FINAL SIGNED - Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy NEW Case COMPLETED FORMS For Tuesday September 5, 2017

DEBTOR STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE
B25A (Official Form 25A) (12/11)
United States Bankruptcy Court

EASTERN District of PENNSYLVANIA
In re , STANLEY J. CATERBONE Case No. 17-10615REF

Debtor Small Business Case under Chapter 11
STAN J. CATERBONES PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017
ARTICLE I
SUMMARY
This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code The Code)
proposes to pay creditors of STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE DEBTOR (the Debtor) from PROCEEDS
FROM THE MYRIAD CLAIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-TRUST,
VIOLATIONS OF THE RICO STATUTE, FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT RE ISC, INSURANCE CLAIMS
OF VANDALISM AND THEFTS, DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ETC., ALL OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN ACCRUING SINCE 1987. THESE CLAIMS ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL
AND STATE COURTS. THESE CLAIMS HAVE ARE ALL WELL SUBSTANTIATED AND ARE
SUPPORTED WITH IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, AUDIO
RECORDINGS, AND VIDEOS. HOWEVER DUE TO THE HISORY OF STAN J. CATERBONE, THISE
CLAIMS HAVE BEEN POLITICIZED SINCE 1987 AND THE FBI COINTELPRO'S PRGOGRAM HAS
BEEN USED TO OBSTRUCT EFFORTS IN ALL OF THE COURTS. IT IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND
CRIMINAL TO ALLOW THIS CONDUCT TO PROCEED AND NOT ALLOW THIS REORGANIZATION
PLAN TO BE CONSUMATED FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS, WHO HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY
PUNISHED JUST AS THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. MANY OF THSES CASES HAVE RESULTED
IN ORDERS GRANTING PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNTIL THE
UNDOINFLUENCE, COMPUTER HACKING, HARASSMENT, VADALISM, ETC., IS REMOVED FROM
THE DEBTORS LIFE SO THAT THESE CLAIMS CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION OR SETTLEMENTS REACHED. ALL OF THE USECURED CLAIMS IN THIS CASE
HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISPUTED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE THE DIRECT
RESULT OF THE VIOLATIONS OUTLINED HEREIN AND ARE NOT LEGALLY THE DEBT OF THE
DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. IN ADDITION DUE TO THE COMPUTER HACKING TO THE
DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, MOST IF NOT ALL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS WERE AND ARE
SUBJECT TO ERRORS AND/OR FALSE LEDGER BALANCES. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF
ACTIVE COURT CASES AND JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE
PRECEEDING:
J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149;
03-16-900046 re ALL FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No.
16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288;
06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-
1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint
against Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 1 of 66 February 7, 2017

DEBTOR - STANLEY J. CATERBONE Page No. 77 of 289 September 5, 2017
DEBTOR STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for
Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary
Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA
2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of
2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472
INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167;
06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case
No. 16-10157
This Plan has no secured claims; and one class of of unsecured claims; and one class of
equity security holders. Unsecured creditors holding allowed claims will receive distributions, which the
proponent of this Plan has valued at approximately 100 cents on the dollar with accruing interest.
This Plan also provides for the payment of administrative and priority claims [if payment is not in full on
the effective date of this Plan with respect to any such claim (to the extent permitted by the Code or the
claimants agreement), identify such claim and briefly summarize the proposed treatment.]
All creditors and equity security holders should refer to Articles III through VI of this Plan for
information regarding the precise treatment of their claim. A disclosure statement that provides more
detailed information regarding this Plan and the rights of creditors and equity security holders has been
circulated with this Plan. Your rights may be affected. You should read these papers carefully and
discuss them with your attorney, if you have one. (If you do not have an attorney, you may
wish to consult one.)
ARTICLE II
CLASSIFICATION OF CLAIMS AND INTERESTS
2.01 Class 1. All allowed claims entitled to priority under 507 of the Code (except
administrative expense claims under 507(a)(2), [gap
period claims in an involuntary case under 507(a)(3),] and
priority tax claims under 507(a)(8)).
2.02 Class 2. The claim of , to the extent allowed

as a secured claim under 506 of the Code.
[Add other classes of secured creditors, if any. Note: Section
1129(a)(9)(D) of the Code provides that a secured tax claim which
would otherwise meet the description of a priority tax claim under
507(a)(8) of the Code is to be paid in the same manner and over
the same period as prescribed in 507(a)(8).]
2.03 Class 3. All unsecured claims allowed under 502 of the Code.
[Add other classes of unsecured claims, if any.]
2.04 Class 4. Equity interests of the Debtor. [If the Debtor is an individual,
change this heading to The interests of the individual Debtor in
property of the estate.]

ARTICLE III
TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS,
U.S. TRUSTEES FEES, AND PRIORITY TAX CLAIMS
3.01 Unclassified Claims. Under section 1123(a)(1), administrative expense claims, [gap
period claims in an involuntary case allowed under 502(f) of the Code,] and priority tax claims are not in
classes.
3.02 Administrative Expense Claims. Each holder of an administrative expense claim allowed
under 503 of the Code [, and a gap claim in an involuntary case allowed under 502(f) of the Code,]
will be paid in full on the effective date of this Plan (as defined in Article VII), in cash, or upon such other
terms as may be agreed upon by the holder of the claim and the Debtor. THERE ARE NO
ADMINSTRATIVE EXPENSES CHARGED TO THIS PLAN, ONLY PRO SE BILLINGS, WHICH WILL BE
BILLED TO OTHER CASES INVOLVIING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CLAIMS.
3.03 Priority Tax Claims. Each holder of a priority tax claim will be paid [specify terms of
treatment consistent with 1129(a)(9)(C) of the Code]. There are no tax claims in this case.
3.04 United States Trustee Fees. All fees required to be paid by 28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6) (U.S.
Trustee Fees) will accrue and be timely paid until the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to another
chapter of the Code. Any U.S. Trustee Fees owed on or before the effective date of this Plan will be paid
on the effective date.
ARTICLE IV
TREATMENT OF CLAIMS AND INTERESTS UNDER THE PLAN
4.01 Claims and interests shall be treated as follows under this Plan: Claims will have
equity interest in the federal and state civil actions taken to secure settlements for the above
mentioned violations; which will fund this proposed reorganization plan.
ALL UNSECURED CLAIMS ARE UNIMPAIRED AND WILL BE PAID IN FULL UPON THE
SETTELMENTS AS OUTLINED IN ARTICLE ONE THE SUMMARY.
ARTICLE V
ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS
5.01 Disputed Claim. A disputed claim is a claim that has not been allowed or disallowed [by a
final non-appealable order], and as to which either: (i) a proof of claim has been filed or deemed filed,
and the Debtor or another party in interest has filed an objection; or (ii) no proof of claim has been filed,
and the Debtor has scheduled such claim as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated. SEE ARTICLE ONE
SUMMARY FOR THE REASON WHY ALL UNSECURED CLAIMS ARE DISPUTED.
5.02 Delay of Distribution on a Disputed Claim. No distribution will be made on account of a

disputed claim unless such claim is allowed [by a final non-appealable order].
5.03 Settlement of Disputed Claims. The Debtor will have the power and authority to
settle and compromise a disputed claim with court approval and compliance with Rule 9019 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ARTICLE VI
PROVISIONS FOR EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES
6.1 Assumed Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases.
(a) The Debtor assumes the following executory contracts and/or unexpired leases
effective upon the [Insert effective date of this Plan as provided in Article VII, the date of the entry of
the order confirming this Plan, or other applicable date]:
[List assumed executory contracts and/or unexpired leases.]
(b) The Debtor will be conclusively deemed to have rejected all executory contracts and/or
unexpired leases not expressly assumed under section 6.01(a) above, or before the date of the order
confirming this Plan, upon the [Insert effective date of this Plan, the date of the entry of the order
confirming this Plan, or other applicable date]. A proof of a claim arising from the rejection of an
executory contract or unexpired lease under this section must be filed no later than __________ (___)
days after the date of the order confirming this Plan.
ARTICLE VII
MEANS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
[Insert here provisions regarding how the plan will be implemented as required under 1123(a)(5) of the
Code. For example, provisions may include those that set out how the plan will be funded, as well as who
will be serving as directors, officers or voting trustees of the reorganized debtor.]
This Plan of Reorganization (the Plan) under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code The Code)
proposes to pay creditors of STAN J. CATERBONE (the Debtor) from PROCEEDS FROM THE MYRIAD
CLAIMS OF VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, VIOLATIONS OF ANTI-TRUST, VIOLATIONS OF THE
RICO STATUTE, FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT RE ISC, INSURANCE CLAIMS OF VANDALISM AND
THEFTS, DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, ETC., ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCRUING
SINCE 1987. THESE CLAIMS ARE CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
THESE CLAIMS HAVE ARE ALL WELL SUBSTANTIATED AND ARE SUPPORTED WITH
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, AUDIO RECORDINGS, AND VIDEOS.
HOWEVER DUE TO THE HISORY OF STAN J. CATERBONE, THISE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN
POLITICIZED SINCE 1987 AND THE FBI COINTELPRO'S PRGOGRAM HAS BEEN USED TO
OBSTRUCT EFFORTS IN ALL OF THE COURTS. IT IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND CRIMINAL TO
ALLOW THIS CONDUCT TO PROCEED AND NOT ALLOW THIS REORGANIZATION PLAN TO BE
CONSUMATED FOR THE SAKE OF THE CREDITORS, WHO HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY PUNISHED JUST
AS THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. MANY OF THSES CASES HAVE RESULTED IN ORDERS
GRANTING PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNTIL THE UNDOINFLUENCE,
COMPUTER HACKING, HARASSMENT, VADALISM, ETC., IS REMOVED FROM THE DEBTORS LIFE
SO THAT THESE CLAIMS CAN BE FULLY LITIGATED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR SETTLEMENTS
REACHED. ALL OF THE USECURED CLAIMS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISPUTED
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE VIOLATIONS
OUTLINED HEREIN AND ARE NOT LEGALLY THE DEBT OF THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE. IN
ADDITION DUE TO THE COMPUTER HACKING TO THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, MOST IF
NOT ALL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS WERE AND ARE SUBJECT TO ERRORS AND/OR FALSE LEDGER
BALANCES. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF ACTIVE COURT CASES AND JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS
WHICH SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE PRECEEDING:

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of
Appeals - COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149;
03-16-900046 re ALL FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No.
16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288;
06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-
1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint
against Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for
Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary
Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA
2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of
2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472
INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167;
06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case
No. 16-10157
ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
8.01 Definitions and Rules of Construction. The definitions and rules of construction set forth
in 101 and 102 of the Code shall apply when terms defined or construed in the Code are used in this
Plan, and they are supplemented by the following definitions: [Insert additional definitions if necessary].
THE PLAIN WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEURE FOR FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
AND WILL BE CONTRAINED TO THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS RESPECTIVELY. THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, WILL BE THE SOLE ADMINISTRATOR.
8.02 Effective Date of Plan. The effective date of this Plan is the first business day following
the date that is fourteen days after the entry of the order of confirmation. If, however, a stay of the
confirmation order is in effect on that date, the effective date will be the first business day after the date
on which the stay of the confirmation order expires or is otherwise terminated.
8.03 Severability. If any provision in this Plan is determined to be unenforceable, the

determination will in no way limit or affect the enforceability and operative effect of any other provision of
this Plan.
8.04 Binding Effect. The rights and obligations of any entity named or referred to in this Plan
will be binding upon, and will inure to the benefit of the successors or assigns of such entity.
8.05 Captions. The headings contained in this Plan are for convenience of reference only and do
not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Plan.

[8.06 Controlling Effect. Unless a rule of law or procedure is supplied by federal law
(including the Code or the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure), the laws of the State of____________
govern this Plan and any agreements, documents, and instruments executed in connection with this Plan,
except as otherwise provided in this Plan.]
[8.07 Corporate Governance. [If the Debtor is a corporation include provisions required by
1123(a)(6) of the Code.]]
ARTICLE IX
DISCHARGE
[If the Debtor is not entitled to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 1141(d)(3) change this heading to
NO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR.]
9.01. [Option 1 If Debtor is an individual and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]

Discharge. Confirmation of this Plan does not discharge any debt provided for in this Plan until
the court grants a discharge on completion of all payments under this Plan, or as otherwise provided in
1141(d)(5) of the Code. The Debtor will not be discharged from any debt excepted from discharge under
523 of the Code, except as provided in Rule 4007(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
[Option 2 -- If the Debtor is a partnership and section 1141(d)(3) of the Code

is not applicable]
Discharge. On the confirmation date of this Plan, the debtor will be discharged from any
debt that arose before confirmation of this Plan, subject to the occurrence of the effective date, to
the extent specified in 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Code. The Debtor will not be discharged from any
debt imposed by this Plan.

[Option 3 -- If the Debtor is a corporation and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]

Discharge. On the confirmation date of this Plan, the debtor will be discharged from any
debt that arose before confirmation of this Plan, subject to the occurrence of the effective date, to
the extent specified in 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Code, except that the Debtor will not be discharged
of any debt: (i) imposed by this Plan; (ii) of a kind specified in 1141(d)(6)(A) if a timely complaint was
filed in accordance with Rule 4007(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; or (iii) of a kind
specified in 1141(d)(6)(B).
[Option 4 If 1141(d)(3) is applicable]

No Discharge. In accordance with 1141(d)(3) of the Code, the Debtor will not receive
any discharge of debt in this bankruptcy case.

ARTICLE X
OTHER PROVISIONS
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 16-2513 is a
Preliminary Injunction for Emergency Relief that was filed in order to clear the way and have
the courts provide IMMEDIATE RELIEF from all illegal and criminal activities that are
OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE in order for the DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE from litigating
settlements of remedy, relief, and monetary awards which are the primary and only source of
funding for the reorganization plan. There are also a multitude of JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS,
both in the OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPLEALS AND IN
THE PENNSYLVANIA JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD relating to the same. The following is the
language used in the INJUNCTION:
I) TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge
of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation,
supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be
punished as provided in paragraph (3).
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

The Plaintiff alleges that he has been a prisoner of the state since 1987, and that the activities
surrounding the PLAINTIFF'S life has escalated into a daily occurrence of assaults. Unfortunately while
the PLAINTIFF'S has made many in person complaints to just about every law enforcement agency, the
pleas for help and assistance have yielded nothing but more attacks to the PLAINTIFF'S person,
property, electronics, home, auto, reputation, intellectual property, and lastly his mental state-of-mind A
BRUTAL ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. The PETITIONER has already made claims of
COINTELPRO-like tactics in his filings in the U.S.C.A. Case No. 15-3400 against these same said actors
and perpetrators. The PETITIONER will provide evidence to support this writ and offer a final remedy and
redress in accordance with federal law.
There are six essential prerequisites that a party must establish prior to obtaining a Preliminary
Emergency Injunction For Relief:
1. that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be
adequately compensated by damages;
2. that greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it, and,
concomitantly, that issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in
the proceedings;
3. that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed
immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct;
4. that the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that its right to relief is clear, and that the wrong
is manifest, or, in other words, that it is likely to prevail on the merits;
5. that the injunction it seeks is reasonably suited to abate the offending activity; and,
6. that a preliminary injunction will not adversely affect the public interest

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF

The PLAINTIFF seeks immediate relief from the above in the form of sanctions and fines for those
guilty of extortion and embezzlement and those withholding accounts receivables. PLAINTIFF seeks
immediate relief from the law enforcement agencies that continue abuse of process. PLAINTIFF seeks
immediate relief from public officials for obstructing justice and due process. PLAINTIFF seeks relief, in
as much as the courts are able, with regards to the harassment and torture from those known of such
crimes. The Complainant seeks relief from stalking and harassing neighbors and requires law enforcement
to make sure households can identify all occupants and prove they are entitled to the lease and or deed.
Due to the actions and criminal activity of the above named DEFENDANTS, it is reasonable to prove that
every aspect of the PLAINTIFF'S life, is subject to undo influence; harassment; torture; obstruction; etc.
thus resulting in irreparable harm and injury. This situation and set of circumstances as outlined here, and
all previous filings; reports; and statements, is a prescription for only one endgame - death or suicide.
There is no life action or activity that is immune from this horrendous HATE CRIME. The precedent and
landmark elements that make this so appalling is that the Complainant has never done anything to set
these circumstances in motion but to be right regarding International Signal & Control back in 1987; as
well as many other proclamations and forecasts. That being said, it is also widely reported that many
Targeted Individuals and Victims of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control are lead to death and/or suicide. The
Lancaster Community-At-Large is guilty of creating; abetting; fostering; and executing this tragedy. The
fact that local; state; and federal law enforcement induce and encourage this environment of hate is
landmark.
The Courts must consider UNJUST ENRICHMENT in this case. (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.
The PLAINTIFF seeks a temporary injunction until a permanent resolution to ALL ISSUES
CONTAINED HEREIN are constructed and resolved in the myriad of civil actions pending before the courts
and those actions withdrawn without prejudice awaiting resolutions.
IRREPRABLE HARM
The irreparable harm and injure that has resulted from the above circumstances includes but is not
limited to the following:
Loss of personal property and real estate.

Loss of opportunity to secure personal property, business assets, and court related assets,
information, and evidence; including when sleeping (rape drug rohypnol).
Loss of protection from law enforcement at every level; local, state, and federal.
Loss of relationships including family; friends; and professional.
Loss of time and loss of life as a normal person would know it.
Loss of freedom of movement in Downtown Lancaster Entertainment Venues and Constant and
Never Ending Threats of Physical Harm, Harassment, Over-Charging on Cost of Goods,
intimidation, discrimination, and barring from entering public places and entertainment venues,
violations of intellectual property rights, and obstruction of justice.
Loss of freedom of movement; complainant has been denied every opportunity to secure his
personal and business assets at 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania making it impossible
to travel or leave for any amount of time without fear of harm.
Loss of freedom of movement may constitute false imprisonment and may invoke the federal
Habeus CORPUS laws of freedom.
Loss of female companionship, and under constant mocking for it.
Loss of business opportunities.

Loss of accounts receivables.

Loss of professional and personal reputation; especially with specific regards to honesty and
integrity.
Civil and Criminal Conspiracy to manufacture mental illness symptoms and illnesses.
The PLAINTIFF acknowledges that this PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
may lead to a landmark decision, however, the intelligence community, the law enforcement community,
and the military industrial complex has MADE CERTAIN THESE ACTIVITES AND POLICIES REMAINED
HIDDEN FROM THE CITZENRY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND GLOBALLY AS WELL. In fact, all
things considered, the incoming TRUMP ADMINISTRATION may welcome the purging of these
technologies, and tactics of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control; which are used by other criminal elements,
including foreign nations and possibly terrorist organizations.
The Complainant seeks relief by awarding the Complainant his PRO SE BILLINGS
INVOICE. The Complainant seeks relief by awarding the Complainant SUMMARY JUDGMENT in
all cases filed before the LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and the U.S.
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA in REMEDY AND RELIEF for
the ARROGANCE OF BOTH THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY AND THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM FOR THE SYSTEMIC ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THE EXTREME NATURE OF THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH IN ITSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING THE
COMPLAINANT'S LIFE IN HARMS WAY ON A DAILY BASIS.
ATTACHED IS THE LATEST ORDER FOR CASE NO. 16-2513 BY FEDERAL MAGISTRATE KANE ON
JANUARY 31, 2017. ALSO ATTACHED IS THE LATEST LETTER FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA
JUDICIAL BOARD REGARDING 2 EXISTING JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS. Pennsylvania Judicial
Conduct Board LETTER re 2016-788 (Asworth) 2016-789 (Reinaker) February 2, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
By: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, THE DEBTOR

The Plan Proponent
By: NONE
Attorney for the Plan Proponent

B25B (Official Form 25B) (12/08)
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

INTENTIONALLY

B25A (Official Form 25A) (12/11)
United States Bankruptcy Court

EASTERN District of PENNSYLVANIA
In re , STANLEY J. CATERBONE Case No. 17-10615REF

Debtor Small Business Case under Chapter 11
STAN J. CATERBONES DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017

Table of Contents
[Insert when text is finalized]

I. INTRODUCTION
This is the disclosure statement (the Disclosure Statement) in the small business chapter 11
case of STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE DEBTOR. This Disclosure Statement contains information about
the Debtor and describes the [insert name of plan] (the Plan) filed by [the Debtor] on [insert date]. A
full copy of the Plan is attached to this Disclosure Statement as Exhibit A. Your rights may be affected.
You should read the Plan and this Disclosure Statement carefully and discuss them with
your attorney. If you do not have an attorney, you may wish to consult one.
The proposed distributions under the Plan are discussed at pages __-__ of this Disclosure
Statement. [General unsecured creditors are classified in Class __, and will receive a distribution of ___ %
of their allowed claims, to be distributed as follows _________.]
A. Purpose of This Document
This Disclosure Statement describes:
The Debtor and significant events during the bankruptcy case,

How the Plan proposes to treat claims or equity interests of the type you hold (i.e., what you will
receive on your claim or equity interest if the plan is confirmed),
Who can vote on or object to the Plan,
What factors the Bankruptcy Court (the Court) will consider when deciding whether to confirm
the Plan,
Why [the Proponent] believes the Plan is feasible, and how the treatment of your claim or equity
interest under the Plan compares to what you would receive on your claim or equity interest in
liquidation, and
The effect of confirmation of the Plan.
Be sure to read the Plan as well as the Disclosure Statement. This Disclosure Statement
describes the Plan, but it is the Plan itself that will, if confirmed, establish your rights.
B. Deadlines for Voting and Objecting; Date of Plan Confirmation Hearing
The Court has not yet confirmed the Plan described in this Disclosure Statement. This section
describes the procedures pursuant to which the Plan will or will not be confirmed.
1. Time and Place of the Hearing to [Finally Approve This Disclosure Statement
and] Confirm the Plan
The hearing at which the Court will determine whether to [finally approve this Disclosure
Statement and] confirm the Plan will take place on [insert date] , at [insert time], in Courtroom ___,
at the [Insert Courthouse Name, and Full Court Address, City, State, Zip Code].
2. Deadline For Voting to Accept or Reject the Plan
If you are entitled to vote to accept or reject the plan, vote on the enclosed ballot and return the
ballot in the enclosed envelope to [insert address]. See section IV.A. below for a discussion of voting
eligibility requirements.
Your ballot must be received by [insert date] or it will not be counted.
3. Deadline For Objecting to the [Adequacy of Disclosure and] Confirmation of

the Plan Objections to [this Disclosure Statement or to] the confirmation of the Plan must be filed with
the Court and served upon [insert entities] by [insert date].
4. Identity of Person to Contact for More Information

If you want additional information about the Plan, you should contact [insert name and address
of representative of plan proponent].
STAN J. CATERBONE
(717) 598-2200 TEXT OR CALL
stancaterbone@gmail.com
C. Disclaimer
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and publicly
discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud within
International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a
$1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of law
enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public corruption. We utilize our
communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our property, and our business. We
continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our rights to
continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed
from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my
Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
II. BACKGROUND
A. Description and History of the Debtor=s Business

The Debtor, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, is AN INDIVIDUAL, A CORPORATION, A FICTICIOUS
NAME, ALL CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN THE COMMOWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SINCE 1986
UNDER VARIOUS NAMES AND REGISTRATIONS. SEE THE FOLLOWING RESUME AND
BIOGRAPHY FOR SPECFIC DETALS.

April 20, 2016
Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography
Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.
In 1987 I became a federal whistleblower for the case of local defense contractor International Signal
and Control, or ISC. ISC was a black ops program for the NSA and CIA that was convicted in 1992 for an
elaborate scheme to arm Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries with a broad array of weapons, most
notably cluster bombs. It was the third larges fraud in U.S. History at that time. I have been a victim of
organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005. I had also
been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S. Sponsored Mind Control turned into an all-out assault of
mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; hacking of all electronic devices; vandilism and thefts of personal
property, extortions, intellectual property violations, obstruction of justice; violations of due process;
thefts and modifications of court documents; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy
devices and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim. This
assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S.
District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This assault began after
the handlers remotely trained/sychronized Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The main difference
opposed to most other victims of this technology is that I am connected 24/7 with the same person who
declares telepathically she is a known celebrity. Over the course of 10 years I have been telepathic with
at least 20 known persons and have spent 10 years trying to validate and confirm their identities without
success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment and act on the numerous formal complaints that are filed in
their respective offices. Most complaints are focused on the routine victimization's of a targeted individual
including but not limited to stalking, harassment, threats, vandalism, thefts, extortion, burglaries, false
imprisonments, fabricated mental health warrants or involuntary commitments, pain and torture to the
body, and most often the cause of obstruction of justice is the computer hacking.
I have a very sophisticated and authentic library of evidence of the use of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control
technologies on my father and brother that dates back to the 1940's while my father was in the U.S. Navy
after he graduated with honors from Air Gunners School in Florida, including an affidavit motorized and
authenticated by my father in 1996. My brother served in the U.S. Air force and was victim to LSD
experiments of the infamous MKULTRA program in the late 1960's.
In 2016 I was the AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in the Pennsylvania Superior
Court Case No. 1164 EDA 2016 in the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. Kane which included perjury
charges during the alleged leaking of grand jury information. Kathleen Kane took on the Good Old Boy
network regarding judicial reform in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in an effort to rid the state of the
long standing public corruption ring that was evident from local law enforcement to Supreme Court
Justices, and everyone in between.
In 2015 I filed an amicus curie on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert who was convicted in 1992 of the
murder of Laurie Show, both of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I currently am in litigation in the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals and in February of 2016 Lisa Michelle Lambert published her book titled
Corruption in Lancaster County My Story, which is available in bookstores and on Amazon.com. I am
in frequent contact with her co-author, Dave Brown of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In 2009 I Proposed an ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL to
Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor
Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest,
who has been working on helping victims of these horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide
protections to individuals who are being harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well
as protections to keep individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by
electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons. I again

reintroduced the bill to the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 2015 and frequented the Pennsylvania
Capitol trying to find support and a sponsor; which I still do to this day.
In 2006 I began his role as an Activist Shareholder for Fulton Financial, which is listed as "FULT" on the
NASDAQ stock exchange. As a founder of Financial Management Group, Ltd., a full service financial firm,
Stan J. Caterbone has drawn upon the success in developing the strategic vision for his company and the
experience gained in directing the legal affairs and public offering efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. I
have been in recent discussions with the Fulton Financial Board of Directors with regards to various
complaints dealing with such issues as the Resource Bank acquisition and the subprime failures. I believe
that Fulton Financial needs management to become more aggressive in it's strategic planning and the
performance it expects from it's management team in order to increase shareholder value. Expanding the
footprint of the regional bank has not yielded an increase to the bottom line that is consistent with the
expectations of shareholders. Lancaster County has seen several local banking institutions acquired by
larger regional banks, thus increasing the competition Fulton Financial will see in it's local marketplace as
well as in it's regional footprint.
In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs that are in current litigation in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Third District Court
of Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court
of Pennsylvania, The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations include
violations of intellectual property rights, anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to
several business interests. Central to this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies, Financial
Management Group, Ltd,/FMG Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal False
Claims Act or Federal Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc., (ISC)
the $1Billion Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This litigation
dates back to 1987. Stan J. Caterbone was a shareholder of ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for
professional services. The Federal False Claims Act is currently part of RICO Civil Complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as
docket no. 05-2288.
In 2005 Advanced Media Group/Project Hope filed a Civil Action in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lancaster County against Drew Anthon and the Eden Resort Inn for their attempts to withhold the Tourism
Tax and Hotel Tax that supports the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center & Marriot. We also proposed
an alternative plan to move the Convention Center to the Hotel Brunswick and Lancaster Square to all of
the major stakeholders. The Lancaster County Convention Center is finally under construction with a
March 2009 Opening date.
In 2005 I was selected to attend the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City after submission of
an essay with and application. I received the invitation from Bruce R. Lindsey, Chief Executive Officer of
the William J. Clinton Foundation.
In 2005 I began our philanthropic endeavors by spending our energies and working with such
organizations as; ONE.org, Livestrong.org, WoundedWarriors.org, The Clinton Global Initiative, Lancaster
Convention Center Authority, Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, Toms Project Hope, People to People
International, GlobalWarming.org, Contact Lancaster/24 Hour Suicide Hotline, Schreiber Pediatric Center,
and numerous others.
In 2004 I embarked on our past endeavors in the music and entertainment industries with an emphasis
on assisting for the fair and equitable distribution of artists rights and royalties in the fight against
electronic piracy. We have attempted to assist in developing new business models to address the
convergence of physical and electronic mediums; as it displaces royalties and revenues for those creating,
promoting, and delivering a range of entertainment content via wireless networks.
In 2000 to 2002 I developed an array of marketing and communication tools for wholesalers of the AIM
Investment Group and managed several communication programs for several of the company wholesalers
throughout the United States and Costa Rica. We also began a Day Trading project that lasted until 2004
with success.

In 1999 I developed a comprehensive business plan to develop the former Sprecher Brewery, known as
the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This plan was developed in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the Revitalization of Downtown
Lancaster and the Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the former Watt & Shand building.
In 1999 I contributed to the debate, research, and implementation of strategies to counter the effects of
the global Y2K threat to the worlds computer technologies. I attended the U.S. Sponsored Y2K symposium
and Conference in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Senate Y2K Subcommittee and Senator William
Bennett.
In 1998 I had began to administer the charity giving of Toms Project Hope, a non-profit organization
promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide prevention. We had provided funding
for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact Lancaster (The 24/7 Suicide Prevention
Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable organizations and faith based charities. The
video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to schools, non profit organizations, faith based
initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational support for the prevention of suicide and to bring
awareness to mental illness problems.
In 1996 I had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that I was controller of
Pflumm Contractors, Inc., I was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to computerized their
accounting and records management from top to bottom. I had also provided consulting for the
computerization of accounting and payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of Washington Boro. I was
retained to evaluate and develop an action plan to migrate the Informations Technologies of the Jay
Group, formally of Ronks, PA, now relocated to a new $26 Million Dollar headquarters located in West
Hempfield Township of Lancaster County. The Jay Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies
hosted by the AS 400 computer and server. I was consulting on the merits of migrating to a PC based real
time networking system throughout the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group employees some 500
employees with revenues in excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 I was retained by Pflumm Contractors, Inc., as controller, and was responsible for saving the
company from a potential bankruptcy. At that time, due to several unpaid contracts, the company was
facing extreme pressure from lenders and the bonding insurance company. We were responsible for
implementing computerized accounting, accounting and contract policies and procedures, human resource
policies and procedures, marketing strategies, performance measurement reporting, and negotiate for the
payment of unpaid contracts. The bonding company was especially problematic, since it was the lifeline to
continue work and bidding for public contracts. The Bank of Lancaster County demanded a complete
accounting of the operations in order to stave off a default on the notes and loans it was holding. We
essentially revamped the entire operation. Within 3 years, the company realized an increase in profits of 3
to 4 times its previous years, and record revenues.
In 1991 I was elected to People to People International and the Citizen Ambassador Program, which was
founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was founded to To give specialists
from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together and effectively communicate with peers,
The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-face scientific, technical, and professional exchanges
throughout the world. In 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, the State Department established a non-
profit private foundation to administer the program. We were scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe to discuss printing and publishing technologies with scientists and technicians around the
world.
In 1990 I had worked on developing voice recognition systems for the governments technology think
tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology). I co-authored the article Escaping the Unix
Tar Pit with a scientist from NIST that was published in the magazine DISC, then one of the leading
publications for the CD-ROM industry. Today, most all call centers deploy that technology whenever you
call an 800 number, and voice recognition is prevalent in all types of applications involving
telecommunications.
In 1989 I had founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and was one of only 5 or 6 U.S. domestic companies

that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's. We did business with commercial companies,
government agencies, educational institutions, and foreign companies. I performed services and contracts
for the Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of Standards & Technology (NIST), Department
of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Defense Mapping Agency,
Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM, Microsoft, AMP, Commodore Computers, American Bankers Bond
Buyers, and a host of others. I also was working with R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing
various interactive mapping technologies, which is now a major asset of Map Quest. Map Quest is the
premier provider of mapping software and applications for the internet and is often used in delivering
maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for High Industries to sell American
Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly. We had brokered a deal and the executives
from Donnellys Chicago headquarters flew to Lancaster to discuss the deal and perform due diligence of
the manufacturing facility located in the Greenfield Industrial Park.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York and Tony Bongiovi retained me as executive producer
of a motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be delivered in a digital format; the
first of its kind. We had originated the marketing for the technology, and created the concept for the
Power Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which would follow the copyright and marketing formula of
the DOLBY technology trademark.
We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the development and
commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the recording industry
featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of Philadelphia was the lead
patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station Studios was the brainchild of Tony
Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown when he was 15. Tony and Power Station
Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the country, and were responsible for developing Bon
Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross, Cyndi Lauper,
Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones, Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power Station
Studios had produced the original Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was released
for distribution and was the number one Sound Track recording of its time.
Tony Bongiovi was also active in working and researching different aerospace technologies. * We had
developed and authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with us in delivering the Digital
Movie and its related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was to include the commercialization
of technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the recording industry simultaneously with the
release of the Digital Movie.
I also created the concept for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo for the
technology, similar to the DOLBY sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for the Power Station
Digital Movie System. Today, DVD is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a portable medium, a
compact disc.
In 1987 I had a created and developed FMG Mortgage Banking, a company that was funded by a major
banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to finance projects from $3 to $100 million dollars.
Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had quickly received solicitations from developers across
the country. We were also very attractive to companies that wanted to raise capital that include both debt
and equity. Through my company, FMG, we could raise equity funding through private placements, and
debt funding through FMG Mortgage Banking. We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood,
California to secure financing of their postproduction Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North
Carolina. We had secured refinancing packages for Norris Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the
midst of replacing the current loan that was with Commonwealth National Bank. We had meetings and
discussions with Drew Anton of the Eden Resort, for refinancing a portion of his debt portfolio. We were
quickly seeking commitments for real estate deals from New York to California. We also had a number of
other prominent local developers seeking our competitive funding, including Owen Kugal, High Industries,
and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The Fisher Group (owner of the Rt. 30 Outlets). We were constantly
told that our financing packages were more competitive than local institutions.

In 1986 I had founded Financial Management Group, Ltd (FMG); a large financial services organization
comprised of a variety of professionals operating in one location. We had developed a stock purchase
program for where everyone had the opportunity for equity ownership in the new firm. FMG had financial
planners, investment managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability insurance services, tax
preparers, and estate planners operating out of our corporate headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we
had 24 people on staff, had approximately 12 offices in Pennsylvania, and
several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of $50 million under management, and our
advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions, which did not include the fees from the other
professionals. We had acquired our own Broker Dealer firm and were valued at about $3 to $4 million.
In 1985 I developed the Easter Regional Free Agent Camp, the first Free Agent Camp for the Professional
Football industry; which was videotaped for distribution to the teams scouting departments. (See
Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985) Current camps were dependant on the team scouts to
travel from state to state looking for recruits. We had developed a strategy of video taping the camp and
the distributing a copy, free of charge to the teams, to all of the scouting departments for teams in all
three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My brother was signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the
CFL, and went on to be a leading receiver while J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent
quarterbacks. My brother also played 2 years with the Miami Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting
quarterback. We were a Certified Agent for the National Football League Players Association. Gene
Upshaw, the President of the NFLPA had given me some helpful hints for my camp, while we were at a
Conference for agents of the NFL. The Washington Post wrote a full-page article about our camp and
associated it with other camps that were questionable about their practices. Actually, that was the very
reason for our camp. We had attended many other camps around the country that were not very well
organized and attracted few if any scouts. We had about 60 participants, with one player coming from as
far away as Hawaii. We held the camp at Lancaster Catholic, with a professional production company
filming the entire camp, while I did the editing and produced the video. The well respected and widely
acclaimed professional football scout, Gil Brandt, of the Dallas Cowboys, had given me support for my
camp during some conversations We had with him and said he looked forward to reviewing the tapes for
any hopeful recruits.
In 1985 I was elected Vice President of the Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the International Association
of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter by increasing membership 3to 4 times. We had
personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria
Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major fundraiser. More than 150 professionals attended the
dinner event that was held at the Eden Resort & Conference Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial
planning and how all of the professions needed to work together in order to be most effective for their
clients. We attracted a wide variety of professionals including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax
specialists, estate planners, bankers, and investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that financial
planning was the way of the future. In 1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball National Bank to
help them develop a Financial Planning department within their bank.
In 1984 I had helped to develop strategic planning for Sandy Weill, former President of Citi Group (the
largest banking entity in the U.S). We were one of several associates asked to help advise on the future of
Financial Planning and how it would impact the brokerage and the investment industry at large. Mr. Weil
was performing due diligence for the merger of American Express and IDS (Investors Diversified
Services). We were at that time a national leader in the company in delivering Fee Based Financial
Planning Services, which was a new concept in the investment community and mainstream investors. That
concept is now widely held by most investment advisers.

B. Insiders of the Debtor
[Insert a detailed list of the names of Debtor=s insiders as defined in 101(31) of the United
States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) and their relationship to the Debtor. For each insider, list all
compensation paid by the Debtor or its affiliates to that person or entity during the two years prior to
the commencement of the Debtors bankruptcy case, as well as compensation paid during the
pendency of this chapter 11 case.]
THERE ARE NO INSIDERS OF THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE
C. Management of the Debtor Before and During the Bankruptcy
During the two years prior to the date on which the bankruptcy petition was filed, the officers,
directors, managers or other persons in control of the Debtor (collectively the Managers) were [List
the Managers of the Debtor prior to the petition date].
THERE ARE NO DIRECTORS, MANAGERS, OR THER PERSONS, OTHER THAN THE DEBTOR, STAN
J. CATERBONE, PRO SE
The Managers of the Debtor during the Debtors chapter 11 case have been: [List Managers of the
Debtor during the Debtors chapter 11 case.] After the effective date of the order confirming the Plan, the
directors, officers, and voting trustees of the Debtor, any affiliate of the Debtor participating in a joint Plan
with the Debtor, or successor of the Debtor under the Plan (collectively the Post Confirmation
Managers), will be: [List Post Confirmation Managers of the Debtor.] The responsibilities and
compensation of these Post Confirmation Managers are described in section __ of this Disclosure
Statement.
D. Events Leading to Chapter 11 Filing

[Describe the events that led to the commencement of the Debtors bankruptcy case.]
In 1987 Stan J. Caterbone went public with allegations of fraud within International Signal and
Control, or ISC as they were commonly referred. After discussions with ISC and United Chem Con
officials (an ISC/James Guerin straw company), and as a shareholder of record since 1983 of ISC, Stan J.
Caterbone had a meeting with an ISC executive on June 23, 1987, which resulted in a 22 year legal
odyssey. The discussions involved a joint venture with his company, Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
or FMG, Ltd., but ended in disclosure of his recent public allegations of fraud. Four years later, ISC
founder and chairman James Guerin, and other officials and companies pleaded guilty to a $1 Billion
Dollar Fraud and export violations including the selling of arms through South Africa to Iraq and Sadaam
Hussein. However, money, power, influence and public corruption had been used to cover-up the activities
and Federal False Claims Act violations of Stan J. Caterbone for the next eighteen years. There ensued a
total blockade of all United States Courts for all redress and remedy available in accordance with federal,
state, and local laws. This included recovery of his business interests; intellectual property; real estate;
personal and business real property; his unblemished and impressive reputation; and his most valuable
asset - the ability to produce income. This might be legally referred to as the Right-To-Work under federal
statutes. Notwithstanding, Stan J. Caterbone has never made a bad investment or developed a business
that did not make a profit over the next 22 years. This includes two real estate properties that were
illegally seized through foreclosure proceedings.
Since 1987 Stan J. Caterbone has been a prisoner and enemy of the state. ISC was a Department
of Defense (DOD) Contractor and a partner with United States Intelligence Agencies since it's beginings in
the early 1970's. One of it's first contracts was Project X with the National Security Agency or NSA of Ft.
Meade, Maryland.

In summary, the following are facts and part of the public record regarding INTERNATIONAL SIGNAL
& CONTROL OR ISC:
Once the third (3rd) largest employer in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with
over 5,000 employees.
James Guerin, founder and CEO was once the largest philanthropist to charitable
organizations in the County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The ISC/Ferranti Scandal was the third (3) largest white-collar fraud within the United
States as of 1992.
The following are some of the public officials and politicians associated with ISC:
George H.W. Bush, former U.S. President, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).
Robert Gates, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and current
Secretary of Defense.
Bobby Ray Inman, former Board of Directors if ISC, former Director of the NSA, and
currently associated and directly involved with Mind Control Research organizations.
Alexander Haig, former U.S. Secretary of State, and ISC lobbyist and Board of Directors?
Joseph McDade, former Pennsylvania House of Representative and Chair of the
Appropriations Committee who was later investigated for the United Chem Con scandal.
Carlos Cardoen/Cardoen Industries, a joint venture partner with ISC and arms
merchant for the cluster bomb who eventually sold to Iraq and other Middle Eastern
Countries under U.S. sanctions.
ISC was credited with the design of the cluster bomb, and has patents filed in the U.S.
Patent Office.
In 1987 ISC completed the merger with the 3rd largest defense contractor of Great Britain,
Ferranti International; who paid $1 billion dollars for ISC and all of it's subsidiaries.
ABC News/Financial Times aired 3 episodes on ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel regarding
the ISC/CIA defense weapons; technologies; and cluster bombs to Iraq story and lead into
the allegations that then nominee for the Director of CIA Robert Gates was involved with
ISC and the selling of arms to Iraq.
ABC News 20/20 aired a story on the ISC/CIA efforts to sell cluster bombs to Saadam
Hussein and Iraq on February 1, 1991 days after the start of the Persian Gulf War I, with
the initial bombing raid destroying a cluster bomb factory built in Iraq by Carlos Cardoen.
On July 1st and 2nd of 1987 Stan J. Caterbone solicited the legal counsel of Lancaster
Attorney Joseph Roda for counsel regarding, FMG, Ltd., International Signal & Control
(ISC); Commonwealth Bank, etc., and was billed for his services. Joseph Roda did
absolutely nothing but refute Stan J. Caterbone's claims and would not believe him.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas), Lancaster
Attorney Joseph Roda represented William Clark, ISC's in-house legal counsel, and never
mentioned any conflict to Stan J. Caterbone in 1987.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas), James
Guerin deposited $1.75 million dollars into an escrow account at Fulton Bank, Lancaster,
County.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),
Christopher Underhill of Harman, Underhill & Brubaker, represented James Guerin. In
2005 Christopher Underhill represented the Manheim Township Police Department (05-cv-
2288 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) CATERBONE v. Lancaster
County Prison, et. al.,.
In Clark v. Guerin (CI-1990-0074 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas),
Philadelphia Attorney Joseph Tate represented James Guerin and ISC, and in 2007 Joseph
Tate represented Scooter Libby during his federal prosecution by U.S. Special Prosecutor
Fitzpatrick.

THE MANIFEST OF A COVER-UP
Not only did the allegations of fraud within ISC have to be silenced at a time when merger
negotiations were ongoing with Ferranti, but all of the fraud; extortion; public corruption; burglaries; civil
rights violations; anti-trust and intellectual property right violations; lender liability torts; false arrests;
false imprisonments; as well as other civil and criminal activities had to be covered up and buried in
bureaucratic red tape. Information and findings are still being uncovered and discovered to this day.
Contrary to popular belief, up until 1996 a grand jury investigation into ISC was still ongoing. It is not
known whether it has closed or not. All of these activates constitute a RICO crime due to the pattern and
organization of the perpetrators. The pattern and source of the activities can be traced back to 1987,
with subgroups changing over time, but still engaging in the same practices. The following plan of
action was followed in order to perpetrate the cover-up:
Totally discredit Stan(ley) J. Caterbone and any and all allegations in every way
possible.
Fabricate a history of mental illness.
Fabricate a criminal record.
Attach his character and honesty with rumors and propaganda.
Extort and maintain his net worth to $ zero or load him with debts.
Keep him out of any profession and or occupation when and where possible.
Totally isolate him and disenfranchise him from his friends, colleagues, and family
into a life of solitaire.
Somehow persuade the community of Lancaster County to buy into this plan of
action through money, favors, etc.,
Always keep attorneys and anyone remotely involved with the legal community
away at times when efforts for justice are pursued.
When attempts to enter the U.S. legal system arise, isolate, harass, and extort any
monies and/or possessions of value.
Change the history of events and the truth.
THE COURTS AND THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM
For 18 years, (from 1987 until 2005) it has always been fairly easy to keep these issues from court
dockets and judges. During these years Stan J. Caterbone had solicited at least twenty attorneys, some
from large firms with national recognition in their respective fields of specialties. Attorneys from New York
City to Santa Barbara and San Diego California were visited and consulted as well as a group of ex FBI
agents who specialized in white collar crime that are now globally recognized. However, the money and
influence of persons and entities that wanted these issues silence always prevailed. The issues were so
complex and convoluted, and involved such high profile politicians and U.S. agencies, it was far easier to
state that there was no case, or their were no claims that would result in remedy or redress. Between the
Republican Party and the Department of Defense, the CIA and the NSA, there was not an attorney that
could not be influenced. The obstruction of justice and due process in this case is most likely
unprecedented in nature and in malice.
However in 2005 that all changed when Stan J. Caterbone appeared as a pro se litigant
representing himself, without any counsel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in CATERBONE v. The Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or case no. 05-cv-2288. This case is
still not settled and has been withdrawn by plaintiff Stan J. Caterbone in October of 2008 after
a successful ruling in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals (07-4474) in September of 2008.
The case will be continued upon the security of evidence and the cease and desist of
obstruction of justice and due process. On May 16, 2005 at the Federal Courthouse in Philadelphia,
Stan J. Caterbone filed the case under seal. One week later in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
Eastern Pennsylvania in Reading, Pennsylvania, again appearing as pro se, Stan J. Caterbone filed a

petition for protection under the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Code, in case no. 05-23059.
These acts of entering the United States legal system with these issues triggered yet another
round of attempts to keep these cases from the courts and judges - Organized Stalking with Directed
Energy Devices and Weapons, built on a foundation of mental telepathy or total Mind Control.
REMOTE VIEWING; ORGANIZED STALKING; DIRECTED ENERGY DEVICES AND WEAPONS.

Organized stalking and harassment began in 1987 following the public allegations of fraud within
ISC. This organized stalking and harassment was enough to drive an ordinary person to suicide. As far
back as the late 1980's Stan J. Caterbone knew that his mind was being read, or "remotely viewed". This
was verified and confirmed when information only known to him, and never written, spoken, or typed,
was repeated by others. In 1998, while soliciting the counsel of Philadelphia attorney Christina Rainville,
(Rainville represented Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie Show murder case), someone introduced the
term remote viewing through an email. That was the last time it was an issue until 2005. The term was
researched, but that was the extent of the topic. Remote Viewers may have attempted to connect in a
more direct and continuous way without success.
In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy;
synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the use of directed energy devices and weapons that
usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at the targeted victim. This assault was no
coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the federal action in U.S. District Court, or
CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288. This assault began after the handlers
remotely trained Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The main difference opposed to most other
victims of this technology is that Stan J. Caterbone is connected 24/7 with a person who declares that she
is Interscope recording artist Sheryl Crow of Kennett Missouri. Stan J. Caterbone has spent 3 years trying
to validate and confirm this person without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to cooperate,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment. See attached
documents for more information.
In 2006 or the beginning of 2007 Stan J. Caterbone began his extensive research into mental
telepathy; mind control technologies; remote viewing; and the CIA mind control program labeled MK
ULTRA and it's subprograms.
In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group had to again return to local, state, and
federal courts. Again the obstruction of due process, the local gang stalking, torture, trespass, thefts, and
the like began in earnest. From the fabricated Petition for Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment of April
2010 by Detective Clark Bearinger, until January of 2015, Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group
had been in seclusion and in a state of rehabilitation and rest due to the forced medication by Fairmount
Behavioral Hospital and Dr. Silvia Gratz. The psychotropic drugs reduce your motor skills and put you in
an extreme state of confusion. By the end of the summer of 2010 every social media site, including the
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com website was taken off-line due to the intimidation and coercion
by Detective Clark Bearinger.
In May Stan J. Caterbone had again endured the Attacks and Torture from the employees of the
Lancaster County Courthouse, and the Lancaster County Government Building. Then soon after the
Residents of Lancaster County engaged in a massive Organized Stalking Campaign. In addition an
extreme Computer Hacking Campaign was initiated and executed in an effort to again SILENCE Stan J.
Caterbone and Advanced Media Group. And Again, the Lancaster City Police Department took the lead
role. As usual Stan J. Caterbone summoned state and federal authorities for help and assistance,
including direct communications with the White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office and Kathleen Kane, The Pennsylvania State Police, the
Pennsylvania General Assembly, several U.S. Congressmen, and of course the Lancaster County District
Attorney's Office. Since August 1, 2015 the Geek Squad had performed diagnostics and repairs six (6)
times due to computer hacking. On at least 2 occasions the entire hard drive had to be wiped clean and
restored.

On June 23, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone was named MOVANT in the 2014 Habeus Corpus
Petition by Lisa Michelle Lambert, Case No. 14:02559 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania after filing an Amicus on the case. Judge Paul Diamond was presiding
since it's filing in 2014. However, the Petition was not able to be granted and the case was
stalled on jurisdictional law based on new and compelling evidence, or lack there of. The
Amicus was filed to cure that deficiency with direct witness corroboration to the Prosecutorial
Misconduct and Innocence of Lisa Michelle Lambert. In fact a working theory was filed that
suggested that the East Lampeter Police Department engaged in a strategy of Entrapment
that lead to the unfortunate murder in 1991. This, would of course, allow a wrongful death
claim to be filed by the Show family. The case is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
Case No. 15-3400. There are three (3) questions that the Third Circuit may rule on; whether to
free Lisa Michelle Lambert, or grant her her Habeus Corpus, and whether to grant Summary
Judgment to Stan J. Caterbone in all civil actions in both state and federal courts.
Two weeks later, on July 9, 2015, Detective Clark Bearinger filed another fabricated Petition for
Involuntary Psychiatric Commitment. And again Stan J. Caterbone endured 7 days in the Fairmount
Behavioral Hospital in Philadelphia. However, this time there was no MANDATORY Treatment Program
Ordered by the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. So Stan J. Caterbone continued filing in the
courts for assistance and resolution. In August, in a desperate attempt to stop the local torture
campaign, another Emergency Injunction was filed in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. On
August 6, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone went so far as to undertake a Professional Polygraph Test administered
by Bonnie Lee of Polygraph Solutions of West Chester, Pennsylvania. The test ended up being 4 grueling
hours of torture and a scam of $600.00.
On July 9th , 2015 a Private Criminal Complaint was filed against Detective Clark Bearinger, Officer
Williams, Officer Binderup, and 2 unidentified patrolman. The Complaint contained allegations of torture
and abuse at every moment of contact. The Lancaster City Police Department were so desperate for
retaliation from the Amicus filing in the Lisa Michelle Lambert case, that they actually broke the door in of
1250 Fremont Street in order to execute the fabricated 302 petition. The Complaint was denied by the
Lancaster County District Attorney on August 8 th . The Complaint is now under a Petition for Review by
the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas.
On August 17, 2015 another Emergency Injunction for Relief was filed in the Lancaster County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 15-06985. The Injunction was heard by Judge Jeffrey Wright, who
dismissed it as frivolous. An appeal, MD 1561, is pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
In addition, by September 26, 2015 Stan J. Caterbone had been granted Electronic Filing Privileges
in the local, state, and federal courts. This should alleviate the fraud and abuses of the U.S. Postal
Service and the computer hackers.
In 2015 Stan J. Caterbone identifies a trend that suggests that the Lancaster County community-
at-large was subject to either community targeting or community hypnosis. The community targeting
theory is supported by experts Jullianne McKinney, Cheryl Welsh, and Dr. John Hall. The community
hypnosis theory is supported by direct personal relationships with the Amazing Kreskin, Samuel P.
Caterbone and Stan J. Caterbone.
In September of 2015 Stan J. Caterbone begins to digitize a library of approximately 45 audio

cassette tapes from his father, Samuel P. Caterbone. The tapes range in date from 1971 to 1996. The
tapes prove an identical targeting campaign against both Samuel P. Caterbone and Stan J. Caterbone.
In addition the tapes confirm that Steven P. Caterbone, brother of Stan J. Caterbone, was most likely a
target dating back to the early 1960's. In addition, the death of Samuel P. Caterbone on July 20, 2001
was confirmed to be that of murder, not natural causes.
In the early 1990's Dr. Phillip Caterbone, brother, had been solicited by the National Institute of

Health, or NIH in Washington, D.C., for a fellowship to research and catalog a study to find a genetic
marker for depression in the CATERBONE family. Phil interviewed all living descendants and relatives of
my father, Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., and took blood samples. I am alleging that this was a deliberate act
to continue the cover story of mental illness to distract and provide plausible deniability for any linkage to
U.S. Sponsored Mind Control.
WAS THE PLAINTIFF PLACED ON TERRORIST LIST BY HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY TOM
RIDGE IN 2004?
On March 8, 2016 I was illegally detained, handcuffed and interrogated by no less than eight (8)
National Security Agency Police in the barracks of Ft. Meade Maryland with no probable cause for
approximately 2 hours. My auto was searched and sniffed by the NSA CANINE UNIT. I was interrogated
about events from 1987 to the present involving my Whistleblowing activities, my litigation, my mental
health record and my intent on why I was traveling to Washington, D.C. I was commanded not to
continue on to Washington, D.C. And was commanded not to enter any federally owned property again. I
left the barracks and proceeded home to Lancaster, PA.
In July of 2005 at a military museum (Open to the Public) on a military base I was detained and
interrogated by two (2) Defense Intelligence Agents, or DIA of the Department of Defense in Austin, Texas
for about 1 hours for no probable cause. I was asked the same questions as above and was not allowed
to leave until the agents verified that I was staying with my brother, Dr. Phillip Caterbone, who at the time
resided in Austin, Texas. I was commanded not to ever enter a military base again.
In January of 2006 I was detained and interrogated by Homeland Security in Houston Airport upon
the return from Puerto Vallarte, Mexico after being pulled from the line for allegedly having plastic
explosives in my back pack. Of course it was fabricated and I was allowed to leave.
The Courts must consider UNJUST ENRICHMENT in this case. (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.
Targeted Individuals - An Overview (Taken from the following website)

http://targetedindividual.blogspot.com/
Essentially, a targeted individual has officially been declared an "enemy of the State". Your
unrelenting harassment has now entered an entirely new phase. From what was once State and most
likely federal law enforcement surveillance (for whatever reason) has now graduated to a little-known
CIA / U.S. military psychological harassment & physical torture campaign that is so extensive and
seemingly so absurd to the average American citizen, you will almost certainly be labeled as having a
mental illness and/or paranoia just for simply describing what has now become your daily reality. The only
other people that truly understand the extent of the harassment & torture are fellow targeted individuals
who have also been experiencing similar violations of their civil, constitutional and basic human rights.
"I'm being followed everywhere I go", "it seems like they are everywhere", "it's like they can read
my mind and know where I'll be"...these are the types of statements, that while actually quite accurate
(keep reading), can easily make a targeted individual appear to have lost their mind. In order for it to
make more sense, let's once again review who is now orchestrating this abuse against a targeted
individual. Our military (essentially our international police force) and our intelligence community are in
control. This harassment campaign has reached the highest levels of our government and as such, the
resources at their disposable are truly unimaginable. Is it just the military perpetrating this harassment
campaign? Of course NOT! They have simply been handed control. What this means for a targeted
individual is that EVERY law enforcement tool available from your local community watch, community

organizations (ie Freemasons) and "concerned citizen" types all the way up through Homeland Security
including the U.S. military have placed YOU in their cross hairs. If you are a targeted individual your
conversations are being monitored (whether inside your home, your car, your office, and obviously your
telephone), your movements and actions are constantly being monitored (whether inside your home or
out in public), your electronic correspondence is being monitored (email, websites you visit, letters you
write on your computer, etc) - you are being WATCHED! 24/7/365. Again, this isn't your local Sheriff
sitting in an "unmarked" patrol car eating his donut on a stakeout. A targeted individual has every known
(AND classified) technology being deployed, and most likely TESTED, against them. Understand it and
deal with it in a logical and sensible manner. I don't mean to alarm you, but this is the unfortunate reality
that any targeted individual now finds them self in. Maybe it's a little clearer now HOW "they" can be
everywhere you go and seem to be able to "read your mind". Targeted individuals are not crazy - but be
very careful...the perception of mental illness is one of the many traps a program like this was designed to
create. If not the actual illness itself.
So, besides an absolute abomination of a targeted individuals right to privacy, what other tactics
are being deployed against a targeted individual. The hardest to prove and the most criminal tactic used
(especially when a target has 3 young & developing children in the home such as myself) is a continuous
poisoning and torture of the target by invisible directed electromagnetic radiation. If this is a new topic to
you, it may be unclear exactly what electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is. After all, it's not exactly the kind
of topic an average American is thinking about. Well, to name a few examples, electromagnetic radiation
ranges from radio frequency waves (RF) to the more destructive & potentially deadly ionizing forms of x-
rays and gamma rays. In the lower to mid spectrum there are also radar waves, microwaves, ultraviolet
and infrared light waves.
What I noticed when this harassment campaign began for myself toward the end of 2005 was the
continuous jet plane(s) that suddenly began flying "holding patterns" for extended periods of time above
& around my home. My theory is that these planes are equipped with sophisticated radar imaging
technology. Possibly very high powered infrared imaging cameras as well. Rather than using these
electromagnetic radiation devices to "search" for something, in the case of a targeted individual these
devices are used to slowly poison and "overload" the targeted individual with continuous high doses of
directed electromagnetic radiation. Once a targeted individuals body has been properly overexposed over
a period of time (months), other portable devices may then be used to keep a target in a constant state of
agitation and dis-ease. And for the more fragile among us, maybe even death! This tactic can be the
premier form of making a target seem crazy by forcing them to report what appear to be insane
accusations against neighbors, the people "following them everywhere", planes over their home and the
government. Another obvious reason for deploying this invisible & silent torture tactic is to provoke a
targeted individual to lash out in sheer frustration and anger against the closest person (who most likely
has absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing abuse). Essentially, this is the ultimate version of
entrapment. And may even be the ultimate, basically unprovable form of a state-sanctioned murder!
COINTELPRO
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert,
and at times illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.[3]
FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed
subversive,[4] including anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of the Civil Rights Movement or Black
Power movement (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Black Panther Party), feminist organizations, anti-
colonial movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of
organizations that were part of the broader New Left.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to
"expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements
and especially their leaders.[5][6] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C.
Sullivan.[7] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy personally authorized some of these programs.[8]
Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King's phones "on a trial basis, for

a month or so",[9] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in
any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[10]
The History of COINTELPRO

Centralized operations under COINTELPRO officially began in August 1956 with a program designed
to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections" inside the Communist Party U.S.A.
(CPUSA). Tactics included anonymous phone calls, IRS audits, and the creation of documents that would
divide the American communist organization internally.[11] An October 1956 memo from Hoover
reclassified the FBI's ongoing surveillance of black leaders, including it within COINTELPRO, with the
justification that the movement was infiltrated by communists.[12] In 1956, Hoover sent an open letter
denouncing Dr. T.R.M. Howard, a civil rights leader, surgeon, and wealthy entrepreneur in Mississippi who
had criticized FBI inaction in solving recent murders of George W. Lee, Emmett Till, and other blacks in
the South.[13] When the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was founded in 1957, the FBI
began to monitor and target the group almost immediately, focusing particularly on Bayard Rustin,
Stanley Levison, and, eventually, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.[14]
After the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Hoover singled out King as a major
target for COINTELPRO. Under pressure from Hoover to focus on King, Sullivan wrote:
In the light of King's powerful demagogic speech. ... We must mark him now, if we have not done
so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism,
the Negro, and national security.[16]
Soon after, the FBI was systematically bugging King's home and his hotel rooms, as they now were
aware that King was growing in stature daily as the leader among leaders of the Negro movement.[17]
In the mid-1960s, King began publicly criticizing the Bureau for giving insufficient attention to the
use of terrorism by white supremacists. Hoover responded by publicly calling King the most "notorious
liar" in the United States.[18] In his 1991 memoir, Washington Post journalist Carl Rowan asserted that
the FBI had sent at least one anonymous letter to King encouraging him to commit suicide.[19] Historian
Taylor Branch documents an anonymous November 21, 1964 "suicide package" sent by the FBI that
contained audio recordings of King's sexual indiscretions combined with a letter telling him "There is only
one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal, fraudulent self is bared to the nation."
And even by 1969, as has been noted elsewhere, "[FBI] efforts to 'expose' Martin Luther King, Jr. had not
slackened even though King had been dead for a year. [The Bureau] furnished ammunition to
conservatives to attack King's memory, and...tried to block efforts to honor the slain leader." [20]
During the same period the program also targeted Malcolm X. While an FBI spokesman has denied
that the FBI was "directly" involved in Malcolm's murder, it is documented that the Bureau worked to
"widen the rift" between Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad through infiltration and the "sparking of
acrimonious debates within the organization," rumor-mongering, and other tactics designed to foster
internal disputes; which ultimately led to Malcolm's assassination.[21][22] The FBI heavily infiltrated
Malcolm's Organization of Afro-American Unity in the final months of his life. The Pulitzer Prize-winning
biography of Malcolm X by Manning Marable asserts that most of the men who plotted Malcolm's
assassination were never apprehended and that the full extent of the FBI's involvement in his death
cannot be known.[23][24]
Amidst the urban unrest of JulyAugust 1967, the FBI began "COINTELPROBLACK HATE", which
focused on King and the SCLC as well as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the
Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), the Deacons for Defense and Justice, Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE), and the Nation of Islam.[25] BLACK HATE established the Ghetto Informant Program and
instructed 23 FBI offices to "disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black
nationalist hate type organizations".[26]

A March 1968 memo stated the program's goal was to "prevent the coalition of militant black
nationalist groups" ; to "Prevent the RISE OF A 'MESSIAH' who could unify...the militant black nationalist
movement" ; "to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential
for violence [against authorities]." ; to "Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining
RESPECTABILITY, by discrediting them to...both the responsible community and to liberals who have
vestiges of sympathy..."; and to "prevent the long-range GROWTH of militant black organizations,
especially among youth." Dr. King was said to have potential to be the "messiah" figure, should he
abandon nonviolence and integrationism;[27] Stokely Carmichael was noted to have "the necessary
charisma to be a real threat in this way;" as he was seen as someone who espoused a much more militant
vision of "black power."[28]
This program coincided with a broader federal effort to prepare military responses for urban riots,
and began increased collaboration between the FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency,
and the Department of Defense. The CIA launched its own domestic espionage project in 1967 called
Operation CHAOS.[29] A particular target was the Poor People's Campaign, a national effort organized by
King and the SCLC to occupy Washington, D.C. The FBI monitored and disrupted the campaign on a
national level, while using targeted smear tactics locally to undermine support for the march.[30]
Overall, COINTELPRO encompassed disruption and sabotage of the Socialist Workers Party (1961),
the Ku Klux Klan (1964), the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party (1967), and the entire New Left
social/political movement, which included antiwar, community, and religious groups (1968). A later
investigation by the Senate's Church Committee (see below) stated that "COINTELPRO began in 1956, in
part because of frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government's power to proceed
overtly against dissident groups ..."[31] Official congressional committees and several court cases[32]
have concluded that COINTELPRO operations against communist and socialist groups exceeded statutory
limits on FBI activity and violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and association.[1]
The COINTELPRO Program Exposed
The building broken into by the Citizen's Commission to Investigate the FBI, at One Veterans
Square, Media, Pennsylvania
The program was successfully kept secret until 1971, when the Citizens' Commission to Investigate
the FBI burgled an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, took several dossiers, and exposed the program
by passing this material to news agencies.[33] Many news organizations initially refused to publish the
information. Within the year, Director J. Edgar Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over,
and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.[34][35]
Additional documents were revealed in the course of separate lawsuits filed against the FBI by NBC
correspondent Carl Stern, the Socialist Workers Party, and a number of other groups. In 1976 the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States
Senate, commonly referred to as the "Church Committee" for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of
Idaho, launched a major investigation of the FBI and COINTELPRO. Journalists and historians speculate
that the government has not released many dossier and documents related to the program. Many
released documents have been partly, or entirely, redacted.
The Final Report of the Select Committee castigated conduct of the intelligence community in its
domestic operations (including COINTELPRO) in no uncertain terms:
The Committee finds that the domestic activities of the intelligence community at times violated
specific statutory prohibitions and infringed the constitutional rights of American citizens. The legal
questions involved in intelligence programs were often not considered. On other occasions, they were
intentionally disregarded in the belief that because the programs served the "national security" the law did
not apply. While intelligence officers on occasion failed to disclose to their superiors programs which were

illegal or of questionable legality, the Committee finds that the most serious breaches of duty were those
of senior officials, who were responsible for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure
compliance with the law.[1] Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society
even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that ...
the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of
First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous
groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.
[31]
Range of targets
At its inception, the program's main target was the Communist Party.[36] According to the Church
Committee:
While the declared purposes of these programs were to protect the "national security" or prevent
violence, Bureau witnesses admit that many of the targets were nonviolent and most had no
connections with a foreign power. Indeed, nonviolent organizations and individuals were targeted
because the Bureau believed they represented a "potential" for violenceand nonviolent citizens
who were against the war in Vietnam were targeted because they gave "aid and comfort" to violent
demonstrators by lending respectability to their cause.
The imprecision of the targeting is demonstrated by the inability of the Bureau to define the
subjects of the programs. The Black Nationalist program, according to its supervisor, included "a
great number of organizations that you might not today characterize as black nationalist but which
were in fact primarily black." Thus, the nonviolent Southern Christian Leadership Conference was
labeled as a Black Nationalist-"Hate Group."
Furthermore, the actual targets were chosen from a far broader group than the titles of the
programs would imply. The CPUSA program targeted not only Communist Party members but also
sponsors of the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee and
civil rights leaders allegedly under Communist influence or deemed to be not sufficiently "anti-
Communist". The Socialist Workers Party program included non-SWP sponsors of anti-war
demonstrations which were cosponsored by the SWP or the Young Socialist Alliance, its youth
group. The Black Nationalist program targeted a range of organizations from the Panthers to SNCC
to the peaceful Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and included every Black Student Union
and many other black student groups. New Left targets ranged from the SDS to the InterUniversity
Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy, from Antioch College ("vanguard of the New Left") to the
New Mexico Free University and other "alternate" schools, and from underground newspapers to
students' protesting university censorship of a student publication by carrying signs with four-letter
words on them.

Examples of surveillance, spanning all presidents from FDR to Nixon, both legal and illegal, contained in
the Church Committee report:[37]
President Roosevelt asked the FBI to put in its files the names of citizens sending telegrams to the
White House opposing his "national defense" policy and supporting Col. Charles Lindbergh.
President Truman received inside information on a former Roosevelt aide's efforts to influence his
appointments, labor union negotiating plans, and the publishing plans of journalists.
President Eisenhower received reports on purely political and social contacts with foreign officials
by Bernard Baruch, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
The Kennedy administration had the FBI wiretap a congressional staff member, three executive
officials, a lobbyist, and a Washington law firm. US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy received
the fruits of an FBI wire tap on Martin Luther King, Jr. and an electronic listening device targeting a
congressman, both of which yielded information of a political nature.
President Johnson asked the FBI to conduct "name checks" of his critics and members of the staff
of his 1964 opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater. He also requested purely political intelligence on
his critics in the Senate, and received extensive intelligence reports on political activity at the 1964
Democratic Convention from FBI electronic surveillance.
President Nixon authorized a program of wiretaps which produced for the White House purely
political or personal information unrelated to national security, including information about a
Supreme Court Justice.
Groups that were known to be targets of COINTELPRO operations include
communist and socialist organizations

organizations and individuals associated with the Civil Rights Movement, including Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, and
other civil rights organizations
black nationalist groups
the Young Lords
the American Indian Movement
the white supremacist groups
the Ku Klux Klan
the National States' Rights Party
a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and
the Weathermen
almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no
group affiliation
the National Lawyers Guild
organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement
nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, United Ireland, and Cuban
exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement;
2nd additional notable Americans.[38]
The COINTELPRO documents show numerous cases of the FBI's intentions to prevent and disrupt
protests against the Vietnam War. Many techniques were used to accomplish this task. "These included

promoting splits among antiwar forces, encouraging red-baiting of socialists, and pushing violent
confrontations as an alternative to massive, peaceful demonstrations." One 1966 COINTELPRO operation
tried to redirect the Socialist Workers Party from their pledge of support for the antiwar movement.[39]
Methods
Body of Fred Hampton, national spokesman for the Black Panther Party, who was
murdered[40][41] by members of the Chicago Police Department, as part of a
COINTELPRO operation.[42][43]
According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four main methods during
COINTELPRO:
Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose
was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential
supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
Psychological warfare: The FBI and police used myriad "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive
movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications
in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made
anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo
movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents,
employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-
jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.[44]
Harassment via the legal system: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass
dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and
presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They
discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous
surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists
and silence their supporters.[42][45]
Illegal force: The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct
illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings
and assassinations.[42] The object was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their
movements.
The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various
factions in the black militancy movement, for example between the Black Panthers, the US Organization,
and the Blackstone Rangers. This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were San Diego Black
Panther Party members John Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[42]
Dhoruba Bin Wahad a former Black Panther, reflects on how these tactics made him feel, saying he
had a combat mentality and felt like he was at war with the government. When asked about why he
thinks the Black Panthers were targeted he said, "In the United States, the equivalent of the military was
the local police. During the early sixties, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and the human rights
movement, the police in the United States became increasingly militaristic. They began to train out of
military bases in the United States. The Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA) supplied local police with
military technology, everything from assault rifles to army personnel carriers. In his opinion, the
Counterintelligence Program went hand-in-hand with the militarization of the police in the Black
community, with the militarization of police in America."[46]

The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homesoften
with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local lawswhich resulted directly in the police
killing many members of the Black Panther Party, most notably Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman
Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[42][43][47]
In order to eliminate black militant leaders whom they considered dangerous, the FBI is believed to
have worked with local police departments to target specific individuals,[48] accuse them of crimes they
did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them. Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, a
Black Panther Party leader, was incarcerated for 27 years before a California Superior Court vacated his
murder conviction, ultimately freeing him. Appearing before the court, an FBI agent testified that he
believed Pratt had been framed, because both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department knew he
had not been in the area at the time the murder occurred.[49][50]
Some sources claim that the FBI conducted more than 200 "black bag jobs",[51][52] which were
warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[53]
J. Edgar Hoover
In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black
Panther Party (BPP) had concluded that in his city, at least, the Panthers were primarily engaged in
feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the agent's career goals would be
directly affected by his supplying evidence to support Hoover's view that the BPP was "a violence-prone
organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means".[54]
Hoover supported using false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote:
"Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to
substantiate the charge."[55]
In one particularly controversial 1965 incident, white civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered
by Ku Klux Klansmen, who gave chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a
young black man; one of the Klansmen was Gary Thomas Rowe, an acknowledged FBI informant.[56][57]
The FBI spread rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and had abandoned her
children to have sexual relationships with African Americans involved in the Civil Rights Movement.[58]
[59] FBI records show that J. Edgar Hoover personally communicated these insinuations to President
Johnson.[60][61] FBI informant Rowe has also been implicated in some of the most violent crimes of the
1960s civil rights era, including attacks on the Freedom Riders and the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama 16th
Street Baptist Church bombing.[56] According to Noam Chomsky, in another instance in San Diego, the
FBI financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former Minutemen, transforming it
into a group called the Secret Army Organization that targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in
the Anti-War Movement, using both intimidation and violent acts.[62][63][64]
Hoover ordered preemptive action "to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before
they exercise their potential for violence."[5]
Illegal surveillance
The final report of the Church Committee concluded:
Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much
information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret
surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no
threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating
primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as

wiretaps, microphone "bugs", surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts
of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations
of groups deemed potentially dangerousand even of groups suspected of associating with
potentially dangerous organizationshave continued for decades, despite the fact that those
groups did not engage in unlawful activity.
Groups and individuals have been assaulted, repressed, harassed and disrupted because of their
political views, social beliefs and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague
standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory, harmful and vicious
tactics have been employedincluding anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt
meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that
might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of
presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to
pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated
improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.
Governmental officialsincluding those whose principal duty is to enforce the lawhave violated or
ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break
the law.
The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence
activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible
activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to
exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being
put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they
have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.[65][66]
Post-COINTELPRO operations
While COINTELPRO was officially terminated in April 1971, critics allege that continuing FBI actions
indicate that post-COINTELPRO reforms did not succeed in ending COINTELPRO tactics.[67][68][69]
Documents released under the FOIA show that the FBI tracked the late David Halberstama Pulitzer
Prize-winning journalist and authorfor more than two decades.[70] "Counterterrorism" guidelines
implemented during the Reagan administration have been described as allowing a return to COINTELPRO
tactics.[71][pages needed] Some radical groups accuse factional opponents of being FBI informants or
assume the FBI is infiltrating the movement.[72]
The IG report found these "troubling" FBI practices between 2001 and 2006. In some cases, the
FBI conducted investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for "factually weak" reasons. Also,
the FBI extended investigations of some of the groups "without adequate basis" and improperly kept
information about activist groups in its files. The IG report also found that FBI Director Robert Mueller III
provided inaccurate congressional testimony about one of the investigations, but this inaccuracy may have
been due to his relying on what FBI officials told him.[73]
Several authors have accused the FBI of continuing to deploy COINTELPRO-like tactics against
radical groups after the official COINTELPRO operations were ended. Several authors have suggested the
American Indian Movement (AIM) has been a target of these operations.
Authors such as Ward Churchill, Rex Weyler, and Peter Matthiessen allege that the federal
government intended to acquire uranium deposits on the Lakota tribe's reservation land, and that this
motivated a larger government conspiracy against AIM activists on the Pine Ridge reservation.[74][75]
[76][77][78] Others believe COINTELPRO continues and similar actions are being taken against activist
groups.[78][79][80] Caroline Woidat says that, with respect to Native Americans, COINTELPRO should be
understood within a historical context in which "Native Americans have been viewed and have viewed the

world themselves through the lens of conspiracy theory."[81] Other authors argue that while some
conspiracy theories related to COINTELPRO are unfounded, the issue of ongoing government surveillance
and repression is real.[82][83]
References
2. "I. Introduction and Summary" (PDF). Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans - Church
Committee final report. United States Senate website. II. United States Government. 1976-04-26.
p. 10. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-04-18. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
Wolf, Paul. "COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story". Archive.org. World Conference Against
Racism, Durbin SA.
Jalon, Allan M. (2006-03-08). "A break-in to end all break-ins; In 1971, stolen FBI files exposed
the government's domestic spying program.". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Archived from
the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2014-07-15.
Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri (208). The FBI. Yale University Press. p. 189. ISBN 9780300142846.
COINTELPRO Revisited - Spying & Disruption - IN BLACK AND WHITE: THE F.B.I. PAPERS
"A Huey P. Newton Story - Actions - COINTELPRO". PBS. Archived from the original on 2010-11-
18. Retrieved 2008-06-23.
Weiner, Tim (2012). Enemies : A History of the FBI (1st ed.). New York: Random House.
ISBN 9781400067480., p. 196. "Sullivan would become Hoover's field marshal in matters of
national security, chief of FBI intelligence, and commandant of COINTELPRO. In that top secret and
tightly compartmentalized world, an FBI inside of the FBI, Sullivan served as the executor of
Hoover's most clandestine and recondite demands."
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 233. "RFK knew much more about this surveillance than he ever
admitted. He personally renewed his authorization for the taps on Levison's office, and he
approved Hoover's request to tap Levison's home telephone, where King called late at night several
times a week."
Herst, Burton (2007) Bobby and J. Edgar, p. 372.

Herst (2007), pp. 372374
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 195
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 198. "On October 2, 1956, Hoover stepped up the FBI's long-standing
surveillance of black civil rights activists. He sent a COINTELPRO memo to the field, warning that
the Communist Party was seeking to infiltrate the movement."
David T. Beito and Linda Royster Beito, Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard's Fight for Civil Rights and
Economic Power (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 148, 15459.
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 200.
Gage, Beverly (2014-11-11). "What an Uncensored Letter to M.L.K. Reveals". The New York
Times. Retrieved 2015-01-09.
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 236. "The bugs got quick results. When King traveled, as he did
constantly in the ensuing weeks, to Washington, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and Honolulu, the Bureau
planted hidden microphones in his hotel rooms. The FBI placed a total of eight wiretaps and
sixteen bugs on King."
Taylor Branch, Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-1965 (Simon & Schuster, 1999), p.
524-529
Adams, Cecil M. (2003-05-02). "Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a plagiarist?". Washington Post.

Retrieved 2006-06-06.
Taylor Branch, Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-1965 (Simon & Schuster, 1999) p.
527-529
Taylor Branch, Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-1965 (Simon & Schuster, 1999), p.
243
Gregory Kane, "FBI should acknowledge complicity in the assassination of Malcolm X" The
Baltimore Sun, May 14, 2000
Toure "Malcolm X: Criminal, Minister, Humanist, Martyr" The New York Times, June 17, 2011
James W. Douglass "The Converging Martyrdom of Malcolm and Martin" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Lecture, Princeton Theological Seminary, March 29, 2006
"Guide to the Microfilm Edition of FBI Surveillance Files: Black Extremist Organizations, Part 1"
Lexis-Nexis
"The FBI Sets Goals for COINTELPRO" American Social History Project, City University of New York
Rob Warden "Hoover Rated Carmichael As 'Black Messiah'" Chicago Daily News, Feb 10, 1976
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 272. "Some 1,500 army intelligence officers in civilian clothing
undertook the surveillance of some 100,000 American citizens. Army intelligence shared all their
reports over the next three years. The CIA tracked antiwar leaders and black militants who
traveled overseas, and it reported back to the FBI. The FBI, in turn, shared thousands of selected
files on Americans with army intelligence and the CIA. All three intelligence services sent the
names of Americans to the National Security Agency for inclusion on a global watch list; the NSA
relayed back to the FBI hundreds of transcripts of intercepted telephone calls to and from suspect
Americans."
McKnight, Last Crusade, pp. 2628. "By March the Hoover Bureau's campaign against King was
virtually on a total war footing. In a March 21 'urgent' teletype, Hoover urged all field offices
involved in the POCAM project to exploit every tactic in the bureau's arsenal of covert political
warfare to bring down King and the SCLC."
"Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans".
United States Senate. Retrieved 2010-12-01.
See, for example, Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (1984); Rugiero v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 257 F.3d
534, 546 (2001).[dead link]
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/1971/
"A Short History of FBI COINTELPRO", Albion Monitor, Retrieved July 13, 2007. Archived
September 28, 2007, at the Wayback Machine.
Weiner, Enemies (2012), p. 293

The COINTELPRO Papers - Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United
States by Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall. South End Press.
Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Final Report of the Senate Committee to Study
Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities
Various Church Committee reports reproduced online at ICDC: Final Report, 2A; Final Report,2Cb;
Final Report, 3A; Final Report, 3G. Various COINTELPRO documents reproduced online at ICDC:
CPUSA; SWP; Black Nationalist; White Hate; New Left; Puerto Rico. Archived January 13, 2013, at
the Wayback Machine.
Blackstock, Nelson. COINTELPRO: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom, Pathfinder, New York.
1975. p. 111.

Michael Newton. Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, p. 205.

ISBN 1610692853
THE CHICAGO CRIME SCENES PROJECT: FRED HAMPTON
The FBI'S Covert Action Program to Destroy the Black Panther Party
FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose. M. Wesley Swearingen. Boston. South End Press. 1995. Special
Agent Gregg York: "We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police
raided the place. Only two of those black nigger fuckers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark
Clark."
Ward Churchill (2002), Agents of Repression (Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against
the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement ed.), South End Press, ISBN 978-
0896086463, OCLC 50985124, 0896086461
"Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities-Book III" [The Church Report], US Senate, 1976
Bin Wahad, Dhoruba. Still Black, Still Strong. Semiotext, 1993, pp. 18-19
Brown, Elaine. A Taste of Power: A Black Woman's Story. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 204-06
Paul Wolf, "COINTELPRO", ICDC
"Former Black Panther freed after 27 years in jail". CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-11-
18. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
In re Pratt, 82 Cal
Alexander Cockburn; Jeffrey St. Clair (1998). Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press. Verso.
p. 69. ISBN 978-1-85984-139-6.
FBI document, 19 July 1966, DeLoach to Sullivan re: "Black Bag" Jobs.
[1]
FBI document, 27 May 1969, "Director FBI to SAC San Francisco", available at the FBI reading
room.
FBI document, 16 September 1970, Director FBI to SAC's in Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, New
Haven, San Francisco, and Washington Field Office. Available at the FBI reading room.
Gary May, The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Luzzo, Yale University
Press, 2005.
"Jonathan Yardley". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved
April 30, 2010.
Joanne Giannino. "Viola Liuzzo". Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography. Archived from
the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
Kay Houston. "The Detroit housewife who moved a nation toward racial justice". The Detroit News,
Rearview Mirror. Archived from the original on 1999-04-27.
"Uncommon Courage: The Viola Liuzzo Story". Archived from the original on 2007-08-13.
Mary Stanton (2000). From Selma to Sorrow: The Life and Death of Viola Liuzzo. University of
Georgia Press. p. 190.
Noam Chomsky, "Triumphs of Democracy", Excerpted from Language and Responsibility
Watergate and the Secret Army Organization - msg#00404 - culture.discuss.cia-drugs
1972
"Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Book II, Final Report of the Select Committee

to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities United States Senate
(Church Committee)". United States Senate. Retrieved May 11, 2006.
"Tapped Out Why Congress won't get through to the NSA.". Slate. Retrieved May 11, 2006.
David Cunningham. There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI.
University of California Press, 2005: "However, strong suspicions lingered that the program's
tactics were sustained on a less formal basissuspicions sometimes furthered by agents
themselves, who periodically claimed that counterintelligence activities were continuing, though in
a manner undocumented within Bureau files."; Hobson v. Brennan, 646 F.Supp. 884 (D.D.C.,1986)
Bud Schultz, Ruth Schultz. The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America.
University of California Press, 2001: "Although the FBI officially discontinued COINTELPRO
immediately after the Pennsylvania disclosures "for security reasons," when pressed by the Senate
committee, the bureau acknowledged two new instances of "Cointelpro-type" operations. The
committee was left to discover a third, apparently illegal operation on its own."
Athan G. Theoharis, et al. The FBI: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. Greenwood Publishing
Group, 1999: "More recent controversies have focused on the adequacy of recent restrictions on
the Bureau's domestic intelligence operations. Disclosures of the 1970s that FBI agents continued
to conduct break-ins, and of the 1980s that the FBI targeted CISPES, again brought forth
accusations of FBI abuses of powerand raised questions of whether reforms of the 1970s had
successfully exorcised the ghost of FBI Director Hoover."
The Associated Press, "FBI tracked journalist for over 20 years". Toronto Star. November 7, 2008.
Retrieved November 23, 2008.
Bud Schultz, Ruth Schultz. The Price of Dissent: Testimonies to Political Repression in America.
University of California Press, 2001: "The problem persists after Hoover."The record before this
court," Federal Magistrate Joan Lefkow stated in 1991, "shows that despite regulations, orders and
consent decrees prohibiting such activities, the FBI had continued to collect information concerning
only the exercise of free speech."
Mike Mosedale, "Bury My Heart," City Pages, Volume 21 - Issue 1002, 16 February 2000
"FBI Probes of Groups Were Improper, Justice Department Says". The San Jose Mercury News.
September 20, 2010. also reported at democracynow.org, 21 September 2010
Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall, (1990), The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's
Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent, Boston: South End Press, pp. xii, 303.
Churchill, Ward; and James Vander Wall. Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars against the
Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, 1988, Boston, South End Press.
Weyler, Rex. Blood of the Land: The Government and Corporate War Against First Nations.
Matthiessen, Peter, In the Spirit of Crazy Horse, 1980, Viking.
Woidat, Caroline M. "The Truth Is on the Reservation: American Indians and Conspiracy Culture",
The Journal of American Culture 29 (4), 2006, pp. 454467
McQuinn, Jason. "Conspiracy Theory vs Alternative Journalism", Alternative Press Review, Vol. 2,
No. 3, Winter 1996
Horowitz, David. "Johnnie's Other O.J.", Front Page Magazine.com, September 1, 1997.
Woidat, Caroline M. "The Truth Is on the Reservation: American Indians and Conspiracy Culture",
The Journal of American Culture 29 (4), 2006. pp. 454467
Berlet, Chip. "The X-Files Movie: Facilitating Fanciful Fun, or Fueling Fear and Fascism? Conspiracy
Theories for Fun, Not for False Prophets", 1998, Political Research Associates
Berlet, Chip; and Matthew N. Lyons. 1998, "One key to litigating against government prosecution
of dissidents: Understanding the underlying assumptions", Parts 1 and 2, Police Misconduct and

Civil Rights Law Report (West Group), 5 (13), (JanuaryFebruary): 145153; and 5 (14), (March
April): 157162.

CIA Mind Control Experiments

Declassified Documents Reveal Sex Abuse, and More
Taken from the website:

(http://www.wanttoknow.info/mind_control/cia_mind_control_experiments_sex_abuse)
Tragic, heartbreaking mass murders in recent years have spread fear and panic among the general
public. Yet some are questioning if there isn't more than meets the eye with these cruel and bizarre
events. Is it conceivable that there might be a deeper agenda here?
This essay presents undeniable evidence that secret government mind control programs
have created assassins out of unsuspecting citizens.
The astonishing excerpts below, taken verbatim from declassified CIA documents, reveal detailed
mind control experiments in highly secret, government-sponsored experiments. Through hypnosis, drugs,
and electric shock, CIA clinicians fractured personalities and induced multiple personality disorder (MPD)
also called dissociative identity disorder (DID).
These top secret experiments were successful in creating Manchurian Candidates or

super spies programmed to carry out assassination, terrorist acts, sexual favors, and more
without conscious knowledge of what they were doing. The army of Manchurian Candidates created
may have played a key, hidden role in world politics.
To verify this startling information, links are provided to scanned images of the original CIA
documents. Instructions are also available here to order any of these documents directly from the CIA
using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Though dating from the 1950s and 60s, these revealing documents were not released for decades
for reasons of "national security." The U.S. government claims mind control experiments are no longer
being carried out, yet how can we know? The existence of these programs was denied for decades, and
certainly any recent documents would be classified secret under the rubric of "national security."
A trusted CIA informant I know assures me that these programs are ongoing. These disturbing
methods are used by various countries in clandestine operations around the world. Many might prefer not
to look at these ugly wounds to the soul of our nation and world. Yet if we avoid or ignore them, they are
likely to grow and fester.
CIA document and page number: 190684, pp. 1, 4

Title: Outline of Special H Cases
Date: 7 January 1953
Page 1, Page 4
In a general request for volunteers [deleted names] volunteered for H [hypnosis] experimentation and
were originally tested on 21 May 1951. Both girls, at this time, were nineteen years of age. These
subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H controlled
state via the telephone, via some very subtle signal that cannot be detected by other persons in the room,
and without the other individuals being able to note the change.
It has been shown clearly that physically individuals can be induced into H by telephone, by receiving
written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words. Control of those hypnotized can be passed
from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by
experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information
purposes, and that they can be conditioned to a point where they believe a change in identity on their
part even on the polygraph.
Note: This document shows that CIA experimenters were successful in hypnotizing young women (19

years old in this case) to do things they would not do normally without any memory afterward, sometimes
even unwillingly. Though they volunteered, these women were thus programmed to be Manchurian
Candidates or super spies with no knowledge of what these men were doing to them.
CIA document and page number: 17395, p. 18

Title: ESP Research
Date: Unknown
Link to view image of original: Click here
Learning models will be instituted in which the subject will be rewarded or punished for his overall
performance and reinforced in various ways by being told whether he was right, by being told what the
target was, with electric shock etc. ... In other cases drugs and psychological tricks will be used
to modify his attitudes. The experimenters will be particularly interested in disassociative states, from
the abaissement de niveau mental to multiple personality in so-called mediums, and an attempt will be
made to induce a number of states of this kind, using hypnosis.
Note: This document provides proof that the CIA was was using drugs and electric shock in attempting to
induce MPD (multiple personality disorder). Though this document uses the masculine "he" to describe the
subject, other documents show that most of the subjects used were young women who volunteered. The
subjects were not informed about the deeper aspects and implications for which they were being trained.
If you view the original, you will also find interesting information on ESP experiments.
CIA document and page number: 190691, p. 1, 2

Title: Hypnotic Experimentation and Research
Date: 10 February 1954
Link to view image of original: Page 1, Page 2
A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Misses [deleted] and
[deleted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state with no further suggestion. Miss [deleted]
was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she
would use every method at her disposal to awaken miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic
sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was
instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to "kill" [deleted] for
failing to awaken.
Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded pneumatic pistol)
gun at [deleted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both
were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [deleted] was again
handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept form the operator. She
expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.
Miss [deleted] felt reluctant about participating further since she expressed her doubt as to any
useful purpose in further attendance. The Operator thereupon proceeded in full view of all other subjects
to explain to Miss [deleted] that he planned to induce a deep state of hypnosis now. The reaction was as
had been expected. Miss [deleted] excused herself to make a telephone call (defense mechanism?). Upon
her return a very positive approach was adopted by the operator whereupon a deeper, much deeper state
of hypnosis was obtained.
Immediately a posthypnotic was induced that when the operator accidently dropped a steel ball in his
hand to the floor ... Miss [deleted] would again go into hypnosis. Miss [deleted] then advised that she
must conclude her work for the evening. She arose to adjust her hair before the mirror. The ball was
dropped and she promptly slumped back into the chair and back into hypnosis. It is the opinion of the
operator the Miss [deleted] if properly trained (positive approach) will continue to improve.
Note: Here we have proof that these women could be converted into unsuspecting and even unwilling
assassins. They could be programmed to assassinate anyone and would do so without any conscious

knowledge afterward. Note also the questionable status of "volunteer" implied. Though these women
originally volunteered, unwillingness to continue could be manipulated by the men running the program.
CIA document and page number: 190527, pp. 1, 2

Title: SI and H Experimentation
Date: 25 September 1951
Link to view images of original: Page 1, Page 2
Note: SI stands for sleep induction and H for hypnosis
Prior to actually beginning the more complex experiments, several simple post H were worked with
both of the girls participating. The first major experiment of the evening was set up as follows
without previous explanation to either [deleted] or [deleted]. Both subjects were placed in a very
deep trance state and while in this state, the following instructions were given:
(A) [Deleted] was instructed that when she awakened, she was to procede to [deleted] room. She was
told that while there, she would receive a telephone call from an individual whom she would know only as
"Joe". This individual would engage her in a normal telephone conversation. During this conversation,
this individual would give her a code word and upon mentioning the code word, [deleted]
would go into a deep SI [sleep induction] trance state, but would be "normal" in appearance
with her eyes open.
[Deleted] was then told that upon the conclusion of the telephone conversation, she would procede to the
ladies room where she would meet a girl who was unknown to her. She was told that she would strike up
a conversation with this girl and during the conversation she would mention the code word "New York" to
this other girl, who, in turn, would give her a device and further instructions which were to be carried out
by [deleted]. She was told that after she carried out the instructions, she was to return to the Operations
Room, sit in the sofa and go immediately into a deep sleep.
(B) [Deleted] was instructed that upon awakening, she would proceed to [deleted] room where she would
wait at the desk for a telephone call. Upon receiving the call, a person known as "Jim" would engage her
in normal conversation. During the course of the conversation, this individual would mention a code word
to [deleted]. When she heard this code word, she would pass into a SI trance state, but would not close
her eyes and remain perfectly normal and continue the telephone conversation. She was told that upon
conclusion of the telephone conversation, she would then carry out the following instructions:
[Deleted] being in a complete SI state at this time, was then told to open her eyes and was shown an
electric timing device. She was informed that this timing device was an incendiary bomb and was
then instructed how to attach and set the device. After [deleted] had indicated that she had learned
how to set and attach the device, she was told to return to a sleep state and further instructed that upon
concluding the aforementioned conversation, she would take the timing device which was in a briefcase
and proceed to the ladies room.
In the ladies room, she would be met by a girl whom she had never seen who would identify herself by
the code word "New York." [Deleted] was then to show this individual how to attach and set the
timing device and further instructions would be given the individual by [deleted] that the
timing device was to be carried in the briefcase to [deleted] room, placed in the nearest empty
electric-light plug and concealed in the bottom, left-hand drawer of [deleted] desk, with the
device set for 82 seconds and turned on.
[Deleted] was further instructed to tell this other girl that as soon as the device had been set and turned

on, she was to take the briefcase, leave [deleted] room, go to the operations room and go to the sofa and
enter a deep sleep state. [Deleted] was further instructed that after completion of instructing the other
girl and the transferring to the other girl of the incendiary bomb, she was to return at once to the
operations room, sit on the sofa, and go into a deep sleep state.
For a matter of record, immediately after the operation was begun it was noted that a member of the
charforce was cleaning the floor in the ladies room and subsequently, both [deleted] and [deleted] had to
be placed ... once again in a trance state and instructions changed from the ladies room to Room 3. It
should be noted that even with the change of locale in the transfer point, the experiment was carried off
perfectly without any difficulty or hesitation on the part of either of the girls. Each girl acted out their part
perfectly, the device was planted and set as directed and both girls returned to the operations room, sat
on the sofa and entered a deep sleep state. Throughout, their movements were easy and natural.
Note: You will note the frequent use of "girls" (young women) in these programs. Do you think the men
in charge, having complete hypnotic control of these women, might have at times taken advantage of
them sexually? Yet this would never enter the official documentation, with the one major exception below.

Title: [Deleted]
Date: 9 July 1951
On 2 July 1951 approximately 1:00 p.m. the instruction began with [deleted] relating to the student
some of his sexual experiences. [Deleted] stated that he had constantly used hypnotism as a
means of inducing young girls to engage in sexual intercourse with him. [Deleted], a
performer in [deleted] orchestra, was forced to engage in sexual intercourse with [deleted] while
under the influence of hypnotism. [Deleted] stated that he first put her into a hypnotic trance and
then suggested to her that he was her husband and that she desired sexual intercourse with him.
Note: This document shows that an instructor being used by the CIA took advantage of his skill in
hypnosis to sexually abuse young women without their having any knowledge of being abused. How
many CIA hypnotists did likewise? Do you think a man involved in these programs might take
advantage of a beautiful, young woman knowing she would not remember afterward?
Note that for some reason this document is not available in the CIA's three CD set and must be
ordered individually at this link. See the What You Can Do section at the end of this page for
suggestions on how we can stop this abuse.
CIA document and page number: 17441, p.8

Title: Continuation of Studies of Hypnosis and Suggestibility
Date: Unknown
Preliminary clinical research during 1955-56 has yielded promising leads in terms of
knowledge of how hypnotizability can be influenced by pharmacological means.
Experiments involving altered personality function as a result of environmental manipulation (chiefly
sensory isolation) have yielded promising leads in terms of suggestibility and the production of
trance-like states. There is reason to believe that environmental manipulations can affect
tendencies for dissociative phenomenon to occur.

Note: "Dissociative phenomenon" refers to the ability of a person's consciousness to leave and a
new consciousness enter, thereby facilitation the creation of "alter" or multiple personalities.
Besides hypnosis, drugs and electric shocks were developed as means to facilitate the creation of
Manchurian Candidates.
CIA document and page number:17748, pp. 1, 2, 4, 6-9

Title: Report of Inspection of MKULTRA
Date: 26 July 1963
Link to view images of original: Page 1, Page 2, Page 4, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, Page 9.
It was deemed advisable to prepare the report of the MKULTRA program in one copy only, in view of
its unusual sensitivity. The MKULTRA activity is concerned with the research and development of
chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operation to
control human behavior. MKULTRA was authorized by then Director of Central Intelligence [DCI],
Allen W. Dulles, in 1953.
The concepts involved in manipulating human behavior are found by many people both within and outside
the Agency to be distasteful and unethical. Nevertheless, there have been major accomplishments both in
research and operational employment. Some MKULTRA activities raise questions of legality implicit in the
original charter. A final phase of testing of MKULTRA products places the rights and interests of
U.S. citizens in jeopardy. Public disclosure of some aspects of MKULTRA activity could induce
serious adverse reaction in U.S. public opinion. The DCI's memorandum ... exempted MKULTRA from
audit.
Over the ten-year life of the program many additional avenues to the control of human behavior have
been designated by the TSD management [Technical Services Division - under which MKULTRA operated]
as appropriate to investigation under the MKULTRA charter, including radiation, electro-shock, various
fields of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology, graphology, harassment substances, and
paramilitary devices and materials.
TSD initiated a program for covert testing of materials on unwitting U.S. citizens in 1955. TSD has
pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity of some of the
projects. The lack of consistent records precluded use of routine inspection procedures and raised a
variety of questions concerning management and fiscal controls.
There are just two individuals in TSD who have full substantive knowledge of the program and
most of that knowledge is unrecorded. In protecting both the sensitive nature of the American
intelligence capability to manipulate human behavior, they apply "need to know" doctrine to
their professional associates and to their clerical assistants to a maximum degree.
Note: Why did only two people have full substantive knowledge of the program? Could it be that sex
abuse and political manipulations behind the scenes were so severe that no one was to be trusted? Do
you think we could trust those two individuals? CIA Director Richard Helms, upon hearing there would be
a Congressional investigation, ordered the destruction of all documents from these unethical and at times
illegal mind control programs in 1973. He did not realize, however, that incriminating evidence remained
in the financial files of the agency, which are what you read here. We can only imagine what secrets the
destroyed documents held.
CIA document and page number: 87624, p. 3, 4 (also appended to 17748, p. 32, 33)
Title: Two Extremely Sensitive Research Programs
Date: 3 April 1953
Link to view images of original: Page 3, Page 4

Approximately 6% of the projects are of such an ultra-sensitive nature that they cannot and should
not be handled by means of contracts which would associate CIA or the Government with the work
in question.
We intend to investigate the development of a chemical material which causes a reversible non-toxic
aberrant mental state, the specific nature of which can be reasonably well predicted for each individual.
This material could potentially aid in discrediting individuals, eliciting information, implanting
suggestion and other forms of mental control.
In a great many instances the work in field (a) must be conducted by individuals who are not and should
not be aware of our interest. In all cases dealing with field (b), it is mandatory that any connections with
the Agency should be known only to an absolute minimum number of people who have been specifically
cleared for this purpose.
Experience has shown that qualified, competent individuals in the field of pharmacological, physiological,
psychiatric and other biological sciences are most reluctant to enter into signed agreements of any sort
which connect them with this activity since such a connection would jeopardize their professional
reputations. Even internally in CIA, as few individuals as possible should be aware of our
interest in these fields and of the identity of those who are working for us. At present, this
results in ridiculous contracts, with cut-outs, which do not spell out the scope or intent of the
work.
Note: In the three CD set, this document is found appended to document 17748 on pp. 30 to 37.

Title: None Given
Date:1 January 1950
Drug Project - A project in the isolation and synthesis of pure drugs for use in effecting psychological
entry and control of the individual.
Drugs and electricity - Research work on the effects of lysergic acid [LSD] on animals. Use of electric
shock and the encephalograph in interrogation. Particular emphasis on the detection and prior use
of electric shock and the 'guaranteed amnesia' resulting from electric shock.
Hypnosis - Investigation of the possibilities of hypnotic and post-hypnotic control.
CIA document and page number: 140394, pp. 2, 3 (not available in CD set, order individually
here)
Title: Interview with [Deleted]
Date: 25 February 1952
Link to view full text of both pages: Click here
Q: What are your experiences in general with hypnotism?
A: I have been a professional hypnotist for at least 15 years. At present, I am employed on a very
confidential basis two days a week.
Q: Can you obtain information from an individual, willing or unwilling, by hypnotism?
A: Definitely, yes. Many of the medical cases I work on are involved in obtaining personal,
intimate information, and through hypnotism, I have been quite successful in obtaining this. If
an individual refuses to co-operate with hypnosis, the doctors with whom I work use drugs,
always sodium amytal.

Q: How far do you think individuals could be controlled by hypnosis?
A: This is a very difficult subject. Post-hypnotics will last twenty years and will be very strong if re-
enforced from time to time.
Q: Have you ever had any experience with drugs?
A: Yes, many times. I have worked with doctors using sodium amytal and pentothal and have obtained
hypnotic control after the drugs were used. In fact, many times drugs were used for the purpose of
obtaining hypnotic control.
Q: Do you have any ideas that hypnotism could be used as a weapon?
A: Yes, I have thought about this often. It could certainly be used in obtaining information from
recalcitrant people particularly with drugs. It could be used as a recruiting source for special types of
work. A good hypnotist running hypnotic shows for entertainment would pick up a great many
subjects, some of whom might be exceptionally good subjects for us. These subjects could
easily be tabbed and put to use.
Q: Have you ever been able to produce hypnosis without an individual's knowledge?
A: Yes, through the relaxing technique and on rare occasions [I've] been able to produce hypnotism
against a person's will. However, you cannot count on this and to attempt to attach an individual who did
not want to be hypnotized alone would be almost an impossible task. In that type of case, I would use
sodium amytal and/or sodium pentothal.
Q: How effective are post-hypnotics; over what distances and time can they be effective?
A: Properly used post-hypnotics will last twenty years. They can be made more effective by re-
enforcement from time to time. Post-hypnotics are not affected at all by time or travel or distance away
from the person who placed the post-hypnotic. As a rule, post-hypnotics should be 100% effective in good
subjects.
Q: Can individuals be made to do things under hypnosis that they would not otherwise?
A: Individuals could be taught to do anything including murder, suicide, etc. I do believe that
you could carry out acts that would be against an individual's moral feelings if they were
rightly, psychologically conditioned.
Note: Individuals can be hypnotized without their knowledge. They can be programmed to commit
murder, suicide, and much more. Think about the implications. How many "suicides" of important
people we've heard in the news were not really suicides? How many murders were committed by
people who didn't even realize they were assassins? How much has this technology been used to
manipulate world politics? Think about the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, Jr., and possibly those
involved with 9/11 and other major terrorist attacks. Note this document is not available in the
three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link.
CIA document and page number: 140401, pp. 6, 7 (not available in CD set, order individually
here)
Title: Special Research, Bluebird
Date: 1 January 1952 (approximate)
Link to view full text of both pages: Click here

Set out below are specific problems which can only be resolved by experiment, testing and
research.
Can we obtain control of the future activities (physical and mental) of any given individual, willing
or unwilling by application of SI [sleep induction] and H [hypnosis] techniques?
Can we create by post-H control an action contrary to an individual's basic moral principles?
Can we in a matter of an hour, two hours, one day, etc., induce an H condition in an unwilling
subject to such an extent that he will perform an act for our benefit?
Could we seize a subject and in the space of an hour or two by post-H control have him
crash an airplane, wreck a train, etc.?
Can we by H and SI techniques force a subject (unwilling or otherwise) to travel long distances,
commit specified acts and return to us or bring documents or materials?
Can we guarantee total amnesia under any and all conditions?
Can we "alter" a person's personality?
Can we devise a system for making unwilling subjects into willing agents and then transfer that
control to untrained agency agents in the field by use of codes or identifying signs?
Is it possible to find a gas that can be used to gain SI control from a gas pencil, odorless, colorless:
one shot, etc.?
What are full details on "sleep-inducing machine"?
How can sodium A or P or any other sleep inducing agent be best concealed in a normal
or commonplace item, such as candy, cigarettes, liquer, wines, coffee, tea, beer, gum
water, aspirin tablets, common medicines, coke, tooth paste?
Can we, using SI and H extract complicated formula from scientists, engineers, etc., if unwilling?
Note: Reading all of the declassified CIA documents listed in this essay suggests that the answer to
most, if not all of the questions above appears to be yes. Note that sleep inducing agents were
being placed in candy, aspirin, Coke, and more. Think about the implications if even just a few of
the men in these programs decided to use such things outside of the office to manipulate others for
their personal benefit. It's time that this information be made public so we can all be aware of
what's going on and work to stop the abuses. Note for some reason this document is not available
in the three CD set and must be ordered individually at this link.
Science Digest Article, pp. 44 - 53 (Not a CIA document, but related to the mind control
programs)
Title: Hypnosis Comes of Age
Date: April 1971
Link to view full text of article: Click here
Psychologist G. H. Estabrooks reminisces about his long career as a hypnotist. Dr. Estabrooks discusses
how he "programmed" American spies with hypnosis and how he helped businessmen and students with
his skills. Dr. Estabrooks is a Rhodes Scholar. He took his Doctorate at Harvard ('26), and has authored
many articles and books on clinical hypnosis and human behavior.

One of the most fascinating but dangerous applications of hypnosis is its use in military intelligence. This
is a field with which I am familiar through formulating guidelines for the techniques used by the United
States in two world wars. I was involved in preparing many subjects for this work during World War II.
One successful case involved an Army Service Corps Captain whom we'll call George Smith. Captain Smith
had undergone months of training. He was an excellent subject but did not realize it. I had removed
from him, by post-hypnotic suggestion, all recollection of ever having been hypnotized. Outside
of myself, Colonel Brown was the only person who could hypnotize Captain Smith. This is "locking." I
performed it by saying to the hypnotized Captain: "Until further orders from me, only Colonel Brown and I
can hypnotize you. We will use a signal phrase 'the moon is clear.' " The system is virtually foolproof.
By the 1920's, not only had they learned to apply post-hypnotic suggestion, [they] also had
learned how to split certain complex individuals into multiple personalities like Jeckyl-Hydes.
During World War II, I worked this technique with a vulnerable Marine lieutenant I'll call Jones. Under the
watchful eye of Marine Intelligence, I spilt his personality into Jones A and Jones B. Jones A, once a
"normal" working Marine, became entirely different. He talked communist doctrine and meant it. He was
welcomed enthusiastically by communist cells, was deliberately given a dishonorable discharge by the
Corps (which was in on the plot) and became a card-carrying party member.
The joker was Jones B, the second personality, formerly apparent in the conscious Marine. Under
hypnosis, this Jones had been carefully coached by suggestion. Jones B was the deeper personality, knew
all the thoughts of Jones A, was a loyal American, and was "imprinted" to say nothing during conscious
phases. All I had to do was hypnotize the whole man, get in touch with Jones B, the loyal American, and I
had a pipeline straight into the Communist camp.
Note: This article shows that in the 1920s, U.S. military intelligence had already developed the
capability to cause split personalities. The created super spy or Manchurian Candidate has been a
reality for nearly a century, yet very few people know anything about it. These unknowing spies
could plant bombs, provide sexual favors, and even assassinate top political leaders. Consider that
many countries and key powerful, elite groups have had and used this technology for many
decades. Watch the movie Manchurian Candidate to see how real it is.

E. Significant Events During the Bankruptcy Case

[Describe significant events during the Debtors bankruptcy case:
Describe any asset sales outside the ordinary course of business, debtor in possession
financing, or cash collateral orders.
Identify the professionals approved by the court.
Describe any adversary proceedings that have been filed or other significant litigation that
has occurred (including contested claim disallowance proceedings), and any other
significant legal or administrative proceedings that are pending or have been pending
during the case in a forum other than the Court.
Describe any steps taken to improve operations and profitability of the Debtor.
Describe other events as appropriate.]
THERE WAS ONLY LITIGATION EXPENSES AND THE RECEIPT OF SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY
BENEFITS FROM 2008 TO THE PRESENT.
F. Projected Recovery of Avoidable Transfers [Choose the option that applies]
[Option 1 If the Debtor does not intend to pursue avoidance actions]

The DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE does not intend to pursue preference, fraudulent
conveyance, or other avoidance
actions.
[Option 2 If the Debtor intends to pursue avoidance actions]

The Debtor estimates that up to $0. may be realized from the recovery of fraudulent,
preferential or other avoidable trans$0. may be realized from the recovery of fraudulent,
transfers. While the results of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty
and it is possible that other causes of action may be identified, the following is a summary of the
preference, fraudulent conveyance and other avoidance actions filed or expected to be filed in this case:
Transaction Defendant Amount Claimed
[Option 3 If the Debtor does not yet know whether it intends to pursue avoidance actions]
The Debtor has not yet completed its investigation with regard to prepetition transactions. If you
received a payment or other transfer within 90 days of the bankruptcy, or other transfer avoidable under
the Code, the Debtor may seek to avoid such transfer.
G. Claims Objections
Except to the extent that a claim is already allowed pursuant to a final non-appealable order, the
Debtor reserves the right to object to claims. Therefore, even if your claim is allowed for voting
purposes, you may not be entitled to a distribution if an objection to your claim is later upheld. The
procedures for resolving disputed claims are set forth in Article V of the Plan.
H. Current and Historical Financial Conditions

The identity and fair market value of the estate=s assets are listed in Exhibit B. [Identify source
and basis of valuation.]
The Debtor=s most recent financial statements [if any] issued before bankruptcy, each of which
was filed with the Court, are set forth in Exhibit C.
[The most recent post-petition operating report filed since the commencement of the Debtors
bankruptcy case are set forth in Exhibit D.] [A summary of the Debtors periodic operating reports
filed since the commencement of the Debtors bankruptcy case is set forth in Exhibit D.]
III. SUMMARY OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND TREATMENT OF

CLAIMS AND EQUITY INTERESTS

A. What is the Purpose of the Plan of Reorganization?
As required by the Code, the Plan places claims and equity interests in various classes and
describes the treatment each class will receive. The Plan also states whether each class of claims or
equity interests is impaired or unimpaired. If the Plan is confirmed, your recovery will be limited to
the amount provided by the Plan.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN IS TO FORMALIZE THE
INTENT OF THE LITIGATION OF THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, AND TO ERMARK A
CERTAIN PORTION OF THE FUTURE SETTELMENTS FOR THE CREDITORS NAMED HEREIN.
B. Unclassified Claims
Certain types of claims are automatically entitled to specific treatment under the Code. They
are not considered impaired, and holders of such claims do not vote on the Plan. They may, however,
object if, in their view, their treatment under the Plan does not comply with that required by the Code.
As such, the Plan Proponent has not placed the following claims in any class:
NO CLAIMS APPLY
1. Administrative Expenses
Administrative expenses are costs or expenses of administering the Debtor=s chapter 11 case
which are allowed under 507(a)(2) of the Code. Administrative expenses also include the value of
any goods sold to the Debtor in the ordinary course of business and received within 20 days before the
date of the bankruptcy petition. The Code requires that all administrative expenses be paid on the
effective date of the Plan, unless a particular claimant agrees to a different treatment.
ALL PLAN COSTS ARE BORNE BY THE DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, AS A PRO SE LITIGANT.
THERE ARE NO PAID OR UNPAID PROFESSIONALS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CHAPTER 11
BANKRUPTCY FILING.

The following chart lists the Debtor=s estimated administrative expenses, and their proposed
treatment under the Plan:
THERE WILL BE NO ADMINSTRATIVE EXPENSES CHARGED TO THIS BANKRUPTCY. THE
DEBTOR, STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, HANDLES ALL OF THE EXPENSES AS PRO SE BILLINGS
AND HAS RECENTLY CHARGED THEM TO DIRECTOR JAMES, COMEY OF THE FBI.
Paid in full on the effective date of the Plan Other administrative expenses Paid in full on the effective date
of the Plan or according to separate written agreement Office of the U.S. Trustee Fees Paid in full on the
effective date of the Plan
ANY EXPENSES TAKEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE US TRUSTEE IS LEGAL EXTORTION, CONSIDING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WILL BE CONTESTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
2. Priority Tax Claims

Priority tax claims are unsecured income, employment, and other taxes described by
507(a)(8) of the Code. Unless the holder of such a 507(a)(8) priority tax claim agrees otherwise, it
must receive the present value of
THERE ARE NO PRIORITY TAX CLAIMS. THE DEBTOR HAS NOT HAD ANY TAXABLE INCOME
SINCE 2002.
C. Classes of Claims and Equity Interests

The following are the classes set forth in the Plan, and the proposed treatment that they will
receive under the Plan:
1. Classes of Secured Claims
Allowed Secured Claims are claims secured by property of the Debtor=s bankruptcy estate (or
that are subject to setoff) to the extent allowed as secured claims under 506 of the Code. If the value
of the collateral or setoffs securing the creditors claim is less than the amount of the creditors
allowed claim, the deficiency will [be classified as a general unsecured claim].
THERE ARE NO SECURED CLAIMS
The following chart lists all classes containing Debtor=s secured prepetition claims and their
proposed treatment under the Plan:
THERE ARE NO SECURED CLAIMS
2. Classes of Priority Unsecured Claims

Certain priority claims that are referred to in 507(a)(1), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of the Code are
required to be placed in classes. The Code requires that each holder of such a claim receive cash on
the effective date of the Plan equal to the allowed amount of such claim. However, a class of holders
of such claims may vote to accept different treatment.
THERE ARE NO PRIORITY UNSECURED CLAIMS
The following chart lists all classes containing claims under 507(a)(1), (4), (5), (6), and
(a)(7) of the Code and their proposed treatment under the Plan:
THERE ARE ONLY ONE CLASS OF UNSECURED CLAIMS
4. Class[es] of Equity Interest Holders

THERE ARE ONLY 4 SHAREHOLDERS WITH 4,000 SHARES TOTAL TO THE 996,000 OWNED BY
THE DEBTOR FOR ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, Ltd., THE OTHER COMPANIES THAT THE DEBTOR,
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE HAD REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED ARE FOR FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD., AND IT'S SUBSIDIARIES AND THE DEBTOR HAD NOT RESEARCHED
THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP. THE DEBTOR IS THE SOLE REGISTRANT IN 1986.

The Plan, in Exhibit 5.1, lists all executory contracts and unexpired leases that the Debtor will
assume under the Plan. Assumption means that the Debtor has elected to continue to perform the
obligations under such contracts and unexpired leases, and to cure defaults of the type that must be
cured under the Code, if any. Exhibit 5.1 also lists how the Debtor will cure and compensate the other
party to such contract or lease for any such defaults.
If you object to the assumption of your unexpired lease or executory contract, the proposed
cure of any defaults, or the adequacy of assurance of performance, you must file and serve your
objection to the Plan within the deadline for objecting to the confirmation of the Plan, unless the Court
has set an earlier time.
All executory contracts and unexpired leases that are not listed in Exhibit 5.1 will be rejected
under the Plan. Consult your adviser or attorney for more specific information about particular
contracts or leases.
If you object to the rejection of your contract or lease, you must file and serve your objection to
the Plan within the deadline for objecting to the confirmation of the Plan.
[The Deadline for Filing a Proof of Claim Based on a Claim Arising from the Rejection of a
Lease or Contract Is . Any claim based on the rejection of a contract or lease will be barred if
the proof of claim is not timely filed, unless the Court orders otherwise.]
THERE ARE NONE
G. Tax Consequences of Plan

Creditors and Equity Interest Holders Concerned with How the Plan May Affect Their Tax
Liability Should Consult with Their Own Accountants, Attorneys, And/Or Advisors.
The following are the anticipated tax consequences of the Plan: [List the following general
consequences as a minimum: (1)Tax consequences to the Debtor of the Plan; (2) General tax
consequences on creditors of any discharge, and the general tax consequences of receipt of plan
consideration after confirmation.]
NONE
IV. CONFIRMATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES

To be confirmable, the Plan must meet the requirements listed in 1129(a) or (b) of the Code.
These include the requirements that: the Plan must be proposed in good faith; at least one impaired
class of claims must accept the plan, without counting votes of insiders; the Plan must distribute to
each creditor and equity interest holder at least as much as the creditor or equity interest holder would
receive in a chapter 7 liquidation case, unless the creditor or equity interest holder votes to accept the
Plan; and the Plan must be feasible. These requirements are not the only requirements listed in 1129,
and they are not the only requirements for confirmation.
A. Who May Vote or Object

Any party in interest may object to the confirmation of the Plan if the party believes that the
requirements for confirmation are not met.
Many parties in interest, however, are not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. A
creditor or equity interest holder has a right to vote for or against the Plan only if that creditor or equity
interest holder has a claim or equity interest that is both (1) allowed or allowed for voting purposes and
(2) impaired.
In this case, the Plan Proponent believes that classes are impaired and that holders of
claims in each of these classes are therefore entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. The Plan
Proponent believes that classes are unimpaired and that holders of claims in each of these
classes, therefore, do not have the right to vote to accept or reject the Plan.
1. What Is an Allowed Claim or an Allowed Equity Interest?
Only a creditor or equity interest holder with an allowed claim or an allowed equity interest has
the right to vote on the Plan. Generally, a claim or equity interest is allowed if either (1) the Debtor
has scheduled the claim on the Debtor=s schedules, unless the claim has been scheduled as disputed,

contingent, or unliquidated, or (2) the creditor has filed a proof of claim or equity interest, unless an
objection has been filed to such proof of claim or equity interest. When a claim or equity interest is
not allowed, the creditor or equity interest holder holding the claim or equity interest cannot vote
unless the Court, after notice and hearing, either overrules the objection or allows the claim or equity
interest for voting purposes pursuant to Rule 3018(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
The deadline for filing a proof of claim in this case was .
[If applicable The deadline for filing objections to claims is______.]
2. What Is an Impaired Claim or Impaired Equity Interest?

As noted above, the holder of an allowed claim or equity interest has the right to vote only if it
is in a class that is impaired under the Plan. As provided in 1124 of the Code, a class is considered
impaired if the Plan alters the legal, equitable, or contractual rights of the members of that class.
3. Who is Not Entitled to Vote

The holders of the following five types of claims and equity interests are not entitled to vote:
holders of claims and equity interests that have been disallowed by an order of the
Court;
holders of other claims or equity interests that are not allowed claims or allowed
equity interests (as discussed above), unless they have been allowed for voting
purposes.
holders of claims or equity interests in unimpaired classes;
holders of claims entitled to priority pursuant to 507(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(8) of the
Code; and
holders of claims or equity interests in classes that do not receive or retain any value
under the Plan;
administrative expenses.
Even If You Are Not Entitled to Vote on the Plan, You Have a Right to Object to the
Confirmation of the Plan [and to the Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement].
4. Who Can Vote in More Than One Class

A creditor whose claim has been allowed in part as a secured claim and in part as an unsecured
claim, or who otherwise hold claims in multiple classes, is entitled to accept or reject a Plan in each
capacity, and should cast one ballot for each claim.
B. Votes Necessary to Confirm the Plan

If impaired classes exist, the Court cannot confirm the Plan unless (1) at least one impaired
class of creditors has accepted the Plan without counting the votes of any insiders within that class, and
(2) all impaired classes have voted to accept the Plan, unless the Plan is eligible to be confirmed by
Acram down@ on non-accepting classes, as discussed later in Section [B.2.].
1. Votes Necessary for a Class to Accept the Plan

A class of claims accepts the Plan if both of the following occur: (1) the holders of more than
one-half (1/2) of the allowed claims in the class, who vote, cast their votes to accept the Plan, and (2)
the holders of at least two-thirds (2/3) in dollar amount of the allowed claims in the class, who vote,
cast their votes to accept the Plan. A class of equity interests accepts the Plan if the holders of at least
two-thirds (2/3) in amount of the allowed equity interests in the class, who vote, cast their votes to
accept the Plan.
2. Treatment of Nonaccepting Classes

Even if one or more impaired classes reject the Plan, the Court may nonetheless confirm the
Plan if the nonaccepting classes are treated in the manner prescribed by 1129(b) of the Code. A plan
that binds nonaccepting classes is commonly referred to as a Acram down@ plan. The Code allows the
Plan to bind nonaccepting classes of claims or equity interests if it meets all the requirements for

consensual confirmation except the voting requirements of 1129(a)(8) of the Code, does not
Adiscriminate unfairly,@ and is Afair and equitable@ toward each impaired class that has not voted to
accept the Plan.
You should consult your own attorney if a Acramdown@ confirmation will affect your claim or
equity interest, as the variations on this general rule are numerous and complex.
C. Liquidation Analysis
To confirm the Plan, the Court must find that all creditors and equity interest holders who do
not accept the Plan will receive at least as much under the Plan as such claim and equity interest
holders would receive in a chapter 7 liquidation. A liquidation analysis is attached to this Disclosure
Statement as Exhibit E.
D. Feasibility
The Court must find that confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by the
liquidation, or the need for further financial reorganization, of the Debtor or any successor to the
Debtor, unless such liquidation or reorganization is proposed in the Plan.
1. Ability to Initially Fund Plan
The Plan Proponent believes that the Debtor will have enough cash on hand on the effective
date of the Plan to pay all the claims and expenses that are entitled to be paid on that date. Tables
showing the amount of cash on hand on the effective date of the Plan, and the sources of that cash
are attached to this disclosure statement as Exhibit F.
2. Ability to Make Future Plan Payments And Operate Without Further Reorganization
The Plan Proponent must also show that it will have enough cash over the life of the Plan to
make the required Plan payments.
The Plan Proponent has provided projected financial information. Those projections are listed
in Exhibit G.
The Plan Proponents financial projections show that the Debtor will have an aggregate annual
average cash flow, after paying operating expenses and post-confirmation taxes, of $ . The final
Plan payment is expected to be paid on .
[Summarize the numerical projections, and highlight any assumptions that are not in accord with
past experience. Explain why such assumptions should now be made.]
THERE WILL BE NO CASHFLOW UNTIL SETTELMENTS ARE REACHED. THERE WILL BE NO
DISTRIBUTIONS TO THIS BANKRUPTCY PLAN UNTIL 100% OF THE THE DEBTOR, STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE, PRO SE BILLINGS AND ACCOUNTS RECIEVABLES ARE COLLECTED IN
FULL.
You Should Consult with Your Accountant or other Financial Advisor If You Have Any
Questions Pertaining to These Projections.
V.EFFECT OF CONFIRMATION OF PLAN
A. NO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR [If the Debtor is not entitled to discharge pursuant to 11

U.S.C. 1141(d)(3) change this heading to NO DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR.]
[Option 1 If Debtor is an individual and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]
Discharge. Confirmation of the Plan does not discharge any debt provided for in the Plan until
the court grants a discharge on completion of all payments under the Plan, or as otherwise provided in
1141(d)(5) of the Code. Debtor will not be discharged from any debt excepted from discharge under
523 of the Code, except as provided in Rule 4007(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

[Option 2 -- If the Debtor is a partnership and 1141(d)(3) of the Code is not

applicable]
Discharge. On the effective date of the Plan, the Debtor shall be discharged from any debt that
arose before confirmation of the Plan, subject to the occurrence of the effective date, to the extent
specified in 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Code. However, the Debtor shall not be discharged from any debt
imposed by the Plan. After the effective date of the Plan your claims against the Debtor will be limited
to the debts imposed by the Plan.
[Option 3 -- If the Debtor is a corporation and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]

Discharge. On the effective date of the Plan, the Debtor shall be discharged from any debt that
arose before confirmation of the Plan, subject to the occurrence of the effective date, to the extent
specified in 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Code, except that the Debtor shall not be discharged of any debt (i)
imposed by the Plan, (ii) of a kind specified in 1141(d)(6)(A) if a timely complaint was filed in
accordance with Rule 4007(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, or (iii) of a kind
specified in 1141(d)(6)(B). After the effective date of the Plan your claims against the Debtor will
be limited to the debts described in clauses (i) through (iii) of the preceding sentence.
[Option 4 If 1141(d)(3) is applicable]

No Discharge. In accordance with 1141(d)(3) of the Code, the Debtor will not receive any
discharge of debt in this bankruptcy case.
B. Modification of Plan
The Plan Proponent may modify the Plan at any time before confirmation of the Plan.
However, the Court may require a new disclosure statement and/or revoting on the Plan.
[If the Debtor is not an individual, add the following: AThe Plan Proponent may also seek to modify the
Plan at any time after confirmation only if (1) the Plan has not been substantially consummated and (2)
the Court authorizes the proposed modifications after notice and a hearing.@]
[If the Debtor is an individual, add the following: AUpon request of the Debtor, the United
States trustee, or the holder of an allowed unsecured claim, the Plan may be modified at any time after
confirmation of the Plan but before the completion of payments under the Plan, to (1) increase or
reduce the amount of payments under the Plan on claims of a particular class, (2) extend or reduce the
time period for such payments, or (3) alter the amount of distribution to a creditor whose claim is
provided for by the Plan to the extent necessary to take account of any payment of the claim made
other than under the Plan.@]
C. Final Decree

Once the estate has been fully administered, as provided in Rule 3022 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, the Plan Proponent, or such other party as the Court shall designate in the Plan
Confirmation Order, shall file a motion with the Court to obtain a final decree to close the case.
Alternatively, the Court may enter such a final decree on its own motion.
VI. OTHER PLAN PROVISIONS
[Insert other provisions here, as necessary and appropriate.]
Respectfully submitted,
By: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, THE DEBTOR

The Plan Proponent
By: NONE
Attorney for the Plan Proponent

EXHIBITS
INTERNET LINKS OF INTEREST
ERIC COHEN AND ROBERT BERUBE, Federal Public Defender for Esteban Santiago, Ft. Lauderdale Shooter,
INVOICE AND FEE SCHEDULE January 20, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/337072519/ERIC-COHEN-Federal-Public-Defender-for-Esteban-
Santiago-Ft-Lauderdale-Shooter-INVOICE-AND-FEE-SCHEDULE-January-20-2017
STAN CATERBONE NAMED AMICUS FOR KATHLEEN KANE Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 3575
EDA 2016 FRIDAY JANUARY 20, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/337120127/STAN-CATERBONE-NAMED-AMICUS-FOR-
KATHLEEN-KANE-Superior-Court-of-Pennsylvania-Case-No-3575-EDA-2016-FRIDAY-JANUARY-20-
2017
WHISTLEBLOWERS KAREN STEWART AND STAN CATERBONE A Candid Discussion of Electronic

Harassment Protocols, January 11, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336256943/WHISTLEBLOWERS-KAREN-STEWART-AND-STAN-
CATERBONE-A-Candid-Discussion-of-Electronic-Harassment-Protocols-January-11-2017
The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking Program

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/surreptitious-reincarnation-cointelpro-cops-program-stan-
caterbone
Video: Media Blacks Out Edward Snowdens Talk On COINTELPRO & History Of Mass Surveillance
http://www.mintpressnews.com/video-media-blacks-out-edward-snowdens-talk-on-cointelpro-
history-of-mass-surveillance/224222/
Letters: Snowden deserves pardon by John and Bonnie Raines, Philadelphia of the Citizens Commission to
Investigate the FBI in 1971
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20170119_Letters__Snowden_deserves_pardon.html
Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy

https://www.scribd.com/document/336787302/Legal-Implications-of-the-1959-Soviet-Microwave-
Bombardment-of-the-U-S-Embassy-January-17-2017
Congressman Robert Walker Pleading July 7 1991 Important

https://www.scribd.com/document/270267368/Congressman-Robert-Walker-Pleading-July-7-
1991-Important
That time the CIA was convinced a self-proclaimed psychic had paranormal abilities
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/19/that-time-the-cia-was-
convinced-a-self-proclaimed-psychic-had-paranormal-abilities/?
postshare=8421484844095309&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b487b6ae00e7
Obama's most enduring legacy may be the establishment of the modern US surveillance state
http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-most-enduring-legacy-the-modern-us-surveillance-state-
2017-1
The Extortion of 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, Pa by COINTELPRO PROGRAMS January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336832214/The-Extortion-of-220-Stone-Hill-Road-Conestoga-
Pa-by-COINTELPRO-PROGRAMS-January-17-2017
AMG LEGAL SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE Mastered on April 16, 1991 at Commadore Inc., January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336787897/AMG-LEGAL-SYSTEMS-PROTOTYPE-Mastered-on-April-16-1991-at-
Commadore-Inc-January-17-2017
Stan J. Caterbone, Controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., 1993 to 1998 January 17, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/336787739/Stan-J-Caterbone-Controller-of-Pflumm-Contractors-Inc-1993-to-
1998-January-17-2017
Sam Lombardo and Raolph Mazzochi Charlotte Street Proposal by Advanced Media Group and Stan J.
Caterbone January 17, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336787416/Sam-Lombardo-and-Raolph-Mazzochi-Charlotte-Street-Proposal-by-
Advanced-Media-Group-and-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-17-2017
B2B Consulting From 1999 to 2002 January 16, 2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/336787303/B2B-Consulting-From-1999-to-2002-January-16-2017
1999 Excelsior Place Business Plan by Stan J. Caterbone January 16, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336719627/1999-Excelsior-Place-Business-Plan-by-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-16-
2017
Stan J. Caterbone AIM MUTUAL FUNDS Consulting From 1999 to 2002 January 16, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336738750/Stan-J-Caterbone-AIM-MUTUAL-FUNDS-Consulting-From-1999-to-
2002-January-16-2017
Pro Financial Group Brochure and Eastern Regional Free Agent Camp by Stan J. Caterbone January 16,
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336704842/Pro-Financial-Group-Brochure-and-Eastern-Regional-Free-Agent-
Camp-by-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-16-2017
STAN J. CATERBONE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP JOINT VENTURE WITH DALE HIGH January 15, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637179/56-STAN-J-CATERBONE-ADVANCED-MEDIA-GROUP-JOINT-VENTURE-
WITH-DALE-HIGH-January-15-2017
Institutional Investors Mortgage Banking Business Development of 1987 January 15, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637178/58-Institutional-Investors-Mortgage-Banking-Business-Development-
of-1987-January-15-2017
1987 JOINT VENTURE - Tony Bongiovi, Power Station Studios, and Flatbush Films with Stan J. Caterbone
January 15, 2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637176/55-1987-JOINT-VENTURE-Tony-Bongiovi-Power-Station-Studios-and-
Flatbush-Films-with-Stan-J-Caterbone-January-15-2017
STAN J. CATERBONE'S Financial Management Group, Ltd., Anti-Trust Litigation File of October 17, 2015
https://www.scribd.com/document/336637173/57-STAN-J-CATERBONE-S-Financial-Management-Group-Ltd-Anti-
Trust-Litigation-File-of-October-17-2015
FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND ILLEGAL INTERROGATIONS by U.S. Intelligence Agencies November 12, 2016
https://www.scribd.com/document/329761557/FALSE-IMPRISONMENT-AND-ILLEGAL-INTERROGATIONS-by-U-S-
Intelligence-Agencies-and-U-S-Sponsored-Mind-Control-EVIDENCE-November-2-2016
Scribd
Letter REQUEST for COMMUTATION of the Sentence of Lisa Michell Lambert to President Obama, November 15, 2016
Stan J. Caterbone and Conflicts With the Trump Administration - Monday November 14, 2016 | False Claims Act |
Military
STAN J. CATERBONE and the DEPARTMENT of DEFENSE Documents and Evidence of Conspiracy to .... Saturday
November 12, 2016
Feds Probe Fulton Bank and 3 Other Subsidiary Banks of Fulton Financial With Stan J. Caterbone Civil Actions and
Mind Control Research of Monday November 9, 2016 | Robert Gates

Letter to James Comey, Director of FBI Re Cointelpro Used to Obstruct Justice Monday November 28, 2016 | Federal
Bureau Of Investigation | Central Intelligence Agency
VITALLY IMPORTANT - LETTER and DOCUMENT to Cappello & Noel, LLP of Santa Barbara, CA Friday November 25,
2016
Report of Douglas F Gansler/Kathleen Kane on Misuse of Commonwealth Email Systems November 22, 2016 Published
by ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP |
Pro Se Legal Representation In The United States | Motion In United States Law
Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray Says There is Room for Improvement in Police Communication - CATERBONE v. Lancaster
City Police Bureau, et.al., November 22, 2016 | Central Intelligence Agency
Chapter 12 - ROHYPNOL AND SATELLITE and Chapter 11 - NEIGHBORS FROM HELL, from Satellite Terrorism in
America, by Dr. John Hall Copyright 2009
| J. Edgar Hoover | Federal Bureau Of Investigation
JIM GUERIN, FOUNDER OF ISC, FAREWELL LETTER OF 1989 December 26, 2016 | Justice | Government
CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON Candidate for JUDGESHIP and His 1987 EFFORT FOR MY GUARDIANSHIP Friday December
16, 2016
ANOTHER LANCASTER COVER-UP THE SALE OF THE MASONIC HALL IN THE CITY OF LANCASTER, by The Advanced
Media Group, December 15, 2016 | Fraternal Service Organizations
Usage Statistics for www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com TOTALS and MONTHLY From May of 2016 to January
2017 - January 10, 2017
My Friend and Colleague Soleilmavis Liu of China a Victim of Mind Control Living in China Who Started Peacepink-
August 28, 2016
TD Ameritrade TRADEKEEPER PROFIT-LOSS FOR 2004 TRADES and 2017 FULTON STOCK January 9, 2017
POLICE INCIDENT REPORTS OF PHYSICAL ASSAULTS FOR STAN J. CATERBONE 2005 TO 2016 January 6, 2017
Judiciaries
UPDATED STATEMENT OF FACTS re CATERBONE v. Lancaster City Police Department US District Court Case 08-cv-
08982 December 28, 2016
Section 504 Of The Rehabilitation Act | Rehabilitation Act Of 1973
UPDATED - EXCLUSIVE Transcripts of Whistleblower Testimonies as Targeted Individuals of U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and Related Hearings and Lectures, December 27, 2016
Torture

Exhibit A B Copy of Proposed Plan of Reorganization

Exhibit B B Identity and Value of Material Assets of Debtor

Exhibit C B Prepetition Financial Statements

(to be taken from those filed with the court)

Exhibit D B [Most Recently Filed Postpetition Operating Report][Summary of Postpetition

Operating Reports]

Exhibit E Liquidation Analysis

Plan Proponents Estimated Liquidation Value of Assets
Assets

Exhibit F Cash on hand on the effective date of the Plan

Cash on hand on effective date of the Plan:
Less B

B25B (Official Form 25B) (12/08) Cont. 24

Exhibit G B Projections of Cash Flow and Earnings for Post-Confirmation Period


STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
scaterbone@live.com
717-327-1566
UNITED STATES COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________________
In Re:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE, APPELLANT
CASE NO. 17-01233

Case No. 17-10615REF
PRESS RELEASE
re: HEARING OFTHURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2017 1:00pm
LANCASTER, PA - Stan J. Caterbone appeared before U.S. District Judge Edward

Smith in the Federal Courthouse in Easton, Pennsylvania on Thursday, August 31,
2017. DISCRPENCIES WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS IN PHILADELPHIA AND THE
LETTER FROM THE UNITED STATES SPECIAL COUNSEL PERPLEXED JUDGE SMITH. The
first issue addressed was the corrupted attempt to obtain a CERTIFICATION FOR
CREDIT COUNSELING. Prior to the HEARING, Judge Smith had made arrangements to
secure the CERTIFICATION by an online chat, which is how the CERTFICATION is
obtained. Stan J. Caterbone, Judge Smith, and Judge Smith's Clerk participated on the
call and a CERTFICATION was secured and received. The process took about 15
minutes. This was Stan J. Caterbone's THIRD attempt to secure the COURT ORDERED
CERTFICATION. All previous attempts were either hacked or corrupted during the
process.
Stan J. Caterbone then proceeded on to the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES.

First at hand was the fact that 2 filings, THE HABEUS CORPUS of Monday August 28,
2017 and the OPENING STATEMENT WERE NOT DOCKETED BY THE CLERK OF COURT
IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURTHOUSE IN PHILADELPHIA. BOTH WERE FILED BEFORE
COURT HOURS AND STAMPED, MEANIING THAT BOTH DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE
DOCKETED THE DAY OF THE STAMP. After some discussion at the BENCH both Stan J.
Caterbone, and U.S. District Judge Smith agreed to the following:
CHAPTER 11 HEARING PRESS RELEASE Page No. 1 of 7 Friday September 1, 2017
1. Stan J. Caterbone will refile a NEW PETITION FOR CHAPTER 11

REORGANIZATION WITH THE NEW CREDIT COUNSELING CERTFICATION,
PREVIOUS REORGANIZATION PLAN, AND CURRENT LITIGATION VALUATIONS.
2. Case No. 17-01233, this case will be closed.
3. The OPENING STATEMENT will be filed as an EXHIBIT WHEN THE HABEUS
CORPUS CASE IS DOCKETED. U.S. District Judge Smith will preside.
4. BOTH will wait until after the HOLIDAYS to check THAT ALL OUTSTANIDNG
DOCKET ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.
The HEARING was the result of a REQUEST FOR HEARING that Stan J. Caterbone
filed in order to address OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES with ongoing litigation in
both FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. The MOTION was granted by Judge Smith on
August 9, 2017. As usual, Stan J. Caterbone was Pro Se, representing himself as he
always does. The Federal case stems from an appeal of a DISMISSAL of his Chapter
11 Bankruptcy Case in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Reading,
Pennsylvania. The Chapter 11 Reorganization Case is used to guarantee creditors,
past and present, of payments from future settlements of pending civil actions and to
value that same said litigation. A REORGANIZATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN WAS
FILED IN FEBRUARY OF 2017. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge FEHLING dismissed the Chapter
11 Bankruptcy Case for lack of a CREDIT COUNSELING CERTIFICATION. This is a new
requirement since Stan J. Caterbone's last CHAPTER 11 case of 2005, which was
finally dismissed in 2011. The CERTFICATION costs approximately $15.00 and can be
obtained online or over the phone by several companies. The process takes about 30
minutes.
DATE SEPTEMBER 1, 2017
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566

Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and publicly
discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud within
International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via South Africa and a
$1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the truth without the aid of law
enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public corruption. We utilize our
communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our property, and our business. We
continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications are a means of protecting our right to
continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking
of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long
can Lancaster County and Lancaster City Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the
Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals - COMPLAINT
OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL FEDERAL
LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa
Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-
49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against Lancaster County
Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane
Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157

RESUME AND BIOGRAPHY OF APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AND
Present APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE have been a victim of organized stalking
since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005. APPEALANT STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE had also been telepathic since 2005. In 2005 the U.S. sponsored mind control
turned into an all-out assault of mental telepathy; synthetic telepathy; and pain and torture through the
use of directed energy devices and weapons that usually fire a low frequency electromagnetic energy at
the targeted victim. This assault was no coincidence in that it began simultaneously with the filing of the
federal action in U.S. District Court, or CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, et. al., or 05-cv-2288.
This assault began after the handlers remotely trained Stan J. Caterbone with mental telepathy. The main
difference opposed to most other victims of this technology is that APPEALANT STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE am connected 24/7 with a person who declares that she is Interscope recording
artist Sheryl Crow of Kennett Missouri. Over the course of 10 years APPEALANT STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE have been telepathic with at least 20 known actors and have spent 10 years
trying to validate and confirm this person without success. Most U.S. intelligence agencies refuse to
cooperate, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office refuse to comment
In 2009 Advanced Media Group Proposed ORGANIZED STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY
WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster,
Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray in 2009. The draft legislation is the work of
Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these
horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to individuals who are being harassed,
stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep individuals from becoming
human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices,
implants, and directed energy weapons.
In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant filed several civil actions as Plaintiffs in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Third District Court of Appeals, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court, The Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, The Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. These litigations included violations of intellectual
property rights, anti-trust violations, and interference of contracts relating to several business interests,
harassment, extortion, fraud, etc.,. . Central to this litigation is the Digital Movie, Digital Technologies,
Financial Management Group, Ltd,/FMG Advisory, Ltd., and its affiliated businesses along with a Federal
False Claims Act or Federal Whistleblowers Act regarding the firm of International Signal and Control, Plc.,
(ISC) the $1Billion Dollar Fraud and the Export violations of selling arms to South Africa and Iraq. This
litigation dates back to 1987. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was a shareholder of
ISC, and was solicited by ISC executives for professional services.
From 2002 to 2004 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE engaged in full-time online
day-trading of securities and the selling of merchandise on eBay.
In 2000 to 2002 Advanced Media Group developed an array of marketing and communication
tools for wholesalers of the AIM Investment Group and managed several communication programs for
several of the company wholesalers throughout the United States and Costa Rica.
In 1999 Advanced Media Group was solicited and paid to develop a comprehensive business plan to
develop the former Sprecher Brewery, known as the Excelsior Building on E. King Street, in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania by 2 Lancaster County restaurateurs. This plan was developed in conjunction with the
Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for the Revitalization of Downtown Lancaster and the
Downtown Lancaster Convention Center for the former Watt & Shand building.
In 1998 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE administered the charity giving of Toms
Project Hope, a non-profit organization promoting education and awareness for mental illness and suicide
prevention. We had provided funding for the Mental Health Alliance of Lancaster County, Contact

Lancaster (The 24/7 Suicide Prevention Hotline), The Schreiber Pediatric Center, and other charitable
organizations and faith based charities. The video "Numbers Don't Lie" have been distributed to schools,
non profit organizations, faith based initiatives, and municipalities to provide educational support for the
prevention of suicide and to bring awareness to mental illness problems.
In 1996 Advanced Media Group had done consulting for companies under KAL, Inc., during the time that
APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was controller of Pflumm Contractors, Inc., Advanced
Media Group was retained by Gallo Rosso Restaurant and Bar to computerized their accounting and
records management from top to bottom. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE had also
provided consulting for the computerization of accounting and payroll for Lancaster Container, Inc., of
Washington Boro. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was retained to evaluate and
develop an action plan to migrate the Information Technologies of the Jay Group, formally of Ronks, PA,
now relocated to a new $26 Million Dollar headquarters located in West Hempfield Township of Lancaster
County. The Jay Group had been using IBM mainframe technologies hosted by the AS 400 computer and
server. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was consulting on the merits of migrating to a
PC based real time networking system throughout the entire organization. Currently the Jay Group
employees some 500 employees with revenues in excess of $50 Million Dollars per year.
In 1993 to 1998 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was retained by Pflumm

Contractors, Inc., as controller, in efforts to stave off a potential bankruptcy. APPEALANT STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE was responsible for implementing computerized accounting, implementing
Management Information Systems, accounting and contract policies and procedures, human resource
policies and procedures, marketing strategies and programs, performance measurement reporting, and
administrative and office procedures and logistics. Within 3 years, the company realized an increase in
profits of 3 to 4 times its previous years, and recorded record revenues.
In 1991 Advanced Media Group was elected to People to People International and the Citizen
Ambassador Program, which was founded by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. The program was
founded to To give specialists from throughout the world greater opportunities to work together and
effectively communicate with peers, The Citizen Ambassador program administers face-to-face scientific,
technical, and professional exchanges throughout the world. In 1961, under President John F. Kennedy,
the State Department established a non-profit private foundation to administer the program. We were
scheduled to tour the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to discuss printing and publishing technologies
with scientists and technicians around the world.
In 1990 Advanced Media Group had worked on a project to develop voice recognition systems for the
governments technology think tank - NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology) and the
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA of the Department of Defense . APPEALANT STAN
J. CATERBONE, PRO SE co-authored the article Escaping the Unix Tar Pit with a scientist from NIST
that was published in the magazine DISC, then one of the leading publications for the CD-ROM industry.
Today, most all call centers deploy that technology whenever you call an 800 number, and voice
recognition is prevalent in all types of applications involving telecommunications.
In 1989 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE founded Advanced Media Group, Ltd., and
was one of only 5 or 6 U.S. domestic companies that had the capability to manufacture CD-ROM's, which
at the time was a new and advanced technology in its early stages of being commercialized from research
and development. We did business with commercial companies, government agencies, educational
institutions, and foreign companies. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE performed
services and contracts or prepared proposals for a host of domestic and foreign companies including but
not limited to: for the Department of Defense, NASA, National Institution of Standards & Technology
(NIST), Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the
Defense Mapping Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), IBM, Microsoft, AMP, Commodore
Computers, American Bankers Bond Buyers, the Library of Congress, Exxon, Tandy Computers/Radio
Shack, and a host of others. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE also was working with
R.R, Donnelly's Geo Systems, which was developing various interactive mapping technologies, which is
now Map Quest. Map Quest is the premier provider of mapping software and applications for the internet
and is often used in delivering maps and directions for Fortune 500 companies. We had arranged for High

Industries to sell American Helix, the manufacturer of compact discs, to R.R. Donnelly & Sons of Chicago,
Illinois. American Helix was later sold to KAO Industries. We were also the exclusive marketing agent and
partner with a Boston, Massachusetts software engineer in the selling of a software developed to diagnose
and test CD-ROM drives called CD-Diagnostics. The program was sold to both domestic and foreign
companies and was then under review for company-wide distribution by Microsoft Corporation.
In 1987 Power Station Studios of New York retained my services as executive producer of a
motion picture project. The theatrical and video release was to be delivered in a digital format; the first of
its kind. We had originated the marketing for the technology, and created the concept for the Power
Station Digital Movie System (PSDMS), which would follow the copyright and marketing formula of the
DOLBY technology trademark. We had also created and developed marketing and patent research for the
development and commercialization of equipment that we intended to manufacture and market to the
recording industry featuring the digital technology. Sidel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and Abbot, P.C. of
Philadelphia was the lead patent law firm that We had retained for the project. Power Station Studios was
the brainchild of Tony Bongiovi, a leading engineering genius discovered by Motown when he was 15. Tony
and Power Station Studios was one of the leading recording studios in the country, and were responsible
for developing Bon Jovi, a cousin. Power Station Studios clients included; Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross,
Cyndi Lauper, Talking Heads, Madonna, The Ramones, Steve Winwood, and many others. Tony and Power
Station Studios had produced the original Sound Track for the original Star Wars motion picture. It was
released for distribution and was the number one Sound Track recording of its time. Tony Bongiovi was
also active in working and researching different aerospace technologies. * We had developed and
authored a Joint Venture Proposal for SONY to partner with us in delivering the Digital Movie and its
related technologies to the marketplace. The venture was to include the commercialization of
technologies, which Tony Bongiovi had developed for the recording industry simultaneously with the
release of the Digital Movie. APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE also created the concept
for the PSDMS trademark, which was to be the Trademark logo for the technology, similar to the DOLBY
sound systems trademark. The acronyms stand for the Power Station Digital Movie System. Today, DVD
is the mainstay for delivering digital movies on a portable medium, a compact disc.
In 1987 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE had a created and developed FMG Mortgage
Banking, a company that was funded by a major banking firm in Houston Texas. We had the capability to
finance projects from $3 to $100 million dollars. Our terms and rates were so attractive that we had
quickly received solicitations from developers across the country. We were also very attractive to
companies that wanted to raise capital that include both debt and equity. Through my company, FMG, we
could raise equity funding through private placements, and debt funding through FMG Mortgage Banking.
We were retained by Gamillion Studios of Hollywood, California to secure financing of their post production
Film Studio that was looking to relocate to North Carolina. We had secured refinancing packages for Norris
Boyd of and the Olde Hickory and were in the midst of replacing the current loan that was with
Commonwealth National Bank. We were quickly seeking commitments for real estate
deals from New York to California. We also had a number of other prominent local developers seeking our
competitive funding, including Owen Kugal, High Industries, and the Marty Sponougle a partner of The
Fisher Group (owner of the Rt. 30 Outlets), and Drew Anthon of Eden Resort Inn. We were constantly told
that our financing packages were more competitive than local institutions.
In 1986 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE had founded Financial Management Group,
Ltd (FMG) and served as Executive Vice President and President of FMG Advisory, Ltd., the investment
advisory subsidiary. FMG was a large financial services organization comprised of a variety of
professionals operating in one location. We had developed a stock purchase program for where everyone
had the opportunity for equity ownership in the new firm. FMG had financial planners, investment
managers, accountants, attorneys, realtors, liability insurance services, tax preparers, and estate planners
operating out of our corporate headquarters in Lancaster. In one year, we had 24 people on staff, had
approximately 12 offices in Pennsylvania, and several satellite offices in other states. We had in excess of
$50 million under management, and our advisors were generating almost $4 million of commissions per
year, which did not include the fees from the other professionals. We had acquired an interest in our own
Broker Dealer firm and were valued at about $3 to $4 million in 1987.

In 1985 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE developed the Easter Regional Free Agent
Camp, the first Free Agent Camp for the Professional Football industry; which was videotaped for
distribution to the teams scouting departments. (See Washington Post page article of March 24, 1985)
Current camps were dependent on the team scouts to travel from state to state looking for recruits. We
had developed a strategy of video taping the camp and the distributing a copy, free of charge to the
teams, to all of the scouting departments for teams in all three leagues FL, CFL and WFL. My brother was
signed at that camp by the Ottawa Roughriders of the CFL., and went on to be a leading receiver while
J.C. Watts was one of the leagues most prominent quarterbacks. My brother also played 2 years with the
MiamAPPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE Dolphins while Dan Marino was starting quarterback. We
were a Certified Agent for the National Football League Players Association. Gene Upshaw, the President
of the NFLPA had given me some helpful hints for my camp, while we were at a Conference for agents of
the NFL. The Washington Post wrote a full-page article about our camp and associated it with other camps
that were questionable about their practices. Actually, that was the very reason for our camp. We had
attended many other camps around the country that were not very well organized and attracted few if any
scouts. We had about 60 participants, with one player coming from as far away as Hawaii. We held the
camp at Lancaster Catholic, with a professional production company filming the entire camp, while
APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE did the editing and produced the video. The well
respected and widely acclaimed professional football scout, Gil Brandt, of the Dallas Cowboys, had given
me support for my camp during some conversations We had with him and said he looked forward to
reviewing the tapes for any hopeful recruits.
In 1985 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was elected Vice President of the Central
Pennsylvania Chapter of the International Association of Financial Planners, and helped build that chapter
by increasing membership 3to 4 times. We had personally retained the nationally acclaimed and nationally
syndicated Financial Planner, Ms. Alexandria Armstrong of Washington D.C.; to host a major fundraiser.
More than 150 professionals attended the dinner event that was held at the Eden Resort & Conference
Center. Ms. Armstrong discussed financial planning and how all of the professions needed to work
together in order to be most effective for their clients. We attracted a wide variety of professionals
including; brokers, lawyers, accountants, realtors, tax specialists, estate planners, bankers, and
investment advisors. Today, it has become evident that financial planning was the way of the future. In
1986 executives approached us from Blue Ball National Bank to help them develop a Financial Planning
department within their bank.
From 1982 to 1985 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE was a financial planner for
IDS/American Express and licensed in both securities and insurances.
From 1977 to 1981 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE operated SJ Caterbone

Painting and Renovating and was was a contractor responsible for painting and renovating residential,
commercial and residential properties and facilities in Lancaster County.
From 1976 to 1980 APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE attended and graduated
from Millersville University of Millersville, Pennsylvania.

AO 240 (Rev. 06/09) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District
__________ of Pennsylvania
District of __________
Stan J. Caterbone )
Plaintiff )
v. ) Civil Action No.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, et.al., )
Defendant )
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

(Short Form)
I am a plaintiff or petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and
that I am entitled to the relief requested.
In support of this application, I answer the following questions under penalty of perjury:
1. If incarcerated. I am being held at: .

If employed there, or have an account in the institution, I have attached to this document a statement certified by the
appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts, expenditures, and balances during the last six months for any
institutional account in my name. I am also submitting a similar statement from any other institution where I was
incarcerated during the last six months.
2. If not incarcerated. If I am employed, my employers name and address are:
My gross pay or wages are: $ , and my take-home pay or wages are: $ per
(specify pay period) .
3. Other Income. In the past 12 months, I have received income from the following sources (check all that apply):
(a) Business, profession, or other self-employment Yes No

(b) Rent payments, interest, or dividends Yes No
(c) Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments Yes No
(d) Disability, or workers compensation payments
Yes No
(e) Gifts, or inheritances Yes No
(f) Any other sources Yes No
If you answered Yes to any question above, describe below or on separate pages each source of money and
state the amount that you received and what you expect to receive in the future.
Social Security Disability Benefits for symptoms and illnesses related to U.S. Sponsored Mind Control. I was awarded
benefits in August of 2009 after applying in April of 2009. I received a lump sum of $21,456.00 in August of 2009 for 1
year retroactive to April of 2008. I was declared disabled in December of 2005, the time that I declared that I became
full-time telepathic with synthetic telepathy and subject to electromagnetic weapons, along with organized stalking,
harassment, computer hacking etc., In the application process there were no medical reports from any medical
physicians and there were no psychiatric evaluations by SSA. There was evaluation of the application and
documentation by the SSA Vocational Assessment Office in Baltimore, MD. I receive net $1, 357.00 per month.

AO 240 (Rev. 06/09) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form)
4. Amount of money that I have in cash or in a checking or savings account: $ 300.00 .
5. Any automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security, trust, jewelry, art work, or other financial instrument or
thing of value that I own, including any item of value held in someone elses name (describe the property and its approximate
value):
2004 hyundai santa fe worth approximately $4,000.00
6. Any housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses (describe and provide
the amount of the monthly expense):
See Attached Expense Statement.
7. Names (or, if under 18, initials only) of all persons who are dependent on me for support, my relationship
with each person, and how much I contribute to their support:
8. Any debts or financial obligations (describe the amounts owed and to whom they are payable):
See the attached Balance Sheet.
Declaration: I declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and understand that a false
statement may result in a dismissal of my claims.
Date: 08/28/2017
Applicants signature
Stan J. Caterbone
Printed name
Print Save As... Add Attachment Reset

Page 1
PAE AO 239 (10/09) Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Stanley J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group )

Plaintiff/Petitioner )
v. ) Civil Action No.
The United States of America, et.el., )
Defendant/Respondent )
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

(Long Form)
Affidavit in Support of the Application Instructions
I am a plaintiff or petitioner in this case and declare Complete all questions in this application and then sign it.
that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a question is 0,
and that I am entitled to the relief requested. I declare none, or not applicable (N/A), write that response. If
under penalty of perjury that the information below is you need more space to answer a question or to explain your
true and understand that a false statement may result answer, attach a separate sheet of paper identified with your
in a dismissal of my claims. name, your case's docket number, and the question number.
Signed: Date: August 28, 2017
1. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of the following
sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received weekly, biweekly, quarterly,
semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions
for taxes or otherwise.
Income source Average monthly income Income amount expected
amount during the past 12 next month
months
You Spouse You Spouse
Employment $ $ $ $
Self-employment $ $ $ $
Income from real property (such as rental income) $ $ $ $
Interest and dividends $ $ $ $
Gifts $ $ $ $
Alimony $ $ $ $
Child support $ $ $ $

Page 2
Retirement (such as social security, pensions, annuities,

$ $ $ $
insurance)
Disability (such as social security, insurance payments) $ 1,357.00

$ $ 1,357.00
$
Unemployment payments $ $ $ $
Public-assistance (such as welfare) $ $ $ $

Other (specify):
$ $ $ $
$ 1,357.00 $ $ 1,357.00 $
Total monthly income:
2. List your employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or
other deductions.)
Employer Address Dates of employment Gross

monthly pay
$
3. List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross monthly pay is
before taxes or other deductions.)
Employer Address Dates of employment Gross

monthly pay
$
4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $

Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.
Financial institution Type of account Amount you have Amount your
spouse has
Members1st Bank $
$
Bank of Bird in Hand
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Checking 28,000.00
$
TD Ameritrade Brokerage Account $ 2,200.00
$
Direct Express SSA Disability Debit Card $ 1,457.00
If you are a prisoner, you must attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts,
expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. If you have multiple accounts,
perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions, attach one certified statement of each account.

Page 3
5. List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing and ordinary
household furnishings.
Assets owned by you or your spouse
Home (Value) $
20,000.00
Other real estate (Value) $
Motor vehicle #1 (Value) $ 3,000.00

Make and year:
2007 Honda CRV
Model:
CRV EX
Motor vehicle #2 (Value) $
Make and year:
Model:
Other assets (Value) $
Other assets (Value) $
6. State every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount owed.
Person owing you or your spouse Amount owed to you Amount owed to your spouse
money
$ $
$ $
$ $
7. State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support.
Name (or, if under 18, initials only) Relationship Age

Page 4
8. Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the amounts paid by your
spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the
monthly rate.
You Your spouse
Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for mobile home)

$ 300.00
$
Are real estate taxes included? Yes No
Is property insurance included? Yes No No Mortgage
$
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone) $ 510.00
$
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep) $ 300.00
$
Food $ 200.00
$
Clothing $ 50.00
$
Laundry and dry-cleaning $
$
Medical and dental expenses $ 100.00
$
Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments) $ 100.00
$
Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc. $ 300.00
Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)
$
Homeowner's or renter's: $ 30.00
$
Life: $
$
Health: $ 145.00
$
Motor vehicle: $ 70.00
$
Other: $ 200.00
Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments) (specify): $
$
Installment payments
$
Motor vehicle: $ 220.00
$
Credit card (name): $
$
Department store (name): $
$
Other: $
$
Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others $

Page 5
Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or farm (attach detailed $

Litigation and Filing of Complaints $ 200.00
statement)
$
Other (specify): $
$
$ 2,655.00
Total monthly expenses:
9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or liabilities during the
next 12 months?
Yes No If yes, describe on an attached sheet.
10. Have you paid or will you be paying an attorney any money for services in connection with this case,
including the completion of this form? Yes No
If yes, how much? $
If yes, state the attorney's name, address, and telephone number:
11. Have you paid or will you be paying anyone other than an attorney (such as a paralegal or a typist) any money
for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form? Yes No
If yes, how much? $ 1,000.00 - transcription of videos and audio transcripts
If yes, state the person's name, address, and telephone number:
Lancaster County Court Reporters Office, 50 North Duke Street, Lancaster, PA 17602
Dawn Sutton, 1248 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA 17603
12. Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the costs of these proceedings.
***** My adversaries are obstructing justice and have been for 30 years by making me litigate for every
conceivable right in the U.S. Bill of Rights, thus extorting my cash, in addition to flat out stealing it
by thefts and vandalism, then to make matters worse the law enforcement committs an arrogant display
of abuse of process, along with one of the most obsurd cases of judicial misconduct from local to federal!
13. Identify the city and state of your legal residence.
Lancaster, PA 17603 My pro se billings are up to about $500,000.00 and
should be paid immediately!
Your daytime phone number: (717) 669-2163
Your age: 58 Your years of schooling: 16
Last four digits of your social-security number: 0959

PUBLISHED by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se and THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
In Re: Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se DEBTOR
PRO SE BILLINGS
$1,217,382.00
STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
Invoice Invoice Case Date No. of Hourly

Item
Date No. Number Of Billing Line Description Hours Rate Amount
Description
3/1/2007 7001 05-2288 01/01/05 Jan 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
CI-06-03401 02/01/05 Feb 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Case Meetings & Communications with Chief of Southern Hours Billed
Regional Police Fiorill
02/01/05 Feb 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Data
03/01/05 Mar 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Civil Case Meetings & Communications with Chief of Southern Hours Billed
Regional Police Fiorill
04/01/05 Apr 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Data
7002 05-23059 05/01/05 May 2005 Research Filing of Petition for Bankruptcy, Russell Kraft, Chapter 11 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Nettleton & Fenefrock Hours Billed
05/01/05 May 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 60 $75.00 $4,500.00
Data
05/01/05 May 2005 General Hours Billed For May 16 2005 Legal Work Done Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
On Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al U.S. District Court Hours Billed
05-2288 Pro Se Civil Case
05/01/05 May 2005 Prepare all Chapter 11 Filing Submittals for Case 05- Chapter 11 40 $125.00 $5,000.00
23059 Hours Billed
3/18/2007 CP-36- 05/10/05 May 10 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
SA0000141-2005 Se Criminal Case 18$2709$$A3 Harassment w/Tim Decker Killing Criminal Case
of Cat SRPD Humane Legue Witness
05/16/05 May 16 2005 File for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection in Federal Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Reading Hours Billed
06/01/05 Jun 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
06/01/05 Jun 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
05-23059
06/21/05 June 21 2005 Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Regarding 6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure Appeal Hours
to Timely File Required Documents to
Page No. 1 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
SE LITIGANTS - CASE Page
LAW No. 1 of 58 Friday September 1, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
07/01/05 Jul 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
07/01/05 Jul 1 2005 In Reading Appellant Designation of Contents For Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Inclusion in Record On Appeal, and Findings of Fact Filed by Hours Billed
Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: #
07/01/05 Jul 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
May-89 07/25/05 Jul 25 2005 Appeal Judge Twardowski Order of June 13, 2005 Hours Billed For 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Civil Appeals
Case
08/01/05 Aug 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
08/01/05 Aug 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
09/01/05 Sep 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
09/01/05 Sep 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
09/28/05 Sep 28 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Se Criminal Appeal Case Notice of Appeal Stolen From Mail, Criminal Appeal
Never Appeared For Trial, Judge Allison
10/01/05 Oct 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
10/01/05 Oct 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
11/01/05 Nov 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
11/01/05 Nov 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
11/19/05 Nov 19 2005 Letter (dated 11/3/2005) Filed by Debtor Stanley J. Chapter 11 7 $125.00 $875.00
Caterbone addressed to Department of Justice, US Trustee Office Hours Billed
- RE: Summation on reason to fi
12/01/05 Dec 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
12/01/05 Dec 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
CP-36- 12/05/05 Dec 5 2005 Preliminary Hearing Judge Reuter, Bezzard had to Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
CR0002843-2006 Refile or Dismiss General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Case
Pro Se Criminal Case East Lampeter Twp
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
12/15/05 Dec 15 2005Chapter 11 341 Meeting of Creditors in Reading Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Bankruptcy Court with Hugh Ward/Joe Adams Hours Billed
12/15/05 Dec 15 2005 Amended Schedules F & G Filed by Amended Matrix Chapter 11 3 $125.00 $375.00
Stanley J. Caterbone ; Receipt Number 20074028, Fee Amount Hours Billed
$26.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
12/16/05 Dec 16 2005 Response dated 12/14/2005 Filed by Stanley J. Chapter 11 3 $125.00 $375.00
Caterbone Regarding HEMAP Appeal Hearing Request. (P., Hours Billed
Cathy)
01/01/06 Jan 2006 General Hours Billed For Jan 23 2006 Legal Work Civil Litigation 30 $125.00 $3,750.00
Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al 05-2288 Case Served Hours Billed
Defendants per Judge Mclaughlin
01/01/06 Jan 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
01/19/06 Jan 19 2006Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - Chapter 11 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
RE: AmendedSchedules and Response to Creditor Status Order Hours Billed
(related document(s)27). (P., Cath
01/30/06 Jan 30 2006 Advanced Media Group Income Statements for the Chapter 11 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
the year 2005 Filed in Reading Bankruptcy Court Hours Billed
02/01/06 Feb 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Data
02/01/06 Feb 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
02/08/06 Dec 8 2006 Filed Writ of Mandamus From Lancaster County Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
PrisonGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
02/21/06 Feb 21 2005 Hearing Held on 31 Motion for Relief from Stay Filed Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
by Fulton Bank Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Hours Billed
Matter Taken Under Advisement.
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Data
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Court Time 30 $150.00 $4,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Hours Billed
Data
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
03/17/06 Mar 17 2006 Notice of Appeal - RE: Order dated 2/23/2006 Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Granting Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Appeal Hours
Stone Hill Road, Filed byFulton Bank ;
03/18/06 May 18 2006 Lancaster County DA Office Refile Charges General Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case 4 Criminal Case
Charges-Harras Dis Ord,Theft,Harrasment
03/19/06 Mar 19 2006 Debtor Request for Hearing, and Certificate of Chapter 11 2 $125.00 $250.00
Service thereto Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Hours Billed
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
03/26/06 Mar 26 2007 File Response to Preliminary Objections to Lancaster Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
County Court of Common Pleas General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case
04/01/06 Apr 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Data
04/01/06 Apr 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
04/04/06 Apr 4 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Civil Case Prepared Complaint and Email to Don Totaro, Hours Billed
Lancaster County DA
04/06/06 Apr 6 2006 Request for Continuance of Chapter 11 Case Filed by Chapter 11 2 $125.00 $250.00
Stanley J. Caterbone from Lancaster General Hospital Hours Billed
CI-06-03349 04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Filed Complaint, walked to Courthouse directly after Civil Litigation 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
discharge from Hospital - General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed
Done On Pro Se Civil Case
04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Motion for Continuance Caterbone v. Lancaster Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
County Prison, et al from Lancaster General Hopital to Judge Hours Billed
McLaughlin Granted
04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Motion for Continuance Caterbone v. Lancaster Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
County Prison, et al from Lancaster General Hopital to Judge Hours Billed
McLaughlin Granted
CI-05-03403 04/11/06 Apr 11 2006 Filed Complaint - General Hours Billed For Legal Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
04/11/06 Apr 11 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint Hours Billed
04/28/06 Apr 28 2006 Ammend Complaint General Hours Billed For Legal Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
04/28/06 Apr 28 2006 Filed Amended Complaint - General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
05/01/06 May 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Data
05/01/06 May 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
06-1538 05/15/06 May 15 2006 File Appeal to Automatic Stay Order of Judge Fehling Hours Billed 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
to Judge Anita Brody General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done Criminal Appeal
On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
05/15/06 May 15 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Se Civil Case Certificate of Service Personal Delivery to William Hours Billed
Cambell of Quarryville
CI-06-04939 05/24/06 May 24 2006 Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Application - Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
IFP Denied by Judge Reinaker
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
06/01/06 Jun 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
06/01/06 Jun 1 2006 Motion for Ex Parte Meeting w/Judge McLaughlin Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05- Hours Billed
2288 Case
05-23059
06/06/06 Jun 6 2006 Filed Important Notice of Default - General Hours Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
06/10/06 Jun 10 2006 Motion for Continuance General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
06/14/06 Jun 14 2006 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
ex parte meeting with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, Hours Billed
06/15/06 Jun 15 2006 Reponsive Brief to Preliminary Objections General Civil Litigation 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
06/22/06 Jun 22 2006 Debtor's Objection/Answer to United States Trustee's Chapter 11 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Motion to Dismiss or Convert Case to Chapter 7 ; Answer and Hours Billed
Exhibits Filed by Stanley J. Cate
06/23/06 Jun 23 2006 Meeting with Matt Bomberger, Public Defender Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Case
Case
06/25/06 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Court Time 10 $150.00 $1,500.00
Hours Billed
06/26/06 Jul 26 2006 File In Forma Pauperis Granted General Hours Billed Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
TR-0000085-- 06/28/06 Jun 28 2006 Hearing Preparation General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
2006 Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
06/28/06 Jun 28 2007 Hearing at 1281 S 28th St. Harrisburg Guilty MDJ Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Smith Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
06/29/06 Jun 29 2006 Hearing Held - RE: Motion to Dismiss Case, or Court Time 7 $150.00 $1,050.00
Conversion of Case to Chapter 7 Filed by United States Trustee ( Hours Billed
07/01/06 Jul 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
07/01/06 Jul 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
CP-36- 07/05/06 Jul 5 2006 PrelimiHearing General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed For 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
CR0003179-2006 Done On Pro Se Criminal Case MDJ Hamilton, Fire M. Bomberger, Criminal Case
Public Defender, MDJ Hamilton Guilty
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
CI-06-06658 07/14/06 Jul 14 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Denied by Hours Billed
Georgelis
CP-36- 07/14/06 Jul 14 2006 Hearing MDJ Hamilton General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
CR0000160-2006 Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Fines $367.50 Criminal Case
CI-06-07188 07/25/06 Jul 26 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint with Advanced Media Group Hours Billed
07/25/06 Jul 25 2006 Appealed to Superior Court of Pennsylvania General Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Case Civil Appeals
07/25/06 Jul 25 2006 Notice of Summary Appeal to Court of Common Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
PleasGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
Criminal Appeal Case
07/26/06 Jul 26 2006 Fromal Arraignment Lanaster County Court of Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Common PleasTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
1462-MDA-2006 08/01/06 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Civil Case Hours Billed
CI-06-07330 08/01/06 Aug 1 2006 Complaint & Informa Pauperis Filed with Advanced Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Media Group - General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed
Se Civil Case, IFP Granted by Georgeli
CP-36- 08/01/06 Aug 2006 Filed U.S. Post Office Correspondence & Complaint to Court Time 10 $150.00 $1,500.00
SA0000028-2007 SRPDTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
3/17/2007 TR-0003557- 08/01/06 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
2006 Criminal Case Downtown Lancaster Parking Meter Violation MDJ Criminal Case
Simms
TR-0004428- 08/01/06 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
2006 Criminal Case Downtown Lancaster Parking Meter Violation MDJ Criminal Case
Simms
08/01/06 Aug 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Data
08/01/06 Aug 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
CI-06-07376 08/02/06 Aug 2 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint Hours Billed
08/02/06 Aug 2 2006 File Motion Bill of Particulars Discovery General Hours Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
08/09/06 Aug 09 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Time For Court Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Appearance and Litigation Shawn Long Appeared at Defendants Hours Billed
Table before Court, walked out
08/10/06 10 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Chapter 11 1 $125.00 $125.00
Se Chapter 11 Case Transfered to Chapter 11 Case by PP&L Hours Billed
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
08/15/06 Aug 15 2006 Hearing MDJ Commins Robert M. Fedor General Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case 2 Criminal Case
Girls Walking Guilty Fine $315.66
08/18/06 Aug 18 2006 RESPONSE to Fulton Bank's motion to establish Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
deadline for plff to file amended complaint in accordance with the Hours Billed
Court's order of 6/19/06,
08/24/06 Aug 24 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Se Civil Case Filed Default Notice Hours Billed
08/24/06 Aug 24 2006 Important Notice of Default Filed - General Hours Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
08/25/06 Aug 25 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Case Refiled In Forma Pauperis Granted by Cullen Hours Billed
CI-06-08490 09/01/06 Sep 1 2006 Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Filed General Hours Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case IFP Granted Hours Billed
Judge Ashworth
09/01/06 Sep 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
09/01/06 Sep 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Case Hours Billed
09/01/06 2006 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation For Parking Meter Court Time 3 $150.00 $450.00
Violation Hours Billed
09/05/06 Sep 5 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Appeal Case Filed Appeal to Superior Court of Pennsylvania Civil Appeals
09/05/06 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
Case Transfered from Superior Court to Commonwealth Court of Civil Appeals
Common Pleas
CI-06-08742 09/11/06 Sep 11 2006 Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis General Hours Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case IFP Denied by Hours Billed
Judge Reinaker
09/14/06 Sep 14 2006 Second In Forma Pauperis Application Filed & Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Approved by Judge Joseph Madenspacher Hours Billed
09/14/06 Sep 14 2006 Pretrial Conference Judge AllisonTime For Court Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
09/27/06 Sep 27 2006 Filed Reply to Preliminary Objections - General Civil Litigation 7 $125.00 $875.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
10/01/06 Oct 2006Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
Jun-54 10/03/06 Oct 3 2006 Filed Appeal General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed For 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Case Civil Appeals
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
10/05/06 Oct 5 2006 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation MDJ Simms Court Time 3 $150.00 $450.00
Parking Meter Violation Hours Billed
10/08/06 Oct ?? 2006 Phone Call & Letter For Payment of Fine & Costs Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Case
10/12/06 Oct 12 2006 Pretrial Conference Case Continued Judge Allison Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Hours Billed
Case $75$3733$$A M2
10/20/06 Oct 20 2006 Call of the Trial List Judge Farina Time For Court Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
10/23/06 Oct 23 Filed Brief in Support of Arbitration - General Hours Billed Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
10/30/06 Oct 30 2006 Filed Amended Complaint from Bausman Post Hours Billed For 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Office, General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
10/30/06 Oct 30 2007 Plead Not Guilty to MDJ Eckert Picked Up by Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Constables General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
3/16/2007 06-cv-5138 11/01/06 Nov 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Appeal Case Harbeas Corpus filed from Lancaster County Civil Appeals
Prison on November 17, 2006
11/01/06 Nov 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
11/06/06 Nov 09 2006 Pretrial Conference Case Continued Judge Allison Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Hours Billed
Case From Lanc Co Prison
11/07/06 Nov 7 2006 Filed for Continuance from Lancaster County Prison Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
11/07/06 Nov 7 2006 Filed Motion for 60 Day Continuance - General Hours Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
11/14/06 Nov 14 2006 File Habeus Corpus to U.S. District Court of Eastern Hours Billed 7 $125.00 $875.00
District of PA General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Criminal Appeal
Se Criminal Appeal Case Lanc Pri
11/14/06 Nov 14 2006 Filed Motion for Continuance From Lancaster County Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
PrisonJudge Cullen Denied General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
11/22/06 Jan 22 2007 Call of the Trial List Scheduled for Trial Judge Farina Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
(Cullen) General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed
Criminal Case Janice Longer Appo
11/27/06 Nov 27 2006 Call of the Trial List Judge FarinaTime For Court Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Appearance and Litigation From Lancaster County Prison Hours Billed
12/01/06 Dec 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
12/01/06 Dec 2007 Filed Appeals & Motions General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed 6 $125.00 $750.00
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case From Lancaster Criminal Appeal
County Prison
12/01/06 Dec 2006 Research Billed For Case From Lancaster County Research Hours 5 $75.00 $375.00
Prison Law Library Billed
12/01/06 Dec 2006 Lancaster County Prison Law Library Research Billed Research Hours 5 $75.00 $375.00
For Case Billed
12/04/06 Dec 4 2006 Trial Judge Farina Sent to 1250 Fremont & 220 Stone Court Time 7 $150.00 $1,050.00
Hill Rd to get files Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
Dismiss Harassment, Change to Summa
12/05/06 Dec 5 2007 Trial Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Guilty Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Harrasment & Disorderly Conduct, Not Guilty Thef of Service Hours Billed
12/05/06 Dec 5 2006 Trial Judge Perezous Granted Motion For Continuance Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
12/08/06 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Hours Billed
12/14/06 Dec 14 2006 Call of the Trial List Continued Judge Ashworth Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
(Cullen) General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed
Criminal Case From Lanc Co Prison
12/15/06 Dec 15 2006 Summary Appeal Trial Judge Perezous Found Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Guilty ?? April 2 Day of Daylight Person Broke Into 220 Stone Hill Criminal Appeal
Road, Mike on Cell Phone, Kennet SPoli
CP-36- 12/22/06 Dec 22 2007 Filed Writ of Mandamus v. MDJ Eckert From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
MD0000006-2007 Lancaster County Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
12/22/06 Dec 22 2006 Motion for Transcripts Filed from Lancaster County Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
12/22/06 Dec 22 2007 Filed Writ of Mandamus v. MDJ Commins From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
Lancaster County Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
12/28/06 Nov to Dec 2006 Research Billed For Case From Lancaster Research Hours 7 $75.00 $525.00
County Prison Law Library Billed
01/01/07 Jan 2007 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
01/01/07 Jan 1 2007 Letter to MDJ Smith Re Payment of Fines General Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Criminal Appeal
Case
3/22/2007 MDA 125-2006 01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Filed Notice of Appeal to Superior Court Filed at Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Lancaster County Clerk of CoGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Notict of Appeal to Superior Court Case No. MDA 125 Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Appeal
Appeal Case
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Filed Motion for Continuance/Change Venue General Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
Moved From Eckert to Stotlzfus
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File Nunc Pro Tunc for MDJ Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000010-2007 Simms Citations General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File In Forma Pauperis for MDJ Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
CP-36- 01/09/07 Jan 09 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
MD0000010-2007 Se Criminal Appeal Case Filed Nunc Pro Tunc, Denied by Criminal Appeal
Reainaker
01/09/07 Jan 09 2007 Filed Motion for Change of Venue Deinied Judge Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Reinaker General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
01/11/07 Jan 11 2007 Motion for Continance Filed Denied Judge Reinaker Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
Case
01/11/07 Jan 11 2007 Filed Motion For Continuance Granted General Hours Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case Criminal Appeal
3/20/2007 CP-36- 01/12/07 Jan 12 2007 File Change of Venue/ Continuance MDEckert Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000051-2007 Citations Denied by Judge Cullen General Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
01/17/07 Jan 17 2007 Motion for Reconsideration Filed Denied Judge Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
Reinaker General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
01/18/07 Jan 18 2007 Trial MDJ StoltzfusTime For Court Appearance and Court Time 6 $150.00 $900.00
Litigation Guilty Harr, Dis Con, Obs, Dismiss DUSus Fin Responsi Hours Billed
Fine $954 Joe Caterbone
CP-36- 01/19/07 Jan 19 2007 Filed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis General Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
CR0000055-2006 Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
01/19/07 Jan 19 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Se Criminal Appeal Case Refiled, Denied Again Criminal Appeal
01/25/07 Jan 25 2007 Filed Trial De Novo Appeal to Lancaster County Court Hours Billed 5 $125.00 $625.00
of Common Pleas General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
01/25/07 Jan 15 2007 Filed Application For Leave Nunc Pro TuncGeneral Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Criminal Appeal
Case
01/26/07 Jan 26 2007 Meet with Court Reporters Office to Get Electronic Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Version of Transcript & ReGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
SE LITIGANTS - CASEPage
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
01/26/07 Jan 21 2007 Filed Motion For Continuance Granted Judge Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Perezous General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
02/01/07 Feb 2007 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
05-23059
02/07/07 Feb 7 2007 Meet with Andrew Wagner of Court Collections Office Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
for Payment of Fines and Costs and Remove Payment Due Criminal Appeal
02/12/07 Feb 12 2997 Filed Concise Statement of Matters Complainted on Hours Billed 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Appeal General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
02/15/07 Feb 15 2007 Filed In Forma Pauperis In Dauphin County Court of Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Common Pleas Granted General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
02/23/07 Feb 23 2006 Complaint Filed to Lancaster County Bar v. Janice Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Longer General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
02/23/07 Feb 23 2007 Meet with Andrew Wagner of Court Collections to Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Have Payment Due Removed General Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
02/25/07 Fines $442.00 Paid General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case Criminal Appeal
02/26/07 Feb 26 Call of the Trial List Scheduled for Trial General Hours Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Hours Billed
02/28/07 Feb 28 2006 Filed Response to Longer Petition to Withdraw From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
03/01/07 Mar 1 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Criminal Case Meeting with Janice Longer To Prepare Criminal Case
03/04/07 Mar 4 2007 Trial Court Judge Cullen Continued Case to April Court Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
ScheduleTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Criminal Case
03/04/07 Mar 4 2007 File Supreme Court Diciplinary Complaint v. Janice Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Longer General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
03/07/07 Mar 7 2007 Filed Amended Complaint - General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 7 $125.00 $875.00
03/08/07 Mar 8 2007 Filed Notice of Appeal to Superior Court in Dauphin Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
County Court MDA 435-2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
03/22/07 Mar 22 2007 Research & Review Pa Consolodated Statutes Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Annotated at Law Library General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
MDA 435-2007 03/25/07 Mar 25 2007 Filed Docketing Statement to Superior Court of Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Pennsylvania General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Criminal Appeal
Se Criminal Appeal Case
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
STAN J. CATERBONE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233
03/26/07 Mar 26 Letter to Janice Longer & Review Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
QuashGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
3/28/2007 248 MAL 2007 03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 File Response to Fulton Bank Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 Meeting with Lancaster County Clerk of Courts Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Review & Correct Index of RecorGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
39169 248 MAL 2007 03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 File Response to Fulton Bank Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
Fulton Bank v Caterbone, Stan
06-cv-4734 03/16/07 Mar 16 2007 Letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter Regarding Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
Obstruciton of Justice General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done Hours Billed
On Pro Se Civil Case
03/12/07 Mar 12 2007 Meet Lisa Owings staffer on Judiciary Comitte from Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Senator Specter at Chamber Building General Hours Billed For Hours Billed
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case
03/13/07 Mar 13 2007 Letter to Lisa Owings of Senator Specter Office Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
03/24/07 Mar 24 2007 Letter to Senator Specter General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Totals Hours Billed 2,114.00 $225,550.00

Weeks of Billing 52.85
March Hours 57 $225,550.00
YEAR 2008 $225,550.00
YEAR 2009 $120,000.00
YEAR 2010 $120,000.00
YEAR 2016 $225,550.00
YEAR 2017 $150,366.00
$1,217,382.00
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
THE CASE
PRS SE BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO
SE BILLINGS
St. John's Law Review

Volume 55
Article 4
Issue 3 Volume 55, Spring 1981, Number 3
July 2012
Pro Se Litigant's Eligibility for Attorney Fees Under

FOIA: Crooker v. United States Department of
Justice
Lyn Batzar Boland
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview
Recommended Citation
Boland, Lyn Batzar (2012) "Pro Se Litigant's Eligibility for Attorney Fees Under FOIA: Crooker v. United States Department of
Justice," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 55: Iss. 3, Article 4.
Available at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss3/4
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in
St. John's Law Review by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
cerjanm@stjohns.edu.
THE CASE
PRO
PRS SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO
&-PRO
SE
CASE
BILLINGS
SELAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
Page
LAW No.
No.141 of
of45
58 Friday September 1, 2017
PUBLISHED
PUBLISHED by by Stan J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se andPro
THESe ADVANCED
and THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
MEDIA GROUP
COMMENTS
PRO SE LITIGANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR

ATTORNEY FEES UNDER FOIA: CROOKER
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
The traditional American rule regarding attorney fees requires
that, absent an equitable1 or statutory2 exception, each party liti-
The courts have developed three major equitable exceptions to the general rule
against fee shifting: the "bad faith" theory, the "common benefit" theory, and the "private
attorney general" theory. See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240,
275 (1975) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Whether the private attorney general theory remains a
basis for an award of attorney fees is doubtful. See note 2 infra. For a discussion of the rise
and fall of the private attorney general theory, see Hermann & Hoffmann, FinancingPublic
Interest Litigation in State Court: A Proposalfor Legislative Action, 63 CORNELL L. REV.
173, 175-83 (1978).
The more traditional theories of "bad faith" and "common benefit" derived from the
equity powers of the English Court of Chancery. See Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City S.
Ry., 28 F.2d 233, 240-41 (8th Cir. 1928), rev'd on other grounds, 281 U.S. 1 (1930). Under
the bad faith exception, which was originally recognized in the United States in the case of
Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 166-67 (1939), an award of attorney fees is
justified when a party engages in a continual pattern of evasion and obstruction, Fairley v.
Patterson, 493 F.2d 598, 606 (5th Cir. 1974); Bell v. School Bd., 321 F.2d 494, 500 (4th Cir.
1963) (en banc), or where the plaintiff was forced into unnecessary litigation, even if the
defendant ultimately prevailed, McEnteggart v. Cataldo, 451 F.2d 1109, 1112 (1st Cir. 1971),
cert. denied, 408 U.S. 943 (1972); Marston v. American Employers Ins. Co., 439 F.2d 1035,
1042 (1st Cir. 1971).
The "common fund" theory is based on the premise that a single party should not be
charged with the entire cost of attorney fees when his legal victory benefits an entire class.
Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5-9 (1973); Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 167 (1939).
Although counsel fees generally are drawn from the funds recovered in the litigation, fees
may be awarded where no actual monetary fund has been created. Mills v. Electric Auto-
Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 392 (1970). For examples of other nonstatutory exceptions to the
American rule, notably contractual provisions for attorney fees, see Comment, Theories of
Recovering Attorney's Fees: Exceptions to the American Rule, 47 U. Mo. KAN. CITY L. REv.
566, 567-68 (1979).
' The federal statutory exceptions to the rule that each litigant must pay his own attor-
ney are numerous. E.g., Securities Act of 1933 11, 15 U.S.C. 77k(e) (1976); Copyright Act
101, 17 U.S.C. 116 (1976); Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Act, 38 U.S.C. 784(g)
(1976). For a list of 90 statutory fee award provisions, see SUBCOMMrrEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY CoMmITTEE, CivIL RIGHTS ATroRNEY's FEES AwARDs ACT OF
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
SE BILLINGS - CASEPage
Page No.15
LAW No. 2 of
of 45
58 Friday September 1, 20171, 2017
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS
gant pay his own attorney. 3 One such statutory exception is con-
tained in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),' which permits
1976-SouRcE BOOK: LEGISLATr HMsTORY, TExTs AND oTHmR DoculszaS (1976). The stat-
utes vary in the degree of discretion which the judiciary may exercise in making fee awards
and in the nature of the eligible parties. See generally Note, The Civil Rights Attorney's
Fees Awards Act of 1976, 52 ST. JoHN's L. Rv. 562, 562 n.4 (1978). Statutory exceptions
also arise at the state level. E.g., ALASKA STAT. 09.60.010 (1978); ALAsKA STAT.
09.60.015(a) (1973); NEv. REv. STAT. 18.010 (1977). For a discussion of state attorney fee
statutes based on "bad faith conduct," see Nussbaum, Attorney's Fees in Public Interest
Litigation, 48 N.Y.U.L. REv. 301, 336 & n.154 (1973).
The statutory exceptions have assumed greater importance in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). In
Alyeska, the Supreme Court severely curtailed use of the "private attorney general" doc-
trine as a basis for an award of attorney fees. Id. at 269. Confirming prior law to the effect
that "bad faith" and "common fund" are proper equitable bases for fee awards, id. at 257-
59, the Court stated that courts must find justification for any other award of fees in a
specific statutory authorization. Id. at 262. The Court reasoned that it would be a usurpa-
tion of legislative power to base a fee award on judicial estimates of the importance of the
policy at issue. Id. at 269.
3 Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975); Hall v. Cole,
412 U.S. 1, 4 (1973). The American rule differs from the practice in some other nations.
Comment, Court Awarded Attorneys' Fees and Equal Access to the Courts, 122 U. PA. L.
Ray. 636, 641 (1974). For example, in Great Britain, attorney fees are awarded to the pre-
vailing party. Id. The origin of the American rule has been attributed to a general distrust
of lawyers, id., to distinctively American traditions of individualism, Note, Attorney's Fees:
Where Shall the Ultimate Burden Lie?, 20 VmD. L. Rav. 1216, 1220-21 (1967), and to the
failure of statutory attorney fees to keep up with the rising costs of living. Ehrenzweig,
Reimbursement of Counsel Fees and the Great Society, 54 CALn. L. Ray. 792, 798-99
(1966). For a brief discussion of the British rule, see Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 717 (1966).
The American rule against "fee shifting" has been severely criticized, however, prima-
rily because it lacks the deterrent qualities inherent in fee shifting and, therefore, may en-
courage groundless litigation. See Kuenzel, The Attorney's Fee: Why Not a Cost of Litiga-
tion?, 49 IowA L. Rv. 75, 78 (1963). It also has been contended that the plaintiff is not truly
made whole when he still must pay his attorney fee. Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of Counsel
Fees and the Great Society, 54 CALIF. L. REv. 792, 792 (1966). For a discussion of the need
to reform the American rule, see Kuenzel, supra,at 78; McLaughlin, The Recovery of Attor-
ney's Fees: A New Method of Financing Legal Services, 40 FoRDHAM L. Ray. 761 (1972);
Stoebuck, Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development, 38 U. COLO. L. Rev. 202
(1966). Proponents of the rule argue, however, that a contrary rule unfairly penalizes a liti-
gant who brings a claim in good faith and discourages poorer litigants from pressing claims.
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967); Oelrichs v.
Spain, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 211, 231 (1872); see Comment, Theories of Recovering Attorneys'
Fees: Exceptions to the American Rule, 47 U. Mo. KAN. CrrY L. Rzv. 566, 590-91 (1979).
Nevertheless, the continuing vitality of the American rule is evident. See Farmer v. Arabian
Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 (1964).
4 5 U.S.C. 552 (1976 & Supp. I 1979). The premise underlying the FOIA is that full
public disclosure ensures decisionmaking by an informed electorate. H.R. RE'. No. 1497,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in [1966] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEws 2418, 2429. As
such, it is one of a series of laws relating to disclosure. See, e.g., Privacy Act of 1974, 5
U.S.C. 552a (1976); Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b (1976); Federal
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.16
LAW No. 3 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520
a court to award "reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs rea-

sonably incurred." 5 A prerequisite to an award of attorney fees
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 1 (1976). The policy favoring government disclo-
sure is not, however, without exceptions. Congress specifically excluded nine categories of
information from the FOIA disclosure requirements. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1976 & Supp.
III 1979). Exempted materials may include national defense secrets, internal agency rules,
trade secrets, and medical files. Id. Not all exempt documents, however, must be withheld.
Even clearly exempt documents must be released unless the agency determines that such
release would be harmful "to the public interest." Letter from Attorney General Griffin Bell
to heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies (May 5, 1977), reprinted in [1979] GOV'T
DISCLOSURE (P-H) V300,775. For example, law enforcement material must be released unless
public disclosure would decrease the efficacy of specific crime detection techniques. Attor-
ney General's Memorandum on the 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act
(February 1975), reprinted in [1979] Gov'T DISCLOSURE (P-H) 1 300,701.
The 1974 Amendments to the FOIA, Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561 (codified at 5
U.S.C. 552 (1976)), strengthened administrative procedures and penalties in order to effec-
tuate the general aims of the Act and to encourage prompt and complete government re-
sponses to requests for information. For example, a strict timetable was enacted whereby
agencies must reply to an information request within 10 days of receipt, with either a release
of the information or a denial accompanied by a notice of the appeal process. 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(6)(A)(i) (1976). Appeals must be decided within 20 days, id. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), with
one discretionary 10 day extension at either the initial or appeal stage. Id. 552(a)(6)(B).
An agency's failure to comply with the appropriate deadline entitles the complainant to file
suit immediately to force disclosure. Id. 552(a)(6)(C). Also, penalties were imposed for
violations of the Act. Agency employees who withhold information "arbitrarily or capri-
ciously" are subject to disciplinary action. Id. 552(a)(4)(F). See generally Vaughn, The
Sanctions Provision of the Freedom of Information Act Amendments, 25 Am. U.L. REv. 7
(1975).
5 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976 & Supp. III 1979). What amount will be deemed a "rea-
sonable" attorney fee is determined on a case-by-case basis by evaluating various factors.
See, e.g., Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 503 F.2d 177, 187-88 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The Ameri-
can Bar Association has suggested eight factors upon which the amount of a fee may be
based:
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions in-
volved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services.
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
ABA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL REsPONSIBIIrry, DR 2-106(B) (1976). These criteria have been
adopted by the First Circuit, see King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 (1st Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 (1978), and similar criteria have been used in other circuits, see
Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 1977), afl'd, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); Kerr v. Screen
Extra's Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951 (1976); John-
son v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-20 (5th Cir. 1974).
Despite the language of the statute, attorney fees do not necessarily have to be "in-
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.17
LAW No. 4 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
under the FOIA is that the plaintiff must have "substantially pre-
vailed."' Once this threshold determination has been made, the
court then balances various factors in order to determine whether
an award is appropriate in the particular case.7 Conflict has arisen,
curred" in order to be recoverable. Courts have approved awards of attorney fees in cases
involving legal service organizations where plaintiffs incur no actual fee, Palmigiano v. Gar-
rahy, 616 F.2d 598, 601 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 115 (1980); Mid-Hudson Legal
Serv., Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1978); Fairley v. Patterson, 493 F.2d 598,
606-07 (5th Cir. 1974), and where legal expenses were covered by insurance, Ellis v. Cassidy,
625 F.2d 227, 230 (9th Cir. 1980).
6 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976). A plaintiff may substantially prevail by showing that
the suit was necessary for and causally related to disclosure. Vermont Low Income Advoc.
Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 513 (2d Cir. 1976). A final judgment, however, is not a
prerequisite to an award of attorney fees. Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559
F.2d 704, 709 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364-65 (D.C. Cir. 1977);
accord, Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 513 (2d Cir.
1976); Biberman v. FBI, No. 79-2313 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1980) (authorizing award of in-
terim attorney fees when appropriate). Nor must all the requested documents be released.
Vaughn v. Rosen, 383 F. Supp. 1049 (D.D.C. 1974), af'd, 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1975). In
addition, the complainant may be deemed to have substantially prevailed even if the litiga-
tion terminated due to the government's acceding to disclosure of the information re-
quested. Kaye v. Burns, 411 F. Supp. 897, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). This prevents the govern-
ment from averting an attorney fee award by releasing the information subsequent to
commencement of the suit. Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d
509, 513 (2d Cir. 1976).
7 The judicial award of attorney fees is discretionary. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976).
The Senate, however, had proposed that the following factors be considered in making such
awards: the benefit to the public from the case; the commercial benefit to the complainant;
the nature of the complainant's interest in the records; and whether the government's with-
holding of information had a reasonable basis in law. S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 19
(1974), reprinted in HousE COMM. ON GOV'T OPMAxxONS & SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY,
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AcT AMENDMENTS OF 1974, pt. 1, at
171 (Joint Comm. Print 1975). The Senate report also gave examples illustrating eqch of the
four factors:
Under the first criterion a court would ordinarily award fees, for example, where a
newsman was seeking information to be used in a publication or a public interest
group was seeking information to further a project benefitting the general public,
but it would not award fees if a business was using the FOIA to obtain data relat-
ing to a competitor or as a substitute for discovery in private litigation with the
government.
Under the second criterion a court would usually allow recovery of fees where
the complainant was indigent or a nonprofit public interest group versus [sic] but
would not if it was a large corporate interest (or a representative of such an inter-
est). For the purposes of applying this criterion, news interests should not be con-
sidered commercial interests.
Under the third criterion a court would generally award fees if the complain-
ant's interest in the information sought was scholarly or journalistic or public-
interest oriented, but would not do so if his interest was of a frivolous or purely
commercial nature.
Finally, under the fourth criterion a court would not award fees where the
government's withholding had a colorable basis in law but would ordinarily award
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.18
LAW No. 5 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
however, as to whether the FOIA authorizes an award of attorney

fees to an otherwise qualified plaintiff who litigates pro se.8 Re-
cently, in Crooker v. United States Department of Justice,9 the
First Circuit held that attorney fees are not recoverable under the
FOIA by a prisoner appearing pro se.10
Michael Crooker, a federal prisoner, wrote to the Department
of Justice and requested a copy of specific materials describing the
role of the federal prosecutor. I" After receiving no reply within the
them if the withholding appeared to be merely to avoid embarrassment or to frus-

trate the requester. Whether the case involved a return to court by the same com-
plainant seeking the same or similar documents a second time should be consid-
ered by the Court under this criterion.
Id. These criteria were omitted from the final version of the bill, however, because in addi-
tion to the belief that they were unnecessary, it was feared that "a statement of the criteria
[might] be too delimiting." S. CONG. REP. No. 1200, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 reprinted in
[1974] U.S. CODE CONG. & An. NEws 6267, 6288. Although courts are not required to employ
these standards, they have been adopted widely as a framework within which to consider
the prevailing party's claim for attorney fees. See Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529
(5th Cir. 1978); Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Vermont Low Income
Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509 (2d Cir. 1976); American Fed'n of Gov't Employ-
ees v. Rosen, 418 F. Supp. 205 (N.D. IMI.1976).
8 Compare Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1980) and
Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1980) with Crooker v. Department
of Treasury, No. 80-0081 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980) and Marschner v. Department of State,
470 F. Supp. 196 (D. Conn. 1979).
632 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1980).
10 Id. at 921-22. A pro se litigant is one who appears on his own behalf without an
attorney. Almost 20% of the annual federal caseload is comprised of cases involving pro se
litigants, approximately 95% of whom are state and federal prisoners. Zeigler & Hermann,
The Invisible Litigant: An Inside View of Pro Se Actions in the FederalCourts, 47 N.Y.U.
L. REv. 157, 159-60 (1972). A party may choose to appear pro se for a variety of reasons. See
Note, The Jailed Pro Se Defendant and the Right to Preparea Defense, 86 YALE L.J. 292,
293 n.7 (1976). The underlying rationale for official recognition of pro se appearances, how-
ever, lies in the need to provide indigent persons with access to the courts. See Note, Litiga-
tion Costs: The Hidden Barrierto the Indigent, 56 GEo. L.J. 516, 525 (1968). In fact, most
pro se litigants are indigent and file informa pauperis,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (1976).
Zeigler & Hermann, supra, at 187. See also Turner, When PrisonersSue: A Study of Pris-
oner Section 1983 Suits in the Federal Courts, 92 HARv. L. Rv. 610, 617-21 (1979). Al-
though the indigent may be assigned counsel, he may prefer to appear pro se because he is
convinced that an assigned attorney would not make a sufficient effort on his behalf. Note,
Legal Services for PrisonInmates, 1967 Wis. L. RFv. 514, 526. In addition, pro se plaintiffs
may be litigating issues which are unattractive or "beyond the realm" of the average attor-
ney. See United States v. Satan & His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971). The court's
dealings with inadequately prepared and agitated pro se litigants are frequently frustrating.
Doyle, The Courts Responsibility to the Inmate Litigant, 56 JuDicATURE 406, 406 (1973).
Consequently, commentators have suggested modifications directed at weeding out frivolous
pro se claims while preserving legitimate suits. See, e.g., Zeigler & Hermann, supra, at 205-
19.
11 632 F.2d at 917.
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.19
LAW No. 6 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
period prescribed by law, Crooker filed a FOIA suit to force disclo-

sure. 12 Subsequently, two documents were tendered by the Depart-
ment of Justice. Satisfied with the receipt of these materials,
Crooker moved for a dismissal of the action and an award of attor-
ney fees.13 Although the motion to dismiss was granted, the district
court denied the motion for attorney fees, holding that no award
was warranted since Crooker had not "substantially prevailed" on
his claim and had appeared pro se. 1
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney
fees, holding that awards of attorney fees to pro se litigants are not
authorized under the FOIA.15 Writing for a unanimous panel,
Judge Bownes initially addressed the requirement that the plain-
tiff substantially prevail and concluded that this requirement had
been met. 6 The court then turned to the question of whether the
12 Id.; see note 4 supra. At approximately the same time that Crooker filed suit, the
United States Attorney's office advised Crooker that it did not have the documents re-
quested. 632 F.2d at 917. After receiving this response Crocker notified the U.S. Attorney
that he had filed suit to compel disclosure. Id. Approximately 6 weeks later, a 42-page pam-
phlet entitled "Material Relating to Prosecutorial Discretion" was released to Crooker. Id. A
second document, specifically relating to prosecution officials in the District of Massachu-
setts, was released and forwarded 6 months after the initial release. Id. The second release
may have been due in part to Crooker's motion requesting a Vaughn-type index. Id. The
Vaughn motion, a crucial discovery tool for the FOIA litigant, asks the court to order a
detailed justification for the denial of disclosure, indexed by cross reference to the docu-
ments. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S.
977 (1974).
Although previous FOIA actions had been commenced by Crooker in the District of
Columbia, e.g., Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 635 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir.
1980), this action was commenced in the District of Connecticut, which was a proper venue
district under the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) (1976). Crooker may have been influ-
enced by a favorable ruling on pro se fees handed down 2 weeks earlier by the Connecticut
district court. See Marschner v. Department of State, 470 F. Supp. 196 (D. Conn. 1979).
Xl 632 F.2d at 917. Crooker requested $165 in attorney fees. Id.
14 Id. at 918. In denying the motion for attorney's fees, the district court found that the
reasoning in Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509 (2d Cir.
1976), was dispositive. 632 F.2d at 917-18 & n.4; see note 16 infra.
15 632 F.2d at 920.
16 Id. at 919. Examining the request-reply pattern, the court employed the guidelines
suggested in Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery (VLIAC), 546 F.2d 509 (2d
Cir. 1976), and concluded that Crooker had substantially prevailed. 632 F.2d at 919. In
VLIAC, the Second Circuit set forth the following test for determining whether a FOIA
plaintiff had substantially prevailed: "A plaintiff must show at a minimum that [the action
was] necessary and that the action had substantial causative effect on the delivery of the
information." Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d at 513. Judge
Bownes noted that the agency reaction to Crooker's requests was neither timely, 632 F.2d at
918, nor fully responsive, id. at 919. Although the request was not difficult, the government's
reluctant and dilatory compliance differed from the efforts at "amicable resolution" which
distinguished the VLIAC situation. Id. Moreover, the government's failure to demonstrate
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.20
LAW No. 7 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
FOIA "encompasses an award of attorney fees where no attorney

was involved" and concluded that it does not.17 In reaching its de-
termination, the court rejected any claim that the provision for at-
torney fees was intended either to "reward" a successful litigant or
to "punish" a recalcitrant agency. 18 Rather, Judge Bownes found
that, in permitting the recovery of attorney fees, Congress sought
to provide an economic incentive for the prosecution of claims of
agency abuse. 9 This purpose, the court concluded, was not served
by granting attorney fees where no attorney fees were incurred.2 0
Reasoning that a pro se plaintiff incurs no expense in litigating his
FOIA suit, the court stated that an award of fees would amount to
an impermissible payment for the plaintiff's time and effort. 21 In-
stead of an incentive to pursue his disclosure rights, a recovery of
"fees" not incurred for representation by an attorney would be a
windfall.2 2 Judge Bownes found, moreover, that an award of costs
actually incurred would suffice to remove any economic barriers to
suits by pro se litigants.2 3 Therefore, a recovery confined to litiga-
tion costs would make a pro se FOIA plaintiff whole, without giv-
ing him a windfall2 4
that their subsequent "piecemeal" disclosures were causally unrelated to Crooker's suit re-
quired the conclusion that Crooker had substantially prevailed within the meaning of the
Act. Id.
In FOIA suits, the government has the burden of proof on the issue of whether a with-
holding of records was proper. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) (1976). To meet this burden, they
must prove "in a concrete manner" that the materials requested were exempt. Crooker v.
Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 919; Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). Another procedural advantage for a plaintiff seeking informa-
tion is that FOIA cases generally are expedited at every stage of the litigation. 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(D) (1976).
17 632 F.2d at 920-22.
Is Id. at 920; see Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704,711 (D.C. Cir.
1977).
19 632 F.2d at 920. The cost of a simple FOIA suit has been estimated at $1,000. Pro-
ject, Government Information and the Rights of Citizens, 73 MICH. L. Rv. 971, 1133
(1975). More complex suits may generate up to $70,000 in fees. Id. at 1133 n.1018.
20 632 F.2d at 920.
:I Id.
2 Id. at 921 (citing Davis v. Paratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979); Hannon v. Security
Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1976)).
21 632 F.2d at 921. Although the Crooker court's holding extends to all pro se litigants,
the identification of costs as the sole "financial barriers" seems uniquely appropriate to the
prison situation. This reasoning may be inadequate to justify denial of fees to a pro se liti-
gant who forgoes employment income to pursue his case. See note 24 and accompanying
text infra.
24 632 F.2d at 921. Another factor considered by the Crooker court in refusing to award
attorney fees to pro se litigants was the difficulty in calculating the value of a nonlawyer's
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.21
LAW No. 8 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
In contrast to the First Circuit, the District of Columbia Cir-

cuit has held that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not ineligible per se
for an award of attorney fees.2 51 Noting that all pro se plaintiffs
function as attorneys, the latter court has refused to disqualify a
litigant from receiving a fee award merely because he had not in-
curred expenses for a lawyer in prosecuting his claim. 26 Rather, it
has determined that a pro se plaintiff who substantially prevails
could recover attorney fees in the district court's discretion.
It is submitted that the District of Columbia Circuit has ex-
pressed the better view on whether a pro se plaintiff may recover
an attorney fee under the FOIA. Provided that the factors favoring
a fee award are present, no compelling reasons exist for denying
attorney fees to pro se litigants. The arguments for denying such
fee awards fail to consider that they may advance the aims of the
FOIA. Rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on attorney fee
awards to pro se litigants, the better view is to allow such awards,
relying on the district court to ferret out non-meritorious claims by
exercising its discretion.
services as an attorney. Id. The court noted that the factors considered in determining a
reasonable amount for attorney fees are "specifically geared toward examining the work of
an attorney." Id. The Crooker court also rejected the contention that the language of the
statute requires the award of attorney fees to pro se FOIA litigants. Id. at 921 & n.7. This
semantic argument was developed in Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115, 116 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd
sub nom. Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The Holly court stated that "[t]he
phrase 'reasonably incurred' modifies the phrase 'other litigation costs,' not the larger
phrase 'reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs,'" since the repetition of the word
"reasonable" distinguished "attorney fees" from "other litigation cost." 72 F.R.D. at 116.
Consequently, only costs would have to be actually incurred. Id. Rejecting this argument,
the Crooker court stated that it is "quite clear that a lawyer's charge for his services might
be reasonable while at the same time a client's retention of that lawyer or direction that he
perform particular services in a specific case was unreasonable." 632 F.2d at 921 n.7. Thus,
the court concluded that the "more natural reading" of the provision requires "that attor-
ney fees, like 'other litigation costs,' be actually incurred in order to be compensable." Id.
25 Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980). The
District of Columbia Circuit first enunciated its position in Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115,
116 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd sub nom. Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977), wherein it
was held that the language and intentions of the FOIA mandated awards to pro se litigants.
See note 24 supra. The court reaffirmed its position in Cox v. Department of Justice, 601
F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (per curiam), holding that a complainant need not actually incur an
attorney's fee in order to be eligible for an award. Id. at 5-6. The Cox court referred to the
decision in Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364-65 (D.C. Cir. 1977), which awarded fees
to an attorney appearing in propriapersona. See 601 F.2d at 5-6.
, Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980).
17 601 F.2d at 6-7. The circuit court remanded the case to the district court to deter-
mine the propriety of awarding attorney fees in the case, and if attorney fees were proper,
the amount. Id.
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
Page No.22
LAW No. 9 of
of 45
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY FEES FOR PRO SE FOIA PLAINTIFFS
Although Congress' position on pro se litigants' eligibility for

attorney fee awards under the FOIA is not apparent from either
the statute or its legislative history,"8 it is clear that the courts
were empowered to award attorney fees in order to implement the
overall purposes of the Act. 9 The FOIA embodies a congressional
determination that an informed electorate is essential for the oper-
ation of democratic processes.30 Thus, the FOIA set up a mecha-
nism to promote disclosure of government information.3 1 Later, the
FOIA was amended with the intention of eliminating government
obduracy in compliance.82 Although not precisely punitive in char-
acter, the amendments embody a legislative distaste for govern-
ment foot-dragging and evasion in complying with the Act. 3 The
creation of a right to recover attorney fees was one of several pro-
visions designed to encourage private litigation as a means of dis-
couraging government noncompliance.3 4 The decision to exclude
nonattorneys appearing pro se from eligibility for an award of fees
2 See Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980).
29 S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974); accord, GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Con-
sumer's Union of United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 387 (1980); Blue v. Bureau of Prisons,
570 F.2d 529, 533 (5th Cir. 1978); Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704,
711 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
10 See note 4 supra.
31 A FOIA request is relatively uncomplicated to make. After ascertaining which agency
holds the desired information, the requester must make a written application which must
comply with that agency's individual regulations, and which must include the following ba-
sic information: (1) identification of the party requesting the information, (2) specific identi-
fication of the material to be released, and (3) an address and phone number where the
requester can be contacted. [1980] Gov'T DISCLOSURE (P-H) 1 10,023-024.
32 The FOIA was enacted in 1964 to supersede the public information section of the
Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 324, 3, 60 Stat. 238 (1946) (current version at 5 U.S.C.
551-554 (1976)). Under prior law, the government could "withhold . . . virtually any
piece of information that [it did] not wish to disclose." S. REP. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Seass.
4 (1965); H.R. REP. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprintedin [1966] U.S. CODE CONG. &
AD. NEWS 2418, 2421-22. As originally enacted, the FOIA suffered from many of the
problems of the prior laws. See H.R. REP. No. 876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in
[1974] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 6267. Consequently, Congress amended the Act in
1974, strengthening the legislation to encourage private actions to compel compliance. See
Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561-64.
13 See GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 385
(1980) (1974 amendments to FOIA reflect a congressional concern with "needless denials of
information"). See generally Katz, The Games BureaucratsPlay: Hide and Seek Under the
Freedom of Information Act, 48 TEx. L. REv. 1261 (1970); Nader, Freedom from Informa-
tion: The Act and the Agencies, 5 HARv. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 1 (1970).
", For a discussion of other measures added to FOIA in 1974, see The Freedom of
Information Act Amendments of 1974: An Analysis, 26 SYRACUSE L. REV. 951 (1975).
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 10 of
No. 23 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
must be viewed, therefore, as a judicial determination not to en-

courage FOIA suits where a lawyer is not representing the com-
plainant35 While this determination may be supported by a vari-
ety of practical and policy considerations, it is -submitted that
these considerations can be accommodated without sacrificing the
policy reasons favoring the contrary view.
The Fear of Abuse Argument

The judiciary has long been apprehensive about becoming
clogged with a flood of frivolous and burdensome pro se suits.36
Indeed, one federal district court judge has characterized pro se
motions as "disorderly, numerous, repetitious, discursive, and
sometimes mad. ' 37 It is argued, moreover, that the award of attor-
:5See Cox v. Department of Justice, 601 F.2d 1, 6 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The Cox court
stated that implicit in the congressional emphasis on judicial discretion in attorney fee
awards, was a responsibility to "encourage or discourage" certain kinds of suits. Id.
38Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980); Graham v.
Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir. 1977); Carter v. Telectron, 452 F. Supp. 944, 948-49 (S.D.
Tex. 1977). While recognizing the right to appear without counsel, United States v. Mitchell
137 F.2d 1006, 1010 (2d Cir. 1943), the judiciary remains apprehensive about the layman's
ability successfully to represent his own interests, Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774, 775-
76 (2d Cir. 1944). Thus, the attitude of the courts toward the pro se litigant is necessarily
ambivalent. Describing pro se efforts as "inartistic," id. at 775, "inartfully drawn, unclear
and equivocal," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 112 (1976), the courts nevertheless attempt
to safeguard the legal rights of the pro se litigant. In Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
the Supreme Court refused to dismiss a pro se complaint unless it could be said "with assur-
ance" that the plaintiff could not prove his claim. Id. at 520-21. Furthermore, the Court
indicated that pro se pleadings would be judged by "less stringent standards." Id. at 520.
Despite the demonstrations of leniency toward pro se litigation, the Court's emphasis is
clearly on professional legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 831 (1977); The
Bounds majority stated, "[P]ro se petitioners are capable of using law books to file cases
raising claims that are serious and legitimate. . . ." Id. at 826-27. In contrast, the dissent
took the position that "access to a law library will. . . simply result in the filing of plead-
ings heavily loaded with irrelevant legalisms-possessing the veneer but lacking the sub-
stance of professional competence." Id. at 836 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
'7 Becker, Collateral Post Conviction Review of State and Federal Criminal Judg-
ments on Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Motions-View of a DistrictJudge, 33 F.R.D.
452, 453 (1963).
A common denominator among pro se litigants is their ignorance of the law and the
consequent inadequacy of their legal petitions, applications, and motions. Ziegler & Her-
mann, supra note 10, at 176-87; cf. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)
(pro se complaints held to less stringent standards than attorneys). Lack of legal expertise,
and the concomitant judicial exasperation, is the major hurdle for pro se litigants. See, e.g.,
Marlow v. Tully, 79 App. Div. 2d 546, 547, 433 N.Y.S.2d 787, 789 (1st Dep't 1980). In Mar-
low, the pro se plaintiff was advised that further proceedings without counsel would only
result in "wasteful legally inappropriate procedures." Id.
The courts are especially sensitive to the threat which prisoners "with idle time and
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 11 of
No. 24 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
ney fees to nonattorneys would encourage additional spurious liti-

gation because the award of such fees would constitute a "wind-
fall."" s The reluctance of the American courts to award attorney
fees thus becomes an abhorrence in the case of awards to unde-
serving laymen.39 When the pro se litigant is a prisoner, the courts
seem particularly anxious to protect the federal fisc against claims
for fees, ostensibly since such awards are more difficult to calculate
than in the nonprisoner context.4 0
If the FOIA were interpreted narrowly to prohibit the award
of attorney fees to pro se plaintiffs, the potential dangers imposed
by such awards would be diminished. It is submitted, however,
that these objections should not automatically preclude awards of
attorney fees to pro se litigants under the FOIA. First, the fear of a
free paper" present to overcrowded court calendars. Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463
(1972) (citing Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 327 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). See
Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980) ("The Freedom of
Information Act was not enacted to create a cottage industry for federal prisoners"). Even
one active jailhouse lawyer can be responsible for a good deal of legal activity. Turner, supra
note 10, at 635. For a detailed study of a pro se prisoner filing 178 cases, see Carter v.
Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 944 (S.D. Tex. 1977). According to the Cartercourt, as of June
30, 1977, prisoner suits accounted for 15% of pending federal civil cases. Id. at 948. More-
over, in the pro se prisoner context, out-of-court settlements are difficult and rare. Conse-
quently, some kind of judicial action is required on virtually every case. Turner, supra note
10, at 637-38.
City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 469 (2d Cir. 1974); White v. Arlen
Realty & Dev. Corp., 614 F.2d 387, 389 (4th Cir. 1980). Courts also are sensitive to accusa-
tions of fee generation, and, therefore, have attempted to stem public disapproval by main-
taining moderation in fee awards. See City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d at 469.
" Typically, the judicial arguments against pro se fees rest on the narrow premise that
only an attorney is an attorney. Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.
1976). In Hannon, a law school graduate, albeit unlicensed, was denied attorney fees be-
cause, as the court stated, "he was not an attorney and could not provide attorney services."
Id. at 329; accord, Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Barrett v.
United States Customs Serv., 482 F. Supp. 770, 789 (E.D. La. 1980); Burke v. Department of
Justice, 432 F. Supp. 251, 253 (D. Kan. 1976); Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 354 F. Supp. 310, 311
(N.D. Cal. 1973). This approach has been called the "closed shop philosophy." Johnson v.
Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 491 (1969) (Douglas, J., concurring).
Generally, the courts have been less grudging with regard to the attorney who repre-
sents himself. Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Wells v. Whinery, 34
Mich. App. 626, 192 N.W.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1971). The courts reason that the attorney appear-
ing in propria persona is giving up the economic benefit of other professional opportunities.
Winer v. Jonal Corp., 169 Mont. 247, 545 P.2d 1094 (1976). See also Crooker v. Department
of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980). Moreover, the burden on the defeated party
is the same whether or not the plaintiff is an attorney. Winer v. Jonal Corp., 169 Mont. 247,
545 P.2d 1094 (1976). But see Parquit Corp. v. Ross, 273 Or. 900, 543 P.2d 1070 (1975);
O'Connell v. Zimmerman, 157 Cal. App. 2d 330, 321 P.2d 161 (1958); Cheney v. Ricks, 168
Ill. 533, 549, 48 N.E. 75, 81 (1897).
40 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 921 (1st Cir. 1980); see note 49 infra.
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 12 of
No. 25 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
flood of litigation arising from sanctioning fees for pro se parties is

often unfounded. 4 1 To be sure, there has been a sharp increase in
the number of FOIA requests since the 1974 amendments were en-
acted. 2 There is no indication, however, that the cause has been
the availability of attorney fees.'3 Moreover, the pro se litigant's
4
chances of being put on a federal court docket are slim. " Most
complaints are disposed of during the initial stages.' 5 Even if the
case goes to trial, the plaintiff still must prevail and satisfy the
discretionary guidelines before attorney fees may be awarded.46 In
addition, chances of abuse, if any, are minimized by applying the
discretionary factors. 7 For example, pro se plaintiffs whose acts
are merely fee-generating and serve no public purpose may be de-
nied fees on these grounds without arbitrarily barring recovery by
all pro se plaintiffs. 4 8 Further, abuse can be controlled through
methods devised for calculating the value of pro se services.4 9
41 See Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994, 1007
(D.C. Cir. 1966); Ziegler & Hermann, supra note 10, at 196-97.
42 See Open American v. Watergate Special Prosec. Force, 547 F.2d 605, 617 n.3 (D.C.
Cir. 1976) (Leventhal, J., concurring) (FBI received 447 FOIA requests in 1974, as compared
to 13,875 in 1975).
43 The increase might be attributed to a greater public awareness of the rights con-
ferred by the FOIA. The added burden on the judiciary is not, however, sufficient reason for
curtailing fee awards. There are alternative solutions to overcrowded courts. Institution of
an individual assignment system and the appointment of additional judges could meet any
additional burden precipitated by awards of attorney fees to pro se litigants. See Committee
on Federal Courts, Recommendationsfor the Improvement of the Administrationof Pro Se
Civil Rights Litigation in the Federal District Courts in the Southern and Eastern Dis-
tricts of New York, 30 Rc. A.B. Crry N.Y. 107, 108 (1975) [hereinafter cited as Bar Recom-
mendations]. Interestingly, one commentator has noted the connection between judicial at-
titude and judicial burden: "If those who must decide [pro se] prisoners cases feel that they
are a bothersome nuisance, most of the complaints will be read in a narrow grudging man-
ner; most of the cases will be dismissed as frivolous; and the task of deciding so many
groundless claims will indeed seem burdensome." Turner, supra note 10, at 638 n.144.
44 See Bar Recommendations,supra note 43, at 109-10; Ziegler & Hermann, supra note
10, at 160.
4 See Bar Recommendations, supra note 43, at 113 n.8. One commentator has noted:
It is apparent that it is futile for prisoners to proceed pro se. Not only is it un-
likely that the complaints will survive the.. . screening, but even assuming that
the cases are not dismissed prior to service, they will languish in the courts' dock-
ets. They are prime candidates for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Prisoners
generally have neither the knowledge nor the resources to conduct discovery and
move their cases to trial.
Turner, supra note 10, at 625.
4' See notes 5 & 7 supra.
" See notes 71-80 and accompanying text infra.
41 See note 75 and accompanying text infra.
4, The fee awarded a successful pro se litigant does not threaten the federal purse,
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 13 of
No. 26 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
The Semantic Argument

Those opposing attorney fee awards for pro se litigants also
advance two arguments based on the language of the FOIA's fee
provision. As stated previously, the FOIA sanctions an award of
especially when compared with the fee that a lawyer would receive in similar FOIA litiga-
tion. In contrast with the normal attorney's fee, Crooker requested only $165.00. Crooker v.
Department of Justice, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980). Cf. Jones v. United States
Secret Service, 81 F.R.D. 700, 702 (D.D.C. 1979) (pro se award of $425); Holly v. Acree, 72
F.R.D. 115, 116 ($620 awarded to pro se representative). Attorneys have occasionally been
less than circumspect in their fee requests. See, e.g., Copeland v. Marshall, 594 F.2d 244,
249 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (excessive fees charged by attorneys in civil right's case); Johnson v.
Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 1974) (possible duplication of
effort by attorneys).
The problem of how to calculate an attorney fee for a nonattorney is not insurmount-
able. The District of Columbia Circuit dealt with this problem in Jones v. United States
Secret Service, 81 F.R.D. 700, 702 (1979). Therein, the pro se plaintiff, a prisoner, claimed
an hourly wage of $50.00 for 85 hours of work. Id. In determining the amount of the award,
the court noted plaintiff's inexperience as an attorney, the time spent in nonlegal activities,
and the fact that as a public ward, the plaintiff gave up no income and incurred no expense.
Id. Concluding that the plaintiff did deserve some award for his "diligence and skill," the
court reduced the hourly wage to 10 dollars. Id. Furthermore, the court discounted the
hours by one-half, attributing the excess time to plaintiff's lack of experience. Id. The deter-
mining factors in the Jones decision have been employed by other courts. For example, the
economic distinction between legal and nonlegal work has been used to reduce awards for
services performed by nonattorneys. E.g., Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488
F.2d 714, 717 (5th Cir. 1974); Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc., v. American Radiator & Stand.
Sanit. Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 167 (3d Cir. 1973). In Lamphere v. Brown, 610 F-2d 46, 48 (1st
Cir. 1979), the First Circuit found the work of paralegals "necessary and compensable," but
only at the rate of their actual hourly wage. Id. In contrast, courts frequently base awards to
attorneys on the fair market value of their services, rather than their normal hourly wage.
The fee actually incurred may not always be the fee awarded. See note 7 supra. Many
courts use a fair market value standard. See National Treasury Employees Union v. Nixon,
521 F.2d 317, 322 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 495
F.2d 1026, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc), rev'd on other grounds, 421 U.S. 240 (1975);
Fairley v. Patterson, 493 F.2d 598, 607 (5th Cir. 1974). In Campbell v. United States Civil
Serv. Comm'n, 539 F.2d 58, 62 (10th Cir. 1978), an award of $250 was remanded for recon-
sideration as too low in light of the $35 per hour standard offered in FOIA's legislative
history. Id. (citing H.R. REP. No. 876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1974] U.S. CODE
CONG. & AD. NEws 6275). Courts also have alluded to the legislatively nurtured opinion that
a reasonable fee in a FOIA action is $1,000 to $1,400. American Fed'n of Gov't Employees v.
Rosen, 418 F. Supp. 205, 209 (N.D. Ill. 1976) (citing H.R. REP. No. 876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess.
9 (1974)).
Generally, courts will consider a variety of factors such as customary fees, reputation,
time limitations, and results in arriving at an appropriate hourly wage. See Pete v. United
Mine Workers of Am. Welfare & Retirement Fund of 1950, 517 F.2d 1275, 1290 (D.C. Cir.
1975); note 5 supra. An additional factor in arriving at a fair market value is loss of income
from other employment. 81 F.R.D. at 702. Significantly, this factor is normally considered in
relation to the amount of the award. Id.; ABA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSmILrry, DR 2-
106(B) (1976). It has been used, however, as a rationale for denying fee awards. See Crooker
v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d at 49.
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 14 of
No. 27 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
"reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs reasonably incurred."

It is argued that "incurred" modifies "fees" as well as "costs."
Therefore, since attorney fees are not incurred by a party appear-
ing pro se, no award is proper." Alternately, it is argued that the
inclusion of nonattorneys as eligible for an award of "attorney"
fees violates the "clear language" of the statute.51 Although entic-
ingly straightforward, both arguments must fail. The first argu-
ment overlooks two situations where attorney fees are sanctioned
although no fees are "incurred" by the plaintiffs. While neither
lawyers appearing in propria persona nor legal service organiza-
tions representing FOIA plaintiffs charge their "clients" a fee, at-
torney fees under the FOIA are recoverable nonetheless. 5 2 The sec-
ond argument can be overcome by focusing on an alternate
meaning of the term "attorney fees." Commonly, attorney fees are
understood to be payments for the services of a qualified lawyer.5 3
Additionally, however, the term may mean payments for legal ser-
vices without regard to whether or not they were performed by a
lawyer.54 Thus, "attorney" fees have been awarded to paralegals
and other persons not admitted to the bar for their work in con-
nection with litigation.5 5 The existence of this "functional" defini-
tion of the term "attorney fees" belies the argument that its mean-
ing is "clear."
80 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1980).
" Barrett v. United States Customs Serv., 482 F. Supp. 779, 780 (E.D. La. 1980); ac-
cord, Hannon v. Security Natl Bank, 537 F.2d 327, 329 (9th Cir. 1976). It is argued further
that the absence of a specific inclusion of nonattorneys in the statute implies that Congress
did not wish to compensate them for their services. Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537
F.2d at 328.
2 Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1978); Cuneo
v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 444
F.2d 143, 147 n.3 (5th Cir. 1971); Miller v. Amusement Enterps., Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 538-39
(5th Cir. 1970). See also Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir.
1980). The awards to legal service organizations are justified on the ground that attorneys
are actually involved. Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 n.1 (2d Cir.
1980); Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 921 n.7 (1st Cir. 1980) (citing
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598 (1st Cir. 1980)). Furthermore, the courts want to sup-
port the public interests represented by these organizations. Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc.,
v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (1978).
5 See Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115, 116 (D.D.C. 1976), af'd without opinion sub nom.
Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977); note 49 supra.
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 15 of
No. 28 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
The Economic BarrierArgument

Opponents of awards of attorney fees in pro se suits further
argue that such awards are outside the ambit of the FOIA.5 e This
argument is based on the premise that the aim of the Act was to
promote government disclosure by removing the expense of an at-
torney as a potential deterrent to prosecuting FOIA claims. The
opponents conclude, therefore, that since the pro se litigant never
contemplates the payment of such a fee, he does not need the ben-
57
efit of the statute.
Assuming arguendo that removal of economic barriers to suit
is the sole purpose underlying the decision by Congress to sanction
fee awards in FOIA suits, this argument still is unpersuasive. In-
deed, no economic barrier in the form of a bill for the services of
an attorney exists for a pro se litigant. Nevertheless, real economic
barriers in other forms do exist. It is difficult for indigent parties to
obtain legal counsel, 5 and even more difficult when the indigent
party is a prisoner.5 9 For these parties, a pro se appearance may be
the only realistic route available for forcing disclosure under the
FOIAY The indigent's lack of means bars his appearance by an
attorney and forces him to perform this function himself. Addi-
tionally, an economic barrier may exist for nonprisoner pro se
plaintiffs since they may forego income-producing activity to pur-
sue a FOIA claim."1 Admittedly, most pro se claims are made by
'" But see LaSalle Extension Univ. v. FTC, [1980] I Gov'T DISCLOSuRE (P-H) 80, at
171 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1980). Shermco Indus. Inc. v. Secretary of United States Air Force,
452 F. Supp. 306, 326 (N.D. Tex. 1978).
17 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 921.
68 See Nussbaum, Attorney's Fees in Public Interest Litigation, 48 N.Y.U.L. REv. 301,
306 n.16 (1973). The key to the problem Hes in the large number of people below the pov-
erty level and the small number of legal service lawyers. Id.
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 493 (1969) (Douglas, J., concurring).
80 Larsen, A PrisonerLooks at Writ-Writing, 56 CALn'. L. REv. 343, 345-46 (1968). One
commentator tersely summarized the problem as follows: "Lawyers generally require at least
a fifty dollar fee to travel to the prisons to consult with a prisoner. The ones not able to pay
this sum must resort to the next best course of action-act as their own lawyers." Id. at 345.
Even if counsel is assigned, the prisoner may be at a disadvantage since "some attorneys do
not feel an obligation to put forth their best efforts for a client who is not paying them and
who they probably will never see." Note, Legal Services for Prison Inmates, 1967 Wis. L.
REv. 514, 526.
61 The Second Circuit has recognized that an economic barrier may be presented in
either of two ways: "by the prospect of having to pay an attorney or having to forego an
opportunity to earn one's regular income for a day or more in order to prepare and pursue a
pro se suit." Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980). See S.
REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974) (quoting Sen. Thurmond).
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 16 of
No. 29 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
prisoners who do not lose tangible economic benefits in pursuing a

FOIA claim. 2 This fact, however, does not justify a blanket ban on
pro se recovery of fees. It is conceivable that the relatively small
number of nonprisoner, pro se complaints indicates that lack of
representation and loss of income without reimbursement have
been effective economic barriers to the pursuit of the claims.
THE CASE IN FAVOR OF ATTORNEY FEES FOR PRO SE FOIA

PLAINTIFFS
The primary consideration in deciding whether pro se plain-

tiffs should be denied attorney fees must be the effectuation of the
policy underlying FOLA. In enacting the FOIA, Congress created a
disclosure statute which depended on suits by private litigants for
enforcement." When private enforcement proved ineffective,6
measures were adopted to curb government abuse of the Act by
removing the chief barriers to individual litigation. What consti-
tuted a violation of the Act was defined with greater precision; pu-
nitive measures against intentional misconduct were created;6 5 and
attorney fees became available.6 6 Indeed, these measures have been
so successful in encouraging the pursuit of FOJA rights that courts
now fear plaintiff abuse. Specifically, some courts are afraid, in the
case of pro se plaintiffs, that fee awards under the FOJA will give
rise to a "flood" of burdensome litigation and undeserved "wind-
fall" awards. Inexplicably, plaintiff abuse does not appear to be a
problem when the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer.6 8 It is ironic,
but in categorically refusing to award attorney fees to pro se liti-
gants, courts are refusing to apply a statutory provision aimed at
encouraging FOIA suits to a class of plaintiffs on whom the provi-
sion is having the desired effect. 9 The public benefit is real and
62 Carter v. Telectron, 452 F. Supp. 944, 046-49 (S.D. Tex. 1977). But see Johnson v.
Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 494 n.10 (1969) (citing Larsen, A PrisonerLooks at Writ-Writing, 56
CALm. L. REV. 343, 345-46 (1968)).
'3 See note 4 supra,
See note 33 and accompanying text supra.
" See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F) (1976).
See id. 552(a)(4)(E).
67 See, e.g., Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980);
Hannon v. Security Natl Bank, 537 F.2d 327, 329 n.1 (9th Cir. 1976).
" See Luzaich v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 31, 36 (D. Minn. 1977). Some commenta-
tors recommend the assignment of counsel as the most effective solution to the problems of
pro se litigation. Ziegler & Hermann, supra note 10, at 213.
9 See S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974); accord, Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553
F.2d 1360, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Goldstein v. Levi, 415 F. Supp. 303, 305 (D.D.C. 1976);
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 17 of
No. 30 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
their legal activity deserving of compensation. 0

Allowing pro se FOIA litigants to recover attorney fees need
not result in windfall recoveries and other abuses. Stringent crite-
ria must be satisfied to justify an award of attorney fees to the
FOIA plaintiff who substantially prevails.7 1 The complainant must
demonstrate an absence of commercial incentive, an appropriate
interest in the information sought, unreasonable government non-
compliance, and vindication of a public interest.7 2 By properly ap-
plying these factors, courts have the wherewithal to control poten-
tial abuse by pro se plaintiffs without shielding the government
from the payment of a fee award in a proper case. 73 For example, a
"jailhouse lawyer" who generates a stream of FOIA litigation may
be found ineligible for a fee award because of the commercial in-
centive for prosecuting his claims 7 4-specifically, the generation of
fee income. 5 Although the "commercial incentive" factor is usually
applied to a businessman seeking information to be used for an
economic gain,7 6 it is relevant in the pro se context as well. When
the FOIA is used to generate personal income or to acquire infor-
mation which is not of public interest, the enforcement of disclo-
sure rights becomes incidental to securing personal benefit and the
77
incentive of a fee award becomes superfluous.
Similarly, the other fee award criteria will act to qualify the
Kaye v. Burns, 411 F. Supp. 897, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

70 "Many of the landmark prisoner rights cases were commenced by prisoners pro se."
Bar Recommendations, supra note 71, at 114 n.13; see, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963). It is submitted that pro se litigants should not be denied fee awards, regardless
of whether they forego any income in prosecuting claims. Whether a pro se claimant is a
prisoner or unemployed is irrelevant to a determination of whether he is eligible for an
award. If a suit promotes the disclosure policy of the Act, economic status alone should not
preclude an award of attorney fees. If economic status is determinative of a litigant's eligi-
bility for a fee award, some inequities would result. For example, a lawyer who comes out of
retirement to pursue a FOIA claim would be ineligible because he did not forego other
income.
7 See notes 6 & 7 supra.
1 Marschner v. Department of State, 410 F. Supp. 196, 201 (D. Conn. 1979).
1 See, e.g., Polynesian Cultural Center, Inc., v. NLRB, 600 F.2d 1327, 1330 (9th Cir.
1979). The intentions of the Act do not include financing private actions where there is
already sufficient impetus to proceed. Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529, 534 (5th Cir.
1978).
" See, e.g., Fenster v. Brown, [1980] Gov'T DisCLOSURE (P-H) 79,148 (D.C. Cir. Dec.
18, 1979).
7 Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Project, Government Infor-
mation and the Rights of Citizens, 73 MICH. L. REv. 971, 1141 n.1 (1975).
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 18 of
No. 31 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
19811 PRO SE LITIGANTS
right to recover attorney fees.7 8 The courts are eminently capable

of balancing the four factors and arriving at a decision which re-
flects the equities of the individual case.7 9 The application of these
factors will serve to determine whether attorney fees are appropri-
ate and will ensure that the interests of the FOIA will be served
without denying awards to deserving plaintiffs.8 0
CONCLUSION
The FOIA presents a unique situation requiring responsive ju-

dicial interpretation: no overt wrong has been committed against
the FOIA plaintif8 1 and no damage award is available to attract
counsel. Without assertive public enforcement, a silent erosion of
Congressional policy may ensue. 82 It is submitted that awards of
78 See Pope v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 962, 965-66 (S.D. Tex. 1977). In Pope, the
plaintiff, although obtaining much of the information sought, was held not to have substan-
tially prevailed. Furthermore, the government's withholding was deemed proper, there was
no public benefit, and the plaintiff's interest was commercial and personal. Id. at 966;
accord,Fenster v. Brown, [1980] Gov'T DxsCLosuRE (P-H) %79,148 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 1979).
79 The application of the four factors for determining the appropriateness of an award
of fees requires sensitivity to the issues at hand. S. RP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 19
(1974). In Shermco Indus., Inc. v. Secretary of the United States Air Force, 452 F. Supp.
306, 326 (N.D. Tex. 1978), a fee award was granted despite a commercial interest due to the
unreasonable withholding by the defendant. Id. In contrast, the government had valid rea-
son for refusing the disclosure of the material requested in Flower v. FBI, 448 F. Supp. 567,
574 (W.D. Tex. 1978). Attorney's fees were awarded, however, because of the strong public
benefit. Id.
80 Courts are more willing to grant fees where the information sought will benefit the
public. See Goldstein v. Levi, 415 F. Supp. 303, 305 (D.D.C. 1976); Consumers Union of
United States v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 410 F. Supp. 63, 64 (D.D.C.
1975).
" See Clark, Holding Government Accountable: the Amended Freedom of Information
Act, 84 YALE L.J. 741, 767 (1975).
82 Cf. Knight v. Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 853 (1st Cir. 1972) (plaintiff's financial inability
to litigate may foster deliberate noncompliance with the civil rights laws). In Knight, the
district court had refused to award attorney's fees in a civil rights case, but the First Circuit
reversed and granted the award. Although not a FOIA case, the Knight court stated
incisively.
The violation of an important public policy may involve little by way of actual
damages, so far as a single individual is concerned, or little in comparison with the
cost of vindication, as the case at bar illustrates. If a defendant may feel that the
cost of litigation, and, particularly, that the financial circumstances of an injured
party may mean that the chances of suit being brought, or continued in the face of
opposition, will be small, there will be little brake upon deliberate wrongdoing.
453 F.2d at 853 (emphasis added).
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 19 of
No. 32 of58
Friday September
PUBLISHED
THESe ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP
538 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520
attorney fees to pro se FOIA litigants will further the FOIA's goal
of an informed electorate by encouraging agency compliance.
Lyn Batzar Boland
SEPRO
THE CASE
PRS SE LITIGANTS
BILLINGS
FOR PRO
& PRO SE -LITIGANTS
CASE LAW
LAWNo.
Page 20 of
No. 33 of58
Friday September
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
THE CASE
PRO
PRS SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO
&-PRO
SE
CASE
BILLINGS
SELAW
LAW No. 34
21 of 58
William Mitchell Law Review

Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 4
2012
Pro Se Litigation and the Costs of Access to Justice

Dan Gustafson
Karla Glueck
Joe Bourne
Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr
Recommended Citation
Gustafson, Dan; Glueck, Karla; and Bourne, Joe (2012) "Pro Se Litigation and the Costs of Access to Justice," William Mitchell Law
Review: Vol. 39: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews
and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for
inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator
of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact
sean.felhofer@mitchellhamline.edu.
Mitchell Hamline School of Law
THE CASE
PRO
PRS SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO
&-PRO
SE
CASE
BILLINGS
SELAW
LAW No. 35
22 of 58
Gustafson
PUBLISHEDet al.: Proby
Se Litigation
Stan J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone, Pro toSeJustice
PRO SE LITIGATION AND THE COSTS OF

ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Dan Gustafson, Karla Gluek, and Joe Bourne
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 32
II. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER SURVEY ......................................... 36
III. PRO SE PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW....................... 38
IV. EXAMPLES OF EXPERIENCES IN PRO SE PROJECT CASES ........... 44
A. Prisoner Civil Rights and Religious Freedom ........................ 44
B. Civil Rights and the Fourth Amendment ............................. 45
C. Due Process Rights in a Treatment Facility .......................... 47
D. Employment Discrimination ................................................ 48
V. STATISTICS ON PRO SE PROJECT CASES .................................... 48
VI. ASSESSING THE PRO SE PROJECTS EFFECTIVENESS AND
PROPOSED FUTURE STEPS ........................................................ 50
I. INTRODUCTION
Legal services are expensive to provide. Attorneys fees alone
are expensive: the average attorneys hourly billing rate in the
1
United States is $295. This rate may vary significantly depending
on a number of factors, including the attorneys experience level,
2
practice area, and legal market. In addition, out-of-pocket costs in
a litigation matter that proceeds to trial (such as filing fees, expert
Dan Gustafson and Karla Gluek are the founding members of Gustafson
Gluek PLLC. Joe Bourne is an associate attorney at Gustafson Gluek.
1. Debra Cassens Weiss, Are Female Lawyers Worth $50 an Hour Less than Men?
Average Billing Rates Show Gap, A.B.A. J. (Apr. 8, 2011, 1:16 PM),
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/average_lawyer_billing_rates_are_more
_than_20_percent_lower_for_women_than_/.
2. Leigh Jones, Rich Lawyers Are Getting Richer Faster, THOMSON REUTERS NEWS
& INSIGHT (Apr. 16, 2012), http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal
/News/2012/04_-_April/Rich_lawyers_are_getting_richer_faster/ (experience
level); Orin Kerr, Average Billing Rates Charged by Washington DC Lawyers, VOLOKH
CONSPIRACY (Sept. 10, 2010, 1:57 PM), http://www.volokh.com/2010/09
/10/average-billing-rates-charged-by-washington-dc-lawyers/ (legal market); id.
(practice area).
32
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
Access, LITIGANTS - CASEPage
2012 LAW No. 36
23 of 58
45 Friday September 1, 2017 1
William Mitchell
PUBLISHED byLaw Review,
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
Se4 and THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 33
witness fees, depositions, and travel expenses) may easily add up to

3
tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. While law firms
representing plaintiffs may sometimes use contingency fee
arrangements, in which the firm advances attorneys fees and costs
and recovers them only as part of any recovery by the client, this
4
places the risk on the firm. As a result, a firms decision whether
to represent a plaintiff on a contingency basis often depends on the
5
firms expectation that the case will pay. This can result in firms
being unwilling to take contingency caseseven when those cases
appear to have some meritif the firms anticipated investment in
6
the case is greater than its expected recovery. Meanwhile,
defendants generally cannot benefit from contingency fee
arrangements because they do not stand to recover from being
sued, even when their defenses are successful. Due to the high cost
of legal services in litigation matters, many litigants appear pro se.
In some instances, due process and other constitutional law,
statutes, or regulations may require that counsel be provided to
litigants who cannot afford counsel. For example, criminal
defendants are guaranteed the right to publicly funded trial
7
counsel when they cannot afford it, and that right continues on
8
direct appeal. Similarly, civil commitment respondents have the
statutory right to appointed counsel in civil commitment
9
proceedings. Although the United States Supreme Court has not
expressly decided the question, federal and state case law suggest
that due process should also guarantee the right to appointed
10
counsel in civil commitment proceedings. The Supreme Court
3. Court Costs and Attorney Fees: The Contingency Fee, HARRELL & HARRELL,
http://www.harrellandharrell.com/court-costs-and-attorney-fees.php (last visited
Oct. 17, 2012).
4. Id.
5. Why Do You Use Contingency Fees?, MCCLANAHAN MYERS ESPEY LLP,
http://www.mmellp.com/faqs/why-do-you-use-contingency-fees/ (last visited Oct.
17, 2012).
6. See id. ([Contingency fees] discourag[e] attorneys from presenting
claims that have negative value . . . .).
7. U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 34445
(1963).
8. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 (1985).
9. E.g., MINN. STAT. 253B.07, subdiv. 2c (2010).
10. See, e.g., Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 497 (1980); Heryford v. Parker, 396
F.2d 393, 396 (10th Cir. 1968); Jenkins v. Dir. of Va. Ctr. for Behavioral Rehab.,
624 S.E.2d 453, 460 (Va. 2006). But see Beaulieu v. Minn. Dept of Human Servs.,
798 N.W.2d 542, 549 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), review granted, No. A10-1350, 2011
Minn. LEXIS 459, at *1 (Minn. July 19, 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, we
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
SELAWLITIGANTS - CASEPage
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 LAW No. 37
24 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
34 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1
has long recognized that in our adversary system of criminal

justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a
lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for
11
him. The Court has also held that due process requires the
provision of court-appointed counsel to indigent parties in civil
matters in which their liberty is at stake for many of the same
reasons: even in informal proceedingsespecially when the
proceedings resemble an adversarial triala party will struggle to
make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the
proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to
12
prepare and submit it without the assistance of counsel.
There are some areas other than deprivation of physical liberty
when due process may require the appointment of counsel. These
13
include cases involving the termination of parental rights. In
other areas, such as civil rights cases, the legislature has provided
statutory attorneys fees, which are designed to encourage
contingency fee representation for plaintiffs with civil rights and
14
other kinds of claims.
But the need for the assistance of counsel holds true in civil
litigation more broadly, such as cases in which a partys monetary
claim or defense is at stake. Despite this need, there is no general
15
right to appointed counsel in civil litigation. A recent survey of
the chief judges of the U.S. district courts shows that common
problems civil pro se litigants face are pleadings that cannot be
understood, untimely or incomplete pleadings or submissions, lack
represent Mr. Beaulieu in litigation seeking to vindicate his right to the effective
assistance of counsel at all stages of civil commitment proceedings, including
direct appeal. We recently argued this issue in the Minnesota Supreme Court; the
court has not yet issued an opinion. See Beaulieu, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 459, at *1.
11. Gideon, 372 U.S. at 344.
12. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967) (finding right to appointed counsel in
non-criminal juvenile delinquency proceedings); see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411
U.S. 778, 787 (1973) (finding right to appointed counsel in some probation and
parole proceedings).
13. William L. Dick, Jr., Note, The Right to Appointed Counsel for Indigent Civil
Litigants: The Demands of Due Process, 30 WM. & MARY L. REV. 627, 63239 (1989)
(citing and discussing a mixed bag of cases in this area).
14. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) (2006).
15. See Lassiter v. Dept of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18,
2627 ([T]he Courts precedents speak with one voice about what fundamental
fairness has meant when the Court has considered the right to appointed counsel,
and we thus draw from them the presumption that an indigent litigant has a right
to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical
liberty.); Hughen v. Highland Estates, 48 P.3d 1238, 1240 (Idaho 2002); In re
Smiley, 330 N.E.2d 53, 5557 (N.Y. 1975).
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 38
25 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
of knowledge about legal decisions, failure to know when to object

to evidence, problems examining witnesses, problems with
16
discovery, and service errors. Additionally, settlement
17
conferences or mediations are less common in pro se cases. This
suggests that pro se litigants are likely to struggle to settleand
especially to successfully settletheir cases, especially when
considering that they may be unaware of the strengths and
weaknesses of their own and their adversaries cases, or that they
may be unable to adequately present those strengths and
weaknesses even if aware.
Although attorneys fees and litigation costs may preclude
many litigants from being able to afford counsel, some groups find
it especially difficult to obtain counsel on a fee-paying basis. In
18
2010, 15.1% of all persons in the United States lived in poverty.
The numbers are more stark for certain subgroups. For example,
27.4% of African Americans and 26.6% of Hispanics fall below the
poverty line, compared to 12.1% of Asians and 9.9% of non-
19
Hispanic whites. Similarly, 31.6% of households headed by single
women fall below the poverty line, compared to 15.8% of
households headed by single men and 6.2% of households headed
20
by married couples. And 26.7% of foreign-born noncitizens live
in poverty, compared to 19.9% of foreign-born residents overall
21
and 14.4% of residents born in the United States. In Minnesota,
10% of the white population falls below the poverty line, compared
to 48% of the black population and 35% of the Hispanic
22
population.
16. DONNA STIENSTRA ET AL., FED. JUDICIAL CTR., ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE

LITIGANTS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURTS: A REPORT ON SURVEYS OF CLERKS OF COURT AND
CHIEF JUDGES 23 (2011), available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup
/proseusdc.pdf/$file/proseusdc.pdf.
17. Id. at 21.
18. Poverty in the United States, NATL POVERTY CTR., U. MICH. GERALD R. FORD
SCH. PUB. POLY, http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty (last visited Oct. 17, 2012).
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity, States (20092010), U.S. (2010),
STATEHEALTHFACTS.ORG, http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14
&cat=1 (lasted visited Oct. 17, 2012).
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
26 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
II. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER SURVEY

The Federal Judicial Center for the Judicial Conference
Committee on Court Administration and Case Management
conducted a study that considered how the federal district courts
23
deal with pro se litigants. The study surveyed district court clerks
and district court chief judges about the impact of pro se litigants on
judges and chambers staff, the measures the judges have taken to
meet the demands of these cases, and the programs, services, and
24
materials the courts offer to assist both pro se litigants and staff.
The district courts have developed various measures to deal
with pro se litigants. A significant number of courts attempt to
provide counsel to pro se litigants in at least some circumstances,
whether through appointment for the full case or for limited
circumstances (such as mediation or trial), or through providing
25
access to pro bono representation. Of these courts, about half pay
for costs incurred, and about a quarter pay at least some attorneys
26
fees. A majority of courts have created a pro se law clerk position
27
to assist with pro se litigation. The most common survey responses
from clerks offices indicate that staffing arrangements and
providing information to pro se litigants are among the most
28
effective responses that the courts have taken. The information
provided is often similar to the resources offered by the District of
Minnesota through its Representing Yourself (Pro Se) webpage,
29
which is discussed in more detail below. From the perspective of
the clerks offices, the major issues posed by pro se litigation are the
lack of access to electronic filing and demands on court staff, with
30
the nature of the pleadings a close second. Clerks offices also
identify the increase in pro se filings, the volume of filings, frivolous
filings, difficult or unstable litigants, and the lack of counsel as
31
important issues.
The survey responses of the chief judges indicate that the
district courts have widely adopted a set of measures to deal with
23. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16.

24. Id. at v.
25. Id. at 4.
26. Id.
27. Id. at 1213.
28. Id. at 15.
29. See infra text accompanying notes 7779.
30. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16, at 19.
31. Id.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 40
27 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
pro se litigants. These include the use of broad standards in

construing pleadings and other submissions, appointment of
counsel when the merits of the case warrant it, the use of broad
standards in requiring compliance with deadlines, referring
pretrial matters to magistrate judges, and judges taking a more
active, personal role than in fully represented cases (such as by
32
providing more explanation about procedures). In the judges
opinions, the most effective procedures that help judges and
chambers staff are specially designated staff and assignment of
cases to pro se law clerks, as well as active management of pro se cases
(including giving clear, specific instructions in court orders and
33
ruling promptly on pro se matters). The most effective measures
used in chambers that help the pro se litigants are managerial
measures (including detailed instructions and standardized forms),
appointment of counsel, and liberal standards for construing
34
claims and for granting extensions of time.
The judges identified a number of issues presented by pro se
litigants. By far the most common issues presented for judges and
chambers staff were the poor quality of pleadings and submissions
and the pro se litigants lack of knowledge and skills to litigate their
35
cases. The next most common issues were frivolous cases, repeat
filers, a rising caseload, and the demand pro se cases place on the
36
courts. The most common problems for the litigants themselves
are unnecessary, illegible, or incomprehensible pleadings and
submissions; problems with responses to motions to dismiss or for
summary judgment; lack of knowledge about legal decisions or
other information that would help their cases; failure to know
when to object to testimony or evidence; failure to understand the
legal consequences of their actions; failure to timely file pleadings
or other submissions; problems examining witnesses; problems with
37
discovery; and problems with service of process.
The last group of issues is distinctly an access to justice
problem. A sizeable majority of judges reported that there are
38
potentially meritorious claims in at least the occasional pro se case.
Problems with the quality of the pleadingsincluding the filing of
32. Id. at 30.

33. Id. at 31.
34. Id. at 3334.
35. Id. at 35.
36. Id.
37. Id. at 2123.
38. Id. at 21.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
28 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
numerous unnecessary materialscan create a risk that the judge

39
might miss meritorious claims. Failure to adequately gather and
present evidence or to object to improper evidence can hamper a
litigants ability to tell his or her story effectively to the fact-finder.
Perhaps for this reason, the judges consistently indicated that there
40
is a great need for counsel at trial. They also consistently
indicated that there is a great or moderate need for counsel in
the preparation of dispositive motions, preparation of answers to
an opponents filings, participation in settlement negotiations,
preparation of initial pleadings, participation at hearings, and
41
preparation and execution of discovery. Viewed as a whole, the
judges responses suggest that both substantive and procedural
42
problems are common in pro se cases. All of these implicate the
need for counsel. In an adversarial system such as ours, when only
one party is represented by counsel, the pro se party is at a severe
disadvantageeven when the pro se party has potentially
meritorious claims or defenses.
III. PRO SE PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Court rulesincluding rules of procedure, local rules, and
rules of evidencecan be tricky. These difficulties are
compounded for pro se litigants, who are often relatively
unsophisticated, lack resources, and lack training and experience
in the law. At the same time, the federal courts are increasingly
43
busy. Locally, the District of Minnesota has been one of the
busiest districts in the country; it had the eighteenth highest
weighted caseload per judge in the country in the year ending
September 30, 2011, and in each of the five previous years it
finished in the top seven districts in the country as measured by
44
weighted filings per judge. It is also the busiest district in the
39. Id. at viii.

40. Id. at 26.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. See Caseload Statistics Archive, U.S. CTS., http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics
/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics_Archive.aspx
(last visited Oct. 17, 2012) (showing more civil cases filed in U.S. District Courts in
2011 than in any preceding year dating back to 2001; same for 2010).
44. Kirstin Kanski, District of Minnesota is Fifth Busiest District in the Country,
MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Mar. 28, 2012, at 1, available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Bar
-Talk-March-2012.pdf; Federal Court Management Statistics: September 2011, U.S. CTS.,
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 42
29 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
45
Eighth Circuit. Each judges weighted caseload is over 600, which
is 20% higher than the national average of about 500 weighted
cases per judge and far exceeds the 430 weighted cases threshold,
which is a key factor in determining when additional judicial
46
resources may be needed. Busy courts and heavy caseloads have a
47
cost to the court system and to taxpayers who fund the courts.
And pro se cases, in particular, require extra time and attention
48
from the courts (both judges and staff). The District of
Minnesota has seen about 100 to 200 civil, nonprisoner pro se cases
49
each year.
The Minnesota Federal Pro Se Project (Pro Se Project) was
founded on May 1, 2009, as a joint initiative by the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Chapter of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) after Chief Judge
Michael J. Davis approached the Minnesota Chapter of the FBA in
the summer of 2008 to initiate discussions about how to provide pro
50
bono representation to pro se litigants. At its core, the Pro Se Project
51
is about access to justice. The Pro Se Project is designed to help
address both of these issues: the disadvantage and difficulties pro se
litigants face in our adversarial system, and the strain on the courts.
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics
/DistrictCourtsSep2011.aspx (last visited Oct. 17, 2012).
45. Kanski, supra note 44, at 1.
46. Id.
47. These issues can cause delay in processing cases, require funding of
additional judges and staff in order to process the cases, or both. See, e.g., ADMIN.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CASELOAD: RECENT TRENDS 13 (2001),
available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics
/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2001/20015yr.pdf (discussing creation of
additional judgeships).
48. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16, at 37.
49. Lora Friedemann, Get Involved in the FBA Pro Se Project, MINN. CHAPTER
FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Oct. 21, 2009, at 1, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/October-2009.pdf (estimating
100 to 150 cases per year). In 2011, the number of civil, nonprisoner pro se cases
filed was 201. Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, 2011 Civil Cases 2 (Aug.
20, 2012) (on file with authors).
50. Molly Borg, The Pro Se Projects Invaluable Assistance to the Court, MINN.
CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Oct. 21, 2009, at 4, available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk
/October-2009.pdf; Friedemann, supra note 49, at 1.
51. See generally U.S. DIST. COURT, DIST. OF MINN. & FED. BAR ASSN, MINN.
CHAPTER, PRO SE PROJECT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 (2011)
[hereinafter PRO SE PROJECT], available at http://www.fedbar.org
/proseproject2011.pdf.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
30 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
The Pro Se Project has four enumerated goals:

Provide every civil pro se litigant in the District of Minnesota
the opportunity to consult with counsel and, where
appropriate, to be represented by counsel;
Improve access to justice in the Minnesota District Court;
Decrease the number of civil pro se litigants in the District; and
Communicate effectively with the Court regarding the status of
52
cases referred to the project.
Ideally, the Pro Se Project would enable every civil litigant to be
represented by counsel, even when those litigants cannot afford
counsel.
The Pro Se Projects process begins after a pro se plaintiff files a
case or a pro se defendant makes an appearance in the District of
53
Minnesota. Initially, the court must refer the pro se litigant to the
Project, which occurs by the court writing a letter to the pro se
litigant advising her that she should contact the Pro Se Project
Coordinator if she would like to arrange a consultation with a
54
volunteer attorney. There are no fixed, formal criteria for
determining whether or when the court should refer the case to
the Pro Se Project. Instead, the court makes this determination on a
case-by-case basis. The court may consider any factor that is
appropriate in a given case, including whether pairing the pro se
litigant with a volunteer attorney will aid the court in processing
the case, whether the pro se litigant appears to complain of a
genuine injury (even if the claim would not ultimately have legal
merit), whether an attorney could help the party understand his or
her options, whether a political agenda is apparent from the
55
pleadings, and whether the litigant is a so-called frequent filer.
Another issue that may influence the timing of a referral is when
the court first has personal interaction with the party, such as at a
pretrial scheduling conference before the magistrate judge or at a
motion hearing (which could be before either the magistrate judge
52. Id. at 3.
53. Id.
54. Id.
55. Parties who have developed reputations for bringing numerous, typically
meritless claims are often referred to as frequent filers, and their cases are
sometimes viewed skeptically. See Michael C. Dorf, How Should Courts Handle
Frequent Filers? A Trampling Incident at a Florida Wal-Mart Highlights a Dilemma,
FINDLAW (Dec. 10, 2003), http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20031210.html.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 44
31 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
or district judge, although the magistrate judge is involved earlier

in the case).
After the court refers the pro se litigant to the Pro Se Project, if
the party contacts the Pro Se Project Coordinator, the Coordinator
contacts a law firm or lawyer and requests a consultation with the
pro se litigant (the referral is made, in part, based on the attorneys
56
practice area). After conducting a conflicts check, determining
that no conflict exists, and agreeing to accept the referral, the
attorney informs the Coordinator and arranges a meeting with the
57
litigant for a consultation and case evaluation.
The volunteer attorney then meets the pro se client and
discusses the case, reviews the case file, researches issues as
58
necessary, and performs an initial case analysis. Depending on
whether the attorney believes the pro se client has a viable claim or
defense, the attorney and client may take one of two paths. If the
attorney does not believe the client has a viable claim or defense,
the attorney advises the client of this conclusion and of his or her
59
options. The attorney may seek the assistance of a volunteer
60
mediator if the pro se client wishes to proceed in the matter. If, on
the other hand, the attorney believes the client has a viable claim
or defense, the attorney may enter an appearance and pursue the
viable claims or defenses (either by providing full representation or
61
entering a special appearance). The attorney also has the option
62
to decline to provide further service to the client. At this stage,
the attorney informs the Pro Se Project Coordinator whether
additional service will be provided to the client, and if not, whether
63
he recommends referring the case to another volunteer attorney.
Ideally, the pro se clients claims will have merit, the attorney will
agree to represent the client, and together they will resolve the
matter through the litigation process (whether in court, out of
court, or both).
The Pro Se Project has a fees, costs, and expenses policy that
comes into play after the initial case consultation and the pro se
client retains the attorneys services. As a general rule, the party is
56. PRO SE PROJECT, supra note 51, at 3.

57. Id.
58. Id. at 4.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id.
62. Id.
63. See id.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
32 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
64
required to pay the costs and expenses actually incurred. Of
course, a pro se litigant may be indigent and unable to afford
reimbursing costs and expenses. In that instance, several options
must be explored. The attorney should seek to limit costs as much
as possible, including by trying to obtain free services from
65
professionals and process servers. Some legal services programs
already have existing arrangements with programs that provide
these free services, such as pro bono court reporting services for
66
indigent litigants. If the court has not issued a scheduling order,
the attorney should also seek to limit costs by requesting an early
settlement conference with the magistrate judge or by requesting
67
limits on discovery. Costs may be reimbursed from an attorneys
68
fees award. When costs and expenses must be incurred and the
client is indigent and cannot afford them, [t]he FBA will endeavor
to pay costs and expenses actually incurred for incidentals that are
69
not reimbursed. The Pro Se Project does not guarantee that the
FBA will reimburse, or will be able to reimburse, out-of-pocket costs
and expenses actually incurred; it guarantees only that the FBA will
70
[r]eview and consider[] them. In fact, due to a number of
factors (including the generosity of Pro Se Project participants), the
Pro Se Projects cost-reimbursement policy has never been tested.
As a result, even the Pro Se Project Coordinator does not know how
reimbursement will work in practice when a request is made.
The Pro Se Project has taken other steps to encourage and
71
facilitate participation. In 2010, the Project sought and obtained
designation from the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal
72
Education as an approved legal services provider. As a result,
64. Id. at 5.
65. See id.
66. For example, the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and
Captioners has a Pro Bono Committee that provides guidelines to and works with
the Minnesota State Bar Association and other organizations to provide pro bono
court reporting services to indigent litigants. See About Us: Committees, MINN. ASSN
VERBATIM REPS. & CAPTIONERS, http://www.mavrc.org/about/committees.php (last
visited Oct. 17, 2012).
67. PRO SE PROJECT, supra note 51, at 5.
68. See id.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. See id. at 6.
72. Tiffany Sanders, Chief Judge Davis Recognizes Volunteers, Firms and Court
Personnel for Contributions to Pro Se Project, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK,
Dec. 15, 2010, at 1, available at http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters
/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/December-2010.pdf.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 46
33 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
attorneys participating in the Pro Se Project may now obtain

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit for time spent on pro
73
bono representation undertaken through the Pro Se Project. This
may encourage attorneys to participate in the Project because CLE
requirements are mandatory for Minnesota lawyers. In 2011, the
Pro Se Project began working with the Minnesota Justice
74
Foundation (MJF). Law students participating through MJF
may volunteer to work with attorneys on their cases referred by the
75
Pro Se Project. This creates legal experiences for law students who
can provide additional resources to Pro Se Project cases and is
intended to encourage attorneys to participate in the Project by
76
providing them with law clerks to help with those cases.
The District of Minnesota has also taken steps outside of the
Pro Se Project to facilitate pro se litigation. These steps are intended
to assist pro se parties in litigating their cases and enhance the
efficiency of the cases as they proceed through court. The District
of Minnesota launched a Representing Yourself (Pro Se) webpage
77
in December of 2009. The Representing Yourself (Pro Se)
webpage contains answers to frequently asked questions, a pro se
civil guidebook, information sheets, forms, case initiation
assistance, a glossary of legal terms, the federal rules, the local
rules, resources for finding an attorney and for legal research,
specific information tailored to prisoner litigants, and contact
78
information for the clerks office and for electronic case filing. As
the Honorable Franklin L. Noel aptly put it, this effort helps pro se
73. Attorneys may receive one hour of CLE credit for every six hours of pro
bono representation provided through an approved legal services provider, such as
the Pro Se Project, with a maximum of six hours total per reporting period. See
RULES OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BD. OF CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC. R. 6(D) (Minn.
State Bd. of CLE 2010), available at http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us/MBCLE/pages
/user_documents/CLE%20RULES%202-2010.pdf.
74. See Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Update, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Mar. 16, 2011, at 9, available at http://fedbar.org/Image-Library
/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/March-2011.pdf.
75. See id.
76. See id.
77. Clerks Corner: New Help for Pro Se Litigants, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Dec. 21, 2009, at 11, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Winter-2009.pdf.
78. Representing Yourself (Pro Se), U.S. DIST. CT. DIST. MINN.,
http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Pro-Se.shtml (last visited Oct. 17, 2012).
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
34 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
litigants get their foot in the courthouse door, and, once there,
the Pro Se Project can continue to assist those who would benefit
79
from meeting with an attorney.
IV. EXAMPLES OF EXPERIENCES IN PRO SE PROJECT CASES

The following are a few sample cases in which counsel was
appointed to represent pro se litigants either through the Pro Se
Project or through referrals by federal judges before the Project
came into existence. This is far from an exhaustive list of cases in
which the Pro Se Project has found counsel to represent a pro se
litigant. Instead, they are examples that illustrate different areas in
which the Project operates and some strengths and weaknesses of
this system to date.
A. Prisoner Civil Rights and Religious Freedom

A state prisoner filed multiple amended complaints and
conducted significant motion practice while proceeding pro se,
raising claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
80
Persons Act (RLUIPA) and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation
81
of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He alleged
numerous claims that prison policies unlawfully infringed his right
to practice Islam, only one of which survived summary judgment:
that the prison failed to provide halal meals, thereby causing him
82
to consume food in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
In its order denying summary judgment with respect to that
claim (and granting summary judgment with respect to the others),
83
the district court referred the plaintiff to the Pro Se Project. The
referral specifically contemplated representation limited to
assisting Plaintiff in reaching a settlement of his claim or
continuing with an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual issues,
84
which remain regarding the provision of halal meals. The Pro Se
Project Coordinator referred the matter to a volunteer lawyer; the
79. Tricia Pepin, More Help for Pro Se Litigants, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Mar. 17, 2010, at 8, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/March-2010.pdf.
80. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a)(b)(2) (2006).
81. Jihad v. Fabian, Civ. No. 09-CV-01604 (SRN/LIB), 2011 WL 1641767,
at *1 (D. Minn. May 2, 2011).
82. Id. at *1.
83. Id. at *10.
84. Id.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 48
35 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
lawyer entered an appearance and was able to help negotiate a

settlement that provided that the Minnesota Department of
Corrections would make clearly designated halal-certified food
available at the prison during all regularly scheduled meals.
Although it is impossible to say for certain what the result
would have been without attorney involvement, after the referral
from the Pro Se Project, the plaintiff was able to settle his RLUIPA
and First Amendment religious freedom claims and make a change
that may more broadly help Muslims in Minnesota correctional
facilities exercise their religious beliefs. The limited scope of
representation contemplated by the court enabled counsel to focus
on the claim with merit and to settle it. The court did not have to
deal with filings relating to any claims that were without merit, and
ultimately the settlement meant that an evidentiary hearing did not
need to be held. The volunteer attorney also benefited by gaining
experienceincluding primary responsibility for negotiating a
settlement and appearing at two settlement conferencesthat an
associate could otherwise struggle to get. The limited scope of
representation also assured that counsel did not risk taking on
more than bargained for. Limited representation can be a useful
tool to encourage counsel to volunteer to take on cases through
the Pro Se Project, and the ability of firms to get involved in a
limited way means that more pro se litigants should have the
opportunity to receive representation.
B. Civil Rights and the Fourth Amendment

One pro se plaintiff brought a 1983 action against a number
of peace officers, who were members of a drug task force, and
85
against other governmental defendants. The plaintiff alleged
violations of various constitutional rights centered on a search of
86
two stores he owned. Members of the task force searched the
plaintiffs stores and his residence pursuant to search warrants; the
search warrants were later determined to lack probable cause with
87
respect to his businesses. The district court granted the
defendants motions for summary judgment, except regarding the
85. Kind v. Nw. Metro. Drug Task Force, Civ. No. 09-1265 (JSM) (D. Minn.
Mar. 31, 2011) (order granting summary judgment in part and denying summary
judgment in part).
86. Id.
87. Id.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
36 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
claim that the searches of the stores, which caused a mess and
88
damaged his property, were executed unreasonably.
The plaintiff litigated his case pro se for more than two years
before the case was referred to the Pro Se Project, which found
volunteer lawyers to enter appearances on the eve of trial.
Following additional discovery and pretrial motion practice, the
volunteer lawyers tried the case to a jury, which ultimately reached
a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The volunteer
lawyers benefitted from their involvement in this case. Multiple
attorneys received valuable experience, including various firsts,
such as being first chair at trial, examining witnesses at trial, taking
a deposition, and arguing pretrial motions. The plaintiff and the
court also benefitted from the lawyers involvement in the case.
Trial is the most difficult part of the adversarial process for a pro se
litigant to navigate, and the assistance of counsel resulted in the
skillful presentation of evidence by attorneys who understood the
legal claims and defenses at issue. In other words, the plaintiff had
a fair chance, which is all that a party can ask for, and which a court
is supposed to ensure (although there is potential tension with the
courts neutrality, which the court must maintain).
This case also highlights some of the difficult aspects of the Pro
Se Project. This was not a frivolous or meritless caseit had
enough merit to survive two years of litigation while the plaintiff
proceeded pro se, and there was enough evidence supporting the
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim to withstand summary
judgment. It is fair to say that the plaintiff was disadvantaged in the
discovery and pretrial litigation process because he lacked counsel
until shortly before trial. Had he been represented from the start,
the case may have been more likely to settle. Litigation of difficult
issues is always uncertain, and when parties reach settlement
agreements, more parties can be satisfied with the result. This type
of case can pose a dilemma for the Pro Se Project because it
requires a significant commitment on the part of the volunteer
89
lawyer. Additionally, the volunteer attorney may be brought in
after the close of discovery or rulings on significant motions and
therefore may be limited in the evidence or legal arguments that
may be available.
88. Id.
89. By contrast, Rule 6.1 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct sets
an aspirational goal for each lawyer to provide fifty hours of pro bono legal services
per year. MINN. RULES OF PROFL CONDUCT R. 6.1 (2005).
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 50
37 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
C. Due Process Rights in a Treatment Facility

A civilly committed sex offender filed a pro se civil rights suit
alleging that staff members at the treatment facility to which he was
committed lied by reporting that he threatened staff members in
order to get the patient sent back to jail, in violation of his due
90
process rights. At the request of a federal judge, volunteer lawyers
agreed to represent the plaintiff, and they represented him from
91
February 2008 through a jury trial in June 2010. The jury awarded
the plaintiff both compensatory and punitive damages, and the
court ultimately entered an order requiring the state to change its
92
policies. Counsel sought attorneys fees as the prevailing party in
93
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). The court
approved the firms request for over $370,000 in attorneys fees,
94
representing over 1200 attorney and staff hours, portions of which
were donated to the Pro Se Project and to the Volunteer Lawyers
Network.
This case is an example of pro bono attorneys facilitating access
to justice by providing legal representation to a pro se litigant who
otherwise could not afford it. In the case, the firm was
compensated for its time. But the case also raises some difficulties.
Although attorneys fees are available in civil rights cases, they are
not available in all categories of cases. And many cases may involve
complex litigation issues, but do not offer the prospect of a large
enough damages award to make a contingency fee retention
sensible from a cost perspective. Finally, cases that are tried to
juries frequently could go either way, and firms may flinch at the
prospect of volunteering hundreds of thousands of dollars worth
of attorney and firm time that could be spent on fee-paying billable
matters.
90. Holly v. Anderson, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN), 2008 WL 1773093, at *3

(D. Minn. Apr. 15, 2008).
91. Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees at 1, Holly v. Konieska,
No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2010), ECF No. 249.
92. Id.
93. Id.
94. Holly v. Konieska, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2010)
(order granting plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees); Affidavit of Mark G.
Schroeder at 2, Holly v. Konieska, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 16,
2010), ECF No. 250.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
38 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
D. Employment Discrimination
A pro se plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint
against her former employer, alleging that she was terminated
because of her race and in retaliation for complaining about being
95
mistreated by her colleagues. Before the case was referred to the
Pro Se Project, the plaintiff tried but was unable to find a lawyer to
represent her on a contingency basis. After referral, a volunteer
attorney entered an appearance on her behalf; this occurred
before the first status conference and before any dispositive
motions were filed. The parties began the discovery process,
including interrogatories and production of documents, and
depositions were taken of the plaintiff and of her immediate
supervisor. They ultimately reached an agreement to settle the
matter at a settlement conference, which successfully resolved the
plaintiffs claims without the delay and uncertainty of further
litigation and relieved the court of the burden of presiding over
any further proceedings or motion practice.
The volunteer attorney was able to develop important
litigation skills by taking and defending depositions and
conducting discovery and settlement negotiations. The main
difficulty presented by this case related to costs. The pro se litigant
was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status by the court because of
her financial status, which meant the court would waive filing fees
but not remove all costs of litigation. The plaintiff was able to
obtain pro bono court reporting services for the deposition of her
supervisor, but it only covered up to two hours and seventy-five
pages. The deposition required more time than that, and how the
Pro Se Projects reimbursement policy will operate in regard to the
volunteer lawyers request for reimbursement remains to be seen.
V. STATISTICS ON PRO SE PROJECT CASES

We have access to statistics concerning the Pro Se Project for
three time periods: May 2009 through December 2011; the year of
96
2011; and January through April 2012. These statistics
95. Complaint at 1014, Triplett v. Essentia Health, No. 11-2545 RHK/LIB

(D. Minn. Sept. 6, 2011).
96. Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Plans 2nd Annual Pro Se/Pro Bono Bar
Summit and Expands Outreach Efforts, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Mar.
28, 2012, at 15 [hereinafter 2nd Annual Bar Summit], available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Bar
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 52
39 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
demonstrate a few trends. First, there is a great need for counsel in

pro se cases. Many pro se litigants are poor and received IFP status.
For example, between May 2009 and December 2011, the District
97
Court of Minnesota referred 207 cases to the Pro Se Project. Of
98
those cases, 152 pro se litigants applied for IFP status (73%).
Excluding the twenty-eight cases that were dismissed prior to an
IFP determination, the court granted IFP status in 112 of the 124
99
remaining cases (90%). Not only can these litigants not afford
counsel, but it is clear that they want counsel. For example, in
2011, the court referred eighty-three cases to the Pro Se Project, and
sixty-six of those pro se litigants sought to participate in the Project
100
(80%).
Second, certain types of cases are the most common. Of the
eighty-three cases referred to the Pro Se Project in 2011, thirty-seven
were employment discrimination cases (almost 45%), thirteen were
civil rights cases (16%), thirteen were social security disability
insurance cases (16%), and the remaining twenty involved a mix of
contract, consumer credit, ERISA, trademark, habeas corpus,
101
immigration, personal injury and other claims (24%). Civil rights
and employment matters are the overriding themes in the other
102
years as well. The need for representation in these areas is
particularly high, as employment, discrimination, and civil rights
often involve complicated legal and factual issues.
Finally, the data suggest that the Pro Se Project is workingand
improvingbut there may still be work to do. The fact that all of
the pro se litigants in 2011 who sought to participate were able to
consult with volunteer attorneys is an important success for the
Project and for those litigants. But the number of referrals and
-Talk-March-2012.pdf; Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, 2012 Referrals

(Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter 2012 Referrals] (on file with authors); Tiffany
Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, IFP and Representation Status of Referrals:
May 2009December 2011 (Feb. 7, 2012) [hereinafter IFP and Representation
Status of Referrals] (on file with authors); Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project
Coordinator, Referrals by Law Firms: May 2009December 2011 (Apr. 2, 2012)
(on file with authors); Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, Referrals by
Nature of Suit: May 2009December 2011 (Jan. 25, 2012) [hereinafter Referrals by
Nature of Suit] (on file with authors).
97. IFP and Representation Status of Referrals, supra note 96.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. 2nd Annual Bar Summit, supra note 96.
101. Id.
102. See 2012 Referrals, supra note 96; Referrals by Nature of Suit, supra
note 96.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
40 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
consultations significantly outpaces the number of times that

attorneys entered notices of appearance. In the 20092011 time
period, an attorney entered an appearance in eighty-one of the 207
103
cases (39%). In 2011, an attorney entered an appearance in
thirty-three of the sixty-six cases in which the pro se litigant
104
consulted with a volunteer attorney (50%). The increase in
appearances is a positive trend. It is likely that in some of these
cases in which an attorney did not enter an appearance, the
consultation revealed that the case lacked merit, and the pro se
litigant agreed with the attorney that voluntary dismissal was in his
or her best interests. It is possible that in some of those cases, the
attorney was able to help the litigant negotiate a settlement before
it became necessary to enter an appearance. But 50% is still a
significant number, and it suggests that in some cases, pro se
litigants who wanted and may have been best served by the
representation of counsel were not represented in court. Clearly,
there remains work to be done.
VI. ASSESSING THE PRO SE PROJECTS EFFECTIVENESS AND

PROPOSED FUTURE STEPS
In many ways, the Pro Se Project is off to a successful start. Pro
se litigants who wish to participate in the Project are able to consult
with volunteer attorneys about their cases, and even if
representation does not go beyond that point, there is real value in
meeting with an attorney and discussing the case. The Pro Se
Projects partnership with MJF and work with the bar to allow
participating attorneys to obtain free CLE credit provide useful
incentives to participate in the Project. And the District of
Minnesotas parallel project, the Representing Yourself (Pro Se)
webpage, which provides more information and access to services
for pro se litigants, has helped pro se litigants navigate the court
system on their own and get to the point where they can receive
assistance from the Pro Se Project.
However, providing counsel to pro se litigants who cannot
afford it is an ongoing struggle, and there is work to be done. Not
all pro se litigants who have participated in the Pro Se Project have
had attorneys enter notices of appearance on their behalf.
Additionally, pro se litigants may receive counsel through the
103. IFP and Representation Status of Referrals, supra note 96.

104. 2nd Annual Bar Summit, supra note 96.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 54
41 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
Project at various stages of litigation. Thus, even participating pro se

litigants may be at a disadvantage at critical stages of the adversarial
process. The availability of more lawyers to participate in the Pro Se
Project could certainly help make it easier for pro se litigants to be
represented by counsel and represented earlier in litigation.
Earlier involvement could help resolve cases more quickly and
provide more focused submissions, reducing the burden on the
courts and potentially saving the government money. One place to
start to encourage attorney participation may be to implement a
firmer costs policy. With an untested, discretionary costs policy,
attorneys and their firms cannot know if reasonable costs and
expenses that they incur will be reimbursed.
Another area in which the Pro Se Project could benefit is from
tracking and gathering or obtaining access to more quantitative
information. There are unresolved questions. Why are some cases
not resulting in attorneys entering appearances? Is there an
optimal ratio of attorney appearances to consultations? Does the
court clear cases faster when attorneys become involved through
the Pro Se Project? Are they more likely to settle? Do they take up
more or less court time? Do the pro se litigants receive better
outcomes? Are attorneys getting involved early enough in the
process? Although some of this information is subject to the
attorney-client privilege and is therefore impossible to track, any
additional information can only strengthen the ability to evaluate
the Pro Se Projects effectiveness and areas for improvement.
Although the Pro Se Project is an FBA and District of
Minnesota project, it has achieved tangible results and positive
outcomes, and lessons can be learned that can benefit state courts
as well as other jurisdictions. At the same time, the Pro Se Project
needs to continue to assess its successes and failures and strive to
improve. The Pro Se Project is made possible through the collective
efforts of the FBA and its members (as well as the efforts of the
court). All of us, as members of the Minnesota bar, have an
obligation to give back to the community and try to ensure that all
residents (especially the poor and underserved) have access to
justice and can effectively participate in the court system to
vindicate their rights; we all should keep that in mind and evaluate
whether there is something more or different that we can do.
Specifically in regard to the Pro Se Project, we propose a public
funding mechanism that would guarantee reimbursement of costs.
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
42 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
There are various possibilities that relate to improving access

to representation for pro se litigants in federal court. One option
would be to impose a mandatory system. Members of the
Minnesota bar are currently required to report at least forty-five
CLE hours over each three-year reporting period, at least three
hours of which must be in ethics or professional responsibility and
at least three hours of which must be in elimination of bias in the
105
legal system and in the practice of law. They are also encouraged
106
to provide at least fifty hours of pro bono legal service each year.
Members of the bar could instead be required to provide a certain
number of hours of pro bono legal services. Like the ethics and bias
CLE requirements, there could even be a smaller subset of hours
pertaining specifically to assisting pro se litigants. These
requirements could apply each year, each three-year reporting
period, or to any other time period. For example, New York is
implementing a system in which new attorneys must provide fifty
107
hours of pro bono service before joining the state bar.
However, we have concerns about a mandatory system in this
area. Attorneys could be forced to practice outside of their
practice areas, including areas in which they are not comfortable.
108
This could result in reduced quality of service. The quality of
service may also be worse under a mandatory system because
volunteer attorneys are more likely to be enthusiastic about those
matters than attorneys who feel that they have been conscripted
109
into service. Mandatory pro bono service would also work a
disproportionate hardship on solo practitioners, who do not have
the same kind of excess capacity or the ability to spread the effect
110
of providing pro bono services over a large number of lawyers.
Under a mandatory system, attorney participants would include
105. RULES OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BD. OF CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC. R. 9

(A)(B) (Minn. State Bd. of CLE 2010), available at http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us
/MBCLE/pages/user_documents/CLE%20RULES%202-2010.pdf.
106. MINN. RULES OF PROFL CONDUCT R. 6.1 (2005).
107. Anne Barnard, Top Judge Makes Free Legal Work Mandatory for Joining State
Bar, N.Y. TIMES, May 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion
/new-lawyers-in-new-york-to-be-required-to-do-some-work-free.html?smid=pl-share.
108. Kendra Emi Nitta, An Ethical Evaluation of Mandatory Pro Bono, 29 LOY. L.A.
L. REV. 909, 92729 (1996) (discussing the concern for lower quality of services
provided in a mandatory pro bono system).
109. Id.; see also Barnard, supra note 107 (I worry about poor people with
lawyers who dont want to be there.).
110. Jonathan R. Macey, Mandatory Pro Bono: Comfort for the Poor or Welfare for the
Rich?, 77 CORNELL L. REV. 1116, 1120 (1992).
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 56
43 of 58
William Mitchell
Stan J. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone, ProArt.
senior litigators, who would not reap the same kinds of experience
benefits as younger lawyers.
We think the better course is to continue to use volunteer
attorneys, but to publicly fund and guarantee reimbursement of
their out-of-pocket costs. Softer incentives are already in place to
convince attorneys to volunteer their time. The availability of CLE
credit to attorneys participating in the Pro Se Project is one such
incentive. A second is the public good that comes from assisting
people and resolving these disputes. Federal judges and the FBA
consistently recognize the efforts of volunteer attorneys in Pro Se
Project cases and the effects these efforts have on access to justice.
Finally, participation in the Pro Se Project provides lawyers with
experience that they may otherwise struggle to obtain early in their
careers. All volunteer lawyers interact with the pro se clients, and
the client contact allows the lawyers to develop their skills in that
area. Depending on the case, the attorneys may also conduct
discovery, submit and argue motions, take and defend depositions,
negotiate a settlement with opposing counsel, or even try the case
to a jury or the court. Gaining this experience is a real benefit to
young lawyers careers, as it helps them become better lawyers; in
the same way, it helps their law firms by making them more
valuable assets.
Public funding of costs would be an important compromise
with real financial benefits to the system. It is one thing for a
lawyer or law firm to volunteer time, but it is another to ask them to
pay money out of pocket. Public funding and a firm costs
reimbursement policy will remove the disincentive to participate
that the prospect of out-of-pocket expenses creates. With that out
of the way, the incentives discussed above will weigh even more
strongly in favor of attorney participation in the Pro Se Project.
Although this is an important issue concerning access to justice that
independently justifies public funding of costs reimbursement, it is
also possible that some of the funding may be recaptured through
savings. As pro se litigants receive the assistance of counsel, the
special demands and burdens that pro se litigants place on the court
should be lessened. It is worth noting that these costs are likely
self-controllingeven with reimbursable costs, attorneys are
unlikely to devote uncompensated time to a matter when it will not
benefit the clients caseand they could easily be further
contained through a reasonableness review as part of the
reimbursement process. At the same time, because funding
PRO CASE
PRS
THE SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR PRO &-PRO
SE
CASE BILLINGS
44 of 58
Gustafson
Se Litigation
attorneys fees does not appear to be necessary, this is a fair

compromise that will limit the financial burden in publicly funding
the Pro Se Project.
PROby
PRS
THE
Published CASE
SE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
Mitchell PRO
Hamline &-PRO
SE
CASE
Open BILLINGS
SELAW
2012 LAW No. 58
45 of 58
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP STATEMENT
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES Statement Date

February 28, 2017
TO SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
______________________ Customer ID: 0008
______________________
Advanced Media Group
$877,348.71 1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Mark Hough, State Farm Agent
14 South Broad Street, No. 14
Lititz, PA 17543
Policy Number -38-EJ-8579-2

Lancaster City Police Incident Report No. 0711-22799
Date Date Due Reference Description Amount Balance
02/01/2009 02/01/2009 FC Invoice of February 1, 2009 $ 4,202.87 $ 4,202.87

Claim for Loss at 1250
Fremont Street
03/01/2009 03/01/2009 FC Finance Charge $35.02 $ 4,237.89
04/01/2009 04/01/2009 FC Finance Charge $35.02 $ 4,272.92
05/01/2009 05/01/2009 UD Updated Claim $ 6,911.87 $ 6,911.87
06/01/2009 06/01/2009 FC Finance Charge $ 57.60 $ 6,969.47
08/01/2009 08/01/2009 FC Finance Charge $ 57.60 $ 7084.67

11/01/2009 11/01/2009 FC Finance Charge $ 57.60 $7,257.47
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $3,052.18 $10,482.45
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $157.22 $10,639.68
TOTAL DUE: $10,639.68
FINANCE CHARGE IS AN ANNUALIZED RATE OF 6% COMPOUNDED MONTHLY
17-10615REF UPDATED ACCOUNTS RECIEVABLES

Pages 3 of 78 Saturday April 1, 2017
STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0007

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Lancaster County Treasurer
Lancaster County Courthouse
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $ 143.97 $ 494.46
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $ 7.41 $ 501.87
TOTAL DUE: $ 501.87

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0006

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Harlleysville Insurance Company
P.O. Box 198
Harleysville, PA 19438-9919
Claim No.'s: MD-702274 Phone: 888.595.9876

MO-658554-U XC Fax: 888.492.8954
MO-6546~9-U XC E-mail: MA@harleysvillegroup.com
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $ 6,738.57 $23,143.04
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $ 347.15 $23,490.18
TOTAL DUE: $23,490.18

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0005

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Drew Anthon, Owner
Eden Resort Inn
222 Eden Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Case No. CI-05-03644 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $ 687.35 $ 46,510.98
TOTAL DUE: $ 46,510.98

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0003

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
High Industries
1833 William Penn Way
Greenfield Industrial Park
Lancaster, PA 17601
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $ 8,535.22 $ 29,313.48
TOTAL DUE: $ 29,753.18

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0004

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Fulton Bank of Fulton Financial Corporation
Accounts Payable
One Penn Square
Lancaster, PA 17602
220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA

Foreclosure Overcharge Case No. CI-07-00019 and Case No. CI-06-02271
TOTAL DUE: $130,569.89

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0004

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Lancaster County Sheriff
Lancaster County Sheriffs Department
50 North Duke Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

Foreclosure Overcharge
TOTAL DUE: $130,569.89

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0004

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Shawn Long, Esq.,
Barley Snyder, LLC
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602

Foreclosure Overcharge
TOTAL DUE: $130,569.89

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0001

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
S.N. Lombardo Development Company
c/o Benecon Insurance Company
3175 Oregon Pike
Leola, PA 17540
626 Charlotte Street Development Proposal

TOTAL DUE: $ 3,711.75

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0009

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Pfumm Contractors, Inc.,
58 South Duke Street
Millersville, PA 17551
Town and Country Lease of February 31, 1998

05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Outstanding Payments $ 14,000.00 $ 14,000.00

for Town & Country Lease
Executed on February 31, 1998
For 1994 Ford Explorer as
Per Agreement. See Attached
Exhibits.
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,116.67
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,233.34
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,350.01
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,466.68
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,466.68
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,700.02
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,816.69
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,933.36
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 15,050.03
TOTAL DUE: $ 21,550.71

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0010

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
New Holland Dental
650 East Main Street
New Holland, PA 17557
05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Outstanding Invoice $ 2,600.00 2,618.00
Invoice Discrimination and Harassment during Free Dental Day of May 1, 2009 Patient traveled to facility at
Approx. 6:00 for free dental Services to get at least a Cavity filled after seeing it on WGAL-T\/8 News at
5:30 am. At approximately 11:00 am patient received a Panoramic X-Ray and approximately 10 minutes
later the patient received a free dental Examination in the examination room closest to Main Street, New
Holland by a Dentist who identified himself as being from Reading. The dentist examined the patient's
mouth and described a large cavity (from a prior filling falling out) that needed a crown or filling. Patient
explained that he wanted a filling and would opt for a crown at a later time. Dentist agreed and wrote the
prognosis and treatment for a filling on patient's chart. Patient was told to wait for his turn. The Dental
Staff broke for lunch, and patient immediately inquired about the number. Staff had told the yet to be
treated patients that approximately 70 to 80 people were already treated. Patient had number 366, which
meant that 65 persons were to be treated before him. The Staff told patient that he would be one of first
after lunch. It was now approximately 2:15 when 3 females approached the patient in the waiting room
and tried to explain that there was an infection in the area to be treated, however the examining dentist
made no mention of any infection or abscess. The patient did not know if the girls were authorized, or even
if they were part of the dental staff. The patient demanded his X-Ray and walked out of the facility. The
woman and 2 females that identified themselves as coming from the Mt. Joy Career Technical Institute,
namely the darker student and the teacher were harassing all day.
8 Hours of Consulting Time $600.00
At $75.00 Per Hour for Time
Wasted on Promised Dental Care.
8- Gallons Gasoline $ 16.00
2- Hot Dogs $ 2.00
Harassment; Pain and Suffering $2,000.00
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,639.82
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,661.64
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,683.46
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,705.28
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,727.10
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,748.92
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,770.74
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,792.56
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 21.82 $ 2,814.38

TOTAL DUE: $4,030.02

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0011

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Social Security Administration
Suite 104
1809 Olde Homestead Lane
Lancaster, PA 17601-5957
05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Disability/SSI Payments From

December 1, 2005 to May 1, 2009
42 Months at $835.00 per month $ 35,070.00 $ 35,070.00
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 292.25 $ 35,362.25

Monthly Disability $ 835.00 $36,197.25
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 292.25 $ 36,489.50

08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 292.25 $ 37,616.75

08/20/2009 08/20/2009 Payment $21,460.00 $16,991.75
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 0.00 $ 16,991.75
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 141.60 $ 17,133.35
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 141.60 $ 17,274.95
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 141.60 $ 17,416.55
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 141.60 $ 17,558.15
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 141.60 $ 17,669.75
TOTAL DUE: $ 25,301.99

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0012

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation
7th Floor, Labor & Industry Building
651 Boas Street
Harrisburg, PA 17121
05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice 18 months of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation

Benefits from July 1, 1987 to December 1, 1988
At $400.00 Per Week
$21,600.00
Interest 10% Per Annually $43,200.00
Invoice 18 months of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation

Benefits from March 1, 1998 to August 1, 1999
At $400.00 Per Week
$36,000.00
Interest 10% Per Annually $28,800.00
TOTAL $129,600.00
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $130,680.00
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $131,760.00
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $132,840.00
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $133,920.00
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $135,000.00
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $136,080.00
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $137,160.00
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $138,240.00
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 1,080.00 $139,320.00
TOTAL DUE: $ 199,497.64

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0014

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Southern Regional Police Department
3284 Main Street
Conestoga, PA 17516
05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Stolen Cash of April 5, 2006 during

302 Incident $ 743.00
Window Repair of April 5, 2006 during

302 Incident $ 315.00
Towing & Storage of April 5, 2006 during

302 Incident $ 280.00
Subtotal $ 1,388.40
Interest to June 1, 2009 $ 443.00 $ 1,781.40
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge 0.00 $ 1,781.40
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,796.25
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,811.10
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,825.95
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,840.80
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,855.65
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,870.50
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,885.36
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 14.85 $ 1,900.21
TOTAL DUE: $ 2,790.28

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0015

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Lancaster Employment Training Agency LETA
1016 North Charlotte Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
06/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Invoice Individual Training Account (ITA)

Provider Service Title:
Paralegal Studies $14,000.00 $ 14,000.00
See Attached Exhibits
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,116.67
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,233.34
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,350.01
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,466.69
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,583.35
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,700.02
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,816.69
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 116.67 $ 14,933.36
TOTAL DUE: $ 21,383.65

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0016

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
State Farm Insurance
100 State Farm Place
Ballstron Spa, NY 12020-8000
Re: Insurance Policy Claim No. 38-P876-509

Pennsylvania Department of Insurance No. 09-169-68443
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Invoice Self Insurance Fund
33% of $35,000.00 Contents Coverage

Failure to Honor Claims Per
Contract Pursuant to State and
Federal Laws $ 11,666.67
See Attached Exhibits $11,666.67 $11,666.67
7/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,763.90
8/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,861.13
9/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,958.36
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,055.59
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,152.82
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,347.28
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,444.51
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $ 5,111.91 $17,556.42
TOTAL DUE: $ 17,819.76

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0017

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
The Lancaster Bureau of Police
39 West Chestnut Street
Lancaster, PA 17603-3510
Re: State Department of Insurance File No. 09-169-68443

State Farm Insurance Policy Claim No. 38-P876-509

7/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $11,814.31
8/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $11,911.95
9/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,009.59
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,107.23
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,204.87
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,302.51
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,400.15
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.64 $12,497.79
07/08/2015 Forced Entry to 1250 Fremont Street $ 800.00

To SERVE 302 Psychiatric Warrant
Replace Broken Door and Charge To Change
Locks
11/29/2016 FC Finance Charge $5,133.80 $ 18,431.59
TOTAL DUE: $ 18,708.06

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0018

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Pennsylvania Department of Insurance
Bureau of Consumer Services
1209 Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Re: State Department of Insurance File No. 09-169-68443

State Farm Insurance Policy Claim No. 38-P876-509

7/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,763.90
8/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,861.13
9/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $11,958.36
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,055.59
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,152.82
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,250.05
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,347.28
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 97.23 $12,444.51
02/28/2017 File No. 16-115-202736 GEICO CLAIM

(Stolen 2004 Santa Fe) GEICO CLAIM
No. 055746172-0101-022 $867.00
02/28/2017 Humana Insuarnce Claim re Whirlpool Spa $3,674.00
02/28/2017 Allstate Vandalism & Theft Claim $12,000.00
63
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $263.34 $ 34,360.76
TOTAL DUE: $ 34,360.76

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0013

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
Lancaster County Assistance Office LCAO
Pennsylvania Department of Welfare
832 Manor Avenue
Lancaster, PA 17603
05/1/2009 05/1/2009 Invoice Food Stamp Benefits with a Free $ 5,920.00

Red Rose Transit Authority Bus Pass
October 1, 2006 to May 1, 2008
32 Months at $185.00 per Month
Legal Costs 4 Appeals $10,000.00 $15,920.00

at $2,500 Each
06/1/2009 06/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,052.67
07/1/2009 07/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,185.34
08/1/2009 08/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,318.01
09/1/2009 09/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,450.68
10/1/2009 10/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,583.35
11/1/2009 11/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,716.02
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,848.69
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 16,981.36
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 132.67 $ 17,114.03
02/28/2017 FC Finance Charge $362.16 $ 24,506.23
TOTAL DUE: $ 24,506.23

STATEMENT
Statement Date
February 28, 2017
Customer ID: 0020

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Account of:
State Auto Insurance Company
Eastern Regional Office
PO Box 2006
Mechanicsburg PA 17055-0733
(717)697-1121
Claim Number: CATE-0285037-090409

Loss Date: 09/04/2009
Insured: STANLEY CATERBONE
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 Invoice Parts and Labor for Rear

Bumper $700.00
01/1/2010 01/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 5.83 $ 705.83
02/1/2010 02/1/2010 Finance Charge $ 5.83 $ 755.83
Total $1,082.30

STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - A LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
Stan J. Caterbone
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
PREPARED FOR NEW CHAPTER 11 CASE
AUGUST 22, 2017 September 5, 2017 PRESS RELEASE
TO: PENNSLVANIA SUPREME COURT JUDGES
PENNSLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGES
LANCASTER COUNTY MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES
WGAL-TV8
LNP MEDIA GROUP
FOX NEWS 43
ANTI-TRUST VALUATION
________________________
$167,570,000 (NOT INCLUDING TREBLE DAMAGES OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES)
1. 1987 JOINT VENTURE WI TH TONY BONGIOVI - "MUTANT MANIA"

FIRST DIGITAL MOVIE -
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $69,000,000.00 ($4,000,000 INVESTED FOR
30 YEARS AT 10% GROWTH PER YEAR)
2. ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $15,000,000.00
3. FMG, Ltd., (Financial Management Group, Ltd.,) 50,000 SHARES
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $19,630,000.00
4. January 20, 1987 - Institutional Investors of America, Inc.
Mortgage Banking Partner - Houston, Texas
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $30,000,000.00
5. Pflumm Contractors
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $800,000.00
6. 2001 AIM MARKETING AND CONSULTING INCOME
7. Advanced Media Group Downtown Lancaster Action Plan Nov 15
2007
8. EXCLESIOR PLACE Business Plan of 1999 by Advanced Media Group
9. SAM CATERBONE CLEANERS, INC., AND 1470 MANHEIM PIKE REAL
ESTATE
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS 26,240,000 (BASED ON $360,000 INVESTED
FOR 45 YEARS AT 10%)
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP PRESS RELEASE Page

PageNo.
No.11ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
10.STAN J. CATERBONE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS
A. VALUATION NO. 1 IS $5,000,000
B. 433 WEST MARION STREET, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
C. 554 BERKLEY ROAD, STONE HARBOR, NEW JERSEY
D. USEPPA ISLAND COTTAGE, CAPTIVA ISLAND, FLORIDA
E. 2323 NEW DANVILLE PIKE, CONESTOGA, PENNSYLVANIA
F. 220 STONE HILL ROAD, CONESTOGA, PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
18 U.S.C. 1503 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CORNELL LAW SCHOOL www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
whoever ....corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or
impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are
charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere
with an official proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence, or interfering
with duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstruct justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere
with a judicial proceeding. (ALL COURT CASES, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OF
PLAINTIFF STAN J. CATERBONE) For a person to be convicted of obstruction justice,
they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, both the person
must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must
be a nexus between the defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding,
and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
Sherman Act 1890 7
If an antitrust claim does not fall within a per se illegal category, the plaintiff
must show the conduct causes harm in "restraint of trade" under the Sherman Act 1
according to "the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied". [20]
This essentially means that unless a plaintiff can point to a clear precedent, to which
the situation is analogous, proof of an anti-competitive effect is more difficult. The
reason for this is that the courts have endeavoured to draw a line between practices
that restrain trade in a "good" compared to a "bad" way. In the first case, United States
v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association,[21] the Supreme Court found that railroad
companies had acted unlawfully by setting up an organisation to fix transport prices.
The railroads had protested that their intention was to keep prices low, not high. The
court found that this was not true, but stated that not every "restraint of trade" in a
literal sense could be unlawful. Just as under the common law, the restraint of trade
had to be "unreasonable". In Chicago Board of Trade v. United States the Supreme
Court found a "good" restraint of trade.[22] The Chicago Board of Trade had a rule that
commodities traders were not allowed to privately agree to sell or buy after the
market's closing time (and then finalise the deals when it opened the next day). The
reason for the Board of Trade having this rule was to ensure that all traders had an
equal chance to trade at a transparent market price. It plainly restricted trading, but
the Chicago Board of Trade argued this was beneficial. Brandeis J., giving judgment for
a unanimous Supreme Court, held the rule to be pro-competitive, and comply with the
rule of reason. It did not violate the Sherman Act 1
The remedies for violations of U.S. antitrust laws are as broad as any equitable
remedy that a court has the power to make, as well as being able to impose penalties.
When private parties have suffered an actionable loss, they may claim compensation.

PageNo.
No.22ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Under the Sherman Act 1890 7, these may be trebled, a measure to
encourage private litigation to enforce the laws and act as a deterrent.
The courts may award penalties under 1 and 2, which are measured according to the
size of the company or the business. In their inherent jurisdiction to prevent violations
in future, the courts have additionally exercised the power to break up businesses into
competing parts under different owners, although this remedy has rarely been
exercised (examples include Standard Oil, Northern Securities Company, American
ToBacco Company, AT&T Corporation and, although reversed on appeal, MiCosoft).
Three levels of enforcement come from the Federal government, primarily through the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, the governments of states,
and private parties. Publicenforcement of antitrust laws is seen as important, given the
cost, complexity and daunting task for private parties to bring litigation, particularly
against large corporations.
Along with the Federal Trade Commission the Department of Justice in

Washington, D.C. is the public enforcer of antitrust law.
The federal government, via both the Antitrust Division of the United States Department
of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, can bring civil lawsuits enforcing the
laws. The United States Department of Justice alone may bring criminal antitrust suits
under federal antitrust laws.[43] Perhaps the most famous antitrust enforcement
actions brought by the federal government were the break-up of AT&T's local telephone
service monopoly in the early 1980s[44] and its actions against Microsoft in the late
1990s.
Additionally, the federal government also reviews potential mergers to attempt to
prevent market concentration. As outlined by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act, larger companies attempting to merge must first notify the Federal
Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division prior to
consummating a merger.[45] These agencies then review the proposed merger first by
defining what the market is and then determining the market concentration using the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and each company's market share.[45] The
government looks to avoid allowing a company to develop market power, which if left
unchecked could lead to monopoly power.[45]
The United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission target
nonreportable mergers for enforcement as well. Notably, between 2009 and 2013, 20%
of all merger investigations conducted by the United States Department of Justice
involved nonreportable transactions.[46]

PageNo.
No.33ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Dated AUGUST 22, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals -
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case
No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen
Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary
Injunction Case of 2016

PageNo.
No.44ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
DISC ONE OF 2 DVD SET

STAN J. CATERBONE
AND
ADVANCE MEDIA GROUP
AND
SAMUEL P. CATERBONE, JR.
(FATHER)
__________________
REVENUE STREAMS,
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, REAL
ESTATE,
AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

PageNo.
No.55ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________________
In Re:
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
AND
PLAINTIFFS
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANTS
THE CASE FOR AN INDICTMENT

OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES
________________________
THE NEW AMERICA WHY HIRE COSTLY ATTORNEYS WHEN BEING SUED; JUST
HIRE CORRUPT POLICE AT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE!
TUESDAY AUGUST 22, 2017
1. THE DEFENDANTS OF FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IMPLEMENTED

THE USE OF THREATS, FABRICATED MENTAL HEALTH WARRANTS,
AND FALSE ARRESTS AS FAR BACK AS JUNE OF 1987 AND THE
ORGANIZED PROGRAM CONTINUES TO THIS DATE IN A COHESIVE
EFFORT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND PREVENT THE DEFENDANT'S
NAMED HEREIN FROM THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY OF $MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS AND PUBLIC HUMILIATION.
2. THE CIA DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening
letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or endeavors to
influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty
of an offense). Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that
a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by doing thins such
as destroying evidence, or interfering with duties of jurors or court officers.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or
force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or
impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration
of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are charged under this statute
based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official
proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence, or interfering with duties
of jurors or court officers.

PageNo.
No.66ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
4. THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
obstruct, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due
administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are charged
under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere
with an official proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence, or
interfering with duties of jurors or court officers.
5. THE FAIRMOUNT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM DID IN FACT -
corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication,
influences, obstruct, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede,
the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are
charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to
interfere with an official proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence,
or interfering with duties of jurors or court officers.
6. THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
7. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD., DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
8. MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DID IN FACT -corruptly or by threats or force,
or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes,
or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice,
shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are charged under this statute based on
allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official proceeding, by
doing thins such as destroying evidence, or interfering with duties of jurors or
court officers.
9. THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
10.OCCUPANTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
11.LANCASTER COUNTY MDJ ADAM J. WITKONIS DID IN FACT - corruptly or by

PageNo.
No.77ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
12.THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT AND THE PENNSYLVANIA
SUPERIOR COURT DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or
endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice,
court officers.
13.THE LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURT DID IN FACT - corruptly or by
14.THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, FBI, DID IN FACT - corruptly or
by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
15.THE LNP MEDIA GROUP DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or force, or by
any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or
court officers.
16.WGAL-TV8 DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or force, or by any
threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or
court officers.
17.THE LANCASTER COUNTY COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE DID IN FACT - corruptly
or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences,
18.THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DID IN FACT - corruptly or by threats or

force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstruct, or
impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration
of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are charged under this statute
based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere with an official
proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence, or interfering with duties
of jurors or court officers.
______________________________________________________________________

PageNo.
No.88ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
18 U.S.C. 1503 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CORNELL LAW SCHOOL www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obstruction_of_justice
whoever ....corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, influences, obstruct, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or
impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense). Persons are
charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to interfere
with an official proceeding, by doing thins such as destroying evidence, or interfering
with duties of jurors or court officers.
A person obstruct justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere
with a judicial proceeding. (ALL COURT CASES, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL OF
PLAINTIFF STAN J. CATERBONE) For a person to be convicted of obstruction justice,
they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, both the person
must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must
be a nexus between the defendant's endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding,
and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.
FINDING OF FACTS:
The Date of Origin

1. June 23, 1987, the day of the meeting with ISC Executive Mr. Larry Resch
between PLAINTIFF Stan J. Caterbone at his office and the Headquarters

of his company Financial Management Group, Ltd., 1755 Oregon Pike,
Lancaster, PA in Manheim Township, Lancaster County.
2. Mr. Larry Resch failed to inform CATERBONE of his association and position with
International Signal & Control, Plc., while CATERBONE formally began his whistle blowing
activities on International Signal & Control, Plc..
3. On June 23, 1987, at 2:00 pm immediately following the meeting with International Signal
& Control Executive, Mr. Larry Resch, CATERBONE has his locks changed to his office by
Russell Locksmith of Lititz, in order to secure confidential personal and business files in
light of the current internal power struggle between himself, Michael Hartlett and Robert
Kauffman, and given the conversation with Mr. Larry Resch of International Signal &
Control, Plc., a few hours earlier.
4. CATERBONE was a personal guarantor of a 5 year lease agreement with the Developer,
Fishcer Spounagle, Ltd., for the offices of Financial Management Group, Ltd., at 1755
Oregon Pike, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, that began in 1986 and did renew until 1991.

PageNo.
No.99ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
5. Robert Kaufman, President of FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., and other FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., executives burglarize CATERBONE's office removing
confidential personal and business tiles. Some of the mortgage banking and other
business files have yet to be found. Kauffman and Robert Long illegally issue FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., stock certificates to Peter Peneros and Scott Robertson. Robert
Long signs the stock certificates as Secretary of FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd.,
when CATERBONE was acting Secretary, and was the only person duly authorized to issue
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., stock certificates. CATERBONE learned of the
burglary by Robert Kauffman, President, in a telephone conversation while at Stone Harbor,
NJ; Kauffman inadvertently mentioned that the stock certificates were issued, however,
with all documents at risk of being stolen, CATERBONE did not mention the incident, in
hopes to first recover any potentially stolen business and personal files.
6. Financial Management Group, Ltd., executives engaged in obstruction of justice,
in unfair competition, wrongful interference with contracts, trespass to person,
criminal trespass, forgery, undo influence, conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV -
extortion, mental duress, slander, defamation of character, wrongful interference
with business relations, and violated several bylaws of Financial Management
Group, Ltd.,
STAN J. CATERBONE'S ATTEMPTS TO COMMENCE CIVIL ACTIONS

THE COMMENCEMENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
7. On June 18, 1987, CATERBONE and Randy Grespin, corporate attorney for The Life
Underwriters Group, fly to Atlanta, Georgia, to visit with executives of Planners Securities
Group, a nationally known Broker Dealer, and joint venture partner that was in the midst of
a deal in which Financial Management Group, Ltd., had negotiated an equity interest.
CATERBONE had initially consulted with both Kauffman and Hartlett concerning the trip,
however when both disagreed, CATERBONE questioned why CATERBONE was the only
principal to personally visit the operations of Hibbard Brown & Company, which lead
CATERBONE his decision to terminate the ill fated merger.
8. Planners Securities Group, was regarded as the most successful Broker Dealers in the
financial planning community, and included several former presidents of the national board
of the International Association of Financial Planners. The company had previously been
recruiting Financial Management Group, Ltd.,., and offering an attractive equity interest.
Randy Grespin agreed to reimburse $600 to CATERBONE for the expense and use of his
aircraft.

PageNo.
No.10
10ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
9. CATERBONE had the following agenda for the trip and meeting:
1. Visit and discuss the joint venture and merger with Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
and evaluate the various departments necessary to administer Financial Management
Group, Ltd.,'s., stock transactions and private real estate offerings.
2. Discuss and evaluate the opportunities of utilizing insurance products from Randy
Grespin's firm, and all matters related to the structuring of business.
3. Familiarize Greg Burie, a personal friend and recruitment of CATERBONE s who was
also visiting from Florida to consider opening a Florida office for Financial Management
Group, Ltd..
4. Conduct an extensive and thorough due diligence investigation of the stability,
efficiency, and security of the operations, in order to prevent a similar situation that
facilitated the previous termination of the recent Hibbard Brown & Company deal.
CATERBONE left the meetings with very optimistic and impressive findings, that only
left more questions as to the decision of Kauffman and Bartlett to affiliate with Hibbard
Brown & Company, knowing that the Atlanta group had been aggressively pursuing
talks of a merger since the inception of Financial Management Group, Ltd.,., On the
return flight home, CATERBONE CONFIDED TO RANDY GRESPIN,
REQUESTING LEGAL ADVISE, REGARDING THE RECENT PROBLEMS AND
HIS ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LTD.,., PRESIDENT ROBERT KAUFFMAN. RANDY GRESPIN
ADVISED CATERBONE TO TAKE SOME TIME AND SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL.
On June 18, 2007, after arriving at the corporate offices of Upon entering the offices of
Financial Management Group, Ltd., Robert Kauffman pulls CATERBONE into his office
and abruptly shouts "Who is running this corporation, me or you?". CATERBONE
quickly answers "I don't give a damn who runs this company. as long as it's run right,
and for the right reasons!" CATERBONE immediately left the office.
10.On June 18, 1987, later in the evening, Robert Kauffman, President visits the home of
CATERBONE and engaged in a contractual dispute when CATERBONE refused to agree
to approve the new contract and salary increase of Robert Kauffman, President,. Robert
Kauffman, President, engaged in retaliatory and activities, including fraud, Count IV -
extortion, libel, defamation of character, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.
11.On July 1, 1987, CATERBONE retained the counsel of Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq., of
Lancaster, to arrange for a meeting to discuss the recent events and Coup attempt by
Kauffman and Hartlett that included several criminal and security violations. CATERBONE
visits with Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. and describes the incidents in detail, including the
"Digital Movie", ISC, and all related activities. Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. instructs
CATERBONE to have all of the files copied and arranges for the return of all Financial
Management Group, Ltd., corporate files. CATERBONE had questioned Mr. Joseph F. Roda,

PageNo.
No.11
11ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Esq. for a legal opinion as to his right of any moneys in Financial Management Group, Ltd.,
checking accounts that he was authorized to sign for. Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. advised that
CATERBONE had no right to any funds. All checks were returned to Financial
Management Group, Ltd., along with all other documents.
12.CATERBONE advises Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. that he is in fear that someone is
deliberately orchestrating all of the recent incidents, which were quite extraordinary and
extremely criminal and have been coming from all directions. CATERBONE advised Mr.
Joseph F. Roda, Esq. that he would like to take all of his files to Stone Harbor, New Jersey
for safekeeping while he pursued his legal recourse. CATERBONE also explained that he
would feel safer leaving Lancaster until these circumstances were brought under control.
13.Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq., failed to provide any advocacy representation; colluded with
Financial Management Group, Ltd.,; failed to inform CATERBONE of any conflicts of
interests with current clients (Mr. William Clark, in house legal counsel for International
Signal & Control, Plc.,); was negligent in not reviewing the hundreds of documents
CATERBONE delivered and for not identifying causes of actions, which United States
District Judge Mary McLaughlin identified from similar documents in June of 2006; was
negligent in not believing CATERBONE detailed account of the Commonwealth National
Bank (Mellon Bank) wrongful repossession, may have conspired to cover-up CATERBONE
s Federal False Claims Act against International Signal & Control, Plc,.
14.Mr. Joseph F. Roda committed fraud in invoicing CATERBONE for services rendered,
without any actual benefit afforded to CATERBONE .
15.EARLY WEEKS OF JULY 1987 - CATERBONE solicits the legal services of Ric Fox, a
Harrisburg attorney that has prepared legal documents for the "Digital" Movie. Rio Fox
flies his aircraft to the Cape May County Airport, and arrives at CATERBONE 's house
accompanied with another attorney Robert Chercicoff. All of the recent activities were
detailed and described concerning Financial Management Group, Ltd.,; the "Digital Movie";
and the illegal repossession of the aircraft. CATERBONE questioned Mr. Fox and his
associate of any relationship with Commonwealth Bank, which headquarters were also in
Harrisburg, and both gave a very ambiguous answer. The meeting ended with both
attorneys failing to recognize or admit to any wrongdoing by any and all related parties,
and further demanding a $2,000 retainer fee to look further into the matters. CATERBONE
suspects the conspiracy theory again, especially in light of the acknowledged relationship
with Commonwealth Bank, and an indirect relationship with Robert Kauffman, through Life
Underwriters of Harrisburg, a joint venture arranged by CATERBONE some months
earlier. By July 5, CATERBONE had already made two legitimate attempts to solicit legal
aid for the unexplained events and circumstances, both of which were maliciously
sabotaged.

PageNo.
No.12
12ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
16.Ric Fox and Robert Chercicoff engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business
contracts, interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up
CATERBONE S Federal False Claims Act complaint.
17.On July 6, 1987, CATERBONE contacts David Drubner, of Boston, Ma, a friend of
CATERBONE's brothers Mike, and an attorney. During the conversation, David Drubner
questions CATERBONE about "taking some medication", and supports the allegations of
insanity.
18.On July 17, 1987 CATERBONE travels to Hollywood, California to meet and visit with Ted
Gamillion and Gamillion Studios (Film Studio), and Marcia Silen of Flatbush Films. Ted
Gamillion had previously solicited the consulting of CATERBONE in order to help
reorganize the financing of the film studio, after earlier arrangements in North Carolina had
gone sour. CATERBONE had spent several days visiting and touring the studio. Ted
Gamillion agreed to allow CATERBONE to represent the studio in order to secure the
required financing. Ted Gamillion provided CATERBONE with substantial amounts of
confidential financial, legal, and tax documents for the project.
19.During the visit, Marcia Silen had disclosed to CATERBONE that Scott Robertson had made
allegations of insanity about him (CATERBONE) to persons at Power Station Studios and
and Flatbush Films.
20.In the following days, CATERBONE had made numerous telephone calls to local, state,
and federal authorities, for intervention and help regarding all of the preceding events and
circumstances. The following is a brief description of each: Manheim Township Police
Department, responded "what bank branch repossessed your aircraft"; Pennsylvania State
Senator Gib Armstrong, responded, "I will call the Pa Attorney General's Office and have
them call you; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Philadelphia-based field
office; U.S. Representative Robert Walker (R-Pa), a detailed and explicit conversation with
Mrs. Robert Walker, who would only advise CATERBONE to put his situation in writing and
submit it to the Congressman in his Washington, D. C. office. In addition: David Wouls
(Executive Vice President of the Lancaster chamber of Commerce & Industry),
CATERBONE talked at length, and in detail, making allegations of misconduct with
members of the same; National Association of securities Dealers (NASD), in Washington,
D.C., CATERBONE discussed the securities related violations. And also: the Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC), also in Washington, D.C., and discussed securities laws
violations; the Pennsylvania Securities Commission, of Harrisburg, Pa, discussed the
implications of CATERBONE's illegal lock-out, and his legal and formal positions, including
incorporating officer of Financial Management Group, Ltd., CATERBONE received no
support or follow-up communications concerning all of the above requests, despite his
apparent emotional duress, and extreme situation.

PageNo.
No.13
13ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
21.On July 7th, 1987, CATERBONE contacts the law firm of Capello & Foley, of Santa
Barbara, California. CATERBONE had conducted research (American Bar Association
Journal) in "Lender Liability", which had became a very popular legal issue, where banks
participate in illegal activities resulting in the financial ruin of it's borrowers. CATERBONE
intended to file suit against Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank) for the illegal and
unjustified repossession of his aircraft. CATERBONE discussed the case briefly with Diane
Campell that day, and CATERBONE made arrangements to deliver supporting documents
to the office in Santa Barbara the following week, while visiting with Gamillion Studios, in
Hollywood.
22.On July 15, 1987 CATERBONE travels to Boston, Massachusetts to research lender
liability and other legal matters in a law library of Suffolk Community College.
23.On July 16, 1987, CATERBONE travels to New York, from Boston, MA, to visit with Bob
Walters of Power Station Studios, to discuss the allegations of Blackmail, and to find out
who is involved, including Scott Robertson and Power Station Studios.
24.On July 17, 1987, CATERBONE travels to Hollywood, California to meet and visit with Ted
Gamillion and Gamillion Studios (Film Studio), and Marcia Silen of Flatbush Films. Ted
Gamillion had previously solicited the consulting of CATERBONE in order to help
reorganize the financing of the film studio, after earlier arrangements in North Carolina had
gone sour. CATERBONE had spent several days visiting and touring the studio. Ted
Gamillion agreed to allow CATERBONE to represent the studio in order to secure the
required financing. Ted Gamillion provided CATERBONE with substantial amounts of
confidential financial, legal, and tax documents for the project. During the visit, Marcia
Silen had disclosed to CATERBONE that Scott Robertson had made allegations of insanity
about him (CATERBONE ) to persons at Power Station Studios and at Flatbush Films.
25.CATERBONE discusses the illegal repossession and other related matters, however during
the conversation, becomes suspicious when Bob Walters and Tony Bongiovi disclose that
the "Digital" Movie project is suddenly suspended until a later time.
26.On July 21, 1987, At 2:30 pm CATERBONE visits the law firm of Capello & Foley, in Santa
Barbara, California, and delivers 3 large blue binders for Diane Cambell and attorney Barry
Capello to review, concerning his allegations of dire violations of lender liability with specific
regards to the illegal repossession of his aircraft by Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon
Bank). CATERBONE research the law firm of Capello & Foley at the Suffolk law library
and learned that it was the leading law firm in the nation leading the way in violations of
lender liability litigation.
27.The law firm of Capello & Foley and CATERBONE had numerous communications,
although there was never any commitment for representation by Capello & Foley, it is
alleged that the law firm engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business
contracts, interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up
CATERBONE S Federal False Claims Act complaint by not acting in good faith with the

PageNo.
No.14
14ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
solicitation of CATERBONE .
28.On July 24, 1987 CATERBONE conducts a three (3) hour meeting at his residence in
Stone Harbor, NJ, with attorney Lew Schweller regarding legal action concerning all events
and activities of the prior days and months. CATERBONE also gives Lew Schweller a
$500.00 retainers fee, for his representation.
29.Lew Schweller engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business contracts,
interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up
CATERBONE S Federal False Claims Act complaint.
30.On July 24, 1987, Attorney Joseph Roda invoices CATERBONE $527.00 for the time and
services of July 1 & 2, 1987.
31.On September 1, 1987, in an attempt to resolve issues, CATERBONE calls Financial
Management Group, Ltd., board member P. Alan Loss and requests a meeting with Robert.
long and Scott Robertson to explain allegations of misconduct of Robert Kauffman and
Michael Hartlett and the illegal lockout of CATERBONE . P. Alan Loss agrees and a
meeting is set for September 4, 1987 at 10:00 am in the aide Hickory Inn, a mile away
from Financial Management Group, Ltd., CATERBONE requests that the meeting be in the
strictest of confidence.
32.On September 3, 1987, Attorney Joseph Roda sends CATERBONE a letter requesting
payment of $525.48 in outstanding legal tees for the meetings of July 1 & 2 and copying
charges.
33.CATERBONE calls Victor of Romar Aviation (no charge) to schedule a charter flight from
Cape May County Airport to the Lancaster Airport for September 3rd at approximately 2:00
pm, the day before the meeting with Financial Management Group, Ltd., executives.
34.On September 3, 1987, Robert Kauffman calls detective Larry Sigler of the Manheim
Township Police Department to report an alleged Terroristic threat made two days prior, on
September 1, 1987, by CATERBONE between the hours of 9:00 and 1 pm noontime.
Detective Larry Sigler issues a warrant for the arrest of CATERBONE with District Justice
Murray Horton that was issued at about the same time as the arrival of CATERBONE at
Romar Aviation.
35.On September 3, 1987, Larry Sigler and the Manheim Township Police Department engage
in false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and/or malicious abuse of
process claims arising out of the charges and arrest in September 1987; and (2) civil rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising out of the Department's actions or inactions in July
and September 1987, and January 1991.
36.On September 3, 1987, At approximately 3:00 pm Mary Lynn Dipaolo picks CATERBONE
up at Romar Aviation for a scheduled visit and dinner. After CATERBONE becomes
annoyed at Mary Lynn Dipaolo's unjustified allegations, CATERBONE borrows her car to
go home to his residence in Conestoga and to go play basketball.

PageNo.
No.15
15ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
37.On September 3, 1987, at approximately 7:00 pm, upon leaving the playground, he is
approached by Nancy Arment, Financial Management Group, Ltd., secretary, who is
elaborated and crying, asking "why are you doing this?".
38.Nancy Arment of Financial Management Group, Ltd., engaged in harassment and
conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion.
39.On September 3, 1987, At approximately 9:00 pm, in an attempt to recover additional
stolen personal and business tiles, CATERBONE proceeds to the offices of Financial
Management Group, Ltd., where he is greeted by employee Stacy Waters and allowed to
enter the building. CATERBONE insists that Stacy Walters accompany him throughout
the building as he recovers files in the offices of Robert Kauffman, Michael Bartlett, and
Robert Long. In addition retrieving a Back-Up (Financial Management Group, Ltd., records
and communications) copy of the computer system which he integrated. Upon leaving,
CATERBONE temporarily disconnect the systems which he had integrated and developed
for Financial Management Group, Ltd., which fall under intellectual property rights. Stacy
Walters assists CATERBONE in loading the tiles in his automobile, and CATERBONE
kisses Stacy Walters goodbye, and awaits for her safe return to the building until leaving.
40.Stacy Walters engaged in criminal trespass, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion,
undo influence, mental duress, slander, defamation of character, and wrongful interference
with business relations.
41.On September 4, 1987, after midnight, upon entering his residence, CATERBONE is taken
into custody by the Conestoga Police, and requests that the files that he had taken out of
the offices of Financial Management Group, Ltd., be taken along to prove his rights to the
property, and his position within the company. CATERBONE was then taken to the
jurisdiction of Manheim Township Police, at Where the New Danville Pike meets South
Prince Street, where he is arrested and taken into custody.
42.On September 4, 1987, at approximately 2:00 am, CATERBONE is arraigned before
District Justice Richard R. Reeser for the following charges: Terroristic threats; burglary;
unlawful restraint; unlawful use of computers; theft by unlawful taking; robbery; and
criminal mischief.
43.Bail is set at $20,000 and CATERBONE is placed in the Lancaster County Prison. He was
not permitted to post real estate for bail.
44.The Manheim Township Police Department, Detective Larry Mathias and the Lancaster
County Prison engage in (1) assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious
prosecution and/or malicious abuse of process claims arising out of the charges and arrest
in September 1987; and (2) civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising out of the
Department's actions or inactions in July and September 1987, and January 1991.
45.September 5, 1987 -The Lancaster New Era and the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal report
the alleged crimes, reporting that CATERBONE is an ax-employee; that Financial
Management Group, Ltd., sustained $60,000 because of his actions; and that he

PageNo.
No.16
16ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
threatened 2 female employees.
46.The Lancaster Newspapers, Inc., engaged in libel, slander, defamation of character,
conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion, conspiracy to
commit obstruction of justice.
47.The entire arrests and reports fail to acknowledge that CATERBONE is an individual
lessee of the property, and in accordance with law, still holds all of his offices of PING, Ltd.,
and is the founder of the company. The above incident further facilitates the ongoing
conspiracy, and publicly discredits CATERBONE in every way, financially, professionally,
and most importantly conveniently supports the continued allegations of insanity.
48.On September 6, 1987, all attempts to post bail are denied. Robert Beyer appears for
visitation at the Lancaster county prison, completely unexpectedly and unsolicited. Robert
Beyer offers his services and representation with regards to only defending the criminal
charges.
49.On September 9, 1987, CATERBONE is given an ultimatum by the Lancaster county
prison authorities, Robert Bayer, Yolanda Caterbone, and Mary Lynn Dipaolo of posting the
required bail only if CATERBONE voluntarily admits himself into the Psychiatric Unit of St.
Joseph Hospital, or remains in the Lancaster County prison.
50.CATERBONE is released from Lancaster County prison, and immediately escorted to St.
Joseph Hospital and admitted into the Psychiatric Unit.
51.On September 9, 1987, Yolanda Caterbone, Robert Beyer, and Mary Lynn Dipaolo engage
in conspiracy to commit fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit Count IV -
extortion, obstruction of justice, and false imprisonment.
52.On September 15, 1987, CATERBONE questions the legality of the ultimatum for posting
bail, and upon learning that it is unlawful, arranges for his discharge - Upon his discharge,
the St. Joseph Hospital administrators learn that Financial Management Group, Ltd., had
terminated his health insurance, and demand payment of $3, 064.60 for the six days of
hospitalization. CATERBONE is not able to pay, and leaves the hospital and returns to his
residence of Conestoga, PA.
53.St. Joseph Hospital engaged in collusion to commit fraud, Count IV - extortion, libel,
slander, and defamation of character, false imprisonment, obstruction of justice, and false
statements.
54.On September 15, 1987, CATERBONE receives an invoice from St. Joseph Hospital for
$3,064.00.
55.On September 16, 1987, CATERBONE receives a call from Howard Eisler, an Investigator
for the Pennsylvania Securities Commission who requests a meeting with CATERBONE . A
meeting is scheduled for September 29, and CATERBONE arranges for Robert Beyer and
Millard Johnson to attend.
56.On September 21, 1987, ISC and the British Ferranti firm agree in principal to merge,
creating what appeared to be a $1.5 billion defense/electronics conglomerate, after six

PageNo.
No.17
17ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
months of negotiations.
57.On September 22, 1987,CATERBONE and James Warner settle on the real estate deal, of
433 w. Marion Street, which CATERBONE had sold to James Warner, at a distressed price,
which still yielded a profit. The profits of the transaction were paid directly to Millard
Johnson, with CATERBONE getting none of the proceeds. Millard Johnsons funds were
extorted by Commonwealth National Bank and Lancaster Aviation.
HE FACTS OF THE MENTAL HEALTH RECORD OF STAN J. CATERBONE
58.There were a total of 4 Section 303 Court Hearings since 2006 and there was
never any medications or OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLANS ever ORDERED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, OR THE COURT. The Section 303 COURT
ORDERS, by law, must be filed in the Lancaster County Courthouse
Prothonotary Office.
59.The first PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT was to the BURDETTE TOMLIN

HOSPITAL in Cape May County, New Jersey The commitment lasted only 4
hours, and was a result of a fabricated suicide allegation made to the Stone
Harbor Police Department.
60.In September of 1987 the PSYCHIATRIC COMITMENT to then Saint Joseph

Hospital, now Lancaster Regional Medical Center was the direct result of a
fabricated CONDITION OF BAIL, which when discovered lead to the
IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE, again with no OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLAN or
MEDICATIONS.
61.In February of 2005 there was a again another fabricated SUICIDE

ALLEGATION, made by a patron of the Alley Kat that resulted in the false
imprisonment at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA for approximately 2
hours by the Southern Regional Police Department, again resulted in NO
PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT.
62.The next PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT was in April of 2006 by the Southern

Regional Police to the Lancaster General Hospital, that resulted in the
Discharge from my Pro Se Representation at the Section 303 Hearing, again
with no OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLAN or MEDICATIONS.
63.In July of 2009 I had excruciating pain from a cavity that no dentist in
Lancaster County would fill. I had a commitment at a free dental clinic in
New Holland only to have the commitment rescinded at the last minute after
6 hours of wait time. I visited several emergency rooms for pain medications
and finally the Lancaster General Hospital took a blood sample and found the
infection had spread to my blood stream. The emergency room immediately
put me on an intravenous drip of antibiotics for about an hour and scheduled
an appointment with Conestoga Oral Surgeons. Upon leaving I had submitted
a video tape of audio only of a recording of myself in pain. Upon arriving
home, the Lancaster City Police showed up with another 302 Psychiatric
Commitment and took me to the Lancaster General Hospital Emergency
Room. I was immediately scheduled for emergency oral surgery and taken to
the Intermediate Intensive Care Unit. The next day I had emergency oral
surgery to remove 2 infected teeth. During the previous 2 weeks I had taken

PageNo.
No.18
18ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
photos of the transformation of my face from the infection. After surgery a
Psychiatric Interview was done in my room in the Intermediate Intensive
Care Unit I was discharged without incident and again with no
OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLAN or MEDICATIONS. I was never even in any
portion of the psychiatric care unit. UNFORTUNATELY, INSTEAD OF A
$1500.00 OUTPATIENT BILL THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL BILLE ME
SOME $30,000.00.
64.The next PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENTS were all the result of FABRICATIONS

BY DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER OF THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO FAIRMOUNT HOSPITAL IN PHILADELPHIA April of 2015;
July of 2015, and February of 2016. Again with no OUTPATIENT TREATMENT
PLAN or MEDICATIONS.
65.The 2010 OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLAN of COUNSELING ONLY, for 3 months

was a VOLUNTARY TREATMENT PLAN that was coerced after 3 Psychiatric
Nurses forced medication by needle to the buttox, and then medication for
the next several days in FARIMOUNT HOSPITAL. No MEDICATIONS WERE
TAKEN AFTER THE INITAL PRESCRIPTION FROM THE HOSPITAL WAS
FINISHED, WHICH ONLY LASTED A FEW WEEKS.
66.RECORDS AND MY OWN MEMORY CLARIFIES THAT THE LANCASTER CITY

POLICE DEPARTMENT ENGAGED IN THE VERY SAME TACTICS AGAINST MY
FATHER, SAMUEL CATERBONE, JR. IN THE 1960'S, WHICH RESULTED IN BOTH
PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENTS AND ELECTO-SHOCK TREATMENTS, A CLASSIC
MKULTRA PROGRAM TECHNIQUE FOR BRAIN WASHING.
67.The VOLUNTARY decision on my part to take PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS

AND OUTPATIENT TREATMENT by Lancaster Psychiatrist Dr. Alber Shulz, who
in 1986 was a client of mine at Financial Management Group, Ltd., who also
treated my brother Sammy Caterbone, was THE DIRECT RESULT OF
REPEATED REQUEST BY MY MOTHER, YOLANDA RODA CATERBONE WHICH I
MADE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FINANCIAL BACKING, WORK, AND INCOME. MY
FINANCIAL RECORD AND WORK HISTORY RECORD PROVES THIS.

PageNo.
No.19
19ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
The Corruption of the Law

Harlan Fiske Stone's conservatism was grounded in the belief that the law is
designed to protect the weak from the powerful.
Chris Hedges
AUGUST 21, 2017
Columnist
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, New York Times best selling
author, professor at Princeton University, activist and ordained Presbyterian
minister. He has written 11 books, including the
ISLE AU HAUT, MaineI drink coffee in the morning on a round, ornate oak table that once
belonged to Harlan Fiske Stone, a U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1925 to 1946 and the
chief justice for the last five of those years. Stone and his family spent their summers on this
windswept, remote island six miles off the coast of Maine.
Stone, a Republican and close friend of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, embodied a lost
era in American politics. His brand of conservatism, grounded in the belief that the law is
designed to protect the weak from the powerful, bears no resemblance to that of the self-
proclaimed strict constitutionalists in the Federalist Society who have accumulated
tremendous power in the judiciary. The Federalist Society, at the behest of President Trump,
is in charge of vetting the 108 candidates for the federal judgeships that will be filled by the
administration. The newest justice, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, comes out of the
Federalist Society, as did Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The self-
identified liberals in the judiciary, while progressive on social issues such as abortion and
affirmative action, serve corporate power as assiduously as the right-wing ideologues of the
Federalist Society. The Alliance for Justice points out that 85 percent of President Barack
Obamas judicial nominees280, or a third of the federal judiciaryhad either been
corporate attorneys or government prosecutors.
Those who came out of corporate law firms accounted for 71 percent of the nominees, with
only 4 percent coming from public interest groups and the same percentage having been

PageNo.
No.20
20ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
attorneys who represented workers in labor disputes.
Stone repeatedly warned that unchecked corporate power would mean corporate tyranny and
the death of democracy. He was joined in that thinking by Louis D. Brandeis, his fellow justice
and ally on the court, who stated, We can have democracy in this country, or we can have
great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cant have both.
The supposed clash between liberal and conservative judges is largely a fiction. The judiciary,
despite the Federalist Societys high-blown rhetoric about the sanctity of individual freedom,
is a naked tool of corporate oppression. The most basic constitutional rightsprivacy, fair
trials and elections, habeas corpus, probable-cause requirements, due process and freedom
from exploitationhave been erased for many, especially the 2.3 million people in our
prisons, most having been put there without ever going to trial. Constitutionally protected
statements, beliefs and associations are criminalized. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has
pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and
secret prisons in the name of national security.
Our constitutional rights have steadily been stripped from us by judicial fiat. The Fourth
Amendment reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Yet
our telephone calls and texts, emails and financial, judicial and medical records, along with
every website we visit and our physical travels, can be and commonly are tracked, recorded,
photographed and stored in government computer banks.
The executive branch can order the assassination of U.S. citizens without trial. It can deploy
the military into the streets to quell civil unrest under Section 1021 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) and seize citizensseizures that are in essence acts of
extraordinary renditionand hold them indefinitely in military detention centers while
denying them due process.
Corporate campaign contributions, which largely determine who gets elected, are viewed by
the courts as protected forms of free speech under the First Amendment. Corporate lobbying,
which determines most of our legislation, is interpreted as the peoples right to petition the
government. Corporations are legally treated as persons except when they carry out fraud
and other crimes; the heads of corporations routinely avoid being charged and going to
prison by paying fines, usually symbolic and pulled from corporate accounts, while not being
forced to admit wrongdoing. And corporations have rewritten the law to orchestrate a
massive tax boycott.
Many among the 1 million lawyers in the United States, the deans of our law schools and the
judges in our courts, whether self-identified liberals or Federalist Society members or
supporters, refuse to hold corporate power accountable to the law. They have failed us. They
alone have the education and skill to apply the law on behalf of the citizens. They alone know
how to use the courts for justice rather than injustice. When this period of American history is
written, the legal profession will be found to have borne much of the responsibility for our
descent into corporate tyranny. Lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. They are
supposed to be sentinels and guardians of the law. They are supposed to enlarge our access
to justice. They are supposed to defend the law, not subvert it. This moral failure by the legal
profession has obliterated our rights.
The radical libertarians in the Federalist Society, now ascendant within the legal system,
champion a legal doctrine that is essentially preindustrial. It is centered exclusively on the
rights of the individual and restricting the power of government. This can at times lead to
rulings that protect personal liberty. The followers of this doctrine on the Supreme Court, for
example, voted to overturn Connecticuts eminent-domain rape of a New London working-
class neighborhood to make way for a pharmaceutical plant. The liberals, who formed the
court majority, endorsed the taking of the neighborhood.

PageNo.
No.21
21ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Another example of radical libertarianism on the bench occurred when attorneys Bruce Afran
and Carl Mayer and I sued President Obama over Section 1021 of the NDAA, which
overturned the 1878 act that prohibited the government from using the military as a
domestic police force. We garnered support from some charter members of the Federalist
Society. The proclivity by the Federalist Society to hold up the primacy of individual rights
became especially important when, after the temporary injunction of Section 1021 issued by
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was overturned by the appellate
court, we had to file a cert, or petition, to request that the case, Hedges v. Obama, be heard
before the Supreme Court.
As obnoxious as [Antonin] Scalia was on cultural issues, he was the
strongest modern justice in terms of protecting First Amendment speech,
press and assembly rightsno liberal came anywhere near him in these
areas, Afran told me about the late justice. In fact, Scalia was the
justice who sympathized with our cert petition in the NDAA case. [Justice
Ruth Bader] Ginsburg denied our petition without circulating it among
the other justices. When we went to Scalia, he immediately asked for
additional briefs to circulate. It was his dissents in the Guantanamo
cases that we relied on in our cert petition. He issued strong dissents
holding that the Guantanamo inmates and others taken by the military in
Afghanistan should have complete civil rights in criminal prosecutions.
He went much further than the majority did in these cases and
condemned any holding of civilians by the military.
But although the Federalist Society purports to be against curtailment of civil liberties, with
some members embracing traditional liberal positions on issues such as drug laws and sexual
freedom, the organization also supports the judicial systems position that corporations hold
the rights of individuals. It is hostile to nearly all government regulations and regulatory
agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Securities and Exchange
Commission. It opposes the rights of labor unions, voting rights laws, gender equality laws
and the separation of church and state. It seeks to outlaw abortion and overturn Roe v.
Wade. The self-proclaimed originalism or textualism philosophy of the Federalist Society
has crippled the ability of the legal system to act en masse in class action suits against
corrupt corporate entities. And for all the rhetoric about championing individual liberty, as
Mayer pointed out, they never did a thing about any First Amendment intrusions that all of
the legislation passed after 9/11 involved. The Supreme Court did not accept our cert,
leaving Section 1021 as law.
The Federalist Society says it seeks legal interpretations that are faithful to those that would
have been made at the time the Constitution was written in the late 18th century. This
fossilization of the law is a clever rhetorical subterfuge to advance the interests of the
corporations and the oligarchs who have bankrolled the Federalist Societythe Mercer
Foundation, the late John Olin, the late Richard Scaife, the Lynde and Harry Bradley
Foundation, the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry. The Federalist Society has close
ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose lobbyists draft and push
corporate-sponsored bills through state legislatures and Congress.
Stone knew that the law would become moribund if it was frozen in time. It was a
living entity, one that had to forever adapt to changing economic, social and
political reality. He embraced what Oliver Wendell Holmes called legal realism.
The law was not only about logic but also about the experience of a lived human
society. If judges could not read and interpret that society, if they clung to rigid
dogma or a self-imposed legal fundamentalism, then the law would be transformed
into a sterile constitutionalism. Stone called on judges to have less reverence for

PageNo.
No.22
22ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
the way in which an old doctrine was applied to an old situation. The law had to be
flexible. Judges, to carry out astute rulings, had to make a close study of
contemporary politics, economics, domestic and global business practices and
culture, not attempt to intuit what the Founding Fathers intended.
Stone was wary of radicals and socialists. He could be skeptical of New Deal programs,
But he
although he believed the court had no right to reverse New Deal legislation.
understood that the law was the primary institution tasked
with protecting the public from PREDATORY CAPITALISM AND
THE ABUSES OF POWER. He voted consistently with Holmes
and Brandeis, two of the courts most innovative and brilliant
jurists. The three were so often in dissent to the conservative
majority they were nicknamed The Three Musketeers.
The law, Stone said, must never become the monopoly of any social or economic class. He
condemned his fellow conservatives for reading their economic preferences into the law and
into the Constitution as well. By doing so, he said, they placed in jeopardy a great and
useful institution of government.
Stone embraced the doctrine of preferred freedomsthe position that First Amendment
freedoms are preeminent in the hierarchy of constitutional rights, permitting justices to
override any legislation that curbs these freedoms. This became the basis for court decisions
to overturn state laws that persecuted and silenced African-Americans, radicalsincluding
communists, anarchists and socialistsand labor and religious activists.
Stone, as dean of Columbia Law School before being named U.S. attorney general in 1924
and joining the Supreme Court the year after that, said the schools mission was devoted to
teaching its students how to live rather than how to make a living. He denounced the Palmer
Raids and mass deportations of radicals that ended in 1920. He supported five Socialist
members of the New York State Assembly who were stripped of their elected seats by their
legislative colleagues in 1920 because of their political views. And he said that everyone,
including aliensmeaning those who were not citizens but who lived in the United States
deserved due process.
[A]ny system which confers upon administrative officers power to
restrain the liberty of individuals, without safeguards substantially like
those which exist in criminal cases and without adequate authority for
WILL
judicial review of the action of such administrative officers,
RESULT IN ABUSE OF POWER AND IN INTOLERABLE
INJUSTICE AND CRUELTY TO INDIVIDUALS, HE WROTE
OF LAWS THAT DEPRIVED ALIENS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
As attorney general he weeded out corrupt officials and zealously enforced antitrust laws,
swiftly making enemies of many leading industrialists, including Andrew Mellon. He also,
ominously, appointed J. Edgar Hoover to run the FBI. His aggressive antitrust campaigns led
to calls by the business community for his removal as attorney general, and he was elevated
to the Supreme Court in 1925, a move that, as the New York Globe and Commercial
Advertiser newspaper observed, protected business from disturbing litigation or the threat of
such litigation [and] has saved the [Coolidge] administration from the charge that it has
betrayed business.
The 1920s were, as Alpheus Thomas Mason wrote in his 1956 biography, Harlan Fiske
Stone: Pillar of the Law, a decade pre-eminent for the exploitative large-scale business; its
leaders preached the Gospel of Goods. Canonization of the salesman was seen as the

PageNo.
No.23
23ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
brightest hope of America. The absorbing ambition was to make two dollars grow where one
had grown before, to engineer, as utilities magnate Samuel Insull put it, all I could out of a
dollarthat is, get something for nothing.
Organized labor, which before World War I had been a potent social and political force, had
been crushed through government repression, including the use of the Espionage and
Sedition acts. Government regulations and controls had been weakened or abolished. It was
a time when, as Sinclair Lewis said of Babbittryreferring to the philistine behavior of the
lead character in his 1922 novel Babbitt, about the vacuity of American culturethe goal in
life was to be rich, fat, arrogant, and superior. Inequality had reached appalling levels, with
60 percent of American families existing barely above subsistence level by the time of the
1929 crash. The American god was profit. Those not blessed to be rich and powerful were
sacrificed on the altar of the marketplace.
The New Hampshire-born Stone, grounded in rural New England conservatism and Yankee
thrift, was appalled by the orgy of greed and inequality engineered by his fellow elites. He
denounced a hedonistic culture dominated by unethical oligarchs and corporations very
similar to those that exist today.
Wealth, power, the struggle for ephemeral social and political prestige,
which so absorb our attention and energy, are but the passing phase of
every age; ninety-day wonders which pass from mans recollection
almost before the actors who have striven from them have passed from
the stage, he wrote. What is significant in the record of mans
development is none of these. It is rather those forces in society and the
lives of those individuals, who have, in each generation, added
something to mans intellectual and moral attainment, that lay hold on
the imagination and compel admiration and reverence in each succeeding
generation.
Wall Streets crash in 1929 and the widespread suffering caused by the Depression confirmed
Stones fears about unfettered capitalism. Victorian-era writer Herbert Spencer, who coined
the term survival of the fittest and whose libertarian philosophy was widely embraced in the
1920s, argued that liberty was measured by the relative paucity of restraint that
government places on the individual. Stone saw this belief, replicated in the ideology of
neoliberalism, as a recipe for corporate oppression and exploitation.
If the law remained trapped in the agrarian, white male, slave-holding society in which the
authors of the Constitution lived, if it was used to exclusively defend individualism, there
would be no legal mechanisms to halt the abuse of corporate power. The rise of modern
markets, industrialization, technology, imperial expansion and global capitalism necessitated
a legal system that understood and responded to modernity. Stone bitterly attacked the
concept of natural law and natural rights, used to justify the greed of the ruling elites by
attempting to place economic transactions beyond the scope of the courts. Laissez faire
economics was not, he said, a harbinger of progress. The purpose of the law was not to
maximize corporate profit. In Stones reasoning, a clash between the courts and the lords of
commerce was inevitable.
Stone excoriated the legal profession for its failure to curb the avarice of the
giant economic forces which our industrial and financial world have created.
Lawyers, he went on, were not supposed to be guardians of corporate power.
He asked why a bar which has done so much to develop and refine the
technique of business organization, to provide skillfully devised methods for
financing industry, which has guided a world-wide commercial expansion, has
done relatively so little to remedy the evils of the investment market; so little to

PageNo.
No.24
24ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
adapt the fiduciary principle of nineteenth-century equity to twentieth-century
business practices; so little to improve the functioning of the administrative
mechanisms which modern government sets up to prevent abuses; so little to
make law more readily available as an instrument of justice to the common
man. The law, he said, was about the advancement of the public interest. He
castigated the educated elites, especially lawyers and judges, who used their
skills to become the obsequious servant of business and in the process were
tainted with the morals and manners of the marketplace in its most anti-social
manifestations. And he warned law schools that their exclusive focus on
proficiency overlooked the grave danger to the public if this
proficiency be directed wholly to private ends without thought of the
social consequences. He lambasted the cramped mind of the clever
lawyer, for whom intellectual dignity and freedom had been forbidden by
the interests which he served. He called the legal professions service to
corporation power a sad spectacle and attorneys who sold their souls
to corporations lawyer criminals.
He was viciously attacked. The Wall Street lawyer William D. Guthrie responded in the
Fordham Law Review, warning readers that Stone was peddling subversive doctrines
championed by false prophets that had as their goal national socialism, the repudiation of
standards and obligation heretofore upheld, the leveling of classes, the destruction of
property, and the overthrow of our federal system designed to be composed of sovereign and
indestructible states.
But Stone understood a seminal fact that eludes our days Federalist Society and the
Republican and Democratic party leaderships: Corporations cannot be trusted with social and
political power. Stone knew that the law must be a barrier to the insatiable corporate lust for
profit. If the law failed in this task, then corporate despotism was certain.
He wrote of the excesses of capitalism that led to the Depression:
I venture to assert that when the history of the financial era which has just drawn
to a close comes to be written, most of its mistakes and its major faults will be
ascribed to the failure to observe the fiduciary principle, the precept as old as the
holy writ, that a man cannot serve two masters. More than a century ago equity
gave a hospitable reception to that principle, and the common law was not slow to
follow in giving it recognition. No thinking man can believe that an economy built
upon a business foundation can long endure without some loyalty to that principle.
The separation of ownership from management, the development of the corporate
structure so as to vest in small groups control over the resources of great numbers
of small and uninformed investors, make imperative a fresh and active devotion to
that principle if the modern world of business is to perform its proper function. Yet
those who serve nominally as trustees, but relieved, by clever legal devices, from
the obligation to protect those whose interests they purport to represent,
corporate officers and directors who award themselves huge bonuses from
corporate funds without the assent or even the knowledge of their stockholders,
reorganization committees created to serve interests other than those whose
securities they control, financial institutions which, in the infinite variety of their
operations, consider only last, if at all, the interests of those whose funds they
command, suggest how far we have ignored the necessary implications of that
principle. The loss and suffering inflicted on individuals, the harm done to a social
order founded upon business and dependent upon its integrity, are incalculable.

PageNo.
No.25
25ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
The corporate coup dtat Stone attempted to thwart is complete. His worst fears are our
nightmare.
Stone had his flaws. After he refused to grant a stay of execution for Nicola Sacco and
Bartolomeo Vanzetti, the two anarchists were hanged in August 1927. (A courtier took a
fishing boat to retrieve the fateful decision that Stone made while he was at his vacation
home here on Isle au Haut. He probably signed off on their execution orders on the table
where I sit each morning.) He sometimes ruled against the rights of unions. He endorsed the
internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II. He was not sympathetic to
conscientious objectors except on religious grounds. He did not always protect the
constitutional rights of communists. He could use the law to curb what he saw as Franklin
Roosevelts consolidation of power within the executive branch.
But Stone had the integrity and courage to throw bombs at the establishment. He attacked,
for example, the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi leadership after World War II, calling it a high-
grade lynching party. I dont mind what he [the chief Nuremberg prosecutor, Supreme Court
Justice Robert H. Jackson] does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running
a court and proceeding according to common law, he wrote. This is a little too
sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas. He noted acidly that the Nuremberg
Trials were being used to justify the proposition that the leaders of the vanquished are to be
executed by the victors.
Stone spent his summers in a gray-shingled cottage with blue-green trim overlooking a small
island harbor. He and his wife built the cottage, which still stands, in 1916. He tramped about
the island in old clothes. One day at the dock a woman mistook the Supreme Court justice for
a porter. She asked him to carry her bags. Stone, a burly man who had played football in
college, lifted the suitcases and followed her without a word.
Stone did not possess the Emersonian brilliance and rhetorical flourishes of a Holmes or the
trenchant social analysis of a Brandeis, but he was an astute legal scholar. There would be no
place for him in todays Republican or Democratic parties or judiciary, seized by the corporate
interests he fought. The Federalist Society, along with corporate lobbyists, would have
mounted a fierce campaign to block him from becoming attorney general and a Supreme
Court justice. His iron fidelity to the rule of law would have seen him, like Ralph Nader, tossed
into the political and judicial wilderness.
Stone opposed socialism because, as he told his friend Harold Laski, the British
political philosopher and socialist, he believed the judicial system could be
reformed and empowered to protect the public from the tyranny of corporate elites.
If the judicial system failed in its task to safeguard democracy, he conceded to
Laski, socialism was the only alternative.

PageNo.
No.26
26ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
DEFENDANTS LIST AS OF TUESDAY AUGUST 22, 2017 -
68.Steve Midciff Ceo Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;

69.Dr.Anthony Mastropietro Medical Director Lancaster Regional Hospital
Lancaster,Pa.;
70.Linda S. Wenger Pa-C Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
71.Christine M.Dang M.D. Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
72.Mastropietro Associatesfamily Practice Noll Drive Lancaster Pa.;
73.BLack And Black Dental Willow St. Pa.;
74.Dr. John Black Iii Black And Black Dental Willow St. Pa.;
75.Southeast Health Clinic Brightside Baptist Church Lancaster Pa.;
76.Dr. Leo Dorizynski Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster
Pa.;
77. Dr. Sean Coldren M.D. Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster Pa.;
78.Dr. Emily Pressley M.D. Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster Pa..;
79.Dr. Daniel Mcintyre M.D. Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
80.Lancaster General Hospital Department Of Psychiatry Lancaster Pa.;
81.Dr. Tate Lancaster Emergency Associates Of Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster
Pa..;
82.Amy Millhouse Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
83.Officer Eric Mccrady, Lancaster City Bureau Of Police Lancaster Pa.;
84.Lancaster County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Department County Of
Lancaster Lancaster Pa.;
85.JAMES McLAUGHLIN DISRECTOR MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION
DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF LANCASTER LANCASTER PA.;
86.CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
87.MR. McCARDY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER
COUNTY'
88.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
89.DENNIS STUCKEY CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF
LANCASTER PA.;
90.HOUSE OF PASTA BAR & RESTAURANT MILLERSVILLE PIKE LANCASTER PA.;
91.YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR NORTH QUEEN ST. LANCASTER PA.;
92.UPS COPY STORE STONE MILL PLAZA LANCASTER PA.;
93.ART WARD PROPERIETOR UPS COPY STORE STONE MILL PLAZA LANCASTER PA.;
94.PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST LANCASTER
PA.;
95.COMMANDER PA. STATE POLICE TROOP J LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST LANCASTER
PA.;
96.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT);
97.BEVERLY POINTS ESQ. LEGAL COUNSEL PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
98.LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
99.TERRY BERGMAN SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS
COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
100. MARK REESE CHIEF DEPUTY LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SHERIFFS COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE PRO SE.
REINSTATED AS DIRECTED.
101. RANDALL O. WENGER PROTHONOTARY.
102. LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER COLLEGE AVENUE LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA
103. DR. L. WENGER LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
104. WEIS MARKETS SADSBURY PENNSYLVANIA
105. WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY PENNSYLVANIA
106. AMY BRENT PHARMICIST DISTRICT MANAGER WEIS MARKET

PageNo.
No.27
27ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
107. CVS PHARMACY MANOR SHOPPING CENTER LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
108. FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
109. FULTON BANK LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
110. MR. R. SCOTT SMITH CEO FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION
111. PHILLIP WENGER COO FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION
112. MR. CRAIG RODA CEO FULTON BANK
113. MS DANA CHRYST BOARD OF DIRECTORS FULTON FINANICAL
CORPORATION LANCASTER
114. GENERAL HOSPITAL
115. NEW HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC NEW HOLLAND PENNSYLVANIA
116. DR. WEST NEW HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS INC.
LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
117. STEVE WEAVER MANAGER LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS
118. JOHN BUCKWALTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN LANCASTER
NEWSPAPERS
119. HIGH INDUSTRIES LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
120. FRANK MCCABE HIGH HOTELS
121. S. DALE HIGH HIGH INDUSTRIES
122. BARLEY SNYDER LLC. LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
123. SHAWN LONG ESQ. BARLEY SNYDER LLC
124. WGAL TV-8 LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
125. PAUL QUINN GENERAL MANAGER WGAL TV-8
126. DOUG ALLEN WGAL TV-8
127. JANELLE STELLSON WGAL TV-8
128. SUSAN SHIPIRO WGAL TV-8
129. BARBARA BARR WGAL TV-8
130. LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LANCASTER COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
131. COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX RED ROSE COMMONS LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA
132. LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
133. RYAN P. AUMENT LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
134. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
135. NURSE 1 OF JULY 13 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
136. NURSE 2 OF JULY 13 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
137. DR. VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT
138. WACHOVIA BANK HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA
139. BRANCH MANAGER WACHOVIA BANK HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR
STREETS LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
140. ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR
141. MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT AND BAR
142. MARION STREET CAFE
143. MIKE GEESEY PROPRIETOR MARION COURTROOM
144. ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
145. JOHN KATRAS PROPRIETOR ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
146. BRETT STABLEY MANAGER ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
147. ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT
148. THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB GEORGE SOUKAS MANAGER THE VILLAGE
NIGHTCLUB
149. RUBY TUESDAY RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL MANOR SHOPPING CENTER
150. VALENTINOS CAFE LANCASTER
151. BRICKYARD BAR

PageNo.
No.28
28ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
152. LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION
153. DAVID PFLUMM
154. PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK LIBERTY PLACE LANCASTER
155. LANCASTER EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA)
156. MARK SPRUNGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LETA
157. RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA)
158. DAVID KILMER RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
159. LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU
160. KIETH SADDLER CHIEF OF POLICE LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU
161. SGT. RICHARD COSMORE LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU LANCASTER
162. CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
163. MR. MCGUIRE LANCASTER CITY HOUSING INSPECTION
164. DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION REPRESENTATIVE
165. LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION
166. RICHARD GRAY MAYOR CITY OF LANCASTER
167. LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS
168. WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK
169. RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET LANCASTER PA
170. LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE
171. CRAIG STEDMAN LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
172. MICHAEL LANDIS DETECTIVE LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE
173. PRESIDENT JUDGE LOUIS FARINA LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
174. JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
175. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
176. ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE THOMAS CORBETT PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL
177. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA
178. ERIC HOLDER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
179. FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) HARRISBURG OFFICE
180. FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) PHILADELPHIA OFFICE
181. SHERYL CROW INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST
182. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA)
183. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.)
184. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA)
185. ROBERT GATES UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
186. BARRACK OBAMA UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
187. DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN PH.D. VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
188. JODIE RICHARDSON SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
189. LORI B. AUSTIN DIRECTOR OF JUDICIAL AFFAIRS MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
190. VICTOR DESANTIS DIRECTOR GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEACH
PROGRAM MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
191. MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND
LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
192. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
193. NATHANIEL BOMBERGER LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT
194. P. MICHAEL STURLA PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
195. JOHN ROCHAT CHIEF OF POLICE MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT
196. MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
197. ROBERT S. WALKER,
198. ATT MOBILE PHONE,

PageNo.
No.29
29ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
199. SPRINT MOBILE PHONE,
200. BEST BUY,
201. HILDEY'S BAR,
202. THE JUKE BOX, JOHN KATRAS, LANCASTER
203. FLEET AND AUTO,
204. PRESS ROOM, LNP ENTERPRISES,
205. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,OFFICE
206. MAX, LANCASTER REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
207. PATIENT FIRST URGENT CARE, ALTANA
208. RESTAURANT, BEN FRANK, AMALFI PROPERTIES,
209. TELLUS360 BAR AND RESTAURANT,
210. CORTY BYRON, ANNIE BAILEY'S RESTAURANT, JOSHUA FUNK,
211. CIGAR BAR, DANIEL FALCON,
212. LANCASTER DISPENSING COMPANY, BRADLEY DEFORGE, JUDY ROSS,
213. YORGOS BAR AND RESTAURANT, GEORGE KATSAROS, AND MRS.
KATSAROS,
214. LENS CRAFTERS, LANCASTER, PA., DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES,
OPTOMETRISTS, LANCASTER, PA.
215. CARTRIDGE WORLD, LANCASTER, PA.,
216. KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE LANCASTER, PA.,
217. EYEMART EXPRESS STORE, LANCASTER, PA.,
218. DR. HARRY BREITMAN, LANCASTER, PA.,
219. OFFICE MAX STORE #854, LANCASTER, PA.,
220. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA,
221. LEON PANETTA, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, LANGLEY,
VIRGINIA
222. MARRIOTT MOTELL, PENN SQUARE GRILL AND BAR, INTERSTATE HOTELS &
RESORTS
223. SPRING HOUSE BREWING COMPANY, TAPROOM
224. JAMES COMEY, DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OR FBI
225. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE
226. MR. JEFFREY SESSIONS, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
227. MASON PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
228. ABIGAL PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREAT
229. ELIZABETH PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
230. KEAGAN PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
231. WILLIAM PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
232. GREG BURIE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
233. KEVIN HOBDAY STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
234. ANNA CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
235. STEVE CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
236. PHIL CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
237. KIESHLA CALCORFI-PRTIZ/ENTERPRISE AUTO FALSE STATEMENTS TO
AUTHORITIES
238. LANCASTER BARNSTORMERS, DAKOTA BASEBALL, IAN RIZOW, BOB LISS,
STEVE ZUCKERMAN, BOB ZUCKERMAN; Doing Business at 650 NORTH
PRINCE STREET, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17603
239.
240. FREMONT STREET NEIGBORS
241. 1. GEIGER, ROBERT AND CAROL 1261 FREMONT ST REAR
242. 2. WEICKSEL, CHARLES 1257 FREMONT ST REAR
243. 3. TANNER JOSHUA M, 1267 FREMONT ST
244. WEICKSEL, CHARLES 1255 FREMONT ST REAR
245. 5. AREAS, KARLA 1263 FREMONT ST
246. 6. WILSON THEODORE R JR, AND JENNIFER, N 1261 FREMONT ST
247. 7. GEIGER, ROBERT AND CAROL 1261 FREMONT ST REAR

PageNo.
No.30
30ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
248. 8. WEICKSEL CHARLES S SR, 1257 FREMONT ST
249. 9. NOLL, LINDA 1255 FREMONT ST
250. 10.FIX FRANK C II & A MARLENE, 1251 FREMONT ST
251. 11.MCELROY JANICE L, 1249 FREMONT ST
252. 12.HERR E NORBERT&BERYL M, 1247 FREMONT ST
253. 13.HOLZ WILLIAM C, 1231 FREMONT ST
254. 14.SHORT, JILL 1245 FREMONT ST
255. 15.MCCUEN, CHRISTINE 1243 FREMONT ST
256. 16.PATEL, VIVAK 1239 FREMONT ST
257. 17.TROUT RONALD N & JEANETTE E, 1262 FREMONT ST
258. 18.SHAMBAUGH, KATHERINE 1237 FREMONT ST
259. 19.CULLERS BRUCE E & TRACEY L, 1235 FREMONT ST
260. 20.LAUKHUFF KENNETH W & MARLENE, 1260 FREMONT ST
261. 21.BAUER M EILEEN, 1233 FREMONT ST
262. 22.PARIS BRIAN M, 1258 FREMONT ST
263. 23.FISHER JUSTIN E, 1231 FREMONT ST
264. 24. 789 MAIN STREET LLC, 1256 FREMONT ST
265. 25.SCHRECK DAVID M, AND EDWARD EVINS 1252 FREMONT ST
266. 26.FOEHLINGER FRANCES C, 1227 FREMONT ST
267. 27.BOWMAN RONALD D, AND LORI, C. 1225 FREMONT ST
268. 28.COLON DANIEL, 1223 FREMONT ST
269. 29.SUTTON DAWN M, AND KENDALL 1248 FREMONT ST
270. 30.GRAHAM, ERIK AND COURTNEY 1246 FREMONT ST
271. 31.GROFF RONALD L & HELEN E, 1221 FREMONT ST
272. 32.BOAS RICHARD L & SYLVIA F, 1244 FREMONT ST
273. 33.BECHTEL, MARYANN AND PETE AND MEGAN 1219 FREMONT ST
274. 34.HERZOG WALTER F &, SAGERER, BARBARA 1242 FREMONT ST
275. 35.NGUYEN THU VAN &, HOI THI DOAN 1238 FREMONT ST
276. 36.DINGS FRED L II &, MELODY, M 1236 FREMONT ST
277. 37.DEAN ELIZABETH M, 1234 FREMONT ST
278. 38.ALI, FAIZA 1232 FREMONT ST
279. 39.HILL RICHARD L & LINDA L, 1230 FREMONT ST
280. 40.TORIBIO MANUEL, AND TORIBIO 1228 FREMONT ST
281. 41.KAUFFMAN SABRINA, 1224 FREMONT ST
282. 42.DELAHOZ, SANDRA 1222 FREMONT ST
283. 43.BORTZFIELD JAMES T, 1220 FREMONT ST
284. 44.MOYER, LINDA AND DANIEL IVGARAGES AND ORCHARD1258 REAR
FREMONT ST
285. 45.ARMARTER THERESA A, 1218 FREMONT ST
286. 46.MELVIN, STEPHANIE 1216 FREMONT ST
287. 47.MCDOWELL, JONATHAN MICHAEL 1214 FREMONT ST
288. 48.ZETTLEMOYER ROBERTA M, 1210 FREMONT ST
289. 49.PROGRAM ASSISTANCE CORP, 1208 FREMONT ST
290. 50.FLAHARTY JACQUELINE N, 1206 FREMONT ST
291. 51.DARRAH, DAVID 1204 FREMONT ST
292. BELLVEDERE INN, N.QUEEN AND LEMON STREET, LANCASTER, PA
293. THE HONORALBE EDWARD G. SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA, ALLENTOWN, PA
294. CENTER CITY BRANCK LANCASTER YMCA, HARRISBURG AVENUE,
LANCASTER, PA
295. RAYMOND PENNINO AND VILLANOVA WEST BAR AND RESTUARANT,
Columbia Avenue, Lancaster, PA
296. RANDY, BARTENDER AND HOUSE OF PASTA, Millersville Pike, Lancaster, PA
297. ASHLEY DOE, 1242 Fremont Street -
298. THE GRAHAMS, 1246 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA -
299. LOWES STORE, Columbia Ave., Lancaster, PA
300. MILLER OPTICAL, LANCASTER, PA
301. TJ ROCKWELLS RESTAURANT AND BAR, ELIZABETHTOWN, LANCASTER, PA

PageNo.
No.31
31ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
302. MANHIEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
303. M&T BANK, COLUMBIA AVENUE, LANCATER, PA
304. KRISTINA E. FINDIKYAN
305. HEARST CORPORATION
306. WGAL-TV
307. SGT CHARLES M. MELHORN OF MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
308. PETE ANDERS OF MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
309. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
310. TURKEY HILL CONVENIENCE STORES
311. PENNSLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT PROTHONOTARY
312. PENNSLVANIA SUPREME COURT PROTHONOTARY
313. MARC ZUCKERBERG AND FACEBOOK
314. PA FILE AND SERVE
315. JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN BRUCE JESSEN, CIA TORTURE
PSYCHOLOGISTS
AUGUST 22, 2017
__________/S/_____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-528-2200

PageNo.
No.32
32ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Dated AUGUST 22, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
are a means of protecting our right to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a member
of the media. Unfortunately due to the hacking of our electronic and digital footprints, we no longer have
access to our email contact list to make deletions. How long can Lancaster County and Lancaster City
Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals -
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL
FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case
No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen
Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary
Injunction Case of 2016

PageNo.
No.33
33ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
DISC ONE OF 2 DVD SET

EXHIBITS
1. THE CIA - CASE FILE - CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE
CASE v. CIA PSYCHOLOGISTS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON August 18, 2017
2. THE POLICE - 3. PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE POLICE STATE, and
STAN CATERBONE v. Lancaster City Police - Case No. 08-08942
in U.S. District Court Published on April 25, 2017
3. Millersville University Grad Program Documents for Litigation
September 16, 2009 IMPORTANT UPDATED JULY 22, 2017
4. 4. THE JAMES COMEY FILE - James Comey Sued for Allegedly
Covering Up Massive Surveillance Scandal - June 15, 2017
5. THE PSYCHIATRISTS - THE COMPLETE 862 PAGE MENTAL
HEALTH RECORD OF STAN J. CATERBONE TO DATE APRIL 4,
2017
AUDIO AND VIDO FILES
6. Audio Appointment with Psychiatrist Al Shulz in January of

1998 in his Office in York, Pennsylvania
7. Appointment with Dr. Brian Sullivan of Abbeyville Family
Medicine-LGH re Pain Management of March 2010
8. VOICEMAIL MESSAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA CAPITOL
POLICWOMAN PARKS RE PA ATTY GEN NO TRESPASS JULY 12,
2017
9. VOICE RECORDING OF MESSAGE TO MANHEIM TWP POLICE
DEPARTMENT OFFICER MELFORD RE WGAL NO TESSPASS
THURSDAY JUNE 29, 2017
10. CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST
10, 2017

PageNo.
No.34
34ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Stan J. Caterbone

Surveillance,
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
DISC TWO OF 2 DVD SET
COINTELPRO DVD FILE LIST

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 16, 2017
____________________________________
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?

PageNo.
No.35
35ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
ACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals - COMPLAINT OF
JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re ALL FEDERAL LITIGATION TO
DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa
Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 17-1904 CATERBONE v. NSA, et.al., The appeal of the Preliminary
Injunction For Emergency Relief Case No. 17-0868; Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle
Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-10615; Case No. 17-0867
Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49;
15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS
CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against Lancaster County Court
of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 1219 EDA 2016; Case no. 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane;
Summary Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561
MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472 INJUNCTION re Pain Meds;
Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401

PageNo.
No.36
36ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
Number FOLDERS
00000001 15-256JLQ AMICUS\
00000002 1252 FREMONT STREET\
00000003 MEMOS\
00000004 MOST RECENT OF IMPORTANCE\
00000005 RICK GRAY\
00000006 SMOKING GUNS\
00000007 THE EVIDENCE\
00000008 THE NSA, CIA, AND FBI\
00000009 U.S. Sponsored Mind Control\
00000010 Video - Mental Telepathy and Electromagnetic Weapons\
00000011 001. STAN J. CATERBONE ANTI-TRUST CASE FILE OF JULY 2, 2017 UPDATED JULY 9, 2017.pdf
00000012 01 365 MT 2017 LETTER TO OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY July 25, 2017 07-26-2017_11-28-29-620.pdf
00000013 1. STAN J. CATERBONE - A LANDMARK TORTURE CASE, Published by The Advanced Media Group Copyright 2017 JULY 21,
2017.pdf
00000014 2. TRUMP POLICE AND LAW ENFORCMENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 2017 - June 11, 2017.pdf
00000015 3. PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE POLICE STATE, and STAN CATERBONE v. Lancaster City Police - Case No. 08-08942 in U.S. District
Court Published on April 25, 2017.pdf
00000016 4. THE JAMES COMEY FILE - James Comey Sued for Allegedly Covering Up Massive Surveillance Scandal - June 15, 2017.pdf
00000017 5. CASE FILE - Letter to Mr. Caterbone re FROM WGAL-HEARST LEGAL COUNSEL re NO-TRESPASS NOTICE BY MANHEIM TWP
POLICE re MARRIOTT NEWSLANC July 1, 2017.pdf
00000018 5. CASE FILE - Letter to Mr. Caterbone re FROM WGAL-HEARST LEGAL COUNSEL re NO-TRESPASS NOTICE BY MANHEIM TWP
POLICE re MARRIOTT NEWSLANC UPDATED JULY 27, 2017.pdf
00000019 6. Millersville University Grad Program Documents for Litigation September 16, 2009 IMPORTANT UPDATED JULY 22,
2017.pdf
00000020 7. PETE ANDERS MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE NO TRESPASS UPDATE OF JUNE 29, 2017.pdf
00000021 8. Homeowners Rehab Application File of June 8, 2015 - COINTELPRO EXTORTION MODEL RESULTS January 30, 2017.pdf
00000022 9. COINTELPRO - 165 Cameras Placed in Downtown Lancaster City by Gray Administration in 2009, July 20, 2016.pdf
00000023 10. COINTELPRO - Case Law The Assassination of Fred Hampton 47 Years Later , BRIEF AND HANDBOOK by Flint Taylor
Attorney, JUNE 6, 2017.pdf
00000024 11. VOICEMAIL MESSAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA CAPITOL POLICWOMAN PARKS RE PA ATTY GEN NO TRESPASS JULY 12,
2017.WAV
00000025 12. VOICE RECORDING OF MESSAGE TO MANHEIM TWP POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER MELFORD RE WGAL NO TESSPASS
THURSDAY JUNE 29, 2017.m4a
00000026 13. VOICEMAIL MESSAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA CAPITOL POLICWOMAN PARKS RE PA ATTY GEN NO TRESPASS JULY 12,
2017.WAV
00000027 14. LETTER TO MR. JOSHUA LOCK re Superior Court Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 and Ms. Kathleen Kane re NO TRESPASS
NOTICE TO PA ATTORNEY GENERAL July 26, 2017.pdf
00000028 15. USCA Third Circuit Case No. 17-1904 DECLARATORY STATEMENT re USCA THRID CIRCUIT HONORABLE MARYANNE
TRUMP BARRY AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, July 24, 2017 WITH FLASH DRIVE EXHIBIT.pdf
00000029 16. LETTER TO MR. JOSHUA LOCK re Superior Court Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 and Ms. Kathleen Kane re NO TRESPASS
NOTICE TO PA ATTORNEY GENERAL July 22, 2017.pdf
00000030 17. Italy convicts U.S. (CIA) agents in abduction of Rendition Case November 5, 2009 UPDATED JULY 25, 2017.pdf
00000031 18. LETTER TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT re NOTICE OF APPEAL CASE NO. CASE NO.
CP-36-SA-0000046-2017 of July 25, 2017.pdf
00000032 19. LETTER TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT re CASE No. 365 MT 2017 DEFICIENCY LETTER
OF July 21, 2017 - July 25, 2017.pdf
00000033 20. People To People International March 1991 MAY 2, 2007 RECOVERD JULY 25, 2017.pdf
00000034 21. Declassified Files Show FBI and NSA Routinely Broke Privacy Rules Under Obama - Sputnik International JULY 27,
2017.pdf
00000035 22. FAX TO U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL July 26, 2017 07-26-2017_12-24-24-262.pdf
00000036 23. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS TURKEY HILL, PROTHONOTARY
SUPERIOR AND SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA JULY 27, 2017.pdf
00000037 24. LETTER TO DIRECTOR OF HOMELAND SECURITY re MUSLIM CONTACTS - RUSSIAN CONTACTS - NOW BLACK MUSLIMS OR
MASONS TODAY JULY 28, 2017 DRAFT.pdf
00000038 25. LETTER TO SUPERIOR COURT PROTHONOTARY July 25, 2017 07-26-2017_11-31-34-632.pdf
00000039 26. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT Friday June 30, 2017 FINAL
DELIVERED JULY 3, 2017.pdf
00000040 27. SCANS OF July 26, 2017 07-26-2017_11-34-05-513.pdf
00000041 28. Stan J. Caterbone BOOKMARKS and HISTORY To AUGUST 15, 2017.pdf
00000042 29. STAN J. CATERBONE PNC BANK DUKE STREET AND MILLERSVILLE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX INVENTORIES OF JULY 28, 2017
REDUCED.pdf
00000043 30. STAN J. CATERBONE INVENTORIES OF JULY 28, 2017.pdf
00000044 31. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re EXHIBIT - TRUMP ENCOURAGING POLICE VIOLENCE AND ABUSE JULY
30, 2017.pdf
00000045 32. WHAT WOULD ROBERT GATES, FORMER DIRECTOR OF CIA, DO FOR A SOLUTION IN NORTH KOREA - JULY 10, 2017
UPDATED JULY 30, 2017.pdf
00000046 33. MODERN INSANITY - How America LOST IT'S MIND - by Stan J. Caterbone Published by THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
August 15, 2017.pdf

PageNo.
No.37
37ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000047 34. THE MIND HAS NO FIREWALL AND CORPORATE AMERICA AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ARE IN - by Stan J. Caterbone
August 15, 2017.pdf
00000048 35. UPDATED-COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA re CATERBONE v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services
SNAP BENEFITS EMERGENCY INJUNCTION August 14, 2017.pdf
00000049 STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE COINTELPRO DVD FILE LIST AUGUST 12, 2017.pdf
00000050 American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Letter re NSA Americus Curiae June 15 2007.pdf
00000051 APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE v. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
WASHINGTON August 1, 2017.pdf
00000052 APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
AUGUST 5, 2017.pdf
00000053 CASE FILE - THE STAN J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP JOSHUA LOCK KATHLEEN KANE AMICUS CASE 3576 EDA
2016 April 21, 2017.pdf
00000054 CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST 10, 2017.mp4
00000055 FINAL-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 STRIKING AMICUS CURIE BRIEF IN CASE NO.
215-CV-286-JLQ EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON August 11, 2017.pdf
00000056 LETTER re APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights AUGUST 8, 2017.pdf
00000057 STAN J. CATERBONE Amici Curiae For ACLU v NSA February 20 2007.pdf
00000058 The Lisa Lambert Case File by Stan J. Caterbone, PRO SE MOVANT - June 29, 2017.pdf
00000059 2016_08_22_11_19_01 YELLING AND SCREAMING FROM 1252 FREMONT ST THROUGH THE WALLS Monday August 22,
2016.mp3
00000060 Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence - My Statement of June 10, 2016.doc
00000061 Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence - My Statement of June 10, 2016.pdf
00000062 DaddyJustice re William Plank at 1252 Fremont Street February 9, 2016.pdf
00000063 Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 Reinstatement Wennerstrom Schreck 1252 Fremont St October 2, 2015mmmmm.pdf
00000064 Email to Sector 9 re 1252 Fremont Street June 17, 2015 for Private Criminal Complaint of March 30, 2016.pdf
00000065 Evidence of Harassment and Possible Murder at 1252 Fremont Street, February 9, 2016.pdf
00000066 Full page photo Stalker Automobile at 1252 Fremont Street Photo Taken on January 30, 2016.pdf
00000067 Gmail - Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence - My Statement of June 10, 2016.pdf
00000068 Lancaster Regional Medical Center Emergency Room INVOICE re Pitt Bull Attack at 1252 Fremont St. on June 10, 2016
Invoice Date July 5, 2016.pdf
00000069 Lancaster Regional Medical Center Pitt Bull Attack at 1252 Fremont St. Emergency Room Medical File of June 10, 2016.pdf
00000070 Murder in Paradise Article About William Lefty Plank of 1252 Fremont St Includes Possible Photo of Wallace Dec 3
2007mmmmmm.pdf
00000071 Private Criminal Complaint - 1252 Fremont Street on March 30, 2016.pdf
00000072 USPS Label Private Criminal Complaint - 1252 Fremont Street on March 30, 2016.pdf
00000073 0. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 EXHIBIT re THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY and STAN J. CATERBONE as
of January 28, 2017.pdf
00000074 1. May 2, 1987 Audio Memo re Financial Management Group, Ltd., Transcibed by Lynn Kreider Staff Employee of FMG,
Ltd.,.pdf
00000075 2. Dale High Legal Notes and Memos 1989 to 1992.pdf
00000076 2-2008cv00303 Eric Griffen v. White House U.S District Court FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS OF COURT.pdf
00000077 3. Diary of Mental Duress Pflumm Contractors.pdf
00000078 4. Lancaster General Hospital Notes & Memos Jun 31 2006.pdf
00000079 5. Tom Caterbone Estate Keeney Transaction and Fulton Bank With Grant Street Memos.pdf
00000080 6. Joseph F Roda Documents For Stan J. Caterbone, Sammy Caterbone & James Guerin June 29. 2007.pdf
00000081 7. Notes and Legal Research from Lancaster County Prison During False Imprisonement Oct 30 to Dec 29, 2006.pdf
00000082 9. Yolanda Marie Roda & Samuel P. Caterbone Wedding Memorium September 25, 1948.pdf
00000083 10. Bush Top Lawyers Authored Memos Purporting to Authorize Torture January 11, 2010.pdf
00000084 11. OpEdNews - Podcast_ Scott Horton and Jesselyn Radack re Bush Torture Memos February 26, 2010.pdf
00000085 12. C.I.A. Doctors, Ethics and Torture - New York Times, Tuesday November 29, 2016.pdf
00000086 13. In Contravention of Conventional Wisdom CIA No-Touch Torture Makes Sense, by Cheryl Welsh 2008.pdf
00000087 14. MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL_ Modern torture and Control Mechanisms eliminating human rights and privacy by Dr.
Rauni Leena Kilde, MD March 17, 2008.pdf
00000088 15. Soleilmavis case summary on mind control torture and abuse - peacepink.pdf
00000089 16. Stan J. Caterbone's VICTIMIZATION of TORTURE - What Gives You The Right, Lancaster County August 12, 2016.pdf
00000090 17. Torture LAW and the United States - Wikipedia by Stan J. Caterbone and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, February 4, 2017.pdf
00000091 18. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION RETURNING TORTURE REPORT JUNE 5, 2017.pdf
00000092 19. LETTER TO The Honorable Judge David Ashworth re Case No. CI-16-08472 LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS TORTURE CASE
FOR UMPC.pdf
00000093 20. Executive Summary With Sworn Testimony and Affidavits of Stan J. Caterbone Family Victimization of U.S. Sponsored
Mind Control.pdf
00000094 21. Letter to Lancaster County and Lancaster City Public Officials re Torture Techniques Used Against Me December 18, 2009
Complete.pdf
00000095 22. CI-16-08472 DOCKET SHEET February 3, 2017 and Torture LAW and the United States - Wikipedia by Stan J. Caterbone
and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, February 4, 2017.pdf
00000096 23. An expose on the intelligence agencies and their experiments with Remote Mind Control.pdf
00000097 25. LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN ROBERT WALKER and PLEADING of July 7, 1991 Bookmarked January 17, 2017.pdf
00000098 66-Legal Implications of the 1959 Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S Embassy January 17, 2017.pdf
00000099 1975 United States Senate Select CHURCH Hearings on MKultra.pdf
00000100 Call to Senate Judiciary Committee re Mind Control October 2, 2009.WAV
00000101 Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Appeal ORDER re Motion GRANTED for EXHIBITS by Judge Edward Smith July 12,
2017.pdf
00000102 Judicial Conduct Board COMPLAINT re MJ-02101-NT-0000609-2017 and MJ-02101-NT-0000578-2017 MDJ ADAM J.
WIDTKONIS of July 14, 2017.pdf
00000103 Judicial Conduct Board COMPLAINT re MJ-02101-TR-0001855-2017 FAILURE TO TURN MDJ ADAM J. WIDTKONIS of July 17,
2017.pdf
00000104 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas PETITION TO SET ASIDE SALE OF REAL ESTATE 1250 FREMONT STREET July 13,
2017 FINALED.pdf

PageNo.
No.38
38ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000105 LANCASTER COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU SMOKING GUN OF FRIDAY JULY 21, 2017.pdf
00000106 LYDIA CANAAN UN HUMAN RIGHTS SPEECH BY HUFFINGTON POST MARCH 18, 2017 AND STAN J. CATERBONE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMPLAINT of JULY 12, 2017.pdf
00000107 PA Dept of HUMAN SERVICES ID NO. 360234927 STAN J. CATERBONE SNAP BENEFITS APPLICATION July 18, 2017.pdf
00000108 Pennsylvania State Criminal Background Check of January19, 2016.pdf
00000109 PNC-MILLERSVILLE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX SAMPLE INVENTORY MONDAY JULY 17, 2017.pdf
00000110 STAN J. CATERBONE ANTI-TRUST CASE FILE OF JULY 2, 2017 UPDATED JULY 9, 2017.pdf
00000111 Stan J. Caterbone BOOKMARKS and HISTORY To JULY 17, 2017.pdf
00000112 STAN J. CATERBONE PSYCHIATRIC LIVING WILL DATED MONDAY JULY 17, 2017 WITH CCHR COMPLAINTS AND REPLIES.pdf
00000113 Superior Court 1219MDA 2016 PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE To PA Supreme Court of JULY 10, 2017 FINAL.pdf
00000114 COINTELPRO - 165 Cameras Placed in Downtown Lancaster City by Gray Administration in 2009, July 20, 2016.pdf
00000115 emal to Partricia Hartman re FBI & Atty Gen Gray in 1991 USDOJ June 16 2008.pdf
00000116 Homeowners Rehab Application File Copy May 19, 2015-signed.pdf
00000117 Homeowners Rehab Application File of June 8, 2015 - COINTELPRO EXTORTION MODEL RESULTS January 30, 2017.pdf
00000118 Information Inventory Assets of all file folders in 1250 Fremont Street on May 17, 2009 and in 1992 with Rick Gray File,
March 27 2016.pdf
00000119 Letter to Sadler-Sturla-Corbett-Stedman-US Attorney re Mayor Gray June 26, 2009.pdf
00000120 Pyfer Reed Straub Gray and Farhat, PC Solicitation Recieved February 5, 2016.pdf
00000121 STAN J CATERBONE v. Steven P. Caterbone re PROTECTION FROM ABUSE or PFA PETITION December 17, 2016.pdf
00000122 0. Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 EXHIBIT re THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY and STAN J. CATERBONE as
of January 28, 2017.pdf
00000123 1. January Invoice to Department of Defense Secretary Gates Certified Mailed 7009 2250 0001 4191 7165 December 23,
2009.pdf
00000124 2. Invoice to SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER for Victimization of U.S. Sponsored Torture Program December 2,
2016.pdf
00000125 3. Usage Statistics for www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com TOTALS and MONTHLY From May of 2016 to January 2017 -
March 12, 2017.pdf
00000126 3-Authentic and Original Documents of 1987 DEFAMATION AND SLANDER CAMPAIGN that Continues to This Day February 1,
2016.pdf
00000127 4. JIM GUERIN, FOUNDER OF ISC, FAREWELL LETTER OF 1989 December 26, 2016 and THE STAN J. CATERBONE FILES June
18, 2017.pdf
00000128 5. Tom Caterbone Estate Keeney Transaction and Fulton Bank With Grant Street Memos.pdf
00000129 8-CATERBONE v. the United States of America, et.al., COMPLAINT July 20, 2016 ver 3.0 July 22, 2016.pdf
00000130 11The Illegal Arms Trade The Iraq v. Iran War of 1980 James Guerin and Adm. Bobby Ray Inman of the NSA October 25,
2015 and Letters of LNP, March 29, 2016.pdf
00000131 36-JIM GUERIN, FOUNDER OF ISC, FAREWELL LETTER OF 1989 December 26, 2016.pdf
00000132 1250 FREMONT STREET 3 DEEDS AND WHOLSEN WIKIPEDIA November 14, 2016.pdf
00000133 CASE FILE - Letter to Mr. Caterbone re FROM WGAL-HEARST LEGAL COUNSEL re NO-TRESPASS NOTICE BY MANHEIM TWP
POLICE re MARRIOTT NEWSLANC July 1, 2017.pdf
00000134 Federal False Claim Act Filing AND ORIGINAL 1987 DOCUMENTS of October 19 2006.pdf
00000135 Had Lancaster Lost It's Sovereignty Before It Lost It's Soul by Stan Caterbone, Written in May 1998 - ARCHIVED THURSDAY
JUNE 29, 2017.pdf
00000136 ISC Search Lancaster Newspapers Archives dec 25 2007.pdf
00000137 LETTER TO ALLISON HALLETT, SUPERINTENDENT, MCI-FRAMINGHAM PRISON re LEGAL VISITATION FOR LISA LAMBERT
JUNE 24, 2017.pdf
00000138 LETTER to HIGH INDUSTRIES re MARRIOTT BAR THREATS, HARASSMENT, THEFT OF MONIES March 13, 2017.pdf
00000139 Letter to Mr. Caterbone re FROM WGAL-HEARST LEGAL COUNSEL re NO-TRESPASS NOTICE BY MANHEIM TWP POLICE re
MARRIOTT NEWSLANC July 1, 2017.pdf
00000140 PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PUBLIC CORRUPTION COMPLAINT Friday June 30, 2017 DRAFT Ver.
2.pdf
00000141 STAN J CATERBONE v. Steven P. Caterbone re PROTECTION FROM ABUSE or PFA PETITION December 17, 2016.pdf
00000142 Stan J. Caterbone and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP RESEARCH MATERIALS, COPYRIGHT 2016 November 23, 2016.pdf
00000143 Stan J. Caterbone BOOKMARKS and HISTORY To June 17, 2017.pdf
00000144 The Lisa Lambert Case File by Stan J. Caterbone, PRO SE MOVANT - June 29, 2017.pdf
00000145 THE TORTURE MEMO CD-ROM FILE LIST June 18, 2017.pdf
00000146 UPDATED - FULTON BANK - ISC - JAMES GUERIN - SCOOTER LIBBY - WILLIAM CLARK - CIA - VALERIE PLAME - CHRIS
UNDERHILL - JOE RODA November 6, 2016.pdf
00000147 USCA Third Circuit Case No. 17-1904 US District Court Case 17-0897 EXHIBIT FLASH DRIVE - THE TORTURE MEMO Per
ORDER of June 20, 2017 FILED June 25, 2017.pdf
00000148 USCA Third Circuit Case No. 17-1904 US District Court Case 17-0897 EXHIBIT FLASH DRIVE - THE TORTURE MEMO VIRUS
CERTIFICATION June 25, 2017.pdf
00000149 VOICE RECORDING OF MESSAGE TO MANHEIM TWP POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER MELFORD RE WGAL NO TESSPASS
THURSDAY JUNE 29, 2017.m4a
00000150 1. Phone Conversation With Pennsylvania Securities Commission Agent Howard Eisler on October 17, 1987.mp3
00000151 2. Meeting With Pennsylvania Securities Commission Agent Howard Eisler of September 29, 1987.mp3
00000152 3. Conversation and Plea for Help with Pennsylvania Attorney Bodan on October 19, 1987.mp3
00000153 4. Appointment with Dr. Brian Sullivan of Abbeyville Family Medicine-LGH re Pain Management of March_0.wma
00000154 5. Meeting With Attorney Sandra Grey in San Diego on February 24, 1988.mp3
00000155 6. Second Conversation With Atty Drubner & Meeting With Film Studio Gamillion Studios of Hollywood Jul_0.mp3
00000156 7. Audio Recordings of 1987 - PA SEC-PA Atty Gen-Gamillion Film Studios-Power Station Studios-Sandra Gray Atty.mp3
00000157 8. Call to Assistant U.S. Attorney Chrystie Fawcett During Serving of 302 Petition on April 8, 2010.mp3
00000158 9. Conversation With Lancaster Aviation President Chuck Smith re Illegal Reposession of Aircraft on _0.mp3
00000159 10. Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 36 CNN Video of Robert Gates & ISC in Confirmation Hearings.3gp
00000160 11. Segments of My Appearence and Interview on FFCHS Talkshoe Conference with Orville April 1, 2010.mp3
00000161 TS-340595 4-01-2010-My Appearence on FFCHS Talkshoe Conference with Orville April 1, 2010 Online Chat.mp3
00000162 1. USCA Third Circuit Case No. 17-1904 US District Court Case 17-0897 ARGUEMENT from ORDER of May 22, 2017 UPDATED
to File May 30, 2017.pdf
00000163 2. Duke Street Business Center No-Trespass Notice of June 16, 2017 With Full Amended Complaint.pdf
00000164 3. CASE FILE FOR No. 17-cv-867-EGS Preliminary Injunction for Emergency Relief and MIDDLE District Case 16-2513 on April

PageNo.
No.39
39ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
20, 2017.pdf
00000165 4. STAN J. CATERBONE Amici Curiae For ACLU v NSA February 20 2007.pdf
00000166 5. STAN J. CATERBONE v. FBI, NSA, CIA, and The United States of America, et.al., June 17, 2017.pdf
00000167 6. Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 3575 EDA 2016 Kathleen Kane Amicus REQUEST TO FILE UPDATED AMICUS
BRIEF on June 17, 2017.pdf
00000168 7. SCANS OF MAY 29, 2017 - TRIP TO PHILADELPHIA USCA 17-1904 AND USDC 17-01233 ONLY.pdf
00000169 8. U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals OPINION Reversal & JUDGMENT Case No. 07-4474 and 06-4650 January 4, 2017.pdf
00000170 9. Gitmo Lawyers v. NSA re Surveillance during Representing Gitmo Prisinors OPINION for Appeal of District Court January
1, 2010.pdf
00000171 10. STAN J. CATERBONE Findings of Facts 1998 Used In Original Federal Civil Action 05-2288 in the Eastern District Court of
Pennsylvania on May 16, 2005.pdf
00000172 11. DefenseNews Story by Joe Pitts ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS and Founder of the Electronic Warfare Working Group for
Securing Weapons October 25, 2016.pdf
00000173 Coast to Coast\
00000174 Documents\
00000175 Mental Telepathy Research\
00000176 RemoteViewing CD September 2, 2009 Exhibit CI-08-13373\
00000177 Sammy Caterbone\
00000178 Samuel Caterbone Disclosure Project\
00000179 AlbumArtSmall.jpg
00000180 Folder.jpg
00000181 Thumbs.db
00000182 About - Coast to Coast AM Radio Show Biography.pdf
00000183 Advanced Media Groups File on Dr. John Hall, A New Breed - Satellite Terrorism in America, on Coast to Coast AM Monday
February 8, 2010.pdf
00000184 AM-FM-PB Radio with WHAN for Coast to Coast AM on July 12, 2009 Important.pdf
00000185 Artificial Intelligence Coast to Coast August 30, 2009.xps
00000186 Call to Assistant U.S. Attorney Chrystie Fawcett During Serving of 302 Petition on April 8, 2010.mp3
00000187 Call to Set Up New Account With PP&L Electric to Restore Electric on April 26, 2010.mp3
00000188 Coast to Coast - Dr. Nick Begich DARPA and Telepathy Jun 03 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000191 Coast to Coast - Dr. Nick Begich HAARP, Mind Control, and ESP Apr 06 2010 - Hour 2.mp3
00000194 Coast to Coast - Dr. Nick Begich HAARP, Mind Control, and ESP Apr 06 2010.pdf
00000195 Coast to Coast - Freemasons Lost Symbo Sep 22 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000196 Coast to Coast - Freemasons Lost Symbo Sep 22 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000197 Coast to Coast - Freemasons Lost Symbol Sep 22 2009 - Hour 3.mp3
00000198 Coast to Coast - Gary S. Bechum re Psychic Spies and the DIA November 6, 2009 Hour-3.mp3
00000199 Coast to Coast - Inside the Bermuda Triangle Dec 06 2009 - Hour 3.mp3
00000200 Coast to Coast - Inside the Bermuda Triangle Dec 06 2009 - Hour 4.mp3
00000201 Coast to Coast - Jim Channon Military Psychic Men Stare at Goats Oct 25 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000204 Coast to Coast - Lynne McTaggart Sep 01 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000208 Coast to Coast - Penney Peirce Intuition and Frequencies Dec 03 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000209 Coast to Coast - Penney Peirce Intuition and Frequencies Dec 03 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000210 Coast to Coast - Penney Peirce Intuition and Frequencies December 3, 2006.pdf
00000211 Coast to Coast - Russell Targ Jul 08 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000212 Coast to Coast - Russell Targ Jul 08 2009 - Hour 3.mp3
00000213 Coast to Coast - Sep 03 2009 -Joshua P. Warren Hour 4.mp3
00000214 Coast to Coast AM - Military Technology & War Scenarios December 29, 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000215 Coast to Coast AM - Military Technology & War Scenarios December 29, 2009- Hour 3.mp3
00000216 Coast to Coast AM - Military Technology & War Scenarios December 29, 2009- Hour 4.mp3
00000217 Coast to Coast AM - Military Technology & War Scenarios December 29, 2009.pdf
00000218 Coast to Coast AM - Remote Viewing Updates Show January 4, 2010.pdf
00000219 Coast to Coast AM - Remote Viewing Updates Show With Ed Dames January 4, 2010 - Hour 1.mp3
00000223 Coast to Coast AM - The Antidepressant Myth January 23, 2010.pdf
00000224 Coast to Coast AM Dr. Nick Begich June 3, 2009.pdf
00000225 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall Feb 08 2010 - Hour 1.mp3
00000229 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall February 9, 2010.pdf
00000230 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010 Important.pdf
00000231 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010.pdf
00000232 Coast to Coast AM Intuition & Frequencies December 3, 2009.pdf
00000233 Coast to Coast AM Malinda Leslie ET Abductions & Milatary Covert Ops Dad January 21, 2010 Hour 1.mp3
00000237 Coast to Coast AM Malinda Leslie ET Abductions & Milatary Covert Ops Dad January 21, 2010.pdf

PageNo.
No.40
40ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000238 Coast to Coast AM with George Noory and David Wilcock October 6, 2009.pdf
00000239 Coast to Coast AM with George Noory Schedule for February 8, 2010.pdf
00000240 Coast to Coast AM with Mind and Evolution Show September 15, 2009.pdf
00000241 Coast to Coast Dan Browns Lost Symbols 1st Hour September 23, 2009.pdf
00000242 Coast to Coast -Dr. Nick Begich DARPA and Telepathy Jun 03 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000243 Coast to Coast Global Government & Planet X - Dec 14 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000246 Coast to Coast Inside the Bermuda Triangle - Dec 06 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00000247 Coast to Coast -Penney Peirce Intuition and Frequencies Dec 03 2009 - Hour 3.mp3
00000248 Coast to Coast Psi Research and Telepaty February 4, 2008.xps
00000249 Coast to Coast re DARPA with Michael Belfiore - Nov 08 2009 - Hour 3.mp3
00000252 Coast to Coast re Mind Control and the New World Order - Feb 04 2010 - Hour 2.mp3
00000255 Coast to Coast Russell Targ - Jul 08 2009 - Hour 1.mp3
00000256 Coast to Coast Russell Targ July 8, 2009.xps
00000257 Coast To Coast Tickets - Order Confirmed.pdf
00000258 Conference Call with Lynn Weed of FFCHS in April of 2010.mp3
00000259 Connick Urges Feds To Rebuild Gulf Coast.pdf
00000260 DARPA Project Pegasus Time Travel - Coast to Coast AM November 11, 2009 Hour 1.mp3
00000264 DARPA Project Pegasus Time Travel - Coast to Coast AM November 11, 2009.pdf
00000265 Dr. Hall and Jim Robertson on Jim Guest Show of November 22, 2009.mp3
00000266 Dr. John Hall Radio Show of FFCHS Press Conference of April 19, 2010 in Louisville Kentucky.mp3
00000267 Dr. Nick Begich Coast to Coast AM Telepathy Technology & DARPA June 3, 2009.pdf
00000268 Dr. Nick Begich DARP and Telepathy June 3, 2009.xps
00000269 Email from Dr. John Hall re Electromagnetic Weapon Attacks and Coast to Coast AM Broadcast, February 12, 2010.pdf
00000270 Email to All Contacts re Dr. John Hall on Coast to Coast with Ed Dames and Russell Targ of February 8, 2010.pdf
00000271 Global Government & Planet X Coast to Coast December 14, 2009.pdf
00000272 Gmail - FFCHS Press Conference for Louisville KY and Russell Targ on Coast to Coast March 4, 2010.pdf
00000273 Inside the Bermuda Triangle Coast to Coast AM December 6, 2009.pdf
00000274 Jim Guest Show of Mind Control November 15, 2009.mp3
00000275 Laura Ingle on Bill O'Reilly re Computer Hacking Case of Sara Palin and Criminals Convictions April 27, 2010.mp3
00000276 LGH Pain Assault Retaliation for Recording Russell Targ, Remote Viewer on Coast to Coast on July 8, 2009 Authored on
February 6, 2010.pdf
00000277 Lost Symbols of US Capitol by William Henry Coast to Coast September 22, 2009.pdf
00000278 Memo and Call to My Brother Steve re Fulton Safety Deposit Box and Motives of April 6, 2010.mp3
00000279 Part 2-Call to Set Up New Account With PP&L Electric to Restore Electric on April 26, 2010.mp3
00000280 PDF File - Remote Viewing & ESP - Russell Targ on Coast to Coast March 2, 2010.pdf
00000281 Power of Intention With Lynn Taggert Coast to Coast Sept 2, 2009.xps
00000282 Predictions on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell's New Years Predictions show of December 30, 2009.pdf
00000283 Prophetic Dreams & ET Disclosure October 6, 2009.pdf
00000284 Psi Dreams Coast to Coast AM with Dale Graff of DIA re Remote Viewing and PSI Exploration February 17, 2010.pdf
00000285 Remote Viewing Program on Coast to Coast with Writer and physicist Russell Targ July 8, 2009 Important.pdf
00000286 Richard Dolan - 12 Government Documents re UFO Taken Seriously Coast to Coast February 2, 2010.pdf
00000287 Secrets of Math - Shows - Coast to Coast AM September 12, 2009.pdf
00000288 Stan J. Caterbone's Executive Summary and Biography.pdf
00000289 The Jim Guest Show Week 3 with Dr. Hall and Dr. Robertson re Electromagnetic Weapons November 29, 2009.mp3
00000290 The Jim Guest Show Week 4 with Dr. Hall and Dr. Robertson re Electromagnetic Weapons December 6, 2009.mp3
00000291 - Nick Begich on Sovereign Mind February 18, 2010.pdf
00000292 [print version] Yahoo hires DARPA director to head research .pdf
00000293 1HAD LANCASTER COUNTY LOST IT updated jun 3 2006 format 7.pdf
00000294 2 differing views of Obama at F&M chat January 22, 2010.pdf
00000295 2nd DOCUMENTED SURGE AND ELECTROMAGNETIC ATTACK IN TWO DAYS February 19, 2010.pdf
00000296 5Letter to the Dr Phil Show September 18, 2008 Important.pdf
00000297 6Coordinate Remote Viewing Theory.pdf
00000298 15Coordinate Remote Viewing Glossary.pdf
00000299 16Defense Intelligence Manual Brief on Remote Viewing.pdf
00000300 33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know January 3, 2010.pdf
00000301 43 articles matching Daniel Groff and Dave Pflumm Feb 28, 2008.pdf
00000302 470px-Admiral_Bobby_Ray_Inman,_official_CIA_photo,_1983.JPEG
00000303 1248 Dawn Sutton Doc_ DEED 5721277 (3 pages) February 12, 2010.pdf
00000304 1975 United States Senate Select Hearings on MKultra.pdf
00000305 2008 Yearly Box Office Results Mama Mia $650 Million 26 Percent Domestic January 13, 2010.pdf
00000306 3179-2006 Sentencing Transcript of October 24, 2007 Important.pdf
00000307 26201347-Photographs-Haiti-Earthquake-2010.pdf
00000308 A 360 spin into prison Lancaster County Initiative for Drug Dealers January 17, 2010.pdf
00000309 A journey into darkness and light Consultant Laura Schanz January 24, 2010.pdf
00000310 A New Breed - Satellite Terrorism In Amercia by Dr. John Hall April of 2009 With Coast to Coast Interview.pdf
00000311 A New Breed - Satellite Terrorism In Amercia by Dr. John Hall April of 2009.pdf
00000312 A New Breed - Satellite Terrorism In Amercia by Dr. John Hall Book Cover.pdf
00000313 A NEW BREED - SATELLITE TERRORISM IN AMERICA by Dr. John Hall April of 2009 Important.pdf
00000314 A NEW BREED - SATELLITE TERRORISM IN AMERICA by Dr. John Hall April of 2009.pdf
00000315 A real dogfight for DA - Craig Stedman Will Go Down January 10, 2010.pdf

PageNo.
No.41
41ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000316 A Study In Mind Invasive Technology & The Government October 18 2007.pdf
00000317 A Study In Mind Invasive Technology & The Government October.pdf
00000318 A Study of Mind Invasive Technology & the Government Oct 31.doc
00000319 A Study of Mind Invasive Technology & the Government Oct 31.pdf
00000320 A Timeline of CIA Atrocities March 11, 2009 Important.pdf
00000321 Abby Pflumm with a Gun.pdf
00000322 About Jesselyn Radack.pdf
00000323 Acatemy.PDF
00000324 ACLU v. NSA_ The Challenge of the U.S. Government Spying on Americans January 1, 2010.pdf
00000325 Advanced Media Group & Ben Bamford of High Real Estate Group re The Crossings at Conestoga Shopping Center March 29,
2006.pdf
00000326 ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP 8 Year Investment in Downtown Lancaster Oct 10 2007 Saved January 9, 2010.pdf
00000327 ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP 8 Year Investment in Downtown Lancaster Oct 10 2007 Saved January 9, 2010-2.pdf
00000328 ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP BLOG STATS as of February 1, 2010.pdf
00000329 Advanced Media Group Downtown Lancaster Action Plan January 9, 2010.pdf
00000330 Advanced Media Group Research Blog 1st Post November 13 2007.doc
00000331 ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP RESEARCH BLOG STATS as of February 1, 2010.pdf
00000332 Advanced Media Group Scribd Stats for January 2010 February 1, 2010.pdf
00000333 Advanced Media Group Website Statistics MONTHLY as of January 31, 2010.pdf
00000334 Advanced Media Group You Tube Statistics for January 2010 February 1, 2010.pdf
00000335 Advanced Media Press Release Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons Bill May 20, 2009.pdf
00000336 All Time Box Office Records by Record Holder as of January 13, 2010.pdf
00000337 All Time Box Office Records on January 13, 2010.pdf
00000338 Alley Kat & Brett Stabley Emails 2005-2007 dec 6 2007.pdf
00000339 Amazon Book List re Community Stalking and Videos by Felix on February 4, 2010.pdf
00000340 American Society for Psychical Research.PDF
00000341 American Taliban Whistleblower joins CIA Tapegate Furor dec .PDF
00000342 AM-FM-PB Radio with WHAN for Coast to Coast AM on July 12, 2009 Important.pdf
00000343 Apple Sees New Money in Old Media with the Tablet January 22, 2010.pdf
00000344 Application for Writ of Habeus Corpus to US District Court May 16, 2009.odt
00000345 Are they that sick Did U.S. weather weapon destroy Haiti January 30, 2010.pdf
00000346 Aruba suspends search of Skeleton Remains of Natalie Holloway from Lead from Lancaster County March 25, 2010.pdf
00000347 August 11 Patty Wilson Email Sept 24 2007.pdf
00000348 Authority must reinstate deed restrictions (Jim Warner Executive Director) and PALE January 18, 2010.pdf
00000349 Babylon X - Sheryl Crow Nude January 27, 2010.pdf
00000350 Bedford County PA Sex Slaves and MK-Ultra & RICO April 5, 2009.pdf
00000351 Ben Bamford wants a government of the people in Lancaster Township January 9, 2010.pdf
00000352 Benjamin Franklin faced off with area farmers Important.pdf
00000353 Best Psychic Mediums August 15 2007.PDF
00000354 Beyond Space and Time by Martin Ebron 1967.pdf
00000355 Bible Belt - Wikipedia Lancaster County Part of It.pdf
00000356 Big Brother (DARPA) is Watching Us All Sept 17 2007.PDF
00000357 Big Brother and DARPA on Book Records.doc
00000358 Big Brother DARPAs Control Freak Technology Dec 12 2007.doc
00000359 Big Brother DARPAs Control Freak Technology Dec 12 2007.pdf
00000360 BillOReilly Premium Membership Reciept February 26, 2010.pdf
00000361 Birth of the Modern Writ of Habeus Corpus.pdf
00000362 bookmarks February 6, 2010.html
00000363 Brain wave technology could change lives CNBC Important.pdf
00000364 Break the CIA in Two 1963 Editorial by President Harry Truman.pdf
00000365 Brett Stabley - Sheryl Crow - Dave Pflum - Mental Torture and Electromagnetic Weapon Attacks on Stan Caterbone January
9, 2010.pdf
00000366 Bush Lawyers Discussed Fate of CIA Tapes Dec 20 2007.PDF
00000367 Bush Top Lawyers Authored Memos Purporting to Authorize Torture January 11, 2010.pdf
00000368 Call to Senate Judiciary Committee re Mind Control October 2, 2009.WAV
00000369 Captain of My Ship Remote Viewing Excerpt.pdf
00000370 CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Sheriff Dept. How It All Started - Sheriff Bergman 2005 Email Exchange May 6, 2005
Important.pdf
00000371 Chapter 11 05-23059 Amended Recievables May 11, 2009 State Farm Claim.pdf
00000372 Chapter 11 05-23059 Motion to File Reorganization Plan January 11, 2010.pdf
00000373 Chapter 11 05-23059 Reorganization Plan January 11, 2010.pdf
00000374 Chapter 11 05-23059 Reorganization Plan Table of Contents January 11, 2010.pdf
00000375 Cheney's `Spoon-Benders' PSYOP ESP Telepathy Jeffrey Steinberg 2005.odt
00000376 Cheney's `Spoon-Benders' PSYOP ESP Telepathy Jeffrey Steinberg 2005.pdf
00000377 Chloroform Toxicological Profile Book I Ordered from the CDC in 2006.pdf
00000378 Churches react to Fox News Host Glen Beck - Fr. Goodman of St. Mary's March 18, 2010.pdf
00000379 CIA Documents Telepathy 2002.pdf
00000380 CIA erased interrogation tapes.PDF
00000381 CIA Tape Furor Echoes Watergate.doc
00000382 CIA Torture Investigations - EIT Program - SERE and U.S. Sponsored Mind Control by Stan Caterbone October 2, 2009
Important.pdf
00000383 cia-brainwashing.pdf
00000384 Coast to Coast AM - Remote Viewing Updates Show January 4, 2010.pdf
00000385 Coast to Coast AM - The Antidepressant Myth January 23, 2010.pdf
00000386 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010 Important.pdf
00000387 Coast to Coast AM Electronic Harassment - Show with Dr. John Hall on Monday, February 8, 2010.pdf
00000388 Coast to Coast AM with George Noory Schedule for February 8, 2010.pdf
00000389 Complaint re Psychiatric Abuses From Citizens Commission For Human Rights CCHR September 25, 2009 Important.pdf
00000390 Complaint to Lancaster City Police Officer's Association April 29, 2009.odt

PageNo.
No.42
42ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000391 Congressman Robert Walker Pleading July 7 1991 Important.pdf

00000392 Constantine Report on Remote Viewing Very Important.pdf
00000393 Corbett campaigns here for new 'firsts' January 9, 2010.pdf
00000394 Counterterrorism In Shambles_ Why January 6, 2010.pdf
00000395 Creating Fabricated Audio Recordings and Videos Psyops Project Article by the Washington Post.pdf
00000396 Dangerous Crossroads- U.S. Moves Missiles And Troops To Russian Border January 25, 2010.pdf
00000397 DARPA & The Thought Police.pdf
00000398 DARPA Developing Sleep Agent Orexin A.doc
00000399 DARPA Developing Sleep Agent Orexin A.pdf
00000400 DARPA email of Feb 26 2007.pdf
00000401 DARPA goal Psychic Doctors.pdf
00000402 DARPA Human Interface Program.doc
00000403 DARPA Human Interface Program.pdf
00000404 DARPA Interview Nov 18 2006.PDF
00000405 DARPA is it time for a REAL PDA.doc
00000406 DARPA is it time for a REAL PDA.pdf
00000407 DARPA Mission And Projects.pdf
00000408 DARPA Predictive Simulation.PDF
00000409 darpa-r-zook-judge-james-cullen-psychiatrist-jerome-gottlieb-sept-5-2007.pdf
00000410 DARPA's Propoganda Covering Up New Project XY.jpg
00000411 Dave Pflumm arrest record of 2004 Possesion of Marijuana.pdf
00000412 Dave Plummer offers counsel in a crisis Important.pdf
00000413 Dear Dr. Franklin, I've sad news to impart January 23, 2010.pdf
00000414 Death in Camp Delta Report by Seton Hall Policy Research re MK ULTRA Dick Cheney December 9, 2009.pdf
00000415 December 18, 2009 Letter to the Editor re Social Engineering and Destruction of our Civil Liberties and Freedoms.pdf
00000416 Defense Intelligence Manual & ABC News Nightline on Remote Viewing May 6, 2010.pdf
00000417 Dereck Dipaolo the Freak What are the Dipaolo's-Pflumm's-Hobday's Guilty Of - January 11, 2010.pdf
00000418 DIA Interrogation of July 27, 2005(4).pdf
00000419 Dimm Family Stalkers Ray Dimm Lancaster City Cop (Pig) January 12, 2010.pdf
00000420 Directed Energy Weapons Aimed At American Targets Conference in April of 2010 by the Human Rights Examinar February 5,
2010.pdf
00000421 Disclaimers on the Finding-of-Facts (Incident Reports) Web-page January 27, 2010 Important.pdf
00000422 Disclaimers on the Finding-of-Facts (Incident Reports) Web-page January 27, 2010.pdf
00000423 Dispute over direction, control of PAM leads 9 trustees to resign February 17, 2010.pdf
00000424 Do Some Pets Not Know They Are Pets mental telepathy.PDF
00000425 Documentation of Weekend Torture and Pain Surge by Lancaster County March 5 to March 7, 2010 New.pdf
00000426 Documents of Negotiations for Mediation at the Lancaster Mediation Center.pdf
00000427 Dossier Iraqgate 2003.pdf
00000428 Dr Ross & The CIA Mind Control Experiments July 17 2007.doc
00000429 Dr Ross & The CIA Mind Control Experiments July 17 2007.PDF
00000430 Dr. John Hall Handout February 8, 2010.pdf
00000431 Dr. John Hall Interview Replayed Thurday Night February 18, 2010 on FFCHS Chat Forum Talkshoe.pdf
00000432 Dr. John Hall Radio Show of FFCHS Press Conference of April 19, 2010 in Louisville Kentucky.mp3
00000433 Dr. John Hall's Book Review by Stan J. Caterbone February 20, 2010.pdf
00000434 Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 Preacipe to File Exhibit A-49 Audio CD-ROM December 8, 2009 Important.pdf
00000435 Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 Preacipe to File Exhibit A-55 February 5, 2010 Important.pdf
00000436 Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 Preacipe to File Exhibit A-55 February 5, 2010.pdf
00000437 Duke Street Business Center Movie Research Nov 14 2007.pdf
00000438 Duke Street CI-08-13373 Exhibit A-33 re Russell Targ, Remote Viewer September 3, 2009 Important.pdf
00000439 Dynamics of Bioenergetics of OBE Sex - Telepathic Sex January 27, 2009.pdf
00000440 Edgar Cayce.pdf
00000441 Electromagentic Aspects of Mind Control Mind Justice.pdf
00000442 Electromagnetic pulse (Weapons) threat to be analyzed By Navy Sea Systems Command April 3, 2010.pdf
00000443 Electronic Mind Control & Timothy McVeigh jan 3 2008.doc
00000444 Electronic Mind Control & Timothy McVeigh jan 3 2008.pdf
00000445 Email from Ben Bamford of High Real Estate Group re The Crossings at Conestoga Shopping Center March 29, 2006.pdf
00000446 Email From Bob Levin, Targeted Individual and Whistleblower of February 14, 2010.pdf
00000447 Email from Dr. John Hall re Electromagnetic Weapon Attacks and Coast to Coast AM Broadcast, February 12, 2010.pdf
00000448 Email from Eric Zager of CBS News 21 January 12, 2010.pdf
00000449 email from Tome re Mind Control Cover May 16, 2008.doc
00000450 Email re Christy Fawcett of U.S. Attorney's Office in Harrisburg and Cocaine Ring Bust February 20, 2010.pdf
00000451 email to all contacts re DARPA Psychic Doctors Oct 13 2007.pdf
00000452 Email to All Contacts re Dr. John Hall on Coast to Coast with Ed Dames and Russell Targ of February 8, 2010.pdf
00000453 email to All Contacts re Mind Invasion Technology by Global .doc
00000454 email to All Contacts re Mind Invasion Technology by Global .pdf
00000455 email to All Contacts re Sheryl Crow Mentalis Forum Post Aug.PDF
00000456 Email to All Contacts re Updated - Stan J. Caterbone, The DIA, Psychic Spies and the Men That Stare At Goats March 27,
2010x.pdf
00000457 email to all re Sammy & CIA Involved in Testing Dangerous JUNE 26 2007 .pdf
00000458 Email to Jenny Joyce of CBS News 21 re Eric Zager's Call of January 12 January 14, 2010.pdf
00000459 email to Jere Sullivan re Mind Control May 18 2008.PDF
00000460 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007 record.doc
00000461 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007 record.pdf
00000462 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007.doc
00000463 email to Judge Farina-FBI-Random-Landis re Mind Control May 18 2008.doc
00000464 email to kreskin april 21 2007.pdf
00000465 Email to Phil Wenger, COO of Fulton Financial re Cancel Meeting with Fernando of Manor Branch March 24, 2010.pdf
00000466 email to research at GAO July 10 2007.PDF
00000467 Email to Rush Limbaugh re Simulated Heart Attack of December 30, 2009.pdf

PageNo.
No.43
43ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000468 Email to Senator Arlen Specter of January 24, 2009.doc

00000469 Enough Room Video CIA Mind Control Dr. Colin A. Ross January 5, 2010.pdf
00000470 ESP - Mental Telepathy - Remote Viewing & The US Government .pdf
00000471 ESP - Mental Telepathy - Remote Viewing & The US Government Research Documents Sept 11 2007.pdf
00000472 ESP & Mental Telepathy Research Documents November 13 2007.pdf
00000473 European International Commission Complaint Application for Human Rights Violation by Ron Angell April 12, 2010.pdf
00000474 Exhbit A-63 10-Day Surge of Electromagnetic Weapon Attacks - Stalking - Harassment March 14, 2010.pdf
00000475 Exhibit A-57 Electromagnetic Weapons Attacks Documented on Twitter.com and Research February 19, 2010.pdf
00000476 Facebook _ George Noory Fan Club Proof of Psychic Ability December 30, 2009.pdf
00000477 Facebook Chat with Ron Harper on March 30, 2010.pdf
00000478 Facsimile to Government Accountability Project (GAP) for Whistelblowers February 26, 2010.pdf
00000479 Facsimile to Judge Mary A. McLaughlin re Fulton Financial Grand Larceny Preliminary Emergency Injunction of April 1,
2010.pdf
00000480 Facsimile to the Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center March 21, 2010.pdf
00000481 Facsimile to U.S. Rep Jan Schawkoski re United States Postal Inspection Service on March 15, 2010 - Degraded by
Hacker.pdf
00000482 Facsimile to Wendell Crow re Emergency Injunction and Sheryl January 3, 2010.pdf
00000483 FBI IC3 Cyber Crimes Complaint ID - I0909141752127141 February 1, 2010.pdf
00000484 Federal 05-2288 Legal Research Notes of Sept 18 2007.doc
00000485 Federal Habeas Corpus A Review for Congress April 26, 2006 Important.pdf
00000486 FFCHS Conference Call Newsletters ARCHIVED from May 2, 2009 to September 15, 2009.pdf
00000487 FFCHS PR - New Wave of Criminal Behavior Called Organized Stalking and Electronic Torture, Apr 5, 2010.odt
00000488 FFCHS Press Release for April 19th Press Conference.pdf
00000489 Final Judgment Microsmeti Corporation DOJ February 2, 2010.pdf
00000490 FMG Ltd (Financial Management Group, Ltd.,) Phone List & 1st Shareholder Meeting 1986 IMPORTANT.pdf
00000491 FOIA Request for OPR Report from Robert Jackson Steering Committee re Bush Administration and Torture January 11,
2010.pdf
00000492 FOIA Transmittal Letter from Robert Jackson Steering Committee re Bush Administration and Torture January 11, 2010.pdf
00000493 Form Letter for FOIA Request to CIA for Mind Control CD.txt
00000494 Former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig dies on February 20, 2010 and his ISC Connection by Advanced Media
Group.pdf
00000495 Former Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig dies on February 20, 2010.pdf
00000496 Fraud suspect (Former NSA Agent) spins tale of Obama overthrow plot January 9, 2010.pdf
00000497 French want to arrest Landis for Computer Hacking February 16, 2010.pdf
00000498 Friends - Landis No Cheat Important.pdf
00000499 Fulton & Abstract Arguement Prepared for Steve in Tom Caterbone Estate Matters in 1998.pdf
00000500 Fulton Bank Post of January 7, 2010 re Stan J. Caterbone & Patriotism and the Global War on Terrorism.pdf
00000501 George Bush The CIA & Mind Control May 5 2003.PDF
00000502 Gitmo Lawyers v. NSA re Surveillance during Representing Gitmo Prisinors OPINION for Appeal of District Court January 1,
2010.pdf
00000503 Glen Beck and How Americans Got This Way - KGB Brainwashing - January 11, 2010.pdf
00000504 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization(1).log
00000505 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization(1).pdf
00000506 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization.pdf
00000507 Gmail - FFCHS PR - New Wave of Criminal Behavior - Organized Stalking and Electronic Torture of April 5, 2010.pdf
00000508 GOP backs Aument in 41st - This Is How They Cover Me Up - Supporting The Corrupt February 17, 2010.pdf
00000509 Government Accountability Project- Bill Would Streamline Whi.pdf
00000510 GSA Minutes Jan. 10.pdf
00000511 Haiti Earth Quake HAARP Diversion With Comment January 15, 2010.pdf
00000512 Harleysville Claim Report July 9 2006 update 8 Important.pdf
00000513 Harleysville Claim Report July 9 2006 update 8.pdf
00000514 Harleysville Claims of 2004 and 2005.pdf
00000515 Harleysville Insurance Claims and Invoices to Date Important.pdf
00000516 Harleysville Notorized Settlement Sept 24 2007 Important.pdf
00000517 Harleysville Settlement Check Sept 26 2007 Important.pdf
00000518 He owes court costs, got stimulus money When it comes to housing needs, backgrounds not checked..pdf
00000519 Holding Judges Feet to the Fire With Good Ole Fashon Reasoning and Logic by Jurisdictionary February 1, 2010.pdf
00000520 Honda thinks up mind-controlled robots Using TELEPATHY.pdf
00000521 How US Arms and Technology Were Transferred to Iraq ABC Nightline Transcript Sep 13 1991 Important.pdf
00000522 Hugo Mnsterberg Hypnosis and Metal Telepathy Dec 19 2007.doc
00000523 Human Target by Human Rights Examinar January 29, 2010.pdf
00000524 IFCC-I06010506177009 re Puerto Vallerte Mexico harleysville jan 27 2006 Important.pdf
00000525 Illegal Programs Proliferate Under Obama- Court Rules, Illegal NSA Spying Continues April 11, 2010.pdf
00000526 IMAX Theater Coming to Lancaster's Penn Cinema - Penn Ketchum Former Lancaster County Mental Health Director - Anti-
Trust.pdf
00000527 Impeachment Documents of Stanley Caterbone 2006 to 2007 July 3 2007.pdf
00000528 In a plea deal over his son's death, a doctor loses his license Heidi Eiken March 21, 2010 Part 1.pdf
00000529 Incident Reports of Harassment, Vandalism, Hacking, & Thefts From 1987 to March 22, 2010.pdf
00000530 injunction-basics-and-sample-form.pdf
00000531 Inspiring Stories by Apple Computer Founder Steve Jobs February 11, 2010.pdf
00000532 Intell Headlines Courthouse Divided dec 6 2005 Important.pdf
00000533 Intelligencer Journal Editorial CIA Tapes.doc
00000534 Intelligencer Journal- Losing trust in our government.pdf
00000535 Investigate This! With Alex...pdf
00000536 Investigations Press Releases of Department of Justice and Office of Inspector General January 9, 2010.pdf
00000537 Is DARPA the Mad Scientist of the DOD.doc
00000538 Is Fulton Bank Trying To Induce Me Into Suicide Like My Brother Tom Who Did on April 29, 1996.pdf
00000539 Is Pennsylvania leading the national race to be the world's greatest prison state.pdf
00000540 ISC and Alexander Haig jan 24 1990 Important.pdf

PageNo.
No.44
44ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000541 J.D. Salinger dies, was renowned, reclusive Catcher in the Rye Conspiracy Theory January 29, 2010.pdf
00000542 Jack Anderson & Nightline - Mind Control and the Secret State by Name Base 1996.pdf
00000543 James F Marino Mind Control Research January 10, 2009.doc
00000544 January Invoice to Department of Defense Secretary Gates Certified Mailed 7009 2250 0001 4191 7165 December 23,
2009.pdf
00000545 Jersey Shore TV Show a Hit on MTV February 21, 2010.pdf
00000546 JFKcountercoup_ Francis W. and Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory January 7, 2010.pdf
00000547 Job Applications Portfolio for Stan J. Caterbone 2005 to 2009 May 26, 2009 Important.pdf
00000548 John F. Kennedy Campaigning in Penn Square in 1962.pdf
00000549 Jonathan Turley & Meghan Lippiatt Page july 10, 2008.jpg
00000550 Jonathan Turley Biography Only July 10, 2008.PDF
00000551 Judge Anderson in Vance v. Rumsfeld Case No. 06-C 6964 COMPLIANT 2nd Amended Complaint April 20, 2006.pdf
00000552 Judge Farina East Lampeter 2843-06 Transcript Dec 5 2006 Important.pdf
00000553 Judge Georgelis S-158-06 Transcript Oct 22 2007 Important.pdf
00000554 Judge Mary McLaughlin 05-2288 AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT October 15 2007 Important.pdf
00000555 Judge rebukes Bush-Obama state secrets and rules spying on group violated fed'l law April 1, 2010.pdf
00000556 Judge Vance OPINION re Rumsfeld Torture Case 06-C 6964 March 5, 2010.pdf
00000557 JurisDictionary BasicFlowchart of a Lawsuit January 29, 2010.pdf
00000558 JurisDictionary Basics of Evidentiary Materials February 7, 2010.pdf
00000559 Justice, is it a word veterans get in their lives Vets. v. CIA re Mind Control January 25, 2010.pdf
00000560 Kreskin Protoge Makes Film.doc
00000561 Kreskin Protoge Makes Film.pdf
00000562 Kreskin video and Peterson Case jan 4 2008.doc
00000563 Kreskin video.doc
00000564 Lancaster County Aims At Conservatorship For Cover-Up Advanced Media Group Blog of February 18, 2008.pdf
00000565 Lancaster County Assistance Office Denial Letter for PA Medical Assistance November 16, 2009.pdf
00000566 Lancaster County Library System - FABRICATION of March 9, 2009.pdf
00000567 Lancaster General Hospital Series by Newslanc October 24, 2009.pdf
00000568 Lancaster Living Arts Village February 28, 2010.jpg
00000569 Lancaster Newspaper Headlines Catholic French Want to Arrest Floyd Landis Rosboro Apeals February 16, 2010.pdf
00000570 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines A Blizzard This Time February 10, 2010.pdf
00000571 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines CLOSED, Blizzard of February 10 February 11, 2010.pdf
00000572 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines Local Headlines Nancy Pelosi Coming to Speak in Lancaster January 9, 2010.pdf
00000573 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines Local Headlines PA Attorney General Campaigns in Lancaster January 9, 2010.pdf
00000574 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines Local Headlines PA Governor Ed Rendell's Humiliated, Again! January 8, 2010.pdf
00000575 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines Misplaced Faith - A Mennonite Investment Scam of 65 Million Dollars January 24, 2010.pdf
00000576 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines Muddying The Waters (Cheasapeake Bay) Article Sunday February 14, 2010.pdf
00000577 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines The Big Digout February 11, 2010.pdf
00000578 Lancaster Newspapers Headlines White Out, Blizzard of February 10 February 11, 2010.pdf
00000579 Lancaster Newspapers Perspective Headlines Obama - A Movement or a Moment Article Sunday February 14, 2010.pdf
00000580 LancasterOnline Eateries chose to go smoke free.doc
00000581 Lance and Sheryl Engaged sept 5 IMPORTANT.pdf
00000582 Lance Armstrong Atheist IMPORTANT.pdf
00000583 Landis Get Back on that Pony and ride Important.pdf
00000584 Landis Rejects International Courts ruling Important.pdf
00000585 Last Meeting with Psychiatrist Dr. Al Shulz Transcript of January 1998 Important.pdf
00000586 Law Suit against 4 US Presidents for Torture in Spain February 12, 2010.pdf
00000587 Letter from Law Firm of Jere Spence re Solicitation for Representation of March 26, 2010.pdf
00000588 Letter from Third Circuit Clerk of Courts re Exhibit of Reorganization in Bankruptcy Case January 15, 2010.pdf
00000589 Letter to Alen Specter July 12 2007.pdf
00000590 Letter to CCHR Lorita O'Leary Abuse Case Documentor jan 4 20.doc
00000591 Letter to FBI July 16 2007.pdf
00000592 Letter to FBI re DARPA July 16 2007.pdf
00000593 Letter to Mike re PP&L Utility Bills and Computer Hacking March 31, 2008.pdf
00000594 Letter to R Scott Smith Fulton Bank Dec 3 2007.doc
00000595 Letter to R Scott Smith Fulton Bank Dec 3 2007.pdf
00000596 Letter to Richard Boylan PhD LLC re Shadow Dec 3 2007.doc
00000597 Letter to Richard Gray re 1252 Fremont Dec 3 2007.doc
00000598 Letter to the Dr Phil Show September 18, 2008.pdf
00000599 Letter to the Dr Phil Show September 18, 2008[1].doc
00000600 Letter to the United States Postal Inspection Service of March 15, 2010 Important.pdf
00000601 Letter to United Nations Council for Human Rights October 4, 2009 IMPORTANT.pdf
00000602 Letterman Faces Restraining Order for Mental Telepathy.PDF
00000603 Letters to Lorita O'Leary of CCHR to 2008 jan 6 2008.pdf
00000604 Letters to Obama and Senators re National Whistleblowers Law February 24, 2010.pdf
00000605 Liberty Has Been Lost by Craig Roberts January 6, 2010.pdf
00000606 Limit CIA Role To Intelligence Gathering by Harry Truman Washington Post 1963.pdf
00000607 LNP Intel Headlines Landis No Cheat July 1, 2008 Important.pdf
00000608 Look alike on January 14, 2010 beside Billy Sprecher at O'Hollorans.jpg
00000609 Making the world safe for (Chinese) investment Time Magazine Article December 29, 2009.pdf
00000610 Mamma Mia _ Abba Number One Hits January 13, 2010.pdf
00000611 Man with the leading edge Tom Corbett brings GOP gubernatorial campaign January 17, 2010.pdf
00000612 Mariuuana Research dec 27 2007.doc
00000613 Mariuuana Research dec 27 2007.pdf
00000614 Mark Hough and State Farm Claim to Date Important.pdf
00000615 Massive Human Rights Abuses Letterman Telepathy.PDF
00000616 Master Harleysville Insurance & Parula Properties March 19 2007 Important.pdf
00000617 Mayoral Candidate Connie Marshall of FFCHS Alleges Surveillance, Assault January 22, 2010.pdf
00000618 Medication Log of Simulated Heart Pain of December 30, 2009.pdf

PageNo.
No.45
45ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000619 MEMRI - Middle East Media Research - Conspiracy Theories In Iranian Media Outlets February 2, 2010.pdf
00000620 MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT.doc
00000621 MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT.pdf
00000622 Mental Hope News Why Was Lippiatt Freed by Judge Cullen dec .PDF
00000623 Mentalist offers help to state cops.doc
00000624 Message from Liapatt Attorney Julie Cooper re Email March 15, 2010.WAV
00000625 Metropolitan Reporting Bureau and Chief John Fiorill of Southern Regional Police July 3, 2007.pdf
00000626 Microsoft Word - The calculated and technological entry into another personmid Oct 18 2007.pdf
00000627 Millersville University Grad Program Documents for Litigation September 16, 2009 IMPORTANT.pdf
00000628 Millersville University No Tresspass Poster with Photo from Fulton Bank Message Board December 15, 2009.pdf
00000629 Mind Control & One World Order February 4, 2010.pdf
00000630 MIND CONTROL AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER by Glenn Krawczyk.pdf
00000631 Mind Control Civil Actions January 10, 2009.doc
00000632 Mind Controle and the Secret State Remote Viewing June 2008.pdf
00000633 Mind Justice Congressional Testimony re Financial Ruin May 1.pdf
00000634 Mind Justice Organization & Research dec 10 2007.doc
00000635 Mind Justice Organization & Research dec 10 2007.pdf
00000636 Misplaced Faith - A Mennonite Investment Scam of $65 Million Dollars January 24, 2010.pdf
00000637 MK-Ultra - The Navy - Mental Telepathy by Thomas Porter 1996.pdf
00000638 MK-Ultra - The Navy's Project With Mental Telepathy (My Father) by Thomas Porter 1996 Important.pdf
00000639 MKULTRA - Veterans Sue CIA Over Past Chemical Tests on Soldiers January 7, 2009.doc
00000640 MK-ULTRA CIA Testimony to The U.S. Senate with PA Senator Schweiker.pdf
00000641 MK-Ultra ESP Subprogram 136.pdf
00000642 MK-Ultra Victim Claims Tortured by Mengele March 7, 2010.pdf
00000643 mkultraindex of FOIA Documents.pdf
00000644 Muddying The Waters (Cheasapeake Bay) Article Sunday February 14, 2010.pdf
00000645 Mutant Mania Digital Movie June 1987 with Tony Bongiovi_ Power Station Studios, and Flatbush Films by Advanced Media
Group.pdf
00000646 My Appearence on FFCHS Talkshoe Conference with Orville April 1, 2010 Online Chat.odt
00000647 My Appearence on FFCHS Talkshoe Conference with Orville April 1, 2010 Online Chat.pdf
00000648 My Surveillance - Southern Regional Police and Lancaster County Sheriff At My House at 220 Stone Hill Road in 2006.pdf
00000649 NashuaTelegraph.com - CIA and MK ULTRA April 12, 2010.pdf
00000650 National_Stalking_Awareness_Month_-_Promote_the_Month_-_2009-12-17.pdf
00000651 Navy Sea Systems Command Center Confirms TI Reports of Electromagnetic Weapons April 3, 2010.pdf
00000652 NBC_Report_Spring_Summer06 Col Brian Groft of Lancaster Married to Bonnie Spietel Parents Were Clients of Mine.pdf
00000653 Neuroimaging Fails To Demonstrate ESP Is Real.doc
00000654 Neuroimaging Fails To Demonstrate ESP Is Real.pdf
00000655 New health chief aims for growth, stability at Lancaster Regional Medical Center in Lancaster March 28, 2010.pdf
00000656 New Holland police chief resigns January 13, 2010.pdf
00000657 New York Times - Judge rebukes Bush-Obama state secrets and rules spying on group violated fed'l law April 1, 2010.pdf
00000658 Newslanc.com Comment re The Crossings at Conestoga and Park City Shopping Mall January 7, 2010.pdf
00000659 Nice Work Creating New Terrorists, You Morons by OpEd News January 9, 2010.pdf
00000660 No GOP backing for Former Lancaster County GOP Chairman Beiler Lt. gov. endorsement goes to Jim Cawley Feb 14,
2010.pdf
00000661 Notes and Legal Research from Lancaster County Prison During False Imprisonement Oct 30 to Dec 29, 2006.pdf
00000662 Obituary for Louis Pflumm who Passed Saturday, December 26, 2009.pdf
00000663 On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in th.doc
00000664 On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology.doc
00000665 On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the...pdf
00000666 ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL (PHYSICAL) DAYS EVER - April 2, 2010 With Photos.pdf
00000667 ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL (PHYSICAL) DAYS EVER - April 2, 2010.odt
00000668 ONE OF THE MOST PAINFUL (PHYSICAL) DAYS EVER - April 2, 2010.pdf
00000669 OPed News - Spying for Dollars - Military Contractors and Security Firms Reap Huge Profits February 16, 2010.pdf
00000670 operation-mind-control- The Manchurian Candidate Book.pdf
00000671 Order Government Mind Control Records of MKULTRA.doc
00000672 Orlikow, et al. v. United States Mind Control Suit Page 2.pdf
00000673 Orlikow, et al. v. United States Mind Control Suit.pdf
00000674 Outrageous Gutting of U.S. Law Referencing Mind Control Bill By Denis Kucinich of Ohio.pdf
00000675 Page 2 LNP Headlines 10 Best Stories of 2009 December 31, 2009.pdf
00000676 Pages from Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle - Telepathic Se.pdf
00000677 Pages from Tom Caterbone Estate Keeney Transaction and Fulton Bank With Grant Street Memos Important.pdf
00000678 Parapsychology.pdf
00000679 Pennsylvania State Police Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center March 21, 2010.pdf
00000680 Petition for Administrator of Thomas Caterbone 36-1996-0729 Jan 17 2008 Important.pdf
00000681 Photos At Fulton Bank Manor Branch Converting SSA Check to Cashiers Check March 19, 2010.pdf
00000682 Physical Effects of Electromagnetic Weapons on April 6, 2010 Listening to Dr. Nick Begich on Coast to CoastAM in my Hot
Tub.jpg
00000683 PI3 - 3 Strikes You're OUT - LANCASTER! March 28, 2010.pdf
00000684 Police Identify 2 Who Died in Snowmobile Accident in Lancaster City (Gary Funk) February 12, 2010.pdf
00000685 Pope- Apology but no changes for Sexual Abuse Scandal Spreading Across Europe March 21, 2010.pdf
00000686 Preliminary Emergency Injunction 09-5205 ORDER by Judge McLaughlin of November 19, 2009 Important.pdf
00000687 President Bush Transcript from Jay Group Oct 3 2007.PDF
00000688 President Judge Farina & My Father - May, Grove, Stork & Blakinger Ha Ha You Fools.pdf
00000689 Presidential Candidate Obama at Buchanan Park September 4, 2009.pdf
00000690 Prevention of Torture - A Lot Still Needs to be Done.pdf
00000691 Probation Worksheet Erica Wietzel Nov 9 2007.pdf
00000692 Project Open Mind CIA Reading List Important.pdf
00000693 Proof and Evidence That Fulton Bank Is A Criminal Enterprise February 10, 2010.doc
00000694 Proof and Evidence That Fulton Bank Is A Criminal Enterprise February 10, 2010.odt

PageNo.
No.46
46ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000695 Psychanalyse-Paris.PDF
00000696 Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasion Technology October 1.pdf
00000697 PsychRights whistleblower lawsuit against psychiatrists unsealed Defendents listed January 26, 2010.pdf
00000698 Question and Answer from Terry Robertson of Jim Guest Show re Is Mind Control Legal December 1, 2009 Important.pdf
00000699 Remote control brain sensor BBC 2002.pdf
00000700 Remote Viewing and the US Government sept 8 2007.PDF
00000701 Remote Viewing Program on Coast to Coast with Writer and physicist Russell Targ July 8, 2009 Important.pdf
00000702 Remote Viewing Television Demonstration.pdf
00000703 Report - Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain_ Mimic Pschizophrenia Febraury 18, 2008.pdf
00000704 Republic Broadcasting Network Jim Guest Show Week 4 of Electromagnetic Weapons Important.pdf
00000705 Richard Dolan - 12 Government Documents re UFO Taken Seriously Coast to Coast February 2, 2010.pdf
00000706 Roseboro appeals to state court - Wants a New Trial February 16, 2010.pdf
00000707 russian_psychotronic_war_and_security.pdf
00000708 Samuel P Caterbone UFO Research June 27 2007.pdf
00000709 Santa Barbara Business Permits Mental Telepathy Oct 5 2007.PDF
00000710 Science fiction-Scientology-Telepathy.doc
00000711 Science fiction-Scientology-Telepathy.pdf
00000712 Scientific Opinion re Electromagnetic Weapons Harmful Effects on The Human Body March 8, 2001.pdf
00000713 Sheriff Sale 220 Stone Hill Road Sold To Central Penn Property Services NOT Parula Properties January 19, 2007.pdf
00000714 Sheryl Crow And Her Sexual Exploitations Important.pdf
00000715 Sheryl Crow Mentalist Post August 2 2007.doc
00000716 Sheryl Crow Mentalist Post August 2 2007.PDF
00000717 Snyder Funeral Home adding crematory February 5, 2010.pdf
00000718 Snyder Funeral Home Condolences for Louis Pflumm who Passed Saturday, December 26, 2009.pdf
00000719 Society for Psychical Research.PDF
00000720 Stan Caterbone & Sheryl CrowStock Certificates With Fulton Bank Proxy March 10, 2010.pdf
00000721 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group Computations For Litigation Valuations January 10, 2010.pdf
00000722 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group Income Revenue Streams for Litigation Valuations January 10, 2010.pdf
00000723 Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group Property and Assets for Litigation Valuations January 10, 2010.pdf
00000724 Stan J. Caterbone Meeting with Lancaster Human Relations Commission re Discrimination Transcript Important.pdf
00000725 Stan J. Caterbone, The DIA, Psychic Spies and the Men that Stare at Goats With Documents November 7, 2009.pdf
00000727 State and Regional Fusion Centers Information by State March 21, 2010.pdf
00000728 State Crimes Against Democracy, Global Research March 7, 2010 Website Version.pdf
00000729 Station Info - CBS 21 News Jenni Joyce Bio January 14, 2010.pdf
00000730 Submission to U.S. Department of Defense Website re U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates April 7, 2009-GATES.pdf
00000731 Suicide Bomber in Afganastan that Killed 7 CIA Agents at CIA Installation was a Double Agent January 5, 2010.pdf
00000732 Synthetic Telepathy and Psychotronics Blog May 24 2008 Very Important.pdf
00000733 SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY and PSYCHOTRONICS RESEARCH February 17, 2009.doc
00000734 Targeted Individuals of Electromagnetic Mind Center.PDF
00000735 Telepathic Communication Between Two People.pdf
00000736 Telepathic Sex and Telepathic Communications Research from 2007 Adobe.pdf
00000737 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle -Telepathic Communications 2007.pdf
00000738 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle -Telepathic Sensitivity - .doc
00000739 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle -Telepathic Sensitivity.pdf
00000740 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle.doc
00000741 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle.PDF
00000742 Telepathy From Wikipedia jan 25 2008.doc
00000743 The Amazing Kreskin Bio jun 6 2006 Important.pdf
00000744 The Amazing Kreskin Bio jun 6 2006.pdf
00000745 The Belief Engine article Mental Telepathy.doc
00000746 The Belief Engine article Mental Telepathy.pdf
00000747 The Belief Engine article Psychic Vibrations.doc
00000748 The Belief Engine article Psychic Vibrations.pdf
00000749 The Belief Engine article Whats going on at Temple Universit.doc
00000750 The Belief Engine article Whats going on at Temple Universit.pdf
00000751 The Belief Engine.doc
00000752 The Belief Engine.pdf
00000753 The Book A New Breed - Satellite Terrorism In Amercia by Dr. John Hall April of 2009.pdf
00000754 The calculated and technological entry into another persons .doc
00000755 The Case for Impeachment of President Barack Obama, By Dave Lindorff April 1, 2010.pdf
00000756 The CIA Created The Hippie Movement in the 1960s February 14, 2010.pdf
00000757 The Facts of the Pollard Case.doc
00000758 The Facts of the Pollard Case.pdf
00000759 The FFCHS Press Conference in Louisville, Kentucky - April 16, 2010.pdf
00000760 The Hippocratic Oath Applied to Intelligence January 26, 2010.pdf
00000761 The Indus Valley Drafidian Civilization $ Mental Telepathy n.PDF
00000762 The Military-Industrial Complex is Ruining the Economy January 11, 2010.pdf
00000763 The oil reserve below Haiti are Larger Than Venezuala With HAARP by Ron Angel January 25, 2010.pdf
00000764 The Pentagon Plan to Drug Troops.doc
00000765 The Role of the Media in a Democracy.pdf
00000766 THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT ITS IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS by Ric.pdf
00000767 The Surge in U.S. Personal Bankruptcies, Foreclosures and Job Losses January 10, 2010.pdf
00000768 The United States Government & Mind Invasion Technology.pdf
00000769 Thefts and Vandalism Documents for Video Part 24 Mental Telepathy and Electromagnetic Weapons February 16,
2010_opt.pdf
00000770 Things Are Cooking at Lime Spring Marylyn Berger Sunday January 24, 2010.pdf
00000771 Tom Caterbone Estate & Fulton Bank Fraud Documents March 22, 2010.pdf
00000772 Tommye Global Research Dec 4 2007.PDF

PageNo.
No.47
47ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000773 Tom's Legacy January 16 1997 Lancaster Newspaper Article.pdf

00000774 Treason in America 911, the Wars & Our Broken Constitution Conference Flyer.pdf
00000775 Twitter Page for Stan Caterbone re Counter Attacks During Assults of January 31, 2010.pdf
00000776 U.S. Attorney Complaint of April 25, 2009 re Mind Control & Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Very Important.pdf
00000777 U.S. District Court Preliminary Injunction Case No. 09-05205 DOCKET Sheet Filed October 30 as of December 16, 2009
Important.pdf
00000778 U.S. Preliminary Emergency Injunction USPSOctober 28, 2009 IMPORTANT.pdf
00000779 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and DOD Invoice of January 1, 2010.pdf
00000780 U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi will speak in Lancaster County on February 5, 2010.pdf
00000781 U.S. State Dept Official Questions Acquittal of UAE Royal Sheikh in Torture Trial January 11, 2010.pdf
00000782 Upcoming Radio Appearances by FFCHS January 31, 2010.pdf
00000783 US Attorney in Philadelphia Indicted for using false identification.pdf
00000784 US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights.pdf
00000785 US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Biography April 7, 2009-GATES.pdf
00000786 USDOJ AnitiTrust Conference Presentation February 15, 2010.pdf
00000787 Velma Orlikow Sued CIA for Mind Control and Won Important.pdf
00000788 Velma Orlikow Sued CIA for Mind Control and Won Very Important.pdf
00000789 Velma Orlikow Sued CIA for Mind Control and Won.pdf
00000790 Victims Accounts of Mind Control dec 10 2007.doc
00000791 Victims Accounts of Mind Control dec 10 2007.pdf
00000792 Video of Computer Hacking During Updating to Windows 7 For HP February 1, 2010.3gp
00000793 WARNING To all Shore Points in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and New York re Hybrid Lives March 14, 2010 with
Docs.pdf
00000794 Water & Sewer Shut-Off Notice for 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, of February 1, 2010.pdf
00000795 Water Shut-Off and Condemnation of 1252 Fremont of May 8, 2008.pdf
00000796 WGAL Video Request Form.pdf
00000797 What Caused Britney.doc
00000798 What Is Adult Internet Bullying April 11, 2010 - Is It Illegal by Human Rights Examiner Editor Debra Dupre'.odt
00000799 What Is Adult Internet Bullying April 11, 2010 - Is It Illegal.pdf
00000800 What Torture Is and Why It's Illegal and Not Poor Judgment Watch David Margolis - March 15, 2010.pdf
00000801 When The Going Gets Tough The Tough Get Going - LCHS Coach Tony DiPaolo 1973-1975 Football Season GOTCHA.pdf
00000802 Whistleblower is accused of masterminding fraudulent scheme .pdf
00000803 Whistleblower Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, Ikes great-granddaughter, outs secret Mars colony project February 12,
2010.pdf
00000804 Who Owns Facebook and Twitter by Advanced Media Group on February 14, 2010.pdf
00000805 Why so many Americans today are 'mentally ill'.PDF
00000806 William Lefty Plank Died January 10 Obituary January 12, 2010.pdf
00000807 William Lefty Plank Obituary January 12, 2010 Page 1.pdf
00000808 William Lefty Plank Obituary January 12, 2010.pdf
00000809 William Plank Arrest & Convictions Record Important.pdf
00000810 Wishing Limbaugh Dead except for the Sarah Factor by Rob Krall of OpEd News December 31, 2009.pdf
00000811 Word Beyond Space and Time - Mark Twain & Mental Telepathy 1.pdf
00000812 Writ of Mandamus for MDJ Leo Eckert and MDJ Mary Commins December 8, 2006.pdf
00000813 Yacht Havens of the Mediterranean from Rome to Barcelona Millersville University Alumni Tour January 17, 2010.pdf
00000814 [print version] Yahoo hires DARPA director to head research .pdf
00000815 1HAD LANCASTER COUNTY LOST IT updated jun 3 2006 format 7.pdf
00000816 1-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Welcome Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000817 2-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Bipolar Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000818 3-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Biography Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000819 4-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Letter to Dr Phil Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000820 5-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Letter to Chief Sadler Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000821 6-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Third Circuit Brief Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000822 7-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Amended Complaint Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000823 8-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Lippiat Amicus Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000824 9-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com NSA Amicus Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000825 10-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com v County of Lancaster Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000826 11-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com v City of Lancaster Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000827 12-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com v PENNDOT City of Lancaster Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000828 13-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Civil Rights Complaint Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000829 14-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com UGI-PPL Complaint Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000830 15-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Advanced Media Group Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000831 16Defense Intelligence Manual Brief on Remote Viewing.pdf
00000832 16-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Toms Project Hope Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000833 17-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Fulton Activist Shareholder Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000834 18-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com ISC Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000835 19a-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Downtown Investment Plan Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000836 19-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Downtown Investment Plan Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000837 20-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Downtown Excelsior Place Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000838 21-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Financial Managment Group Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000839 22-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Lancaster County Home Rule Application Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000840 23-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com SONY Joint Venture Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000841 24-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com 1992 CCHR Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000842 25-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Lancaster Lost Soverienty Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000843 26-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Unix NIST Article Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000844 27-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com 1987 Mortgage Banking Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000845 28-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Management Consulting Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000846 29-www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Radio Science Laboratories Page Feb 13, 2009.pdf
00000847 470px-Admiral_Bobby_Ray_Inman,_official_CIA_photo,_1983.JPEG
00000848 A Study In Mind Invasive Technology & The Government October.pdf

PageNo.
No.48
48ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000849 A Study of Mind Invasive Technology & the Government Oct 31.doc
00000850 A Study of Mind Invasive Technology & the Government Oct 31.pdf
00000851 Acatemy.PDF
00000852 Advanced Media Group ISC Page with Bobby Ray Inman February 3, 2009.pdf
00000853 Advanced Media Group Research Blog 1st Post November 13 2007.doc
00000854 Alley Kat & Brett Stabley Emails 2005-2007 dec 6 2007.pdf
00000855 American Society for Psychical Research.PDF
00000856 American Taliban Whistleblower joins CIA Tapegate Furor dec .PDF
00000857 ATT Go Phone January 31 to February 4 2009.pdf
00000858 ATT Go Phone January 2009.pdf
00000859 Best Psychic Mediums August 15 2007.PDF
00000860 Beyond Space and Time by Martin Ebron 1967.pdf
00000861 Big Brother and DARPA on Book Records.doc
00000862 Big Brother DARPAs Control Freak Technology Dec 12 2007.doc
00000863 Big Brother DARPAs Control Freak Technology Dec 12 2007.pdf
00000864 Bush Lawyers Discussed Fate of CIA Tapes Dec 20 2007.PDF
00000865 CIA Cover Page of Senate Select Committee 1977.pdf
00000866 CIA Documents Telepathy 2002.pdf
00000867 CIA erased interrogation tapes.PDF
00000868 CIA Stansfield Turner Statement to Senate Select Committee 1977-1.pdf
00000869 CIA Tape Furor Echoes Watergate.doc
00000870 Congressional Inquiry Form.pdf
00000871 Congressional Inquiry Form.rtf
00000872 Constantine Report on Remote Viewing.pdf
00000873 DARPA Developing Sleep Agent Orexin A.doc
00000874 DARPA Developing Sleep Agent Orexin A.pdf
00000875 DARPA email of Feb 26 2007.pdf
00000876 DARPA goal Psychic Doctors.pdf
00000877 DARPA Human Interface Program.doc
00000878 DARPA Human Interface Program.pdf
00000879 DARPA is it time for a REAL PDA.doc
00000880 DARPA is it time for a REAL PDA.pdf
00000881 DARPA Mission And Projects.pdf
00000882 DARPA Predictive Simulation.PDF
00000883 darpa-r-zook-judge-james-cullen-psychiatrist-jerome-gottlieb-sept-5-2007.pdf
00000884 Dave Plummer offers counsel in a crisis.pdf
00000885 Do Some Pets Not Know They Are Pets mental telepathy.PDF
00000886 Dossier Iraqgate 2003.pdf
00000887 Dr Ross & The CIA Mind Control Experiments July 17 2007.doc
00000888 Dr Ross & The CIA Mind Control Experiments July 17 2007.PDF
00000889 Duke Street Business Center Movie Research Nov 14 2007.pdf
00000890 Edgar Cayce.pdf
00000891 Electromagentic Aspects of Mind Control Mind Justice.pdf
00000892 Electromagnetic pulse (Weapons) threat to be analyzed By Navy Sea Systems Command April 3, 2010.pdf
00000893 Electromagnetic Weapons Transcript by CNN in 1985.pdf
00000894 Electronic Mind Control & Timothy McVeigh jan 3 2008.doc
00000895 Electronic Mind Control & Timothy McVeigh jan 3 2008.pdf
00000896 email to all contacts re DARPA Psychic Doctors Oct 13 2007.pdf
00000897 email to All Contacts re Mind Invasion Technology by Global .doc
00000898 email to All Contacts re Mind Invasion Technology by Global .pdf
00000899 email to All Contacts re Sheryl Crow Mentalis Forum Post Aug.PDF
00000900 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007 record.doc
00000901 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007 record.pdf
00000902 email to John Spiziri re Shadow Government Dec 1 2007.doc
00000903 email to kreskin april 21 2007.pdf
00000904 email to research at GAO July 10 2007.PDF
00000905 ESP - Mental Telepathy - Remote Viewing & The US Government .pdf
00000906 ESP & Mental Telepathy Research Documents November 13 2007.pdf
00000907 Federal 05-2288 Legal Research Notes of Sept 18 2007.doc
00000908 George Bush The CIA & Mind Control May 5 2003.PDF
00000909 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization(1).log
00000910 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization(1).pdf
00000911 GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization.pdf
00000912 Government Accountability Project- Bill Would Streamline Whi.pdf
00000913 Guidelines National Commission on Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.pdf
00000914 Holder Sworn in as Attorney General February 3, 2009.pdf
00000915 Hugo Mnsterberg Hypnosis and Metal Telepathy Dec 19 2007.doc
00000916 Intelligencer Journal Editorial CIA Tapes.doc
00000917 Intelligencer Journal- Losing trust in our government.pdf
00000918 Is DARPA the Mad Scientist of the DOD.doc
00000919 John Aniston Biography.pdf
00000920 Judge Allison Opinion in Caterbone v. Totaro, et al., CI- 00366 July 16, 2007.pdf
00000921 Judicial Retaliation.doc
00000922 Kreskin Protoge Makes Film.doc
00000923 Kreskin Protoge Makes Film.pdf
00000924 Kreskin video and Peterson Case jan 4 2008.doc
00000925 Kreskin video.doc
00000926 LancasterOnline Eateries chose to go smoke free.doc
00000927 Letter to Alen Specter July 12 2007.pdf

PageNo.
No.49
49ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00000928 Letter to CCHR Lorita O'Leary Abuse Case Documentor jan 4 20.doc
00000929 Letter to FBI July 16 2007.pdf
00000930 Letter to FBI re DARPA July 16 2007.pdf
00000931 Letter to R Scott Smith Fulton Bank Dec 3 2007.doc
00000932 Letter to R Scott Smith Fulton Bank Dec 3 2007.pdf
00000933 Letter to Richard Boylan PhD LLC re Shadow Dec 3 2007.doc
00000934 Letter to Richard Gray re 1252 Fremont Dec 3 2007.doc
00000935 letter to United States Attorney Genereral re Samuel Caterbone February 9, 2009-2.doc
00000936 Letter to US Attorney Magid with Complaint Form December 5, 2008.pdf
00000937 Letterman Faces Restraining Order for Mental Telepathy.PDF
00000938 Mariuuana Research dec 27 2007.doc
00000939 Mariuuana Research dec 27 2007.pdf
00000940 Massive Human Rights Abuses Letterman Telepathy.PDF
00000941 Medical_Records_Release Form Burdette Tomlin Hospital.pdf
00000942 MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT.doc
00000943 MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT.pdf
00000944 Mentalist offers help to state cops.doc
00000945 Mind Controle and the Secret State Remote Viewing June 2008.pdf
00000946 Mind Justice Congressional Testimony re Financial Ruin May 1.pdf
00000947 Mind Justice Organization & Research dec 10 2007.doc
00000948 Mind Justice Organization & Research dec 10 2007.pdf
00000949 MK-Ultra - The Navy - Bobby Ray Inman on Board of SAIC and ISC Feb 3, 2009.pdf
00000950 MK-Ultra - The Navy - Mental Telepathy by Thomas Porter 1996.pdf
00000951 MK-Ultra ESP Subprogram 136.pdf
00000952 National Commission on Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.pdf
00000953 Neuroimaging Fails To Demonstrate ESP Is Real.doc
00000954 Neuroimaging Fails To Demonstrate ESP Is Real.pdf
00000955 Ohio Style Diciplinary Case.pdf
00000956 On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in th.doc
00000966 Orlikow, et al. v. United States Mind Control Suit.pdf
00000967 Pages from Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle - Telepathic Se.pdf
00000968 Pakistan in Crisis dec 28 2007.PDF
00000969 Parapsychology.pdf
00000970 Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasion Technology October 1.pdf
00000971 Remote Viewing Television Demonstration.pdf
00000972 Robert Walker backs Thompson.PDF
00000974 Santa Barbara Business Permits Mental Telepathy Oct 5 2007.PDF
00000975 Science fiction-Scientology-Telepathy.doc
00000976 Science fiction-Scientology-Telepathy.pdf
00000977 Sheryl Crow and Navy Seal Stalker Trial re Telepathy.pdf
00000978 Sheryl Crow Mentalist Post August 2 2007.doc
00000979 Sheryl Crow Mentalist Post August 2 2007.PDF
00000980 Society for Psychical Research.PDF
00000982 Targeted Individuals of Electromagnetic Mind Center.pdf
00000983 Telepathic Communication Between Two People.pdf
00000984 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle -Telepathic Sensitivity - .doc
00000985 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle -Telepathic Sensitivity.pdf
00000986 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle.doc
00000987 Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle.PDF
00000988 The Amazing Kreskin Bio jun 6 2006.pdf
00000989 The Belief Engine article Mental Telepathy.doc
00000990 The Belief Engine article Mental Telepathy.pdf
00000991 The Belief Engine article Psychic Vibrations.doc
00000992 The Belief Engine article Psychic Vibrations.pdf
00000993 The Belief Engine article Whats going on at Temple Universit.doc
00000994 The Belief Engine article Whats going on at Temple Universit.pdf
00000995 The Belief Engine.doc
00000996 The Belief Engine.pdf
00000997 The calculated and technological entry into another persons .doc
00000998 The Facts of the Pollard Case.doc
00000999 The Facts of the Pollard Case.pdf
00001000 The Indus Valley Drafidian Civilization $ Mental Telepathy n.PDF
00001001 THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT ITS IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS by Ric.pdf
00001002 The United States Government & Mind Invasion Technology.pdf
00001003 Title 45 CFR Part Protection of Human Subjects.pdf
00001004 Tommye Global Research Dec 4 2007.PDF
00001005 U.S. and international Classified Law on Human Experiments by Cheryl Welsh 2005.pdf
00001006 Velma Orlikow Sued CIA for Mind Control and Won.pdf

PageNo.
No.50
50ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00001007 Victims Accounts of Mind Control dec 10 2007.doc

00001008 Victims Accounts of Mind Control dec 10 2007.pdf
00001009 WGAL Video Request Form.pdf
00001010 What Caused Britney.doc
00001011 Whistleblower is accused of masterminding fraudulent scheme .pdf
00001012 Why so many Americans today are 'mentally ill'.PDF
00001013 Word Beyond Space and Time - Mark Twain & Mental Telepathy 1.pdf
00001014 www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com Welcome Page February 11, 2009.pdf
00001015 Advanced Media Group Welcome Page August 30, 2009.pdf
00001016 AlbumArtSmall.jpg
00001017 ATT Go Phone Hisory April to August 28, 2009..pdf
00001018 Bio-electromagnetic Weapons.pdf
00001019 Coast to Coast - Jul 08 2009 - Hour 2.mp3
00001022 Folder.jpg
00001023 John St. Clair Akwei v NSA Remote Viewing.pdf
00001024 Naval Air Gunners Training Manual June 1 1943.pdf
00001025 REMOTE BEHAVIORAL INFLUENCE TECHNOLOGY EVIDENCE.pdf
00001026 S2010749.JPG
00001027 S2010750.JPG
00001028 S2010751.JPG
00001029 S2010752.JPG
00001030 S2010753.JPG
00001031 S2010754.JPG
00001032 S2010755.JPG
00001033 S2010756.JPG
00001034 S2010759.JPG
00001035 Sample Electronic Harassment Stalking Bill.pdf
00001036 Samuel Caterbone Naval Air Gunners Honors 1943.pdf
00001037 Samuel P Caterbone UFO Research February 21 2008.pdf
00001038 Social Security Claim Report Form May 15, 2009.pdf
00001039 Joseph F Roda Documents For Stan J. Caterbone, Sammy & Guerin June 29 2007.pdf
00001040 Sammy Caterbone MK ULTRA Documentation Filed as Exhibit Y in CI-08-13373 on April 6, 2009.pdf
00001041 Sammy Malibu Court Filing oct 6 2005.pdf
00001042 Sammy v County of Santa Barbara.pdf
00001043 Tommy, Sammy and Dad at St. Joseph Cemetary on Charles Road Lancaster March 17, 2010.pdf
00001044 Why Did Tommy, Sammy, and Samuel Caterbone All Die Out of the State of Pennsylvania - March 18, 2010.pdf
00001045 00Letter to R Scott Smith Fulton Bank Dec 3 2007.pdf
00001046 001Letter to Debbie Fochs of Disclosure Project Feb 26 2008.pdf
00001047 01Samuel P Caterbone UFO Research February 21 2008.pdf
00001048 02Samuel Caterbone Jr. Passport Renewal February 3 1964b.pdf
00001049 03Samuel Caterbone Jr. Passport Renewal February 3 1964 bw.pdf
00001050 04Samuel Caterbone ID Comparison jan 22 2008.pdf
00001051 05Samuel Caterbone Jr Naval Air Gunners School Honors 1943.pdf
00001052 06Samuel Caterbone Jr Naval Air Gunners School Certificate 1.pdf
00001053 07Naval Air Gunners Training Manual June 1 1943.pdf
00001054 08Naval Air Technical Training Center Photo Album.pdf
00001055 09Samuel Caterbone Naval Air Gunners Honors 1943.pdf
00001056 10Samuel Caterbone Jr Navy Photos.pdf
00001057 11John Lehman On Seas of Glory Book & Autograph of Feb 7 200.pdf
00001058 12Sam Caterbone Cleaners Documents Feb 14 2008.pdf
00001059 13Samuel Caterbone Jr 1973 Tax Return & Docs jan 21 2008.pdf
00001060 14President Judge Farina & My Father Samuel Caterbone.pdf
00001061 15Samuel P. Caterbone (My Father) Criminal Charges.pdf
00001062 16Samuel P. Caterbone 1942 LCHS Diploma.pdf
00001063 17Tree Top Stables Uncle Jim Caterbone Winners Circle 1963-1.pdf
00001064 18Samuel Caterbone Jr and Yolanda Roda Caterbone.pdf
00001065 19Samuel Caterbone Jr Childhood Photos.pdf
00001066 20Samuel Caterbone Family Photos.pdf
00001067 433 West Marion Street Deed of Stan J. Caterbone and Transfers 1983.pdf
00001068 1470 Caterbone Drycleaners Deed July 25, 2008-2.pdf
00001069 camp4.JPG
00001070 camp5.JPG
00001071 Dadlet1.pzp
00001072 family1.JPG
00001073 MAVICA.HTM
00001074 momdad.JPG
00001075 mtgretna1.JPG
00001076 MVC-001F.JPG
00001077 MVC-002F.JPG
00001078 MVC-003F.JPG
00001079 MVC-004F.JPG
00001080 MVC-005F.JPG
00001081 MVC-006F.JPG
00001082 MVC-007F.JPG
00001083 MVC-008F.JPG
00001084 MVC-009F.JPG
00001085 MVC-010F.JPG

PageNo.
No.51
51ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00001086 MVC-011F.JPG
00001087 MVC-012F.JPG
00001088 MVC-013F.JPG
00001089 MVC-014F.JPG
00001090 MVC-015F.JPG
00001091 MVC-016F.JPG
00001092 MVC-893X.JPG
00001093 MVC-894X.JPG
00001094 MVC-895F.JPG
00001095 MVC-896F.JPG
00001096 MVC-897F.JPG
00001097 MVC-898F.JPG
00001098 MVC-899F.JPG
00001099 MVC-900F.JPG
00001100 MVC-901F.JPG
00001101 MVC-902F.JPG
00001102 MVC-903F.JPG
00001103 MVC-904F.JPG
00001104 MVC-905F.JPG
00001105 MVC-906F.JPG
00001106 MVC-907F.JPG
00001107 MVC-908F.JPG
00001108 MVC-909F.JPG
00001109 MVC-910F.JPG
00001110 MVC-911F.JPG
00001111 NewYork.pza
00001112 NewYork.pzs
00001113 Page1.pzp
00001114 plant1.JPG
00001115 plant2.JPG
00001116 plant3.JPG
00001117 plant4.JPG
00001118 plant5.JPG
00001119 plant6.JPG
00001120 plant7.JPG
00001121 plant8.JPG
00001122 plant9.JPG
00001123 plant10.JPG
00001124 plant11.JPG
00001125 President Judge Farina & My Father.pdf
00001126 R 2nd Gold Record Feb 14 1975.pdf
00001127 Sam Caterbone Cleaners Brochure Color jan 21 2008.pdf
00001128 Sam Caterbone Cleaners Flyer.pdf
00001129 SamCleaners.bmp
00001130 samhunt.JPG
00001131 Samuel Caterbone, Jr. (Father) Photo Collection Published on May 9, 2016.pdf
00001133 Samuel P. Caterbone (My Father) Criminal Charges.pdf
00001134 Samuel P. Caterbone 1942 LCHS Diploma.pdf
00001135 sastfish.JPG
00001136 xmasmomom.JPG
00001137 Advanced Media Group February 5, 2010 Surge of Community Stalking Part 1 video-2010-02-05-10-26-21.3gp
00001140 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 1 video-2010-02-03-04-57-57.3gp
00001141 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 2 video-2010-02-03-05-08-24.3gp
00001142 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 3 ES Segment 1 video-2010-02-03-10-54-55.3gp
00001148 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 10 Lambert A&E Segment 1 video-2010-02-09-09-58-52.3gp
00001153 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 15 Fulton Bank Stole 220 Stone Hill Road video-2010-02-06-14-55-
46.3gp
00001154 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 16 1987 Photo Gallary Part 1 video-2010-02-06-15-08-20.3gp
00001155 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 17 1987 Photo Gallary Part 2 video-2010-02-06-15-19-29.3gp
00001156 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 18 1998 Affidavit Segment 1video-2010-02-13-21-48-36.3gp
00001157 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 19 1998 Affidavit Segment 2 video-2010-02-13-21-15-34.3gp
00001158 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 20 1998 Affidavit Segment 3 video-2010-02-13-21-26-00.3gp
00001159 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 21 Emergency Injunction Segment 1 video-2010-02-15-06-50-03.3gp
00001162 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 25 Coast to Coast AM Dale Graff Project Stargate of Feb 17, 2010-1.3gp

PageNo.
No.52
52ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
00001166 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 29 More Damaged Clothing March 9, 2010.3gp
00001167 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 30 Reign of Terror March 12, 2010.3gp
00001168 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 31 Segment 1 SSA Cashiers Check & Fulton Bank Fraud of March 24,
2010.3gp
2010.3gp
2010.3gp
00001171 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 35 ABC News 20-20 ARMS to Iraq by ISC of Feb 1, 1991 April 22,
2010.3gp
00001172 Mental Telepathy & Electromagnetic Weapons Part 36 CNN Video of Robert Gates & ISC in Confirmation Hearings.3gp
00001173 Thumbs.db

PageNo.
No.53
53ofof1126
53 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AND ADVANCE MEDIA GROUP - SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT OF 1890 2,4 7
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP PRESS RELEASE Page No. 54 of 1126 Wednesday August 23, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SEPRO
STAN J. CATERBONE, ANDSE
ADVANCE MEDIAMEDIA
AND ADVANCE GROUP - SHERMAN
GROUP ANTI-TRUST
- SHERMAN ACT
ANTI-TRUST ACTOF
OF1890
1890 2,4
2,4 7
7
STAN J. CATERBONE
AND
ADVANCE MEDIA GROUP
AND
SAMUEL P. CATERBONE, JR.
(FATHER)
__________________
REVENUE STREAMS,
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, REAL
ESTATE,
AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ADVANCED
CI-08-13373
CASE CI-08-13373
ANTI-TRUST
MEDIAANTI-TRUST
GROUPVALUATION
PRESS
VALUATION
RELEASE Page
PageNo.
No.55
65
36of
of1126
1029
1136
999 Wednesday
Tuesday August 23,
22, 2017

FINAL SIGNED - Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy NEW Case COMPLETED FORMS For Tuesday September 5, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL SIGNED - Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy NEW Case COMPLETED FORMS For Tuesday September 5, 2017

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

FINAL SIGNED - Stan J. Caterbone Chapter 11 Bankruptcy NEW Case COMPLETED FORMS For Tuesday September 5, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEBTOR STANLEY J.

B25A (Official Form 25A) (12/11)

United States Bankruptcy Court

In re , STANLEY J. CATERBONE Case No. 17-10615REF

STAN J. CATERBONES PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 1 of 66 February 7, 2017

2.02 Class 2. The claim of , to the extent allowed

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 2 of 66 February 7, 2017

5.02 Delay of Distribution on a Disputed Claim. No distribution will be made on account of a

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 3 of 66 February 7, 2017

6.1 Assumed Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases.

[List assumed executory contracts and/or unexpired leases.]

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 4 of 66 February 7, 2017

8.03 Severability. If any provision in this Plan is determined to be unenforceable, the

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 5 of 66 February 7, 2017

9.01. [Option 1 If Debtor is an individual and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]

[Option 2 -- If the Debtor is a partnership and section 1141(d)(3) of the Code

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 6 of 66 February 7, 2017

[Option 3 -- If the Debtor is a corporation and 1141(d)(3) is not applicable]

[Option 4 If 1141(d)(3) is applicable]

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 7 of 66 February 7, 2017

I) TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 8 of 66 February 7, 2017

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF

Loss of personal property and real estate.

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 9 of 66 February 7, 2017

Loss of accounts receivables.

By: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, THE DEBTOR

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 10 of 66 February 7, 2017

B25B (Official Form 25B) (12/08)

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 11 of 66 February 7, 2017

B25A (Official Form 25A) (12/11)

United States Bankruptcy Court

In re , STANLEY J. CATERBONE Case No. 17-10615REF

STAN J. CATERBONES DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 12 of 66 February 7, 2017

A. Purpose of This Document

This Disclosure Statement describes:

The Debtor and significant events during the bankruptcy case,

B. Deadlines for Voting and Objecting; Date of Plan Confirmation Hearing

2. Deadline For Voting to Accept or Reject the Plan

Your ballot must be received by [insert date] or it will not be counted.

3. Deadline For Objecting to the [Adequacy of Disclosure and] Confirmation of

4. Identity of Person to Contact for More Information

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 13 of 66 February 7, 2017

A. Description and History of the Debtor=s Business

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 14 of 66 February 7, 2017

April 20, 2016

Stan J. Caterbone/Advanced Media Group Biography

Present - Advanced Media Group, President, Owner, and Founder.

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 15 of 66 February 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 16 of 66 February 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 17 of 66 February 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 18 of 66 February 7, 2017

17-10615 CHAPTER 11 REORGANIZATION PLAN Page 19 of 66 February 7, 2017

B. Insiders of the Debtor

C. Management of the Debtor Before and During the Bankruptcy