|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 |
|
| |
 | |
|
|
 | ||||
|
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member of the media. How long can Lancaster County Hide Me and Cover Me Up?
166 Days To The Lancaster County Convention Center PRESS RELEASE OF OCTOBER 4, 2008 CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP WIN IN THE U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN OPINION (Third Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry and Nygaard) OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2008: In The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison/Fulton Bank , et. al., (U.S. District Court Case No. 05-2288 and Third Circuit Case No. 07-4474) and also in CATERBONE/ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP v. Mr. Randall O. Wenger, et. al., (U.S. District Court Case No. 06-4650 and Third Circuit Case No. 04-4475); The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals VACATED the lower courts DISMISSAL of both cases for not filing an Amended Complaint on Time ; and both cases are now remanded back to the U.S. District Court for further proceedings under Judge Mary A. McLaughlin.
MAJOR NEWS - KARL ROVE HAS HIS FINGERRINTS AND MARKING ALL OVER MY SITUATION! October 2, 2008 I urge you to go out and rent or buy this DVD , unless you already did. This is the MO that I needed. He was here in Lancaster two (2) years ago campaigning for Rick Santorum ( I have to check the dates), who lost to Robert Casey, Jr. for the U.S. Senate Seat. He made sure he drove by me so that I would see him!
I will update this new information at a later time. About the Book
Step inside Bush's Brain with this enlightening book by James C. Moore and Wayne Slater
Many Washington insiders believe that the strength of the Bush machine lies not in its leader but in Karl Rove, the man who picked Bush to run for Governor of Texas, tutored him on the workings of government, and ran brilliant yet brutal campaigns that would eventually sweep Bush into the Presidency. In Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential, readers will enter the powerful world of White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove and learn how this man created George W. Bush and continues to keep him on top. Political journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater offer a rare glimpse into the man who has become the single most important advisor to George W. Bush and the person who many think is calling the shots at the White House. They also discuss how Rove's strategic decisions seem to be determining U.S. policy for the Bush administration, including the controversial tactic of running on a war with Iraq. This intriguing book also features previously unreported information on the Bush campaign from the primaries and the conventions to the fall general election and the complex relationship Rove and Bush currently share. Karl Rove is both feared and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike. His take no prisoners approach to politics has received mixed reviews and left everyone wondering who's really running this country? In Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential readers will learn who the real Karl Rove is and just how much power he really has.
WACHOVIA AND FULTON BANK CASHIER'S CHECK SCAM OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2008 Fulton Bank and Wachovia Bank tried to confiscate and abscond my Fulton Bank $17,306.80 Cashier's Check made payable to myself, Stan J. Caterbone and guaranteed, on Thursday and Friday September 11th and 12th, 2008; through a conspiracy of theft by deception and fraud. On Thursday, Fulton Bank at the Penn Square Headquarters refused to open a checking account to accept the $17,306.80 Cashier's Check guarunteed by Fulton Bank themselves, dated September 22, 2007 (See the letter below). By refusing to open the checking account, I had to go to Wachovia Bank, where I had a checking account in good standing for the past year, to deposit the Cashier's Check. The next day, Friday, I recorded my meeting with the Wachovia Branch Manager regarding the transaction. Wachovia Bank was setting up a discretionary policy of both banks to not honor the guarunteed Fulton Bank Cashier's Check. The end result would have been that they would have confiscated the actual Fulton Bank Cashier's Check, never credited my account, and charged me overdraft fees for any transactions that I placed on my Wachovia Check Card from the date of deposit. I would have lost posession of the actual Fulton Bank Cashier's check or $17,306.80; I would have been charged overdraft fees; and they would have closed my checking account due to non-sufficient funds. Ultimately I would have not been able to pay for my monthly hosting fee for this website (can only pay with a credit card or debit card) and this website would have been taken off-line. I would have gone back to Wachovia Bank and Fulton Bank and argued about who stole my $17,306.80 and one or both of them would have called 911; then since they are both in the City of Lancaster, the Lancaster City Police would have responded with a Crisis Intervention Mental Health Officer and attempted to cite me with disorderly conduct and get a Section 302 Commitment Order signed by the Lancaster County Administrator. Trust me, this was already in the works.
******************************************************************************************************** Wachovia Bank Branch Manager's Office Corner of September 12, 2008 Approximately 10:40 am Recording approximately 12 minutes in length [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager - Black Male] We have ah next-day availability which means by Saturday morning. [Stan J. Caterbone] Even though it is Fulton Bank, I can’t have immediate availability? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Depends on how much you need back? [Stan J. Caterbone] Till tomorrow? I think like $10.00 dollars. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] ….. Let me look at your account for a minute. [Stan J. Caterbone] I am eventually going to get another Cashier's Check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] We can put it on a next day ticket for availability if you want to cash this check, but it is going to take a little bit of time. You have a few overdrafts. [Stan J. Caterbone] That last overdraft was a bit confusing. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Are you talking about for this check, we’re talking about ... you’re looking at mayber 2 to 3 business days. [Stan J. Caterbone] For What? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Figuring in the overdrafts. [Stan J. Caterbone] What do you mean, I don’t understand. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Any check for the day of deposit takes usually 2 to 3 business days. [Stan J. Caterbone] A Cashier's Check? It’s a Cashier's Check! [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is going to have to pass through [Stan J. Caterbone] It’s a Cashiers Check! Well It’s a Cashiers Check! [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Well it is still … [Stan J. Caterbone] I don’t have an account there, I never had an account there. (Regarding Cashier's Check) [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You never had an account there? [Stan J. Caterbone] It’s the proceeds from a real estate sale. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] O.K. so were talking about 2 to 3 business days. [Stan J. Caterbone] What is a Cashier's Check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] A Cashier's Check is just a … it used to mean it was like cash. no more it’s like that. [Stan J. Caterbone] Well it’s still like cash because there is no account. I have no account. It is not drawn on an account. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is drawn on an account. It’s drawn on the house account. You got a house sale right? So it is drawn on that account. It is drawn on that house. [Stan J. Caterbone] No, it is not. No because I traded, I swapped Cashier's Checks. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] So you swapped Cashier's Checks? [Stan J. Caterbone] Yea. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is still going to take 2 to 3 days. [Stan J. Caterbone] But there is no account. I never had an account there. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] So what was the Cashier's Check from? [Stan J. Caterbone] Fulton Bank. Does it matter? Does it matter? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Hum. [Stan J. Caterbone] Does it matter? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Oh it doesn’t matter cause. [Stan J. Caterbone] O.K. what is a Cashier's Check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is still going to take 2 to 3 days. [Stan J. Caterbone] I know but I’m trying to determine I’m trying to ask you what a Cashier's Check is. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] A Cashier's Check is Basically a check, basically a check. [Stan J. Caterbone] It is a guaranteed check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is only guaranteed if you are going to get it, so we have to hold it for 2 or 3 days. That is if Wachovia does get it. [Stan J. Caterbone] What do you mean if Wachovia gets it. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] That’s if we are going to get it. [Stan J. Caterbone] What would make you not get it? The only thing that could make you not get it is if ... [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They (Fulton Bank) may not honor it. [Stan J. Caterbone] They (Fulton Bank) have to honor it. It’s a Cashier's Check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They (Fulton Bank) don’t have to honor it. They (Fulton Bank) don’t have to honor that check. I have seen that happen before. [Stan J. Caterbone] Why, how can they (Fulton Bank) steal a Cashier’s Check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It is not really stealing a Cashiers Check. Let’s say something was wrong or you know they didn’t want to honor the check or then it has to come back down to us, and then we can’t take it. [Stan J. Caterbone] They (Fulton Bank) can’t do that on a Cashier's Check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They (Fulton Bank) can do it. 3:35 [Stan J. Caterbone] How can they (Fulton Bank) do it? How can they (Fulton Bank) do that? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It’s up to the bank’s rules. Certain banks have certain policies. [Stan J. Caterbone] For what? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] If I were to make up the policies. [Stan J. Caterbone] How do you buy a Cashier’s Check? You have to have guaranteed funds to buy a Cashier’s Check. The funds are already guaranteed. You can’t revert it back to an unguaranteed … to an unsecured document. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It’s like when someone comes in here with a Cashier’s Check from Ohio, they don’t have to guarantee it. They could not honor it. [Stan J. Caterbone] Well sure the bank could be closed (shut down). [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] So, that’s why we have to have a 2-3 day hold. [Stan J. Caterbone] You mean I can’t buy another Cashier’s Check from you? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Now you could once the money is available. Once the funds are available you could buy a Cashier’s Check. That’s what you could do. [Stan J. Caterbone] Where did you get this definition of a Cashier’s Check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] A Cashier’s Check isn’t always guarunteed. [Stan J. Caterbone] That wouldn’t be a Cashier’s Check then. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Some Cashier’s Checks are fraudulent and they need to … [Stan J. Caterbone] Of course, if it is a fraud (laugh). [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It would still be a Cashier’s Check. Right, you still have to go through Fulton Bank, you still have to file the check and wait 2-3 days. [Stan J. Caterbone] I did not like your explanation for a Cashier’s Check that they can hold that check, and they can’t. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Well they can. Wachovia can. They can hold the check. [Stan J. Caterbone] How can they hold my check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You see whenever they deposit a check … [Stan J. Caterbone] No. You said Fulton could not pay it. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Ya, Fulton could not pay it. Fulton could say we are not going to pay that check. [Stan J. Caterbone] How can they not pay that check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They can do that. It’s a Cashier’s Check. [Stan J. Caterbone] No they can’t. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Yes they can. That is up to them. Wachovia rules are like this. Once we deposit that check, it takes 2-3 business days. [Stan J. Caterbone] You were citing Fulton Bank rules. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Yea, Fulton does not have to honor that check. [Stan J. Caterbone] Sure they do, it’s a Cashier’s Check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They don’t. That is something you are going to have to ask Fulton. [Stan J. Caterbone] Why are you saying they don’t have to honor it? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Because they don’t. It’s like walking in with a regular check. [Stan J. Caterbone] On it’s not. A Cashier’s Check is already guaranteed. That’s how you get a Cashier’s Check. You have to have guaranteed funds. You have to confirm the guaranteed funds or else it would not be a Cashier’s Check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It, still sometimes it is denied. [Stan J. Caterbone] How? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They don’t have to honor it. [Stan J. Caterbone] How? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] I don’t know how Fulton does it, but sometimes they just don’t honor it. [Stan J. Caterbone] How can they not honor a Cashiers Check? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They don’t have to honor it. It is up to that bank not to honor it. [Stan J. Caterbone] No it’s not. That would be breaking the law. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] No, not necessarily. [Stan J. Caterbone] Unless it was fraudulent. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You are going to have to put the check in and wait 2-3 business days. So if you go 2-3 business days starting today, you go Monday, cause Monday would be 2 business days. [Stan J. Caterbone] I though you said next day. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] We could put it in next day ticket. We could do that for you. [Stan J. Caterbone] So how does a next-day ticket work? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] The next-day ticket gives you funds availability the next business day. The next business day. [Stan J. Caterbone] So, I would have $17,000 available the next day? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You got it. [Stan J. Caterbone] And how much can I use today? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Um, I have to take it up to the teller and see what they can give you back. [Stan J. Caterbone] I just want it in my account. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You want to put all of it in your account? [Stan J. Caterbone] Yea. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] O.K. we can do that. Just take it up to the teller. [Stan J. Caterbone] I have a couple of questions before we do this. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] O.K. [Stan J. Caterbone] What’s my account balance? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Your account balance is $1.50. [Stan J. Caterbone] O.K. what if I use $ .85 cents of that today? How is that going to work? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You would withdraw $ .85 cents? [Stan J. Caterbone] No, if I use my bank card for $ .85 cents? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] It’s going to come out $ .85 cents. [Stan J. Caterbone] What is my balance going to be? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] $ .65 cents. [Stan J. Caterbone] Then what happens? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You would have $.65 cents available. [Stan J. Caterbone] Then what happens? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You mean with the Check? [Stan J. Caterbone] No, I would have $ .65 cents in there, then you would overdraft me. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] No. [Stan J. Caterbone] Then why did you overdraft me last month (August) when I a had $20 cents balance? I had a $ .20 cent balance and you overdraft me. Go look at my statement. There was a charge of $5.95 in my account, that left $ .20 cents and you overdraft me $35.00. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] There was $5.15 in your account. You bought something from Marion Courtroom for $3.95. Then you also purchased something from Lancaster Newspapers for $4.95 cents. [Stan J. Caterbone] No. No. Look the statement. Your Wrong. My statement says otherwise. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] This is your account (on computer screen). $4.95. Then on the 13th (August) … [Stan J. Caterbone] No that’s wrong – Go look at my statement. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Your wrong. This is the statement. You made a deposit on the 18th (August). [Stan J. Caterbone] I got the statement. There’s a .20 cent balance left after the $5.15. That was Friday night after the deposit left $ .20 cents. Marion Court was on the 15th (August). I made a deposit on Friday. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Your wrong. This is the statement (computer screen), you made a deposit on the 18th. [Stan J. Caterbone] No, I made a deposit on the 15th at 4:00pm. She cashed the check. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] I’m telling you it did not come through that way. [Stan J. Caterbone] Well there’s a $ .20 balance on my statement. After the $5.15, after the Lancaster Newspaper. That left $ .20 cent balance in my account. That Marion Court was on Friday night. That did not hit until the 18th (August). I’m telling you that is wrong. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] $4.95, Now that is wrong. Sir, I’m going off what this says. [Stan J. Caterbone] Well, I’m telling you that is wrong. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] This is why you got the overdraft. [Stan J. Caterbone] How? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager]The way I’m looking at it you had $5.15. [Stan J. Caterbone] After the $5.15 I had $ .20 cents. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] This is the $4.95 [Stan J. Caterbone] I had $ .15 cents ($ .20) in my account. I wwent to yiour teller and I said I need these funds available for the weekend. Here is a check for $50.00 from a District Magistrate (Refund for Driving Under Suspension Charge by Pennsylvania State Police that was dismissed). Why weren’t they available? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] The funds weren’t available until the 18th. [Stan J. Caterbone] She (Wachovia Bank Teller) told me they would be available for the weekend. (I would have just cashed the check and used the cash for the weekend if Wachovia would not have lied) [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] If you deposited cash they would not be available till Monday (August 18th). Your talking about… [Stan J. Caterbone] So what happened? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] They would not be available till the 18th. [Stan J. Caterbone] I showed her (Wachovia Bank Teller). I said I want to use these funds for the weekend. I .. Here is what happened. First I deposited the check. I said now wait. I don’t want to do that. I need these funds for the weekend. There was another woman in line. (I waited until she was done with her transaction). I went back, she did it over. She deposited the cash so I could use the card (Debit Check Card) for the weekend. Plus, it had a $.20 balance in it. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] You overdrafted. [Stan J. Caterbone] She said that I could use the card for the weekend. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] The was it’s on the system here, it says $5.15 on the 12th, so if you… [Stan J. Caterbone] No, that was automatic (Lancaster Newspaper). There was $ .20 cents after that. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] So. But the $5 on the 15th came through. [Stan J. Caterbone] What came through? [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Marion Court. [Stan J. Caterbone] That was not until Friday night, after I made the deposit. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] That too was on the 18th. [Stan J. Caterbone] No, that was on the 15th. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] That came through on the 18th. [Stan J. Caterbone] No it didn’t. Your wrong. Why did the send me a different transaction sheet (Monthly Wachovia Bank Statement)? Did you look at the online statement and the paper statement? There was a $ .20 cent balance. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] I’m looking at it here (computer screen). [Stan J. Caterbone] Well, somebody is lying. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Give me a second. (long pause) [Stan J. Caterbone] Listen Sir. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] Look here. [Stan J. Caterbone] No, I have my statements. She (Wachovia Bank Teller) me I could use the card. Somebody lied to me. [Wachovia Bank Branch Manager] I don’t know how it came in, but you have an overdraft. [Stan J. Caterbone] Somebody lied to me. Somebody’s lying. [THE END] I walk out if Wachovia Bank and immediately proceed to Fulton Bank (Manor Shopping Center Branch) and cash the $17,306.80 Cashier’s Check and have another Cashier’s Check issued for $17,106.80. Wachovia Bank Statement and Online Statement all show a balance of $ .20 cents followed by an overdraft of $35.00 followed by a deposit of $50.00. The Wachovia Bank Check Card brochure states the following under FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions: “How do I track my transactions?” “ Your monthly statement checking statement shows the date, amount and location of every purchase and ATM transaction you make. Plus, you can go online using Wachovia’s Online Banking to track your account activity anytime.” ©2007 Wachovia Corporation 073269 printed on back of brochure. There are no disclaimers regarding times for posting transactions to your account, suggesting everything with the online statements occur real-time. A cashier's check (also known as a cashier's cheque, bank check, official check, teller's check, bank draft or treasurer's check) is a check guaranteed by a bank. They are usually treated as cash since most banks clear them instantly. However, banks are permitted to take back money from a "cleared" check one or two weeks later if subsequent processing finds it to be fraudulent. A check written by a financial institution on its own funds. It is then signed by a representative of the financial institution and made payable to a third party. A customers who purchases a cashier's check pays for the full face value of the check and usually also pays a small premium for the service. These checks are secured by the funds of the issuer - usually a bank - and include the name of a payee (the entity to which the check is payable), and the name of the remitter (the entity that paid for the check). An individual could use a cashier's check instead of a personal check to guarantee that his or her funds for payment are available. A cashier's check is secured because the amount of the check must first be deposited by the individual into the issuing institution's own account. The person or entity to whom the check is made out is then guaranteed to receive the money when cashing the check.
September 11, 2008 First you said you were Lisa Ruth, then you said you were Lisa Ruth's sister, which is it? Stan J. Caterbone cc: Stephanie Carfley September 2, 2008 Stephanie Carfley, Esq.,
Barley Snyder, LLC
Re: Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al., (07-4474 05-2288) and Foreclosure of 220 Stone Hill Road of Conestoga, PA (CI-06-02271)
Stephanie,
Thank you for the copy of the "Notice" of August 11, 2008. That omission by the Third Circuit Court is what confused me.
I did not receive a copy from the Third Circuit of the "Notice" instructing you to file a Motion For Leave to File the Supplemental Appendix. Without the knowledge that the "Notice" existed, it appeared you were filing another Supplemental Appendix. I knew that you serviced me on August 1, 2008 so I assumed you were filing an additional appendix or that you never filed the original appendix with the Third Circuit.
I still do not understand why Barley Snyder, LLC continues to lie to me regarding not being able to enter your office and why Barley Snyder, LLC; The Lancaster County Sheriff; and Fulton Bank refuse to provide any documentation or a settlement sheet for the Sheriff Sale of December 20, 2006 regarding my property at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA. You had indicated in an email this past year that there may or may not be a settlement sheet. You do the math.
There are missing funds that were not accounted for and should have been paid to me.
Simply put, my outstanding balance for my mortgage of 220 Stone Hill Road was $88,598.00 at the time of foreclosure in March of 2006. The Judgment of some $98,000.00 included $3,000 for legal fees of July 31, 2006. There were no liens on the deed or real estate. The Sheriff sold my property for $156,000 on December 20, 2006. I received a check for $17,306.80 on February 2, 2007. My 1099 from Fulton Bank to the IRS listed the fair market value at $250,000 and the property transferred for $195,000 on March 13, 2007.
In addition the deed listed Parula Properties as the owner, when Central Penn Property Services was the rightful winning bidder on December 20, 2006.
$156,000 (Sheriff Sale Price) less $98,000 (Judgment of July 31, 2006 including $3,000 legal fees) leaves $58,000. Take away the $17,306.80 proceeds that I received and it leaves $40,604.20. The Lancaster County Sheriff took some $5,000 in fees. That leaves some $35,000.
Where did the $35,000 go and who absconded with my money? Someone has to have the money, right?
Is this the reason Shawn Long, Esq., of Barley Snyder, LLC keeps telling me I am not allowed in your office, so I can't ask any of you Barley Snyder attorneys these difficult questions?
You will not get away with stealing my money!
Stan J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
FULTON BANK v. Stanley J. Caterbone CI-06-02271
Docket Sheet Entry of 07/31/2006:
FILED. WRIT ISSUED. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE. PRINCIPAL: $88,568.53; INTEREST TO 03/02/2006 AT A RATE OF $14.56 PER DIEM: $4,442.96; NEGATIVE ESCROW BALANCE: $1,096.38; LATE CHARGES: $317.20; ATTORNEYS' FEES: $3,000.00; TOTAL: $97,425.07. FILED BY SHAWN M. LONG, ESQ.
Docket Sheet Entry of 02/01/2007: TO PROTHONOTARY, SHERIFF FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,340.62 PAID AND A REFUND CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,676.25, CK 66219 DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2007 WAS MAILED TO BARLEY SNYDER SAME DATE.
View our Video Collection Visit our Blog: Downtown Lancaster Revitalization & Journey of a Whistleblower Visit our Research Blog: ESP - Mental Telepathy - DARPA & Mind Invasion by the U.S. Government LETTER TO BARLEY SNYDER, LLC RE: FULTON BANK AND FULTON FINANCIAL ETHICS VIOLATIONS AND THE RESIGNATION OF R. SCOTT SMITH, JR. March 24, 2008 Ms. Stepanie Carfley, Esquire Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Re: Letter of March 19, 2008 re: Letter to (Fulton Financial) Board of Directors and Ethics Point Report Dear Ms. Carfley; I am now in receipt of your letter dated March 19, 2008 regarding the above matters. Your letter is totally absurd and blatantly without merit. First, I will only accept proof of any conclusions to my allegations from a member of Fulton Financial Board of Directors. I would be totally remiss to take your word or your letter as drawing any conclusions to my allegations. Secondly, my allegations are not only substantiated but also documented with proof of wrongdoing, any conclusion to the contrary is an absolute lie. Thirdly, I would expect that the Fulton Financial Board of Directors have the professional integrity to provide me with the manner in which they conducted their "thorough review and investigation of the claims". Although you state "Accordingly, Fulton will be closing its file on the Ethics Point Report and will be taking no further action in response to your letter requesting the resignation of R. Scott Smith, Jr."; I will not be closing my file nor will I cease to continue to pursue this inquiry. I will pursue redress in the manner in which is most appropriate. Fulton will not escape damages. I suspect and allege that you used this process to obtain discovery of information for my litigation against Fulton Bank. Regretfully, Stan J. Caterbone Advanced Media Group In the absence of any of the above, your letter is not worth the paper it is written upon. Press Release - Visit Our Blog For The Criminal Charges & Supporting Documents Advanced Media Group November 27, 2007 Lancaster, PA - President Judge Louis J. Farina issued the following ORDER in case no. MD 879-2007 in the Criminal Division of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas after Advanced Media Group filed a Petition for Review of the Criminal Charges outlined below: AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing the the District Attorney's refusal to approve the private complaint due to "insufficient evidence", obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the complaint establishes a prima facie case, see, Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super 2005), the Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity to identify the information relied upon and to explain the Commonwealth's decision to disapprove the filing of Petitioner's private criminal complaint. Advanced Media Group will expand it's investigation and consider widening this Private Criminal Complaint to include Fulton Bank, the Southern Regional Police Department, and the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office on the grounds of collusion and possible criminal conspiracy in the trespass of property, the theft of real estate, and the theft of personal property. September 18, 2007 Lancaster, PA - The Advanced Media Group is filing criminal charges today relating to the theft of the real estate of 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania, and its contents. The Stone Hill Road property was the corporate headquarters and residence of founder and CEO, Stan J. Caterbone. All of the business records, legal files, and evidentiary materials for Federal and State litigation were stolen, some of which has not been recovered. All personal posessions and all the contents were loaded into moving vans, and taken to an unknown location. There are also household contents that have not been recovered. Items were finally recovered some 4 months later. The theft of the business records and legal files had caused irreparable harm to the business and the litigation matters concerning several criminal and civil court cases in which Stan J. Caterbone is a Pro Se litigant. Advanced Media Group is in litigation matters concerning a Federal False Claims Act regarding the activities of International Signal & Control, Plc, formerly known as ISC, and the $1 Billion Dollar fraud. Founder Stan J. Caterbone is alleging whistleblowing in 1987 relating to the Fraud, which ISC and the defendants plead guilty in Federal Court in 1991 to Fraud and Export Violations; including the transfer of weapons to South Africa that ended up in Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The Cluster Bombs were some of the most deadly weapon manufactured, outside of a nuclear weapon. There is also a continuing Federal civil action in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia concerning his former and current companies, namely Financial Management Group, Ltd., Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and the 'Digital Movie' joint venture project ( with audio recording genius, Tony Bongiovi and Power Station Studios of New York). The charges allege that employees of Noble Real Estate, AKA Parula Properties, and Central Penn Property Services, Inc., of Akron, Pennsylvania committed the crimes on January 3, 2007 and January 4, 2007. The Defendants are being charged with Burglary and Theft. The Lancaster County District Attorney must approve the charges and summons on the Defendants. Parula took possession of the property and the contents before the Sheriff's Deed was legally transferred, and the property was still legally the property of Stan J. Caterbone. Stan J. Caterbone was ordered off his own property on January 4, 2007, while the alleged defendants loaded the contents into moving vans to an unknown location. The charges will also bring into question the rights to the property due to the fact that Advanced Media Group and or Stan J. Caterbone have never been served an eviction notice, as required by Pennsylvania law and defined in the mortgage contract with Fulton Bank. The circumstances involve the Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County Sheriff's Office as relating to the illegal repossession of the 220 Stone Hill Road property, and have been the subject of numerous civil actions in State and Federal courts. The following is one of several civil actions in both state and federal courts where Fulton Bank is a named defendant, no judge has ever ruled on the pleadings or issued an ORDER on any of the pleadings. IN THE MATTER OF : Case No. 248 MAL
: FULTON BANK : Superior Court No. 1463 MDA 2006 Respondent :Lancaster County Court of Common v. : Pleas of Lancaster County : Trial Court Docket No. CI-06-02271 STANLEY J. CATERBONE : Petitioner : APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND NOW on this 20th day of July, 2007, I Stanley J. Caterbone, APPELLANT, do hereby petition the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to reconsider the ORDER for the Petition for Allowance of Appeal dated July 6, 2007. One Penn Square Lancaster, PA 17602 Shawn Michael Long, Esquire, Attorney of Record Barley Snyder, LLC 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17603 The Honorable Michael A. Georgelis Court of Common Pleas Of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania 50 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Date: July 20, 2007 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603 amgroup01@msn.com www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. The PETITIONER first requests the Court to consider that including the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the PETITIONER has not had any challenge to the original mortgage foreclosure (Case No. CI-06-02271) ruling based upon the pleadings or the merits of the PETITIONERS’ issues and arguments . A similar record is found in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas cases CI-07-00366 and CI-07-00119 where the mortgage foreclosure is central to the complaint. The PETITIONER will raise the following unprecedented issues as to the reasons why this Court must consider due process and the inherent implications to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The ORDER of July 6 Denying the PETITIONER’S Allowance for Appeal should be RECONSIDERED. Commonwealth v. Haggentstaller, 699 A. 2d 767 (Pa Superior, 1997), Pro Se Appellant sought review of Conviction for violation of County for violation of County ordinance with Rule of Appellant Procedure, court conducted a “thorough, independent review of the record”, and found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as “Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means”. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: “Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights…”. Under Pennsylvania Law, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following was supported: “Arrestee’s allegations that the township (Conestoga) and it’s police officers were acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestee’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two (2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and August 4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody”. The preceding pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law. §1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: “The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference”, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 241, 242; U.S.C.A. – Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, § 2: 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. § 3729. False claims; § 3730. Civil actions for false claims; § 3731. False claims procedure; § 3732. False claims jurisdiction; § 3733. Civil investigative demands; § 3729. False claims. 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. 2. The PETITIONER is the subject of an unprecedented attack of intimidation, retaliation, and harassment resulting in one of the direst cases of obstruction of justice mounted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the County of Lancaster . The prosecutorial misconduct and judicial misconduct is unprecedented in both the scope of activity and motive. The PETITIONER will show cause that these activities are to disrupt, deter, and undermine the PETITIONER’S Constitutional right to due process and access to the Courts . 3. These activities, when effectively reviewed and examined, will prove to be the reason that the PETITIONER has difficulty filing any appeals on a timely basis, and any court related filing without technical difficulties. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at large, has legal and financial exposure with regards to the PETITIONER’S Federal False Claims Act and Whistle-Blowing activities in the case of International Signal & Control, Plc, (ISC) that dates back to 1987. 4. Since the PETITIONER filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 05-2288), these activities were increased in both occurrences and arrogance. It must be noted that the PETITIONER had a previous attempt at justice thwarted in 1998. The same issues that were never formally presented in any United States District Court, or any Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, are now at issue. 5. On Thursday, July 5, 2007, it was publicly disclosed that a United States District Court Judge, Judge Sean McLaughlin, granted Lisa Michelle Lambert her right to a jury trial regarding a sexual abuse case that dates back to 1996. These allegations were previously dismissed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as frivolous and without merit. Judge McLaughlin, similar to the findings of United States District Judge Stuart Dalzall, found otherwise and stated “"Plaintiff paints a disturbing picture," McLaughlin wrote, saying Lambert alleged Cambridge Springs was a "virtual haven of sexual activity between Department of Corrections employees and inmates." Judge McLaughlin also found that a former prison superintendent and official "fostered an attitude of acquiescence toward such pervasive misconduct." 6. The PETITIONER filed an Affidavit to Ms. Christina Rainville, the pro bono counsel for Lisa Michelle Lambert, in 1998 that will prove the PETITIONER’S past attempts at justice regarding the issues presented to this Court as being both a motive of his perpetrators and a record of this continued misconduct and criminal activity to deny the PETITIONER his right to due process and access to the courts. In totality this amounts to an unprecedented case of obstruction of justice. 7. In the 1998 affidavit the PETITIONER wrote the following: “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, Pls.,. 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 | ||||
