16-1149 U.S. Third Circuit Appeal MOTION To RECONSIDER Order of February 16, 2016 Re LAMBERT Habeus Corpus March 15, 2016

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.
com
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________________________________________________
Lisa Michelle Lambert
:
PETITIONER
:
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 14-02559
:
U.S.C.A. Case No. 16-1149
:
Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,
:
RESPONDANT
:
:
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se
:
APPELLANT and MOVANT
:
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I Stanley J. Caterbone, MOVANT, and appearing Pro Se, do hereby on this 15 th day of mARCH
2016 file a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION to the ORDER recorded on February 16, 2016
DISMISSAL of Case.
BACKGROUND OF CASE
To clarify for the COURTS on December 14, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone filed a letter to the
Clerk requesting to WITHDRAW appeal no. 15-3400 in the Third Circuit.
Then on December 17,
2015 Stanley J. Caterbone filed a letter to the Clerk CLARIFYING the Withdraw as a MOTION to
WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On December 31, 2015 Stanley J. Caterbone filed a letter
to the COURT RESCINDING his MOTION TO WITHDRAW.
On January 12, 2016 FISHER,
JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges, Ruled Case No. 15-3400 MOTION TO WITHDRAW
GRANTED. On January 13, 2016 Stanley J. Caterbone filed a MOTION TO REINSTATE the Appeal in
the Third Circuit. On January 15, 2016 (FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges DENIED
MOTION TO REINSTATE the Appeal in the Third Circuit. And on January 15, 2016 Stanley J.
Caterbone filed a MOTION TO RECUSE Third Circuit Judge Michael Fisher for Conflict of Interest in
the Lisa Michelle Lambert Case. On February 16, 2016 this case was DISMISSED for failing to file
the appropriate filing fee. An Appeal was filed in U.S. District Court and the Clerk of Court Instituted
Case No. 16-1149.
16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Page 1 of 8
March 15, 2016
ARGUMENT
It is unfair to unjustly tax the APPELLANT, Stanley J. Caterbone twice for the same appeal
with another filing fee when there were no outstanding filing fees in case no. 15-3400. REMEMBER
THE CLERK OF COURT, MAYBE PURPOSEFULLY COMPLETELY IGNORED 15-3400, December 31,
2015 Stanley J. Caterbone FILED a LETTER to the COURT RESCINDING his MOTION TO
WITHDRAW. In addition the docketing of Case No. 16-1149 completed erased the record on
appeal by vacating all docket entries in case no. 15-3400, which placed the Appellant, Stanley J.
Caterbone and the PETITIONER, Lisa Michelle Lambert in a a compromising situation by having to
restate the entire record of case no. 15-3400 in order to effectively fight for the deserved freedom
from the original Habeus Corpus filed in May of 2014. In addition the DISMISSAL violates Stanley J.
Caterbone's civil rights and fair access to the law as well as serves as a means of denying Lisa
Michelle Lambert's Habeus Corpus case.
Also the Dismissal of 15-3400 conveniently oppresses
Stanley J. Caterbone's Motion For Summary Judgments in both federal and state courts as outlined
in his MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in case no. 14-02259; In addition the MOVANT must
be restored to whole by administering SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS in cases 05-2288; 064650; and all other cases filed by the MOVANT in this court.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS
must also be administered in Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas,
and other cases filed by the MOVANT in that said court. This alone would provide many
defendants with UNJUST ENRICHMENT, which is defined by the following:
UNJUST ENRICHMENT (Wikipedia, The Free Dictionary by FARLEX) - A general equitable
principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution
for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly
received and retained.
Although the unjust enrichment doctrine is sometimes referred to as a
quasi-contractual remedy, unjust enrichment is not based on an express contract. Instead, litigants
normally resort to the remedy of unjust enrichment when they have no written or verbal contract to
support their claim for relief. In such instances litigants ask a court to find a contractual relationship
that is implied in law, a fictitious relationship created by courts to do justice in a particular case.
Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the defendant
with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the defendant must have
acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff provided. Third, the plaintiff
must show that it would be inequitable or Unconscionable for the defendant to enjoy the benefit of
the plaintiff's actions without paying for it. A court will closely examine the facts of each case before
awarding this remedy and will deny claims for unjust enrichment that frustrate public policy or
violate the law.
In some circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy when a formally
Page 2 of 8
March 15, 2016
executed agreement has been ruled unenforceable due to incapacity, mistake, impossibility of
performance, or the Statute of Frauds. In certain states, for example, contracts with minors are
Voidable at the minor's discretion because persons under the age of majority are deemed legally
incapable of entering into contracts. But if the minor has received a benefit from the other party's
performance before nullifying the contract, the law of unjust enrichment will require the minor to
pay for the fair market value of the benefit received. If the adult used duress or Undue Influence to
induce the minor to enter the contract, however, the court will deny recovery in unjust enrichment
because the adult lacked "clean hands."
In other circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy for parties who have
entered a legally enforceable contract, but where performance by one party exceeds the precise
requirements of the agreement. For example, suppose a homeowner and a builder have entered
into a legally binding contract under which the builder is to construct a two-car garage. One day the
owner returns to her residence and discovers that in addition to constructing a two-car garage, the
builder has paved the driveway. The owner says nothing about the driveway but later refuses to
compensate the builder for the paving job. The builder has a claim for unjust enrichment in an
amount representing the reasonable value of the labor and materials used in paving the driveway.
Suppose, instead, that after completing half the job, the builder tells the owner that he cannot finish
the garage as originally agreed, but that he wants to be paid for the work he has done. The owner
balks at this demand, arguing that the builder has breached his contractual obligations and is
entitled to nothing. A minority of jurisdictions would allow the builder to recover the reasonable
value of his services, minus any damages suffered by the owner as a result of the breach. A
majority of jurisdictions, however, adhere to the rule that a party who fails to perform contractual
obligations has no remedy regardless of the amount of hardship he might endure.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment also governs many situations where the litigants have no
contractual relationship. For example, the law finds an implied promise to pay for emergency
medical treatment that is neither requested nor consented to by a patient. In some jurisdictions the
law finds an implied promise to pay for life-saving medical treatment even when a patient objects to
receiving it. The law also requires parents to reimburse a person who voluntarily supplies
necessaries such as food, shelter, and clothing to their children. As these examples demonstrate,
unjust enrichment is a flexible remedy that allows courts great latitude in shifting the gains and
losses between the parties as Equity, fairness, and justice dictate.
I request that Case No. 15-3400 be REINSTATED IN WHOLE.
Date: March 16, 2016
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717)-669-2163
scaterbone@live.com
Page 3 of 8
March 15, 2016
http://www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com/__
Page 4 of 8
March 15, 2016
Page 5 of 8
March 15, 2016
Page 6 of 8
March 15, 2016
Page 7 of 8
March 15, 2016
Page 8 of 8
March 15, 2016

16-1149 U.S. Third Circuit Appeal MOTION To RECONSIDER Order of February 16, 2016 Re LAMBERT Habeus Corpus March 15, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-1149 U.S. Third Circuit Appeal MOTION To RECONSIDER Order of February 16, 2016 Re LAMBERT Habeus Corpus March 15, 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16-1149 U.S. Third Circuit Appeal MOTION To RECONSIDER Order of February 16, 2016 Re LAMBERT Habeus Corpus March 15, 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Then on December 17,

On January 12, 2016 FISHER,

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

Also the Dismissal of 15-3400 conveniently oppresses

Although the unjust enrichment doctrine is sometimes referred to as a

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Appellant

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

16-1149 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

March 15, 2016

You might also like