third circuit 15-3400 lambert appeal docket with bookmarked summaries of all recorded filings as of...

General DocketThird Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 15-3400 Docketed: 10/08/2015Nature of Suit: 3530 Habeas CorpusLisa Lambert v. Superintendent Framingham MCI, et alAppeal From: United States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaFee Status: Due

Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) private 3) Habeas Corpus-prisonerOriginating Court Information:

District: 0313-2 : 5-14-cv-02559Court Reporter: Joan CarrTrial Judge: Paul S. Diamond, U.S. District Judge

Date Filed: 05/02/2014 Date Order/Judgment: Date Order/Judgment EOD: Date NOA Filed: 09/14/2015 09/14/2015 09/30/2015

Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: None

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT Plaintiff - Appellee

Jeremy H.G. Ibrahim, Sr., Esq.Direct: 215-568-1943Email: [email protected]: 610-456-2727[NTC Retained]P.O. Box 10251631 Baltimore PikeChadds Ford, PA 19317

v.

SUPERINTENDENT FRAMINGHAM MCI Defendant - Appellee

District Attorney Lancaster County[NTC city/county gov]Lancaster County Office of District Attorney50 North Duke StreetLancaster, PA 17608

DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANCASTER COUNTY Defendant - Appellee

District Attorney Lancaster County[NTC city/county gov](see above)

ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA Defendant - Appellee

District Attorney Lancaster County[NTC city/county gov](see above)

------------------------------

STANLEY J. CATERBONE Not Party - Appellant

Stanley J. CaterboneDirect: 717-669-2163Email: [email protected][NTC Pro Se]1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603

15-3400 Docket https://ecf.ca3.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

1 of 5 12/2/2015 11:15 AM

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT

v.

SUPERINTENDENT FRAMINGHAM MCI;DISTRICT ATTORNEY LANCASTER COUNTY;ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA

*Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

*(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Fed.R.App.P.)


2 of 5 12/2/2015 11:15 AM

10/08/201530 pg, 3.25 MB

CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone in District Court No. 5-14-cv-02559. [-The notice of appeal that was attached to the entry was the incorrect document. The notice ofappeal has been corrected and notice is being resent.]--[Edited 10/09/2015 by CJG] (SB)

10/08/2015 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (SB)10/09/2015

2 pg, 27.26 KBLEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising that the case will be submitted to a panel of this Court for adecision on the issuance of certificate of appealability and possible summary action. (JW)

10/21/201542 pg, 4.58 MB

ECF FILER: EXHIBITS filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for the Court's consideration. Certificateof Service dated 10/21/2015.--[Edited 10/22/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

10/21/20150 pg, 0 KB

ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Certificateof Service dated 10/21/2015. (SJC)

10/22/2015312 pg, 15.13 MB

ECF FILER: EXHIBITS filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for the Court's consideration. Certificateof Service dated 10/22/2015.--[Edited 10/22/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

10/22/20151 pg, 28.36 KB

COPY OF ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT dated 10/21/2015 denying Mr. Caterbone's motion to proceed informa pauperis signed by Paul S. Diamond, filed. (CJG)

10/23/201544 pg, 4.6 MB

ECF FILER: DOCUMENT by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone titled Submission as Exhibit. Certificate ofService dated 10/23/2015.--[Edited 10/23/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

10/26/2015194 pg, 22.28 MB

ECF FILER: Request by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for Oral Argument. [SEND TO MERITS] (SJC)

10/27/20152 pg, 21.62 KB

FOLLOW UP LETTER to District Attorney Lancaster County for Attorney General Pennsylvania,Superintendent Framingham MCI and District Attorney Lancaster County and Jeremy H.G. Ibrahim, Sr.,Esq. for Lisa Michelle Lambert requesting the following document(s): Appearance Form on or before11/10/2015. (CJG)

11/02/2015227 pg, 29.4 MB

ECF FILER: DOCUMENT filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone titled Submission as Exhibit.Certificate of Service dated 11/02/2015.--[Edited 11/02/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/03/20158 pg, 1.94 MB

ORDER (Clerk) The motion proceed in forma pauperis is held in abeyance pending the submission of anadditional document. Appellant must submit this Court's affidavit of poverty within 14 days of the date ofthis order or the appeal may be dismissed, filed. (CJG)

11/03/2015462 pg, 53.19 MB

ECF FILER: DOCUMENTS by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone titled Submissions as Exhibits.Certificate of Service dated 11/03/2015.--[Edited 11/03/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/04/2015528 pg, 20.01 MB


11/04/20150 pg, 0 KB

ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Certificateof Service dated 11/04/2015. (SJC)

11/06/20156 pg, 134.36 KB

ECF FILER: ARGUMENT In Response to Summary Action from Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone, filed.Certificate of Service dated 11/06/2015 by ECF.--[Edited 11/06/2015 by MLR] (SJC)

11/06/2015174 pg, 33.18 MB

ECF FILER: DOCUMENT by Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone titled Submission as Exhibit. Certificate ofService dated 11/06/2015.--[Edited 11/10/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/07/201545 pg, 312.16 KB

ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone Consideration for fees in the amount of$284,702.50. Certificate of Service dated 11/07/2015.--[Edited 11/10/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/09/20152 pg, 46.85 KB

ECF FILER: DOCUMENT filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone titled Submission as Exhibit "AudioFile of Authentic Recordings of 1987 and 1991". Certificate of Service dated 11/09/2015.--[Edited11/10/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/10/2015102 pg, 4.75 MB


11/10/201591 pg, 21.28 MB


11/13/20151 pg, 6.04 KB

ORDER (Clerk) The Motion Proceed In Forma Pauperis is referred to a motions panel, filed. (CJG)

11/13/2015185 pg, 19.73 MB


11/16/201591 pg, 37.06 MB


11/17/20151585 pg, 37.55 MB

ECF FILER: 3DOCUMENT filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone titled submission as exhibit.Certificate of Service dated 11/17/2015.--[Edited 11/19/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/18/2015807 pg, 79 MB



3 of 5 12/2/2015 11:15 AM

11/19/2015232 pg, 10.74 MB


11/20/2015232 pg, 9.11 MB


11/21/201569 pg, 17 MB


11/22/2015275 pg, 20.95 MB


11/22/20153 pg, 1.86 MB

ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone for 30 Day Continuance. Certificate ofService dated 11/22/2015.--[Edited 11/23/2015 by CJG] (SJC)

11/24/20151 pg, 71.71 KB

ORDER (Clerk) The motion for continuance is granted to the extent it can be construed as a motion forextension of time to file a response regarding possible summary action. Appellant's response must be filedand served within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, filed. (CJG)

11/25/2015783 pg, 35.13 MB


11/27/2015128 pg, 16.12 MB


11/28/201594 pg, 10.13 MB


11/29/2015122 pg, 15.55 MB


11/30/20155 pg, 931.06 KB


12/02/2015120 pg, 5.45 MB

ECF FILER: 3rd Circuit 15-3400 Lambert Appeal EXHIBIT re Outstanding Recievables with Pro Se BillingsTo Date of $4,295,443.24, December 2, 2015 filed by Appellant Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone. Certificate ofService dated 12/02/2015. (SJC)


4 of 5 12/2/2015 11:15 AM

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

MARCIA M. WALDRON UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TELEPHONE

CLERK FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 215-597-2995 21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

October 9, 2015

Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603

RE: Lisa Lambert v. Superintendent Framingham MCI, et al.

Case Number: 15-3400

District Case Number: 5-14-cv-02559

_________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Caterbone:

This appeal has been listed for possible summary action by a panel of this Court, pursuant to

Chapter 10.6 of the Internal operating Procedures of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit. See also Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule(3rd Cir. LAR) 27.4 Chapter 10.6

provides that the Court sua sponte (by its own action) may take summary action on an appeal if it

appears that no substantial question is presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in

circumstances warrants such action. Specifically, the Court may affirm, reverse, vacate, modify,

or remand the judgment or order appealed. The parties may submit written argument supporting

or opposing summary action.

The panel of this court that considers possible summary action also will consider whether a

certificate of appealability is required for the purpose of this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. Section 2253.

If the Court determines that a certificate of appealability is required, appellant's notice of appeal

will be deemed to be such an application, unless appellant has submitted a formal application for

a certificate of appealability. See 3rd Cir. LAR 22.1.

Any response regarding summary action or issuance of a certificate of appealability must be

received in the Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. Please submit to

the Clerk and original copy of any response, and a certificate of service indicating that all parties

have been served with a copy of the response. The Court will carefully review the District Court

record, along with any written submissions received from the parties.

Case: 15-3400 Document: 003112098354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2015

October 9, 2015

Page 2

_________________

Issuance of the briefing schedule will be stayed pending action by the Court. If the Court

declines to take summary action or grants the application for a certificate of appealability, the

Clerk will issue a briefing schedule. The parties will be advised of any order issued in this

matter.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By:

Jo-Ann Williams, Administrative Assistant

cc: Jeremy H.G. Ibrahim, Sr., Esq.

District Attorney Lancaster County


www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.coms [email protected]

717-669-2163

Stanley J. Caterbone, APPELLANT, Pro SeAdvanced Media Group1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603

IN THE UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS_______________________________________________________________________________Lisa Michelle Lambert : PETITIONER :

: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

:Lynn Bissonnette, et al., : RESPONDANT :

:Stanley J. Caterbone : APPELLANT :

SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTOutstanding Receivables with Pro Se Billings To Date of $4,295,443.24, December 2,

2015 _______________________________________________________________________

I hereby on this 2nd day of December, 2015, submit for considerations in the above

captioned case the attached document as an EXHIBIT to be considered by the court in the

deliberations of this case. This exhibit, like the previous EXHIBITS, is intended to help the Court

understand the complexity of the APPELLANT'S obligation to provide the Court with the evidence

and insight to support the APPELLANT'S claims and statements. These documents will also provide

the Court with sufficient knowledge of the APPELLANT'S claim of the value of the

Appellant's litigation of up to $50 million dollars as stated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 05-

23059. The APPELLANT does not intend to overburden the Court with unnecessary filings, however

this burden of supporting the claims and statements falls on the shoulders of all those in the

government that ignored the APPELLANT'S pleas for help to resolve these issues dating back to the

days immediately following the meeting with International Signal & Control, Plc., (ISC) Executive

Larry Resch on June 23, 1987.

This information could explain the COINTELPRO attributes of my situation and persons under

oath of law must refer this to the U.S. Attorney's Office and provide me with relief.

/s/ Stanley J. Caterbone

Date: December 2, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603(717)-669-2163s [email protected]

http://www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com/__


717-669-2163

Stanley J. CaterboneAdvanced Media Group1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603


: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015



SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTLNP Article Rogue FBI Agents in Lancaster Killing US Attorney on February 27, 2007 Are

The Still Here - Of Course They Are, November 30, 2015

I hereby on this 30h day of November, 2015, submit for considerations in the above












This information could explain the COINTELPRO attributes of my situation and persons under

oath of law must refer this to the U.S. Attorney's Office and provide me with relief.


Date: November 30, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant


717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015



SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTU.S. District Court Case No. 14-02559 Judge Diamond Motion to Recuse, November 29,

2015














Date: November 29, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603(717)-669-2163s [email protected]



717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015



SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTAffidavit of AFFIANT Stanley J. Caterbone re Judge Diamond Misconduct, November 28,

2015














Date: November 28, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603(717)-669-2163s [email protected]



717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

::

Lynn Bissonnette, et al., : RESPONDANT :

:

Stanley J. Caterbone : APPELLANT : :

SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTChapter 11 Reorganization Plan for Case No. 05-23059 Filed January 12, 2010,

November 27, 2015








23059. The following EXHIBIT titled Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan for Case No. 05-23059 Filed

January 12, 2010, November 27, 2015 was not completed when it was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

After careful review the APPELLANT has since recovered documentation and evidence that

can substantiate that the $50,000,000 valuation on the APPELLANT'S litigation is a low estimate.

For example, in the Original and Authentic Documentation of 1987 the Court will see a document

called the HARSCO Pension Plan Proposal of $144,000,000. HARSCO was a Harrisburg based

corporation. In 1987 Michael Dipaolo was an auditor for KPMG Maine Hurdman, a Big Eight

accounting firm. He was also a personal friend of the APPELLANT whose wife, Mary Lynn, was hired

as an executive assistant at Financial Management Group, Ltd., Mike Dipaolo referred the pension

plan to the APPELLANT in order to bid on the management of that pension plan. The Court will see

the bidding documents from several management firms that were requested to provide disclosures

to the APPELLANT in order to secure the management of the pension plan. That project alone would

have generated some $900,000 in management fees to the APPELLANT on an annual basis, of which

the APPELLANT had a fee sharing agreement with Mike Dipaolo that would have generated at least

$250,000 per year in annual income. The following outlines income and equity owned and claimed

by the APPELLANT, not by Financial Management Group, Ltd., The APPELLANT had an agreement

for sharing approximately 10% back into the firm of Financial Management Group, Ltd., which was

negotiated by Robert Kauffman and the APPELLANT.

In the July of 1987, after the meeting with ISC executive Larry Resch of June 23, the

APPELLANT and Tony Bongiovi had a meeting on the Wildwood Boardwalk, namely the portion that

Tony Bongiovi owned. The APPELLANT was already named in the operating budget of the movie to

receive $200,000, not including the Managing Limited Partner Fee of the investors, as outlined in

the original documents which the Court can confirm. On that night, Tony Bongiovi had made a

verbal disclosure to the APPELLANT that he wanted the APPELLANT to manage the business affairs

of every project that Tony was then involved in and promised that the APPELLANT would share in

the profits of every said project. In addition to the Digital Movie, Tony was involved in a number

of other projects including but not limited to the pier of Wildwood in which Tony wanted to open an

open-air concert venue, similar to that of the Steel Pier in Atlantic City. Tony also had a project in

which he was recreating the flight of Amelia Earhart; the recording artists and band that was

secured and under management for the past year or so called French Lick; the comic act of the

Wid; the video editing suite at power station built by engineer Ed Evans; and of course the

recording studio itself Power Station Studios, now operating as Avatar Studios of New York. The

APPELLANT can only guesstimate that those revenues and future revenues would be worth almost

the full $50,000,000 today had many of those projects been successful. The Court is reminded at

the track record and resume of both the APPELLANT and Tony Bongiovi.

On March 2nd of 1987 the Court will see a document from real estate developer Owen Kugal

that outlines the fees to the APPELLANT for the securing of financing his real estate portfolio, that

fee is stated at $433,592. The APPELLANT had also secured financing for Noris Boyd, of Boyd

Wilson and owner of the Olde Hickory property on the Oregon Pike. The financing package was for

a refinance agreement of $5,000,000.000 which would have generated at least a $75,000.00 fee for

the APPELLANT.

In May of 1987, the APPELLANT and attorney Randy Grespin, of Life Underwriters of

Harrisburg (Owned and Operated by Tony Pascotti and representing Tony Pascotti) flew in the

APPELLANT'S plane to Atlanta for a scheduled meeting with Bill Koegler of the Planners Securities

Group, a regional Broker Dealer. The APPELLANT had negotiated a merger of Financial Management

Group, Ltd., and Planners Securities Group which contained a clause granting Financial Management

Group, Ltd., a 10% ownership position, which was worth approximately $1,800,000. The deal was

consummated by a vote of the FMG Board of Directors in May of 1987. The Court will see a

document titled Financial Analysis of FMG in June of 1987 which values the shares of FMG at

approximately $17.00. The APPELLANT at that time owned some 50,000 shares, which puts a fair

market value of approximately $850,000.00 in his FMG stock holdings.

The real estate holding of the APPELLANT is outlined in the Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan,

the EXHBIT.

The APPELLANT does not intend to overburden the Court with unnecessary filings, however






Date: November 27, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603

(717)-669-2163

s [email protected]



717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

::


:


SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTStan J. Caterbone United Nations Human Rights Council of Geneva Switzerland

Complaint and Exhibit re U.S. Sponsored Mind Control filed on October 4, 2009, November25, 2015

I hereby on this 25th day of November, 2015, submit for considerations in the above captioned case the

attached document as an EXHIBIT to be considered by the court in the deliberations of this case. This exhibit, like

the previous EXHIBITS, is intended to help the Court understand the complexity of the APPELLANT'S obligation to

provide the Court with the evidence and insight to support the APPELLANT'S claims and statements. These

documents will also provide the Court with sufficient knowledge of the APPELLANT'S claim of the value of the

Appellant's litigation of up to $50 million dollars as stated in the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 05-23059. The

APPELLANT does not intend to overburden the Court with unnecessary filings, however this burden of supporting

the claims and statements falls on the shoulders of all those in the government that ignored the APPELLANT'S

pleas for help to resolve these issues dating back to the days immediately following the meeting with International

Signal & Control, Plc., (ISC) Executive Larry Resch on June 23, 1987.

/s/ Stanley J. CaterboneDate: November 25, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se

Appellant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603(717)-669-2163s [email protected]



717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

::


:


MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

I hereby on this 22nd day of November, 2015, the APPELLANT requests a 30 day CONTINUANCE for the

above captioned case in order to regain possession of a Lenovo Computer and establish a more secure and safe

manner to obtain computer services to restore the same said computer after hacking attacks. The EXHIBIT of

November 16, 2015 titled Linkedin.com Restricted Access and Computer Hacking Documentation containsdocumentation of 15 computer repairs from reputable computer service groups for computer hacking since August

1 (Geek Squad), and one dating back to June 22, 2015 (Aplus Computers).

On November 15, 2015 the APPELLANT visited the Geek Squad in Lampeter Township at the Best Buy

Store to schedule another drop-off date for repairs. The Geek Squad employee, again agitated and harassed the

APPELLANT. The Geek Squad employee stated there were appointments opened all day. APPELLANT replied to

schedule the drop-off and the APPELLANT answered at 10:00am the following morning, November 16, 2015.

Then the Geek Squad employee said the earliest time was 11:30am. Frustrated, the APPELLANT left the store.

The APPELLANT planned to call a supervisor. There was no email sent to confirm the appointment. The

APPELLANT showed up the next morning and took a photo outside the store to document the time of arrival, which

was 10:22am. A Geek Squad female employee asked for an appointment time and another Geek Squad mail

employee said he had a cancellation and would check the APPELLANT'S computer in in a few minutes, after he

was done working with another customer. The APPELLANT asked to roam the store, and the Geek Squad

employee told the APPELLANT that he had to stay in line. After about an hour of frustration, the APPELLANT

wrote instructions from another day's repair notes, dated and timed it, and signed it. The APPELLANT then took a


picture of the sheet of paper on the Lenovo computer. The APPELLANT left at 11:24 after first taking a photo of

the sign on the cash register that states Your time is IMPORTANT to us. The APPELLANT never received any

email confirmations for the repair, which never happened.

On November 18, 2015 Rod, the DCI Manager at Geek Squad in Lancaster left several messages

requesting that the APPELLANT come in to sign paperwork. The APPELLANT never heard of the person, nor did

he trust the message to be authentic. On November 21, 2015 the APPELLANT called Ron and he would not

provide any proof of identification and kept demanding that the APPELLANT come in to sign paperwork. The

APPELLANT accused Ron of being a law enforcement official and he got upset and said he was terminating the

call. The APPELLANT must now replace the Lenovo computer, which was purchased August 1, 2015. The

APPELLANT will not return to the Geek Squad at Best Buy for any reason unless security assurances are

promised and protection from stalking and harassment is guaranteed.

The APPELLANT submits this motion for consideration in the above captioned case, and as before

request the court to include this MOTION in the deliberations of this case. This exhibit, like the previous

EXHIBITS, is intended to help the Court understand the complexity of the APPELLANT'S obligation to provide the

Court with the evidence and insight to support the APPELLANT'S claims and statements. These documents will

also provide the Court with sufficient knowledge of the APPELLANT'S claim of the value of the







Date: November 22, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro SeAppellant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603(717)-669-2163s [email protected]




717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

::


:


SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTComplaint to General Counsel of PLCB and Letter to and From PA Attorney General

Kathleen Kane on November 21, 2015











Unfortunately the APPELLANT'S emails and other documentation regarding the incident that was named

in the letter of November 16, 2015 from Rogrigo Diaz, Executive General Chief Counsel of the Pennsylvania Liquor

Control Board have been destroyed or removed from the APPELLANT'S computers and flash drives. On

November 12, 2015 after taking care of legal business in the Pennsylvania Superior Court Prothonotary's Office,

regarding Case No.'s 1561 MDA 2015 and 1961 MDA 2015, the APPELLANT proceeded to the Office of the

Executive General Chief Counsel of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. As customary, the APPELLANT was

misdirected and given false directions. The APPELLANT checked into the security desk where a member of

SHADD Detective Agency was requesting identification. The APPELLANT provided a current drivers license and

was processed and cleared and given visitor badge no. 62. The Security Officer refused to allow the APPELLANT

access to the 4th floor office of the Executive General Chief Counsel of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and

made declarations that the office is constantly receiving bomb and other threats on a daily basis. The Security

Officer requested that the APPELLANT leave the bound complaint at the Security Desk. The APPELLANT

requested that someone from the Executive General Chief Counsel's office come to the security desk to retrieve

the Complaint. The Security Officer agreed and called up to the office of the Executive General Chief Counsel.

About fifteen minutes later a woman approached the Security desk. The APPELLANT requested to see some form

of identification from the woman and she refused. The woman would only provide a first name. The APPELLANT

requested to take a photo of the woman, and again she refused. The Security Officer started to berate the

APPELLANT, so the APPELLANT handed over the bound complaint and started to turn around declaring that the

bound complaint better be delivered to the Office of Chief Counsel. The Security Officer placed his right hand on

his gun and shouted is that a threat?. The APPELLANT quickly responded no and immediately vacated the

building.

On Friday, November 20, 2015 the APPELLANT received via regular U.S. 1st class mail the attached letter and

immediately called the Office of Executive General Chief Counsel and DEMANDED that the Complaint be returned

to the APPELLANT as soon as possible, and terminated the phone call.





717-669-2163



: v. : CASE NO. 3400-2015

::


:


SUBMISSION AS EXHIBIT BY APPELANTOutstanding Accounts Receivables for Non-Litigation Items , November 20, 2015














Nov 29, 2015 - 15-3400 Lambert Third Circuit Court of Appeals DOCKET for APPELLANT Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Oct 9 - Legal Division Letter Sent from Clerk of CourtDec 2 - EXHIBIT re Outstanding Receivables with Pro Se Billings To Date of $4,295,443.24, December 2,Nov 30 - EXHIBIT re LNP Article Rogue FBI Agents in Lancaster Killing US Attorney on February 27, 2007 AreNov 29 - EXHIBIT re Judge Diamond Motion to Recuse, November 29, 2015Nov 28 - EXHIBIT re Affidavit of AFFIANT Stanley J. Caterbone re Judge Diamond Misconduct,Nov 27 - EXHIBIT re Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan for Case No. 05-23059 Filed January 12, 2010Nov 25 - EXHIBIT re Stan J. Caterbone United Nations Human Rights Council of Geneva Switzerland Complaint and Exhibit re U.S. Sponsored Mind Control filed on October 4, 2009, November 25, 2015Nov 22 - MOTION for CONTINUANCE, November 22, 2015Nov 22 - EXHIBIT re FACEBOOK Postings from July 29 to November 22, 2015 Establishing State of Mind and Daily Activities re Stalking and Harassment, NovemNov 21 - EXHIBIT re Complaint to General Counsel of PLCB and Letter to and From PA Attorney GeneralNov 20 - EXHIBIT re Outstanding Accounts Receivables for Non-Litigation Items , November 20, 2015Nov 19 - EXHIBIT re Courthouse Employees and Prosecutorial and Judicial Misconduct Towards APPELLANT Stan J. Caterbone Dating Back to 1987, November 19, 2015Nov 18 - EXHIBIT re 806 Authentic Original Documents from 1983 to 2006, November 18, 2015Nov 17 - EXHIBIT re Important Documents from 1987 Supporting Claims and Estimate of Monetary Damages and Intellectual Property Rights November 17,Nov 16 - EXHIBIT re Linkedin.com Restricted Access and Computer Hacking Documentation November 16, 2015Nov 13 - EXHIBIT re The Intelligence and Department of Defense Ties to Lancaster and the APPELLANT Stan J. Caterbone, November 13 , 2015Nov 10 - EXHIBIT re Stanley J. Caterbone Credit Report and Photos of Home At 1250 Fremont St Lancaster PA November 10, 2015Nov 9 - MOTION for Considerations re Advanced Mediia Group Pro Se Billings and Sales JournalNov 9 - EXHIBIT re Advanced Media Group and Stan J Caterbone Audio File of Authentic Recordings of 1987 and 1991 November 9, 2015Nov 6 - EXHIBIT Advanced Media Group and Stan J Caterbone PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS as of November 6, 2015Nov 6 - ARGUMENT re Summary Panel November 6, 2015Nov 4 - EXHIBIT re Obstruction of Justice November 4, 2015Table of Contents

Nov 4 - ARGUMENT in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis November 4, 2015ORDER

Nov 3 - EXHIBIT re Stan Caterbone and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP 16 Year Investment in Downtown Lancaster November 3, 2015Table of Contents

Nov 2 - EXHIBIT of Computer Expertise by Appellant November 2, 2015 RecordedNov 2 - EXHIBIT Advanced Media Group and Stan J Caterbone SONY, Tony Bongiovi, Power Statton and Flatubush Films Deital Movie, November 2, 2015Table of Contents

Oct 26 - REQUEST for HEARING by Appellant For Oral Arguements re TI with Experts October 26, 2015Table of Contents

Oct 23 - EXHIBIT re Rick Gray, Keith Sadler, Obama, COINTELPRO October 23, 2015Table of Contents

Oct 21 - EXHIBIT re Preliminary Emergency Injunction v. Residents of County of LancasterOct 21 - EXHIBIT by Appellant October 21, 2015 with Executive SummaryExecutive Summary