AMG Do I Have A Rico Claim Jul 9 2006

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.
com
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax
Stan Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
July 9, 2006
DO I HAVE A RICO CLAIM?

This is by far the most common question that I receive at www.Ricoact.com . There is no simple
answer to this question because the answer depends upon the unique facts of each case.
I have found, however, that a large percentage of potential RICO claims are undermined by the
following considerations:
?? A RICO claim cannot exist in the absence of criminal activity. The simplest way to
put this concept is: no crime - no RICO violation. This rule applies even in the context of
civil RICO claims. Every RICO claim must be based upon a violation of one of the crimes
listed in 18 U.S.C. 1961(1). The RICO Act refers to such criminal activity as
racketeering activity. RICO claims cannot be based upon breach of contract, broken
promises, negligence, defective product design, failed business transactions, or any
number of other factual scenarios that may give rise to other claims under the common
law. This being said, a RICO claim can be based upon violations of the criminal mail and
wire fraud statutes. The mail and wire fraud statutes are very broad. Some creative
lawyers have succeeded in arguing that the mail and wire fraud statutes have been
violated by fact patterns that superficially appear to give rise only to claims of negligence,
breach of contract, and other actions giving rise to common law rights. If a RICO claim is
based only upon violations of the mail or wire fraud statutes, however, courts are likely to
subject the claims to stricter scrutiny. Courts look more favorably upon RICO claims
based upon true criminal behavior, such as bribery, kickbacks, extortion, obstruction of
justice, and clearly criminal schemes that are advanced by the use of the mails and
wires.
?? RICO addresses long-term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a RICO
claim be based upon criminal activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a "pattern" of
criminal activity. A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that
bear no relationship to each other will not give rise to a RICO claim. The United States
Supreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a "pattern" only if they are
related and continuous. In order to be "related," the criminal acts must involve the same
victims, have the same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or be
related in some other fashion. A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the criminal
actions occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of indefinite duration.
The former patterns are referred to as closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns are
1
referred to as open-ended patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a

criminal act, you will not have a RICO claim unless that criminal act is part of a larger
pattern of criminal activity.
?? Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or
reasonably should have discovered your injury four or more years ago. Many
people are mistaken that civil RICO claims are not subject to a statute of limitations. True,
Congress failed to include a statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act, but the
United States Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year
statute of limitations on all civil RICO claims. Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins to
run when the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered its injury. Many
people also believe that the statute of limitations is reset every time a new criminal act is
committed - this is not true. Once a victim is aware or should be aware of its injury, the
victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of its claim and bring suit. A
victim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from filing suit in the face of known injuries. That
being said, however, there are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the
running of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that are
essential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the statute of limitations
may be tolled. In addition, acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may toll the
running of the statute of limitations. All tolling doctrines are based upon whether it is fair,
under the circumstances, to bar the victim's claims on the basis of the running of the
statute of limitations. Also, if a defendant engages in a new pattern of rackeeting, that
causes new and independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those new
and independent injuries.
Of course, these are merely general considerations. Consult with an attorney to determine whether the
facts of your particular case give rise to a RICO claim.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Plaintiff
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DEMANDED
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK (LC. MELLON BANK),
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
FULTON BANK
Defendant
No. 05-CV-2288
JURY TRIAL
PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO FULTON BANKS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE HONORABLE MARY A. McLAUGHLIN
FULTON BANK RESPONSE
Defendant, Fulton Bank, by and through its attorneys, Barley Snyder, LLC, hereby files the
following Response in opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable
Mary A. McLaughlin: On or about June 2,2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting an ex parte
meeting with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin "to discuss the problems of preceding, this
action without obstruction of justice; and to amend the original complaint as discussed
previously." See Plaintiffs Motion. However, Plaintiff provides no justification whatsoever for
his request for an ex parte meeting with the Court. Rather, Plaintiff apparently labors under
the false assumption that by proceeding pro se he is absolved of all responsibility to comply
with the rules. Such is not the case. The fact that Plaintiff decided to be his own lawyer does
not excuse him from following the rules of civil procedure or entitle him to any particular
advantage for lack of legal training. "The right of self-representation is not a license to abuse
the dignity of the courtroom. Neither is it a license not to comply with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806,834 n. 46,95 S.Ct.
2525,2541 n. 46,45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975).
In the instant case, Plaintiff has no greater right to be heard than he would have if he were
represented by counsel. As a pro se litigant, Plaintiff, in essence, stands in the place of an
attorney. Plaintiffs request for an ex parte meeting with the Court in this case violates Rule
3.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct because it is clear that Plaintiff seeks to influence
the Court with his version of events, without providing defense counsel any opportunity to
respond.' Since an ex parte meeting with the Court would violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct and provide Plaintiff an unfair advantage over Defendants, Plaintiffs request for
such a meeting should be refused.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The following is copy of an Affidavit that was filed on January 31, 1998 in the chambers of
Honorable Stewart Dalzell in a desperate attempt for due process of the issues contained
herein. In November of 1997 the PLAINTIFF sought the counsel of Ms. Christina Rainville
while employed by the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal and Lewis. This was the last
attempt by the PLAINTIFF of seeking competent legal counsel. Ms. Rainville acknowledged
and communicated to the PLAINTIFF that the firm had barred her from representing any
additional clients from Lancaster County shortly after the PLAINTIFFs solicitation; which she
had plenty of solicitations from other potential Lancaster County clients. In the document
titled Plaintiff Finding of Facts it is clearly documented that the PLAINTIFF did attempt to
solicit and retain several competent lawyers since 1987, all of who displayed conflicts of
interests, and some went so far as to violate rules of ethics concerning client/attorney
privilege. PLAINTIFFs filing as Pro Se Litigant was the only alternative available that would
protect and preserve the PLAINTIFFs legal standing and right to due process. The following
excerpt from the Affidavit will demonstrate to the court a factual account of the events that
precluded and provided the Plaintiff the legal standing to file the original complaint on May
16, 2005.
Confidential
Page 2
6/12/2006
AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DALZELL
I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit
concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused,
subjected to a massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive
fight for the sovereignty of my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties, and
right of due access to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, in 1991, exhibiting
the dire consequences of this complaint. These allegations are substantiated through a
preponderance of evidence including but not limited to over 10,000 documents, over 50
hours of recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A
Findings of Facts is attached herewith providing merits and the facts pertaining to this
affidavit.
These issues and incidents identified herein have attempted to conceal my
disclosures of International Signal & Control, Plc. However, the merits of the violations
contained in this affidavit will be proven incidental to the existence of any conspiracy.
The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law.
Financial
considerations would exceed $1 million.
These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident and business owner in
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and have continued to the present. These issues are a
direct consequence of my public disclosure of fraud within International Signal & Control,
Plc., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which were in compliance with federal and state
statutes governing my shareholder rights granted in 1983, when I purchased my interests in
International Signal & Control., Plc.. I will also prove intentional undo influence against
family and friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and selfserving accusations of insanity. I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair
access to the law, and most certainly, the process must void any technical
deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the conclusions. Such arrogance
by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our Constitution.
Confidential
Page 3
6/12/2006
1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the
scope of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the
United States. The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of
International Signal & Control, including the illegal transfer of arms and technologies to an
end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by virtue that said activities posed
a direct compromise to the National Security of the United States.; the plaintiff will argue
that his public allegations of misconduct within the operations of International Signal &
Control, Plc., as early as June of 1987 ;demonstrated actions were proven to protect the
National Security of the United States..
The activities of International Signal & Control,
Pls., placed American troops in harms way. The plaintiffs actions should have taken the
American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the International Signal &
Control, Plc., to cease and desist. .
All activities contained herein have greatly compromised the National Security of the
United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiffs intent and
motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens. Had the plaintiff been protected
under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United
States troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the
operations of International Signal & Control, Plc., in as early as 1987.
2. The plaintiff will successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial
misconduct were directed at intimidating the plaintiff from continuing his public
disclosures regarding illegal activities within International Signal & Control, Plc,. On June
23, 1998, International Signal & Control, Plc was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger
with Ferranti International, of England.
Such disclosures threatened the integrity of
International Signal & Controls organization, and Mr. James Guerin himself, ,
consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if such disclosures
provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the
central criminal activity in the in The United States District Court For The Eastern District
Of Pennsylvania.
Confidential
Page 4
6/12/2006
3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse
consequences and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings.
The dire consequences of the plaintiffs failed business dealings will demonstrate and
substantiate financial incentive and motive.
Defendants responsible for administering
undo influence and interference in the plaintiffs business and commercial enterprises had
financial interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing authority, Lancaster
County had a great investment whos demise would facilitate grave consequences to its
economic development. .
Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less
competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the
lender liability laws. The Steinman Enterprises, Inc., would loose a pioneer in the
information technologies industries, and would protect the public domain from truthful
disclosure. The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence of said perpetrators violating
common laws governing intellectual property rights.
4. Given the plaintiffs continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in
June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the
law with the opportunity for any and all remedial actions required under the federal and
state statutes. The plaintiff will successfully argue his rights to the courts to rightfully
claim civil actions with regards to the totality of these activities, so described in the
following Findings of Facts, regardless of any statute of limitations. Given the plaintiffs
genuine efforts for due process has been inherently and maliciously obstructed, the
courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions deserving to the
plaintiff.
5. Under current laws, the plaintiffs intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of
discrediting the plaintiffs disclosures and obstructing the plaintiffs right to due process of
the law.
The plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to
enter into contract. The logic and reason towards the plaintiffs activities and actions are
a matter of record, demonstrated in the Findings of Facts, contained herein..
The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent emotional consequences
to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
Confidential
Page 5
6/12/2006
The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of the
activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the
plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper interpretations of all
laws, irrespective of the plaintiffs alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff successfully
argue that his mental capacity is of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in its
malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were
purposefully directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the
activities of International Signal & Control, Plc., consequently obstructing the plaintiffs
access to due process of the law. Due to the fact that these activities to which the
plaintiffs perpetrators were protecting were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would
apply.
To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime with the exception of 2
speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial misconduct
during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23, 1987 and continuing to
today.
7) Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must
conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzalls findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa
Lambert case identifying acts of Prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of this affidavit,
now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law must now
determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible criminal
enterprise. This affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that
this affidavit compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales
of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights..
In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle
Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. The
Confidential
Page 6
6/12/2006
Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior
matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by its own admission of wrongdoing,
assuring the peoples of its commitment to administer equalities of justice, not inequalities
of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of
jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the
Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole.
I was not defending the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert, but rather assaulting
the judicial integrity of the Lancaster County Judicial System, from first-hand experience;
and making the point that such conduct eludes every major stakeholder from the truth
and justice prosecution and defense alike.
Confidential
Page 7
6/12/2006
PLAINTIFFS REPLY
PLAINTIFF filed the original complaint on May 16, 2005 prematurely due to the undo
influence and intimidation of several DEFENDANTS and other persons, entities, and or
organizations; specifically the threat of a fabricated criminal prosecution. PLAINTIFF readily
recognized the deficiencies in the filing and the lack of a formal complaint (affidavit and
finding of facts only), and had repeatedly requested information and procedural guidance
from the Court during the course of time that had elapsed until the ORDER of the Honor on
January 7, 2006. This had seemed especially difficult in light of the fact that the original filing
was sealed. In 1998 PLAINTIFF stated to the courts the following: I conclude that the
courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most certainly, the process
must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the
conclusions. Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity
of our Constitution. PLAINTIFF acknowledges that the preceding statement contains an
emotional response to the situation, and readily requests that the Court interprets the legal
intention and merits of the PLAINTIFFs request for a fair and reasonable access to the Court
to hear and adjudicate the PLAINTIFFs complaint.
PLAINTIFF has filed numerous formal complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigations
Internet Crime Complaint Center.
I05120804514805; and
Those complaints identified as; I05120608348825 ;
I06010506177009.
Additionally complaints were filed with the
Southern Regional Police Department of Conestoga, and the Lancaster County District
Attorneys Office with Chief Detective Michael J. Landis during the course of the last 2 years,
where the PLAINTIFFS computer and online broadband connections was hacked. At times
when PLAINTIFF attempted to search and find Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal and
Pennsylvania) and related subject matters, including but not limited to the effective service
for DEFENDANTS, certain provisions were missing and or replaced with erroneous and
misinformation, thus resulting in an improper Certificate of Service and violation of the Rules
of Civil Procedure relating to the Service of the complaint.
Plaintiff deliberately provided no response to all previous Motions to Dismiss filed by several
DEFENDANTS due to the vagueness of the ORDER of January 7, 2006 instructing the
PLAINTIFF to only serve all DEFENDANTS with the complaint. That ORDER stated: IT IS
Confidential
Page 8
6/12/2006
HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve the summons and complaint on or
before January 25, 2006. If the plaintiff does not do so, the Court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice. The Court will consider the plaintiff's request to amend
the complaint and for a hearing after the summons and complaint are served.
The court provided not instructions or demands of the PLAINTIFF to proceed with any
additional motions, responses, and or replies after the effectively serving the original
complaint to all of the DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF will argue that continuing with litigating
the original complaint bears no purpose, nor serves any interests of the Court in providing
the PLAINTIFF with due process and access to the Courts due to the fact that the original
complaint was not appropriately formulated to ensure that the PLAINTIFFS allegations of
misconduct and violations of Federal Law were constructed sufficiently for the Court.
PLAINTIFF, on June 2, 2006, appropriately and formally requested that meeting with the
Court to amend the original complaint in the Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable
Mary A. McLaughlin.
PLAINTIFF seeks no advantage, special treatment, nor special considerations from the
Court. PLAINTIFF is seeking the ex parte meeting for procedural guidance to amend the
original complaint and to address the ramifications of the sealing of the complaint with
special regards to issues of National Security and documented and factual threats on the
PLAINTIFFs life . The following is the excerpt from the PLAINTIFFs Finding of Facts:
June 11, 1991 - Stan Caterbone left the Stone Harbor Marina at approximately 12:30 am en route to
Lancaster, Pa, to retrieve some files concerning the ISC cover-up. Upon driving north on Route 47
(the normal route to Lancaster), approximately 10 miles outside the Cape May county Courthouse,
Stan Caterbone noticed a car following him closely. Suspicious, Stan Caterbone decreased his speed
from 55 mph to 35 mph, in order for the car to pass him. However, the car remained directly behind,
adjusting the speed accordingly. In an effort to elude the car, without raising suspicion, Stan
Caterbone gradually increased his speed, while also increasing the distance between the cars,
resulting in the loss of his taillights to the ensuing vehicle - Because of the winding road, Stan
Caterbone looked for an abrupt turn-off, in hopes of dashing the eluding vehicle, by loosing sight of
Confidential
Page 9
6/12/2006
his taillights. There was little or no traffic on the route during the early morning hours, and Stan
Caterbone stopped at an intersection, and noticed that the headlights of the ensuing vehicle were not
visible in his rear view mirror, meaning that his taillights were also not visible to the ensuing vehicle.
Immediately upon pulling from the intersection, Stan Caterbone noticed a narrow dirt road that lead
into a field of small trees, the perfect place to sit for the ensuing auto to pass him, unnoticed. The
ensuing vehicle pulled to the intersection, and continued north on route 47, in the direction of
Lancaster. Stan Caterbone sat in his vehicle a few minutes, until continuing on his travel, north on
Route 47. Approximately five (5) minutes later, a car traveling in excess of SS mph, approached Stan
Caterbone, traveling south on the same road (2 lanes) As the two cars approached each other, and
approximately 30 yards from reaching each other, the approaching vehicle drove directly into the lane
of Stan Caterbone, with its high beams on, and continued straight for his vehicle, or what appeared to
be a head-on-collision. Stan Caterbone drove off of the berm of the road, missing a line of trees by
less than 12 inches (eluding a life threatening disaster), and passed the vehicle that was still in the
northbound lane, heading south. Stan Caterbone, shaking and sweating furiously, noticed the cars
brake lights go on, and the car apparently turned around, and began pursuing Stan Caterbone again.
Stan Caterbone drove as fast as he could to Route 55, hoping to find traffic in order to hide and loose
the pursuing car. Stan Caterbone arrived in Lancaster, at approximately 3:00 am, and again noticed a
car sitting in the parking lot of the vacant "Sportsman's Den", at the intersection of the New Danville
Pike and Prince Streets. Upon driving west on Hershey Avenue, Stan Caterbone noticed the car
following him. In an effort to identify the license plate, Stan Caterbone made a few turns in the area of
Hamilton Watch, and followed the car heading north on S. West End Avenue. The car was a late
model, gold or tan, Cougar or possibly a Buick Park Avenue. Stan Caterbone watched the car
increase his speed, and finally changed directions and proceeded to his residence, and parked a few
blocks away, and walked through the woods, to his apartment in the Hershey Heritage complex. Stan
Caterbone then used a flashlight, in order not to reveal his presence, and returned to his vehicle,
sometime in the early morning, during daylight.
Confidential
Page 10
6/12/2006
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stanley J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group respectfully requests

that Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Dated: June 9, 2006
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
717-431-8184
717-427-1821 facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
.
Confidential
Page 11
6/12/2006

STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Plaintiff
v.
No. 05-CV-2288
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DEMANDED
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT,
AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK (LC. MELLON BANK),
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT,
FULTON BANK
Defendant
JURY TRIAL
ORDER
AND NOW, this - day of ,2006, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Ex Parte Meeting
with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, and Fulton Bank's response thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED AND DECREED that the Motion is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Mary A. McLaughlin, J.
Confidential
Page 12
6/12/2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Response to
Motion for Ex Parte Meeting has been served this 12th day of June, 2006, by first class mail,
Postage prepaid, upon:
Michael Donahue
Harbor Police Administration Building
9508 2nd Avenue
Stone Harbor. NJ 08247
Stephen Basse, Esquire
817 East Landis Avenue
Vineland, NJ 08360
Stuart A. Weiss, Esquire

George M. Gowen, 111, Esquire
Cozen O'Connor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 1 9103
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Response to
Motion for Ex Parte Meeting has been served in person to the offices below on this 12th day
of June ,2006,:
Howard L. Kelin, Esquire
Kegel, Kelin, Almy & Grimm
24 North Lime Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
George T. Brubaker, Esquire

Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker, LLP
221 East Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Sfephanie Carfley, Esquire

Attorneys for Defendant Fulton Bank
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
(717) 299-5201
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

Dated: June 9, 2006
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 174516
717-431-8184
717-427-1821 facsimile
amgroup01@msn.com
Confidential
Page 13
6/12/2006
F i n a c i a l Management Group, LTD.

1755 Oregon Pike
L a m a s t e r , PG
17601
(717) 569-5555
Robert Kauffman, P r e s i d e n t
Mickel N. mrtlett, E x e c u t i v e V i c e P r e s i d e n t
P. Alan Loss, Board of Directors
R o b e r t Long, Board of D i r e c t o r s
P e t e r Peneros, Broker
._-.
-
Defamation of C h a r a c t e r
Slander
Mental Duress
Malice
Unfair C a T p e t i t i o n
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e with BusiRelations
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e m w i t h C o n t r a c t s
Trezpass to P e r s s n
Burglary
Theft
Criminal Mischief
I n v a s i o n o f Privacy
T r e z p a s s to Personal P r o p e r t y
Undoinf l u e m
Fraud
Conspiracy
EMxzzlmnt
Breach of C o n t r a c t
Extortion
Forgery
S b r h o l d e r Freeze-cut
- -
Cornno-lth
M t l 0 ~Bank
1
Penn m a r e
Lancaster, PA
176432
W l l o n Bank
Pittsburg, PA
Parent Carpany
Mike W o l f , Executive Vice President of Comnercial Lending
f ' w PEAJBLOS
U(;ATIONS.:
Defamation o f Character
Slander
Mental Duress
Malie
Unfair Cocrpetition
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e ~ zw i t h Business Relations
Wrongful Interference w i t h Contracts
Trespass t o Person
T M t
Criminal Mischief
Invasion o f Privacy
Trespass to Personal Property
Undoinf luenoe
Fraud
Conspiracy
EntEzzlement
Breach of Contract
Extortion
Ckce Smith, Execxltive Vice President

Pete Wolfson, Sal-n
Defamation of Character
Slander
Mental IXlress
Malice
Unfair Conpetition
Wrowful Interference with BusiRelatiom
Wrowful Interference w i t h Contracts
T r e s p a s to Person
Theft
C r i m i m l Mischief
Invasion of Privacy
Trespass to Personal Property
Urdoinf luence
Fraud
? Corqsiracy
I EmSezzlement
Breach of Contract
Extortion
Farrcers F1-t Bank

L l t r t z , PA 17512
Pete Richter, Pkrmger of La-ter

Glenn Nelsn, President
Shcpping Center Branch
r/Aw ,455
PLLE%~.ICNS:
Slaoder
Mental Duress
Mall03
Unfalr Corrpetr t i o n
Wrongful Interference w l t h BusiRelations
Wrongful Interference w l t h Contracts
T r e z p a s t o Pemn
,ary
.
- .
Theft
Invaslon of Prlvacy
Trespass t o Perzonal
Undolnfluence
Fraud
Cor?zplracy
Breach of Contract
t Extortion
C'
Property
Hunllton Bank
Oregon Plke
Lamaster, PA
17601
Chris Izzo, Loan Officer

Corestates, Credit Card M n i n i s t r a t o r
Slander
Mental Duress
Malice
Unfair Conpetit i o n
Wrongful Interference with Business Relations
Wrongful Interference with Contracts
Trt o Person
Trto Personal Prcperty
Undoinf luence
Fraud
Coqiracy
Breach of Contract
Extortion
F u l t o n Bank
O l d Hickory B r a n c h
Stor L a n c a s t e r . PA
17601
?6tl
U n f a i r Conpeti t i o n
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s R e l a t i o m
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e with Contracts
Undoinfluem
Fraud
Comiracy
Erkezzlement
B r e a c h of C o n t r a c t
Extortion
Cor
Brc
Berdett T m l l n Hospital
Cape Nay County Courthouse
Stone Harbor, NJ
08247
Social Worker
Psychiatrist 1
Psychiatrist 2
WEGAT IONS:
Slarder
k n t a l Duress
Malice
Unfalr Carpetrtlon
Wrongful Interferew l t h Busines Relatiow
Wrongful Interference w i t h Contracts
Tnzspass to Person
Irwa~lon
of Prrvacy
Trespass to Percsml Property
Undolnf luence
Fraud
Cowpiracy
Breach of Contract
~orgsry
Neg11gsnce
Avalon Police DeparWnt

Avalon, NJ
08247
Officer Dean
Fat Aswrciate
Slander
Mental Duress
Malice
Unfair Conpetition
Wrongful Interference with Business Relations
Wrongful Interference with Contracts
Trespass to Percan
Burglary
Theft
Criminal M i x h i e f
Itwasion o f Privacy
Trto Personal Property
Undoinf l u e n z
Fraud
Conspiracy
En'&ezzlmnt
Breach of Contract
Extortion
Forsew
Sharholder Freeze-out
mligence
k n h i m Towrship P o l i c e Deparbnent
C i r c l e Drive
Lancaster, PA
17601
D e t e c t i v e Mathias
Officer 1
Officer 2
Officer 3
Officer 4
Slander
k n t a l hresr
Malice
'j
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h Business R e l a t i o n s
T r e s p a s s to Person
8urglat-y
Theft
C r i m i n a l Mischief
Invasion of Privacy
T r e s p a s s to Personal P r o p e r t y
Undoinf l u e m
Conspiracy
Negligznce
L a n e a s t e r P o l l c e Department
W. Chestrwt S t r e e t
L a n e a s t e r , PA
17602
Slander
Mental DuMalioe
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s R e l a t i o w
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h C o n t r a c t s
Trto Person
Undoinfluence
Fraud
Conspiracy
Negligence
Jocsh R c d a , E s q .
301 C l p k r Building
36 E. K i y Street
L a m a s t e r , PA
17602
(717) 397-5791
Slander
k n t a l Duress
Malice
Unfair Conpeti t i o n
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e w i t h Business R e l a t i o m
Undoinfluence
Fraud
Colqriracy
Embezzlenmt
Breach of Contract
Extortion
S h a r b l d e r Freeze-cut
Neglisnce
Lou S c ~ l l e r Esq.
,
V a l o r e , M c A l l i s t e r , W i x o r e l a n d , Gould, V e s p e r & Sctwartz
Northfield, NJ
(609) 64-1111
Mental Duress
Malice
U n f a i r Gorrpetltion
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s R e l a t i o n s
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h C o n t r a c t s
Undoinf l u e n c e
Fraud
Conspiracy
mzzlement
Extortion
Negligence
D r . W r s h a l l L e v i r e , E ffl D P A
l a 1 T i l t o n Road
N o r t h f i e l d , NJ
(653) 646-2011
D e f a m t i o n of C h a r a c t e r
Slander
Mental LXlresr
Malice
Unfair C a r p e t i t i o n
Wrongful I n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h B u s i n e s s Relations
Wrongful Interference w i t h C o n t r a c t s
T r e a s s to Person
I n v a s i o n of P r i v a c y
Undoinf l u e e
Fraud
Comiracy
Fdxzzlmnt
Extortion
Neglige-
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?536747398298484...
A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD
United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-03689-AB
IN RE: STANLEY L. CATERBONE

Assigned to: HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY
Related Case: 2:06-cv-01538-AB
Cause: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA
Date Filed: 07/15/2005

Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 422 Bankruptcy Appeal
(801)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Appellant
STANLEY CATERBONE
represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

220 STONE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 19516
PRO SE
V.
Debtor-in-Possess
STANLEY CATERBONE
represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

(See above for address)
PRO SE
Trustee
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
represented by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE
833 CHESTNUT ST., STE. 500
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PRO SE
KEVIN CALLAHAN
833 CHESTNUT STREET
SUITE 500
215-597-4411
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Date Filed
11/14/2005
1 of 2
Docket Text
7 Letter from U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT re: received original record on
11/10/05. (afm, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
7/6/2006 2:32 PM
11/07/2005
Original Bankruptcy Record returned to the Bankruptcy Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (afm, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
10/06/2005
6 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REINSTATED IN THE U.S.

BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT PROVIDED
THAT DEBTOR-APPELLANT COMPLY WITH THE RULES AND
REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBTORS SEEKING
RELIEF UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CODE.. SIGNED BY JUDGE
ANITA B. BRODY ON 10/5/05. 10/7/05 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED.(afm, ) (Entered: 10/07/2005)
10/03/2005
5 RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

DEBTOR'S BANKRUPTCY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REINSTATED
by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.
(Attachments: # 1 COS) (afm, ) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
09/23/2005
4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, WHY IN LIGHT

OF DEBTOR-APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL (BKY. DOCKET
#12) AND BRIEF (DOCKET #3), THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE
REINSTATED IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRPUTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. SIGNED BY
JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ON 09/21/2005. 09/23/2005 ENTERED
AND COPIES VIA ECF AND U.S. MAIL.(mo, ) (Entered: 09/23/2005)
07/28/2005
3 BRIEF TO ORDER TO DISMISS ON 6/13/05 by STANLEY

CATERBONE. (afm, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
07/15/2005
2 Briefing Schedule 7/18/05 Entered and copies mailed. (tj, ) (Entered:

07/18/2005)
07/15/2005
1 Certificate of Appeal of STANLEY CATERBONE from the order of

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Twardowski. (tj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
07/06/2006 14:31:03
PACER
Login:
am3189
Client Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
2:05-cv-03689-AB
Cost:
0.08
Billable Pages: 1
2 of 2
7/6/2006 2:32 PM
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Query
1 of 1
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/framemenu.pl
Reports
Utilities
Logout
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
SUSPENSE

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02288-MAM
CATERBONE v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Jury Demand: Defendant
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Plaintiff
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

220 STONE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
US
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
TERMINATED: 06/13/2006
represented by ROBERT W. HALLINGER

APPEL & YOST LLP
33 NORTH DUKE ST
LANCASTER, PA 17602
717-394-0521
Email: rhallinger@appelyost.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPT.
represented by CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL

HARTMAN UNDERHILL &
BRUBAKER LLP
221 E. CHESTNUT ST.
LANCASTER, PA 17602-2782
717-299-7254
Fax: 717-299-3160
Email: chrisu@hublaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
1 of 7
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPT.

Defendant
AVALON POLICE EPT.
represented by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III

SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE, SINGER
& MAHONEY
30 S. 17TH ST
STE 1700
215-972-8015
Email: pswayze@smsm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PATRICIA BAXTER
SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER &
MAHONEY, LTD.
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
SUITE 1700
215-399-2007
Email: pbaxter@smsm.com
Defendant
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL
BANK
i.e. MELLON BANK
represented by GEORGE M. GOWEN, III

COZEN O'CONNOR
1900 MARKET STREET
215-665-2000
Fax: 215-665-2013
Email: ggowen@cozen.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART A. WEISS
COZEN O'CONNOR
1900 MARKET STREET
215-665-2000
Email: sweiss@cozen.com
Defendant
2 of 7
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE

DEPT.
Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPT.
Defendant
represented by STEPHANIE CARFLEY
BARLEY SNYDER SENFT &
COHEN LLC
126 EAST KING ST
TEL 717-299-5201
Email: scarfley@barley.com
FULTON BANK
Date Filed
3 of 7
Docket Text
06/30/2006
36 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF LANCASTER

COUNTY PRISON IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE
MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. 7/3/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,
AND E-MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
06/30/2006
35 AFFIDAVIT of Howard Kelin by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.

(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
06/30/2006
34 AFFIDAVIT of Vincent Guarini by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.

06/30/2006
33 Memorandum in Support re 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON. (HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:
06/30/2006)
06/30/2006
32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON.Certificate of Service.(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:
06/30/2006)
06/19/2006
31 ORDER THAT TO THE THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF

REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN HIS
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE
MEETING WITH THE COURT, THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MOTION TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SAID MOTION IS GRANTED.
SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/19/06. 6/19/06
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered:
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
06/19/2006)
4 of 7
06/14/2006
30 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for ex parte meeting

with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, filed by plff STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
06/13/2006
29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

OF MELLON BANK, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DET AND
FULTON BANK ARE GRANTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN A
MEMORANDUM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S
COMPLAINT IS ALSO DISMISSED AS TO DEFTS SOUTHERN
REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, STONE HARBOR POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AVALON POLICE DEPT, LANCASTER COUNTY
PRISON AND LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF
TODAY'S DATE. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION
FOR AN EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE COURT IS DENIED AS
MOOT.. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
6/13/06.6/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.
(lvj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
06/05/2006
28 RESPONSE to Motion re [26] MOTION for Ex Parte Meeting filed by

FULTON BANK, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 6/7/2006 (np).
(Entered: 06/05/2006)
06/02/2006
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re [26] MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP
POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered:
06/02/2006)
06/01/2006
26 MOTION FOR A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS OF

PRCEDING THIS ACTION WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE, CERTIFICATES OF
SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
04/26/2006
25 NOTICE of Appearance by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III on behalf of

AVALON POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE (SWAYZE, WALTER) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/26/2006
24 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICIA BAXTER on behalf of AVALON

POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(BAXTER, PATRICIA) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/12/2006
23 ORDER THAT THE CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN CIVIL SUSPENSE

UNTIL 5/11/06. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
4/11/06. ) 4/12/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND
E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
04/10/2006
22 NOTICE by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE for continuance. (gn, )

(Entered: 04/10/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
5 of 7
03/06/2006
21 Request for MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Be Granted

filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., Certificate of Service.
(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/7/2006 (np). (Entered:
03/06/2006)
02/23/2006
20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL

BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of Law# 3 Certificate of
Service)(WEISS, STUART) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
02/09/2006
19 ORDER THAT MOTION OF DEFT MELLON BANK FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY
FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR MELLON'S
RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY 14 DAYS. .
SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/9/06.2/9/06
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
18 BRIEF in Support re 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK,

Certificate of Service. (CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 2/13/2006
(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK.Certificate of Service.

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE)
(Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
16 Praecipe to Enter Appearance by FULTON BANK; Jury Demand,

(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/08/2006
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of
Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of
Law# 3 Certificate of Service)(GOWEN, GEORGE) (Entered:
02/08/2006)
02/06/2006
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT. re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, 13 Memorandum of Law in Support
(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
13 Memorandum of Law in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss by

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL,
CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT..Brief, Affidavit, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A# 2 Exhibit B)(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
11 Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT., Certificate of Service. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER)
Modified on 2/7/2006 (np). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
01/23/2006
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re served

summons and complaint upon deft Avalon Police Dept. by certified mail (
no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Lancaster County Prison by certified
mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon
Bank, N.A.) by certified mail (no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered:
01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Stone Harbor Police Dept. by certified
mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Manheim Township Police Dept. by
certified mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

Summons and Complaint upon deft Lancaster County Sheriffs Dept by
certified mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re

Summons and Complaint was served upon Fulton Bank by certified mail
(no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/06/2006
3 ORDER THAT THE PLFF SHALL SERVE THE SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 1/25/06. IF THE PLFF DOES NOT DO
SO, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE PLFF'S REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND FOR A HEARING AFTER THE
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVICED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT
UNDER SEAL IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A.
MCLAUGHLIN ON 1/5/06.) 1/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
05/16/2005
2 MOTION TO SEAL THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J.

CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
05/16/2005
6 of 7
Summons Issued as to defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., STONE HARBOR
POLICE DEPT., AVALON POLICE EPT., COMMONWEALTH
NATIONAL BANK, SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.,
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. Forwarded To: pro se on
5/16/05 (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
05/16/2005
1 COMPLAINT against defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt
number 916844.), filed by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, )
(Entered: 01/12/2006)

Transaction Receipt
07/06/2006 14:35:36
7 of 7
PACER
Login:
am3189
Client Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
2:05-cv-02288-MAM
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.24
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
Live Database Area - Docket Report
https://ecf.paeb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?748736903472216...
APPEAL, FeeDue
U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Reading)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 05-23059-ref
Assigned to: Judge Richard E. Fehling
Chapter 11
Voluntary
Asset
represented by Stanley J. Caterbone

PRO SE
Debtor
Stanley J. Caterbone
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
SSN: xxx-xx-0959
U.S. Trustee
United States Trustee
Office of the U.S. Trustee
833 Chestnut Street
Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-4411
Filing Date
1 of 9
represented by DAVE P. ADAMS

USDOJ
833 Chestnut Street
Suite 500
(215) 597-4411
Email:
dave.p.adams@usdoj.gov
Docket Text
06/29/2006
66
Hearing Held - RE: Motion to Dismiss Case, or Conversion of Case to

Chapter 7 Filed by United States Trustee (related document(s),60).
**MATTER TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT ; US Trustee's Brief
due 7/21/2006, Debtor's brief due 9/1/2006*** (P., Cathy) (Entered:
06/29/2006)
06/22/2006
65
Debtor's Objection/Answer to United States Trustee's Motion to

Dismiss or Convert Case to Chapter 7 ; Answer and Exhibits Filed by
Stanley J. Caterbone ***CD Disc received with pleading contains 2
files, one of the files could not be opened and therefore unable to
attach to entry*** (related document(s)60). (Attachments: # 1
Exhibits A to E# 2 docket) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/23/2006)
06/08/2006
64
Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding

Documents sent to US Trustee's Office. (P., Cathy) (Entered:
06/08/2006)
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
2 of 9
06/02/2006
63
BNC Certificate of Mailing. - U.S. Trustee Notice of Motion. Number

of Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 61)). No. of
Notices: 33. Service Date 06/02/2006. (Admin.) (Entered:
06/03/2006)
05/30/2006
62
Certificate of Service of Motion to Convert/Dismiss and Notice Filed

by DAVE P. ADAMS on behalf of United States Trustee (related
document(s)61, 60). (ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006
61
Notice of Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 7, Motion to Dismiss

Case60 Filed by United States Trustee. Hearing scheduled for
6/29/2006 at 11:00 AM at mad - Courtroom 1, Third Floor.
(ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/30/2006
60
Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 7 . Fee Amount $15.00, Motion

to Dismiss Case Filed by United States Trustee Represented by DAVE
P. ADAMS (Counsel). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2
Proposed Order) (ADAMS, DAVE) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/03/2006
59
Order (copy) entered in District Court within Appeal CV-06-1538 ;

Ordered that the Appellant's motion for continuance is Denied as
Moot (continuance previously granted). (P., Cathy) (Entered:
05/23/2006)
04/14/2006
58
Copy of Notice. NOTICE: The record on appeal from the Bankruptcy

court in the above captioned case was entered on the docket in this
office on April 11, 2006 and has been assigned to the Hon. Anita B.
Brody. The following is the schedule for filing briefs with this office:
1) The appellant shall serve and file his brief within 15 days after entry
of the appeal on the docket. 2) The appellee shall serve and file his
brief within 15 days after service of the brief of the appellant. 3) The
appellant may serve and file a reply brief within 10 days after service
of the brief of the appellee. See original on case no. 06-cv-1538. (P.,
Paul) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
04/13/2006
57
BNC Certificate of Mailing - PDF Document. (related document(s)

(Related Doc # 55)). No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 04/13/2006.
(Admin.) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
04/13/2006
56
District Court Acknowledgement of receiving Bankruptcy Appeal

Signed by Deputy Clerk Steve Tomas - Civil Action #06-1538 Notice of Appeal of Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for
Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga,
PA (related document(s)44). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
3 of 9
04/10/2006
55
Order DENYING Debtor's Motion to Stay All Proceedings (Request

for Continuance) because nothing is presently pending before this
Court that would be subject to being stayed (related document #53) ;
FURTHER ORDERED that any further or future motion or request to
stay proceedings filed by Debtor shall specify precisely what
proceeding or proceedings he is seeking to stay and shall forth in full
all grounds for seeking such a stay. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/11/2006)
04/10/2006
54
Transmission of Record on Appeal re Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting

Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road,
Conestoga, PA to U.S. District Court (related documents 44 Notice of
Appeal, , ) (related document(s)44). (L., Eleanor) (Entered:
04/10/2006)
04/10/2006
53
Request for Continuance of Chapter 11 Case Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
04/02/2006
52

03/31/2006
51
Order DENYING Debtor's (Second) Request for Hearing because

nothing is pending before this Court on which a hearing might be held.
(related document(s)50). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
03/30/2006
50
Debtor's Request for Hearing with Bankruptcy Judge Filed by Stanley

J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
03/23/2006
49

03/20/2006
48
Order DENYING Debtor's Request for Hearing because nothing is

pending before this Court on which a hearing might be held. (related
document(s)47). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
03/20/2006
47
Debtor Request for Hearing, and Certificate of Service thereto Filed

by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
03/19/2006
46

03/17/2006
45
Attach PDF Document: Copy of Debtor's Notice of Appeal - RE:

Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for Relief from Stay
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA Filed by

Fulton Bank (related document(s)44). (P., Cathy) (Entered:
03/17/2006)
03/17/2006
44
Notice of Appeal - RE: Order dated 2/23/2006 Granting Motion for

Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga,
PA Filed by Fulton Bank ; Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J.
Caterbone (related document(s)42). Appellant Designation due by
3/27/2006. Transmission of record on appeal to District Court Due
Date:4/10/2006 ; copies to Judge Richard Fehling, Shawn Long, Esq,
Unted States Trustee's Office, Debtor Stanley Caterbone. **FEE
AMOUNT $255 NOT PAID**(P., Cathy) ***Modified on 3/20/2006,
Exhibit A referenced in the notice of appeal was not included or
attached to the pleading*** (P., Cathy). (Entered: 03/17/2006)
02/25/2006
43

02/23/2006
42
Order Granting Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220
Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA Filed by Fulton Bank Represented by
SHAWN M. LONG (Related Doc # 31) (R., Sara) (Entered:
02/23/2006)
02/21/2006
4 of 9
Hearing Held on 31 Motion for Relief from Stay Filed by Fulton Bank
Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Matter Taken Under
Advisement. (S., Barbara) (Entered: 02/21/2006)
02/10/2006
41
Monthly Operating Report for Filing for the month of January 2006
Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
02/02/2006
40
BNC Certificate of Mailing - Added Creditor Status Order. Number of

Notices Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 37)). No. of
Notices: 4. Service Date 02/02/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
02/02/2006
39
Debtor's Response to Motion of Fulton Bank for Relief From Stay ;

Response and Exhibits thereto Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone (related
document(s)31). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-C# 2 Exhibits D-I# 3
Exhibits J-M) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/03/2006)
02/02/2006
38
Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - RE: Amended

Schedules (related document(s)35). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
01/31/2006
37
Order Entered that if a certificate of service of the amended schedules

or amended matrix is not filed within 20 days from the date of this
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
order, the case will be closed without such amendment - RE:

Amended Schedule F filed 1/30/2006. (P., Cathy) (Entered:
01/31/2006)
01/30/2006
36
Advanced Media Group Income Statements for the year 2005 Filed by
Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: # 1 Continuation of Reports) (P.,
Cathy) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
01/30/2006
35
Amended Schedule F (creditor added) Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone ;

Receipt Number 20074148, Fee Amount $26.00 (P., Cathy) (Entered:
01/31/2006)
01/24/2006
33
Notice of Appearance and Request for Notice for Service of Papers,

Receipt of Notices, and Inclusion on Notice List by SHAWN M.
LONG Filed by SHAWN M. LONG on behalf of Fulton Bank.
(LONG, SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/24/2006
32
Notice of (related document(s): 31 Motion for Relief from Stay. Fee

Amount $150,) Filed by Fulton Bank. Hearing scheduled for
2/21/2006 at 09:30 AM at mad - Courtroom 1, Third Floor. (LONG,
SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/24/2006
5 of 9
Receipt of Motion for Relief From Stay(05-23059-tmt)

[motion,mrlfsty] ( 150.00) Filing Fee. Receipt number 4303314. Fee
amount 150.00. (U.S. Treasury) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/24/2006
31
Motion for Relief from Stay. Fee Amount $150, Filed by Fulton Bank
Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Objections due by
2/8/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A and B- Note and Mortgage# 2
Proposed Order # 3 Certification of Service and Notice) (LONG,
SHAWN) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006
34
Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - RE: Amended

Schedules and Response to Creditor Status Order (related
01/11/2006
30
BNC Certificate of Mailing - Added Creditor Status Order. Number of

01/12/2006)
01/09/2006
29
Order Entered that if a certificate of service of the amended schedules

or amended matrix is not filed within 20 days from the date of this
order, the case will be closed without such amendment (Regarding
amendments filed 12/15/2005) (P., Cathy) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
12/16/2005
28
Meeting of Creditors Held December 15, 2005. (ADAMS, DAVE)

(Entered: 12/16/2005)
12/15/2005
27
Amended Schedules F & G Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone ; Receipt

Number 20074028, Fee Amount $26.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered:
12/16/2005)
12/15/2005
26
Response dated 12/14/2005 Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding

HEMAP Appeal Hearing Request. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
11/29/2005
25
Letter (dated 11/3/2005) Filed by Debtor Stanley J. Caterbone

addressed to Department of Justice, US Trustee Office - RE:
Summation on reason to file under chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
(P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
11/29/2005
Receipt of Final Installment Payment. Receipt Number 20073978, Fee

Amount $839.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
11/18/2005
24
BNC Certificate of Mailing - Meeting of Creditors. Number of Notices

Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 23)). No. of Notices: 25.
Service Date 11/18/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/19/2005)
11/16/2005
23
Meeting of Creditors . 341(a) meeting to be held on 12/15/2005 at

12:30 PM at 3cnfrm - 3rd Floor Conference Room. Last day to
oppose discharge or dischargeability is 2/13/2006. (E., Carol)
(Entered: 11/16/2005)
11/10/2005
22
BNC Certificate of Mailing - Hearing to Show Cause. Number of

11/11/2005)
11/10/2005
6 of 9
Appeal Returned from District Court - RE: Appeal Case #

05-CV-3689 regarding dismissal of case.(related document(s)12). (P.,
11/09/2005
21

11/08/2005
20
Notice of Hearing to Show Cause why this case should not be

Dismissed for Debtor's Failure to Timely Pay Filing Fees for Chapter
11 Voluntary Petition in the total amount of $839.00. Show Cause
hearing to be held on 12/1/2005 at 11:00 AM at mad - Courtroom 1,
Third Floor. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
10/07/2005
18

10/05/2005
19
Final Order By District Court Judge Anita B. Brody - RE: Notice of

Appeal (CA-05-3689) Regarding 6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case
for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required Document ; ORDER
REINSTATING CASE TO US BANKRUPTCY COURT (related
10/05/2005
17
Attach PDF Document for BNC noticing: Copy of District Court

Order to Show Cause (related document(s)16). (P., Cathy) (Entered:
10/05/2005)
09/21/2005
16
District Court Order entered within Civil Action # 05-CV-3689 Notice

of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding 6/13/2005 Order
Dismissing Case Re: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Stanley J.
Caterbone ; The Trustee is ORDERED to show cause by 10/3/2005
why this case should not be reinstated in the US Bankruptcy Court.
(related document(s)12). (P., Cathy) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
07/19/2005
15
District Court Acknowledgement of receiving Bankruptcy Appeal.

Signed by Deputy Clerk: Steve Tomas ; Civil Action # 05-CV-3689 RE: Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding
6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case (related document(s)12). (P.,
07/12/2005
14
Transmission of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related

documents 12 Notice of Appeal) (related document(s)12). (F., Anitra)
(Entered: 07/14/2005)
07/01/2005
13
Appellant Designation of Contents For Inclusion in Record On

Appeal, and Findings of Fact Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone .
(Attachments: # 1 Findings of Fact, 1983-1987# 2 Findings of Fact,
1988-2003# 3 Findings of Fact, 2004-present)(P., Cathy) (Entered:
07/01/2005)
07/01/2005
06/21/2005
7 of 9
Receipt Number 20073451, Fee Amount $255.00 - Notice of Appeal

regarding Dismissal Order. (related document(s)12). (P., Cathy)
(Entered: 07/01/2005)
12
Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Regarding 6/13/2005

Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required
Documents (related document(s)9). Appellant Designation due by
7/1/2005. Transmission of record on appeal to District Court Due
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
Date:7/15/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits) **$255.00 FILING FEE

NOT PAID** ; copies to Judge Thomas M. Twardowski, United
States Trustee's Office, Debtor Stanley Caterbone. (P., Cathy)
(Entered: 06/21/2005)
06/21/2005
8 of 9
Matrix Filed. Number of pages filed: 1, Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone .

(P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/21/2005)
06/21/2005
11
Summary of Schedules, Schedules A-J, Statement of Financial Affairs

Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: # 1 Statement of
Financial Affairs# 2 Finance Statements# 3 Matrix) (P., Cathy)
(Entered: 06/21/2005)
06/15/2005
10

06/13/2005
Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure to Timely File Required

Documents. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
06/04/2005

06/02/2005
Order Granting Application To Pay Filing Fees In Installments.

(Related Doc # 4) ; Total amount due $839.00, First Installment
Payment in the amount of $215 due by 8/1/2005, Second Installment
Payment in the amount of $215.00 due by 8/30/2005, Third
Installment Payment in the amount of $209.00 due by 9/15/2005, Final
Installment Payment in the amount of $200.00 due by 9/20/2005. (P.,
05/25/2005
BNC Certificate of Mailing - Voluntary Petition. Number of Notices

Mailed: (related document(s) (Related Doc # 5)). No. of Notices: 2.
Service Date 05/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/26/2005)
05/23/2005
Order Entered that unless the missing documents:20 Largest

Unsecured Creditors due 6/7/2005. List of Equity Security Holders
due 6/7/2005. Inventory of Property due 6/7/2005. Matrix due
6/7/2005. Schedules A-J due 6/7/2005. Statement of Financial Affairs
due 6/7/2005. Summary of schedules due 6/7/2005 are filed within 15
days of the date of the petition, or unless a timely request for an
extension time is submitted, this case may be dismissed.. (P., Betty)
(Entered: 05/23/2005)
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
05/23/2005
Application to Pay Filing Fee in Installments Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone Represented by Self(Counsel). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed
Order) (P., Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
05/23/2005
Pro Se Statement Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone . (P., Betty) (Entered:

05/23/2005)
05/23/2005
Statement of Social Security Number Received. Filed by Stanley J.

Caterbone . (P., Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
05/23/2005
Chapter 11 Voluntary Petition. Receipt Number 0, Fee Amount $0.00

Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone. 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors due
6/7/2005. List of Equity Security Holders due 6/7/2005. Inventory of
Property due 6/7/2005. Matrix due 6/7/2005. Schedules A-J due
6/7/2005. Statement of Financial Affairs due 6/7/2005. Summary of
schedules due 6/7/2005. Incomplete Filings due by 6/7/2005. (P.,
Betty) (Entered: 05/23/2005)

Transaction Receipt
07/08/2006 15:58:29
PACER
Login:
9 of 9
am3189
Client
Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
05-23059-ref Fil or Ent: filed

Doc From: 0 Doc To:
99999999 Term: included
Format: HTML
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.40
7/8/2006 4:17 PM
STANDARD

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06-cv-01538-AB
IN RE: CATERBONE
Assigned to: HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY
Related Case: 2:05-cv-03689-AB
Case in other court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court E.D. of
Pennsylvania, 05-23059
Cause: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA

Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 422 Bankruptcy Appeal
(801)
Appellant

220 STONE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
US
PRO SE
V.
Appellee
FULTON BANK
represented by SHAWN M. LONG

COHEN
126 EAST KING STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17602
717-399-1512
Email: slong@barley.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
V.
Debtor-in-Possess

(See above for address)
PRO SE
Trustee
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
1 of 3
represented by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

833 CHESTNUT STREET
SUITE 500
7/6/2006 2:29 PM
PRO SE
Date Filed
Docket Text
06/12/2006
8 Reply Brief of the Fulton Bank's Answer to Appeal, filed by STANLEY J.

05/30/2006
7 Appellee's BRIEF by FULTON BANK. Appellant Reply Brief due by

6/6/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(LONG, SHAWN)
(Entered: 05/30/2006)
05/15/2006
6 ANSWER to Complaint by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered:

05/16/2006)
05/03/2006
5 ORDER THAT UPON CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S

MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE
MOTION IS DENIED AS MOOT.SIGNED BY JUDGE ANITA B.
BRODY ON 05/03/06.05/03/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,
E-MAILED (ldb, ) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
04/26/2006
4 MOTION FOR A (15) DAY CONTINUANCE OF THE COURT

PROCEEDING, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/25/2006
3 ORDER - UPON CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S REQUEST

FOR ANE EXTENSION OF TIME, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) THE
REQUEST IS GRANTED; (2) THE APPELLANT SHALL SERVE AND
FILE HIS BRIEF ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2006; (3) THE APPELLE
SHALL SERVE AND FILE HIS BRIEF WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE OF THE BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT; (4) THE
APPELLANT MAY SERVE AND FILE A REPLY BRIEF WITHIN 10
DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE..
SIGNED BY JUDGE ANITA B. BRODY ON 4/24/2006. 4/25/2006
ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF AND U.S. MAIL(mo, ) Modified on
4/28/2006 (mo, ). (Entered: 04/25/2006)
04/11/2006
2 Briefing Schedule 4/12/06 Entered and copies mailed. (ss, ) Additional

attachment(s) added on 4/12/2006 (ss, ). (Entered: 04/12/2006)
04/11/2006
1 Certificate of Appeal of STANLEY J. CATERBONE from the order of

Bankruptcy Judge RICHARD E. FEHLING (No. 05-23059). (ss, )
(Entered: 04/12/2006)

Transaction Receipt
2 of 3
7/6/2006 2:29 PM
07/06/2006 14:28:25
PACER
Login:
am3189
Client Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
2:06-cv-01538-AB
Cost:
0.08
Billable Pages: 1
3 of 3
7/6/2006 2:29 PM
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia, t...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_(law)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from RICO (law))

The neutrality of this article or section may be compromised by "weasel words".
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO) is a United States
federal law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal
organization. RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No.
91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code,
18 U.S.C. 1961 through 18 U.S.C. 1968.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which
featured a notorious gangster named "Rico." The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, has refused to
confirm or deny this.[1]
Contents
1 Summary
2 RICO offenses and definitions
3 Where RICO laws might be applied
4 Famous cases
5 References
6 External links
Summary
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes27 federal crimes and 8 state crimeswithin
a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar
purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000
and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any
business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows
plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining
order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put
up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or
more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the
defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between
1 of 4
7/9/2006 5:31 AM
the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
State court. http://www.dealer-magazine.com/index.asp?article=481
RICO offenses and definitions

Racketeering activity means:
Any act or threat involving gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in
obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more
than one year;
Any act which is indictable under a wide variety of specific provisions of title 18 of the United States Code
relating to bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery,
racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, etc.
Any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on
payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds),
Any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this
title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment,
buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of
the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States,
Any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act,
Any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in
and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United
States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such
section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or
Any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);
Pattern of racketeering activity requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the
effective date of this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment)
after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity;
Where RICO laws might be applied

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of
the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed
against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or
intelligence agencies.
The RICO laws can be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals
or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged
abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against
whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers
and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and
retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.
These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of limitations has run out.
2 of 4
7/9/2006 5:31 AM
Famous cases
On November 21, 1980, Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Cosa Nostra boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.
In 1988, the owner of Florida Title Insurance, Inc. in Panama City, Florida sent copies of proposed qui.tam suit
against 32 defendants with 12 Counts of Racketeering to the Justice Department as required, just to get them
returned in a plain manila envelope with no cover letter regarding the RICO Act violations involving a competitor
company, the IRS, with the IRS Agent threatening the life of Plaintiff on behalf of defendants and others. IRS
Agent was found dead just days after being served by U.S. Marshals. Autopsy was conducted by Coroner later
convicted of Murder. Case went before numerous Federal Judges in Northern District of Florida, who denied all
motions including one for discovery conference, seizure of assets due to the defendant's failure to appear, 11th
Circuit on Appeal with 15 minute argument (first hearing) with most spent trying to get the Government to have an
independent autopsy of the IRS Agent and was denied access to Supreme Court due to minute error in spacing and
Clerical Abuse of Discretion in pro.ce case.
In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montral Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act
against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig
and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move. If found guilty,
Major League Baseball could have been found liable for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted
for two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was
eventually sent to arbitration and settled for an undisclosed sum, permitting the move to Washington to take place.
This happened notably after Loria, now owner of the Florida Marlins, had received a significant financial boost
after winning the World Series and Selig refused to permit the Expos to engage in September callups, effectively
ending their chances at making the playoffs.
RICO laws were cited in NOW v. Scheidler, a suit in which certain parties sought damages and an injunction
against anti-abortion activists who physically block access to abortion clinics.
In 2005, Tanya Andersen of Oregon responded to a lawsuit on behalf of Atlantic Records by in turn suing them
under the RICO laws. Her suit alleges that RIAA members, in this particular case Atlantic, engaged in illegal
computer trespass, extortion, and unfair trade practices under Oregon state law.
On April 26, 2006 the Supreme Court heard Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams, which concerned what sort of
corporations fell under the scope of RICO. Mohawk Industries had alledgely hired illegal alliens, in violation of
RICO. The court will decide whether or not Mohawk Industries, along with recruiting agencies, constitutes an
'enterprise' that can be prosecuted under RICO.
References
1. ^ RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) . Snopes.com: (21 December 2004).
Retrieved on 2006-03-26.
External links
RICO Act from Cornell University's U. S. Code database
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_96.html)
Detail of Tanya Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records
(http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa-victim-fights-back-sues.html)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act"
Categories: Articles with weasel words | United States federal legislation | Organized crime terminology | 1970 in
3 of 4
7/9/2006 5:31 AM
law
This page was last modified 15:49, 5 July 2006.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for
details.)
Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
4 of 4
7/9/2006 5:31 AM

v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, $''&EL
NO. 05-2288
ORDER
---AND NOW, this 5th day of January, ~ F O Gupon-,
-- -
consideration of the plaintiff's December 17, 2005 letter to the

Court requesting to amend the complaint and for a hearing, whereas
the complaint was filed and summons were issued to the pro se
plaintiff on May 16, 2005, and whereas the plaintiff has not served
the summons and complaint within 120 days after filing
- the
. ,... .
. ..
' . .
- ,
complaint, as required by ~ i l e4(m) of the ~ e h e r k~ U l kof Civil
procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve the

summons and complaint on or before January 25, 2006.
If the
plaintiff does not do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint
without prejudice. The Court will consider the plaintiff's request
to amend the complaint and for a hearing after the summons and
complaint are served.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to
file the complaint under seal (Docket No. 2 ) is DENIED.
A document
in a civil action may be filed under seal only if the action is

brought pursuant to a federal statute that prescribes the sealing
of the record, or where good cause is established.
+@i'
5.1.5 (a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure; Pansv
v. Borough
of Stroudsburq, 23 F.3d 772, 786 ( 3 d Cir. 1994). The party seeking

confidentiality may establish good cause by showing that disclosure
will work a "clearly defined and serious injury" to that party;
"broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
articulated reasoning," are insufficient. Id. Even when judged by
the less stringent standards by which courts judge p~
se
pleadings, the plaintiff has not brought suit under a statute that
requires t h e - s U g _ o f the-record, or +own
good cause for doing

- - -
so. The plaintiff alleges that several threats have been made on
his life, but does not provide any facts to support this
allegation, or explain how these alleged threats relate to his
complaint.
BY THE COURT:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 05-2288
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, ET AL.
MOTION
I hereby request a meeting, ex parte, with the Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin as per the
ORDER of January 6th, 2006. The PLAINTIFF requests the meeting to discuss the
problems of preceding this action without obstruction of justice; and to amend the original
complaint as discussed previously.
DATED:
May 30, 2006
__________________________
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
717-431-8184
717-421-1621 Facsimile
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
January 13, 2005

Stanley J. Caterbone (pro se)
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin
Room # 13614
601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1748
Phone: (215) 597-7704
Fax: (215) 597-6390 600
Re: Case No. 05-2288
Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin,
I have received your court order of January 5, and will proceed accordingly.
In addition, I would like to inform you of a recent complaint IFCC Complaint Referral
Report Complaint Number: I06010506177009.
Please see attached.
Respectfully,
Stanley J. Caterbone
Attachment:
IFCC Complaint No.
Cc:
file
Mr. Hugh Ward, Department of Justice, Office of Trustee
Honorable Judge Thomas M. Twardowski, United States Bankruptcy
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, $''&EL
NO. 05-2288
ORDER
---AND NOW, this 5th day of January, ~ F O Gupon-,
-- -
consideration of the plaintiff's December 17, 2005 letter to the

Court requesting to amend the complaint and for a hearing, whereas
the complaint was filed and summons were issued to the pro se
plaintiff on May 16, 2005, and whereas the plaintiff has not served
the summons and complaint within 120 days after filing
- the
. ,... .
. ..
' . .
- ,
complaint, as required by ~ i l e4(m) of the ~ e h e r k~ U l kof Civil
procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff shall serve the

summons and complaint on or before January 25, 2006.
If the
plaintiff does not do so, the Court will dismiss the complaint
without prejudice. The Court will consider the plaintiff's request
to amend the complaint and for a hearing after the summons and
complaint are served.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to
file the complaint under seal (Docket No. 2 ) is DENIED.
A document
in a civil action may be filed under seal only if the action is

brought pursuant to a federal statute that prescribes the sealing
of the record, or where good cause is established.
+@i'
5.1.5 (a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure; Pansv
v. Borough
of Stroudsburq, 23 F.3d 772, 786 ( 3 d Cir. 1994). The party seeking

confidentiality may establish good cause by showing that disclosure
will work a "clearly defined and serious injury" to that party;
"broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or
articulated reasoning," are insufficient. Id. Even when judged by
the less stringent standards by which courts judge p~
se
pleadings, the plaintiff has not brought suit under a statute that
requires t h e - s U g _ o f the-record, or +own
good cause for doing

- - -
so. The plaintiff alleges that several threats have been made on
his life, but does not provide any facts to support this
allegation, or explain how these alleged threats relate to his
complaint.
BY THE COURT:
IFCC COMPLAINT REFERRAL REPORT

Complaint Number: I06010506177009
The following information was provided by the victim and will be forwarded to the appropriate law
enforcement or regulatory agency.
International Fraud
Date of Complaint: 1/5/2006 6:17:08 AM
Victim Information
Business Name:
Name:
Stan Caterbone Caterbone
DOB:
07/15/1958
Gender:
M
Phone #:
717-799-5915
Email:
amgroup01@msn.com
Address:
220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
Live in city limits: No
County:
Lancaster
Country:
USA
Do you have pertinent documents in paper form? Yes
Please indicate who your local law enforcement agency is:
Southern Regional Police Department
Please List the easiest way and most convenient time to contact you:
cell phone, email, anytime
Information about the Business that victimized you.
Name:
Gender: U
Phone #:
Current Email:
Address:
Country: USA
Contact between you and the Person/company that victimized you.
Type of Contact: Web Page
Date of Contact: 01/30/2005
Total money lost on contact date: $2,200.00

Money lost in total: $0.00
Contact Information:
On January 30 I had planned to visit Los Cabos, Mexico, for a business
trip. I had used the Internet to locate the airport (PTO) for that
destination to locate and book the necessary travel accommodations. PVR
(Puerto Vallarta, Mexico) appeared on several Google searches as that
airport. I accordingly booked flight itinerary and tickets for that trip.
On January 31 I booked a flight from Houston Hobby airport to PVR
(Continental Flight 1768, Seat 10D). I had some knowledge of the PTO
system, having the national register for PTOs when I had my plane
operating, the Piper Navajo Chieftain, in 1987. I had logged several
flights, as far away as Atlanta, and booked it for charter to several clients.
PVR was not, in fact, the airport for that destination. I had consumed
an estimated $2,000 in expenses for that trip, and never was able to travel
to Los Cabos as planned. I was denied a car rental after landing in PVR
without any lodging accommodations. I had to spend 3 evenings in the PVR
airport because of no lodging accommodations. The only accommodation I
could find was at a price of $389.00 (Marriot Hotel) per night, well beyond
my budget.
I was not allowed fair access to certain return flights to Houston Hobby
airport, and was in a constant state of intimidation by the agents at PVR
that were under the employ of Continental Airlines. Continental Airlines
made no attempt to remedy any of these problems, or make any attempt to
accommodate my concerns or complaints.
Southwest Airlines conveniently lost my only piece of carryon luggage from
Philadelphia to Houston, on January 31 (Flight 1950/2646); which contained
my only seasonal clothing, as well as legal and business files of the
Advanced Media Group, and related computer hardware. I had to purchase
shorts, t-shirts, and sandals, because of that mishap. Southwest Airlines
made no real attempt to transport the lost baggage to PVR, where I needed
it, and tried to use acts of intimidation during my filing of that claim in
the Houston Hobby office of Southwest Airlines. (Southwest Airlines Lost
Baggage Claim Report number 1000777444).
I estimate that the lost monies for this mishap to be approximately $2,200.
The airfare alone was $1500. Car rental fees (Avis) were approximately
$170. Clothing and other related accessories were approximately $100.00.
Food expenses were approximately $200.
upon finally arriving back at the Philadelphia Airport, my battery had been
tampered with, and my final trip home was extended an additional 3 hours,
this was after the delay of another 4 hours by the Southwest flight from
Orlando to Philadelphia.
I had been randomly selected for private searches by the Homeland
Security agents upon every stop, and in Houston, Texas, was accused by an
inspection device (false positive reading) as carrying a plastic explosive
in my carry-on luggage, and was treated as such.
In addition, a portable storage device was also corrupted during this
process, via the Internet.
Spending New Years Eve in the PVR airport, cold with only rigid, hard,
and very uncomfortable seating, with no one that understood English, all
the while experiencing extreme back pain (currently under a physicians
care and treatment) ---- priceless.
Description of how you were defrauded:
On January 30 I had planned to visit Los Cabos, Mexico, for a business
trip. I had used the Internet to locate the airport (PTO) for that
destination to locate and book the necessary travel accommodations.
PVR (Puerto Vallarta, Mexico) appeared on several Google searches as
that airport. I accordingly booked flight itinerary and tickets for
that trip. On January 31 I booked a flight from Houston Hobby airport
to PVR (Continental Flight 1768, Seat 10D). I had some knowledge of
the PTO system, having the national register for PTOs when I had my
plane operating, the Piper Navajo Chieftain, in 1987. I had logged
several flights, as far away as Atlanta, and booked it for charter to
several clients.
PVR was not, in fact, the airport for that destination. I had
consumed an estimated $2,000 in expenses for that trip, and never was
able to travel to Los Cabos as planned. I was denied a car rental
after landing in PVR without any lodging accommodations. I had to
spend 3 evenings in the PVR airport because of no lodging
accommodations. The only accommodation I could find was at a price of
$389.00 (Marriot Hotel) per night, well beyond my budget.
I was not allowed fair access to certain return flights to Houston
Hobby airport, and was in a constant state of intimidation by the
agents at PVR that were under the employ of Continental Airlines.
Continental Airlines made no attempt to remedy any of these problems,
or make any attempt to accommodate my concerns or complaints.
Southwest Airlines conveniently lost my only piece of carryon luggage
from Philadelphia to Houston, on January 31 (Flight 1950/2646); which

contained my only seasonal clothing, as well as legal and business
files of the Advanced Media Group, and related computer hardware. I
had to purchase shorts, t-shirts, and sandals, because of that mishap.
Southwest Airlines made no real attempt to transport the lost baggage
to PVR, where I needed it, and tried to use acts of intimidation
during my filing of that claim in the Houston Hobby office of
Southwest Airlines. (Southwest Airlines Lost Baggage Claim Report
number 1000777444).
I estimate that the lost monies for this mishap to be approximately
$2,200. The airfare alone was $1500. Car rental fees (Avis) were
approximately $170. Clothing and other related accessories were
approximately $100.00. Food expenses were approximately $200.
upon finally arriving back at the Philadelphia Airport, my battery had
been tampered with, and my final trip home was extended an additional
3 hours, this was after the delay of another 4 hours by the Southwest
flight from Orlando to Philadelphia.
I had been randomly selected for private searches by the Homeland
Security agents upon every stop, and in Houston, Texas, was accused by
an inspection device (false positive reading) as carrying a plastic
explosive in my carry-on luggage, and was treated as such.
In addition, a portable storage device was also corrupted during this
process, via the Internet.
Spending New Years Eve in the PVR airport, cold with only rigid,
hard, and very uncomfortable seating, with no one that understood
English, all the while experiencing extreme back pain (currently under
a physicians care and treatment) ---- priceless.
USPS - Print Shipping Labels - Label Confirmation
1 of 1
https://sss-web.usps.com/cns/answerQuestion.do
Please print this page for your records or refer to your Shipping History for details. You will also receive a confirmation
email.
3 Domestic Labels successfully printed. Total (charged): $12.15
Refunds can be requested for unused labels up to 10 days after the print date. If you have any questions
contact us.
Printed Label Summary

Transaction #: 60062626
Credit Card: VISA 6125
Option Chosen : Postage

Print Date/Time : 1/13/06 5:40:07 PM CST
Standardized Package
Service Price
Delivery
Information Options
Address
Batch
(1 of 3)
HUGH J. WARD
U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE
833 CHESTNUT ST
STE 500
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107-4414
Weight: 0 lbs. 6 oz.

Shipping Date: 01/13/06
From: 17516
Priority Mail Flat Rate

Env:
$4.05
Delivery Confirm.:
No Charge
Label Total:
$4.05
Delivery Confirmation Label Number: 0103 8555 7496 6813 6070

Batch
(2 of 3)
MICHAEL E. KUNZ, CLE

UNITED STATES DISTRI
601 MARKET ST RM 260
U.S. COURTHOUSE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1732

From: 17516

Env:
$4.05
Delivery Confirm.:
No Charge
Label Total:
$4.05

Env:
$4.05
Delivery Confirm.:
No Charge
Label Total:
$4.05

Batch
(3 of 3)
JUDGE T. M. TWARDOWS
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COUR
400 WASHINGTON ST
READING, PA 19601-3915

From: 17516
Total (3 Domestic Labels): $12.15
Save time online - Order a Scale! Order Self-Adhesive Labels! Order Free Shipping Supplies!
See Frequently Asked Questions for additional information and customer support.
Thank you for choosing the United States Postal Service
1/13/2006 6:40 PM
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Query
1 of 1
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/framemenu.pl
Reports
Utilities
Logout
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
SUSPENSE

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:05-cv-02288-MAM
CATERBONE v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

Jury Demand: Defendant
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Plaintiff

220 STONE HILL ROAD
CONESTOGA, PA 17516
US
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON
represented by ROBERT W. HALLINGER

APPEL & YOST LLP
33 NORTH DUKE ST
LANCASTER, PA 17602
717-394-0521
Email: rhallinger@appelyost.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE
DEPT.
represented by CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL

HARTMAN UNDERHILL &
BRUBAKER LLP
221 E. CHESTNUT ST.
717-299-7254
Fax: 717-299-3160
Email: chrisu@hublaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
1 of 7
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPT.

Defendant
AVALON POLICE EPT.
represented by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III

SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE, SINGER
& MAHONEY
30 S. 17TH ST
STE 1700
215-972-8015
Email: pswayze@smsm.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PATRICIA BAXTER
SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER &
MAHONEY, LTD.
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
SUITE 1700
215-399-2007
Email: pbaxter@smsm.com
Defendant
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL
BANK
i.e. MELLON BANK
represented by GEORGE M. GOWEN, III

COZEN O'CONNOR
1900 MARKET STREET
215-665-2000
Fax: 215-665-2013
Email: ggowen@cozen.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
STUART A. WEISS
COZEN O'CONNOR
1900 MARKET STREET
215-665-2000
Email: sweiss@cozen.com
Defendant
2 of 7
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE

DEPT.
Defendant
LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPT.
Defendant
represented by STEPHANIE CARFLEY
COHEN LLC
126 EAST KING ST
TEL 717-299-5201
Email: scarfley@barley.com
FULTON BANK
Date Filed
3 of 7
Docket Text
06/30/2006
36 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF LANCASTER

COUNTY PRISON IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY JUDGE
MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN. 7/3/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED,
AND E-MAILED.(sc, ) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
06/30/2006
35 AFFIDAVIT of Howard Kelin by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.

06/30/2006
34 AFFIDAVIT of Vincent Guarini by LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.

06/30/2006
33 Memorandum in Support re 32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON. (HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:
06/30/2006)
06/30/2006
32 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by LANCASTER COUNTY

PRISON.Certificate of Service.(HALLINGER, ROBERT) (Entered:
06/30/2006)
06/19/2006
31 ORDER THAT TO THE THE EXTENT THAT PLAINTIFF

REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN HIS
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE
MEETING WITH THE COURT, THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MOTION TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SAID MOTION IS GRANTED.
SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/19/06. 6/19/06
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(le, ) (Entered:
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
06/19/2006)
4 of 7
06/14/2006
30 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for ex parte meeting

with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, filed by plff STANLEY J.
06/13/2006
29 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

OF MELLON BANK, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DET AND
FULTON BANK ARE GRANTED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN A
MEMORANDUM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S
COMPLAINT IS ALSO DISMISSED AS TO DEFTS SOUTHERN
REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, STONE HARBOR POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AVALON POLICE DEPT, LANCASTER COUNTY
PRISON AND LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF
TODAY'S DATE. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION
FOR AN EX PARTE MEETING WITH THE COURT IS DENIED AS
MOOT.. SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
6/13/06.6/14/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.
(lvj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
06/05/2006
28 RESPONSE to Motion re [26] MOTION for Ex Parte Meeting filed by

FULTON BANK, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE) Modified on 6/7/2006 (np).
(Entered: 06/05/2006)
06/02/2006
27 RESPONSE in Opposition re [26] MOTION FOR AN EX PARTE

MEETING WITH THE COURT filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP
POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered:
06/02/2006)
06/01/2006
26 MOTION FOR A MEETING TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEMS OF

PRCEDING THIS ACTION WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,
FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J. CATERBONE, CERTIFICATES OF
SERVICE..(gn, ) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
04/26/2006
25 NOTICE of Appearance by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III on behalf of

AVALON POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE (SWAYZE, WALTER) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/26/2006
24 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICIA BAXTER on behalf of AVALON

POLICE EPT. with JURY DEMAND & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(BAXTER, PATRICIA) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/12/2006
23 ORDER THAT THE CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN CIVIL SUSPENSE

UNTIL 5/11/06. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
4/11/06. ) 4/12/06 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND
E-MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
04/10/2006
22 NOTICE by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE for continuance. (gn, )

(Entered: 04/10/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
5 of 7
03/06/2006
21 Request for MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution Be Granted

filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT., Certificate of Service.
(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) Modified on 3/7/2006 (np). (Entered:
03/06/2006)
02/23/2006
20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL

BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of Law# 3 Certificate of
Service)(WEISS, STUART) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
02/09/2006
19 ORDER THAT MOTION OF DEFT MELLON BANK FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IS GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY
FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR MELLON'S
RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT IS EXTENDED BY 14 DAYS. .
SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 2/9/06.2/9/06
ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (lvj, ) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
18 BRIEF in Support re 17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK,

(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by FULTON BANK.Certificate of Service.

(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(CARFLEY, STEPHANIE)
(Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/09/2006
16 Praecipe to Enter Appearance by FULTON BANK; Jury Demand,

(np). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
02/08/2006
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK.Memorandum, Certificate of
Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum of
Law# 3 Certificate of Service)(GOWEN, GEORGE) (Entered:
02/08/2006)
02/06/2006
14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT. re 12 MOTION to Dismiss, 13 Memorandum of Law in Support
(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
13 Memorandum of Law in Support re 12 MOTION to Dismiss by

MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPT.. (UNDERHILL,
CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT..Brief, Affidavit, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
A# 2 Exhibit B)(UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 02/06/2006)
02/06/2006
11 Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE

DEPT., Certificate of Service. (UNDERHILL, CHRISTOPHER)
Modified on 2/7/2006 (np). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Avalon Police Dept. by certified mail (
no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Lancaster County Prison by certified
mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon
Bank, N.A.) by certified mail (no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered:
01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Stone Harbor Police Dept. by certified
mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

summons and complaint upon deft Manheim Township Police Dept. by
certified mail ( no green card attached) (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006

Summons and Complaint upon deft Lancaster County Sheriffs Dept by
certified mail ( no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/23/2006
4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STANLEY J. CATERBONE re

Summons and Complaint was served upon Fulton Bank by certified mail
(no green card attached). (gn, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
01/06/2006
3 ORDER THAT THE PLFF SHALL SERVE THE SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE 1/25/06. IF THE PLFF DOES NOT DO
SO, THE COURT WILL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE PLFF'S REQUEST
TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND FOR A HEARING AFTER THE
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVICED. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED THAT THE PLFF'S MOTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT
UNDER SEAL IS DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE MARY A.
MCLAUGHLIN ON 1/5/06.) 1/9/06 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
05/16/2005
2 MOTION TO SEAL THE COMPLAINT, FILED BY PLFF STANLEY J.

CATERBONE.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
05/16/2005
6 of 7
Summons Issued as to defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. Forwarded To: pro se on
5/16/05 (gn, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
7/6/2006 2:40 PM
05/16/2005
1 COMPLAINT against defts' FULTON BANK, LANCASTER COUNTY

LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT. ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt
number 916844.), filed by plff STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(gn, )
(Entered: 01/12/2006)

Transaction Receipt
07/06/2006 14:35:36
7 of 7
PACER
Login:
am3189
Client Code:
Description:
Docket
Report
Search
Criteria:
2:05-cv-02288-MAM
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.24
7/6/2006 2:40 PM

30
CIVIL ACTION
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, et al.
XTJD NOW, this 36fh
NO. 0 5 - 2 2 8 8
of Tune, 2 r 0 6 , upon consideration
of the motion to dismiss of Lancaster County Prison (Doc. No. 3 2 ) .

whereas the Court dismissed the complaint as to Lancaster County
Prison on June 12, 2 0 0 6 , and whereas the plaintiff has not filed an
amended complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED
as MOOT.
BY THE COURT:
MARY -A. MCLAUGHLIN,
J?

\LED
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, et a1 . . h i d 2 c!-/i
T h , c A ~ ? . 5 ~ ! ~9Je.,
. ~',2iI<
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 05-2288
I>ii '
cy/-
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The pro se plaintiff has made numerous allegations
against numerous defendants in his eighty-seven page complaint
The Court will dismiss the complaint as to moving defendants Mellon
Bank (named as "Commonwealth National Bank"), Manheim Township
Police Department, and Fulton Bank for failure to state a claim.
The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to non-moving
defendants Southern Regional Police Department, Stone Harbor Police
Department, AValOn Police Department, Lancaster County Prison and
Lancaster County Sheriff's Department for failure to serve the
complaint and summons.
I.
Failure to State a Claim

Each of the moving defendants has moved to dismiss on
the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state a timely claim.'
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit peh&K
ER
The pro se plaintiff has not opposed any @L&RB,-J~c

motions to dismiss. By letter to the Court dated March 2, 2006,
request filed March 6, 2006, and letter to the Court dated April 4,
2006, Fulton Bank, Manheim Township, and Mellon Bank respectively
requested that their motions be granted as uncontested, pursuant to
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.l(c). The United States Court of
Appeals for the ~ h i r dCircuit has indicated, however, that courts
should not grant motions to dismiss against unrepresented parties
without undertaking a merits analysis: stackhouse v. ~azu;kiewicz,
951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991).
1
defendants to raise a statute of limitations defense in a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6) if the time-bar is apparent on the face
of the complaint. Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3d Cir.
2002).
The plaintiff's eighty-seven page complaint contains

many allegations regarding numerous persons and entities. The
plaintiff's sole allegation against Mellon Bank/Commonwealth
National Bank, however, is that it wrongfully repossessed the
plaintiff's airplane in July 1987.'
According to the complaint,
the Bank loaned the plaintiff $97,000 towards the purchase of an

airplane in June 1987. The following month, before any payments
were due, the Bank allegedly repossessed the plane, with all of the
plaintiff's personal and business files on board.
The plaintiff
claims that the Bank sought to harm the plaintiff's business to

reduce its competition in the mortgage banking and financial
services businesses, in violation of the 'lender liability laws."
(compl. 25, 31, 34, 37, 83, 3.)
The plaintiff named "Commonwealth National Bank

(i.e. Mellon Bank)" as the defendant, but apparently attempted to
effect service by sending a copy of the complaint to "Legal
Counsel, Mellon Bank, N.A." (Doc. No. 8). According to Mellon
Bank, Mellon formerly owned Commonwealth National. For the
purposes of its current motion, Mellon accepted the plaintiff's
attribution of Commonwealth National's actions to Mellon.
(Mellon's Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 1 n.1.)
I
The Court assumes that the plaintiff intended to name

Mellon Bank as a defendant for the actions of Commonwealth National
Bank, and will consider and grant Mellon Bank's motion to dismiss
as described. If the plaintiff intended to sue only Commonwealth
National Bank, however, the complaint would be dismissed as to
Commonwealth National Bank for failure to effect service.
The plaintiff has not explicitly asserted any causes of

action against the Bank.
Construing the allegations in the
complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, however,

the plaintiff has arguably asserted claims against the Bank for
conversion, replevin, trespass, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
and/or breach of contract arising out of the alleged reposse~sion

Plaintiffs bringing any of these claims must do so
within two or four years. See 42 Pa. C.S. 5 5524(3) and
(7)
(imposing two year statute of limitations on any "action for

taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including actions
for specific recovery thereof,'' and "[alny other action or
proceeding to recover damages for injury to person or property
which is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortious
conduct or any other action or proceeding sounding in trespass,
including deceit or fraud"); Glaziers
&
Glassworkers Union Local
No. 252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridqe SeC., 93 F.3d 1171, 1186 (3d Cir.
1996) (a breach of fiduciary duty is tortious conduct, subject to a
two year statute of limitations); 42 Pa.C.S.
5525(a) (imposing
four year statute of limitations on actions based on written,

express, or implied contracts). The plaintiff initiated this
lawsuit in May 2005, over seventeen years after the alleged
repossession.
It is clear from the face of the complaint that the
plaintiff's claims against the Bank are time-barred.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b) (61, a court accepts all facts and allegations listed
in the complaint as true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492
U.S. 229, 249 (1989); Rocks v. City of ~hiladel~hia,
868 F.2d 644,
645 (3d Cir. 1989) .
I
With respect to the Manheim Township Police Department,

the plaintiff has alleged that: (11 when the plaintiff asked for
help regarding the repossession of his airplane in July 1987, the
Department's response was to ask "what bank branch repossessed your

aircraft"; (2) on or around September 3, 1987, Detective Larry
Sigler falsely charged the plaintiff with making terroristic
threats; (3) on the same day, after the plaintiff was arrested for
taking his own files from his own office, Detective Larry Mathias
refused to take his statement or inform him of the charges against
him, and unnamed officers used excessive force against him; and (4)
in January 1991, a Lt. Madenspacher called the plaintiff regarding
his letter to the Department of Defense about alleged blackmail
occurring in 1987, but failed to attend a scheduled meeting.
(Compl. at 5-6, 33, 39-40, 59.)
Again construing the allegations in the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, he has arguably asserted:
(1) assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious
prosecution and/or malicious abuse of process claims arising out of

the charges and arrest in September 1987; and (2) civil rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. 5 1983, arising out of the Department's
actions or inactions in July and September 1987, and January 1991.
The plaintiff's claims against the Manheim Township
Police Department are also time-barred. Plaintiffs must bring any
claims for intentional torts such as assault, battery, false
imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and/or malicious
abuse of process within two years.
42 Pa. C.S.
5524(1).
Plaintiffs must also bring any 5 1983 civil rights claims within
two years.
Garvin v. Citv of Philadel~hia,354 F.3d 215, 220 (3d
Cir. 2003) ( 1 1983 claims are subject to Pennsylvania's two statute

of limitations governing personal injury actions). The plaintiff
initiated this lawsuit more than fourteen years after his last
alleged interaction with the Manheim Township Police Department.'
Finally, the plaintiff has alleged that Fulton Bank: (1)

was involved in some sort of collusion in 1987;
(2)
embezzled
$5,000 from his checking account in 1990, did not credit the
account for more than 60 days, and never credited the lost interest
income; and ( 3 ) refused to allow the plaintiff's brother, Thomas
Caterbone, to deposit a check in 1996, on the grounds that no funds
were available, and was therefore responsible for his
suicide/wrongful death later that year.
The plaintiff has also
alleged that, in February 2005: ( a ) he had difficulty accessing

certain account statements and was told that he had to pay for
copies of those statements; and (b) a bank customer representative
informed him that when a customer wants to deposit a check for
which no funds are available, the bank must give the customer a
choice between depositing the check or waiting until there are
funds. Finally, the plaintiff has included in his complaint what
appears to be a May 6, 2005 article from the Intelligencer Journal
that names Fulton Bank as a limited partner in Penn Square
Partners, an alleged stakeholder in a proposed Lancaster County
Convention Center.
(Compl. at 6 ( a ) , 55-56, 80-81, 86.)
The complaint states that the plaintiff "rescinded

efforts for due process immediately after loosing [sic] his home
and business," but it also states that the plaintiff "began to
review his case" again in October 1990. (Compl. at 5 6 . )
4
The plaintiff has arguably asserted claims against
Fulton Bank for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and/or unjust
enrichment, for its actions toward the plaintiff in 1990; and (2)
fraud or wrongful death, for its actions toward the plaintiff's
brother in 1996. These claims are time barred as well. As
explained above, there is a two-year statute of limitations on
actions for breach of fiduciary duty or fraud. 42 Pa. C.S. $3
5524(3) and (7). There is a four-year statute of limitations on
unjust enrichment, which is a quasi-contractual claim. 42 Pa. C.S.
5525(4).
Finally, there is a two-year statue of limitations on
actions for wrongful death.
42 Pa. C.S. S 5524(2).
The plaintiff's reference to "collusion in 1987" on the

part of Fulton Bank is too vague to state a claim for anything,
even under the liberal notice pleading standards. Likewise, the
plaintiff's allegations regarding his ability to access certain
account statements in February 2005 does not state any recognizable
claim. The plaintiff does not allege that it was illegal for
Fulton Bank to charge to copies of account statements, or
fraudulent for Fulton Bank to say that it charged. The plaintiff
states only that he found the charge "disheartening," in light of
the non-profit status of the account holder.
(Compl. at 81.)
Similarly, the plaintiff's allegations regarding Fulton Bank's

policy on depositing checks with insufficient funds, and its status
as a limited partner in Penn Square Partners, do not state any
claim of wrongdoing against Fulton Bank.
Failure to Serve the Comolaint
11.
The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to the non

moving defendants because the plaintiff has failed to properly
serve the complaint and summons, and has therefore failed to compl)
with the Court's January
5,
2006 Order.
The plaintiff bears the
burden of showing that service was valid.
Grand Entertainment
Grouw, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir.
1993).
The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that he
attempted to serve the Southern Regional Police Department.
For each of the other defendants, the plaintiff filed a
"Certificate of Service," certifying that the plaintiff mailed "the

foregoing pleadingn to certain a named or unnamed individual(s)
associated with the defendant, via certified mail.
The plaintiff's
attempts at service were improper as to the Lancaster County

(Pennsylvania) Prison and Sheriff's Department, and the Stone
Harbor and Avalon (New Jersey) Police department^.^
Each of these
defendants is an arm of a governmental organization.

Rule 4(j) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides :
Service upon a state, municipal corporation or other
governmental organization subject to suit shall be
effected by deliverinq a copy of the summons and of the
complaint to its chief executive officer or by serving
the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed bv
Mellon Bank, Manheim Township Police Department,

and Fulton Bank also moved to dismiss for improper service.
Because the Court is dismissing the complaint as against them for
failure to state a claim, the Court need not decide the sufficiency
of service as to these defendants.
5
the law of that state for the service of summons or

other like process upon any such defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (j) (2)(emphasis added) .
Rule 422(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure

provides :
Service of original process upon a political subdivision

shall be made by handins a cowv to
(1) an agent duly authorized by the political
subdivision to receive service of process, or
(2) the person in charge at the office of the
defendant,
(3) the mayor, or the president, chairman, secretary or
clerk of the tax levying body thereof . . . .
Pa. R. Civ. 0. 422(b) (emphasis added)
Here, the plaintiff attempted to serve the Lancaster
County Prison and Sheriff's Department by mailing a copy of the
complaint to Howard L. Kelin at Kegel, Kelin, Almy
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.'
&
Grimm, LLP in
The plaintiff's attempt at service was
improper under the federal and Pennsylvania rules of civil

procedure because a copy of the complaint and summons were not
personally served upon an appropriate person.
The New Jersey Court Rules also provide that the primary
method of obtaining in personam jurisdiction over a 'public bodyu
defendant is to personally serve a copy of the summons and
complaint on the public body's presiding officer, clerk or
secretary, or on a person authorized by appointment or by law to
receive service of process on the public body's behalf. N.J. Court
By letter dated February 2, 2006 (on which the

plaintiff was cc'd), Mr. Kelin informed the Court that he had been
appointed Interim Special Counsel to Lancaster County, but was not
an agent duly authorized to receive service of process.
6
R. 4 :4-4(a)(1) and (8).
New Jersey permits plaintiffs to make
service by mail, but provides that service by mail is only

effective if the defendant answers the complaint or otherwise
appears in response thereto.
If defendant does not answer or
appear within 60 days following mailed service, the plaintiff must

make personal service. N.J. Court R. 4:4-4(c).
The plaintiff attempted to serve the Stone Harbor Police
Department by mailing the complaint to Michael Donahue, an attorney
at law in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, on January 17, 2006.
The
plaintiff also attempted to serve the Avalon Police Department by

mailing the complaint to Stephen Basse, an attorney at law in
Vineland, New Jersey, on that date.
The plaintiff's attempts to
make service by mail were ineffective under federal or New Jersey

law because neither the Stone Harbor or Avalon Police Departments
have answered or otherwise responded to the complaint in well over
60
days.
Moreover, the plaintiff has not shown that Mr. Donahue or
Mr. Basse are the appropriate persons to receive service for these
public bodies.
-*"
r.v..,
consdderation of the plaintitrr8 Sot%ca for C O ~ C ~ (DOC.

Q ~ .
2 2 ) . IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the c
supense until ~ a y ' a l ,2006.

\t. '
"
>
7
1.
-.,+
-.,
.'.,
\ >
"
8-
'
BY THE COURT:

CIVIL ACTION
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON.
NO. 05-2288
FilEP JUN 19 20M
ORDER
. .
~..-
.. .
. ~~.
.
-~
.~~
--
AND NOW, this 19th day of June, 2006, upon
consideration of the plaintiff's reply brief in support of his

motion for an ex parte meeting with the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that, to the extent that the plaintiff is requesting
leave to file an amended complaint: 1) the request shall be

deemed a motion to file an amended complaint; and 2 ) the motion
is GRANTED.
Although the Court dismissed many of the claims in
the original complaint as time-barred, and the plaintiff has not

attached a proposed amended complaint to demonstrate that he will
be able to cure the deficiencies in the original complaint, the
plaintiff is entitled to amend his pleadings once as a matter of
course before a responsive pleading is served.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000). NO
responsive pleading has yet been filed in this case.
BY TEE COURT:
JUN 1 9 2006
CLERK OF C O U H ~

220 Stone Hill Road
Conestoga, PA 17516
May 26, 2006
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin
Room # 13614
601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1748
Fax: (215) 597-6390 600
Re:
Civil Action No. 05-2288
Honorable Judge Mary A. McLaughlin:
Attached is evidence of a widespread effort to obstruct justice and deny me fair access and due process concerning my current
pending litigation before your court and other matters before other courts. I filed a Forma Pauperis in The Court of Common
Pleas of Lancaster County relating to obstruction of justice. The Judge denied my request, without a reason, contrary to rule
240, and the courts have left me without any access to the courts because I do not have any funds available to file an appeal.
I am having difficulty conducting my affairs and am seeking the courts to protect my constitutional rights relating to these
matters.
I am unsure of the formal and technical manner to file such a motion and request. Please advise.
Respectfully,
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se

Cc:
Honorable Judge Thomas M. Twardowski,

United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
400 Washington Street
Reading, PA 19601
Re:
Case No. 05-23059
The Honorable Anita Brody
US District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
600 Market Street
Room 7613
Fax 1-215-580-2356
Re:
Case No. CA 06-1538
infor@amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
717.731.8184 Phone
717.427-1621 Fax

AMG Do I Have A Rico Claim Jul 9 2006

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AMG Do I Have A Rico Claim Jul 9 2006

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.

DO I HAVE A RICO CLAIM?

referred to as open-ended patterns. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a

?? Your claim may be barred by the statute of limitations if you discovered or

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO FULTON BANKS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS

FULTON BANK RESPONSE

AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DALZELL

These issues and incidents identified herein have attempted to conceal my

considerations would exceed $1 million.

The activities of International Signal & Control,

Such disclosures threatened the integrity of

Defendants responsible for administering

Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less

Those complaints identified as; I05120608348825 ;

Additionally complaints were filed with the

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Stanley J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group respectfully requests

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON,

Stuart A. Weiss, Esquire

George T. Brubaker, Esquire

Sfephanie Carfley, Esquire

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

F i n a c i a l Management Group, LTD.

Ckce Smith, Execxltive Vice President

Farrcers F1-t Bank

Pete Richter, Pkrmger of La-ter

Shcpping Center Branch

Chris Izzo, Loan Officer

Avalon Police DeparWnt

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...

A/R, CLOSED, STANDARD

United States District Court

IN RE: STANLEY L. CATERBONE

Date Filed: 07/15/2005

represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

represented by STANLEY CATERBONE

represented by UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...

Original Bankruptcy Record returned to the Bankruptcy Court for the

6 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REINSTATED IN THE U.S.

5 RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, WHY IN LIGHT

3 BRIEF TO ORDER TO DISMISS ON 6/13/05 by STANLEY

2 Briefing Schedule 7/18/05 Entered and copies mailed. (tj, ) (Entered:

1 Certificate of Appeal of STANLEY CATERBONE from the order of

PACER Service Center

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...

United States District Court

CATERBONE v. LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON et al

Date Filed: 05/01/2005

represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

represented by ROBERT W. HALLINGER

represented by CHRISTOPHER S. UNDERHILL

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...

STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPT.

represented by WALTER H. SWAYZE, III

represented by GEORGE M. GOWEN, III

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania - Dock...

SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE