DOCKET and NOTICE To THIRD CIRCUIT Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus 14-2559 September 30, 2015 PD

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105904368343628-L_1_0-1
CLOSED,APPEAL,HABEAS,A/R,DOC-RESTRICT
United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14-cv-02559-PD
LAMBERT v. BISSONETTE et al
Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND
Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Date Filed: 05/02/2014

Date Terminated: 05/22/2014
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus: (General)
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Petitioner
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT
represented by JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM

LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY H. GONZALEZ IBRAHIM
P.O. BOX 1025
CHADDS FORD, PA 19317
215-568-1943
Email: jeremyibrahim.esq@verizon.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Respondent
LYNN BISSONETTE
SUPERINTENDENT, MCI-FRAMINGHAM
Respondent
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LANCASTER
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Respondent
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
V.
Movant
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

1250 FREMONT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Email: scaterbone@live.com
PRO SE
Date Filed
Docket Text
05/02/2014
1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 100526.), filed by LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT.
(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ks, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
05/22/2014
2 CJA 20 APPIONTMENT OF ATTORNEY JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM for LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT. SIGNED BY
HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jpd) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
05/22/2014
3 ORDER THAT JEREMY IBRAHIM, ESQ., IS APPOINTED AS PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY HER HABEAS
PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A COUNSELED MOTION FOR
RELIEF. COUNSEL SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS WHETHER PETITIONER MUST SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE FILING A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL
S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/23/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
(Entered: 05/23/2014)
06/23/2015
4 BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CANTERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP IN SUPPORT OF
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S HABEAU CORPUS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
07/06/2015
5 STATEMENT OF MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (jpd, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
08/14/2015
6 LETTER FROM STAN J. CATERBONE DATED 8/7/15 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER AND
THE HONORABLE JUDGE PAUL S. DIAMOND RE: ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PRIVILEGES. (jpd) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
10/2/2015 6:53 PM
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105904368343628-L_1_0-1
09/02/2015
8 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
7 ORDER THAT MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE
DOCUMENTS (DOC. NO. 6) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/3/2015. 9/3/2015 ENTERED
AND COPIES E-MAILED; AND MAILED TO PRO SE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
9 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(jaa, ) Modified on 9/3/2015 (afm, ). Modified on
9/4/2015 (jaa, ). (Entered: 09/03/2015)
09/03/2015
10 MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
09/09/2015
11 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
12 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT.(jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
13 LETTER APPLICATION FROM TIMOTHY RICE #DU-2363 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORALE TIMOTHY R. RICE, UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (jpd) (DOCKETED IN ERROR SEE 15-CV-291). (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/09/2015
14 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT OF MOVANT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
09/14/2015
15 ORDER THAT MR. CATERBONE'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 8 AND 9) AND MOTIONS TO FILE
EXHIBITS OR STATEMENTS (DOC. NO. 10, 11, 12, 14) ARE DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT
STANLEY J. CATERBONE MAY NO LONGER SUBMIT FILINGS-WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR IN PAPER FORMAT IN THE
ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL NOT DOCKET ANY SUCH FILINGS WITHOUT MY
APPROVAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/11/15. 9/14/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO
SE MOVANT AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL. (jpd) (Entered: 09/14/2015)
09/30/2015
16 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 15 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. IFP PENDING Copies to Judge, Clerk
USCA, Appeals Clerk.(jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
10/01/2015
17 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 16 Notice of Appeal, : (jpd, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
10/01/2015
18 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
10/02/2015 18:50:37
PACER Login: am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:
Description:
Docket Report
Billable Pages: 2
Search Criteria: 5:14-cv-02559-PD

Cost:
0.20
10/2/2015 6:53 PM
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT,
Petitioner,
v.
LYNN BISSONETTE, et al.,
Respondents.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civ. No. 14-2559
ORDER
I previously dismissed Petitioners pro se motion for habeas relief so that she could file a
counseled motion.
(Doc. No. 3.)
She has not yet done so.
On June 23, 2015, Stanley
Caterbonewho has nothing to do with Petitioner, her motion, or this casefiled a pro se
amicus brief in support of the dismissed motion. (Doc. No. 4.) Caterbone neither sought leave
to file, nor indicated that he had received the Parties consent to file an amicus brief. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 29(a).
The amicus briefalthough providing some arguments in apparent support of the
dismissed motionessentially focuses on the damages Caterbone allegedly suffered from his
years of torture as a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control or as a victim of gang-stalking or
organized stalking by more than 100 people. (Doc. No. 4 at 7, 9). He also includes a lengthy
discussion of the perplexing question of Stan Caterbones intelligence, or lack thereof, and his
work on a digital movie that is directly responsible for the development of the internet.
(Id. at 16-26). In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at mind control, including:
1) Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy; 2) Invading my
thoughts via remote sensing technologies; and 3) Making me mentally hear others voices
through the microwave hearing effect. (Id. at 27-30.)

Caterbones involvement in the matter did not end with his amicus brief. On July 6,
2015, he filed with this Court an email that he had sent to the Lancaster Police, asserting that he
has synthetic telepathy. (Doc. No. 5.) On September 2 and 3, 2015, Caterbone moved for
summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On September 3, 2015, he moved to file a copy of his
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis in
Pennsylvania state court, (which had been dismissed as frivolous). (Doc. No. 10.)
On
September 9, 2015, he also moved to file: 1) an email exchange with the subject Muslims Using
My Situation to Fight Against the USA; 2) a Wikipedia article on Entrapment; and 3) an
exhibit of billing statements of his estimated fees for his 2007 work on wholly unrelated federal
and state court cases. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14.)
On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my
Chambers, demanding to speak with me, and then abruptly hung up.
I have already denied Caterbones request to file documents electronically. (Doc. No. 9.)
He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.
Page 2 of 3
AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.
Caterbones Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and Motions to File Exhibits or
Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED
that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit filingswhether electronic or in paper format
in the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not docket any such filings without my approval.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul S. Diamond

_________________________
Paul S. Diamond, J.
September 11, 2015
Page 3 of 3

amgroup01@msn.com
http://www.amgglobalentertajomentgroup.com/
Blog: http://adyanc;edmedjagroup.wordpress.com/
Research Blog: www.advancedmediagroupresearch.wordpress.com
Video Biography at: http: //www.youtube. ccim/profile?user==advancedmediagroup
Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RJRTRE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Lisa Michelle Lambert
PETITIONER
v.
Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

RESPONDANT
f H,,ED
CASE NO. 14-2559
SEP .3 0 2015
l
.
rri;c1iAEl E. K\.!MZ1 C!Gr!{,
By
De~C!wt.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Stanley J. Caterbone, MOVANT in the above captioned case,
hereby files an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from an ORDER
that failed to consider the INTERESTS AND FILINGS OF THE MOVANT, and DENIED Motion for
Summary Judgment in the above captioned case, entered in this case on the 14 1h day of
September, 2015. The MOVANT requests an expedited resolution to this case considering it is
central to the HABEUS CORPUS of the PETITIONER, Lisa Michelle Lambert, filed in May of 2014.
Date: September 30, 2015
ao&&-
1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
amgroupOl@msn.com
http://www.amgglobalentertajnmentgroup.com/
Page 1of24
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Clearly the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond had intentions other than that of fair and equitable jurist prudence regarding this C:;;tse. The MOVANT, Stan J. Caterbone, has been fighting for
his reputation, his integrity, his intellectual property, his personal property, his basic human
rights, and most importantly his constitutional rights In this court for the past ten (10) years as
pro se. The MOVANT had made a bona fide attempt to provide as much factual background to
the Honorable Judge Diamond as humanty possibte- tn as an efficient manner as possible so as not
to dutter the courts and the dockets. You must remember the MOVANT has the burden of articu latlng to the COURTS a 30 plus year legal quagmire. See Case No. 07-4474 in the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.
If you review the ORDER of September 14, 2015 in an objective manner you will see that
the Honorable Judge Paul s. Diamond went out of his way not to Include any reference to the actual Interest of the MOVANT in this case, but rather distracted the COURT with mentions of background information tn a dear and convincing effort to fibel and slander the MOVANT. The last
sentence in the ORDER of September 14, 2015 reads "He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.'' I beg to differ. In addition the MOVANT was granted
electronic filing priveledges by the Honorable Judge Joyner on September 2, 2015 in the
MOVANT'S Petition for Habetts corpus case no. 15-3984.
The following are items that are on the record In this case and should compel the said
Court to remand the Summary Judgment back to the lower court for further review, or grant the
MOVANT Summary Judgement and release Lisa Michelle Lambert from further custody.
Statement of Havant, lune 20, 2015 - clerks maliciously placed this statement as the
last few pages of the Movant's Amlcus Fiiing of June 23, 2015.
"TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:
AND NOW comes before the said court Stanley J. Caterbone, appearing Pro Se, and Advanced Media Group, as Movant, to file an Amicus in the above captioned case.
The Movant has an interest in this case as a corroborating witness to the prosecutorlal misamduct that was found tn this court before the Honorable Stewart Dafzelf tn l997. The Movant
has made several personal attempts to bring his evidence to the courts. In November of 1997
the. MOYijnt had :Jollc;ited the counsel of M5. Christina Ralnvllle and her firm Schnader & Harrison
Page2 of24

of Philadelphia. The Movant had arranged and delivered a letter and evidence of his own prosecutorial misconduct by the Lancaster County District Attorney and local authorities at Ms. Rainville's
request. Ms. Rainville then returned a letter to the Movant that explained that Schnader & Harrison had made the decision that she could no longer accept any additional dients from Lancaster
County. At that time Ms. Rainville was already involved the Darrell McCrakken case of Lancaster
County.
In December of 1997 the Movant hand delivered a CD-ROM to the chambers of the Honorable Judge Stewart Dalzall that contained evidence of the same.
This amicus provides a voice for the movants as well as providing another perspective and
opinion that should benefit the courts; the parties; and the public-at-large. The matters presented
In this amicus have a direct relevancy in the disposition of this case as it does In the opinion and
ORDER of the Honorable Paul S. Diamond on May 22, 2014."
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMNT filed on September 3. 2015
"MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMNT
Given the preponderance of evidence associated with the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, the courts must conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall's findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case
identifying acts of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, In the Commonwealth of PennsyNania and in the .County .of Lancaster.
Criminal law may determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible
criminal enterprise. The MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS is of material interest to the
Habeus Corpus filed by Lisa Michelle Lambert in May of 2014, for the very fact that this MOVANT'S
AMICUS and STATEMENTS compromises the very same integrity .of the court, whidl would tip the
scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights.
In the truthfulness of MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, The Commonwealth must concede and immediately release Lisa Michelle Lambert from incarceration in order to balance the
scaJes of justice, which no .other act could accomplish. The Commonwealth must yield the criminal
culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the Integrity to the courts;
by it's own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of It's commitment to administer
equalities of justice, not Inequalities of justice, balancing the scales of justice. Anything less,
would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution of the United States.
Page3of24

In addition the MOVANT must be restored to whole by administering SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS in cases 05-2288; 06-4650; and all other cases filed by the MOVANT in this court. SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS must also be administered In Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster Court of
Common Pleas, and other cases filed by the MOVANT In that said court."
AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DAI.ZELL
"I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit
concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused, subjected
to a massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive fight for the
sovereignty of my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties, and right of due access
to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, In 1991, exhibiting the dire consequences
of this complaint. Thes.e allegations are substantiated through a preponderance of evidence induding but not limited to over 10,000 documents, over SO hours of recorded conversations, transcripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A "Findings of Facts" is attached herewith providing merits and the facts pertaining to this affidavit. These Issues and Incidents identified herein
have attempted to conceal my dlsdosures of International Signal & Control, Pie. However, the
merits of the violations contained in this affidavit will be proven incidental to the existence of any
conspiracy.
The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial considerations would exceed $1 million. These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident
and business owner In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and have continued to the present. These
issues are a direct consequence of my public dlscfosure of fraud within International Signal & Control, Pie., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which were in compliance with federal and state
statutes governing my shareholder rights granted In 1983, when I purchased my interests In International Signal & Control., Pie I will also prove intentional undo Influence against family and
friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and self serving accusations
of "insanity". I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most
certainly, the process must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to
the conduslons. Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our
Constitution."
1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the scope
of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the United States.
The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of International Signal & Control, including the illegal transfer of arms and technologies to an end user Iraq, the laws of disclosure must be forfeited by virtue that "said activities posed a direct compromise to the National
Security of the United States".; the plaintiff will argue that his public allegations of misconduct
within the operation~ of International Signal ,&. Control, Pie., as early as June of 1987 ;demonPage4of24

strated actions were proven to protect the National Security of the United States The activities
of International Signal & Control, Pis., placed American troops in harms way. The plaintiff's actions
should have taken the American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the International Signal & Control, Pie., to cease and desist. All activities contained herein have greatly compromised the National Security of the United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply towards the Plaintiff's intent and motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens. Had the plaintiff been protected under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United States
troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the operations of International Signal & Control, Pie., in as early as 1987.
2. The plaintiff wlll successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial misconduct were directed at intimidating the plall)tiff from continuing his public disdosures regarding illegal activities within International Signal & Control, Pie,. On June 23, 1998, International Signal
& Control, Pie was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger with Ferranti International, of England.
Such disclosures threatened the integrity of International Signal & Control's organization, and Mr.
James Guerin himself, consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if
such disclosures provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later became the central criminal activity in the in The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania.
3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse consequences
and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings. The dire consequences
of the plaintiff's failed business dealings will demonstrate and substantiate financial incentive and
motive. Defendants responsible for administering undo influence and Interference in the plaintiff's
business and commercial enterprises had financial Interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
as a taxing authority, Lancaster County had a great investment who's demise would facilitate
grave consequences to It's economic development Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would
have less competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the
lender liability laws. The Steinman Enterprise's, Inc., would loose a pioneer In the information
technologies industries, and would protect the public domain from truthful disclosure. The plaintiff
will also provide significant evidence of said perpetrators violating common laws governing intellectual property rights.
4. Given the plaintiff's continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in
June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the law with
the opportunlty_for any and all remedial actions required under the federal and state statutes. The
plaintiff will successfully argue his rights to the courts to rightfully daim civil actions with regards
Page5of24

to the totality of these activities, so described in the following "Findings of Facts", regardless of
any statute of limitations.
Given the plaintiff's genuine efforts for due process has been inherent-
ly and maliciously obstructed, the courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial
actions deserving to the plaintiff.
5. Under current laws, the plaintiff's intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of discrediting the plaintiff's disclosures and obstructing the plaintiff's right to due process of the law. The
plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to enter Into contract. The
logic and reason towards the plaintiff's activities and actions are a matter of record, demonstrated
In the "Findings of Facts", contained herein The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that
the Inherent emotional consequences to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post
Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be
the direct result of the activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any mental deficiency the plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper Interpretations of all laws, irrespective of the plaintiff's alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff successfully argue that his "mental capacity" Is of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in it's
malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of Illegal prosecutions were purposej
fully directed at Intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the activities of International Signal & Control, Pie., consequently obstructing the plaintiff's access to due process of
the law. Due to the fact that these activities to which the plaintiff's perpetrators were protecting
were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would apply. To this day, the plaintiff has never been convicted of any crime with the exception of 2 speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23,
1987 and continuing to today.
7.Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must conclude
that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge
Stuart Dalzall's findings of Aprll 14, 1997, In the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of this affidavit, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of
prosecutorlal misconduct, In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster.
Criminal law must now determine If these disclosures would warrant Investigations of a possible
criminal enterprise. This affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that
this affidavit compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights.. In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The
Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no
other act could accomplish. Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle
Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it's own admission of
wrongdoing, assuring the peoples -Of It's commitment to admlnlster equalities of justice, not in-
Page6of24

equalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitution of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole."
Page7of24


LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT,
Petitioner,
v.
Civ. No. 14-2559
LYNN BISSONETIE, et al.,

Respondents.
ORDER
I previously dismissed Petitioner's prose motion for habeas relief so that she could file a
counseled motion.
(Doc. No. 3.)
She has not yet done so.
On June 23, 2015, Stanley
Caterbone-who has nothing to do with Petitioner, her motion, or this case-filed a pro se
amicus brief in support of the dismissed motion. (Doc. No. 4.) Caterbone neither sought leave
to file, nor indicated that he had received the Parties' consent to file
an amicus brief.
Fed. R.
Civ. P. 29(a).
The amicus brief.-although providing some arguments in apparent support of the
dismissed motion-essentially focuses on the damages Caterbone allegedly suffered from ''his
years of torture as a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control" or as a "victim of gang-stalking or
organized stalking by more than 100 people." (Doc. No. 4 at 7, 9). He also includes a lengthy
discussion of the ')>erplexing question of Stan Caterbone's intelligence, or lack thereof," and his
work on a "digital movie" that is "directly responsible for the development of the 'internet."'
ffiL. at 16-26).
In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at ''mind control," including:
1) ''Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy"; 2) "Invading my

thoughts via remote sensing technologies"; and 3) ''Making me mentally 'hear' others' voices
Page8 of24

through the microwave hearing effect."
ffiL at 27-30.)
Caterbone's involvement in the matter did not end with his amicus brief. On July 6,
2015, he filed with this Court an email that he had sent to the Lancaster Police, asserting that he
has "synthetic telepathy." (Doc. No. 5.) On September 2 and 3, 2015, Caterbone moved for
"summary judgment." (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On September 3, 2015, he moved to file a copy of his
motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition to proceed in Jonna pauperis in
Pennsylvania state court, (which had been "dismissed as frivolous"). (Doc. No. 10.)
On
September 9, 2015, he also moved to file: 1) an email exchange with the subject ''Muslims Using
My Situation to Fight Against the USA"; 2) a Wikipedia article on "Entrapment"; and 3) an
exhibit of billing statements of his estimated fees for his 2007 work on wholly unrelated federal
and state court cases. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14.)
On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my
Chambers, demanding to speak with me, and then abruptly hung up.
I have already denied Caterbone's request to file documents electronically. (Doc. No. 9.)
He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.
Pagel of3
Page9of24

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.
Caterbone' s Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and Motions to File Exhibits or
Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED
that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit filings-whether electronic or in paper formatin the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not docket any such filings without my approval.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
ls/Paul S. Diamond
September 11, 2015
Paul S. Diamond, J.
Page3 of3
Page 10 of 24
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR 1HE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4474
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Appellant
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT; AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank; SOUTH REGIONAL
POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHEIUFFS DEPT.; FULTON BANK
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-2288)
District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin
No. 07-4475
STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP,
v.
MR. RANDALL 0. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary;
lvlATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of
Page 11 of24
Lancaster County; JUDGE MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County; LEO

J. ECKERT JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; KELLY S.
BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MAYNARD
HAMILTON, JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; DENISE COMMINS,
Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge; RICHARD H. SIMMS,
Lancaster County District Magistrate; STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; WILLIAM G. REUTER, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; MICHAEL SMIIB, Dalphin County District Magistrate;
OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department;
OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police;
OFFICER ADAM CRAMER, of the Southern Regional Police Dept.;
CHIEF JOHN FIORILL; OFFICER ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police
Department; OFFICER RoaER.T M. FEDOR, of the Southem Regional Police
Department; ROBERT BOURNE, of the Southern Regional Police Department;
JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office; NELSON BREWSTER,
Investigator, of the PA Attorney General Office; OFFICER MICHAEL K.
SCHAEFER; LUIS FURINA; DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County
District Attorney; DETECTIVE MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County
Stanley J. Caterbone,
Appellant

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR34.I(a)
September 26, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit Jud2es
(Filed: September 30, 2008 )
OPINION
-2-
Page 12of24
PERCURIAM
Stanley 1. Caterbone appeals from the dismissals of two civil cases for his failure
to comply with the District Court's orders. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate
and remand to the District Court for further consideration.
I.
In May 2005, Caterbone sued Lancaster County prison and others asserting that his
constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties and "right of due access to the law"
were violated (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-02288). Several of the Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint and on June 13, 2006, the District Court granted the motions to
dismiss and also dismissed the complaint as to the non-moving Defendants because they
were never properly served. The following day, Caterbone filed a document which the
District Court construed as a request for leave to file an amended complaint. The District
Court granted the request and subsequently set a deadline of August 20, 2006, for filing
an amended complaint. The District Court indicated that it would dismiss the case with
prejudice if Caterbone failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline.
After granting three continuances~ the District Court set an October 15, 2007
deadline, again warning Caterbone that failure to comply would result in dismissal with
prejudice. The District Court also stated that it would not grant any additional extensions
of time. On October 15, 2007, Caterbone filed a rambling, sixty-three page "Amendment
to Complaint and Motion for Continuance," asserting thirty-eight causes of action against
Page 13of24
several dozen defendants and requesting an additional sixty days to file another amended
complaint. On October 23, 2007, the District Court issued an order denying the request
and dismissing the case with prejudice. The District Court explained in its order that the
incomplete complaint submitted by Caterbone did not constitute a valid amended
complaint, and that he had failed to file a valid amended complaint in the sixteen months
since he was granted leave to do so. Caterbone filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal
was docketed at C.A. No. 07-4474.
Caterbone commenced a second action on October 18, 2006, by filing a complaint
asserting federal civil rights and RICO claims against twenty-five defendants (E.D. Pa.
Civ. No. 06-cv-04650). Caterbone requested and was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. On November 17, 2006, the District Court issued an order directing Caterbone
to file an amended complaint containing a more definite statement of his claims or face
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The District Court also granted
Caterbone's motion for continuance, placing the case in civil suspense until April 19,
2007. After granting two additional continuances, the District Court directed him to file a
status report on or before August 31, 2007. On September 12, 2007, in response to
Caterbone's status report requesting an additional continuance, the District Court issued
an order denying the request and directing him to serve his amended complaint on the
defendants on or before October 15, 2007, noting that the case had been pending for
nearly a year and that he had not yet served any of the defendants. On October 15, 2007,
Page 14of24
he flled the same sixty-three page document that he filed in E.D. Pa. No. 05-2288, which
included an identical request for an additional sixty days to file an amended complaint.
On October 23, 2007, the District Court entered an order dismissing the case because be
had failed to serve his complaint as directed in the previous order. Caterbone's appeal in
this case was docketed at C.A. No. 07-4475. The two appeals have been consolidated for
disposition.
n.
Before we discuss the merits of the case we must first determine whether we have
jurisdiction over the appeals. Appellees Fulton Bank and Manheim Township Police
Department have filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that
Caterbone's notice of appeal in C.A. 07..4474 was untimely filed. Caterbone has filed
responses asserting that the notice of appeal was timely in both cases.
In a civil case such as this one, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of
the entry of the District Court's judgment or order.
~Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(l){A). The
time limits prescribed for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case are "mandatory and
jurisdictional." Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). Both of Caterbone's
cases were dismissed on October 23, 2007, and he filed notices of appeal on November
23, 2007, or 31 days after the October 23 orders. November 22, however, was the
Thanksgiving holiday; therefore, Caterbone had until the following day to comply with
the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(l )-(4).
-5-
Page 15of24
WedneSday, September 30, 2015
Thus, the notices of appeal were timely filed. Accordingly, we deny Appellees' motions
to dismiss the appeals for lack ofjurisdiction.
m.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we review the District Court's
dismissals for abuse of discretion. Mindek y. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir.
1992).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b), a district court may dismiss an action
sua sponte if a litigant fails to comply with a court order or to prosecute his case.
Link v.
Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962).
Before dismissing an action,
however, a district court should determine the propriety of punitive dismissals in light of
the factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.
1984). The factors are: 1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; 2) the
prejudice to the opponent; 3) any history of dilatoriness; 4) whether the conduct of the
party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; 5) whether effective alternative sanctions
are available; and 6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.
!sh at 868. Only in the
rarest of circumstances, those demonstrating the most contumacious of conduct, may a

district court dispense with the Poulis factors altogether.
~Guyer v.
Beard. 907 F.2d
1424, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1990); 1" also Spain y. G3llegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir.
1994). We have repeatedly emphasized that the "drastic sanction" of dismissal is

disfavored except in the most egregious circumstances.
Page 16of24
~ United
States y.
$8.221.877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 161 (3d Cir. 2003).
The District Court erred by dismissing Caterbone's suits without analyzing the
Poulis factors. While it is true, as Appellees argue, that Caterbone delayed filing his
amended complaints for several months, such behavior cannot be characterized as
"flagrant bad faith." See Adams v. Trustees ofN.J. Brewety Employees' Pension Trust
Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 875 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
After all, the District Court granted, and Caterbone relied on, continuances. Nor is this an
instance where Caterbone abandoned the case (Spain) or where his behavior was so
egregious as to amount to an abandonment of the case (Gu)!er). To the contrary, it
appears that Caterbone made a good-faith effort to file an amended complaint, See
Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Com., 677 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1982) (behavior not
contumacious where effort made to comply with court order). We do not find that
Caterbone's conduct was so contumacious that the District Court could proceed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b) without analyzing the Poulis factors at all.
The District Court also improperly dismissed Caterbone's suit in 06~cv-04650 by
citing Caterbone' s failure to serve process. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperi,
Caterbone was not responsible for the service of process. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) ("the
officers of the court shall issue and serve all process ... ");see~ Welch v. Folsom. 925
F.2d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 1991) (district court erred by dismissing complaint on the ground
that a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis failed to serve the defendant). Once
-7-
Page 17of24
Caterbone filed his amended complaint, the District Court was obligated to appoint a
United States marshal to effect service. Fed. R Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In any event, it may be
that the dismissal in 06-cv-04650 was prompted by the same concerns motivating the
court in 05-cv-02288.
For these reasons, we will vacate the District Court's orders dismissing
Caterbone's complaints and remand the cases for further proceedings. We emphasize that
we are not holding that the Pou1ia factors dictate something less than dismissal in this
case; we hold only that the District Court must, at this stage, perform a Poulis analysis to
guide its exercise of discretion. Given that Caterbone filed identical amended complaints
in both cases, the District Court may wish to consider whether the cases should be
consolidated on remand.
-8-
Page 18of24

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-4474
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
v.
LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT;
STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT; AVALON POLICE DEPARTMENT;
COMMONWEALTI-I NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank; SOUTII REGIONAL
POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.; FULTON BANK

No. 07-4475
STANLEY J. CAIBRBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
v.
MR. RANDALL 0. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary;
MATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of
Lancaster County; JUDGE MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County; LEO
J. ECKERT JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; KELLY S.
BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MAYNARD
HAMILTON, JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; DENISE COMMINS,
Page 19of24
Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge; RlCHARD H. SIMMS,

Lancaster County District Magistrate; STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; WILLIAM G. REUTER, Lancaster County
District Magistrate; MICHAEL SMI1H, Dalphin County District Magistrate;
OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department;
OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police;
OFFICER ADAM CRAME~ of the Southern Regional Police Dept.;
CHIEF JOHN FIORILL; OFFICER ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police
Department; OFFICER ROBERT M. FEDOR, of the Southern Regional Police
Deparbnent; ROBERT BOURNE, of the Southern Regional Police Department;
JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office; NELSON BREWSTER,
Investigator, of the PA Attorney General Office; OFFICER MICHAEL K.
SCHAEFER; LUIS PURINA; DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County
District Attorney; DETECTIVE MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County
Stanley J. Caterbone,
Appellant

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a)
September 26, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit ludges
JUDGMENT
These causes came to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were submitted pursuant to Third
Circuit LAR 34.l(a) on September 26, 2008. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby
Page 20of24
ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgments of the District
Court entered on October 23, 2007, be and the same are hereby VACATED and the cases
are REMANDED for further proceedings. Costs will not be taxed. All of the above in
accordance with the opinion of this Court.
ATTEST:
~I Marcia M.
Waldron
Clerk
DATED: September 30, 2008
Page 21 of24
OFFICE OP 'llIB CLBRK
MARCIA M. WALDRON
UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS
CLERK
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

21400 UNITED STATES COURTIIOUSE
TELEPHONE
215-597-2995
601 MARKET S'IRBBT
PHU.ADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov
September 30, 2008
S~phanie Cartley, Esq.

Barley Snyder
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602-0000
George M. Gowen III, Esq.

Cozen & O'Connor
1900 Market Street
3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
Robert W. Hallinger, Esq.

Appel & Yost
33 North Duke Street
William H. Howard, Esq.
. Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney

30 South 17th Street
Suite 1700, United Plaza
Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
Christopher S. Underhill, Esq.
Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker
221 East Chestnut Street
Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Page22of24
RE: Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison, et al

Case Number: 07-4474
District Case Number: 05-ev-02288
ENTRY OF JUPGMBNT
Today, September 30, 2008 the Court has entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 36.
If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.
Time for Filing:
14 days after entry of judgment
45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.
Page Limits:
15 pages
Attachments:
a copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are permitted without first
obtaining leave from the Court.
Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en bane rehearing. If separate petitions for p~el rehearing
and rehearing en bane are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will be subject
to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not provide
for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en bane in the event that the petition seeking
only panel rehearing is denied.
A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must file an itemized and verified
bill of costs within 14 days from the entry ofjudgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on
the proper form which is available on the court's website.
A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.R.App.P. 41.
Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and
requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.
Page 23of24
Very truly yours,
Pt.~~./V~
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
By:('~ -C,~~
Cha~e Crisden, CaSe Manager
267..299-4923
Page24of24

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT
14-CV-2559
District Court Docket Number

vs.
LYNN BISSONNETTE, ET AL
Notice of Appeal Filed 9/30/15
Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s)
Filing Fee:
Notice of Appeal
Docket Fee
N/A
Paid X Not Paid

Paid X Not Paid
Seaman
USA/VI
CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order)

Private Attorney
Defender Association or Federal Public Defender
Motion Pending
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order)
Motion Granted
Motion Denied
Motion pending before district judge
Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order)
Granted
Denied
Pending
Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals)
Prepared by: s/James Deitz

James Deitz
Deputy Clerk/Signature/Date
PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
notapp.frm

www .amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
scater00ne@tjve.com
717-669-2163
Stcmfey J. -Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
IN THE UNITED;STATES. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF P.ENNSYLVANIA
PETITIONER
CASE NO. 14-2?59
v.

RESPONDANT
Motion for Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperls
I hereby on this 30th day of September, 2015, request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in The 3RD Circuit
Court Of Appeals UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
Page 1 of24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Motion for Leave To Proceed In
Forma Pauperls has been served this 30th day of September, 2015, by first class mail, Postage
prepaid, or by electronic mail upon, or by hand deliver to:
Page2of24

Affidavit accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
United States Oi$trict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

PETI110NER
v.
CASE NO. 14-2559

RESPONDANT
Atlldavtt In Support of Motion
Instructions
I swear or affinn under penalty of perjury that,

because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the
docket fees of my appeal or po&t a bond for
Complete all questions on this application and

then sign it Do not leave any blanks. If the
answer to a question is "O," "none," or"not
...._
IL _u
-.&!.ti
!- -'-
,.._llA \ 11 -:.a._ i -
io1
or aflirm under penally of perjury that my

answers on this form are true and correct. (28
u.s.c. 1746. 18u.s.c.1821)
need more space to answer a question or fu

explain your answer, attach a separate piece
of paper identified with your name, your case's
docket number, and the question number.
Signed:.
Date:
My issues on Appeal are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Was Appellant Provided Opportunity To Respond To Lower Court Order?

Did the lo-wer court judge rule according to the court record?
Was Appellant Afforded Due Process In Accordance To Law?
Did the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond violate RICO Anti-Slapp Statute in
Retaliation Against Federal VVhisUe-Blo\lller?
Page 3of24
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, semiannuaDy, or annually to show the monthly
rate. Use gross amounts, that is, amounts Wore any deductions for taxes or
otherwise.
INCOME SOURCE
AVERAGE MONTHLY
AMOUNT DURING THE
PAST 12 MONTHS
AMOUNT EXPECTED
NEXT MONTH
Your Spouse
You
s_
Income from real property (such as

rental income)
Interest and Dividends
Gifts
/>Jimony
Unemployment payments
Disability (such as social security,

insurance payments)
$ 136Q.00
Public Assistance (such as welfare)
Employment
Self Employment
ChDd S111pport
Retirement (such as social
se&Urity, pensions, annuities,
insurance)
Other (specify):_ _ _ __
$
$
Total monthly income
1360.00
Page4 of24
2. List your employment history, most recent ef1'1:)1oyer first (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other
deductions.
Employer
Address
Dates of Employment
1250 Fremont street

Lancaster, PA 17603
Gross Monthly Pay
1998 To Present
2005 to Present $0.00

1998 to 2005 $4,000.00
Pftumm Contractors, Inc.
54 S. Duke street
Millersville, PA 17551
1994to1998
$3200.00
1857 Colonial Village Lane

Lancaster, PA 17602
1988to 1992
$4,000.00
1sasto1988
$9,000.00
Financial Management Group 1755 Oregon Pike

Lancaster, PA 17601
=
=
3. List your spouse's employment history, 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? $1300.00
Below, state any money you or spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.
Financial Institution
Type of Account
Amount you have
Amount your spouse
has
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
$_ _ __
$._ _ __
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 for each account
Pages of24
5. List the assets, and their values, >Mlich you own or your spouse owns. Do not list dothing and
ordinary household furnishings.
Home
(Value)
Other real estate
1250
Fremont
St
(Value) MotorVehide #
(Value)
$9,000.00
Make & year 2007 Honda CRV

Model: Honda CRV
Registration #:
Motor Vehide #2
(Value)
Other assets
(Value)
Other assets
(Value)
Make&year_
Model:
Registration #:
6. State every person, business or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount owed.
Person owing you oryour
spouse money
Amount owed to you
Halileysville Insurance Company

Sam Lombardo
High Industries
Mike Caterbone
Thomas Grassel
Drew Anthon/Eden Resort Inn
Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas Fines & Costs
Paid (Appeals Won 4/30/07)
Fulton Bank
$14,000.00
$1,871.00
$15,221.00
$10,000.00
$ Amount not available
$ 24,000.00
Amount owed to your spouse
$ 954.00
$ 85,000.00
7. State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support
Name
Relationship
Page6 of24
Age
8. Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your famUy. Show separately the amounts paid
by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterty, semiannually, or
annually to show the monthly rate.
You
Rent or Home Matgage
Onclude lot rented for mobDe
home)
Are real estate taxed
included?
ayes
a no Is property
insurance included? a yes
no
Your Spouse
$
$SEE ATTACHED
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel,

water, sewer, and telephone)
Home maintenance (repairs
Food
Clothing
Laundry and dry.cleaning
Medical and dental expenses
Transportation (not including

motor vehicle payments)
Reaeation, entertairvnent,
newspapers, magazines, etc.
Insurance (not deducted from

wages or included in mortgage
payments)
$_
$_
Motor Vehicle
$
$
$
$
Other:
and upkeep)
Homeowners or renters
Life
Health
$_
$_
$_
Taxes (not deducted from

wages or included in mortgage
payments)(specify):
Page7 of24
Installment payments
You
Your Spouse
Credit Card (name):
$_
Department Store (name):_ $
$_
Other:
$_
Alimony, maintenance and

support paid to others
$_
Regular expenses for operation

of business or farm (attach
detailed statement)
$_
Other (specify): Postage
$_
t.
Total monthly expenses:
9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or liabilities
during the next 12 months?
o Yes
X NO
If yes, describe on an attached sheet.
10. Have you paid_Orv.111 you be paying.,._ _an attorney any money for services in connection
v.1th this case, including the completion of this form?
a Yes
X No
If yes, how much?$_ _ _ __
If yes state the attorney's name, address and telephone number:
Page8of24
11. Have you paid_ Or will you be paying___anyone other than attorney (such as a paralegal or
typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form?
o Yes
X No
If yes, how much?$_ _ __
If yes state the person's name, address and telephone number.
12. Provide any other information that v.iill help explain why you cannot pay the docket fees for your appeal.
I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF NUMEROUS FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AND HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING TO BE RESTORED TO WHOLE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. THE MONIES THAT I HAVE AND
THE LIABILITIES, LOSSES, AND THE LIKE ARE NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DENY ME IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUS IN ANY COURT OF LAW, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT I AM A FEDERAL
WHISTLE-BLOWER AND VICTIM OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL. IN ADDITION THE PRECEDING
HAS PREVENTED ME FROM OBTAINING AND SECURING COPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PAST
30 YEARS AND PUT ME IN THE UNFORTUNATE POSTION AS PRO SE.
13. State the address of your legal residence.

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
51
Your age: ,JI
' ( Your years of SchooHng: Bacbelor of Science Business Admjnistratipn 1980
Rev: 9/29/04
Page 9of24
Case 05-23059-ref Doc_ 132 osfitmtiA/lleed iliRffar~;tW~Altiio~an ~JM~1, 2010

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
DocumentPage
18 Filed
Page 10 of 24
Document
30 of 10/01/15
31
Stan J. Ceterbone and Advanced Media Group
Case No. OS-23059
Balance Sheet
January 1, 2010
Date of St.attment
Cash
Wachovia Bank Checking

Social Security Debit Card
Inventory
Accounts Receivables
Total cunent aueta
50.00
346.00
1,000.00
0.00
2,714,832.35
2,716,228.35
Property & Other MMt8

Residence
Home Fuml$hlngs
1991 Dodge Pick Up Dakota
Advanatd1Medla Group Stock
Advanced1Medla Group Equipment
0.00
10,000.00
2,000.00
1,000,000.00
Litigation Value
1,000.00
50,000,000.00
Net Property and Other .Aaets
51,013,000.00
TotatAue
53,729,228.35
Accounts payable
Citl Bank Crt!dit Card
Bank of America
1.Jan-10
PayPal Buyer Credit

Discover
Bank of America
Chase/Bank One
AAA F1nanclal Services
AAA Financial Services
Wells Fargo Flnancial services

Wells Fargo Financial Services
Fulton Mortgage services
Honda Financial Servic:es
Beneficial!
Comcast
Sprint
Capitol Blue Cross
Donegal Mutual Insurance

Verizon
FedEx
PP&L
Wiiiow Run Veterinary Clink:
$12,111.93
$10,187.52
$1,809.80
$3,743.10
$623.69
$238.35
$18,827.63
$1,585.97
$3,466.00
$0.00
$0.00
$12,369.70
$7,000.00
$1,813.11
$806.76
$32.00
$74.00
$26.00
$41.38
$1,089.00
$74.00
Qm.'11d~
ti nllnr'9professi<l.1ai
-ftffl:~h-llhl~~~-
Reorganization Plan Page 30 of 31

Page 10of24
Case 05-23059-ref Doc 132 o~~d~~~ iatltaEHhall~~~l>ta~arMiifl 11, 2010

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD
DocumentPage
18 31-of!ff'"
Filed 10/01/15 Page 11 of 24
Document
Stan J. Cebal'bofta and Advanced Media Group
case No. OS-23.059
Balance Sheet
January 1, 2010
Yamell Security Systems
Yolanda caterbone
Cingular Wireless
sovereing Bank
PowerNet Global Communications
Windstream
Lancaster.County Probation
BMG MuSic Service
Microsoft
Pacer Service Center-U.S
West Publlcatlons
Salute Visa
$1,076.32
$25,000.00
$509.98
$404.85
$2.82
$9.55
$1,800.00
$120.33
$59.95
$41:92
$92.22
$906.49
MEDICAL BILLS
Lancaster Regional Medical Ctr
Conestoga Oral Maxillofacial AssOI
Anestesia Asst~ Of Lancaster, L
SE Lancaster Health Ctinlc
Abbeyvllle Family Practice of LGH
Lancaster Genentl Hospltal
Lancaster Radiological AsSociates
Health Port
Lancaster Emergency Associates
TOTAL BALANCE
~95.0'
iUi(S7.9
Charges are inflated; wrong; or

liability of another person or entity.
$53,211.1&
Non-Contested
Total Uabilities
$141,557.97
a.
Lone Term Debt

Net Worth
$459.98
$1,269.00
$1,034.00
$12.55
$149.00
$31,264.90
$568.00
$61.17
$0.00
$5315871670..38
C1~W(1h
tt .._....professional
4~~~~~-~~~
Reorganization Plan Page 31 of 31

Page 11of24
Wednesday, September 30,, 2015
Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main
Case: 07-2151
Docu~O!Atr04M1cJ>dde:1
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STA1ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TIDRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2151
IN RE: STANLEY J. CA1ERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR 1HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv--05012)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
March 17, 2011
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 4, 2011)
Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro se
1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603
William Kanter, Esq.

Jeffrica I. Lee, Esq.
.
Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Room 7537
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Page 12of24
Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04/11 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main
Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 18 Filed
10/01/15 Page 13 of 24
2
Case: 07-2151
Docurf?~~~mM~f- qf;~e: 2
Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.

Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Court
Duane Moms LLP
1940 Route 70 East
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
OPINION OF THE COURT
BARRY, Circuit Judge
This case involves an lUltimely notice of appeal to the
District Court after the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal, for
cause, of a Chapter 11 petition. The question before us is
whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(c)(2) and the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an lllltimely filing such as the
one at issue here deprives subsequent reviewing courts-here,
both. the District Court and this Court-of jurisdiction over
the appeal. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we will
dismiss the instant aj>peal and remand to the District Court
with instructions to dismiss the appeal to it from the
Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. Background
Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy petition in May 2005. The United States Trustee
subsequently moved to dismiss the petition for cause, and the
Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 3, 2006,
citing various substantive and procedural deficiencies. See 11
u.s.c. l l 12{b).
The order of dismissal was mailed to Caterbone by
first class mail on October S, 2006. On October 16, he sent a
notice of appeal by first class mail and electronic mail.
However, the notice of appeal was filed with the District
Court on October 19; rendering it lllltimely because it
occurred outside the ten-day window, then in place, for filing
Page 13of24
3 10/01/15 Page 14 of 24
Case: 072151
oocu&~~:~3q\04&1~9 ~abl: 3
Date Filed: 04104/2011
a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).1 It

is undisputed that Caterbone did not file a "request to extend
the time for filing a notice of appeal ... by written motion ...
before the time for filing a notice of appeal ha[d] expired,"
nor did the Bankruptcy Court grant such an extension
following "a motion filed not later than 20 days after the
expiration of the time for.filing a notice of appeal .. upon a
showing of excusable neglect" Id 8002(c)(2).

Despite its untimely ftling, Caterbone's appeal was
docketed in the District Court on November 14, and the
Trustee did not argue that it was untimely. On March 15,
2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal, citing
Caterbone's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006,
which requires that a petitioner designate "items to be
included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues
to be presented" Caterbone appealed to this Court. Shortly
thereafter, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing, for
the first time, Caterbone's initial lllltimely notice of appeal,
and arguing that, as a result of the untimely filing, the District
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Following various intervening events, including the
appointment of amicus curiae, the case is now before us. The
Trustee argues that, consistent with Bowles v. Russell, 551
1
In amending Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), effective

December 1, 2009, to expand the time for filing a notice of
appeal to fourteen days, the Supreme Court's accompanying
Order provided that the amendment "shall govern in all
proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and,
insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending."
Supreme Court of the United States, Order Amending Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Mar. 26, 2009). The Trustee
argues that the "just and practicable" rationale is inapplicable
here. Moreover, the Trustee notes that Caterbone's notice of
appeal was dated, but not filed, on Ociober 16, and argues,
persuasively in our view, that even if the expanded period
were to apply, the notice of appeal was still untimely because
it was filed the sixteenth day after entry of the Bankruptcy
Court's order.
Page 14of24
10/01/15 Page 15 of 24
Case: 07-2151 Docu~ei~~lRF.J.1~04- 4 q\/Je: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2011
U.S. 205 (2007), Section 158(c)(2) established a mandatory,

jurisdictional deadline that statutorily encompasses Rule
8002(a)'s specified timeline for. appealing the judgment of a
bankruptcy court, such that the timeline is not. akin to a
freestanding, waivable "claim-processing rule'' within the
meaning of Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004). Amicus
argues similarly. Caterbone, on the other hand, elides the
Bowles analysis and argues, inter alia, that his untimely filing
should be addressed, and excused, under the standard of
"excusable neglect" set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Bnmswick.A.ssocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).
For the reasons explained below, we hold that the
prescribed timeline within which an appeal from a banktuptcy
court must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional, thus
affirming, in light of Bowles, the rule that we applied in
Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d
Cir. 1997).
Il. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in this case, and we

must address its relevance both to the decision rendered by
the District Court, and to our review of that decision. Thus,
as an initial matter, we note that we have jurisdiction over the
final decision that the District Court rendered on Caterbone's
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(l).
Our authority includes reviewing whether the District Court's
own exercise ofjurisdiction, per 158(a}, was proper. That
is because "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a
court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or
waived[, such that courts] ... have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
in the absence of a challenge from any party." .Arbaugh v. Y
& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
Ordinarily, we apply plenary review to final orders of

a district court sitting as an appellate court reviewing the
decision of a bankruptcy court. In re Carnegie Ctr. .A.ssocs.,
129 F.3d 290, 294 (3d Cir. 1997). However, following from
Page 15of24
5 10/01/15 Page 16 of 24
case: 07-2151
Docun2~tllm~;04Elifif ~: s
our obligation to detennine the threshold issue of subject

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at .514, and where,
as here, a party "contest[sl our jurisdiction and that of the
District Court, ... (w]e exercise de novo review over [the]
question[] of subject matter jurisdiction." Great W. Mining &
Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d
Cir. 2010). This is the case even where, again as here, a
district court "exercis[es its] jurisdiction" and dismisses a
cause of action for some other reason. Id If our independent
review yields the conclusion that the District Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court, the appropriate.disposition is dismissal of
the appeal. In re Caribbean Tubular Corp., 813 F.2d 533,
S3S (1st Cir. 1987) (holding that where it is found that a
district court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcy
court order, the court of appeals must dismiss the appeal to it,
and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its
order and to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court).
ID. Discussion
An appeal from a decision of a bankruptcy court is
subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 158(cX2), which
provides that appeals "shall be taken in the same manner as
appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts
of appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by
Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." When Caterbone filed
his appeal, that rule provided, in relevant part, that "notice of
appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date
of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed :from."
Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).
Although Kontrick affmned as "'axiomatic"' the

proposition that requirements contained in a bankruptcy rule
alone are not jurisdictional (and, hence, are waivable), 540
U.S. at 453 (citation omitted), Section 158 provides the
statutory basis for the courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy
appeals.
See 28 U.S.C. 158(a) & (d) (specifying
circumstances of "district courts['] . . . jurisdiction to hear
appeals" and the "courts of appeals['] . . . jurisdiction").
Because Section 158 also specifies the time within which an
Page 16of24
6 10/01/15 Page 17 of 24
Case: 07-2151
0ocunf6Ql\mq;04JA8if ~a\Jl: 6
appeal must be taken-i.e., "in the time provided by Rule

8002"-that requirement is jurisdictional.
As Bowles
clarified, both acknowledging and distinguishing Kontrick,
''the taking. of an appeal within [a statutorily] prescribed time
is mandatory and jurisdictional." 551 U.S. at 209 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, "failure
to file [a] notice of appeal in accordance with the statute
therefore deprive[s] u [courts) of jurisdiction[, and bars a
party from) ... rely[ing) on forfeiture or waiver to excuse [a]
lack of compliance with the statute's time limitations." Id. at
213 (citation omitted).
Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that specifies
the time within which an appeal must be filed, the statutory
incorporation of that rule renders its requirement statutory
and, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable. As the Supreme
Court recently observed, while "the distinction between
jurisdictional conditions [i.e., a la Bowles) and claimprocessing rules [i.e., a la Kontrick] can be confusing in
practice[,] ... Bowles stands for the proposition that context,
including th[e] Court's interpretation of similar provisions in
many years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a
requirement as jurisdictional." Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
Muchnick, 130 S. Ct 1237, 1243, 1247-48 (2010).
Beyond the fact that the statutory text of Section
158(cX2) incorporates a time condition, historical context
also supports our holding. Prior to Kontrick and Bowles, we
regarded Rule 8002(a)'s time limit for filing a notice of
appeal as jmisdictional. See Shareholtkrs, 109 F .3d at 879;
Whitemere Dev. Corp., Inc. v. Cherry Hill Twp., 786 F.2d
185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals, Inc., 155
F.2d 309, 311 (3d Cir. 1985). Kontrick-and, later, Eberhart
v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005}-arguably provided the
opportunity to question whether this rule remained correct.
That being said, a careful reading of Kontrick, Bowles, and
Reed Elsevier confirms that the rule we affirmed in
Shareholders, Whitemere, and Universal Minerals remains
the rule today.
In holding that time constraints for objecting to a
Page 17of24
1 10/01/15 Page 18 of 24
Case: 07-2151
DocunQRf.'6B!104aiM 'abi:7
Date Flied: 04/04/2011
discharge in bankruptcy are non-jurisdictional "claimprocessing rules," Kontriclc noted that Congress's statutory
grant of jurisdiction to the courts to adjudicate discharges in
bankruptcy contains no reference to a time condition. 540
U.S. at 452-53 (citing 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(l), (b)(2)(1), and
(b)(2)(J)).2 To the contrary, in holding that the statutorilyprescribed time provision for filing an appeal in a federal
habeas corpus proceeding is jurisdictional, Bowles expressly
stated: "Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice
of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictionalrequirement." 551
U.S. at 214. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that .Arbaugh
could be read to state that a clear statement rule applies to
Congress, s identification of a statutory limitation as
juri$dictional, see 546 U.S. at 515-16,3 Reed Elsevier more
recently clarified that, again ala Bowles,
the relevant question . . . is not . . . whether [a
particular statutory provision] itself has long
2
Likewise, in Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 21, the Court

concluded that time provisions in the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure were non-jurisdictional, and thus
waivable. In Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, the Court concluded
that a numerical provision affecting Title VII claims, but
which was separate from Title Vll's jurisdictional provision,
thereby was not jurisdictional.
3
As the Court stated in Arbaugh:

[W]e think it the sounder course to refrain from
constricting 1331 or Title VIl's jurisdictional
provision, and to leave the ball in Congress'
court. If the Legislature clearly states that a
threshold limitation on a statute,s scope shall

count as jurisdictional, then comts and litigants
will be duly instructed and will not be left to
wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does
not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as
jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction
-as nonjurisdictional in character.
546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citations and reference
omitted).
Page 18of24
10/01/15 Page 19 of 24
Case:07-2151 Docurlr<i~lWJ\~~ 8 <f>tae: 8 Date Filed: 04/0412011
been labeled jurisdictional, but whether the type

of limitation that [it) .imposes is one that is
properly .ranked as jurisdictional absent an
express designation. The statutory limitation in
Bowles was of a type that we had long held did
"spetilc in jurisdictional tenns" even absent a
"jurisdictional" label, and nothing about [that
provision's) text or context, or the historical
treatment of that type of limitation, justified a
dep~ from this view.
130 s. Ct. at 1248.
It is evident,. in light of Shareholders, Whitemere, and

Universal Minerals, that we "ha[ve] long held" that Section
IS8{c)(2)'s incorporation of the filing timeline specified in
Rule 8002(a) "speak[s]injurisdictional terms[,] even absent a
jurisdictional label, and [that] nothing about [its] text or
context, or [its] historkal treatment ... justifie[s] a departure
from this view.'' See Reed Elsevier, 130 S. Ct. at 1248.
Because it was both prior to and shortly after Reed Elsevier
that we affinned in non-precedential opinions that the time
requirement for filing a bankruptcy appeal is jurisdictional,
we now take the occasion to so hold in a precedential
opinion.4 Doing so comports with the fact that, unlike the
rules that Eberhart and Kontrick held were non-jurisdictional,
Rule 8002(a)'s time limit is rooted in a congressionallyenacted statute. Se.e Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002, advisory
committee note (noting that ''th[e] rule is an adaptation of''
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)); see also Bowles, 551 U.S. at 212, 213
("[A] statute-based filing period for civil cases is
jurisdictional. . . . Because Congress decides whether federal
courts can hear cases at all, it can also detennine when, and
wder what conditions, federal courts can hear them. Put
another way, the notion of subject-matter jurisdiction
obviously extends to . . . when Congress prohibits federal
courts from adjudicating an otherwise legitimate class of
4
For purposes of reference only, we note In re Taylor,

343 F. App'x 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2009), and In re Jacobowitz,
384 F. App'x 93, 94 (3d Cir. 2010).
Page 19of24
case 05-23059-ref Doc 133
Entered 08/04/1114:01:54
Filed 04/04111
Desc Main

9 10/01/15 Page 20 of 24
Case: 07-2151
DocurR'h'i-,J~g q!J-Je: 9
cases after a certain period has elapsed from final judgment."

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Taking all
of this into consideration, we conclude that the rule we
enunciated in Shareholders remains good law.5
Given the fact that subject matter jurisdiction over

Caterbone's appeal to the District Court was, and is,
lacking-and that jurisdictional defect also bars us from
reviewing the merits of his appeal to us-we need not address
the Court's dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute.
Nor need we address Caterbone's argument that his
"excusable neglect" saves his untimely filing, given the clear
text of Rule 8002 and the guidance of Shareholders:
Rule 8002(c) ... requires that even in cases of
excusable neglect, the issue must be raised and
the appeal filed within the ... window of Rule
8002 (Rule 8002(a)'s [timeline] for the appeal+
8002(c)'s [timeline] for the extension). The
rule does not allow a party to claim excusable
neglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired.
109 F3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). Finally, we
decline to address Caterbone's remaining arguments, because
they do not pertain to the threshold issue ofjurisdiction.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the instant
appeal and remand to the District Court with instructions to
dismiss Caterbone's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Our conclusion is consistent with the holdings of our
sister circuits that have affirmed that the filing timeline for
bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. See In re Latture, 605
F.3d 830, 837 (10th Cir. 2010); In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933,
938 (9th Cir. 2007); In re B.A.R. Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 2010
WL 4595554 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing In re Siemon,
421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)).
9
I
,J
I
Page20 of24
Case: 07-2151
DocurR&Wt.'~104-lO tJt3~: 1
Date Filed: 04/0412011

FOR THE TIIIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2151
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 1lIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
March 17, 2011
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges
JUDGMENT
This cause came to be heard on the appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on March 17, 2011.
After consideration of all the contentions raised, it is
ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and this
matter is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal
from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No costs. All in
accordance with the Opinion of the Court.
Page21 of24
Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Oesc Main
Case: 072151
Docu~Qn~rn8~\ 1048a311 ;alii: 2 -Date Filed: 04/0412011
ATI'EST:
Isl Marcia M. Waldron,
Clerk
Dated: April 4, 2011
2
Page22of24
10/01/15 Page 23 of 24
2
Case: 07-2151
DocuirtQfiH-104~ ~i: 1
omcEOF nm CLERK
MARCIA M. WALDRON
UNl'J'ED STATES CoURT OF APPEALS
TELEPHONE
CLERK
21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA. PA 19106-1790
215-597-2995
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov
April 4, 2011
.
i
..
Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Jeffrica J. ~' Esq.
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division
950 Pennsylvani~ Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.
Duane Morris
1940 Route 70 East
Suite200.
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
RE: In re: Stanley Caterbone
Case Number: 07-2151
District Case Number: 06-cv-05012
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Today, April 04, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 36.
If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.
Page23 of24

'-"-
10/01/15 Page 24 of 24
3
Case: 07-2151
Docu~itt~~l\104i8U'11 ~ahl: 2
Time for Filing:

14 days after entry ofjudgment.
45 days after entry ofjudgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.
Page Limits:
15 pages
Attachments:
A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are pennitted without
first obtaining leave from the Court.
Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en bane rehearing. If separate petitions for panel
rehearing and rehearing en bane are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will
be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not
provide for the subsequent tiling of a petition for rehearing en bane in the event that the petition
seeking only panel rehearing is denied.
A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must tile an itemized and verified
bill of costs within 14 days from the entry of judgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on
the proper fonn which is available on the court's website.
A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.RApp.P. 41.
Review of this Court's final decision may be pursued in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and
requirements for tiling a petition for v..Tit of certiorari.
Very truly yours,
7'(~ ;.,. VJiN,...

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk
By: Charlene/jk
Case Manager
267-299-4923
Page24of24

DOCKET and NOTICE To THIRD CIRCUIT Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus 14-2559 September 30, 2015 PD

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

DOCKET and NOTICE To THIRD CIRCUIT Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus 14-2559 September 30, 2015 PD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States District Court

Date Filed: 05/02/2014

represented by JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM

represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

5 STATEMENT OF MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (jpd, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

11 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

12 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT.(jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

17 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 16 Notice of Appeal, : (jpd, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

PACER Service Center

Search Criteria: 5:14-cv-02559-PD

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civ. No. 14-2559

(Doc. No. 3.)

She has not yet done so.

On June 23, 2015, Stanley

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 3

through the microwave hearing effect. (Id. at 27-30.)

On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3

/s/ Paul S. Diamond

September 11, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

CASE NO. 14-2559

Date: September 30, 2015

1250 Fremont Street

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 24

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 24

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 24

AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DAI.ZELL

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 5 of 24

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 6 of 24

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 7 of 24

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civ. No. 14-2559

LYNN BISSONETIE, et al.,

(Doc. No. 3.)

She has not yet done so.

On June 23, 2015, Stanley

In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at ''mind control," including:

1) ''Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy"; 2) "Invading my

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 3

through the microwave hearing effect."

On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 15 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 16 Filed 09/30/15 Page 11 of 24

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS