Sei sulla pagina 1di 13
‘THE LANCASETER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL DIVISION In Re: STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, PETITIONERS vw Case No. 15-06985 RESIDENTS of the County of Lancaster Pennsylvania DEFENDANTS = a Q 8 3 5 8 8 > PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT TITLED "M eS eo = f TO THE PROTHONOTARY: a, sg moa So Kindly record the attached exhibit for the above captioned case. Pro Se Litigant, U.S. District Court & Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court Scaterbone@Live.com 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA. 17603 717-669-2163 EXHIBIT “MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT” Hn) we mronrampegnen wayne, _sternaa, 55 bile mom sera CI woo] oO _— meteor 7 0/6/ e "mame C] er naienmnst SET a Oa > 4 nee Ee sentomiamnnaennemonerseeinat O YFH-LLS SIO™ sung emputisAomon pus fous e0ds | 9 myaamecoare a Ores seme Fh = “eal AP e Semen, teens EOL) * F eee ee Sees ao a nares st] Tansee eS 5 | =A ——___ greg Wray 7 [EEuameaes 67 maa ao || EO w 7 am EL SIS — ST a ene aan ag oo20%° sees o90T Evo ool ee tty XPOS ! il ia 2 23.54 23.54 254 23.54 Total Due: Or call 1.800.GoFedEx 0.15 Ib (8) Scheduled Delivery Date 09/03/2015 (V) Creditcard: sserseeesners0014 8 Shipment subtotal: = Weta entered namely $ = Weight reed fron scale Visit us at: fedex.com T= Toxable iter 1.800.463.3399 September 2, 2018 10:37:46 AM Employee: Transact ion: 608310605835 Location Device 10: st feder.con for dataits, AIT nerchencise seles Fine). Subject to afitfonal charges, See Faux Service Guid PRIORITY OVERATGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLNAIA LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT, Petitioner v Civ. No. 5:14-cv-02559-PD LYNN BISSONETTE, SUPERINTENDENT, MCI-FRAMINGHAM, and CRAIG STEDMAN, THE DISTRICT ATTOR- NEY OF LANCASTER, A COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA f and 7 KATHLEEN KANE, THE ATTORNEY GEN- A ERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, 7 Respondents : MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT: AND NOW comes before the sald court Stanley J. Caterbone, appearing Pro Se, and Advanced Media Group, as Movant, to file the following Motion for Summary Judgement according to rule 56 which reads: ‘ “Rule 56. Summary Judgment (a) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. (b) TIME TO FILE A MOTION. Unless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the dose of all discov- ery. MOTION FOR SUMM, NT Given the preponderance of evidence associated with the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, the courts must conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylva~ nia, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall’s findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case Identifying acts of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster. Criminal law may determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible crim- inal enterprise. The MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS Is of material interest to the Habeus Corpus filed by Lisa Michelle Lambert in May of 2014, for the very fact that this MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights. In the truthfulness of MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, The Commonwealth must concede and immediately release Lisa Michelle Lambert from incarceration in order to balance the scales of jus- tice, which no other act could accomplish. The Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it’s own admis- sion of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of it’s commitment to administer equalities of justice, not in- equalities of justice, balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of jurisdic~ tion out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution of the United States. In addition the MOVANT must be restored to whole by administering SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS in cases 05-2288; 06-4650; and all other cases filed by the MOVANT in this court. SUMMARY JUDGE- MENTS must also be administered in Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas, and other cases filed by the MOVANT in that said court. AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DALZELL “I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit con- cerning 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 de- tail 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 digi- tal 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 considera~ tions 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 & Con- trol., Plc.. I will also prove intentional undo Influence against family and friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and self serving accusations of “insanity”. I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most certainly, the process must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to the condusions. Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our Constitution.”1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the scope of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the United States. The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of International Signal & Control, including the illegaf transfer of arms and tech- nologies to an end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by virtue that “sald 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 plaintiff's actions should have taken the American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the International Signal & Control, Ple., 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 to- wards the Plaintiff's intent and motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens, Had the plaintiff been protected under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United States troops may have 3 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 miscon- duct 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, Ple was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger with Ferranti International, of England. Such disclo- sures threatened the integrity of International Signal & Control's organization, and Mr. James Guerin himself, consequently resulting In adverse financial considerations to all parties if such disclosures pro- vided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the central criminal activity in the’in The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania. 3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse consequences and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings. The dire consequences of the plaintiff's failed business dealings will demonstrate and substantiate financial incentive and motive. De~ fendants responsible for administering undo influence and interference in the plaintiff's business and ‘commercial enterprises had financial interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a taxing author- ,, Lancaster County had a great investment who's demise would facilitate grave consequences to it’s, economic development. . Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would have less competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the lender liability laws. The Stein- man Enterprise's, Inc., would loose a pioneer in the information technologies industries, and would protect the public domain from truthful disclosure. The plaintiff will also provide significant evidence of said perpetrators violating common laws governing intellectual property rights. 4. Given the plaintiff's continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the law with the opportu- nity 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 limita~ tions. Given the plaintiff's genuine efforts for due process has been inherently and maliciously ob- structed, the courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial actions deserving to the plaintiff. 5. Under current laws, the plaintiff's intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of dis- crediting the plaintiff's disdosures and obstructing the plaintiff's right to due process of the law. The plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to enter into contract. The logic and reason towards the plaintiff's activities and actions are a matter of record, demonstrated in the “Findings of Facts", contained herein.. The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that the inherent emotional consequences to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post Traumatic Stress Dalzall’s findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts of prosecutorial Miscon- duct, 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 peo- ples deserving rights.. In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no other act could accomplish. Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the in- tegrity to the courts; by it’s own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of it’s commitment to administer equalities of justice, not inequalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democ- racy and impugning the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole.” ‘Syndrome. The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be the direct result of the activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper interpretations of all laws, irrespective of the plaintiffs alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff successfully argue that his “mental capacity” is of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in it’s malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff 6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of illegal prosecutions were pur- posefully directed at intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the activities of Inter- national Signal & Control, Pic., consequently obstructing the plaintiff's access to due process of the law. Due to the fact that these activities to which the plaintiff's perpetrators were protecting were illegal ac- tivities, 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 Dates September 2, 2015 fey 3. Catgrbone, Pro Se, Movant 1250 Fremon€ Street Lancaster, PA. 17603 717-669-2163 January 22, 1991 Mayor Janice Stork Lancaster Court House Lancaster, PA 17603 Dear Janice: 1 am asking you to please advuse your constituents to leave me alone. I have never done anything to anyone, let alone anything criminal. I am tired of being in fear for my life, all because I have been victim to a "herd of white collar crooks". T have finally after three years reached my threshold of pain, suffering and humiliation, all while building successful businesses for others to terrorize. You may be familiar with the circumstances surrounding my childhood, Jack was my families attorney, my childhood was difficult enough. T have always conducted my personal and business affairs with honesty and integrety, and most importantly I have always and will always lend a helping hand to those in need. T have done nothing to deserve what this town has done to me, especially the circumstances of 1987. Tam only human, and I am tired of leaving in fear. ‘And remember, as far as ISC is concerned, I was merely protecting my investment as a shareholder. n J. Caterbofe, Director January 22, 1991 Governor Robert Casey Capito! Building Harrisburg, PA Dear Bobby: CLEAN UP YOUR DIRTY HOUSE, BEFORE I DO IT FOR YOU! AND IT WILL COST YOU DEARLY!!! 1'm tired of being in fear for my life! 1e, Director Enclosure Tape Track 1 - 09/29/87 \Howard Eissler, Pennsylvania Securities Cominision Recorded with permission ‘Track 2 - 11/2?/87\Detctive Bodan, Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office Recorded in self defense January 10, 1991 Lt. Madenspacher MANHIEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 1825 Municipal Drive | Lancaster, PA 17601 Dear Lt. Madenspacher: ‘As per our conversation of January 9, 1991, I welcome you to visit with me on ‘Thursday, the 17th, at 3:00pm, at our facility. Assuming your interests in "digital technologies" are sincere, 1 have enclosed some information that will give you some insight into my work, and the technologies at large. 1 will assume that our conversations contain a peaceful format, and that I will discuss any issues that you so desire, with only one exception. "I will not be at liberty to discuss any pending or forthcoming legal action on my behalf. ur agenda will include a tour of our facility to demonstrate to you how we manufacture both CD-Audio and CD-ROM discs. I will also be prepared to demonstrate some of the capabilities of "digital technologies" and some of the applications currently in use today. Maybe someday, the Manhiem Township Police Department, will be one of my lients! ‘As we both know, anything Is possible. If the above meeting date is in conflict with your schedule, please call. T look forward to our meeting.

Potrebbero piacerti anche