977] MIcaoWAVE BOllBAB.DlIENT 107
but the fact that they are being used improperly does not justify
violating the premises' inviolability. This does not foreclose
all types of reprisals by the Soviets but it does foreclose any re-
prisal on their part which would consist in a violation of in-
violability (which would include microwave bombardment).
The most obvious action which would easily meet the reprisal
condition of proportionality would be the very same type of
action giving rise to the reprisal. In other words eavesdropping
of the U.S. from the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. This
is in fact an action already established in Washington by the
Soviets,8T which in itself throws additional weight to a conclu-
sion that the Soviet's microwave radiation bombardment is a
violation in international law to which no legitimate defense can
be raised.
ID. WlUT REMEDIES MAY EXIST FOR THE UNITED STATES'
-Given the above conclusion. One may ask what is to be done

about it' At the time of this writing the bombardment was still
proceeding, although the day to day levels had been reduced to
well below previous highs.88 The State Department was proceed-
ing via "all channels" 88 to get the bombardment stopped. Nego-
tiations, the first step, are underway TO and settlement by these
means is the most desirable. T1
8T NY Times, February 26, i976, at 1, col. 3.
ea NY Times, July 8, 1976, at 1, col. 1.
88 Dixie Grimes Conversation, suprA note 3; Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1,
col. 3.
TO Negotiations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have been under way at least
since February, 1976. NY Times, February 13, 1976, at 6, col. 1. The Carter Ad
ministration is continuing negotiations under Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and
reportedly does not take the matter lightly. Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1, col. 3.
Tt If negotiations should break down there is a whole panoply of possible pro
cedures ranging from mediation and conciliation to judicial procedures, &ee SOREN
SEN, supra note 54, at 673737. It should be noted however that the U.S.S.R. did
not sign the optional Protocol (to the Vienna Convention) Concerning Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes, which in e888nce means that they do not have to submit
to jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over this matter. 500 U.N.T.S.
242 (1964). Several reasons can be speculated as to why resolution of this problem
may be diflicult. First there is the continuing mystique of detente, with the ac-
companying desire to reach a strategic arms' control agreement. Administration
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1853
54
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
108 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
If negotiations break down, the United States could resort to

some form of retaliation to try and persuade the Soviets to cease
their bombardment. This article will not presume to suggest
any specific action which the U.S. should take, however, it will
suggest the limits to which such action can go within the bounds
of legality.
First, the U.S. is bound by article 2 (3) of the United Nations
Charter: T2 "All Members shall settle their international dis-
putes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice are not endangered." Likewise
article 2 (4) states that States should refrain from the use or
threat of force. 78
.secondly, any U.S. action would have to meet the require-
ments of reprisal. Reprisals, as previously discussed, are acts
in response to the unlawful acts of another State which them-
selves would be unlawful if committed in isolation. The condi-
tions which must be met for an act to be considered a reprisal are:
1) The offending State's act must have been unlawful; 2) Re-
dress must be demanded before counteraction is taken; 3) The
counteraction taken must be proportional to the offending act.T4
Condition one has already been met as. has been shown. TII The
second condition too has been met as evidenced by negotiation
policies may relegate the microwave bombardment to a relatively low priority. See-
ondly, the State Department has a dilemma in pursuing this matter. To vigorously
pursue its claims requires the revealing of possible health hazards to the U.S. citizens
being exposed. Yet since the State Department has known of the existence of the
radiation for some time it may be SUbjecting itself to liability for not pressing its
claims earlier or disclosing the possible health hazards to its employees. Thirdly,
since the Soviet radiation bombardment levels a.re well below the official U.S. safety
standard, to claim these levels are harmful implicitly undermines the validity of
the U.S. standard, which standard has been used for the United States' defense
systems. Thus a change in the standard could literally threaten hundreds of billions
of dollars worth of defense and military installations (virtually every advanced
defense weapon employs radar, which is a form of microwave radiation).
T21 U.N.T.S. xvi (1945); 39 AM. J. INT'L L. SuPP. 190, at 191 (1945).
T8Id.
74 SORENSEN, 8'Upra note 54, at 753.
Til Bee text accompanying notes 15-43, .tupra.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1954
55
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
1977J MICBOWAVE BOMBARDMENT 109
and protests. 711 Thus, the third requirement, that of proportion-

ality, is the crucial one which any U.S. counteraction must meet.
Of course, the exactly proportional reprisal would be the
microwave bombardment of the USSR embassy in Washington.
But this has been already precluded as a possible counteraction
by the State Department because to do so would be "im-
moral." 77 Any other action of course would have to be sub-
jected to a specific analysis balancing the degree of harm, type
of injury, etc., which the contemplated act will commit with the
degree of harm, type of injury, etc., already being inflicted by
the microwave radiation. But in no case may the reprising act
exceed the compulsion which would reasonably be necessary to
secure settlement.78
Other actions involving the Soviet diplomatic mission's privi-
leges and immunities would be the most likely candidates to meet
this test. Restricting travel privileges,79 the use of wireless com-
munications,8o or the exemption of custom duties 81 are also a few
possibilities.
CONCLUSION
The legal implications of the Soviet's practice of bombarding

the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with microwaves are significant in
and of themselves. Such practices arguably violate four sepa-
rate articles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immuni-
ties,82 and perhaps customary international law as well. 83 Any
claims of possible justification for such violations can meet the
legal requirements of neither retortion nor reprisal. IM
The concern over this Soviet practice, however, goes beyond
the normal considerations accompanying a violation of inter-
76 NY Times, February 13, 1976, at 6, col. 1; NY Times, May 20, 1976, at 3, col.
6; Boston Globe, February 16, 1976, at 1, eol. 1, May 31,1977, at 1, col. 3.
77 NY Times, February 29, 1976, Sec. IV, at 2, col. 3.
78 SORENSEN, supra note 54, at 753.
79 Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 26.
80 I d., Art. 27.
81 ld., Art. 36.
, 82 Articles 22, 29, 30, and 37. Vienna COllvention, supra note 8.
83 See notes 9 and 15, 8upra.
1M See notes 50-67, and accompanying text, 8U'!Ira.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
2055
56
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO
Published
SE AND ADVANCED
by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
MEDIA
MediaGROUP
Pro
Group
Se
110 BOSTON CoLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol 1, No.1
national law. As was stated in the introduction, the legal con-

siderations are only one aspect of this affair. The primary
concern should, foremost and always, be the health of those
individuals within the embassy who must be subjected to the
bombardment without knowing what the consequences may be.
LAlmy B. GUTHRIE
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
2156
57
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

58 of 84
Army Testing Microwave Weapon System In New Mexico Mountains http://taskandpurpose.com/army-microwave-weapon/?utm_source=newsl...
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se

59 of 84
1 of 5 5/26/17, 1:02 AM
Army Testing Microwave Weapon System In New Mexico Mountains http://taskandpurpose.com/army-microwave-weapon/?utm_source=newsl...
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
()

60 of 84
2 of 5 5/26/17, 1:02 AM
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

61 of 84
LANDMARK ABUSE OF PROCESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Stan J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 371-1566
IN THE UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE : Case No. 17-1904

APPELLANT : Lower Court Case No. 17-cv-867
: Middle District Case No. 16-2513
:
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I Stanley J. Caterbone, APPEALANT , and appearing Pro Se, do hereby on this 27 th

day of May 2017 do hereby file this ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL according to the
ORDER dated May 22, 2017. The Appeal was taken to the ORDER dated April 12, 2017
by the Honorable Edward G. Smith. This ARGUMENT must not exceed 5 pages as per the
ORDER of May 22, 2017. I, Stanley J. Caterbone hereby file a Motion to Leave to File In
Excess of 5 Pages.
Dated May 30, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-371-1566
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?

62 of 84
17-1904 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Page No. 1 of 24 Tuesday May 30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
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. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 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. 17-1904 CATERBONE v. NSA, et.al., The appeal of the
Preliminary Injunction For Emergency Relief Case No. 17-0868; Case No. 16-3284; 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. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-10615; Case No.
17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; 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- 2513 INJUNCTION; 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 APPEALLANT for
Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 APPEALLANT for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, APPEALLANT 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. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472 INJUNCTION re
Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.62
63
2 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking Program
Of The Lancaster City Police Department
On August 22, 2016 Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq., wrote As was stated above,
organized stalking methods were used extensively by communist East Germanys Stasi (state
police) as a means of maintaining political control over its citizens. Although this is supposedly
illegal in the US, the same covert tactics are quietly used by Americas local and federal law
enforcement, and intelligence agencies, to supprss political and domestic dissent, silence whistle
blowers, and get revenge against persons who have angered someone with connections to the
public and private agencies involved. Such stalking is sanctioned (and in some cases,
orchestrated) by federal agencies; however such stalking is also sometimes used unofficially for
personal and corporate vendettas by current and former corrupt employees of law
enforcement and intelligence agencies, private investigators, and their clients. Common
implementations of community policing include: (1) relying on community based crime prevention
by utilizing civilian education, neighborhood watch, and a variety of other techniques, as
opposed to relying solely on police patrols; (2) restructuring the patrol from an emergency
response based system to emphasizing proactive techniques such as foot patrol; (3) increased
officer accountability to civilians they are supposed to serve; and (4) decentralizing police
authority, allowing more discretion amongst lower ranking officers, and more initiative
expected from them.
I am a Federal Whistleblower and in 1987 I met with Executives of an International Arms

dealer named International Signal and Control, PLC., or ISC, headquartered in my hometown of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I at the time was a shareholder and I was solicited to finance some
problematic operations through the financial firm that I had founded, Financial Management
Group, Ltd., In 1991 they were indicted for the third largest fraud in the United States, a $Billion
Dollar Fraud, when they merged with Great Britain's largest Defense Contractor, Ferranti
International, Plc., in 1987. In 1987 I was arrested for literally stealing my own files from my own
office and faced 4 felonies and 3 misdemeanors with prison terms in the tens of years. After the
merger was completed in December of 1987, all of my charges were dismissed by the Lancaster
County District Attorney's Office in March of 1988. ISC Board Member, Bobby Ray Inman, who
was former Secretary of the Navy and former Director of the National Security Agency, or NSA
was nominated to be Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton. He later had to withdraw his name after
allegations of ISC began to surface. In 1991 Ted Koppel and the Financial Times of London
broadcast 3 different segments disclosing that ISC was essentially a black ops program of the NSA
and CIA and tried desperately to derail the nomination for Director of the CIA, Robert Gates, who
they allege was involved in the early stages of the program. He was named Director of the CIA
and later served as Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush and now President Barrack Obama.
ISC responsible for developing the Cluster Bomb, and Saddam Hussein was a loyal customer.
In the late 1980's and early 1990 I was a contractor for several government agencies,
including DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency of the Department of Defense.
My company Advanced Media Group had conducted business all over the world, including some 15
or more foreign countries. DARPA IS WIDELY KNOWN AS A DEVELOPER OF MIND CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES AND HOLDS PATENTS. DARPA is also credited for developing the internet. I was
an expert in optical publishing and my company was one of only 4 or 5 that had the capability to
manufacture CD-ROM's in the domestic United States.
Now, I am a prisoner of the state and have been since 1987, and that the
activities surrounding the my life has escalated into a daily occurrence of assaults. I
have been a victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct
energy weapons since 2005. I had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.63
64
3 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic
telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices and
weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted
victim. This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of
the federal action in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et.
al., or 05-cv-2288/U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT Case No. 07-4474-4475.
On March 8, 2016 I was detained by some (8) NSA Security Police, handcuffed, and
interrogated for about 2 hours at NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland. In 2005 I was
detained by (2) DIA, or Defense Intelligence Agency of the Department of Defense, in Austin
Texas and interrogated for almost 2 hours. Both incidents I was sent on my way without any
explanation as to WHY?
Unfortunately while I have made many in person complaints to just about every
law enforcement agency, including several meetings with FBI in Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, the pleas for help and assistance have yielded nothing but more attacks to
my person, property, electronics, home, auto, reputation, intellectual property, and
lastly his mental state-of-mind A BRUTAL ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. I
have already made claims of COINTELPRO-like tactics in my filings in the U.S.C.A. Case
No. 16-4014; 16-2513 US District Court MIDDLE District, and this case 17-0867, against
these same said actors and perpetrators.
In 2016 I am AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in the

Pennsylvania Superior Court Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 in the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v. Kane which included perjury charges during the alleged leaking of grand jury information.
Kathleen Kane took on the Good Old Boy network regarding judicial reform in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to rid the state of the long standing public corruption
ring that was evident from local law enforcement to Supreme Court Justices, and everyone in
between. Briefs are due on June 16, 2017.
In 2015 I filed an AMICUS BRIEF on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert in Case No. 14-
02559 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court in Case No. 16-6822. Lisa Michelle Lambert was convicted in 1992 of the murder
of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I currently am in litigation in the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa Michelle Lambert published her book titled
Corruption in Lancaster County My Story, which is available in bookstores and on
Amazon.com. I is in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave Brown of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
In 2009 I Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster,
Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work
of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these
horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to individuals who are being
harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep
individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency
devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons. I again reintroduced
the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015 and frequented the Pennsylvania Capitol
trying to find support and a sponsor; which I still does to this day.
In 2006 I began my role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which is listed as
"FULT" on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group, Ltd., a full
service financial firm, Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the success in developing the strategic
vision for his company and the experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public offering
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.64
65
4 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. I has been in recent discussions with the Fulton Financial
Board of Directors with regards to various complaints dealing with such issues as the Resource
Bank acquisition and the subprime failures.
In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant I filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in current
litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United
States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania
Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations include violations of intellectual property rights,
anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business interests. Central to
this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG
Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False Claims Act or Federal
Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC) the $1Billion
Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This litigation dates
back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for
professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO Civil Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, as docket no. 05-2288.
In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to
withhold the Tourism Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center
& Marriot. We also proposed an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel
Brunswick and Lancaster Square to all of the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County
Convention Center is finally under construction with a March 2009 Opening date.
In 2005 I was selected to attend the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City after
submission of an essay with and application. I received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey,
Chief Executive Officer of the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2000 to 2002 I developed an array of marketing and communication tools for

wholesalers of the AIM Investment Group and managed several communication programs for
several of the company wholesalers throughout the United States and Costa Rica. We also began a
Day Trading project that lasted until 2004 with success.
In 1999 I developed a comprehensive business plan to develop the former Sprecher

Brewery, known as the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This plan
was developed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the
Revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the
former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 I contributed to the debate, research, and implementation of strategies to

counter the effects of the global Y2K threat to the worlds computer technologies. I attended the
U.S. Sponsored Y2K symposium and Conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Senate Y2K
Subcommittee and Senator William Bennett.
In 1998 I had began to administer the charity giving of Toms Project Hope, a non-profit
organization promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide prevention. We
had provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact Lancaster (The
24/7 Suicide Prevention Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable
organizations and faith based charities. The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to
schools, non profit organizations, faith based initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational
support for the prevention of suicide and to bring awareness to mental illness problems.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.65
66
5 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
In 1996 I had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that I was
controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., I was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to
computerized their accounting and records management from top to bottom. I had also provided
consulting for the computerization of accounting and payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of
Washington Boro. I was retained to evaluate and develop an action plan to migrate the
Informations Technologies of the Jay Group, formally of Ronks, PA, now relocated to a new $26
Million Dollar headquarters located in West Hempfield Township of Lancaster County. The Jay
Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies hosted by the AS 400 computer and server. I
was consulting on the merits of migrating to a PC based real time networking system throughout
the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group employees some 500 employees with revenues in
excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 I was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as controller, and was responsible for
saving the company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time, due to several unpaid contracts,
the company was facing extreme pressure from lenders and the bonding insurance company. We
were responsible for implementing computerized accounting, accounting and contract policies and
procedures, human resource policies and procedures, marketing strategies, performance
measurement reporting, and negotiate for the payment of unpaid contracts. The bonding company
was especially problematic, since it was the lifeline to continue work and bidding for public
contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County demanded a complete accounting of the operations in
order to stave off a default on the notes and loans it was holding. We essentially revamped the
entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an increase in profits of 3 to 4 times its
previous years, and record revenues.
In 1991 I was elected to People to People International and the Citizen Ambassador
Program, which was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was
founded to To give specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together
and effectively communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-
face scientific, technical, and professional exchanges throughout the world. In 1961, under
President John F. Kennedy, the State Department established a non-profit private foundation to
administer the program. We were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to
discuss printing and publishing technologies with scientists and technicians around the world.
In 1990 I had worked on developing voice recognition systems for the governments
technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). I co-authored the
article Escaping the Unix Tar Pit with a scientist from NIST that was published in the magazine
DISC, then one of the leading publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most all call centers
deploy that technology whenever you call an 800 number, and voice recognition is prevalent in all
types of applications involving telecommunications.
In 1989 I had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was one of only 5 or 6 U.S.
domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We did business with
commercial companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and foreign companies. I
performed services and contracts for the Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of
Standards & Technology (NIST), Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM,
Microsoft, AMP, Commodore Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers, and a host of others. I
also was working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing various interactive
mapping technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is the premier
provider of mapping software and applications for the internet and is often used in delivering
maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for High Industries to sell
American Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly. We had brokered a deal and
the executives from Donnellys Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to discuss the deal and
perform due diligence of the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield Industrial Park.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.66
67
6 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as
executive producer of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be
delivered in a digital format; the first of its kind. We had originated the marketing for the
technology, and created the concept for the Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which
would follow the copyright and marketing formula of the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording
industry featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of
Philadelphia was the lead patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station
Studios was the brainchild of Tony Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown
when he was 15. Tony and Power Station Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the
country, and were responsible for developing Bon Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients
included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper, Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones,
Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station Studios had produced the original
Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was released for distribution and was
the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace
technologies. * We had developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with
us in delivering the Digital Movie and its related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was
to include the commercialization of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the
recording industry simultaneously with the release of the Digital Movie.
I also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo
for the technology, similar to the DOLBY sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for the
Power Station Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a
portable medium, a compact disc.
In 1987 I had a created and developed FMG Mortgage Banking, a company that was
funded by a major banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to finance projects from
$3 to $100 million dollars. Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had quickly received
solicitations from developers across the country. We were also very attractive to companies that
wanted to raise capital that include both debt and equity. Through my company, FMG, we could
raise equity funding through private placements, and debt funding through FMG Mortgage
Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood, California to secure financing of
their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North Carolina. We had secured
refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the midst of replacing
the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We had meetings and discussions
with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his debt portfolio. We were
quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to California. We also had a
number of other prominent local developers seeking our competitive funding, including Owen
Kugal, High Industries, and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The Fisher Group (owner of the Rt.
30 Outlets). We were constantly told that our financing packages were more competitive than
local institutions.
In 1986 I had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd (FMG); a large financial services
organization comprised of a variety of professionals operating in one location. We had developed a
stock purchase program for where everyone had the opportunity for equity ownership in the new
firm. FMG had financial planners, investment managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability
insurance services, tax preparers, and estate planners operating out of our corporate
headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we had 24 people on staff, had approximately 12 offices in
Pennsylvania, and
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.67
68
7 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and
our advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees
from the other professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at
about $3 to $4 million.
In 1985 I developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the first Free Agent Camp for
the Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution to the teams scouting
departments. (See Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985) Current camps were
dependant on the team scouts to travel from state to state looking for recruits. We had developed
a strategy of video taping the camp and the distributing a copy, free of charge to the teams, to all
of the scouting departments for teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My brother was
signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the CFL, and went on to be a leading receiver
while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent quarterbacks. My brother also played 2
years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting quarterback. We were a Certified
Agent for the National Football League Players Association.
In 1985 I was elected Vice President of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the
International Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter by increasing
membership 3to 4 times. We had personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally
syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major
fundraiser. More than 150 professionals attended the dinner event that was held at the Eden
Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial planning and how all of the
professions needed to work together in order to be most effective for their clients. We attracted a
wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax specialists,
estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that financial
planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball National
Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 I had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy Weill, former President of
Citi Group (the largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of several associates asked to help
advise on the future of Financial Planning and how it would impact the brokerage and the
investment industry at large. Mr. Weil was performing due diligence for the merger of American
Express and IDS (Investors Diversified Services). We were at that time a national leader in the
company in delivering Fee Based Financial Planning Services, which was a new concept in the
investment community and mainstream investors. That concept is now widely held by most
investment advisers.
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 $1379.00 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.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.68
69
8 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Dated May 30, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-371-1566
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.69
70
9 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 70
19 of 84
10
71 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 71
20 of 84
11
72 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 72
21 of 84
12
73 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 73
22 of 84
13
74 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 74
23 of 84
14
75 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 75
24 of 84
15
76 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 76
25 of 84
16
77 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 77
26 of 84
17
78 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 64 78
66
65 of 106
27
18
79 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 65 79
67
66 of 106
28
19
80 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 66 80
68
67 of 106
29
20
81 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 81
30 of 84
21
82 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 82
31 of 84
22
83 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 83
32 of 84
23
84 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
AND
by YET
STAN
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
OFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
PRO SE
CASE
ANDby
ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 84
33 of 84
24
85 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,

FINAL-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 CASE NO. 15-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE August 11, 2017

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

FINAL-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 CASE NO. 15-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE August 11, 2017

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DRAFT COPY - NOT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM,

JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 1 of 84

Dated AUGUST 11, 2017

ACTIVE COURT CASES

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 2 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 3 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 4 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 5 of 84

ARGUEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

1. The Application (ECF No. 237) is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2017.

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 15

THE COURT HAS PERFORMED A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FILING,

1. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PROVIDE A BONA FIDE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 16

G. THE LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ON AUGUST 9, 2017 CNN REPORTED THAT COVERT MICROWAVE WEAPONS

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 17

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 18

THE FOLLOWING LINK IS THE CNN BROADCAST ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OF

CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST 10, 2017

STAN J. CATERBONE has also, AS PRO SE MOVANT for the nationally

In the matter of the the ESTEBAN SANTIAGO, FT. LAUDERDALE SHOOTER

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 19

SEE THE DIGITAL FILES OF THE ABOVE AMICUS FILINGS ON THE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 20

IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 21

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 22

Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 23

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 24

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 25

Dated AUGUST 11, 2017

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 26

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 27

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 28

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 29

THE CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR AN

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 30

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 31

Smoking Gun on CIA Torture Conspiracy? Human Experimentation

Posted By Jeffrey Kaye On September 27, 2009 @ 4:26 pm In Torture | 4 Comments

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 32

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 33

of the proposed techniques.

This report was originally published on FireDogLake.com.

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 34

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 35

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave

Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr

Legal ImpHcations of the Soviet Microwave

.Although the U.S. embassy in Moscow has been the target of

92 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOUltNAL [VoL 1, No.1

known of the long range medical effects of prolonged exposure

I. Is THE RADIATION BOMBARDMENT A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF