Welcome
Findings-of-Facts
Criminal Indictments WIP
Fleeing Charge Scandal
Stan J. Caterbone Bio
Is Lancaster Ground Zero?
New Document Library
New Video Library
Mind Control Video Library
Telepathic Telecommunications
Mind Control Research©
BiPolar Mood Diagnosis
Sammy Caterbone (Brother)
Samuel Caterbone, Jr., (father)
Letter to Dr. Phil (NBC TV)
Letter to Chief Sadler LCPD
Amended Complaint 2007
Third Circuit Brief 07/2/08
Third Circuit Opinion 09/28/08
Lippiatt Amicus
Amicus Curiae Brief NSA
v. City of Lancaster 08-02982
County of Lancaster 08-02983
v. PENNDOT 08-02981
Civil Rights Complaints
UGI & PPL Disputes
Advanced Media Group
Tom's Project Hope
Activist Shareholder
International Signal Control (ISC)
Downtown Lancaster  Plan
Excelsior Place Proposal
FinancialManagementGroup
Lancaster Home Rule Application
1987 SONY Joint Venture
1992 CCHR Complaint
Had Lancaster Lost It's ...
NIST Unix CD-ROM Article
1987 Mortgage Banking
Radio Science Laboratories
Management Consulting
Home
Other
e-mail me

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA

CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP (Plaintiffs)
v.
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, et. al.,(Defendants)

Case No. 08-cv-02983

ORDER of October 10, 2008 by U.S. District Court Judge Mary A. McLaughlin - (Case will be re-filed upon resolving problems of obstruction of justice and due process (computer hacking, thefts, harassments, etc.,)

"AND NOW, this 10th day of October, 2008, upon consideration of plaintiff’s Motion for Withdraw Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 6) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1)  Plaintiff’s Motion for Withdraw Without Prejudice is GRANTED; and

(2)  This case shall remain CLOSED statistically."

_____________________________________________________________________

     AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Stanley J. Caterbone, as pro se, and respectfully avers as follows: Petitioner, Stanley J. Caterbone, resides at 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA, 17603, is a United States Citizen and Advanced Media Group is a fictitious name registered in Pennsylvania with it’s principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Petitioner files a CIVIL COMPLAINT against the DEFENDANTS named in the above caption on this 6th day of June 2008 in the Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This complaint is filed under duress.

Date: June 6, 2008
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

CIVIL COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION

1. This civil complaint involves 28 false arrests and 28 malicious prosecutions that occurred in the County of Lancaster, and the Commonwealth Pennsylvania, between January of 2005 and May of 2008. The PLAINTIFF, Stanley J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group, (CATERBONE) alleges and will prove that the false arrests and false detentions and false imprisonments were used as a means of intimidation and retaliation for previous Federal Civil Complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 16, 2005, Case No. 05-2288, Petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection case number 05-23059 filed on May 23, 2005, and CATERBONE’S pending Federal False Claims Act complaint involving Lancaster based International Signal & Control, Plc., (ISC), and other civil complaints filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.

2. The affiants, the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have forced CATERBONE into vexatious litigation in order to defend himself before the courts causing irreparable loss of time, countless hours of litigation as pro se, and loss of income during the past 3 years with excessive legal fees as pro se.

3. CATERBONE has also notified the respective Clerks of Courts of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas; the Pennsylvania Superior Court; the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals of the mismanagement of court records, trial transcripts, and filings that upon close inspection show a pattern of malice and corruption at all levels in order to support the original false arrests and malicious prosecutions.

4. The false arrests and malicious prosecutions have also been used to support a fabricated, malicious, and calculated misdiagnosis of mental illness, all in an effort to discredit his legal and legitimate claims and allegations in the courts and to public officials.


5. CATERBONE has also filed numerous complaints with the Pennsylvania Judicial Review Board in Harrisburg during the last 2 years. All complaints have fallen on deaf ears and the Pennsylvania Judicial Review Board was negligent in not warning certain judges of their conduct, especially the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judges that selectively denied In Forma Pauperis applications on baseless grounds without ever writing the cause or reason of the denial on the ORDER, which is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure. Complaints were also filed against Magisterial District Justices for filing false arrests and malicious prosecutions. This abuse of process allowed the courts to deny CATERBONE due process of the law and deny certain civil complaints to be filed.


6. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP have suffered irreparable harm to it’s reputation and to it’s efforts to continue it’s business operations while as a petitioner in a Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan filed on May 23, 2005 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District as case no. 05-23059.


7. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP were also continuing a decade long investment in projects located in the Downtown Lancaster Investment District that have been maliciously sabotaged with ease due to the gross abuse; negligence; and abuse of process of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police coupled with the false arrests and the malicious prosecutions. Three main projects include a UPS Shipping and Copy Store (CATERBONE retains an exclusivity agreement with UPS); Excelsior Place Business Plan; and the Downtown Theater at Hotel Brunswick . CATERBONE and the ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP have been an active advocate and supporter of the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center and the revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and have demonstrated a record of support and advocacy through its meeting and communications with major stakeholders, public officials, and attendance at public meetings. In November of 2007, CATERBONE and the Advanced Media Group went public with their Downtown Lancaster investments and business plans that were culminated over the past 9 years. The Advanced Media Group also formerly and publicly introduced their Downtown Lancaster Action Plan via handouts, websites, and blogs; and began meetings and negotiations with major stakeholders, City of Lancaster Public Officials, Developers, and investors.


8. CATERBONE has formerly applied to be on the Lancaster Convention Center Authority Board of Directors in 2007 and has petitioned for a seat on the Lancaster County Government Study Group in 2006.


9. In March of 1988 the following charges by Detective Larry Mathias and the Manheim Township Police Department and Lancaster County Assistant District Attorney Donald Totaro were dismissed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas for the arrests of September 3, 1987 and are named in U.S. District Court Case No. 05-2288, now pending before the courts: cc3304a2 Criminal Mischief - F3 Nolle Prossed / Withdrawn; Cc3502 Burglary - F1 Quashed / Dismis / Demur Sus; cc3701al Robbery - F1 Quashed /Dismis /Demur Sus; cc3921a Theft By Unlwf Taking Or Dispo –F3 Nolle Pros / Withdrawn; cc3933a1 Unlawful Use Of Computer - F3 Nolle Pros /Withdrawn; Cc3933a2 Unlawful Use Of Computer - F3 Quashed / Disnis / Demur Sus; cc2706 Terroristic Threats - M1 Quashed / Dismis / Demur Sus; cc2902-1 Unlawful Restraint - M1 Quashed / Dismis / Demur Sus.


10. In 1997 CATERBONE had solicited Attorney Christina Rainville of Philadelphia and pro bono attorney for Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie Show murder case. The murder trials and appeals of the Lambert case demonized Ms. Christina Rainville and U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell. After CATERBONE submitted documents and audio recordings, Ms. Christina Rainville had communicated with CATERBONE that she was not able to take his case due to the fact that her Philadelphia law firm had banned her from taking on any more Lancaster County residents, despite the fact that many more sought her legal counsel. On December 31, 1997, CATERBONE had also personally delivered a CD-ROM to the chambers of U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell in an effort to bring attention to his case. In May of 1998 CATERBONE submitted an AFFADAVIT to the law firm of Schneider and Harrison outlining the prosecutorial misconduct or Finding of Facts of the 1987 cover-up for Ms. Christina Rainville. CATERBONE alleges that these facts were part of the attitude and the motives for the law enforcement-at-large of Lancaster County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ignore the rule of law and procedure in order to bring these false arrests and malicious prosecutions. The Lancaster County community-at-large had the same attitude toward CATERBONE. The Lambert case received national notoriety when U.S. District Judge Stuart Dalzell freed Lambert on a Habeus Corpus appeal hearing citing she was “actually innocent” beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Dalzell was quoted in chambers as saying, "I can tell you, Mr. Madenspacher, that I've thought about nothing else but this case for over three weeks, and in my experience, sir, and I invite you to disabuse me of this at oral argument, I want you and I want the Schnader firm to look for any case in any jurisdiction in the English-speaking world where there has been as much prosecutorial misconduct, because I haven't found it.” The case was covered by a 3 part series in the Los Angeles Times by writer Barry Seigel on November 10, 1997 and a television episode on the A&E Network American Justice Series. The Lancaster community gathered over 37,000 signatures on a petition to impeach U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell for his rulings. In the end, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took control of the case and appealed the ruling that freed Lambert sending her back to prison. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, after being denied any review. The case accentuated the rights of Federal Law vs. State Law and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania solicited a team of attorney generals from across the nation to help their cause. CATERBONE attended a hearing before Judge Larry Stengel in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and to this day, due to his knowledge and experience with the Lancaster County Judicial System and Law Enforcement believes the case should have never been conducted without a jury trial, and that the over zealous prosecution proves that prosecutorial misconduct was never thoroughly investigated or prosecuted in the Lambert case. CATERBONE will not let that happen in his cases.



CAUSES OF ACTION
11. On December 5, 2006 the charge of 18 § 3926 §§ A4 Theft Of Services-Acquisition Of Services and 18 § 2709 §§ A7 Harassment - Comm. Repeat In Another Manner (LC); Docket No. CP-36-CR-0002843-2006, were both Withdrawn (Lower Court) during trial court. Officer Bezzerd of the East Lampeter Police Department, the affiant, arrested CATERBONE at the Brasserie Restaurant and Bar on Lincoln Highway East in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and falsely detained CATERBONE at the East Lampeter Police Station for several hours. The Lancaster County District Attorney and the East Lampeter Police Department had made a commitment in writing during a preliminary hearing before MDJ Reuter of Mount Joy Township to file the charge by December of 2005, but breached their commitment and resurrected the charges of October 6, 2005 on May 18, 2006 after the Southern Regional Police failed to obtain any treatment or commitment for CATERBONE during a 5-day evaluation from a 302 commitment to Lancaster General Hospital on April 5, 2006. The two other charges of disorderly conduct and harassment were improperly adjudicated and upon review of the record and trail court transcripts it is clear there was abuse of process, perjury, and other criminal and ethical violations. CATERBONE also alleges that the East Lampeter Police Department charges were retaliation for the AFFIDAVIT CATERBONE submitted to Attorney Christina Rainville in 1998 of Prosecutorial Misconduct in the case of Lisa Michelle Lambert. East Lampeter Township Police were the original Affiants in the Lambert case.

12. On January 23 2007 before MDJ Simms the following charges were dismissed: 285-21d No Parking Or Stopping Permitted Withdrawn (Lower Court); 285-30a Meter Violation Withdrawn (Lower Court); 18 § 6501 §§ A1 Scatter Rubbish Upon Land/Stream Etc Dismissed (Lower Court) Docket No. NT-0000598-06. On April 16, 2006 Officer David K. Hershiser of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police responded to the Marion Court Bar and Restaurant in Lancaster City on a 911 call by CATERBONE. CATERBONE had called 911 after a security person of the establishment was harassing CATERBONE. Rather than investigate CATERBONE’S allegations, Officer Hershiser began to harass CATERBONE while detaining him at the scene. CATERBONE attempted to give Officer HERSHISER his business card of Advanced Media Group by holding out his hand. Officer Hershiser let the business card drop to the ground and charged CATERBONE with 18 § 6501 §§ A1 Scatter Rubbish Upon Land/Stream Etc.


13. On January 18, 2007 the following charges were dismissed at trial by MDJ Isaac J. Stoltzfus at Intercourse, Pennsylvania: Docket No. TR-0002184-06 75 § 1543 §§ A Driv While Oper Priv Susp Or Revoked Not Guilty and Docket No. TR-0002183-06 Oper Veh W/O Req'd Financ Resp Not Guilty. On August 30, 2006 Officer Michael K. Schaeffer and another officer of the Millersville Boro Police Department pulled CATERBONE over on Wabank Road in Lancaster Township, Pennsylvania without probable cause, as determined by MDJ Stoltzfus. Officer Schaeffer detained CATERBONE for approximately 1 and a half hours, revoked his Pennsylvania Drivers License, and impounded his 2005 Honda Odyssey to the St. Denis Towing Company. The 2005 Honda Odyssey contained legal documents and evidence of his litigation. St. Denis Towing Company loaded the Honda Odyseey on the tow truck and drove CATERBONE in the tow truck to 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1 mile away. CATERBONE emptied out the Honda Odyssey while it was still loaded on the tow truck. CATERBONE had a AC/DC converter in the Honda Odyssey and was using a laptop and a printer to file court filings due to the fact that Pennsylvania Power and Light had illegally turned off his electricity to 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania on July 26, 2006 . CATERBONE was left without his Pennsylvania Driving Privileges for the next seven months without reason or cause. The St. Denise Towing Company demanded a cash payment to tow the car back to 1250 Fremont Street, approximately 1 mile from the location of the arrest, which CATERBONE did not have. The towing charge was $25.00 for the tow from the location of the illegal stop and false arrest to 1250 Fremont Street, CATERBONE’s temporary residence, owned by his mother Yolanda Caterbone (who had moved to Florida in December of 2004). CATERBONE tried to negotiate payment at a later date, and St. Denis refused. The 2005 Honda Odyssey was towed to the St. Denis Towing Company’s yard and held at a rate of $25.00 per day. CATERBONE asked if there was a weekly discount rate, and there was not discounted rate. On October 30, 2006, CATERBONE was falsely imprisoned at the Lancaster County Prison until December 28, 2006 . MDJ Stoltzfus had instructed CATERBONE on January 18, 2007 at trial to communicate with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to get his drivers license back. After several unsuccessful communications, both by certified mail and by telephone, CATERBONE solicited the help of the Lancaster office of Pennsylvania State Representative Michael Sturla, who had successfully negotiated the return of CATERBONE’s Pennsylvania Drivers License in March of 2007. CATERBONE also was not able to attend a Hearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Reading Pennsylvania on August 31, 2007, the day immediately following the illegal arrest and impound of his vehicle. CATERBONE had missed at least one other Hearing in Federal Bankruptcy Court in Reading, Pennsylvania. There was no public transportation available. The false arrest and illegal revocation of his Pennsylvania drivers license and the illegal impound of his vehicle made it impossible for CATERBONE to litigate in Federal courts in Reading, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Pennsylvania without incurring substantial costs for transportation. CATERBONE had no cash available for transportation. For the next seven months CATERBONE was left with walking, riding a bicycle, or taking a Red Rose Transit bus to and from the Lancaster County Courthouse for all of the vexation litigation that would follow during the next eighteen months. Even as important, it left CATERBONE without receiving his mail on a daily basis. The Conestoga Post Office and Postal Office Manager refused to forward CATERBONE’S mail to the Millersville Post Office, which was only 3 or 4 miles from CATERBONE’S 1250 Fremont Street temporary residence. The Conestoga Post Office would only forward certified letters and parcels to the Millersville Post Office . The Millersville Post Office also had public transportation available from 1250 Fremont Street via Red Rose Transit Authority. Instead, once a week, CATERBONE had to ride his bicycle from 1250 Fremont Street to 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pa in order to retrieve his mail. The 7 mile ride was treacherous with long hills and steep inclines, hard for even professionals to master. CATERBONE was unable to legal change his address because of his litigation and challenge to the foreclosure by Fulton Bank .


14. On April 30, 2007, CATERBONE, as pro se, appeared and litigated at Summary Appeal Trials at the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Docket No. CP-36-CR 0000028-2007, and was successful in overturning the previous convictions of the following charges: 18 § 5503 §§A4/ Disorder Conduct Hazardous/Physi Off Not Guilty Docket No. filed by Officer Michener of the Southern Regional Police Department on ; 18 § 5507 §§A / Obstruction Highways Not Guilty filed by Officer Michener of the Southern Regional Police Department on ; 18 § 2709 §§A3 Harassment - Course Of Conduct W/No Legiti Purpose Nollle Pros filed by Officer Michener of the Southern Regional Police Department on ; 75 § 3111 §§A / Disregard Traffic Control Device Not Guilty Nolle Pros filed by Officer Burger of the Southern Regional Police Department on. All of these charges, with exception to the 75 § 3111 §§A / Disregard Traffic Control Device stemmed from the incidents at the Conestoga Post Office in Conestoga Township .


15. On May 10, 2007 during Criminal Trial before the case was continued the following offenses were nolle prossed M2 18 § 5104 Resist Arrest/Other Law Enforce 08/04/2006 K4775120 and M1 18 § 908 §§A Make Rep/Sell/Etc Off Weap 08/04/2006 K4775120 Nolle Pros Docket No. CP-36-CR-0004771-2006.


16. On November 1, 2007 at approximately 8:40am before Call of the trial List in the Courtroom of President Judge Louis J. Farina, CATERBONE filed a Motion for Acquittal of the DUI charges as pro se. At approximately 10:00 am the Assistant Lancaster County District Attorney Deborah Muzereus moved to nolle prossed S 75 § 3714 §§A Careless Driving 08/04/2006 Nolle Pros and 75 § 3802 §§A1 DUI: Gen Imp/Inc of Driving Safely Nolle Pros Docket No. CP-36-CR-0004771-2006 were both nolle prossed.


17. On May 2, 2008 the following charge was dismissed §285-89 Street Cleaning Citation/ Dismissed.


18. From October 30, 2006 until December 29, 2008 CATERBONE was falsely imprisoned at the Lancaster County Prison. CATERBONE, in a hand written document while incarcerated, appealed a decision to reinstate a revoked bail bond to secured rather than unsecured that was ORDERED by Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Allison on November 1, 2006.


19. CATERBONE appealed the ORDER and Judge Allison denied his appeal.


20. On December 2, 2006 CATERBONE filed an Appeal for Reconsideration and was GRANTED his freedom on December 28, 2006 in an ORDER by Judge Allison that released CATERBONE on the following day, December 29, 2008. The following are the circumstances and are actual causes from that appeal.


21. On October 30, 2006 at approximately 2:00 pm at the residence of Yolanda Caterbone at 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, CATERBONE was apprehended by (2) PA Constables.

22. The apprehension began when (1) PA Constable who did not identify himself and was in old street clothes began pounding on the door and ringing the door bell while also turning the door knob trying to break into the residence. The PA Constable was a black male.

23. CATERBONE stood about 15 feet from the door and watched the PA Constable on his color video surveillance monitor and began to fear the unknown intruder. CATERBONE did not have a phone.


24. After about 10 minutes the PA Constable stopped and retreated away from the door to the door to the side of 1252 Fremont Street to confer with another PA Constable while CATERBONE watched. He noticed another PA Constable at the rear of 1250 Fremont Street.


25. For the first time CATERBONE determined that the (2) PA Constables were (2) constables or Police Detectives. Lancaster City Police Officer James McVey promised CATERBONE during a meeting at the Lancaster City Police Station that Detectives would be contacting him to investigate computer hacking and the theft of confidential legal papers at 1250 Fremont Street. CATERBONE reported multiple times to law enforcement that computer hackers were destroying and or downloading files and removing dates of court hearings on CATERBONE’s electronic calendars on the computer and portable Ipod.


26. CATERBONE went out the front door to confront the (2) men and was immediately placed under handcuffs and escorted to a vehicle. The (2) PA Constables had no identification visible that was visible and there were several neighbors outside their houses watching.


27. The (2) PA Constables, identified as Weinholdt and Williams (black male), transported CATERBONE to MDJ Leo Eckert Jr.’s office and was very hostile and prejudiced towards CATERBONE’s innocence.


28. CATERBONE arrived at MDJ Eckert’s office at 841 Stehman Road, Millersville, Pennsylvania, 17551, (717) 872-4367. Weinholdt made a remark about that a Southern Regional Police cruiser was already in MDJ Eckert’s parking lot. Upon Weinholdt parking CATERBONE refused to get out of the vehicle until the Constables would verify that Southern Regional Police Sgt. Busser was not inside MDJ Eckert’s office. CATERBONE explained the prior incidents of abuse against Busser and his fear of being in his presence. Williams went into the office and confirmed that the Southern Regional Policemen was not Sgt. Busser.


29. CATERBONE was placed into a holding cell for approximately 20-30 minutes. CATERBONE was then escorted to the office of MDJ Eckert, Jr. with Williams, Weinhodt, and an unidentified Southern Regional Policeman present. The Southern Regional Police Department Officer was not Adam Cramer or Officer Fedor.


30. CATERBONE signed not guilty pleas to the following citations:

A) Docket No. NT-000561-06 Filed on 08/07/2006 For § 5503 §§ A4 Disorderly Conduct
B) Docket No. NT-000569-06 Filed on 08/11/2006 for S18 § 2709 §§ A3 Harassment
C) Docket No. NT-000562-06 Filed on 08/07/2006 for S18 §§ A Obstructing Highway and or Public Passages
D) Docket No. 0002184-06 Filed on 09/05/2006 for § 75 § 1786 §§ A Driving under suspension.
E) Docket No. TR-0002183-06 Filed on 09/05/2006 S 75 § 1786 §§ Driving without required financial responsibility.

31. MDJ Eckert, Jr. assigned fines and costs of ($1,610.00) One Thousand Six Hundred & Ten Dollars as collateral (100%) for bail.


32. CATERBONE explained to MDJ Eckert, Jr. that he was confused by his paperwork from his office and was waiting on hearing dates for the offenses. CATERBONE also demanded copies of his entire cases from his office a month or so earlier without success.


33. CATERBONE declared his indigent status and his In Forma Pauperis status in the Court of Common Pleas, The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. CATERBONE also cited his food stamps and his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy as proof. . MDJ Eckert, Jr., questioned his financial disclosure and insisted CATERBONE had more cash holdings than CATERBONE’s Nineteen Dollars and Thirty-Four Cents ($19.34) in his pocket. MDJ Eckert, Jr., informed CATERBONE that he was going to jail until and Indigent Hearing could be held in Ten (10) days. CATERBONE was taken back to the holding cell, in handcuffs.


34. While being placed in the holding cell, MDJ Eckert, Jr., made disparaging and incriminating remarks about the U.S. District case no. 06-cv-4650 and CATERBONE’s suit against him and other Lancaster County District Magistrates Judges. He said “Well since you filed a suit against every District Magistrate in Lancaster County, we’ll have to send you to Dauphin County.


35. At approximately 5:00 pm on October 30, 2006, CATERBONE was transported to Lancaster County Prison.


36. CATERBONE was issued a Detainer on October 31, 2006 for the $1,610.00 and was committed for “Bail Not Posted”.


37. The Detainer listed CATERBONE’s address as 1230 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, rather§ than 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania. It also listed the wrong social security number as 200-46-1959 and the wrong middle name as Jay instead of Joseph.


38. On October 30, 2006, a second Detainer and Bench Warrant was issued by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police Department Warrant No. 36-BW-0002823-2006 and Docket No. CP-36-CR-00004771-2006.


39. The Detainer listed the reason for the Detainer as “ The Bail Administration revoked the bail and issued a Bench Warrant: (Revoked Bail was issued at $5,000.00 unsecured with non-monetary conditions).


40. On November 1st, 2006, CATERBONE had a Hearing before the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison, as stated in a mandatory 72 hour hearing clause


41. The Assistant Attorney disclosed that the disclosed to the Honorable Judge Allison that CATERBONE failed to attend a meeting with the Bail Administrator. CATERBONE objected, as a pro se litigant, that on October 20th , 2006, CATERBONE attended a meeting with the Bail Administrator and that CATERBONE was given an appointment by the receptionist for another meeting for November 6th, 2006 at 10:00 am on a pink slip of paper.

42. The Assistant District Attorney stated that CATERBONE failed to appear another time on October 17th, 2006. CATERBONE responded that he did in fact attend that meeting and even signed the “Agreement of Conditions” and let it on the desk of Ms. Morales before leaving. Another staff member of the Bail Administration Office was agitating CATERBONE.

43. The Honorable Judge Allison reinstated the bail at $5,000.00 secured rather then unsecured as previously executed with the Honorable MDJ Commins on Giest Road, Leola, Pennsylvania.


44. CATERBONE was removed from the Courtroom unaware of the difference in a hastily fashion without an opportunity for an explanation or an objection as to why CATERBONE was now required to post monetary conditions when it was proven the meeting (Bail Administrator) was attended as prescribed in the Bail Bond Agreement.

45. On November 4th, 2006, CATERBONE filed an appeal for reconsideration before the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison to reinstate and reset bail as unsecured.

46. CATERBONE is also alleging prosecutorial misconduct and other retaliatory tactics by the Southern Regional Police Department and Officer Adam Cramer when the 2nd Detainer was issued on October 30, 2006.


47. By October 30th, 2006, CATERBONE was ordered to amend the Civil Action of Caterbone v. Southern Regional Police Department et al, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. By 2:00 pm on October 30th, 2006, CATERBONE had completed the amended complaint and prepared the filing for the Lancaster County Prothonotary and the Attorney of Record for the Southern Regional Police Department.


48. CATERBONE did not want to take the chance of having any problems with traveling to the Lancaster County Courthouse to file the complaint and was totally unaware of any outstanding Bench Warrants. CATERBONE decided to ride his bike instead to the United States Postal Substation in Bausman, Pennsylvania to mail the amended complaint via 1st class mail.


49. CATERBONE chose the right option to file the amended compliant via mail. Had the Pennsylvania Constable apprehended CATERBONE prior to reaching the Bausman Postal Substation, the amended complaint would have been sitting in the Lancaster County Prison.


50. The financial implications that the amended complaint has to Conestoga Township has the potential of costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars as prescribed by law.


51. CATERBONE alleges that the Southern Regional Police Department wanted to obstruct CATERBONE by revoking the unsecured bail bond without a proper reason and prevent the filing of the amended complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.


52. The Southern Regional Police Department has used a similar criminal tactic on April 5th, 2006, when CATERBONE was enroute to the Lancaster County Courthouse to file the original civil action against the Southern Regional Police Debarment, et al. Officers Fedor and Sgt. Busser filed a fraudulent 302 Commitment document and apprehended CATERBONE prior to reaching the Lancaster County Courthouse and transporting CATERBONE to the Lancaster General Hospital.


53. CATERBONE filed the civil action (Southern Regional Police Department) on April 10th, 2006, and against the Lancaster General Hospital. Barley and Snyder, LLC filed an appearance for the Lancaster General Hospital, et al, but defaulted.


54. CATERBONE also alleges retaliatory action by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police Department for the October 20th, 2006 Federal Civil Action (06-cv-4650), which he is a Defendant.


55. The Prosecution, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Lancaster District Attorney’s Office are also the subject of a Federal False Claims Act regarding International Signal and Control, PLC., (ISC) and CATERBONE’s whistle blowing activities of 1987. The civil action was filed recently filed on October 20th, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both are also named in the Federal Action of Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al, with case no. 05-dv-2288 filed on May 16th, 2005.


56. CATERBONE’s incarceration is suspect to retaliatory prosecution and obstruction of justice and intimidation regarding several Lancaster County Departments that are Defendants of a civil action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (05-cv-2288; 06-cv-4650; and the Federal False Claims Act of October 20th 2006), There was no reason cited by the Lancaster County District Attorney on November 1st, 2006, that warrants the downgrading of the unsecured bail bond to a secured bail bond with monetary conditions.3


57. The Lancaster County Sheriffs Department, which administrates a portion of the Bail Administration policy and rules, are also a named defendant in Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al, (05-cv-2288) filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Bail Administration employee had committed perjury on November 1st, 2006, before the Honorable Judge Paul K. Allison


58. CATERBONE has been at odds with the Lancaster County Commissioners position and efforts to halt the efforts of the development of the Lancaster County Convention Center. In 2005, CATERBONE filed a civil action in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in Project Hope/Advanced Media Group v. Drew Anthon and the Eden Resorts Inn for the Hoteliers refusal to pay the Lancaster County Convention Center excise taxes. CATERBONE was a former business partner with S. Dale High and had a meeting with the Law firm of Nettleton and Finefrock (referred by former Mayor Charlie Smithgall), and they were of the opinion that CATERBONE had legal standing and they also disclosed that County Commissioner Richard Shellenberger had taken a bribe of $200,000.00 to halt the efforts of the Lancaster County Convention Center. CATERBONE filed a document with the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office in 2006 alleging bribery. CATERBONE alleges that the criminal citations and Bench Warrants have been retaliatory and have not allowed CATERBONE to be in litigation free from conspiracy as a violation of statute § 263 42 § 1985 (2) C, a RICO civil rights violation.


59. The Bench Warrants and fraudulent incarceration was obstructing CATERBONE from litigating an appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Fulton Bank v. Stanley J. Caterbone, which involved a mortgage foreclosure and a scheduled sheriff sale on December 20th, 2006. Fulton Bank is also a named from 1987 and has been named by the Honorable Judge Mary McLaughlin of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of several causes of actions in case 05-dv-2288 including being unjustly enriched and a participant in a wrongful death action.


60. The Detainer issued by Officer Adam Cramer of the Southern Regional Police Department, which was issued because the Bail Administrator revoked the unsecured bail bond contained the following false statements to authorities:


A) DUI – Defendant had a Breathalyzer result of .073 (.08 legal limit) after consuming mouthwash and had a total of three (3) drinks in three (3) or more hours.


B) Resisting Arrest – CATERBONE immediately got out of his vehicle and raised his arms above his head and stood still. Officer Cramer ordered CATERBONE into the vehicle and refused to exit until the Pennsylvania Police were summoned.


C) Offensive Weapons – CATERBONE had a wood hatchet for cutting vines behind the passengers seat of his Honda Odyssey van. CATERBONE used the tool extensively to reduce the vines that smother trees in CATERBONE’s 2.5 acre wooded property.


D) Careless Driving – An unidentified vehicle was tailing CATERBONE, so he put on his turn signal to turn into the Pine View Dairy so the vehicle would pass him. Officer Cramer followed and put on his flashing lights in the driveway.


61. On November 20, 2006 CATERBONE filed 28 U. S. C. §2241 Habeas Corpus Petition Case No. 06-5138 (Challenging the Detainer and Imprisonment) filed from the Lancaster County Prison on November 14th, 2006. This case is still pending in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania records.


62. On December 5, 2005 while CATERBONE was falsely imprisoned and detained in the Lancaster County Prison The Lancaster Intelligencer Journal publishes the Story “The Next Sound You Hear…” regarding former business partner Tony Bongiovi, which is central to all of the litigation in the United States District Courts. The worlds of pro audio and consumer electronics were bridged at New York City's Avatar Studios in December, where Bongiovi Acoustics unveiled the Digital Power Station car radio. Demonstrated by audio icon Tony Bongiovi (pictured) in Avatar’s Studio A (former Power Station Studios), the patent-pending technology being manufactured by JVC made a very impressive debut.


63. On December 8th, 2006 CATERBONE files a Writ of Mandamus against Magisterial District Justice Leo H. Eckert, Jr, and Mary Commins for the fraudulent activities leading to the false imprisonment of October 30th, 2006, and Bench Warrants.


64. On December 12th, 2006 CATERBONE files for Continuances in all of the following Civil Complaints in the Commonwealth Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: CI-06-07330; CI-06-08742; CI-06-08490; CI-06-07376; CI-06-07188; CI-06-06658; CI-06-04939; CI-06-03403; CI-06-03401; CI-06-03349. O


65. On December 13th, 2006 the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department and Chief John Fiorill tried to get CATERBONE to change his address to the Lancaster County Prison and Judge Perezous refused to get ORDER CATERBONE to comply with the demand and Judge Perezous CONTINUED the Appeal Hearing because Stan Caterbone did not have any files to conduct a Trial.


66.December 20th, 2006 the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department refused CATERBONE to wear his suit into the courtroom, or take his files into the Pre-Trial Conference before Judge Farina.


67. On December 20th the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department and Fulton Bank conduct the illegal Sheriff Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road with NO notification before or after the SALE to CATERBONE and sold the property to Central Penn Settlement Company of Akron, Pennsylvania. The Fulton Bank Mortgage Foreclosure was still before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


68. On December 29th, 2006 CATERBONE is RELEASED from Lancaster County Prison, and walks to the Lancaster County Courthouse to report to Court Administration and the Prothonotary Office to get a print out of all of the Civil Dockets for all cases in Civil Court, including the Fulton Bank Foreclosure and finds out for the first time that the Sheriff Sale on December 20th took place.


69. On January 2, 2007 CATERBONE files and records (4:09pm) a Petition To Set Aside Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department.


70. On January 4th, 2007 CATERBONE visits 220 Stone Hill Road and finds 2 unidentified individuals on his property loading the entire contents of 220 Stone Hill Road onto 2 moving trucks, to an unidentified location, and is ordered off the Property for Trespassing. The 2 individuals said they were from Noble Real Estate Company. Mr. Joseph Caterbone accompanied him as a witness and driver. CATERBONE retrieves his mail from the Conestoga Post Office from dating back to October 25th, 2006 up to the present and temporarily forwards mail to 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA. CATERBONE visits the Lancaster County Sheriff Lt. Lancaster about the incident at 220 Stone Hill Road and is told that Southern Regional Police have already responded, and would not give any information about the incident. CATERBONE files and records an Addendum to the Petition To Set Aside Sale for 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County and personally serves Fulton Bank and the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Department regarding the theft of all of his personal possessions, including business files of Advanced Media Group, and all Legal files and evidentiary assets for all pending litigation.


71. On January 7th, 2007 CATERBONE files a claim with Harleysville Insurance Homeowners Policy HOAI 93468 for the theft of his personal possessions and the property at Stone Hill Road. From the day CATERBONE walked out of the Lancaster County Prison on December 29, 2006 until April 13, 2007 all of CATERBONE’s possessions were stolen, including every item in his personal residence and office at 220 Stone Hill Road, and his pickup truck, and every item stored outside his property, and it was never known who had taken possession or where it was stored. THIS HAD EFFECTIVELY MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO LITIGATE ANY CASE THAT CATERBONE HAD IN THE COURTS AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE NO ONE WANTED TO HELP TO FIND OUT WHERE THE POSESSIONS WERE TAKEN AND WHO TOOK THEM.


72. The amount of pain, suffering, and duress that CATERBONE had endured from the County of Lancaster at this point is not measurable.


73. On April , 2006 CATERBONE was illegally charged with 75 § 3733 §§ A, Fleeing and Eluding a Police Officer, docket number CR-0000085-2006 and CP-36-CR-0003179-2006 by Officer Robert Buser of the Southern Regional Police Department while Buser was pretending to serve CATERBONE with a fraudulent 302 Commitment Order to Lancaster General Hospital.


74. CATERBONE at first was going to defend the charge as pro se. During the first day in Court on January 3, 2007 CATERBONE did not like the demeanor or the manner of Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge James P. Cullen. CATERBONE then requested to have co-counsel in order to keep Judge Cullen honest and keep Judge Cullen from misconduct in the case. Due to a conflict, the Public Defenders Office referred CATERBONE to Lancaster County Bail Administration and within 30 minutes Janice Longer, Esq., was summoned to the Lancaster County Courthouse as a Court Appointed Co-Counsel. Still in court on January 3, 2007 and before Judge Cullen, CATERBONE did not like the attitude of Janice Longer, Esq., so CATERBONE moved to have Janice Longer, Esq., take lead counsel and CATERBONE a defendant only . CATERBONE, Longer, Judge James P. Cullen, and the Lancaster County District Attorney Office all agreed that the audio recording that CATERBONE had submitted as evidence would be played at trial for the jury.


75. In March of 2007 CATERBONE filed a complaint against counsel Janice Longer, Esq., before any trial for the case with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board.


76. In April of 2007 CATERBONE went to trial before a jury before Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Dennis Reinaker. Assistant District Attorney Deborah Muzereus prosecuted the case. After 3 days and approximately 5 hours of deliberations, the trial was ended in a hung jury.


77. The case went to trial during the next criminal court date in May of 2007. In this trial Judge James P. Cullen was the Judge, not Dennis Reinaker as before. During this trial Judge James P. Cullen would not allow the entire audio recording to be played, nor would he allow the entrapment defense. Unlike the first jury trial, the jury took only 20 minutes and found CATERBONE GUILTY of the charge of Fleeing and Eluding a Police Officer.


78. Judge James P. Cullen ORDERED a Pre Sentence Investigation and a Psychiatric Evaluation.


79. Janice Longer, esq., filed a Post Trial Motion for Acquittal of the conviction.


80. After a meeting with a Psychologist and a Psychiatrist both refused to give CATERBONE a psychiatric evaluation for the County of Lancaster for fear of being sued in civil courts.


81. On October 24, 2007, CATERBONE was sentenced to 6 months probation, fined $500.00, and a mandatory 2 years Drivers License Suspension by PENNDOT. CATERBONE performed the 6 months probation, the other sentencing items were not imposed due to the pending appeal. A Post Sentence Motion was filed.


82. After Judge Cullen and President Judge Farina ORDERED Court Appointed Attorney Paul B. Campbell, Esq., take over the Appeal of the case for Janice Longer, Esq.

83. Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge failed to file an Opinion and Memorandum for the Post Sentence Motion and let the 120 days lapse.

84. Court Appointed Attorney filed statement of matters for the wrong Motion and failed to include any issues for the appeal of the lower trial court conviction on the Statement of Matters for the Pennsylvania Superior Court appeal filed in January of 2008.


85. On March 31, 2008 Court Appointed Attorney Paul B. Campbell, Esq., communicated via email to CATERBONE that Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge James P. Cullen removed him from the case, without any further explanation.

86. The Fleeing and Eluding Appeal before the Pennsylvania Superior Court is now without any counsel and is completely sabotaged by all parties in an effort to avoid a reversal of the lower court conviction.

87. On May 20, 2008 CATERBONE was illegally pulled over and detained by Pennsylvania State Trooper Andrew Manning of Troop J at a Turkey Hill Market on Lincoln Highway East, Lancaster, PA. Trooper Manning and another Unidentified Pennsylvania State Trooper confiscated CATERBONE’s Pennsylvania Drivers License and a draft copy of civil complaint case no. CI-08-08635. CATERBONE personally showed Trooper Manning that the correspondence clearly states the following: “The Court has informed PennDOT that you (CATERBONE) have been accepted into the Accelerative Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program for violating A3802A2 of the Vehicle Code on August 24, 2008. Since this the only driving under the influence offense on your Pennsylvania driver record during the past ten years, no suspension is being imposed at this time”(There is NO Criminal Charge for DUI for Caterbone)


88. Trooper Andrew Manning and the other Pennsylvania State Trooper returned the Pennsylvania Drivers License to CATERBONE and told him he was free to go.


89. On May 27, 2008 CATERBONE received Citation No. Q0256446-1 in the mails from MDJ Commins, of 15, Geist Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, East Lampeter Township, with a charge of § 75 §1543 §§B1 Driving with a Revoked Drivers License pursuant to Sec 3731/1574 B1 DUI Related.


90. Trooper Andrew Manning failed to revoke CATERBONE’s Drivers License at the time of the detention, or notify CATERBONE that his Pennsylvania Drivers License was legally suspended.


91. On May 28, 2008 CATERBONE paid $50.00 in cash to the office of MDJ Commins for collateral and pleaded not guilty.


92. On May 28, 2008 while at the Office of MDJ Commins an East Lampeter Township Police Officer again tried to cite CATERBONE with § 75 §1543 §§B1 Driving with a Revoked Drivers License pursuant to Sec 3731/1574 B1 DUI Related. CATERBONE showed the East Lampeter Police Officer the correspondence from PENNDOT that states the following: “The Court has informed PennDOT that you (CATERBONE) have been accepted into the Accelerative Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) Program for violating A3802A2 of the Vehicle Code on August 24, 2008. Since this the only driving under the influence offense on your Pennsylvania driver record during the past ten years, no suspension is being imposed at this time”.


93. The East Lampeter Police Officer did not cite CATERBONE for any violations and concurred that he could not do so, and if he did, he would have to physically revoke the Pennsylvania Drivers License, unlike Trooper Andrew Manning of the Pennsylvania State Police.


94. On May 28, 2008 CATERBONE went and applied to the Lancaster County Bail Administration Office for a Public Defender and was granted eligibility for a public defender because if found guilty the sentence carries a mandatory 90 days in prison and a fine of $500.00.


95. On or about May 10, 2008 CATERBONE received a NOTICE from PENNDOT (only) regarding a DUI charge on August 24, 2008 in Clearfield County. The NOTICE is the only paperwork for that case. There are no criminal charges filed in Clearfield County, so there is no mistaken identity issues. CATERBONE addressed the problem as that of either PENNDOT maliciously creating a fraudulent document or that of a computer hacker creating a fraudulent document using PENNDOT’S system or NOTICE templates. CATERBONE has filed a criminal complaint against PENNDOT for not correcting the record and the PENNDOT computer system. The civil complaint is being filed along with this civil complaint.


CAUSES OF ACTION BY DEFENDANTS
County of Lancaster
Lancaster County District Attorney Office
Deborah Muzereus, Assistant District Attorney
Lancaster County Prison
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Bail Supervision of Lancaster County and
Janice Longer, Court Appointed Attorney
Paul B. Campbell, Court Appointed Attorney
Judicial Review Board and
Joseph A. Massa, Jr., Esquire, Chief Counsel
Southern Regional Police Department and
John R. Michener
Robert M. Fedor
Robert C. Buser
John A. Fiorill, Chief of Police
Adam Cramer
Robert Paul Burger
East Lampeter Police Department and
Ronald S. Bezzerd
Millersville Boro Police Department and
Michael K. Schaeffer
Lancaster City Bureau Of Police and
Robert Whiteford
David K. Hershiser
Mark D. Heiser
Pennsylvania State Police and
Andrew J. Manning
Magisterial District Judge Eckert
Magisterial District Judge Commins

Fraud; Abuse of Process; Libel; Civil Conspiracy; Barratry; Malicious Prosecution; False Arrests; False Imprisonment; Vexatious litigation; Gross Negligence; Gross Abuse of Power and Discretion; Harasment; Obstruction of Justice; Civil Rights Violations; RICO Violations; Anit-Trust Violations; Theft of Property; Unjust Enrichment

Damages

Loss of reputation and credit; humiliation; and mental suffering. discomfort; injury to health; loss of time; deprivation of society with family, and loss of liberty. Also: economic loss due to business and litigation interruption; legal fees and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs seeks jury trial and damages in excess of $100,000.


JURISDICTION
Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. Usually, the actions brought lack merit. This action has been declared a crime in some jurisdictions. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, barratry is a misdemeanor. [1] In England and Wales the offence was abolished in 1967.

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort. While similar to the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting or pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, "malicious prosecution" is reserved for the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while "malicious use of process" refers to the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
Criminal prosecuting attorneys, as well as judges, are normally protected, by doctrines of prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity, from tort liability for malicious prosecution.

The mere filing of a complaint cannot constitute an abuse of process. The parties who have abused or misused the process, have gone beyond the mere filing of a lawsuit. The taking of an appeal, even a frivolous one, is not enough to constitute an abuse of process. The mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper purpose, is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action.
Abuse of process is a common law intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.

The elements of a valid cause of action for abuse of process in most common law jurisdictions are as follows: it is the malicious and deliberate misuse or perversion of regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. "Process" in this context is used in the same sense as in "service of process," where "process" refers to an official summons or other notice issued from a court. The person who abuses process is interested only in accomplishing some improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process and that offends justice, such as an unjustified arrest or an unfounded criminal prosecution. Subpoenas to testify, attachments of property, executions on property, garnishments, and other provisional remedies are among the types of "process" considered to be capable of abuse.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may bring down sanctions on the offender.
A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Roy L. Pearson, Jr., an Administrative Law Judge in the District of Columbia, who sued a dry-cleaner for $54 million for allegedly losing a pair of his trousers, is sometimes claimed to be a vexatious litigant; however, he does not have a history of frivolous action like the parties normally considered vexatious.[citation needed In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly.

[1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud).
Fraud, in addition to being a criminal act, is also a type of civil law violation known as a tort. A tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. A civil fraud typically involves the act of intentionally making a false representation of a material fact, with the intent to deceive, which is reasonably relied upon by another person to that person's detriment. A "false representation" can take many forms, such as:
· A false statement of fact, known to be false at the time it was made;
· A statement of fact with no reasonable basis to make that statement;
· A promise of future performance made with an intent, at the time the promise was made, not to perform as promised;
· A statement of opinion based on a false statement of fact;
· A statement of opinion that the maker knows to be false; or
· An expression of opinion that is false, made by one claiming or implying to have special knowledge of the subject matter of the opinion. "Special knowledge" in this case means knowledge or information superior to that possessed by the other party, and to which the other party did not have equal access.

In law, defamation (also called vilification, slander, and libel) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Slander refers to spoken comments, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.[1] "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]

Slander and libel
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel[4][5] (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

Criminal defamation
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression, has published global maps [2] charting the existence of criminal defamation law across the globe. The law is used predominantly to defend political leaders or functionaries of the state. In Britain, the Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was convicted of criminal libel for denouncing the Italian state agent Ennio Belelli in 1912. While, in Canada, though the law has been applied on only six occasions in the past century, all of those cases involve libellants attached to the state (police officers, judges, prison guards). In the most recent case, Bradley Waugh and Ravin Gill were charged with criminal libel for publicly accusing six prison guards of the racially motivated murder of a black inmate (http://netk.net.au/Canada/Canada15.asp. In Zimbabwe, "insulting the President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offense.

Defenses
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.

Truth
In many legal systems, adverse public statements about legal citizens presented as fact must be proven false to be defamatory or slanderous/libel. Proving adverse, public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel and/or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however; if the Defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[7] Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive." [8]

It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures. Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public.[9] [10]

See also: Substantial truth

Privilege and malice
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.
There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

· "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

· "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.
Other defenses

Defenses to claims of defamation include:
· Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.

· Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of Defense: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

· Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.

· Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.

· Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

· Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.

· Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.

· Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim.
In addition to the above, the Defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous.

Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).

Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that Defendant is at fault.

The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal investigations or trials, or business profiles. Media liability insurance is available to newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.

Defamation and freedom of speech
Defamation laws may come into tension with freedom of speech, leading to censorship or chilling effects where publishers fear lawsuits, or loss of reputation where individuals have no effective protection against reckless or unfounded allegations. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights permits restrictions on freedom of speech which are necessary for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others[11].

Jurisdictions resolve this tension in different ways, in particular in determining where the burden of proof lies when unfounded allegations are made. The power of the internet to disseminate comment, which may include malicious comment, has brought a new focus to the issue. [12]

There is a broader consensus against laws which criminalize defamation. Human rights organizations, and other organizations such as the Council of Europe and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, have campaigned against strict defamation laws which criminalize defamation.[13][14] The European Court of Human Rights has placed restrictions on criminal libel laws because of the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. One notable case was Lingens v. Austria (1986).

United States
Main article: United States defamation law

The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger established some precedent that the truth should be an absolute defense against libel charges. (Previous English defamation law had not provided this guarantee.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.
Most states recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.

An action for damages brought by one against whom a civil suit or criminal proceeding has been unsuccessfully commenced without probable cause and for a purpose other than that of bringing the alleged offender to justice.
Malicious Prosecution and Vexatious Litigation

An action for malicious prosecution is the remedy for baseless and malicious litigation. It is not limited to criminal prosecutions, but may be brought in response to any baseless and malicious litigation or prosecution, whether criminal or civil. The criminal defendant or civil respondent in a baseless and malicious case may later file this claim in civil court against the parties who took an active role in initiating or encouraging the original case. the Defendant in the initial case becomes the plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit, and the plaintiff or prosecutor in the original case becomes CATERBONE. In most states the claim must be filed within a year after the end of the original case.

A claim of malicious prosecution is atort action. A tort action is filed in civil court to recover money damages for certain harm suffered. The plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit seeks to win money from the respondent as recompense for the various costs associated with having to defend against the baseless and vexatious case.

The public policy that supports the action for malicious prosecution is the discouragement of vexatious litigation. This policy must compete against one that favors the freedom of law enforcement officers, judicial officers, and private citizens to participate and assist in the administration of justice.

In most jurisdictions an action for malicious prosecution is governed by the common law. This means that the authority to bring the action lies in case law from the courts, not statutes from the legislature. Most legislatures maintain some statutes that give certain persons immunity from malicious prosecution for certain acts. In Colorado, for example, a merchant, a merchant's employee, or a police officer, who reasonably suspects that a theft has occurred, may detain and question the suspect without fear of liability for slander, false arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detention, or malicious prosecution (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-4-407 [West 1996]).

An action for malicious prosecution is distinct from an action for false arrest or false imprisonment. If a person is arrested by a police officer who lacks legal authority for the arrest, the proper remedy is an action for false arrest. If a person is confined against her or his will, the proper remedy is an action for false imprisonment. An action for malicious prosecution is appropriate only where the judicial system has been misused.

Elements of Proof
To win a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) that the original case was terminated in favor of the plaintiff, (2) that the Defendant played an active role in the original case, (3) that Defendant did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case, and (4) that the Defendant initiated or continued the initial case with an improper purpose. Each of these elements presents a challenge to the plaintiff.

The Original Case Was Terminated in Favor of the Plaintiff
The original case must end before the Defendant or respondent in that case may file a malicious prosecution suit. This requirement is relatively easy to prove. The original case qualifies as a prosecution if the Defendant or respondent had to appear in court. The original case need not have gone to trial: it is enough that the Defendant or respondent was forced to answer to a complaint in court. If the original case is being appealed, it is not considered terminated, and the Defendant or respondent must wait to file a malicious prosecution suit.
To proceed with a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must show that the original case was concluded in her or his favor. Generally, if the original case was a criminal prosecution, it must have been dismissed by the court, rejected by the grand jury, abandoned by the prosecutor, or decided in favor of the accused at trial or on appeal. If the original case was a civil suit, the respondent must have won at trial, or the trial court must have disposed of the case in favor of the respondent (now the plaintiff).

If recovery by the plaintiff in a civil action was later reversed on appeal, this does not mean that the action was terminated in favor of the respondent. However, if the plaintiff in the original case won by submitting fabricated evidence or by other fraudulent activity, a reversal on such grounds may be deemed a termination in favor of the respondent. A settlement between the plaintiff and the respondent in a civil suit is not a termination in favor of the respondent. Likewise, courts do not consider a plea bargain in a criminal case to be a termination in favor of the Defendant.

Defendant Played an Active Role in the Original Case
In a malicious prosecution suit, the plaintiff must prove that CATERBONE played an active role in procuring or continuing the original case. The plaintiff must prove that CATERBONE did more than simply participate in the original case. False testimony alone, for example, does not constitute malicious prosecution. Moreover, witnesses are immune from suit for defamation, even if they lie on the witness stand. This is because the concept of a fair and free trial requires that witnesses testify without fear of having to defend a defamation suit owing to their testimony.

An action for malicious prosecution focuses on the abuse of legal process, not on defamatory, untruthful statements. If a person helps another person launch a baseless case or takes action to direct or aid such a case, the first person may be held liable for malicious prosecution. CATERBONE must have been responsible in some way for the institution or continuation of the baseless case. This position of responsibility does not always include criminal prosecutors and civil plaintiffs. For example, if a prosecutor bringing criminal charges is tricked into prosecuting the case by an untruthful third party, the deceiving party is the one who may be found liable for malicious prosecution, not the prosecutor.

Defendant Did Not Have Probable Cause to Support the Original Case
The plaintiff must prove that the person who began or continued the original case did not have probable cause to do so. Generally, this means proving that the person did not have a reasonable belief in the plaintiff's guilt or liability. In examining this element, a court will look at several factors, including the reliability of any sources, the availability of information, the effort required to obtain information, opportunities given to the accused to offer an explanation, the accused's reputation, and the necessity in the original case for speedy judicial action.
A failure to fully investigate the facts surrounding a case may be sufficient to prove a lack of probable cause. The termination of the original case in favor of the original defendant (now the plaintiff) may help to prove a lack of probable cause, but it may not be decisive on the issue. The plaintiff should present enough facts to allow a reasonable person to infer that Defendant acted without a reasonable belief in the plaintiff's guilt or liability in beginning or continuing the original case.

In a criminal case, an acquittal does not constitute a lack of probable cause. A criminal defendant stands a better chance of proving lack of probable cause if the original case was dismissed by prosecutors, a grand jury, or the court before the case went to trial. The criminal process provides several safeguards against prosecutions that lack probable cause, so a full criminal trial tends to show the presence of probable cause. Civil cases do not have the same safeguards, so a full civil trial does not tend to prove probable cause.

The Defendant Initiated or Continued the Original Case with an Improper Purpose
In a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove with specific facts that the Defendant instituted or continued the original proceeding with an improper purpose. Sheer ill will constitutes an improper purpose, and it may be proved with facts that show that the Defendant resented the plaintiff or wanted somehow to harm the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the Defendant felt personal malice or hostility toward the plaintiff. Rather, the plaintiff need only show that the Defendant was motivated by something other than the purpose of bringing the plaintiff to justice.

Few defendants admit to improper purposes, so improper purpose usually must be inferred from facts and circumstances. If the plaintiff cannot discover any apparent purpose, improper purpose can be inferred from the lack of probable cause.
Hodges v. Gibson Products Co.

Hodges v. Gibson Products Co., 811 P.2d 151 (Utah 1991), contained all the elements of a malicious prosecution. According to Chad Crosgrove, the manager of Gibson Discount Center in West Valley, Utah, store money was noticed missing during the afternoon of September 4, 1981. Both Crosgrove and part-time bookkeeper Shauna Hodges had access to the money, and both denied taking it. On September 9 Crosgrove and Gibson officials went to the local police station, where they lodged an accusation of theft against Hodges. Crosgrove was not accused. Hodges was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail. After a preliminary hearing, she was released on bail and ordered to return for trial on May 12, 1982.
After Hodges was formally charged, an internal audit at Gibson revealed that Crosgrove had embezzled approximately $9,000 in cash and goods from the store. The thefts had occurred over a time period that included September 4, 1981. Gibson still did not charge Crosgrove with theft. Instead, it allowed him to resign with a promise to repay the money.

The night before Hodges's trial was to begin, and almost two months after Crosgrove's embezzlement was discovered, management at Gibson notified Hodges's prosecutor of Crosgrove's activities. The prosecutor immediately dropped the charges against Hodges. Hodges then filed a suit for malicious prosecution against Gibson and against Crosgrove.

At trial Hodges was able to prove all the elements of malicious prosecution to the jury's satisfaction: (1) She had been subjected to prosecution for theft, and the matter had been terminated in her favor. (2) She had sued the correct parties, because Gibson and Crosgrove were responsible for instituting the original proceedings against her. (3) She had ample evidence that the original prosecution was instituted without probable cause, because Gibson failed to investigate Crosgrove until after she had been arrested, and because the prosecutor dismissed the charges against her. (4) Finally, there were enough facts for the jury to infer that both Gibson and Crosgrove had acted with improper motive: Gibson had acted with an apparent bias against Hodges, and Crosgrove apparently had accused Hodges for self-preservation. The jury awarded Hodges a total of $88,000 in damages: $77,000 from Gibson, and $11,000 from Crosgrove. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

Damages
The plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution can recover money from CATERBONE for certain harms suffered. Typical injuries include loss of reputation and credit, humiliation, and mental suffering. If the original action was a criminal case, additional harms often include discomfort, injury to health, loss of time, and deprivation of society with family.

If the plaintiff suffered an economic loss directly related to the original action, the plaintiff can also recover the amount lost. This includes attorneys' fees and court costs incurred by the plaintiff in defending the original case.

Finally, the plaintiff may recover punitive damages. Punitive damages are imposed by judges and juries to punish misconduct by a party. Because an action for malicious prosecution requires proof of improper intent on the part of CATERBONE, punitive damages commonly are awarded to malicious prosecution plaintiffs who win damages awards.

Other Considerations
Actions for malicious prosecution must compete against the public interest in allowing parties to pursue cases unfettered by the specter of a retaliatory case. Very few civil or criminal cases result in an action for malicious prosecution. This is because it is difficult to prove that CATERBONE procured or continued the original case without probable cause and with an improper purpose.

Another difficulty for the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution is immunity. Generally, the law protects witnesses, police officers, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers from suit for malicious prosecution. Witnesses are given immunity because justice requires that they testify without fear of reprisals. Law enforcement and judicial officers are given immunity because they must be free to perform their duties without continually defending against malicious prosecution cases.

There are exceptions. If a law enforcement or judicial official ventures outside the bounds of official duties to instigate or continue a malicious prosecution, the official may be vulnerable to a malicious prosecution suit. For example, a prosecutor who solicits fabricated testimony to present to a grand jury may be sued for malicious prosecution. The prosecutor would receive only limited immunity in this instance because the solicitation of evidence is an administrative function, not a prosecutorial function (Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 113 S. Ct. 2606, 125 L. Ed. 2d 209 [1993]).

Private parties may also at times enjoy immunity from actions for malicious prosecution. For example, a person who complains to a disciplinary committee about an attorney may be immune. This general rule is followed by courts to avoid discouraging the reporting of complaints against attorneys

LII / Legal Information Institute
American Legal Ethics Library
ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1983)


ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

EC (Ethical Considerations) 7-21
The civil adjudicative process is primarily designed for the settlement of disputes between parties, while the criminal process is designed for the protection of society as a whole. Threatening to use, or using, the criminal process to coerce adjustment of private civil claims or controversies is a subversion of that process;36 further, the person against whom the criminal process is so misused may be deterred from asserting his legal rights and thus the usefulness of the civil process in settling private disputes is impaired. As in all cases of abuse of judicial process, the improper use of criminal process tends to diminish public confidence in our legal system.


Dragonetti Act Claim

The Pennsylvania Legislature enacted a wrongful use of civil proceedings statute (Dragonetti Act) which punishes both the client and attorney for bringing a wrongful civil action. 42 Pa.

C.S.A. § 8351, et seq. The elements of a Dragonetti Act claim are:
1) that the underlying proceedings were terminated in the plaintiff's favor;
2) that CATERBONE caused the proceedings to be instituted against the plaintiff without "probable cause"; and
3) that the proceedings were instituted for primarily an improper purpose.


1.1:520 Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings; Abuse of Process; False Arrest

42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8352.
A plaintiff can recover the following damages in a Dragonetti Act claim:

1) harm from arrest or interference with the use of land or chattels;
2) harm from any defamatory statement alleged as a basis for the proceeding;
3) expense of defending the original action, including attorney's fees;
4) any pecuniary loss resulting from the original proceedings;
5) any emotional distress that is caused by the wrongful proceeding; and
6) punitive damages

Hart v. O'Malley (Super. 1994), aff'd (1996). Under the Dragonetti Act "probable cause" means that: [the person bringing the claim] reasonably believes in the existence of facts upon which the claim is based, and either:

1) Reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid under the existing or developing law;
2) Believes to this effect in reliance upon the advice of counsel, sought in good faith and given after full disclosure of all relevant facts within his knowledge and information; or
3) Believes as an attorney of record, in good faith that his procurement, initiation or
continuation of a civil cause is not intended to merely harass or maliciously injure the opposite party.

Date: June 6, 2008
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroup01@msn.com
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com

Exhibits - 90 pages of exhibits.








|Welcome| |Findings-of-Facts| |Criminal Indictments WIP| |Fleeing Charge Scandal| |Stan J. Caterbone Bio| |Is Lancaster Ground Zero?| |New Document Library| |New Video Library| |Mind Control Video Library| |Telepathic Telecommunications| |Mind Control Research©| |BiPolar Mood Diagnosis| |Sammy Caterbone (Brother)| |Samuel Caterbone, Jr., (father)| |Letter to Dr. Phil (NBC TV)| |Letter to Chief Sadler LCPD| |Amended Complaint 2007| |Third Circuit Brief 07/2/08| |Third Circuit Opinion 09/28/08| |Lippiatt Amicus| |Amicus Curiae Brief NSA| |v. City of Lancaster 08-02982| |County of Lancaster 08-02983| |v. PENNDOT 08-02981| |Civil Rights Complaints| |UGI & PPL Disputes| |Advanced Media Group| |Tom's Project Hope| |Activist Shareholder| |International Signal Control (ISC)| |Downtown Lancaster Plan| |Excelsior Place Proposal| |FinancialManagementGroup| |Lancaster Home Rule Application| |1987 SONY Joint Venture| |1992 CCHR Complaint| |Had Lancaster Lost It's ...| |NIST Unix CD-ROM Article| |1987 Mortgage Banking| |Radio Science Laboratories| |Management Consulting| |Home| |Other|