CASE LAW - IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON August 11, 2017

DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
CASE LAW
IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

COURSE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS? By ONLINE LAW LIBRARY
It depends. In certain circumstances, clients are obligated to make a criminal referral of
suspected criminal conduct. Additionally, counsel may have obligations under the cannon
of ethics to do the same.
All financial institutions operating in the United States (including U.S. branches and
agencies of foreign banks) are required to make a report of suspicious activity involving:
Insider abuse involving any amount;
Violations aggregating $5,000 or more where a suspect can be identified;
Violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect;
Transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering
or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. See 31 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. (Bank Secrecy
Act); 31 C.F.R. Part 103 et seq.
Additionally, Rule 1.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct indicates that a lawyer may
reveal information relating to representation of a client to the extent that the lawyer
reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the client from committing an act that the
lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death, bodily harm or substantial injury to
the financial interest or property of another. The comments to Rule 1.6 indicate that a
lawyer's decision not to take such preventative action does not violate the Rule; rather
that the lawyer has "professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent such
consequences." Such an exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as
the nature of the lawyer's relationship with the client and with those who might be
injured by the client, the lawyer's own involvement in the transaction and factors that
may extenuate the conduct in question. Comment to Rule 1.6. "Where practical, the
lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action", and "[in] any case a
disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to the purpose." Id.
Unlike private attorneys, government attorneys who learn of a government employee's
previous criminal conduct have a statutory obligation to report such conduct. 28 U.S.C.
535(b); In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 2482 (1997). However, private attorneys cannot be required to report and cannot be
required to divulge information relating to past criminal activity, even pursuant to the
government's subpoena power. In re: Grand Jury Matters, 593 F. Supp. 103 (D.N.H.),
affirmed by, 751 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1984) (Government not permitted to subpoena criminal
defense attorneys regarding details of representation relative to state felony trials where
same defendants were being investigated for same acts by Federal grand jury).
Finally, section 4 of the criminal code makes it a felony to conceal knowledge of, and fail
to report, a felony cognizable by a court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. 4. This
felony is seldom prosecuted and is most often used as a vehicle for a plea agreement
when the parties are looking to plea to a three year felony.
Is the Government empowered to conduct parallel proceedings?
Yes. In United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970), the Supreme Court stated that "[I]t
would stultify enforcement of federal law to require a government agency . . . invariably
to choose either to forgo recommendation of a criminal prosecution once it seeks civil
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 21

22 of 84
85 Saturday August 12, 2017
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
relief, or to defer civil proceedings pending the ultimate outcome of a criminal trial."
Federal statutes which provide for parallel proceedings
WHILE VIRTUALLY ANY ACTION CAN BECOME A CONCURRENT CRIMINAL/CIVIL
MATTER, A NUMBER OF FEDERAL STATUTES EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH A
DUAL TRACK. THESE STATUTES INCLUDE: THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-3,
15, 15(A) (1988) (ANTITRUST); THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77T
(1988); THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988), AND; THE
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1961 ET SEQ.
Is the District Court empowered to stay the civil proceedings in favor of the
criminal proceedings?
Yes. The Supreme Court has indicated that a district court may stay civil proceedings in
favor of a criminal trial "when the interests of justice seem to require such action."
Kordel, 397 U.S. at 12, n.27 (1970). Because adverse inferences may be drawn in a civil
case from the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.
308 (1976), the court may stay the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. See
SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S.
993 (1980) ("[A] noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's
fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination."); Dienstag v. Bronsen, 49 F.R.D.
327, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (civil discovery stayed because necessary to protect
defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination); United States v. A
Certain Parcel of Land, 781 F. Supp. 830, 834 (D.N.H. 1992) (discovery stayed in civil
forfeiture action because protective order would not sufficiently protect Fifth Amendment
privilege).
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to the following factors:
1. the private interests of the plaintiff in the civil litigation without a stay;
2. the interests and burdens on the defendant with a stay;
3. the convenience of the courts;
4. interests of non-parties to the civil litigation; and
5. the public's interest. See, e.g., Keating v. OTS, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 827 (1995); FSLIC v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902-903 (9th
Cir. 1989); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87
F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
However, there is no absolute constitutional right to a stay of a civil proceeding pending
disposition of a related criminal matter. Arthurs v. Stern, 560 F.2d 477 (1st Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1030 (1978); see also In re: Melissa M., 127 N.H. 710, 712 (1986)
(citing federal cases). The law recognizes "the principle that protection of the public
interest may often require proceedings simultaneously on two fronts, and that it would
unduly compromise the public interest to force the government to choose between a civil
and criminal course of action." Mainelli v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 606, 615 (D.R.I.
1985); see also United States v. Lot 5, 23 F.3rd 359, 364-65 (11th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1076 (1995); Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899,
902-03 (9th Cir. 1989).
In addition to staying parallel civil proceedings in favor of criminal proceedings, District
Courts may also issue protective orders, or require other conditions, to limit discovery
between parallel proceedings. In re: Grand Jury Subpoena v. Doe, 103 F.3d 234, 239 (2d
Cir. 1996); Andover Data Svs. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d
Cir. 1989); In re: Film Recovery Sys., Inc., 804 F.2d 386, 388, (7th Cir. 1986).

23 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

enforcement proceeding waive the privilege for purposes of subsequent civil
proceedings?
Yes, most of the time. As a general rule, when a company chooses to do a voluntary
disclosure to a governmental entity in order to avoid a federal enforcement proceeding,
that disclosure constitutes a waiver of any privilege in subsequent civil litigation. See In
re Steinhardt Partners, C.P., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993); Westinghouse Elec. Corp v.
Republic of Phillippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1425 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Martin Marietta Corp.,
856 F.2d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 (1989); Permian Corp.
v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (D.C. Cir. 1981). One circuit has held that the
disclosure is a waver with regard to that governmental entity alone. In Diversified
Industries Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1978) (en banc), the Court held that a
corporation's prior disclosure of privileged materials to the SEC constituted a waiver of
the privilege only to the SEC. Accordingly, a subsequent discovery demand by a civil
litigant for the information was denied. The majority rule, and the assumption under
which the disclosing party should operate, is that the disclosure constitutes a subject
matter waiver of any applicable privilege in any other proceeding.
Does the "critical self analysis privilege"such as it issurvive a federal
subpoena?
The self-evaluative privilege in the employment discrimination context has been
recognized within the First Circuit. See O'Connor v. Chrysler Corp., 86 F.R.D. 211 (D.
Mass. 1980); Jackson v. Harvard University, 111 F.R.D. 472 (D. Mass. 1986), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 848 (1990); Whittingham v. Amherst College, 164 F.R.D. 124 (D. Mass.
1995).
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton noted the clash of strong countervailing policies: "If
subjective materials constituting self critical analysis are subject to disclosure during
discovery, this disclosure would tend to have a chilling effect on employers' voluntary
compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. On the other hand,. . . plaintiffs
must be permitted to obtain information sufficient to enable them to prove employment
discrimination where such discrimination exists." Id. at 217. Keeton concluded, however,
that "[a] lack of confidentiality almost inevitably will result in some cramping of the
investigative process, simply because the incentives for any institution to engage in self-
evaluative investigation pale considerably with the knowledge that the results may be
used against it." Id. at 217-18.
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton set forth "potential guideposts" for the application of the
privilege:
1. materials protected have generally been those prepared for mandatory
governmental reports;
2. only subjective evaluative materials have been protected;
3. objective data in those same reports have not been protected; and
4. in sensitivity to plaintiff's need for such materials, courts have denied discovery
only where the policy favoring exclusion has clearly outweighed plaintiffs' need."
Id. at 217.
In Whittingham v. Amherst College, the Massachusetts District Court did away with the
requirement that the internal investigation and reports be mandated by the government,
and extended the privilege to include voluntary internal investigations. 164 F.R.D. 124,
129-130 (D. Mass. 1995).
More importantly, the self-evaluative privilege has almost never been successfully

24 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
asserted against a governmental subpoena. See id; FTC v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 210-
11 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Noall, 587 F.2d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 441 U.S. 923 (1979); Reich v. Hercules, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 367, 371 (D.N.J.
1994); Thomas F. O'Neil & Adam H. Charnes, The Embryonic Self-Evaluative Privilege: A
Primer For Health Care Lawyers, 5 Annals Health L. 33 (1996).
Who is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination
An individual may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. A
corporation has no protection under the Fifth Amendment privilege. See Curcio v. United
States, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944). A
recognized exception to this rule is where the only corporate custodian of records may
violate his own rights against self-incrimination by responding to questions put to the
corporation. Curcio, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957). Also, an employee may invoke the
privilege if the specter of individual liability exists. In re Corrugated Container Anti-trust
Litigation, 609 F.2d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 1979).
How does the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination affect a civil action?
In the federal context, it is well settled that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response
to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318
(1976) ; United States v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 310-11 (3d Cir. 1996), reh'g en banc
denied, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244 (3d Cir. 1997); National Acceptance Co. of Am. v.
Batchalter, 705 F.2d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 1983). The admission or denial of such evidence
turns on whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110,
121 (2d Cir. 1997).
The Second Circuit has previously approved of the admission of an assertion of the Fifth
Amendment in similar circumstances. Brink's, Inc. v. The City of New York, 717 F.2d 700
(2d Cir. 1983). In Brink's, the City discovered that approximately $1 million in parking
meter revenue was missing from the amounts collected by Brink's under a contract with
the City. A key issue for the claim against Brink's was the extent of defendant's
knowledge of thefts of the meter money by its employees. Several Brink's employees had
already been convicted or had pleaded guilty to theft and related charges. At trial, the
City called them to the stand, knowing that they would invoke the Fifth Amendment. The
trial court allowed the testimony to go forward, over Brink's objection, and the Second
Circuit affirmed.
The court ruled that the refusal to answer questions upon asserting Fifth Amendment
privilege is relevant evidence from which the trier of fact in a civil action may draw
whatever inferences are reasonable under the circumstances. 717 F.2d at 710. It
engaged in the familiar prejudice versus probative value analysis under F.R.E. 403. Id.
On the probative value side, the witnesses' invocation of the privilege in response to
questions about their knowledge and participation in the thefts was admissible, due to
the high probative value of this evidence. Id. The court found that the employees'
knowledge of the thefts was a key issue in allowing the jury to draw an inference
regarding Brink's knowledge or negligence. Id.
On the prejudice side, the court observed that prejudice in this context means
"inflammatory" evidence, rather than evidence which is merely harmful to the party's
position. Id. By ruling that the evidence was admissible, the court concluded that Fifth

25 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
Amendment assertions, while possibly harmful to a party's position or credibility, are not
inflammatory. The court thereby necessarily found that the evidence's probative value
outweighed any prejudice.
The refusal of a party to answer or testify on Fifth Amendment grounds should be
admitted where the unanswered questions lie close to substantive issues of the case. In
East Coast Novelty Co. v. The City of New York, 842 F. Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), a case
concerning the seizure of plaintiff's entire inventory of fireworks by the New York City
Police Department, the court upheld the finding of a negative inference from plaintiff's
invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Establishing that the plaintiff company was a front
organization for organized crime was a key element of the City's case. The refusal of the
two principals of the plaintiff corporation to answer deposition questions concerning their
alleged involvement in organized crime, as well as their alleged violations of state and
federal fireworks laws, was considered sufficiently probative ("obviously relevant") that
adverse inferences were drawn against them. Id. at 121.
Similarly, in First Interregional Equity Corp. v. Haughton, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12813
(S.D.N.Y. 1993), a defendant alleged to have defrauded plaintiff corporation out of
several hundred thousand dollars by manipulating the price of certain shares of common
stock, refused to answer questions regarding documents linking her to several of the
transactions at issue. The court stated that allowing the "invocation of the privilege here
as a defense strategy without permitting plaintiffs to draw inferences from the use of the
privilege is inappropriate." Id. at *10. "The arguable harshness of the practice is
mitigated by the ability of the person invoking the privilege to explain why he did so or to
show by other evidence that his response would not have incriminated him." Id. If the
refused questions lie at the heart of the matter in dispute, such refusal will generally be
considered sufficiently probative for admission of any invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
Finally, when independent corroborative evidence of wrong-doing is shown, the courts
usually allow the adverse inference to be drawn from the invocation of the privilege.
United States v. Nagelberg, 772 F. Supp. 120, 123 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
This issue is treated differently by New Hampshire Courts however. In Fischer v. Hooper,
143 N.H. 585 (1999), the Court discussed New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 512, which
prohibits the jury in both civil and criminal cases from drawing negative inferences from
the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. (citing 2 J. Weinstein, et al,
Weinstein's Evidence 513 (1996)). Rule 512(b) requires that civil proceedings before a
jury be conducted, to the extent practicable, "so as to facilitate the making of claims of
privilege without the knowledge of the jury." The Court held that the trial court erred in
requiring the defendant in the civil tort action to invoke his right against self-
incrimination in the presence of the jury, and that the court could have dealt with the
issue of the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right without the jury's
knowledge, thereby satisfying Rule 512(b). In summary, the Court held that Rule 512
and the Court's previous holding in State v. Bell, 112 N.H. 444, 448 (1972) required trial
courts "to take reasonable steps to insure that the jury is unaware that a witness has
invoked the privilege against self-incrimination." Id. at 596.
Discovery Issues in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The scope and nature of permissible discovery in the civil and criminal proceedings differ
significantly. See, e.g., Digital Equip. Corp. v. Currie Enters., 142 F.R.D. 8, 13 (D. Mass.
1991) (summarizing differences between civil and criminal discovery). What can be
obtained through criminal discovery is much narrower than allowed in civil actions. As a
result, parallel civil proceedings may benefit the prosecution. Courts are mindful of this
dynamic and will act to prevent circumvention of the limited criminal discovery rules. For

26 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT
by YET
STANCOMPLETED
J. CATERBONE,
FOR PUBLICATION,
PRO SE AND ADVANCED
Stan J. Caterbone,
MEDIA GROUP
Pro Se
example, in Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 517
U.S. 820 (1963), the Court stated "[a] litigant should not be allowed to make use of the
liberal discovery procedures applicable to a civil suit as a dodge to avoid the restrictions
on criminal discovery and thereby obtain documents he would not otherwise be entitled
to for use in his criminal suit." See also United States v. Tison, 780 F.2d 1569, 1572
(11th Cir. 1986) (civil proceeding stayed for three years in order to prevent
circumvention of criminal discovery provisions in parallel proceeding); In re Eisenberg,
654 F.2d 1107, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1981) (liberal civil discovery procedures not a back door
to information otherwise beyond the reach of criminal discovery rules).
Can an agency of the federal government obtain information from a parallel
criminal proceeding for use in its civil action?
There are significant limitations imposed on such activity. The government may not
utilize grand jury proceedings to augment its efforts in the civil context. United States v.
Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958) (If the prosecution was using criminal
procedures to elicit evidence in a civil case, "it would be flouting the policy of the law.");
2 Sara Sun Beale & William C. Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice, 8.03, at 9-12 (1996)
(noting that grand jury cannot be used to collect evidence for civil purposes).
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also restricts how prosecutors may
share information obtained through grand jury proceedings with other government
agencies. The Rule does allow disclosure of grand jury evidence to "an attorney for the
government for use in the performance of such attorney's duty." Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i). The
term "attorney for the government" generally includes attorneys for DOJ's Criminal
Division, but does not include Civil Division attorneys. United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc.,
463 U.S. 418 (1983). Rule 6(d) further allows disclosure of grand jury evidence to
governmental personnel whose assistance is necessary to the criminal investigation, but
limits the scope of its use to the criminal investigation at hand. The prosecutor must
disclosure the names of any such "other government personnel" to the court prior to
disclosure. Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii). These limitations were motivated by "the fear that such
indirect agency access will lead to misuse of the grand jury to enforce noncriminal
Federal laws,'" without prohibiting the government's use of such information obtained by
means of legitimate grand jury proceedings. United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, 485
(1983) (relying on and discussing legislative history of amendment to Rule 6(e), at S.
Rep. No. 95-354, p. 8 (1977)).
Dated AUGUST 11, 2017
___________/S/____________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-327-1566

27 of 84
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
DRAFT COPY - NOT YET COMPLETED FOR PUBLICATION, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
Stan J. Caterbone
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
_______________________________________________
SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM,

MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAID
ULLAH (AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-286-JLQ
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN

BRUCE JESSEN
Defendants.
_________________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017
STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
BY JUDGE JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
_______________________________
Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed,
and publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (WhistleBlower) 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
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 1 of 84

(And the Torture from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control and the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
from the COINTELPRO PROGRAM)?
___________/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;
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





7 of 84

6 of 84
A LANDMARK ABUSEDRAFT
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
CASE by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page
PageNo.
No.15
24
9 of
8 of84
85
33
24 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page
PageNo.
No.10
25
16
9 of
of84
33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 10
19 of 84
11 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 11
26 of 84
17
12 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
MOTION INRECONSIDERATION
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 64 12
66
65 of 106
27
18
13 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 65 13
67
66 of 106
28
19
14 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 66 14
68
67 of 106
29
20
15 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
ARGUEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

AND REVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF AUGUST 4, 2017
ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

BEFORE THE COURT is a pro se Application for Amicus Curie (ECF No.
237) and proposed Brief on Behalf of Amici Curiae Stanley J. Caterbone and
Advanced Media Group In Support of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 237-1). No
request was made by the court or the parties for the submission of amicus
curiae briefs. The court has performed a cursory review of the proposed filing,
finds it would not aid the court, and does not serve the purpose of a 'friend of
the court' brief. Amicus curiae briefs are uncommon at the trial level, but
Supreme Court Rule 37 provides: An amicus curiae brief that brins to the
attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by
the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiea brief
that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not
favored.
IT IS HERBY ORDERED:
1. The Application (ECF No. 237) is DENIED.

2. The Clerk shall STRIKE the Application (ECF No. 237) and supporting
exhibits from the record and they shall not be considered by the court.
3. No amicus curiae briefs shall be filed in this matter without first obtaining
leave of court. Any such request shall also state that counsel for each
side has been contacted concerning the request, and shall state whether
counsel consents to the filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and furnish
copies to counsel and Mr. Caterbone.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2017.
_______________________________

16 of 84
THE COURT HAS PERFORMED A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FILING,

FINDS IT WOULD NOT AID THE COURT, AND DOES NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE OF
A 'FRIEND OF THE COURT' BRIEF. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS ARE UNCOMMON AT
THE TRIAL LEVEL, BUT SUPREME COURT RULE 37 PROVIDES: AN AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF THAT BRINS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT RELEVANT
MATTER NOT ALREADY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION BY THE PARTIES MAY BE
OF CONSIDERABLE HELP TO THE COURT. AN AMICUS CURIEA BRIEF THAT DOES
NOT SERVE THIS PURPOSE BURDENS THE COURT, AND ITS FILING IS NOT
FAVORED By Judge Justin L. Quackenbush
ARGUEMENTS
1. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PROVIDE A BONA FIDE

PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT AND POSSIBLE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WITHIN
THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, OR CIA. THE CONDUCT IN
QUESTION DIRECTLY INVOLVES THE INTEROGATION PROGRAM IN
QUESTION. STAN J. CATERBONE MAINTAINS HIS STATEMENT THAT THE
SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY BEGAN IN EARNEST IN 2005 AND BEGAN WITH
MONTHS OF NOTHING LESS THAN HOURS OF INTEROGATIONS BY CIA
HANDLERS, BY THIER OWN ADMISSION.
2. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT EVIDENCE A COVERT
DOMESTIC TORTURE PROGRAM (MK-ULTRA LIKE), THAT IS DIRECTLY
LINKED TO THAT SAME PROGRAM DEVELOPED BY DEFENDANT'S JAMES
ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN BRUCE JESSEN.
3. IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
FILING THE COURT HAS DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ABOVE AND IS
REQUIRED BY LAW TO REFER ANY CRIMINAL MATTERS TO THE
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. SEE THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW SECTION.
A. WHILE VIRTUALLY ANY ACTION CAN BECOME A CONCURRENT
CRIMINAL/CIVIL MATTER, A NUMBER OF FEDERAL STATUTES
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH A DUAL TRACK. THESE STATUTES
INCLUDE: THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-3, 15, 15(A) (1988)
(ANTITRUST); THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77T (1988);
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988), AND; THE
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 ET SEQ.
4. THE OREDER MAY BE UNLAWFUL RETALIOTORY CONDUCT BY THE COURT.
5. DUE TO THE ABUSE OF PROCESS BY THE FBI AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SINCE AND BEGINING IN 1987, IN DEALING
WITH STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, THE ORDER MY
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
6. CURRENTLY STAN J. CATERBONE IS IN LITIGATION IN THE U.S.C.A.
THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CASE NO. 17-1904, CATERBONE v.
The NSA, et.al.,. THE CASE IS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR
EMERGENCY RELIEF AND LISTS THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
A. THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OR NSA
B. THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
C. LT. CLARK BEARINGER OF THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
D. THE LANCASTER COUNT SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
E. THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
F. LANCASTER CITY MAYOR RICHARD GRAY

17 of 84
G. THE LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

H. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
I. THE PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
J. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE
K. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGAION, FBI
L. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA
M. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
N. UNITED STATES DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DIA
O. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECT AGENCY, DARPA OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
7. CASE NO 17-1904 WAS FILED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CLEAR PATH AND
WAY FORWARD TO CONTINUE THE MYRIAD OF CIVIL CLAIMS, DATING
BACK TO 1987 IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. THE CIVIL ACTIONS
ARISE FROM HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS,
AND ANTI-TRUST VIOLATIONS WITH LEGITIMATE LEGAL AND FINANCIAL
ESTIMATES OF $40 TO $120 MILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
8. THE EFFORTS BY FEDERAL AND STATE JUDGES TO USE THE FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT SYSTEM TO DISCREDIT AND DEFAME STAN J. CATERBONE
AMOUNT TO A PARAMOUNT CASE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
9. STAN J. CATERBONE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTING TO LITIGATE A WAY
FORWARD IN THE COURTS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BEING VICTIMIZED
BY PERPETRATORS WHO VANDALIZE, DAMAGE, AND OR STEAL VITAL
ELECTRONICS; COMPUTER HACKERS WHO HACK MOST IF NOT ALL ONLINE
ACCOUNTS, SPECIFICALLY THE PACER ACCOUNT USED TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY IN THE COURTS. THESE ISSUES MAKE IT NEAR
IMPOSSIBLE TO ADHERE TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE GUIDELINES AND
PROCEDURES FOR FILING REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION TO FILING PRO
SE, THE COURTS MUST USE THE BEST LIGHT DOCTRINE OF CIVIL
PROCEURE FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS.
ON AUGUST 9, 2017 CNN REPORTED THAT COVERT MICROWAVE WEAPONS

WERE USED AGAINST UNITED STATES DIPLOMATS OF THE U.S. EMBASSY IN
CUBA. CANADIAN DIPLOMATS WERE ALSO TARGETED. THIS IS THE FIRST
TIME IN UNITED STATES HISTORY WHERE THESE WEAPONS AND TECNOLOGIES
WERE REPORTED TO BE IN EXISTENCE IN REAL TIME. ON PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS, SUCH AS WHEN THE UNITED STATES EMABASSY IN MOSCOW WAS
TARGETED IN THE 1950'S, IT WAS DECADES UNTIL THESE EVENTS WERE MADE
PUBLIC. THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE FROM LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS. SEE
THE DOCUMENT TITLED Legal Implications of the 1959 Soviet Microwave
Bombardment of the U.S Embassy January 17, 2017 ATTACHED HEREIN.
________________________
U.S. EMBASSY IN CUBA HIT BY COVERT ACCOUSTIC WEAPONS, Canadian
diplomat in Cuba also suffered hearing loss lancasteronline, AUGUST 10, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) The Canadian government said Thursday that at least one
Canadian diplomat in Cuba also has been treated for hearing loss following
disclosures that a group of American diplomats in Havana suffered severe
hearing loss that U.S. officials believe was caused by an advanced sonic device.
Global Affairs Canada spokeswoman Brianne Maxwell said Canadian officials "are aware

18 of 84
of unusual symptoms affecting Canadian and US diplomatic personnel and their families
in Havana. The government is actively working including with US and Cuban
authorities - to ascertain the cause."
Maxwell added that officials don't have any reason to believe Canadian tourists and other
visitors could be affected.
Canada helped broker talks between Cuba and the United States that led to
restored diplomatic relations.
In the fall of 2016, a series of U.S. diplomats began suffering unexplained losses of
hearing, according to officials with knowledge of the investigation into the case. Several
of the diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of
President Barack Obama's reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Some of the U.S. diplomats' symptoms were so severe that they were forced to cancel
their tours early and return to the United States, officials said. After months of
investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been attacked with an
advanced sonic weapon that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been
deployed either inside or outside their residences.
It was not immediately clear if the device was a weapon used in a deliberate attack, or
had some other purpose.
The U.S. officials weren't authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on
condition of anonymity.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the U.S. retaliated by expelling two
Cuban diplomats from their embassy in Washington on May 23. She did not say how
many U.S. diplomats were affected or confirm they had suffered hearing loss, saying only
that they had "a variety of physical symptoms."
The Cuban government said in a lengthy statement late Wednesday that "Cuba has never
permitted, nor will permit, that Cuban territory be used for any action against accredited
diplomatic officials or their families, with no exception."
The statement from the Cuban Foreign Ministry said it had been informed of the incidents
on Feb. 17 and had launched an "exhaustive, high-priority, urgent investigation at the
behest of the highest level of the Cuban government."
It said the decision to expel two Cuban diplomats was "unjustified and baseless."
The ministry said it had created an expert committee to analyze the incidents and had
reinforced security around the U.S. embassy and U.S. diplomatic residences.
"Cuba is universally considered a safe destination for visitors and foreign diplomats,
including U.S. citizens," the statement said.
U.S. officials told The Associated Press that about five diplomats, several with spouses,
had been affected and that no children had been involved. The FBI and Diplomatic
Security Service are investigating.
Cuba employs a state security apparatus that keeps many people under surveillance and
U.S. diplomats are among the most closely monitored people on the island. Like virtually
all foreign diplomats in Cuba, the victims of the incidents lived in housing owned and
maintained by the Cuban government.
However, officials familiar with the probe said investigators were looking into the

19 of 84
possibilities that the incidents were carried out by a third country such as Russia,
possibly operating without the knowledge of Cuba's formal chain of command.
Nauert said investigators did not yet have a definitive explanation for the incidents but
stressed they take them "very seriously," as shown by the Cuban diplomats' expulsions.
"We requested their departure as a reciprocal measure since some U.S. personnel's
assignments in Havana had to be curtailed due to these incidents," she said. "Under the
Vienna Convention, Cuba has an obligation to take measures to protect diplomats."
U.S. diplomats in Cuba said they suffered occasional harassment for years after the
restoration of limited ties with the communist government in the 1970s, harassment
reciprocated by U.S. agents against Cuban diplomats in Washington. The use of sonic
devices to intentionally harm diplomats would be unprecedented.

Gillies reported from Toronto and Weissenstein reported from Havana.
THE FOLLOWING LINK IS THE CNN BROADCAST ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OF

STAN J. CATERBONE:
CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST 10, 2017
After reading the global research article titled SIRHAN SIRHAN: a reel bad
arab? The alleged killer of ROBERT F. KENNEDY dated July 20, 2017 STAN J.
CATERBONE prepared and filed an amicus brief in support of william f. Pepper's
petition to obtain redress for SIRHAN SIRHAN based on the premis that SIRHAN
SIRHAN was a victim of the COVERT CIA MK-ULTRA PROGRAM. In addition
STAN J. CATERBONE has authored similar amicus briefs in similar cases, most
notably the following:
1. THE ACLU V. THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, NSA CASE NO. 2006-CV-
2095 IN EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2. APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AUGUST 5, 2017
3. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 3575 EDA 2016
KATHLEEN KANE AMICUS
STAN J. CATERBONE has also, AS PRO SE MOVANT for the nationally

acclaimed case of LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT, as MOVANT in the U.S. DISTRICT
COURT CASE NO. 14-02559 FOR THE UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA taken that case to the U.S. SUPREME COURT IN CASE NO. 16-
2288. The case was denied in the January 6, 2017 CONFERENCE OF THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
In the matter of the the ESTEBAN SANTIAGO, FT. LAUDERDALE SHOOTER

CASE, in which ESTABAN SANTIAGO had made claims of being a victim of U. S.
SPONSORED MIND CONTROL TO THE FBI IN THE FBI FILED OFFICE IN ALASKA
in the months prior to the shooting, STAN J. CATERBONE has proved ERIC
COHEN, THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEFENDER assigned to the case an
extensive library of over 3 gigabytes of research and testimonial evidence of
U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL.

20 of 84
SEE THE DIGITAL FILES OF THE ABOVE AMICUS FILINGS ON THE

SUPPORTIVE DVD.

21 of 84
CASE LAW
IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

COURSE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS? By ONLINE LAW LIBRARY
It depends. In certain circumstances, clients are obligated to make a criminal referral of
suspected criminal conduct. Additionally, counsel may have obligations under the cannon
of ethics to do the same.
All financial institutions operating in the United States (including U.S. branches and
agencies of foreign banks) are required to make a report of suspicious activity involving:
Insider abuse involving any amount;
Violations aggregating $5,000 or more where a suspect can be identified;
Violations aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of a potential suspect;
Transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering
or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. See 31 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. (Bank Secrecy
Act); 31 C.F.R. Part 103 et seq.
Additionally, Rule 1.6(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct indicates that a lawyer may
reveal information relating to representation of a client to the extent that the lawyer
reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the client from committing an act that the
lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death, bodily harm or substantial injury to
the financial interest or property of another. The comments to Rule 1.6 indicate that a
lawyer's decision not to take such preventative action does not violate the Rule; rather
that the lawyer has "professional discretion to reveal information in order to prevent such
consequences." Such an exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as
the nature of the lawyer's relationship with the client and with those who might be
injured by the client, the lawyer's own involvement in the transaction and factors that
may extenuate the conduct in question. Comment to Rule 1.6. "Where practical, the
lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable action", and "[in] any case a
disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the lawyer
reasonably believes necessary to the purpose." Id.
Unlike private attorneys, government attorneys who learn of a government employee's
previous criminal conduct have a statutory obligation to report such conduct. 28 U.S.C.
535(b); In re: Grand Jury Subpoena, 112 F.3d 910, 920 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 2482 (1997). However, private attorneys cannot be required to report and cannot be
required to divulge information relating to past criminal activity, even pursuant to the
government's subpoena power. In re: Grand Jury Matters, 593 F. Supp. 103 (D.N.H.),
affirmed by, 751 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1984) (Government not permitted to subpoena criminal
defense attorneys regarding details of representation relative to state felony trials where
same defendants were being investigated for same acts by Federal grand jury).
Finally, section 4 of the criminal code makes it a felony to conceal knowledge of, and fail
to report, a felony cognizable by a court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. 4. This
felony is seldom prosecuted and is most often used as a vehicle for a plea agreement
when the parties are looking to plea to a three year felony.
Is the Government empowered to conduct parallel proceedings?
Yes. In United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970), the Supreme Court stated that "[I]t
would stultify enforcement of federal law to require a government agency . . . invariably
to choose either to forgo recommendation of a criminal prosecution once it seeks civil

22 of 84
relief, or to defer civil proceedings pending the ultimate outcome of a criminal trial."
Federal statutes which provide for parallel proceedings
WHILE VIRTUALLY ANY ACTION CAN BECOME A CONCURRENT CRIMINAL/CIVIL
MATTER, A NUMBER OF FEDERAL STATUTES EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH A
DUAL TRACK. THESE STATUTES INCLUDE: THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. 1-3,
15, 15(A) (1988) (ANTITRUST); THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77T
(1988); THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 7201 (1988), AND; THE
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1961 ET SEQ.
Is the District Court empowered to stay the civil proceedings in favor of the
criminal proceedings?
Yes. The Supreme Court has indicated that a district court may stay civil proceedings in
favor of a criminal trial "when the interests of justice seem to require such action."
Kordel, 397 U.S. at 12, n.27 (1970). Because adverse inferences may be drawn in a civil
case from the assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, see Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S.
308 (1976), the court may stay the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. See
SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S.
993 (1980) ("[A] noncriminal proceeding, if not deferred, might undermine the party's
fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination."); Dienstag v. Bronsen, 49 F.R.D.
327, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (civil discovery stayed because necessary to protect
defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination); United States v. A
Certain Parcel of Land, 781 F. Supp. 830, 834 (D.N.H. 1992) (discovery stayed in civil
forfeiture action because protective order would not sufficiently protect Fifth Amendment
privilege).
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts look to the following factors:
1. the private interests of the plaintiff in the civil litigation without a stay;
2. the interests and burdens on the defendant with a stay;
3. the convenience of the courts;
4. interests of non-parties to the civil litigation; and
5. the public's interest. See, e.g., Keating v. OTS, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 827 (1995); FSLIC v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902-903 (9th
Cir. 1989); Golden Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87
F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
However, there is no absolute constitutional right to a stay of a civil proceeding pending
disposition of a related criminal matter. Arthurs v. Stern, 560 F.2d 477 (1st Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1030 (1978); see also In re: Melissa M., 127 N.H. 710, 712 (1986)
(citing federal cases). The law recognizes "the principle that protection of the public
interest may often require proceedings simultaneously on two fronts, and that it would
unduly compromise the public interest to force the government to choose between a civil
and criminal course of action." Mainelli v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 606, 615 (D.R.I.
1985); see also United States v. Lot 5, 23 F.3rd 359, 364-65 (11th Cir. 1994), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1076 (1995); Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899,
902-03 (9th Cir. 1989).
In addition to staying parallel civil proceedings in favor of criminal proceedings, District
Courts may also issue protective orders, or require other conditions, to limit discovery
between parallel proceedings. In re: Grand Jury Subpoena v. Doe, 103 F.3d 234, 239 (2d
Cir. 1996); Andover Data Svs. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d
Cir. 1989); In re: Film Recovery Sys., Inc., 804 F.2d 386, 388, (7th Cir. 1986).

23 of 84
Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

enforcement proceeding waive the privilege for purposes of subsequent civil
proceedings?
Yes, most of the time. As a general rule, when a company chooses to do a voluntary
disclosure to a governmental entity in order to avoid a federal enforcement proceeding,
that disclosure constitutes a waiver of any privilege in subsequent civil litigation. See In
re Steinhardt Partners, C.P., 9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993); Westinghouse Elec. Corp v.
Republic of Phillippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1425 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Martin Marietta Corp.,
856 F.2d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1011 (1989); Permian Corp.
v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1219-20 (D.C. Cir. 1981). One circuit has held that the
disclosure is a waver with regard to that governmental entity alone. In Diversified
Industries Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1978) (en banc), the Court held that a
corporation's prior disclosure of privileged materials to the SEC constituted a waiver of
the privilege only to the SEC. Accordingly, a subsequent discovery demand by a civil
litigant for the information was denied. The majority rule, and the assumption under
which the disclosing party should operate, is that the disclosure constitutes a subject
matter waiver of any applicable privilege in any other proceeding.
Does the "critical self analysis privilege"such as it issurvive a federal
subpoena?
The self-evaluative privilege in the employment discrimination context has been
recognized within the First Circuit. See O'Connor v. Chrysler Corp., 86 F.R.D. 211 (D.
Mass. 1980); Jackson v. Harvard University, 111 F.R.D. 472 (D. Mass. 1986), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 848 (1990); Whittingham v. Amherst College, 164 F.R.D. 124 (D. Mass.
1995).
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton noted the clash of strong countervailing policies: "If
subjective materials constituting self critical analysis are subject to disclosure during
discovery, this disclosure would tend to have a chilling effect on employers' voluntary
compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. On the other hand,. . . plaintiffs
must be permitted to obtain information sufficient to enable them to prove employment
discrimination where such discrimination exists." Id. at 217. Keeton concluded, however,
that "[a] lack of confidentiality almost inevitably will result in some cramping of the
investigative process, simply because the incentives for any institution to engage in self-
evaluative investigation pale considerably with the knowledge that the results may be
used against it." Id. at 217-18.
In O'Connor, Judge Keeton set forth "potential guideposts" for the application of the
privilege:
1. materials protected have generally been those prepared for mandatory
governmental reports;
2. only subjective evaluative materials have been protected;
3. objective data in those same reports have not been protected; and
4. in sensitivity to plaintiff's need for such materials, courts have denied discovery
only where the policy favoring exclusion has clearly outweighed plaintiffs' need."
Id. at 217.
In Whittingham v. Amherst College, the Massachusetts District Court did away with the
requirement that the internal investigation and reports be mandated by the government,
and extended the privilege to include voluntary internal investigations. 164 F.R.D. 124,
129-130 (D. Mass. 1995).
More importantly, the self-evaluative privilege has almost never been successfully

24 of 84
asserted against a governmental subpoena. See id; FTC v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 210-
11 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Noall, 587 F.2d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 1978), cert.
denied, 441 U.S. 923 (1979); Reich v. Hercules, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 367, 371 (D.N.J.
1994); Thomas F. O'Neil & Adam H. Charnes, The Embryonic Self-Evaluative Privilege: A
Primer For Health Care Lawyers, 5 Annals Health L. 33 (1996).
Who is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination
An individual may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. A
corporation has no protection under the Fifth Amendment privilege. See Curcio v. United
States, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957); United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694 (1944). A
recognized exception to this rule is where the only corporate custodian of records may
violate his own rights against self-incrimination by responding to questions put to the
corporation. Curcio, 354 U.S. 118, 122 (1957). Also, an employee may invoke the
privilege if the specter of individual liability exists. In re Corrugated Container Anti-trust
Litigation, 609 F.2d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 1979).
How does the assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege against self
incrimination affect a civil action?
In the federal context, it is well settled that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid
adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response
to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318
(1976) ; United States v. Stelmokas, 100 F.3d 302, 310-11 (3d Cir. 1996), reh'g en banc
denied, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244 (3d Cir. 1997); National Acceptance Co. of Am. v.
Batchalter, 705 F.2d 924, 930 (7th Cir. 1983). The admission or denial of such evidence
turns on whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110,
121 (2d Cir. 1997).
The Second Circuit has previously approved of the admission of an assertion of the Fifth
Amendment in similar circumstances. Brink's, Inc. v. The City of New York, 717 F.2d 700
(2d Cir. 1983). In Brink's, the City discovered that approximately $1 million in parking
meter revenue was missing from the amounts collected by Brink's under a contract with
the City. A key issue for the claim against Brink's was the extent of defendant's
knowledge of thefts of the meter money by its employees. Several Brink's employees had
already been convicted or had pleaded guilty to theft and related charges. At trial, the
City called them to the stand, knowing that they would invoke the Fifth Amendment. The
trial court allowed the testimony to go forward, over Brink's objection, and the Second
Circuit affirmed.
The court ruled that the refusal to answer questions upon asserting Fifth Amendment
privilege is relevant evidence from which the trier of fact in a civil action may draw
whatever inferences are reasonable under the circumstances. 717 F.2d at 710. It
engaged in the familiar prejudice versus probative value analysis under F.R.E. 403. Id.
On the probative value side, the witnesses' invocation of the privilege in response to
questions about their knowledge and participation in the thefts was admissible, due to
the high probative value of this evidence. Id. The court found that the employees'
knowledge of the thefts was a key issue in allowing the jury to draw an inference
regarding Brink's knowledge or negligence. Id.
On the prejudice side, the court observed that prejudice in this context means
"inflammatory" evidence, rather than evidence which is merely harmful to the party's
position. Id. By ruling that the evidence was admissible, the court concluded that Fifth

25 of 84
Amendment assertions, while possibly harmful to a party's position or credibility, are not
inflammatory. The court thereby necessarily found that the evidence's probative value
outweighed any prejudice.
The refusal of a party to answer or testify on Fifth Amendment grounds should be
admitted where the unanswered questions lie close to substantive issues of the case. In
East Coast Novelty Co. v. The City of New York, 842 F. Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), a case
concerning the seizure of plaintiff's entire inventory of fireworks by the New York City
Police Department, the court upheld the finding of a negative inference from plaintiff's
invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Establishing that the plaintiff company was a front
organization for organized crime was a key element of the City's case. The refusal of the
two principals of the plaintiff corporation to answer deposition questions concerning their
alleged involvement in organized crime, as well as their alleged violations of state and
federal fireworks laws, was considered sufficiently probative ("obviously relevant") that
adverse inferences were drawn against them. Id. at 121.
Similarly, in First Interregional Equity Corp. v. Haughton, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12813
(S.D.N.Y. 1993), a defendant alleged to have defrauded plaintiff corporation out of
several hundred thousand dollars by manipulating the price of certain shares of common
stock, refused to answer questions regarding documents linking her to several of the
transactions at issue. The court stated that allowing the "invocation of the privilege here
as a defense strategy without permitting plaintiffs to draw inferences from the use of the
privilege is inappropriate." Id. at *10. "The arguable harshness of the practice is
mitigated by the ability of the person invoking the privilege to explain why he did so or to
show by other evidence that his response would not have incriminated him." Id. If the
refused questions lie at the heart of the matter in dispute, such refusal will generally be
considered sufficiently probative for admission of any invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
Finally, when independent corroborative evidence of wrong-doing is shown, the courts
usually allow the adverse inference to be drawn from the invocation of the privilege.
United States v. Nagelberg, 772 F. Supp. 120, 123 (E.D.N.Y. 1991).
This issue is treated differently by New Hampshire Courts however. In Fischer v. Hooper,
143 N.H. 585 (1999), the Court discussed New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 512, which
prohibits the jury in both civil and criminal cases from drawing negative inferences from
the invocation of the right against self-incrimination. (citing 2 J. Weinstein, et al,
Weinstein's Evidence 513 (1996)). Rule 512(b) requires that civil proceedings before a
jury be conducted, to the extent practicable, "so as to facilitate the making of claims of
privilege without the knowledge of the jury." The Court held that the trial court erred in
requiring the defendant in the civil tort action to invoke his right against self-
incrimination in the presence of the jury, and that the court could have dealt with the
issue of the defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right without the jury's
knowledge, thereby satisfying Rule 512(b). In summary, the Court held that Rule 512
and the Court's previous holding in State v. Bell, 112 N.H. 444, 448 (1972) required trial
courts "to take reasonable steps to insure that the jury is unaware that a witness has
invoked the privilege against self-incrimination." Id. at 596.
Discovery Issues in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
The scope and nature of permissible discovery in the civil and criminal proceedings differ
significantly. See, e.g., Digital Equip. Corp. v. Currie Enters., 142 F.R.D. 8, 13 (D. Mass.
1991) (summarizing differences between civil and criminal discovery). What can be
obtained through criminal discovery is much narrower than allowed in civil actions. As a
result, parallel civil proceedings may benefit the prosecution. Courts are mindful of this
dynamic and will act to prevent circumvention of the limited criminal discovery rules. For

26 of 84
example, in Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 517
U.S. 820 (1963), the Court stated "[a] litigant should not be allowed to make use of the
liberal discovery procedures applicable to a civil suit as a dodge to avoid the restrictions
on criminal discovery and thereby obtain documents he would not otherwise be entitled
to for use in his criminal suit." See also United States v. Tison, 780 F.2d 1569, 1572
(11th Cir. 1986) (civil proceeding stayed for three years in order to prevent
circumvention of criminal discovery provisions in parallel proceeding); In re Eisenberg,
654 F.2d 1107, 113-14 (5th Cir. 1981) (liberal civil discovery procedures not a back door
to information otherwise beyond the reach of criminal discovery rules).
Can an agency of the federal government obtain information from a parallel
criminal proceeding for use in its civil action?
There are significant limitations imposed on such activity. The government may not
utilize grand jury proceedings to augment its efforts in the civil context. United States v.
Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 683 (1958) (If the prosecution was using criminal
procedures to elicit evidence in a civil case, "it would be flouting the policy of the law.");
2 Sara Sun Beale & William C. Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice, 8.03, at 9-12 (1996)
(noting that grand jury cannot be used to collect evidence for civil purposes).
Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also restricts how prosecutors may
share information obtained through grand jury proceedings with other government
agencies. The Rule does allow disclosure of grand jury evidence to "an attorney for the
government for use in the performance of such attorney's duty." Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i). The
term "attorney for the government" generally includes attorneys for DOJ's Criminal
Division, but does not include Civil Division attorneys. United States v. Sells Eng'g, Inc.,
463 U.S. 418 (1983). Rule 6(d) further allows disclosure of grand jury evidence to
governmental personnel whose assistance is necessary to the criminal investigation, but
limits the scope of its use to the criminal investigation at hand. The prosecutor must
disclosure the names of any such "other government personnel" to the court prior to
disclosure. Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii). These limitations were motivated by "the fear that such
indirect agency access will lead to misuse of the grand jury to enforce noncriminal
Federal laws,'" without prohibiting the government's use of such information obtained by
means of legitimate grand jury proceedings. United States v. Baggot, 463 U.S. 476, 485
(1983) (relying on and discussing legislative history of amendment to Rule 6(e), at S.
Rep. No. 95-354, p. 8 (1977)).
___________/S/____________

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

27 of 84
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Stanley J. Caterbone is a private citizen and the majority shareholder of the United States
incorporated business Advanced Media Group. Stanley J. Caterbone was a whistle-blower and
shareholder in 1987 involving the United States Defense Contractor International Signal & Control,
Plc., known as ISC. In 1992, International Signal & Control was indicted and found guilty of
among other things a Billion Dollar Fraud and export violations concerning illegally shipping cluster
bomb technologies, missile defense systems, and other defense systems to foreign interests
including South Africa, Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Cluster bombs and related technologies are
known to have been exported to Iraq by the Chilean Arms Dealer Carlos Cardoen, a joint venture
partner of International Signal & Control. The Central Intelligence Agency is confirmed to have
been involved in a covert program to arm Iraq during the 1980s with close ties to International
Signal & Control, which allegedly included the help of the National Security Agency, a former end
user of International Signal & Control technologies under the early 1980s program Project X. A
Presidential Finding in 1984 by the Bush Administration was executed to implement the program
of arming Saddam Hussein and Iraq with the cluster bomb technologies. Serious allegations of
these programs were the focus of investigations that included the knowledge and supervision of
then appointed nominee for the Director of Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates.
Since 1987, Stanley J. Caterbone has been the victim of vast civil conspiracy that started in
1987 to cover-up allegations of fraud within International Signal & Control during the negotiations
and merger of International Signal & Control and Ferranti International of England. Stanley J.
Caterbone alleges that warrantless surveillance was used to obstruct justice and moot his
constitutional rights in an effort to divert attention away from his allegations of fraud within
International Signal & Control back in 1987, and afterwards to the present as a means to deny his
access to the courts for remedy and relief, and Federal False Claims Act violations. The business of
Advanced Media Group has been greatly compromised and intellectual property stolen during the
late 1980s and early 1990s that included information technology contracts with the United States
Government.
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

28 of 84
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 January of 2006, Stanley J. Caterbone was detained at every airport security check
point, which was during a policy of random checks, and taken out of line during travel from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Houston, Texas, and on to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. At the Houston
Airport, Stanley J. Caterbone was falsely accused of carrying plastics explosives and taken to an
interview room by Homeland Security officials. Stanley J. Caterbone was also detained for three
days in Mexico, and was not provided with an opportunity to gain access to a flight out of the
country by Mexican Officials.
Today, Stan J. Caterbone is a pro se litigant in several state and local courts, in an effort to
be restored to whole since the WHISTLEBLOWING of 1987. Most notable is CATERBONE v. The
National Security Agency, NSA, et.al. In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT CASE NO. 17-1904. That case is a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF
FILED TO IMMEDIATELY HALT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IS BEING ADMINISTERED
THROUGHT THE ILLEGAL COINTELPRO PROGRAM COUPELD WITH THE TORTURE PROGRAM.

29 of 84
The following are the effects of the ILLEGAL AND LANDMARK COINTELPRO PROGRAM
COUPELD WITH THE TORTURE PROGRAM:
4. AS CONTAINED IN THE LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. 08-
13373 WHERE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WAS ADDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S LIST ON
JANUARY 23, 2017 AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL COURT CASES; THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IS UTILIZING AN ILLEGAL COINTELPRO PROGRAM TO HARASS THE
APPELLANT, STAN J. CATERBONE AND OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY DIRECTLING CAUSING IT
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THOSE SAME CIVIL ACTIONS.
5. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SIGNED (3) EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT BROADENED THE
POWERS OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COINCIDE WITH THE
ABOVE.
6. THE FACT THAT COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE'S HISTORY WITH THE LANCASTER
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT TRACES BACK TO THE 1960'S WITH THE TARGETING OF
COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE'S FATHER, SAMUEL CATERBONE, JR. IN THE VERY
SAME MANNER AS THE CURRENT TARGETING OF COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE
TODAY IS REASON ENOUGH TO HAVE SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS IN ALL CIVIL ACTIONS IN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IMMEDIATELY ORDERED.
7. THE TARGETING CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING:
A. AN UPRECEDENTED HARASSMENT PROGRAM CARRIED OUT BY RESIDENTS,
NEIGHBORS, STALKING GROUPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND OTHERS.
B. AN UNPRECEDENTED HACKING PROGRAM OF ALL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT.
C. AN UNPRECEDENTED TORTURE PROGRAM UTILIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC AND OTHER
EXOTIC WEAPONS DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
D. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN DESIGNED TO DRAIN THE APPELLANT STAN J.
CATERBONE OF ALL CASH RESOURCES, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A CASH POSITION
OF SOME $60,000.00 IN JUNE OF 2015 TO NOTHING TODAY.
E. THE UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF FALSE STATEMENTS BY THE RESIDENTS OF 1252
FREMONT STREET AND THE PERJURED STATEMENTS OF LANCASTER CITY POLICE IN
RECENT CRIMINAL SUMMARY OFFENSES FILED IN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ADAM
WITKONIS COURT.
F. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF DAILY HARASSMENTS AND THREATS BY THE
RESIDENTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET, WHICH HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE 2006.
G. UN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAING OF THREATS OF PHYSICL HARM IN PUBLIC SPACES.
H. THE UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF THE BREAKING AND ENTERING INTO THE
RESIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE CAUSING VANDALISM,
THEFTS, POISONING OF FOOD, AND THE STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF COCK ROACHES

30 of 84
ON A DAILY BASIS. THIS ALSO INVOLVES THE THEFT AND MANIPULATION OF COURT
FILINGS AND EVIDENCE.
I. THE ABOVE ARE ALL FACILITATED AND SUPPORTED WITH VIOLATIONS OF DUE
PROCESS IN THE COMPLAINTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
J. 1. , COMPLAINTANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SEAM RECIEVING RETALIOTROY
ADVERSE AND HARASSING TREATMENT DUE TO THE FACT THAT 1. , I, COMPLAINTANT
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, AM THE AMICUS FOR FORMER PENNSYLVANIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL KATHLEEN KANE IN CASE NO. 3575 EDA 2016 IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF SUPERIOR COURT, CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION.
THE CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR AN

UNPRECDENTED LANDMARK CASE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ANTI-TRUST
VIOLATIONS.
It is too easy for present and future administrations to abuse their power and utilize
warrantless surveillance as a means of subverting and obstructing justice for those that are
engaged in Whistle-Blowing cases that concern National Security. Without the proper oversight
and judicial review, a Whistle Blower can be place on terrorist lists for malicious reasons without
the knowledge or just cause. This is in direct conflict with keeping our democracy free of
corruption while adhering to the spirit of the constitution in the manner our founding fathers
envisioned.
The interest of amicus in this case is ensuring that constitutional rights of private citizens
are not compromised and justice subverted through information obtained from warrantless
surveillance upon which there is no just cause for any allegations or association with terrorism.
Whistle-Blowers are inherently supportive of a system of checks and balances within our
government that go beyond our constitutional doctrines regarding the same. Whistle-Blowers
ensure that the rule of law is universally applied to all government officials in all branches of
government. The Federal False Claims Act and its provisions protect individuals from abuse of
power, while providing relief and remedies for those that were wronged and those that had the
courage to cite a wrong.

31 of 84
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIE
Synthetic Telepathy Coupled with Electromagnetic Weapons used for pain have been
the ELECTRONIC WEAPONS OF CHOICE by the PERPETRATORS committing these haneus
crimes against AMICUS, STAN J. CATERBONE since at least 2005. My father, U.S. Navy
1943 to 1946) was a victim of MK-ULTRA and experienced the same effects since at
least the early 1960's and my brother, Sammy, (U.S. Air Force 1969-19710 received the
same victimization through the use of the LSD experiments of the same program.
AMICUS, STAN J. CATERBONE is relevant to this case and should be granted legal
standing for the very fact that the initial time of connection with the SYNTHETIC
TELEPATHY consisted of months of NON-STOP INTERROGATIONS BY MALE SUBJECTS
WHO IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS CIA OPERATIVES. The interrogations lasted hours
upon hours at a time and covered just about every aspect of AMICUS STAN J.
CATERBONE'S life. The HANDLERS, for lack of a better term, not only focused on the
WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES OF ISC IN 1987, but also covered mundane everday
experiences, as a form to harass and torture.
In late spring of 2005, the HANDLERS introduce females to the sessions. To this
day, the torture consists of the same, interrogations mixed in with harassment, sex, and
humor. It is the opinion of AMICUS STAN J. CATERBONE, that the only way to keep from
desensitizing and numbing to the harassment and pain is to experience pleasure and
laughter so as to keep the magnitude of the pain at it's highest level. THIS CAN BE
SUBSANTIATED AND VALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION UNDER HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANTED AMICUS STAN J.
CATERBONE DISABILITY BENEFITS IN AUGUST OF 2009 FOR SYMPTOMS AND
ILLNESSES RELATED TO U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL, AND IN FACT STATED IN THE
AWARD LETTER THAT DISABILITY WAS DETERMINED TO BEGIN IN DECEMBER OF 2005;
THE DATE AMICUS STAN J. CATERBONE DECLARED THAT THE SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY
HAD GONE FULL-TIME 24/7, WITHOUT INTERUPTION, TO THIS DAY.
The following article by psychologist JEFFREY KAYE along with the other exhibits
that detail the use of U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL, or behavioral modification
programs, will substantiate that these illegal and criminal techniques were being used,
without any means to verify or evidence, on the prisoner detainees.

32 of 84
Smoking Gun on CIA Torture Conspiracy? Human Experimentation

Central to EIT Program
Posted By Jeffrey Kaye On September 27, 2009 @ 4:26 pm In Torture | 4 Comments

photo by johnnyalive via flickr
A close reading of the CIAs Inspector General Report and the Senate Intelligence Committees
narrative on the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) torture memos reveals a more detailed picture of
the CIAs involvement in the construction of those documents.
What emerges is consistent with recent charges of CIA experimentation on prisoners, and of the
overall experimental quality of the torture program itself. It also points to a crucial piece of
analysis by the CIAs Office of Technical Services, a memo which may or may not include
damning medical and psychological evidence of the damaging effects of SERE techniques, and
which the IG report maintains was utilized in substantial part in the drafting of the August 1,
2002 Bybee memos. If one is looking for a smoking gun in the torture scandal, in my opinion, one
doesnt have to look much further than this.
The quote below is from the April 22, 2009 Senate Intelligence Committee narrative of the Office
of Legal Counsels opinions on the CIAs interrogation program. Please keep in mind as you read
the quote and the added bolded emphasis, that recent documentation has shown that for years
the CIA and Special Operations had researchers studying the effects of SERE training.
Moreover, the research had been published in peer-reviewed journals, in part because the
research was also meant to add to the psychiatric communitys understanding of the mechanisms
of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Some of the research had also been published in the June 2000
edition of Special Warfare, The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School.
So, keeping this all in mind, consider the following from the Intel Committees narrative (emphasis
added): According to CIA records, because the CIA believed that Abu Zubaydah was withholding
imminent threat information during the initial interrogation sessions, attorneys from the CIAs
Office of General Counsel met with the Attorney General, the National Security Adviser, the
Deputy National Security adviser, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, and the
Counsel to the President in mid-May 2002 to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation
methods that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence
community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including
waterboarding.
The CIAs Office of General Counsel subsequently asked OLC to prepare an opinion about the legality of its
proposed techniques. To enable OLC to review the legality of the techniques, the CIA provided OLC with
written and oral descriptions of the proposed techniques. The CIA also provided OLC with information
about any medical and psychological effects of DoDs Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(SERE) School, which is a military training program during which military personnel receive counter-
interrogation training.
While the fact that the OLC accepted at face value the CIAs statements regarding the safety or the effects of
the interrogation procedures they were proposing is no surprise to anyone who has read the torture memos
and evidence of the unprofessionalism and bias of the memos authors the degree to which the
conspiracy (by CIA or OLC, or both) to withhold evidence of the real effects of the Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques (EITs) by the CIA has never been made more concrete than now.
To my knowledge, we do not have the specific document wherein the CIA provides the medical and
psychological effects of SERE school. I have been told that this document is still classified. But it seems
possible that the CIA did pass on the details of the research that was available to it, including the debilitating
effects of SERE techniques, which sent stress hormone levels, according to one research report, some of the
greatest ever documented in humans. Another report cited neuroendocrine changes [that] may have
significant implications for subsequent responses to stress.

33 of 84
One of the authors of these reports, Charles A. Morgan, III, M.D., who has identified himself in certain
settings as a Senior Research Scientist on the CIAs Behavioral Science Staff, has criticized my coverage of
CIA experiments on the psychological and physiological effects of SERE training upon human subjects. While
he could not specify what aspects of this coverage he felt were inaccurate and misleading, he did insist:
The research conducted by our research team at the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is
not, and never has been, conducted for any other purpose than to help us understand the pathophysiology of
stress disorders and we might better help in the treatment of veterans.
In making his mea culpa, Dr. Morgan never mentions that some of this research was funded (over $400,000)
by the Army and the Office of Naval Research. He doesnt mention his acquaintance with great people who
do military interrogations. He also forgets to cite his book contribution, where he states (emphasis added):
The SERE training environment affords the military services the opportunity to collaborate with various
other government agencies in exploring old and new techniques in gathering human intelligence.
Of course, he neither confirms nor denies his affiliation with the CIA, an affiliation which I have traced to the
CIAs Science and Technology directorate, through his association (large PDF) with the Intelligence
Technology Innovation Center, which is a research organization under the CIAs authority that answers
directly to the CIAs Science and Technology directorate. But most of all, Dr. Morgans arrows fall way short
of his target, as I have never accused him of personal involvement in the reverse-engineering of SERE
techniques for use in the torture program.
What is disturbing is his seeming lack of concern over the possiblity that the research he helped conduct was
either used to further experiments upon torture victims in the CIAs clandestine prisons, or contrariwise, was
withheld from Office of Legal Counsel lawyers who relied upon CIA advice concerning the effects of
techniques derived from the SERE schools.
What is indisputable is that by virtue of his position, Dr. Morgan had access to CIA officials just at the time
that another department of the CIA, one to which he is affiliated, was, according to the CIAs own Office of
Inspector General Report (large PDF) involved in vetting the SERE techniques for use in interrogations. The
other department was the Office of Technical Services (OTS), part of the CIAs Science and Technology
Directorate. This, by the way, is the same division that was responsible for the MKULTRA experiments of the
1950s and 1960s. From the OIG report:
CTC [CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center], with the assistance of the Office of Technical Service (OTS),
proposed certain more coercive physical techniques to use on AbuZubaydah.
CIAs OTS obtained data on the use of the proposed EITs and their potential long-term psychological effects
on detainees. OTS input was based in part on information solicited from a number of psychologists and
knowledgeable academics in the area of psychopathology.
OTS also solicited input from DoD/Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) regarding techniques used in its
SERE training and any subsequent psychological effects on students. DoD/JPRA concluded no long-term
psychological effects resulted from use of the EITs, including the most taxing technique, the waterboard, on
SERE students. The OTS analysis was used by OGC [DoD's Office of General Counsel] in evaluating the
legality of techniques.
OTSs solicitation of information on SERE from JPRA elicited some sort of feedback from JPRA, which
supposedly told OTS that SERE training caused no long-term effects. The IG Report does not say if this was
in the form of a memo and only speaks of OTSs analysis. In any case, we should not confuse any OTS
analysis with the information provided by JPRA itself to the Office of General Counsel, which produced a
number of memorandum and attachments in late July 2003. Marcy Wheeler has been analyzing the timing of
these JPRA items, including the fact that one of these key documents is missing.
The CIA IG Report is relating a story whose emphasis differs from that produced in the narrative of the
Senate Armed Services Committee investigation (PDF) into SERE torture. In the latter, JPRA is
the main culprit in providing cover for the supposed safety of using SERE techniques. Yet, in the OIG account
it looks like the CIA used DOD/JRRA as a cover for the safety of techniques that it knew were in fact harmful
from their own analysis of the data. Moreover, it was the OTS analysis that was used in substantial part
as the basis of the August 1, 2002 memo approving the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs).
That legal opinion was based, in substantial part, on OTS analysis and the experience and expertise of non-
Agency personnel and academics concerning whether long-term psychological effects would result from use

34 of 84
of the proposed techniques.
Moreover, the CIAs Office of Medical Services was frozen out of the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of
EITs, and not even provided with a copy of the OTS report given to the White House Office of Legal Counsel.
Such compartmentalization of information is indicative of a covert operation, such as a Special Access
Program (SAP). This SAP would have included personnel in CIAs CTC, OTS, OGC, and Directorate of
Operations, also portions of DOD (JPRA and Special Operations Command),
and probably the White Houses OLC, Office of the Vice President, and National Security Council. It seems
highly likely that the CIA report to the OLC on the medical and psychological effects of the SERE school
program, mentioned in the Senate Intelligence Committee narrative quote above, is in fact the OTS report,
which came from the same CIA directorate to which Dr. Morgan belongs. This does not speak to Morgans
foreknowledge of what would be used, nor to the amount of his involvement. But it does speak to the
likelihood that the government research he conducted (with others) was available and likely used by his
associates in the CIA.
To what purpose was this information used? It seems Dr. Morgan has serendipitously given us the answer
himself: exploring old and new techniques in gathering human intelligence. The CIA appears to have used
torture to conduct what Physicians for Human Rights, in a white paper (PDF) recently published, called
possible unethical human experimentation, [which] urgently needs to be thoroughly investigated. The
government should declassify the OTS report, and bring the process of investigating the CIAs role in the
torture conspiracy fully into public purview.
This report was originally published on FireDogLake.com.

Jeffrey Kaye, a psychologist living in Northern California and a regular contributor The Public Record,
has been blogging at Daily Kos since May 2005, and maintains a personal blog, Invictus. E-mail Mr.
Kaye at sfpsych at gmail dot com.
AUGUST 1, 2017
___________/S/____________

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

35 of 84
EXHIBITS

36 of 84
DRAFT COPY - NOT YET COMPLETED FOR PUBLICATION,
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 6
1-1-1977
Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave

Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy
Larry B. Guthrie
Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr

Part of the Environmental Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Larry B. Guthrie, Legal Implications of the Soviet Microwave Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy , 1 B.C.
Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 91 (1977), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol1/iss1/6
This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law
School. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.1 36
37
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
Legal ImpHcations of the Soviet Microwave

Bombardment of the U.S. Embassy
INTRODUCTION
.Although the U.S. embassy in Moscow has been the target of

Soviet microwave bombardment at least since 1959/ it has only
been the publicity surrounding the former U.S. Ambassador to
the Soviet Union, Walter Stoessel's health that has brought this
practice to public prominence.2 The primary concern about such
radiation is the health of the staff, employees, and families
within the embassy who are subjected to it. While the recent
radiation levels have been relatively Iowa and are of the type
associated with the use of radio, and television stations (non-
ionizing, as compared to X-rays or Gamma rays 4) little is
1 Microwave radiation was discovered within the embassy during Vice President
Nixon'. visit to Moscow in 1959, NY Times, May 1, 1976, at 21, col. 2.
2 Bpeculation and conjecture between Btoellel's reported "strange blood ailment,"
Bolton Globe, February 16, 1976, at 1, col. 1, and the microwave radiation were
preeeded and fueled by reports of recent increases in the radiation levels found in
the emba.llay, 'NY Times, February ll, 1976, at 16, col. 4. Before the Stoenel inci
dent, however, it was Jack Anderson who "broke" the story of the "MOIcow Big
w" in Kay of 1972. Washington Post, May 10, 1972, at B10, col. 2.
a Levels have been 1811 than two microwatts per square centimeter since protests
were made in February, 1976, and aluminum aereens which have been inatalled hall
reduced this to Iell than 1 mierowatt per square centimeter inaide the emb...,..
NY Times, July 8, 1976, at 1, col. 1; Telephone Conversation with State Depart-
ment oflleial, Dixie Grimes, December 2, 1976. These levels are to be compared, how
ever with the high of 18 microwatts per square centimeter in 1975, NY Times,
April 26, 1976, at 5, col. 1 and perhaps as high as 400 microwatts per square centi
meter'in earlier years, Paul Brodeur, Microwave8 11, The New Yorker, December
20,1976, at 47, col. 2 (hereinafter cited as Microwave8 II).
4 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, vol. 6, pp. 65152, vol. 15, 389 (15th ed. 1975) j
NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, coL 8.
91
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.2 37
38
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
92 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOUltNAL [VoL 1, No.1
known of the long range medical effects of prolonged exposure

to low levels of microwave radiation, but recent studies sight
possible dangers:1 The State Department is concerned enough
at least to have commissioned Johns Hopkins University to con-
duct research on 600 embassy employees in order to deter-
mine the medical effects, if any, of past exposure they may have
received. II
This article will examine the legal effects of the microwave
bombardment. The analysis will attempt to resolve the follow-
ing issues: I. whether the radiation bombardment is a prima
facie T violation of international law, so as to give rise to Soviet
responsibility of some kind; II. whether any defenses are avail-
able to the Soviets for their actions; III. what remedies may
exist for the United States.
I. Is THE RADIATION BOMBARDMENT A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW so AS TO GIVE RISE TO SOVIET RESPONSI-
BILITY!
The relevant international law encompassing microwave bom-

bardment of an embassy is the Vienna Convention on Diplo-
matic Relations (hereinafter, "Vienna Convention").8 Al-
though only arguably binding as representing customary inter-
. national law for non-signatories,' the Vienna Convention is
II HearingB on Radiation Control fOT Health and Safety Act of 1967 Before the
Senate Commerce Committee, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part 2 at 963 (1968) (herein-
after cited as 1968 Hearings); BUREAU OP RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH, SYMPOSIUM ON
THE BIOLOGICAL EpPECTS AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OP MICROWAVE RADIATION,
June 1970, Print by the Depa.rtment of H.E.W. (hereinafter cited as SYMPOSIUM).
II Dixie Grimes conversation, B1lpra note 3; NY Times, July 2, 1976, at 20, col. 2;
Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1, col. 6.
T A prima facie violation will herein be considered to constitute: any set of facts
sufficient to make out a violation of international law if no defenses were available.
8United Nations Doc. A/CONF 20/13, April 16,1961; 55 Am. J. Int'I. L. 1064
(1961).
'D'AMATO. THE CONCEPT OP CUSTOM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 103-66 (1971)
(hereinafter cited as D'AMATO); IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OP PUBLIC INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW, 12 (2nd ed. 1973) (hereinafter cited as BROWNLIE); P.J. O'KEEl'E,
Immunities of the Diplomatic Family, 25 INT'L & COMPo L.Q. 329, at 330 (1976)
(hereinafte.r cited as O'Keefe).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.3 38
39
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICBOWAVE BOMBARDMENT 93
clearly law between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as they have both
ratified it.lO
If the radiation bombardment is a violation of the Vienna
Oonvention it would have to be in violation of those articles con-
fering the privilege of inviolability upon the embassy premises,ll
the Ambassador,12 his residence 18 or his staff.14
A. Inviolability of the Diplomatic Agent

Article 29 of the Vienna Convention states:
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He
shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The
receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his per-
son, freedom or dignity.
It should be remembered that the underlying purpose of in-
violability like all the privileges and immunities bestowed by
the Convention "is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the
efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as
representing States." 111 In accord with that reasoning the priv-
ilege of inviolability is premised on the assumption that the
mission can operate more efficiently if its agents are free from
harm and insult. IS To achieve this end a duty is imposed upon
the receiving State which requires it to "offer the entitled per-
10 U.S.S.R. ratification March 28, 1964, effective April 24, 1964. 500 U.N.T.S.
96, 204 (1964). U.S.A. ratification effective December 13, 1972. U.S.T. 23.3.3227;
T.I.A.S. 7502. Bee D' AMATO, 8upra note 9, at 107.
11 Vienna Convention, 8upra note 8, Art. 22.
12 Id. Art. 29.
13Id. Art. 30.
14 Id. Art. 37.
111 Id. Preamble; The theory of ne impediatur legatio or "functional theory" is
now one of the predominant conceptual bases for diplomatic privileges and im-
munities (having supplanted the theory of exterritoriality). This theory satisfies
"the need of states for independence and freedom of action, which requires that
their diplomatic representatives be exempt from all exercise of authority which
might impede the performance of their functions." Preuss. Capacity for Lega-
tion and the Theoretical Ba8is of Diplomatic Immunitie8, 10 N.Y.U.L.Q.REV. 170, at
187 (1933) (hereinafter cited as Preuss).
16 O'Keefe, 8upra note 9, at 343; League of Nations Committee of Experts for
the Progressive Codification of International Law. Diplomatic Privilege8 and Im-
munities, 20 AM. J. INT'L. L. Spec. Supp. 149 (1926).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.4 39
40
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
94 BoSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JO'OBNAL [Vol. I, No.1
son all the protection that is necessary to safeguard him in his

life and the pursuit of his occupation." 11
The difficulty arises, of course, in determining the extent of
this duty to protect the diplomat. With respect to the crucial
words: "shall treat him with due respect and shall take all ap-
propriate steps to prevent ... " one commentator has pointed
out,
In a practical sense, the determination of "appropriate
steps" must rest with the receiving State. This is the only
authority capable of assessing accurately the extent of the
danger posed by any threat and the response necessary to
thwart it.11
However true this may be, its validity can be questioned, when
applied to dangers other than those posed by non-officials or
officials acting ultra vires. In other words, as a practical matter
only the receiving State itself can determine the scope of its
duty to protect the diplomat from non-official actions against
him. But is the receiving State also to determine the scope of
its duty to protect the diplomat from official actions against him'
What is, the scope and effect of this phrase'
Each State will have its own interpretation, but whether the
sending State, the host State, or some third party ultimately
- determines how far this duty to protect from harm of insult
extends, it is submitted that an objective standard should be
used. The following principles have been suggested: 1) the mere
presence of damage does not, ipso facto, impose responsibility
upon the receiving State. 2) The receiving State's duty is some-
what greater than the due diligence owed to prevent injuries to
aliens. 3) The obligation would have to be directly propor-
tional to the predictability of the commission of harm or insult,
or in other words, the greater the risk, the greater the duty.10
In applying such principles to obtain an objective standard
several points should be noted: first, as previously stated,20 the
IT 0 'Keefe, IUfWG note 9, at 344.
IBld.
10 8 CANADIAN Y.B. OJ' I.T'L L. 356 (1970).
10 866 text aeeompan,.ing note 16, IUprG.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.5 40
41
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICROWAVE BOMBARDlIU:NT 95
duty owed to the agent extends not only to harm (injury to

body), but to insult (injury to dignity) as well. Second, there
exists in most industrialized nations safety standards for maxi-
mum microwave irradiation exposure, developed for industrial
occupational safety. Thus, from a legal standpoint, if the duty
owed to a diplomatic agent is greater than that which is owed to
aliens, and if the predictability of the harm or insult is also a
factor in determining the duty owed, then at minimum it would
seem a duty to prevent harm arises on the part of the receiving
state at the moment when recognized safety levels of radiation
in the sending state's embassy exceeds domestic safety levels,
for it is for the purpose of preventing harm that those standards
are established.
However sound this hypothesis may be in the abstract, when
it is applied to the specific facts of the U.S. embassy's situation
in Moscow, several conceptual difficulties arise. Consider: 1) the
U.S. safety standard is 10,000 microwatts per square centimeter
(micro W Icm 2 ) , 2) the Soviet safety standard is 10 micro
W Icm 2, and 3) the exposure levels in the U.S. embassy have
at times surpassed the Soviet standard, but have not come near
the U.S. standard.21 Does a duty arise because the Soviet stand-
ard has been exceeded T Is the U.S. estopped from claiming a
duty exists because the U.S. standard has not been exceeded'
To answer these questions it is necessary to analyze the ob-
jectives behind each country's safety standard, keeping in mind
the legal standard the host State must ultimately meet (viz. pre-
vention of harm and insult 22).
The U.S. standard of 10,000 micro W Icm 2 was first proposed
in 1953 23 and was based on theoretical grounds with an assump-
21 Reports of high levels of exposure have ranged anywhere from 18 microwatts

per square centimeter to 400 microwatts per square centimeter, 8ee note 3, supra.
22 Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 29. It is in fact the objectives which
those safety standards represent, and not the standards themselves which is germane
in determining the legal standard. So the mere fact that a country has not estab
lished a safety standard would not relieve it of its duty; the reasons underlying
safety standards exist irrespective of whether standards have been adopted. Adopted
standards is merely a starting place.
23 Paul Brodeur, Microwave8 I, The New Yorker, December 13, 1976, at 78, col. 3
(hereinafter cited as Microwave8 I).
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.6 41
42
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
96 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [VoL 1, No.1
tion (generally accepted at the time) that the only effects of

microwave irradiation were thermal ones (microwaves tend to
heat organic tissue). It was also assnmed that since microwaves,
unlike x-rays and Gamma-rays, are nonionizing they have no
accumulative biomedical effect.
However, in the 24 years since the current U.S. standard was
proposed, there have been competent medical studies which
seriously undermine the assumptions upon which the standard
is based." For example, Dr. Milton Zaret, a practicing ophthal-
mologist and associate professor of ophthalmology at the New
York University-Bellevue Medical Center, who has done exten-
sive microwave research both independently and for the U.S.
government, has stated:
"Th& American National Standard Institute's standard is
not a safe standard. Instead it is a statement defining the
highest possible degree of occupational risk. It was based
solely on whole body thermal burden calculations. It ignored
the question of organ lJensitivity and delayed effects follow-
ing chronic low level exposure." H
Professor Herman Schwann of the University of Pennsylvania,

who first proposed the U.S. standard has said, "Noone knows
if standards of safe exposure, which may be adequate for adults,
. are safe for children." 2, .
In contrast to the U.S., the Soviet and Eastern Bloc countries
have based their safety standards not on theoretical postula-
24 Professor Russel Carpenter, for one has conducted experiments which contradict
both these RssumptiollB which caBts doubt upon the validity of that standard to
prevent harm. Proflll8Or Carpenter testified as to the results of his experiments
on microwave irradiation of the eyes of rabbits before the U.S. Senate Commerce
Committee: ". . . the effect of microwave power on the eye can be cumulative, so
that sinlle episodes of exposure to radiation which are not of themselves harmful,
may beeome hazardous if they are repeated sufficiently often. . . . Microwave cata-
racts are not merely the reault of microwave heating, but are caused by some other
property of this radiation." 1968 H earing8, 8upra note 5 at 96364 (emphasis
added).
211 HeariagB on the Effectivenes8 of the 1968 Radiation Control for Health and
Safety Act Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., at 101
(1978) (hereinafter cited as 1973 Hearings).
2G 1968 Hearings, supra note 5, at 700. Two children were sent home from the
U.S. Ewbasey in Moscow for blood tests in June, 1976. NY Times, June 26, 1976,
at 3, col. 1.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.7 42
43
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] 97
tions, but on field observation, surveys and experimentation. At

the 1970 Symposium on the Biological Effects and Health Im-
plications of Microwave Radiation, Karel Marha of Czecho-
slovakia explained how their 10 micro W /cm2 standard was
developed:
From the point of protecting people against possible
damaging effects of electromagnetic fields, naturally the
threshold biological effects of the field intensity are of im-
portance. In respect of the heat effect it is agreed that heat-
ing of the organism occurs at power densities of 10-15 [thou-
sand] [micro] W/crn2 in animals as well as man. This level
for thermal effects is in agreement with theoretical calcu-
lations.
For cataract induction 10 [thousand] [micro] W/cml ;
for changes in auditory apparatus 1 [thousand] [micro]
W /cm2 ; for feeling of pain in the skin .6 [thousand] [micro]
W/cml
For microwave frequencies biological effects may be in-
duced at power densities as low as .1 [thousand] [micro]
W /cm2 Considering the large differences observed in
the sensitivity of different people an additional safety factor
of 10 was applied to arrive at the value of 10 micro W/cm2
. . . . These maximum admissible values of irradiation
admissible in Czechoslovakia were decided so as to prevent
not only damage to the organism, but to prevent unpleasant
SUbjective feelings as well.27
Thus the fact that the U.S. safety standard at most is meant
only to be protective against harm, coupled with the fact that
its effectiveness of achieving even this limited goal is question-
able, shows that the U.S. safety standard cannot adequately be
used to meet the legal standard of preventing harm and insult.
On the other hand, the question of whether the legal standard
may even be below the U.S.S.R. 's safety standard is still open.
Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., standards have been estab-
lished assuming steady frequency and relatively short term
irra,diation. This is because the standards are set primarily for
industry, where it is assumed the worker would be exposed to
just one frequency of microwaves for a maximum of eight hours
17 SYKPOBIUK,8'Upra note 5, at 189, 190.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.8 43
44
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
98 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAw JOUBNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
a day. However, the" Moscow Signal" (as the microwave bom-

bardment of the U.S. Embassy is sometimes called) is carried
on around the clock and is generated at multiple frequencies
with widely fluctuating patterns.2S Both U.S.29 and Eastern
Bloc Countries 80 agree that the safety standards break down
under such conditions. For example, Czechoslovakia lowers their
standard to 1 micro W Icm2 when it is assumed exposure is at
certain pulsed frequencies for 24 hour periods. 81
The above considerations demonstrate that the host State's
duty to prevent harm to the diplomat may arise when micro-
wave levels are as low as 1 micro W Icm 2 , and clearly arise at
levels of 10 micro W Icm2, but as has been often repeated, the
duty owed by the host State extends to prevent insult as well as
harm. For this aspect of the duty other considerations such as
the knowledge that physical harm can be induced by microwave
irradiation without any conscious awareness by the subject,U
lack of any consent on the part of those being irradiated, the
intentional aspect of the irradiation they are being exposed to,88
and the lack of any real medical certainty to the possible extent
of damage being inflicted upon them are all relevant factors and
combine to support a conclusion that: as long as there is a com-
petent medical basis which can support reasonable doubts as to
the safety of prolonged irradiation of humans, then it is reason-
ably foreseeable that the dignity of humans subjected to any
levels of intentional exposure without his or her consent would
be affronted. Consequently a corresponding duty would arise on
the part of the host State to prevent such indignity.
But regardless of the acceptability of this last conclusion that
any level of intentional irradiation is a dereliction of the host
State's duty, it is submitted that in the present situation, the
fact that the 10 micro W Icm 2 safety standard has been exceeded
is sufficient to state, prima facie, that the Soviet Union has
28 Microwave. 11, aupra note 3, at 47.
28 SYlIPOSruM, aupra note 5, at 20.
so leI., at 189.
SlId., at 190.
82 1968 Hearing., aupra 'note 5, at 964.
88 NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col. 3.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of Embassy
Page
Page
No.9 44
45
of 21
of 84
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MlC&OWAVE BOMBARDMENT 99
failed in its responsibility to either treat the diplomatic agent

"with due respect" or to take" all appropriate steps to prevent
any attack on his person or dignity."
B. Inviolability 0/ the Premises

Article 22 of the Vienna Convention states:
1. The premises of the Mission shall be inviolable. The
agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except
with the consent of the head of the Mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the Mission
against any intrusion of damage and to prevent any disturb-
ance of the peace of the Mission or impairment of its dignity.
Paragraph two of this Article imposes a duty on the host

state to prevent any impairment of the dignity of the Mission's
premises. This paragraph can be used both, as a basis for
strengthening the conclusion just reached (that the microwave
bombardment violates the host state's duty to the diplomatic
agent), and as a basis for arguing that the bombardment is also
in violation of the host state's duty to the diplomatic mission
itself. To reduce the amount of radiation penetrating into the
U.S. embassy, it has been necessary to install aluminum screens
on all the embassy windows.84 It appears that these screens not
only accentuate the indignity imposed upon the diplomatic
agents, by acting as a constant reminder of the microwaves' un-
seen presence, but the screens ~lso mar the dignity of the embas-
sy itself by physically symbolizing to visitors and passerbys the
fact that the embassy is being subjected to treatment against its
consent.
However, a more consequential question concerning Article
22 is not so much whether the microwave radiation imposes an
indignity upon the premises, but whether it constitutes an im-
permissible "entry" within the meaning of paragraph one. It
should first be pointed out that article 22 does not put the em-
bassy premises outside the territorial limits of the receiving
84 NY Times, April 26, 1976, at 5, col. I.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1045
46
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
100 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. I, No.1
State, but merely makes them inviolable. 311 Although technically

still under the jurisdiction of the receiving State, inviolability
prohibits all nonconsenual entries onto the embassy premises,
and places the duty of conformance upon the receiving State.
The duty of the receiving State to the sending State is the
positive one of preventing entry upon the premises of a mis-
sion by persons clothed with government authority.... Pro-
tection against invasion of the premises of a mission or of a
member of a mission means protection against any attempt
to enter the premises against the will of the chief or other
members of the mission. The duty, however, goes further
than that. The receiving State is under a duty to protect
the premises against any acts tending to interfere with the
enjoyment or possession of such premises.86
This excerpt from a draft containing language identical ill
material respects to Article 22, supports a construction of the
phrase" agents of the receiving State may not enter ... " is to
be considered interpretive and explanative of inviolability rather
than a specific prohibition in addition to inviolabilty. Noncon-
sensual entries by agents are specifically limited as this repre-
sents the most notorious violation of the concerns behind in-
violability, those concerns being "to ensure the efficient per-
formance of the functions of diplomatic missions" 87 by pre-
venting interference "with the enjoyment or possession of such
premises. " 88
The fact that nonconsensual entries by agents are spe-
cifically proscribed does not preclude the possibility that non-
consensual entries of microwaves might not also be pro-
scribed. Although microwaves are not specifically limited
by the words of Article 22, the same concerns which lead to
the specific limitation of agents are nonetheless present in the
311 The principle of exterritoriality has been generally discredited as a fiction

without basis in law or fact. 7 WHITEMAN, DIGEST 01' INTERNATIONAL LAW 353 et
Beq. (1970) (hereinafter cited as WHITEMAN) ; PREUSS, 8'Upra note 15, at 183.
36 Harvard Research Paper. 26 AM. J. INT'L L. SUPP. 56 (1932) (hereinafter
cited as Harvard Research Paper).
87 Vienna Convention, 8'Upra note 8, Preamble.
88 Harvard Research Paper,8'Upra note 36.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1146
47
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICROWAVE BOMBARDMENT 101
case of microwaves. And microwave bombardments can violate

these concerns just as easily, although perhaps not as notori-
ously, as the agents of the host state, for it is clear that certain
levels of microwave irradiation can interfere with the enjoy-
ment of the premises.1I1
In the case of the host State's agents the effect of requiring
the mission's consent is that of giving control to the sending
state of who may and who may not enter the mission. I.e., it is
the sending Sta~e who is given the right to decide how much in-
terference with the enjoyment of their premises they will or will
not tolerate from the host State's agents (at least within the
embassy's premises). Since the same concerns that are present
with respect to "agents" are present with respect to "micro-
waves," the reasons which give the sending State the right
to decide what kind and how many agents are to be allowed
on the premises also argue for giving the sending State ~
the right to decide what kind and how much radiation is
to be allowed in its airspace. In other words, the concerns
behind inviolability require that consent be given by the mis-
sion before any microwave bombardment by the host state could
take place, and failure to obtain such consent would be in viola-
tion of Article 22.
The above argument is of necessity based on an interpolative
reading of Article 22,as the presence of microwaves was not an
explicit concern of the Convention's parties. It therefore is
open to the infirmities associated with such construction. For
instance, it would most likely be attacked on the ground that
prohibition against entry in Article 22 is directed at "the agents
of the receiving state" and to construe microwaves as "agents"
contravenes the "ordinary meaning" principle of treaty inter-
89 For example, "Typical symptoms are pains in the head and eyes, fatigue con-
nected with overall weakness, dizziness, and vertigo when standing for a longer
period. Sleep at night is restive and superficial, there is sleepiness during the day.
Exposed individuals are subject to changing moods, they often become irritated
to the point of becoming intolerable. Hypochondric reactions are manifested along
with feelings of fear. Sometimes those affected feel nervous tension or, on the
contrary mental depression connected with inhibition of intellectual functions mainly
decreased memory." SYMPOSIUM, supra note 5, at 188; OF. Boston Globe, May 31,
1977, at 9, col. 2.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1247
48
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
102 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & CoXPARATlVB LAw JOURNAL [Vol. 1, No. 1
pretation.fO However, "the doctrine of ordinary meaning in-

volves only a presumption; a meaning other than the ordinary
may be established, but the proponent of the special meaning
has a burden of proof. "fl The previous analysis has attempted
to overcome this presumption by arguing that the underlying
principle (if not the words) of Article 22 has been violated by
the entry of microwaves into the embassy without its consent.
Hence to obviate violating the principle (and a fortiori the
parties' intention), the words which are meant to effectuate that
principle should be given a broader than ordinary meaning!2
Yet even if this argument ultimately fails to meet its burden of
overcoming the ordinary meaning of Article 22, this in no way
affects the previous inviolability arguments based on Article 29.
It might also be noted that similar personal inviolability argu-
ments can be made with respect to the inviolability ?f the fami-
lies and staff of the diplomatic agents!a
C. Soviet Responsibility
If the Soviet microwave bombardment of the U.S. embassy
does co~stitute violations of the Convention as the prior anal-
ysis suggests, does this give rise to any responsibility on the
part of the Soviets! To quote from the Chorzow Factory case,"
" ... it is a principle of international law, and even a general
conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves
an obligation to make reparation ... the Court has already said
that reparation is the indispensible complement of a failure to
fa BaowNLR, ftpm note 9, at 607.
flIt!.
d As baa been said by Profeaaor Lauterpaeht, "The common intention [of the
parties] in relation to the particular ease must be derived from the common inten-
tion of the treaty as a whole - from ita policy, ita object, and ita spirit." H. LAUTD-
PACBT. XXVI BlllTlSH Y.B. INT'L L. 48, 79-80 (1949). "Furthermore, what i8
clear and unambiguous may not neeeaaarily be comprehensive. Hence even when
the language of the treaty i8 clear it still remains to decide whether every category
of event baa been comprised exclusivcly within it." 1 D.P. O'CONNELL, INTERNA-
TIONAL LAw, 272-73 (1965).
fa Vienna Convention, ftpra note 8, Art. 37, gives the same immunities to the
diplomatie agent's family and stail as Article 29 gives to him.
.. P.C.LT. Ber. A. No.9, at 21 (1927); BROWNLIlC, ftpra note 9, at 420.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1348
49
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICBOWAVE BOMBARl>MENT 103
apply a convention, and there is no necessity for this to be stated

in the convention itself."
In general the elements of responsibility may be summed up
as follows: "
1) An act or omission in violation of international law,
(or put somewhat differently, conduct on the part of a State
contrary to that required of it by given international obli-
gation) ;
2) The unlawful act, as a general rule, must be imputable
to the legal person of the State; that is to say, the conduct
in question must be attributed to those organs or agents of
the State's which are qualified by municipal law to accom-
plish "State acts";
3) resultant damage to the claimant State either directly,
in the person of its nationals, or both.'6
The first element has been shown in the Soviet's dereliction of
their duty concerning inviolability. The second element may
have been difficult to meet if it were not for Soviet acknowledge-
ment that they are responsible for the microwave radiation.'T
The third element is met by damage done directly to the U.S.
by affronting the dignity of its officials and embassy premises,
and could also be met if physical harm can be shown to have
resulted to any U.S. citizen while at the embassy as a result of
being irradiated. In the latter case, particular items of financial
loss directly resulting from the radiation would have to be
proved,'8 whereas no proof of financial loss is necessary for the
violation of the diplomatic immunity of inviolability49.
'II A. FREEMAN, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES POR DENIAL OF JUSTICB,

22 (Kraus reprint 1970) (hereinafter cited as FREEMAN).
'6 Defenses to a State's responsibility are generally considered separately. BROWN-
LIE, at 442, 8'Upra note 9. For analysis see text accompanying notes 5067, infra.
'T The Soviets admitted using microwaves after having denied it for 15 years,
NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col. 3. Just one week earlier the Soviets,
while acknowledging radiation presence in the embassy, claimed it was due to nearby
industrial enterprises and was compounded by the embassy's roof antennas. NY
Times, February 19, 1976, at 3, col. 6.
'8 In such situations some authorities add a fourth element, viz. the exhaustion
of local remedies, but there is dispute over this point. FREEMAN, supra note 45,
at 22, fn.1.
'9 BaowNLIE, 8'Upra note 9, 44445.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1449
50
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
104 BOSTON CoLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & CololPA&ATIVE LAW JOlmNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
II. ABE THEBE ANY DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THE SOVIETS FOR

THE1B ACTIONS 7
When the Soviets acknowledged aiming microwaves at the

U.S. embassy, they defended their action by claiming it is neces-
sary in order to interfere and block the U.S. listening devices
located on the embassy premises:io The U.S. has apparently ac-
cepted this as' at least the primary purpose behind the radia-
tion,lil discounting other speculated reason.1i2
Given the nature of their justification the Soviets most likely
would classify their actions as a retortion.IiB Inconsistent with
such a claim, however, is the fact, as shown previously, that
their actions are in contravention of international law. "Retor-
tion is retaliation by one State for a harmful though lawful act
of another State by a harmful and lawful act of the same or
similar nature. " Ii4
At best the Soviet's action could be termed a reprisal.1Ii "Re-
prisals, in contradistinction to retortion, are measures which
would, taken in isolation, be unlawful, but may be taken excep-
tionally when one State violated the rights of another State, for
the sole purpose of forcing the delinquent State to abide by
law." 1i6 Thus, for the Soviet's bombardment to be justified by
reprisal it must be shown inte,. alia that the U.S. 's eavesdrop-
- ping actions from the embassy premises are also illegal.
. Generally mere eavesdropping on another country's commu-
nications is not "normally" considered to be an international
GO NY Times, February 26, 1976, at 1, col 3.
iiI The "impairment purpose" would be consistent with the facta that it does
interfere with the listening devices and the beams are highly directional. NY Times,
May 2, 1976, at 9, coli.
Ii2 E.g., deliberately used to induce illneBB or to recharge hidden bugging device..
I d.; BUT SD Boston Globe, May 81, 1977, at 1, col 8.
53 The Soviets discount any dangerous eft'ccts of the microwave radiation by show-
ing it is of the type found near TV and radar stations and much leBB dangerous
than X-rays. Id. But, for a polemic against this view Bee Mi/J1'otDCJ111J11 II, IIUprCJ note 3,
at 66-72.
Ii4Mu SORENSEN (eel.), MANUAL 01' PuBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAw, 758 (1968).
(Emphasis added, hereinafter cited as SORNSEN).
MId.
1i6Id.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1550
51
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MICB.OWAVE BOMBARDMENT 105
wrong:" However, "normally" this is only the general rule

when the listening is being done from contiguous land not under
the jurisdiction of the State whose emissions are being heard. 1I8
Since a foreign embassy is still technically considered within the
sovereign jurisdiction of the host country,1I9 eavesdropping from'
the embassy premises may not as easily fall within the inter-
national toleration of such practices.
Article 41 of the Vienna Convention states in part, "The
premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incom-
patible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the
present Convention". Is eavesdropping a use of the premises
which is compatible with the diplomatic function f Recourse
could be had to Article 3 of the Convention which states:
1. The functions of a diplomatic mission consist inter alia in :
(d) ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and devel-

opments in the receiving State and reporting thereon to the
Government of the sending State.
But this is circuitous and of no real help as it merely changes

the form of the question back to the oriS'inaI, i.e., is eavesdrop-
ping lawful activity'
Assuming, arguendo, that eavesdropping from the embassy
is unlawful; that alone is not enough to justify the Soviets bom-
bardment of microwaves as a reprisal. Another condition of
reprisals is that it "must be proportionate to the injury suf-
fered, that is, they cannot result in losses and injury dispropor-
tionately greater than those caused by the delinquent State... " 80
It is with this condition that an attempt to characterize the
bombardment as a reprisal meets great difficulty. It is submitted
117 Rubin, Alfred. Beisure of the Pueblo: Bome International Law ..t1spects, 114
Congo Bec. 2350 (February 6, 1968); 68 AM. J. INT'L L. 227, at 241 (1974); 18
INT'L & COMPo L. Q. 961, at 968 (1969).
118Id.
119 Bee note 35, supra, which points out the disrepute of the exterritoriality doctrine.
But, compare Soviet domestic law: premises occupied by diplomatic miBBions .
enjoy exterritorial rights. " Harvard Research Paper, supra note 36.
SO SORENSEN, supra note 54, at 753.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1651
52
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
106 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATlVE LAW JOUltNAL [Vol. I, No.1
that the two actions can be differentiated by the fact that eaves-
dropping seems to be an entirely passive activity whereas the
radiation bombardment is clearly active. This alone shows little,
but certainly where reprisals are concerned, other passive acts
would be preferable to active ones.
Secondly, the U.S. violation would be that of Article 41, para-
graph 3 of the Vienna Convention which prohibits using the
diplomatic mission in a manner inconsistent with the function
of the mission. 81 The Soviet violation would be that of the in-
violability of the diplomatic agents,82 families, staff 83 and of
the premises itself." The disproportionality of these two "vio-
lations" is illustrated by the commentary of the International
Law Commission to Article 40 paragraph 3 811 of the "Draft
Articles on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities":
Paragraph 3 stipulates that the premises of the mission
shall be used only for the legitimate purposes for which they
are intended. Failure to fulfill the duty laid down in this
article does not render article 20 (inviolability of the mission
premises) inoperative, but on the other hand, that inviola-
bility does not authorize a use of the premises which is in-
coD;lpatible with the functions of the mission."
The purport of this statement would seem to all but preclude
the Soviet's action being justified as a reprisal. The privilege of
. inviolability can in no way be deemed to sanction or authorize
using the embassy premises improperly (e.g., eavesdropping),
81 "The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible
with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by
other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force be
tween the sending and receiving state." Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 41.
It should be remembered that for purposes of analysis it has been IJ8sumed this
eavesdropping is a violation of international law. No claim is being made as to
whether eavesdropping from an embassy would violate Article 41 in absence of
such an assumption.
62 Vienna Convention, ""'pra note 8, Art. 29.
681d., Art. 37.
"14., Art.22.
M Draft Article 40 paragraph 3 was adopted by the Vienna Convention as Article
41 paragraph 3 with only immaterial grammatical changes being made in its wording.
II YEARBOOK OF THE INT'L L. COMM. 78, at 104 (1958).
"ld.; WHITEMAN supra note 35, at 360-61.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1752
53
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977] MIcaoWAVE BOllBAB.DlIENT 107
but the fact that they are being used improperly does not justify
violating the premises' inviolability. This does not foreclose
all types of reprisals by the Soviets but it does foreclose any re-
prisal on their part which would consist in a violation of in-
violability (which would include microwave bombardment).
The most obvious action which would easily meet the reprisal
condition of proportionality would be the very same type of
action giving rise to the reprisal. In other words eavesdropping
of the U.S. from the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. This
is in fact an action already established in Washington by the
Soviets,8T which in itself throws additional weight to a conclu-
sion that the Soviet's microwave radiation bombardment is a
violation in international law to which no legitimate defense can
be raised.
ID. WlUT REMEDIES MAY EXIST FOR THE UNITED STATES'
-Given the above conclusion. One may ask what is to be done

about it' At the time of this writing the bombardment was still
proceeding, although the day to day levels had been reduced to
well below previous highs.88 The State Department was proceed-
ing via "all channels" 88 to get the bombardment stopped. Nego-
tiations, the first step, are underway TO and settlement by these
means is the most desirable. T1
8T NY Times, February 26, i976, at 1, col. 3.
ea NY Times, July 8, 1976, at 1, col. 1.
88 Dixie Grimes Conversation, suprA note 3; Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1,
col. 3.
TO Negotiations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. have been under way at least
since February, 1976. NY Times, February 13, 1976, at 6, col. 1. The Carter Ad
ministration is continuing negotiations under Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and
reportedly does not take the matter lightly. Boston Globe, May 31, 1977, at 1, col. 3.
Tt If negotiations should break down there is a whole panoply of possible pro
cedures ranging from mediation and conciliation to judicial procedures, &ee SOREN
SEN, supra note 54, at 673737. It should be noted however that the U.S.S.R. did
not sign the optional Protocol (to the Vienna Convention) Concerning Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes, which in e888nce means that they do not have to submit
to jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over this matter. 500 U.N.T.S.
242 (1964). Several reasons can be speculated as to why resolution of this problem
may be diflicult. First there is the continuing mystique of detente, with the ac-
companying desire to reach a strategic arms' control agreement. Administration
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1853
54
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
108 BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1, No.1
If negotiations break down, the United States could resort to

some form of retaliation to try and persuade the Soviets to cease
their bombardment. This article will not presume to suggest
any specific action which the U.S. should take, however, it will
suggest the limits to which such action can go within the bounds
of legality.
First, the U.S. is bound by article 2 (3) of the United Nations
Charter: T2 "All Members shall settle their international dis-
putes by peaceful means in such a manner that international
peace and security, and justice are not endangered." Likewise
article 2 (4) states that States should refrain from the use or
threat of force. 78
.secondly, any U.S. action would have to meet the require-
ments of reprisal. Reprisals, as previously discussed, are acts
in response to the unlawful acts of another State which them-
selves would be unlawful if committed in isolation. The condi-
tions which must be met for an act to be considered a reprisal are:
1) The offending State's act must have been unlawful; 2) Re-
dress must be demanded before counteraction is taken; 3) The
counteraction taken must be proportional to the offending act.T4
Condition one has already been met as. has been shown. TII The
second condition too has been met as evidenced by negotiation
policies may relegate the microwave bombardment to a relatively low priority. See-
ondly, the State Department has a dilemma in pursuing this matter. To vigorously
pursue its claims requires the revealing of possible health hazards to the U.S. citizens
being exposed. Yet since the State Department has known of the existence of the
radiation for some time it may be SUbjecting itself to liability for not pressing its
claims earlier or disclosing the possible health hazards to its employees. Thirdly,
since the Soviet radiation bombardment levels a.re well below the official U.S. safety
standard, to claim these levels are harmful implicitly undermines the validity of
the U.S. standard, which standard has been used for the United States' defense
systems. Thus a change in the standard could literally threaten hundreds of billions
of dollars worth of defense and military installations (virtually every advanced
defense weapon employs radar, which is a form of microwave radiation).
T21 U.N.T.S. xvi (1945); 39 AM. J. INT'L L. SuPP. 190, at 191 (1945).
T8Id.
74 SORENSEN, 8'Upra note 54, at 753.
Til Bee text accompanying notes 15-43, .tupra.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
1954
55
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
1977J MICBOWAVE BOMBARDMENT 109
and protests. 711 Thus, the third requirement, that of proportion-

ality, is the crucial one which any U.S. counteraction must meet.
Of course, the exactly proportional reprisal would be the
microwave bombardment of the USSR embassy in Washington.
But this has been already precluded as a possible counteraction
by the State Department because to do so would be "im-
moral." 77 Any other action of course would have to be sub-
jected to a specific analysis balancing the degree of harm, type
of injury, etc., which the contemplated act will commit with the
degree of harm, type of injury, etc., already being inflicted by
the microwave radiation. But in no case may the reprising act
exceed the compulsion which would reasonably be necessary to
secure settlement.78
Other actions involving the Soviet diplomatic mission's privi-
leges and immunities would be the most likely candidates to meet
this test. Restricting travel privileges,79 the use of wireless com-
munications,8o or the exemption of custom duties 81 are also a few
possibilities.
CONCLUSION
The legal implications of the Soviet's practice of bombarding

the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with microwaves are significant in
and of themselves. Such practices arguably violate four sepa-
rate articles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immuni-
ties,82 and perhaps customary international law as well. 83 Any
claims of possible justification for such violations can meet the
legal requirements of neither retortion nor reprisal. IM
The concern over this Soviet practice, however, goes beyond
the normal considerations accompanying a violation of inter-
76 NY Times, February 13, 1976, at 6, col. 1; NY Times, May 20, 1976, at 3, col.
6; Boston Globe, February 16, 1976, at 1, eol. 1, May 31,1977, at 1, col. 3.
77 NY Times, February 29, 1976, Sec. IV, at 2, col. 3.
78 SORENSEN, supra note 54, at 753.
79 Vienna Convention, supra note 8, Art. 26.
80 I d., Art. 27.
81 ld., Art. 36.
, 82 Articles 22, 29, 30, and 37. Vienna COllvention, supra note 8.
83 See notes 9 and 15, 8upra.
1M See notes 50-67, and accompanying text, 8U'!Ira.
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
2055
56
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
Published by
Stan
Advanced
J. Caterbone,
Media Pro
Group
Se
110 BOSTON CoLLEGE INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL [Vol 1, No.1
national law. As was stated in the introduction, the legal con-

siderations are only one aspect of this affair. The primary
concern should, foremost and always, be the health of those
individuals within the embassy who must be subjected to the
bombardment without knowing what the consequences may be.
LAlmy B. GUTHRIE
1959 SovietMOTION
15-CV-286 Microwave
FORBombardment
RECONSIDERATION
of EmbassyPage
Page No.
2156
57
ofof
2184
85 Tuesday
SaturdayJanuary
August 12,
17, 2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

58 of 84
Army Testing Microwave Weapon System In New Mexico Mountains http://taskandpurpose.com/army-microwave-weapon/?utm_source=newsl...

59 of 84
1 of 5 5/26/17, 1:02 AM
Army Testing Microwave Weapon System In New Mexico Mountains http://taskandpurpose.com/army-microwave-weapon/?utm_source=newsl...
()

60 of 84
2 of 5 5/26/17, 1:02 AM
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

61 of 84
LANDMARK ABUSE OF PROCESS AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
Stan J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 371-1566
IN THE UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE : Case No. 17-1904

APPELLANT : Lower Court Case No. 17-cv-867
: Middle District Case No. 16-2513
:
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I Stanley J. Caterbone, APPEALANT , and appearing Pro Se, do hereby on this 27 th

day of May 2017 do hereby file this ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL according to the
ORDER dated May 22, 2017. The Appeal was taken to the ORDER dated April 12, 2017
by the Honorable Edward G. Smith. This ARGUMENT must not exceed 5 pages as per the
ORDER of May 22, 2017. I, Stanley J. Caterbone hereby file a Motion to Leave to File In
Excess of 5 Pages.
Dated May 30, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-371-1566
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)?

62 of 84
17-1904 ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Page No. 1 of 24 Tuesday May 30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
ACTIVE COURT CASES

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
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 APPEALLANT for
Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 APPEALLANT for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal
Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, APPEALLANT 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
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286 MOTION FOR
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.62
63
2 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL

The Surreptitious Reincarnation of COINTELPRO with the COPS Gang-Stalking Program
Of The Lancaster City Police Department
On August 22, 2016 Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq., wrote As was stated above,
organized stalking methods were used extensively by communist East Germanys Stasi (state
police) as a means of maintaining political control over its citizens. Although this is supposedly
illegal in the US, the same covert tactics are quietly used by Americas local and federal law
enforcement, and intelligence agencies, to supprss political and domestic dissent, silence whistle
blowers, and get revenge against persons who have angered someone with connections to the
public and private agencies involved. Such stalking is sanctioned (and in some cases,
orchestrated) by federal agencies; however such stalking is also sometimes used unofficially for
personal and corporate vendettas by current and former corrupt employees of law
enforcement and intelligence agencies, private investigators, and their clients. Common
implementations of community policing include: (1) relying on community based crime prevention
by utilizing civilian education, neighborhood watch, and a variety of other techniques, as
opposed to relying solely on police patrols; (2) restructuring the patrol from an emergency
response based system to emphasizing proactive techniques such as foot patrol; (3) increased
officer accountability to civilians they are supposed to serve; and (4) decentralizing police
authority, allowing more discretion amongst lower ranking officers, and more initiative
expected from them.
I am a Federal Whistleblower and in 1987 I met with Executives of an International Arms

dealer named International Signal and Control, PLC., or ISC, headquartered in my hometown of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I at the time was a shareholder and I was solicited to finance some
problematic operations through the financial firm that I had founded, Financial Management
Group, Ltd., In 1991 they were indicted for the third largest fraud in the United States, a $Billion
Dollar Fraud, when they merged with Great Britain's largest Defense Contractor, Ferranti
International, Plc., in 1987. In 1987 I was arrested for literally stealing my own files from my own
office and faced 4 felonies and 3 misdemeanors with prison terms in the tens of years. After the
merger was completed in December of 1987, all of my charges were dismissed by the Lancaster
County District Attorney's Office in March of 1988. ISC Board Member, Bobby Ray Inman, who
was former Secretary of the Navy and former Director of the National Security Agency, or NSA
was nominated to be Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton. He later had to withdraw his name after
allegations of ISC began to surface. In 1991 Ted Koppel and the Financial Times of London
broadcast 3 different segments disclosing that ISC was essentially a black ops program of the NSA
and CIA and tried desperately to derail the nomination for Director of the CIA, Robert Gates, who
they allege was involved in the early stages of the program. He was named Director of the CIA
and later served as Secretary of Defense for George W. Bush and now President Barrack Obama.
ISC responsible for developing the Cluster Bomb, and Saddam Hussein was a loyal customer.
In the late 1980's and early 1990 I was a contractor for several government agencies,
including DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency of the Department of Defense.
My company Advanced Media Group had conducted business all over the world, including some 15
or more foreign countries. DARPA IS WIDELY KNOWN AS A DEVELOPER OF MIND CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES AND HOLDS PATENTS. DARPA is also credited for developing the internet. I was
an expert in optical publishing and my company was one of only 4 or 5 that had the capability to
manufacture CD-ROM's in the domestic United States.
Now, I am a prisoner of the state and have been since 1987, and that the
activities surrounding the my life has escalated into a daily occurrence of assaults. 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.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.63
64
3 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
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/U.S. THIRD CIRCUIT Case No. 07-4474-4475.
On March 8, 2016 I was detained by some (8) NSA Security Police, handcuffed, and
interrogated for about 2 hours at NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland. In 2005 I was
detained by (2) DIA, or Defense Intelligence Agency of the Department of Defense, in Austin
Texas and interrogated for almost 2 hours. Both incidents I was sent on my way without any
explanation as to WHY?
Unfortunately while I have made many in person complaints to just about every
law enforcement agency, including several meetings with FBI in Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, the pleas for help and assistance have yielded nothing but more attacks to
my person, property, electronics, home, auto, reputation, intellectual property, and
lastly his mental state-of-mind A BRUTAL ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE. I
have already made claims of COINTELPRO-like tactics in my filings in the U.S.C.A. Case
No. 16-4014; 16-2513 US District Court MIDDLE District, and this case 17-0867, against
these same said actors and perpetrators.
In 2016 I am AMICUS for Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in the

Pennsylvania Superior Court Case No. 3575 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. Briefs are due on June 16, 2017.
In 2015 I filed an AMICUS BRIEF on behalf of Lisa Michelle Lambert in Case No. 14-
02559 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I took the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court in Case No. 16-6822. Lisa Michelle Lambert 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 is 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 does to this day.
In 2006 I began my 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
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.64
65
4 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
efforts in dealing with Fulton Financial. I has 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.
In 2005 I, as a Pro Se Litigant I 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 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.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.65
66
5 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
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.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.66
67
6 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
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
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.67
68
7 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
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.
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.
I am currently a recipient of the following type(s) of Benefits from the Social Security
Administration for Long Term Disability Benefits for illnesses and symptoms relating to
U.S. Sponsored Mind Control as evidenced by my documentation and the fact that no
medical reports or physicians were reported in the entire application process and there
was never a psychiatric evaluation for the same said purposes. I am receiving a net
monthly benefit of $1379.00 and have been since April of 2008 and was declared
disabled in December of 2005, the same said month that I reported that I became the
victim of full-time synthetic telepathy, as well as other related symptoms and illnesses.
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.68
69
8 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
Dated May 30, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-371-1566
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)?
17-1904 ARGUMENT
IN SUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
OF APPEAL Page
PageNo.
No.69
70
9 of
of24
33
85
84 Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 12,
30, 2017
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 70
19 of 84
10
71 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 71
20 of 84
11
72 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 72
21 of 84
12
73 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 73
22 of 84
13
74 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 74
23 of 84
14
75 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 75
24 of 84
15
76 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 76
25 of 84
16
77 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 77
26 of 84
17
78 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 64 78
66
65 of 106
27
18
79 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 65 79
67
66 of 106
28
19
80 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-0867
17-1904 MOTION
15-CV-286 FOR
ARGUEMENT
ARGUMENT
FORINSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL PageNo.
APPEALPage
Page 66 80
68
67 of 106
29
20
81 102
107
of 84
33
24
85 Monday
Friday
Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday April
April27,
August
May 10,
7, 2017
30,
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 81
30 of 84
21
82 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 82
31 of 84
22
83 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 83
32 of 84
23
84 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
OF PROCESS
COPY - NOT
ANDYET
OBSTRUCTION
COMPLETEDOFFOR
JUSTICE
PUBLICATION,
17-1904 ARGUMENT
15-CV-286
ARGUEMENT
MOTION FOR
ININSUPPORT
RECONSIDERATION
SUPPORTOF
OFAPPEAL
APPEALPage
Page No. 84
33 of 84
24
85 33
24
85 Saturday
Saturday
Tuesday
August
May 27,
30, 2017
12,
REQUEST FOR HEARING DUE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
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, APPELLANT
CASE NO. 17-01233

Case No. 17-10615REF
REQUEST FOR HEARING

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS
______________________________________________________________________
I Stanley J. Caterbone, APPEALANT , and appearing Pro Se, do hereby on this 16 th
day of AUGUST 2017 do hereby file this REQUEST FOR HEARING OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS .
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
17-01233 REQUEST FOR HEARING Page No. 1 of 58

53 Wednesday August 16, 2017
ACTIVE COURT CASES


CETIFICATE OF SERVICE
And now on this 16th day of AUGUST, 2017, I, Stanley J. Caterbone,

APPELLANT do hereby certify that a true copy of the above filing was
sent via electronic mail AND OR U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL SERVICE to the
following:
Dave Adams, U.S. Office of the Trustee

Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
AUGUST 16, 2017
___________/S/____________

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

REQUEST FOR HEARING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS
The following are the reasons for the request to come before the U.S.
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, CASE NO.
17-01233:
1. SINCE JUNE 23, 1987, (THE DAY THE WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES OF

INTERNATIONAL SIGNAL & CONTROL, PLC., OR ISC) THE LANCASTER
COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE HAS ENGAGED IN A STRATEGIC TACTIC OF
THWARTING ALL EFFORTS OF PETITIONER STAN J. CATERBONE'S ATTEMPT
AT PROVIDING AND ENGAGING ANY AND ALL EFFORTS AT PRODUCING AN
INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND/OR EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES. WHEN THE
ATTEMPTS AT THWARTING THOSE ATTEMPTS AT INCOME WOULD FAIL, AND
PETITIONER STAN J. CATERBONE DID PRODUCE INCOME AND BUILD UP CASH
RESERVES, THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATING THOSE VERY SAME
INCOME ACTIVITIES, COUPLED WITH VANDALISM; BURGLARIES, AND THE
LIKE, THE CASH RESERVES WOULD BE DEPLETED PAYING FOR NORMAL
LIVING AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURES. THIS CYCLE WENT FULL CIRCLE
WITH BUILT-UP CASH RESERVES IN 1987, 1991, 1998, 2005, 2007, AND NOW
2017. A FULL AND COMPLETE AUDIT OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND TRAILS OF
CASHIERS CHECKS WILL PROVE THIS ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL PROGRAM. SEE
THE MARCH 31, 2008 LETTER TO MIKE CATERBONE, BROTHER OF PETITIONER
STAN J. CATERBONE FOR EVIDENCE OF THIS PROGRAM.
2. IN 1987 THE NET WORTH OF PETITIONER STAN J. CATERBONE EXCEEDED

$1MILLION DOLLARS.
3. SINCE THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTIONS IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
SINCE 2005, PETITIONER STAN J. CATERBONE HAS EVIDENCED AND STATED
FOR THE RECORD THAT SUCH CIVIL ACTIONS TO BE LEGALLY AND
FINANCIALLY ESTIMATED TO BE OVER AT LEAST $40 MILLION DOLLARS,
WITH THE VERY REASONABLE LIKELYHOOD THAT WITH THE ANTI-TRUST
CLAIMS THE CIVIL COMPLAITS ARE MOST LIKELY IN UPWARDS OF $100
MILLION DOLLARS.

4. COURT FILINGS SINCE 2005 IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WILL PROVIDE
EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF ITEMS 1 TO 4.
5. THE LAST FEW DAYS HAVE ESCALATED INTO A FEVER PITCH OF TERROR ATTACKS
BY EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY 1252 FREMONT STREET. OF COURSE THE LANCASTER
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
AND THE FEDERAL BUREUA OF INVESTIATION HAVE ALL BEEN COMPLICIT IN
THESE OPERATIONS. THIS ALL COMES AT A TIME WHEN MY COURT CASES IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, THE UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT, AND THE LANCASTER COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ARE ALL ADVANCING AND MOST BEFORE JUDGES
AWAITING DECISIONS. CASE-IN-POINT MY CASE IN THE U.S THIRD CIRCUIT,
CASE NO. 17-1904 IS NOW CENTRAL AROUND MY TORTURE MEOMO AS I HAVE
HAD TO DELIVER 4 FLASH DRIVES TO THE CLERK OF COURTS ON MONDAY, JUNE
26, 2017 IN PHILADELPHIA.
6. ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS I HAVE BEEN HELD AGAINST MY WILL INSIDE MY

HOME AT 1250 FREMONT STREET WITH THE USE OF A BLACK PIT BULL. IN JUNE
OF 2016 THAT SAME SAID PIT BULL ATTACKED ME AND PUT ME IN THE
LANCASTER REGIONAL EMERGENCY ROOM WITH A DEEP WOUND TO MY LEFT
HAND, SEE ATTACHED.
7. EVERYDAY MY HOME IS SUBJECTED TO VANDALISM, THEFTS, AND MOST

RECENTLY INFESTATION OF ROACHES. I HAVE USED THE BEST INSECTICIDE AND
EVEN USED A FOGGER, AND THEY KEEP PUTTING ROACHES BACK IN WHEN I
LEAVE THE HOUSE. THE ATTACKS BY THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS OF 1252
FREMONT STREET IS CREATING A VERY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT FOR ME IN
THAT THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO OWNING LICENSED GUNS, WHICH I HAVE
COMMUNICATED TO THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH NO
PROTECTION TO ME. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT 1252 FREMONT STREET IS
PROTECED BY THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO CARRY
OUT A HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT MY DEMISE, IN ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.
8. THERE IS A VERY ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMPATIC PROGRAM OF HARASSMENT,

STALKING, VANDALISM, ETC., BY THE OCCUPANTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET,
NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.

9. FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED REGARDING THE HARASSMENT

PROGRAM OF 1252 FREMONT STREET SINCE 2006.
10.THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THESE INCIDENTS ARE IN COMPLETE REVERS
WHERE BY THE STAN J. CATERBONE WAS THE PERSON HARASSED WHILE THE
COMPLAINTANTS OF 1252 WERE THE PERPETRATORS, WHICH IS A TEXT BOOK
CASE OF FALSE STATEMENTS TO AUTHORITIES ON SEVERAL CITATIONS FILED
BEFORE MAJISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES OF LANCASTER COUNTY SINCE JUNE OF
2017.
11.THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, AND

CHIEF KIETH SADLER, WHOM ARE ARE DEFENDANTS IN THE CURRENT COURT
PROCEEDINGS NOW BEING ADJUDICATED:
A. U.S.C.A. FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 17-1904
(CATERBNONE V. THE NSA, ET.AL.,)
B. UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 17-0867(CATERBNONE V. THE NSA, ET.AL.,)
C. UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 06-4650 (CATERBNONE V. RANDALL WENGER,
ET.AL.,
D. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 1219 MDA 2016
(PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF)
E. LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. 08-13373
F. LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASE CASE NO. 16-05815
IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, I, STAN J. CATERBONE, APPEALLANT, DO HEREBY A

REQUEST OF THE COURT TO HOLD SUCH HEARING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF
PHILADELPHIA, OR VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING DUE TO THE FACT THAT APPELLANT
STAN J. CATERBONE IS NOW WITH LITTLE OR NO CASH RESERVES AND THE TRAVEL
EXPENSES AND LODGING EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED FOR THE HEARING OF MAY
26, 2017 WOULD BE COST PROBIBATIVE.

AUGUST 16, 2017
___________/S/____________

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

EXHIBIT

P
LANCASTER PA 17603-6812
1250 FREMONT ST
AMG
STAN CATERBONE
Carrier -- Leave if No Response
SHIP MR. CRAIG STEDMAN
TO: LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Electronic Rate Approved #038555749
#5
50 N DUKE ST
PRIORITY MAIL 1-DAY

9405 5036 9930 0294 2897 91
03/30/2016
usps.com
US POSTAGE
$6.45
Flat Rate Env
USPS TRACKING #
9405 5036 9930 0294 2897 91 0064 5000 0011 7602
Click-N-Ship
Mailed from 17603
Expected Delivery Date: 03/31/16
C013
062S0000000313
0022
Cut on dotted line.
Instructions Click-N-Ship Label Record

1. Each Click-N-Ship label is unique. Labels are to be USPS TRACKING # :
used as printed and used only once. DO NOT PHOTO
COPY OR ALTER LABEL. 9405 5036 9930 0294 2897 91
Priority Mail Postage: $6.45
Trans. #: 369915788
2. Place your label so it does not wrap around the edge of Print Date: 03/30/2016 Total $6.45
the package. Ship Date: 03/30/2016
Expected
Delivery Date: 03/31/2016
3. Adhere your label to the package. A self-adhesive label
is recommended. If tape or glue is used, DO NOT TAPE
OVER BARCODE. Be sure all edges are secure. From: STAN CATERBONE
AMG
4. To mail your package with PC Postage, you 1250 FREMONT ST
may schedule a Package Pickup online, hand to LANCASTER PA 17603-6812
your letter carrier, take to a Post Office, or
drop in a USPS collection box.
To: MR. CRAIG STEDMAN
5. Mail your package on the "Ship Date" you LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
selected when creating this label. 50 N DUKE ST
#5
* Retail Pricing Priority Mail rates apply. There is no fee for USPS Tracking service
on Priority Mail service with use of this electronic rate shipping label. Refunds for
unused postage paid labels can be requested online 30 days from the print date.
Thank you for shipping with the United States Postal Service!
Check the status of your shipment on the USPS Tracking page at usps.com

COMMONWEALTH OF HEARING
REQUEST FOR PENNSYLVANIA PRIVATE
DUE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS, Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se
COUNTY OF: Lancaster CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Magisterial District Number:
MDJ Name: Hon . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

VS.
Address:
DEFENDANT:
NAME and ADDRESS
Telephone: ( ) John Doe 1 and John Doe 2

1252 Fremont Street
Docket No.: Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17603
Date Filed:
OTN:
(Above to be completed by court personnel) (Fill in defendants name and address)
Notice: Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, your complaint may require approval by the attorney for the Commonwealth before it can be
accepted by the magisterial district court. If the attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves your complaint, you may
petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision of the attorney for the Commonwealth.
Fill in as much information as you have.
Defendants Race/Ethnicity Defendants Sex Defendants D.O.B. Defendants SID (State Identification Number)
White Black Female
not available
Asian Native American Male
Hispanic Unknown
Defendants A.K.A. (also known as) Defendants Vehicle Information Defendants Drivers License Number
Plate Number State Registration Sticker (MM/YY) State
I, Stan J. Caterbone of 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA 17603

(Name of Complainant-Please Print or Type)
do hereby state: (check appropriate box)
1. I accuse the above named defendant who lives at the address set forth above
I accuse the defendant whose name is unknown to me but who is described as 1. Son of "Bruni" 2. White Male Friend
I accuse the defendant whose name and popular designation or nickname is unknown to me and whom I have
therefore designated as John Doe
with violating the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 1252 and 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster City
(Place-Political Subdivision)
in Lanccaster County on or about March 25 to March 29, 2016
Participants were: (if there were participants, place their names here, repeating the name of the above defendant)
Stalking, Harassing, and attempted vandalism to my 2007 Honda CRV on March 28th, 2016 with attempting to let air out of drivers
side rear tire. See complaint from June 2015 as attached.
AOPC 411A-10 Page 1 of 2

Private Criminal
17-01233 REQUESTComplaint
FOR HEARING
v. 1250 Fremont St.
St. Page
Page
No. 110ofof66
6458
53 Wednesday
Wednesday,August
March 30,
16, 2016
2017
Defendants Name: PRIVATE

Docket Number: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
2. The acts committed by the accused were:

(Set forth a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged. A citation to the statute allegedly violated, without more,
is not sufficient. In a summary case, you must cite the specific section and subsection of the statute or ordinance allegedly violated. The age of the victim at the
time of the offense may be included, if known. In addition, social security numbers and financial information (e.g. PINS) should not be listed. If the identity
of an account number must be established, list only the last four digits. 204 Pa.Code 213.1 - 213.7. )
All of which were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the Act of
Assembly, or in violation of and
(Section) (Subsection)
of the
(PA Statute)
3. I ask that process be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges I have made.
4. I verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and
belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. 4904)
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date Signature of Complainant
Office of the Attorney for the Commonwealth Approved Disapproved because:
(Name of Attorney for Commonwealth-Please Print or Type) (Signature of Attorney for Commonwealth) (Date)
AND NOW, on this date , I certify that the complaint has been properly completed and verified.
(Magisterial District) (Issuing Authority)

SEAL
AOPC 411B-10 Page 2 of 2

Private Criminal
FOR HEARING
v. 1250 Fremont St.
St. Page
Page
No. 211ofof66
6458
53 Wednesday
Wednesday,August
March 30,
16, 2016
2017
Private Complaint v. 1250 Fremont Street Page 2A Wednesday, March 30, 2016

2709. Harassment and stalking.
(a) Harassment.--A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person:
1. strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. follows the other person in or about a public place or places; or
3. engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose.
(b) Stalking.--A person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another
person, including following the person without proper authority, under circumstances which demonstrate either of the following:
1. an intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury; or

2. an intent to cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
Webmaster notes: The constitutional right of free speech and address is a shield and not a constitutional sword with which to do harm to
others. Therefore, the stalking penal statute in Pennsylvania is not unconstitutional as an impingement on free speech. Commonwealth v.
Schierscher, 557 Pa.Superior Ct. 61, 668 A.2d 164 (1995).
Evidence of related prior bad acts is admissible where appellant has been charged with stalking. Commonwealth v. Urrutia, 439 Pa.Superior
Ct. 227, 653 A.2d 706 (1995). The intent to "cause substantial emotional distress" may be inferred from a defendant's conduct.
Commonwealth v. Miller, 455 Pa.Superior Ct. 543, 689 A.2d 238 (1997).
Introduction in evidence of prior convictions of stalking does not constitute a violation of a defendant's protection from double jeopardy.
Commonwealth v. Roefaro, 456 Pa. Superior Ct. 588, 691 A.2d 472 (1997). Harassment is a lesser included offense of stalking.
Commonwealth v. Reese, 725 A.2d 190 (Pa. Superior Ct.: 1999).
The first act in a course of conduct constitutes a violation of this section, as much as the subsequent acts; in such a case, a 2 1/2 to 5 year
imprisonment sentence for one count of stalking is not excessive and illegal, even though it may exceed the sentencing guidelines, where 8
subsequent incidents of harassment are demonstrated which might incur sentences cumulatively which would approximate the single penalty
imposed. Commonwealth v. Leach, 729 A.2d 608 (Pa. Superior Ct.: 1999).
(c) Grading.--
1. An offense under subsection (a) shall constitute a summary offense.

2.
1. An offense under subsection (b) shall constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree.
2. A second or subsequent offense under subsection (b) or a first offense under subsection (b) if the person has been previously
convicted of any crime of violence involving this same victim, family or household members, including, but not limited to, a violation of section
2701 (relating to simple assault), 2702 (relating to aggravated assault), 2705 (relating to recklessly endangering another person), 2901 (relating
to kidnapping), 3121 (relating to rape), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) or 3128 (relating to spousal sexual assault)
[now repealed], an order issued under section 4954 (relating to protective orders) or an order issued under 23 Pa.C.S. 6108 (relating to relief),
shall constitute a felony of the third degree.
Private Criminal Complaint v. 1250 Fremont St. Page 3 of 66 Wednesday, March 30, 2016

(d) False reports.--A person who knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to implicate another under
this section commits an offense under section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).
(e) Application of section.--This section shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of June 2, 1937 (P.L.1198,
No.308), known as the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.
(e.1) Course of conduct.--Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction
in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
"Course of conduct."
A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. The term
includes lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings, caricatures or actions, either in person or anonymously.
"Emotional distress."
A temporary or permanent state of great physical or mental strain.
"Family or household member."
Spouses or persons who have been spouses, persons living as spouses or who lived as spouses, parents and children, other persons related
by consanguinity or affinity, current or former sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood.
[Webmaster note: Compare 5504 of this title (relating to harassment and stalking by communication or address).]
Private Criminal Complaint v. 1250 Fremont St. Page 4 of 66 Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Outlook.com - scaterbone@live.com https://col131.mail.live.com/?tid=cmPH2JZxgV5RGaeQAiZMIDDA2&fi...
New Reply Delete Archive Junk Sweep Move to Stan J. Caterbone
1252 Fremont Street - Trouble Again

Folders Stan J. Caterbone 1:43 PM
To: sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us, stancaterbone@gmail.com
Inbox 2
Junk
June 17, 2015
Drafts
Sent To: Sector 9 of Lancaster City Police Dept.
Deleted
I live at 1250 Fremont Street. There is so many people (8) living at 1252
AA Inbox 42 Fremont Street that I can't count or tell who is who. I have been physically
Deed and City Rehab threatened on numerous occasions, the most recent last evening. A few weeks
ago they were carrying around a large red re mans axe trying to scare me. Last
Ebay and Online Purcha night they threw a ball on our steel pao roof to scare our dog so he jumps the
FFCHS Communications fence and runs away. They are trying to inmidate me with looks of rage. Rick
Wennerstrom told me today that only a Father, Mother and daughter should live
May-June Surge 23
there. To make maers worse I have given them 2 maresses, a dehumidier, a
Mind Control Research computer, and candy and gis for there kids. I have loaned them tools, cut
New folder there grass, shoveled their walks, and I place their trash cans and recycling cans
in the alley in their yard every week. And Rick does nothing. The problem is that
there are sweet lile girls who live there.
Stan J. Caterbone
2015 Microsoft Terms Privacy & cookies Developers English (United States)
Private Criminal
FOR HEARING
v. 1250 Fremont St.
St. Page
Page
No. 5
315ofof66
6458
53 Wednesday
Wednesday,August
March 30,
16, 2016
2017
1 of 1 6/17/2015 2:09 PM
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

Stan J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
Change.org Petition by Stan J. Caterbone

and Advanced Media Group
March 17, 2016
When will the United States of America Settle with Targeted Individuals?
The United States would provide $100,000 per year for documented Targeted
Individuals, payable in the form of an annuity with survivor benefits.
The United States would provide a $10 Million Lump Sum for Suspicious or Accidental
Death.
The United States would provide Medical Benefits for life.
The United States would provide an extra layer of security by law enforcement for persons,
property, identity, and cybersecurity of targeted individuals.
The United States newly formed U.S. Task Force for Targeted Individuals would take a
random sampling of 200 Targeted Individuals Cases Including Affidavits and
Documentation. They would then develop a baseline for evidence and required
documentation.
Settlement is fair considering the following case law:
Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peephole Video Lawsuit
1. Andrews sought $75 million from the owner of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt
University, where she was staying in 2008 when the incident occurred, and Michael
David Barrett, the stalker who booked hotel rooms next to her in Nashville and
Columbus, Ohio, and secretly recorded (via a peephole) and released videos of her
naked. Barrett, whom the jury found to be 51% at fault, has to pay more than $28
million. Nashville Marriott owner West End Hotel Partners and former operator Windsor
Capital Group, which were found to be 49% at fault, have to pay more than $26
million.
This is my story -
Advanced Media Group and Stan J. Caterbone are Targeted and Victims of U.S.
Sponsored Mind Control Experimentation Programs. We have been engaged in
RECLAMATION; (assets; real estate; personal and business real property; intellectual property;
and business interests) LITIGATION; and RESEARCH since 2005 in federal and state courts. All
activities are for the purpose of restoring Advanced Media Group and all affiliated companies and
Stan J. Caterbone to WHOLE.
Stan J. Caterbone was recently accepted into the Graduate Studies and Research Program at
Millersville University in April of 2009 where a more formal research approach to mind control and
MKULTRA programs will be studied. Other studies will be considered in the areas of law; finance;
computer science; and philosophy.
Stan J. Caterbone and Advanced Media Group are not able to continue it's litigation until it's
security needs are satisfied and it's computer/electronic property is returned and/or replaced.
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.157
55
1117
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
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?
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.258
56
2218
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
Stan J. Caterbone
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
scaterbone@live.com
717-669-2163
January 22, 2016
Re: Good Old Boys Network and the Kathleen Kane Coup
I have been the victim of a widespread civil and criminal conspiracy that dates back to
1987, made up of the very same actors that Kathleen Kane is up against, the "good old boys". In
1987 I blew the whistle on a local company, International Signal & Control, or ISC, that was
indicted for selling arms and weapons to Iraq via South Africa with the aid and support of the CIA
and the NSA. It was the 3rd largest white collar crime at that time, valued at $1 Billion Dollars. I
was the victim of a widespread wholesale cover-up through an elaborate slander campaign that
included 29 false arrests, multiple false imprisonments, and a fabricated mental illness record that
to this day is still resonating.
Kathleen Kane must be commended for her courage and her determination for taking on
this culture of arrogance and total disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law that they
so emphatically espouse to uphold. They believe and conduct their affairs in a manner that
suggests they are above the law and we, the Pennsylvania taxpayers, are beneath the law. The
sad fact that it reaches into the judiciary and law enforcement agencies is undeniably the most
outrageous and deplorable truth to this scandal. Case in point, until yesterday I was the
APPELLANT in a case before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals that involves the Habeus
Corpus for convicted and imprisoned Lisa Michelle Lambert. A murder case in the early 1990's
that was made famous when in 1997 U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found her actually
innocent due to "one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the English speaking
language" and released her from prison. The case drew nationwide attention when then
Pennsylvania Attorney General, then Mike Fischer, enlisted the help of 9 other state attorney
generals to curtail the reach of the federal bench in state matters concerning Habeus Corpus
cases. To make matters worst, 38,000 Lancastrians signed petitions to remove the Honorable
Stewart Dalzell from the federal bench.
Mike Fisher and company won and Lisa Michelle Lambert was back in prison within 9
months while the case went back to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The Honorable
Judge Lawrence Stengel held a bench hearing where she was again found guilty and sentenced to
life in prison. The case was covered by the LA Times in a multi-part Sunday series, A&E producer
Bill Curtis did a 48 Hours special, and Lifetime Movies made it into a prime time movie.
This year, these "Good Old Boys" made it so difficult for me to litigate my efforts to free
Lisa Michelle Lambert, that I had to dismiss my appeal and effectively withdraw as her MOVANT
and Advocate. I was trying to persuade the courts that my own demise was the result of the same
type of wholesale prosecutorial misconduct by some of the very same principals that Lisa Michelle
Lambert fell victim to. My efforts were so distasteful to the powers to be that her court appointed
attorney threatened me with criminal prosecution for no other reason than I might actually be
successful in helping her win the Habeus Corpus she filed in May of 2014. I allege the U.S. District
Judge was trying in vain to invalidate and derail my own federal court cases that seek to restore
me to whole from a life of ruin, misery, torture, and financial collapse.
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.359
57
3319
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
For the record, I founded a financial firm in the 1980's that reached 5 states and raised
some 90 million dollars in a matter of 9 months. In the late 1980's and early 1990's I was one of
5 domestic companies that had the capabilities of manufacturing CDROM's that included a client
list that reached across the globe and included government agencies and fortune 500 companies.
And in 1987, myself and a genius recording engineer named Tony Bongiovi and his famous
recording studio, Power Station Studios of New York, were developing and producing the first
"digital movie". The intellectual property rights and the RICO statutes that apply to my legal
claims in federal courts were too much for the "Good Old Boys" to handle.
_____________/S/___________
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
ACTIVE COURT CASES

U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-1149;15-3400; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 15-03984; 14-02559; 05-2288; 06-4650
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-03349
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.460
58
4420
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
AFFIDAVIT

Affiant
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
Telephone: 717-826-5354
State of Pennsylvania
County of Lancaster
My current legal name is,Stan J Caterbone and my current address is, 1250 Fremont Street,
Lancaster, PA 17603 . I am presently 57 years of age, and my current address of residence is
same as before. I, the Affiant submits and writes these statements of and on my own free will
and on behalf of myself, Stan J. Caterbone.
I, the Affiant states that I have been tortured by U.S. Sponsored Mind Control technologies; and
have experienced the following; burns, directed high levels of energy being subjected to my
body, private parts, heart, head, spine, joints, etc. I the Affiant states that I have been attacked
by (individuals, police, military, and intelligence agents, etc.) I the Affiant states that I have made
formal police reports to: Lancaster City Police, Manheim Township Police, Southern
Regional Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Attorney Office, Pennsylvania
Attorney Office, Lancaster County District Attorney, Lancaster City Mayor and Office, I
have contacted the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Joe Pitts Office, Mike Sturla' Office,
Senator Arlen Specter, and Bob Casey and former senator Edward Kennedy; Brian
Cutler, and Ryan Aument, and countless other members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly,
and receive no support, just involuntary psychiatric commitments, and the endorsement and the
support for my perpetrators to continue the assaults.
I the Affiant have been arrested, forcibly placed in a mental hospital, physically harmed, assaulted
by countless officials, military, and civilians. I the Affiant states that my life has been ruined as I
am no longer employable, I am workplace mobbed, my work is being damaged, my family is
being threatened, etc.
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.561
59
5521
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
I am or have become a victim of (torture, attacks, assaults, harassment, sexual abuse, police
abuse, government funded technology abuse, etc., and am now aware that these technologies are
being funded by the United States government with most of these technologies being developed
for war are also now being tested and evaluated per Department of Defense Directive 5240.1-r
Procedure 13 Human Experimentation (on U.S. Persons and others) for Intelligence Purposes.
As a human being and with Human Rights I have not given approval for the use or abuse of my
body in any form to anyone or to any entity within or outside of the United States government to
include any corporation, researcher, scientist, military agency or anyone affiliated within or
outside of any agency, corporation or individual that has resulted in the harms that my body, life,
property, career and or finances have endured. To further state that military training documents
such as the Department of Defense Joint Targeting Publication
https://www.aclu.org/files/dronefoia/dod/drone_dod_jp3_60.pdf; DOD Joint Targeting of
Individual and Groups that involves the United States Joint Chiefs of Command and the United
States (HHS) Health and Human Services involvement, an agency that oversee the medical
records of every citizen along with citizens who are being used illegally for testing and evaluation
of war technologies;
I the Affiant of this Affidavit do object to such treatment and abuse of my body and life. In
addition to the above noted military training documents that is resulting in the harm to myself
and to millions of citizens of this country I do as well object to the Department of Defense
Directive 5240.1-r Procedure 13 that has resulted in the destruction of my health as will where
this document has existed for decades with no oversight yet it still exists as a published and
available document resulting in harm to myself and millions of citizens. The chapter 13 reads as
follows:
C13. CHAPTER 13 PROCEDURE 13. EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMAN SUBJECTS FOR
INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES
C13.1. APPLICABILITY This procedure applies to experimentation on human subjects if such
experimentation is conducted by or on behalf of a DoD intelligence component. This procedure
does not apply to experimentation on animal subjects.
C13.2. EXPLANATION OF UNDEFINED TERMS C13.2.1. Experimentation in this context
means any research or testing activity involving human subjects that may expose such subjects
to the possibility of permanent or temporary injury (including physical or psychological damage
and damage to the reputation of such persons) beyond the risks of injury to which such subjects
are ordinarily exposed in their daily lives.
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.662
60
6622
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
C13.2.2. Experimentation is conducted on behalf of a DoD intelligence component if it is

conducted under contract to that component or to another DoD Component for the benefit of the
intelligence component or at the request of such a component regardless of the existence of a
contractual relationship.
C13.2.3. Human subjects in this context includes any person whether or not such person is a
United States person. C13.3. PROCEDURES C13.3.1. Experimentation on human subjects
conducted by or on behalf of a DoD intelligence component may be undertaken only with the
informed consent of the subject, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of
Health and Human Services, setting out conditions that safeguard the welfare of such subjects.
DoD 5240.1-R, December 1982 58
I hereby state that the information above is true, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm that
the information here is both accurate and complete, and relevant information has not been
omitted. (1) For an individual acting in his or her own right I set forth my signature:
Stan (ley) J. Caterbone Affiant Signed________________________________, Affiant

Stan J. Caterbone, State of Pennsylvania, County of Lancaster, City of Lancaster, On
this, _________day of ______________, 20____, before me a notary public, the
undersigned (print name) _______________________________________, personally
appeared before me, known to me (by satisfactorily proven identification and affixed
signature) ______________________________ to be the person whose name is
subscribed to this document, and acknowledged that he or she executed the same for
the purposes therein contained. In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official
seal.____________________________________
Notary Public ___________________________ My Commission Expires on
AffidavitCriminal
AFFIDAVIT
Private
17-01233 ofREQUEST
Stan
of Stan
JJ.
Complaint
Caterbone
Caterbone
J.FOR
Caterbone
HEARING
v. re
1250
reState-of-Affairs
Current
reFremont
State-of-Affairs
State-of-Affairs
St.
St. Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
No.763
61
7723
of
of
of
ofof
113
23
27
23
64
66
53
58 Wednesday
Wednesday,
Tuesday,August
March 30,
22,
16, 2016
2017
15-03984
PA State
Private
17-01233 Police
Habeus
Criminal
REQUESTBackground
EXHIBITre
Complaint v.Check
State Fremont
FOR HEARING
1250 of AffairsSt.
St. Page
Page
Page 1464
Page
No. of
62of180
24 181
of
of66
64
53
58 Sunday,August
Wednesday
Wednesday, 27, 2016
March 30,
16, 2017
15-03984
PA State
Private
17-01233 Police
Habeus
Criminal
REQUESTBackground
EXHIBITre
Complaint v.Check
State Fremont
FOR HEARING
1250 of AffairsSt.
St. Page
Page
Page 2565
Page
No. of
63of180
25 181
of
of66
64
53
58 Sunday,August
Wednesday
Wednesday, 27, 2016
March 30,
16, 2017
15-03984
PA State
Private
17-01233 Police
Habeus
Criminal
REQUESTBackground
EXHIBITre
Complaint v.Check
State Fremont
FOR HEARING
1250 of AffairsSt.
St. Page
Page
Page 3666
Page
No. of
64of180
26 181
of
of66
64
53
58 Sunday,August
Wednesday
Wednesday, 27, 2016
March 30,
16, 2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

Gmail - Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&view=pt&sear...
Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>
Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence

15 messages
Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:13 PM

To: Adrian Soh <adrian.soh@mcpayment.com>, Barbara Hough Roda <broda@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Sheppard <bsheppard@selectsecurity.com>,
"barrett@rklcpa.com" <barrett@rklcpa.com>, "bbrubaker@pennwaste.com" <bbrubaker@pennwaste.com>, "bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com"
<bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "beckyh209@aol.com" <beckyh209@aol.com>, Bernie Schriver <bernardschriver@gmail.com>, Bob Kauffman
<robert.kauffman@axa-advisors.com>, Bonnie Lee <polygraphsolutions@verizon.net>, Capitol Copy <lanc@capitolsupport.net>, Cheryl Welssh
<welsh@mindjustice.org>, Chris Hausner <clh@rkglaw.com>, "complaints@ic.fbi.gov" <complaints@ic.fbi.gov>, Dave Hickernell
<dhickern@pahousegop.com>, "dbethea@lnpnews.com" <dbethea@lnpnews.com>, "dcody@lnpnews.com" <dcody@lnpnews.com>, Derrick Robinson
<freedomfchs@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson <dcr618@msn.com>, Derrick Robinson <derrickcrobinson@gmail.com>, Diana Crone
<CRONED1@nationwide.com>, "dmoyer@teamemerald.com" <dmoyer@teamemerald.com>, "drodriguez@lnpnews.com" <drodriguez@lnpnews.com>,
"drote@gojones.com" <drote@gojones.com>, "E: Philep Wenger" <pwenger@fultonbank.com>, "emily33jones@gmail.com"
<emily33jones@gmail.com>, "galspach232@aol.com" <galspach232@aol.com>, James Walbert <inventor0207@yahoo.com>, jere sullivan
<jere.sullivan@edelman.com>, Jim Doran <James_Doran@msn.com>, Jim Warner <jwarner@lcswma.org>, Jimmy Karpathios
<jimk@keareselectric.com>, John Garofolo <john.garofolo@nist.gov>, Ken Rhoades <kenrhoades2008@yahoo.com>, Kristen Ost
<kekost223@gmail.com>, Kristi Aurand <kaurand@lcci.com>, "kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us" <kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Laura Wagner-
Miller <lwagner@pahousegop.com>, "LB, Legal" <ra-lblegal@pa.gov>, Lynn and Marie <lynnandmarie@live.com>, "martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com"
<martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com>, Marylinn Gerber <mgerber@co.lancaster.pa.us>, michael mc donald <mpm@mcdonaldatlaw.com>, Mike
Caterbone <mtciidd@aol.com>, "mikeh@financialnetwork.net" <mikeh@financialnetwork.net>, "mkabik@lcci.com" <mkabik@lcci.com>,
"murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com" <murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com>, Nancy Eshelman <neshelman@pennlive.com>, "news@lnpnews.com"
<news@lnpnews.com>, Office Max <ods0651cpc@officedepot.com>, Officer Binderup <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Pam Stehman
<Pamsu@aol.com>, "perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com" <perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com>, Peter Anders <Peter.Anders@millersville.edu>, Peter
Anders <peter.anders@millerville.edu>, Phil Caterbone <philip.caterbone@gmail.com>, "philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov"
<philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov>, "pschober@lcci.com" <pschober@lcci.com>, "rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net" <rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net>,
Richard Cosmore <cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Robert Yeagley <robertyeagley@eaglesecuresolutions.com>, "sbaldrige@lnpnews.com"
<sbaldrige@lnpnews.com>, "scassidy@lnpnews.com" <scassidy@lnpnews.com>, Sector 9 <sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Senator Leach
<senatorleach@pasenate.com>, "senator@casey.senate.gov" <senator@casey.senate.gov>, "sports@lnpnews.com" <sports@lnpnews.com>, Stan
Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>, Stan Caterbone <sjcaterb@marauder.millersville.edu>, "Stan J. Caterbone" <scaterbone@live.com>, Steve
Caterbone <stevecaterbone@yahoo.com>, "submissions@truthdig.com" <submissions@truthdig.com>, "tmurse@lnpnews.com"
<tmurse@lnpnews.com>, "tmw@goingandplank.com" <tmw@goingandplank.com>, Tony Bongiovi <joe@bmt-inc.net>, "ups3413@gmail.com"
<ups3413@gmail.com>
The punks at 1252 Fremont Street were all outside in the back yard when I started to work. My laborer, Norm showed up and then they all of a
sudden disappeared. I had to go into the backyard of 1252 to undo the temporary fence I erected yesterday. I open the gate, close it behind me and
the BLACK PITBULL and YORKIE come running out of the house attacking me. The punks set it all up by leaving when they knew full well that I
would be coming into the yard to work on the fence. THAT IS THE SECOND TIME HE BIT ME, THE FIRST TIME THEY LET HIM OUT AND HE
CAME IN MY YARD AND SNAPPED AT ME JUST MISSING MY FINGER!
ONE DAY WHEN I WAS WORKING THE PUNKS PUT A BROWN PITTBULL IN THE YARD SO I COULD NOT WORK!
Yesterday, the bitch offered to move an old freezer so I could work on the fence. I said "no, that is alright, I can get it myself". That is the first time I
talked to the bitch since she chased me in my front lawn last fall because I blew the leaves and some floated into her pile of leaves on her front lawn.
THE BITCH DOES NOT OWN 1252 FREMONT STREET, AND AFTER I SET THE POSTS AND INSTALLED THE FIRST SECTION OF FENCE,
ME AND THE OWNER, DAVE SHRECK, DISCUSSED MY PROJECT AND HE GAVE ME HIS PERMISSION TO ERECT AND INSTALL THE
FENCE. THAT WAS PROBABLY 4 WEEKS AGO!
ARE THE DOGS LICENSED? AND WHOS' ARE THEY? LIKE MOST PEOPLE IN THAT HOUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO LIVES THERE AND
WHO DOES NOT!
Pitt Bull Attack

17-01233 REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.1 28
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
1 of 28 6/10/2016 2:22 PM
Gmail - Attacked by Pitbull at 1252 Fremont While Working on my Fence https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&view=pt&sear...
/S/ Stan J. Caterbone

Linkedin Professional Networking Profile (click here)
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant, and the Advanced Media Group are victims of U.S. Sponsored Mind
Control and has been engaged in litigation in both Federal and State courts seeking financial and social remedies and a resolution of his Civil
Liberties and his Constitutional Rights. These communications are our way of defending and protecting those rights. In 1987 Stan J.
Caterbone, while managing the financial firm the he founded, Financial Management Group, Ltd., Stan J. Caterbone became a Federal
Whistleblower when, as a shareholder, he claimed fraud and misconduct within the international arms dealer and local start-up International
Signal & Control, Plc., Some 4 years later ISC was indicted and plead guilty to the 3rd largest fraud in U.S. history, some $1 Billion, and for
selling arms to Irag via South Africa. In June of 2015 Stan J. Caterbone became the Movant in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania case No. 5:14-cv-02559-PD for the Habeus Corpus Petition of Lisa Michelle Lambert. The case is now before the U.S. Third
Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 15-3400.
Pitt Bull Attack

17-01233 REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.2 29
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
2 of 28 6/10/2016 2:22 PM
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.3 30
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.4 31
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.5 32
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.6 33
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.7 34
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.8 35
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
Page
No.9 36
of 17
of 58
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1037
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1138
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1239
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1340
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1441
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1542
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1643
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
17-01233
Pitt Bull Attack
REQUEST
at 1252
FORFremont
HEARING
St. Page
PageNo.
1744
ofof
1758
53 Wednesday August
June 10,
16, 2016
2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER



DOCUMENT DIVIDER

RE: Today by AP "Justice Asked to Probe Tape Destruction"

From: Stan Caterbone (amgroup01@msn.com)
Sent: Sat 12/08/07 10:28 AM
To: Cosmore, Richard L (cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us)
Sometimes, you have to be persistent in educating someone!
I have had countless meetings and complaints with police of the City of
Lancaster Police Department, and I do have legitimate and valid complaints of
various sorts that have fallen on deaf ears - which leads one to believe you are
all guilty of something. It is my right to keep probing and providing you with
information until you uphold the rule of law you are sworn to uphold.
I am tired of the intimidation, the threats, the loss of property, and the
computer and electronic hacking.
Hearing set on loan mess

Senators to probe Snyder case
By PATRICK BURNS, Staff

Intelligencer Journal
Published: Dec 08, 2007 1:18 AM EST
Michelle Weaver's relentless phone calls, e-mails,

faxes and pestering of government officials have
finally paid off.
Weaver, the de facto leader of a group of more than 800 homeowners stung by Wesley A. Snyder's $29.2
million mortgage fraud, has convinced U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter to hold a hearing on the subject at 3 p.m.
Monday at Penn State's Harrisburg campus.
For three months, Weaver, of Manheim Township, has struggled to make government officials such as
Gov. Ed Rendell, Specter and U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts understand that she and others duped by Snyder are
fraud victims, not merely subprime mortgage holders who gambled on interest rates and lost.
"I was not going to stop until we got the top officials to at least get these lenders to see that we are good
people who've been victimized," Weaver said Friday.
Specter's office said Friday the hearing will examine the mortgage crisis that soaked homeowners,
including 300 from Lancaster County, for more than $26 million and ripped off 31 investors for $3 million.
The event will take place in Room 210 of the school's student center on West Harrisburg Pike in
Middletown.
Representatives from loan services Snyder used, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are scheduled to
testify regarding what they can do to help distressed homeowners.

Advanced Media Group Page 1 of 5 December 8, 2007
Specter, Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Tim Holden and other lawmakers will attend, but neither Pitts nor
Rendell both on Weaver's speed dial are expected.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Casey, said the forum will bring borrowers and lenders together to
ultimately "help the homeowners."
"They can hear each other's perspectives and stories and hopefully it can speed up some sort of an
arrangement on the loans," Barkoff said.
Weaver expects hundreds of Snyder's victims to attend the much-anticipated hearing. She said the victims
have been frustrated trying to explain their situation to company officials on the phone and relish the
opportunity to face them in person.
"This is to be a time in which these companies can see the level of stress that has been placed on us by
their failure to cooperate in resolving this matter," Weaver said.
Weaver earlier arranged five informational meetings at which victims were able to talk to officials such as
state Rep. Katie True.
Snyder's victims mostly customers of Berks County-based OPFM Inc, Personal Financial Management
and Image Masters began calling Weaver in the days after the companies filed for bankruptcy Sept. 18.
That's when they learned they were being held responsible for paying costly mortgages taken out by
Snyder's companies in their names, but without their knowledge.
Snyder apparently planned to pay the difference between the outside mortgages and his customers'
mortgages with him using money earned from other investments, but instead paid existing mortgages
with money from new clients in what evolved into a classic Ponzi scheme.
More than two-dozen outside lenders that supplied the mortgages are named in a class-action lawsuit filed
on behalf of some of Snyder's customers.
The suit seeks to void the mortgages and alleges the lenders' dealings with Snyder's companies were
either negligent or fraudulent.
Court documents show that Snyder's customers paid him $65.6 million on their mortgages, but $26
million less was transferred to the mortgage holders. Many of the lenders, which have been rocked by
unrelated defaults from subprime borrowers, are demanding that Snyder's customers pay the missing
funds.
Under an agreement reached in October, Snyder's customers are to continue paying either their old
monthly payment or 75 percent of their new, steeper payment, whichever is greater, until the lawsuit is
resolved.
Lenders include Washington Mutual, SunTrust, Countrywide, Citicorp, Chase, GMAC, HSBC, Sovereign,
Wachovia and Wells Fargo.
Snyder, 71, last week pleaded guilty to mail fraud in connection with the 19-year Ponzi scheme. When he
is sentenced in March, he faces a maximum of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million.
E-mail: pburns@lnpnews.com

Stan J. Caterbone

Visit Our Blog For Journey of a Whistleblower
Visit Our Blog For Research Into ESP - Mental Telepathy & The U.S. Governments Activities
Visit Our Video Biography
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. Number 7.
Subject: RE: Today by AP "Justice Asked to Probe Tape Destruction"

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:31:58 -0500
From: cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us
To: amgroup01@msn.com
We do not care Stanley. Get the city police off your group mailing list. This is a waste of my time to have to go through all
of the e-mails you have sent out.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Caterbone [mailto:amgroup01@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 13:33
To: Zimmerman, Patrick (D Patrick Zimmerman, Esq.); Whistleblowers Coalition, National Security; Urey, Patti; City
Police: Sector 9; Owings, Lisa; Longer, Janice; Lemon, Kim; Henderson, Molly; Harper, Ron; FBI, Field Office; Burkholder,
Lori; Ben; friends@foxnews.com; newsletter@billoreilly.com; samlombardo@benecon.com;
webmaster@live8live.chtah.com; ckovaly@laverylaw.com; tom.tillett@mail.house.gov; jcfmmf@aol.com;
jbuckwalter@lnpnews.com; mhalc@supernet.com; pwenger@fultonbank.com; scarfley@barley.com;
nikoloff@edclancaster.com; rodanast@rodanast.com; info@aclupa.org; info@bloodhoundsinc.com; cvr@rkglaw.com;
sstark@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; bethg@harrywalker.com; john.garofolo@nist.gov; senator_specter@specter.senate.gov;
shellyw@lccca.com; ndcooley@high.net; contactoge@oge.gov; rplotkin@mcguirewoods.com;
maria_plakoudas@specter.senate.gov; beyyerdd@aol.com; Wenger, Randall; sunnews@lnpnews.com;
intellletters@lnpnews.com; neweraletters@lnpnews.com
Subject: Today by AP "Justice Asked to Probe Tape Destruction"
Justice Asked to Probe Tape Destruction

By Pamela Hess
Associated Press Writer
Published: Dec 07, 2007 1:11 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate's No. 2 Democrat on Friday asked the Justice Department to
investigate whether the CIA obstructed justice by destroying videotapes that documented the harsh 2002
interrogations of two alleged terrorists.
A day after CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden told agency employees the tapes were destroyed in 2005,
members of Congress, human rights groups and lawyers for accused terrorists said the tapes may have
been key evidence that the U.S. government had illegally authorized torture.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not have any recollection
about the tapes or about their destruction.
"I spoke to the president this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes
or their destruction before yesterday" when he was briefed by Hayden, she said.
In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois asked for

a probe of "whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their
existence from official proceedings violated the law."
In a speech on the Senate floor, Durbin dismissed the CIA's explanation that it was trying to protect the
identities of the interrogators. "We know that it is possible and in fact easy to cover the faces" of those
who appear on camera, Durbin said. "This is not an issue that can be ignored."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said his committee would conduct
a full review of the matter. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., also called for a
full investigation.
"We've got to really clean house here and get to the bottom of what's been going on," she said Friday.
In his Thursday message to CIA employees, Hayden said that House and Senate intelligence committee
leaders were informed about the tapes and the CIA's intention to destroy them in 2003. He also said the
CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes and verified that the interrogation practices were legal. The
tapes were destroyed in late 2005.
The CIA taped the interrogation of the first two terror suspects the agency held, one of whom was Abu
Zubaydah. Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice
Ramzi Binalshibh, President Bush said publicly in 2006.
Hayden told agency employees the interrogations were legal, and said the tapes were not relevant to "any
internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which coordinates the work of all attorneys representing U.S.
prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, says the CIA may have destroyed crucial evidence a court
said it was entitled to in 2004.
The group filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2004 that has forced the Defense Department and
other government agencies to release thousands of documents.
CCR said Friday it is now "deeply concerned" the CIA may have destroyed evidence relating to Majid Khan,
a former CIA detainee now held at Guantanamo.
The tapes' revelation may affect several ongoing terrorism trials.
Convicted terrorism conspirator Jose Padilla's lawyers claimed in a Florida federal court that Zubaydah was
tortured into saying Padilla was an al-Qaida associate. In a Nov. 16 response, the Justice Department
dismissed Padilla's allegations as "meritless," saying Padilla's legal team could not prove that Zubaydah
had been tortured.
Padilla's lawyers asked to interview Zubaydah to determine the circumstances of his interrogations but the
judge denied the request. Padilla and his two co-defendants will be sentenced next month. They face life
in prison on three terror-related convictions.
In a separate case, attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in 2003 began seeking
videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show their client wasn't a part of the 9/11
attacks. These requests heated up in 2005 as the defense slowly learned the identities of more detainees
in U.S. custody.
On Nov. 3, 2005, a U.S. District judge ordered the government to disclose whether it had video or audio
tapes of specific interrogations. Eleven days later, the government denied it had tapes relevant to the
request.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, who was the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in
2003, said she told the CIA in a classified letter not to destroy the tapes. She was not informed in 2005
when the CIA went ahead with its plan to destroy them.
The Senate Intelligence Committee did not learn of the tapes' destruction until November 2006.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from August 2004
until the end of 2006, said through a spokesman that he doesn't remember being informed of the
videotaping program.
"He believes the committee should have been fully briefed and consulted on how this was handled," said
Jamal Ware, senior adviser to the committee.
The tapes were destroyed at a time when there was increasing pressure from defense attorneys to obtain
videotapes of detainee interrogations. The 2004 scandal over the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq had focused public attention on interrogation techniques. The tapes also were not provided to the
9/11 Commission, which relied heavily on intelligence reports about Zubaydah and Binalshibh's 2002
interrogations.
CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the agency did not subvert the 9/11 commission's work.
"The agency went to great lengths to meet the requests of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, because it was

thought the commission could ask about tapes at some point, they were not destroyed while the
commission was active," he said.
2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed.
Stan J. Caterbone
Visit Our Blog For Journey of a Whistleblower
Visit Our Blog For Research Into ESP - Mental Telepathy & The U.S. Governments Activities
Visit Our Video Biography
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. Number 7.

DOCUMENT DIVIDER
17-01233 REQUEST FOR HEARING Page No. 54 of 58 Wednesday August 16, 2017
DOCUMENT DIVIDER
SEVENTH AND MARKET
STREETS
PHILADELPHIA
PENNSYLVANIA
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - A LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
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, APPELLANT
CASE NO. 17-01233

Case No. 17-10615REF
OPENING STATEMENT
re OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS
HEARING DATE THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2017 1:00pm
PROPOSED REMEDY:
1. SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS IN ALL CIVIL ACTIONS BY THE APPEALLANT SINCE
2005 IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
2. A SECURE INTERNET LINE
3. ENHANCED SECURITY OF ALL REAL PROPERTY
4. SPECIAL TRAINING OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN DEALING WITH ALL
RELATED ISSUES
5. MANDATED MEDIA BLITZES TO DISCOURAGE ORGANIZED STALKING GROUPS
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS INCLUDE:

1. WIDESPREAD HACKING OF ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES, COMPUTER,
SMARTPHONE, PRINTER, SMARTWATCHES, ETC., RESULTING IN HUNDREDS
OF DOLLARS PER MONTH IN ADDITIONAL EXPENSES
2. WIDESPREAD HACKING INTO THE FINANCIAL, AND JUST ABOUT EVERY
ACCOUNT OF STAN. J. CATERBONE RENDERING THE ACCOUNT USELESS WITH
THEFTS BY DECEPTION AND/OR FRAUD OF REAL MONIES -
1. PACER ACCOUNT FOR FEDERAL ELECTRONIC FILING
2. EBAY ACCOUNT USED TO OBTAIN DISCOUNTED ITEMS
3. PAYPAL ACCOUNT USED TO TRANSFER FUNDS
4. AMAZON.COM ACCOUNT USED TO OBTAIN DISCOUNTED ITEMS
5. LANCASTER CITY WATER/SEWER ACCOUNT
6. UGI NATURAL GAS ACCOUNT
7. PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES ACCOUNT
8. HUNTINGTON BANK AUTO LOAN ACCOUNT
9. ALL CELL PHONE ACCOUNTS, ATT; SPRINT; ETC.,
10. COMCAST CABLE ACCOUNT
11. LANCASTER COUNTY ASSESMENT ACCOUNT
12. LANCASTER COUNTY REAL ESTATE CLAIM BUREAU ACCOUNT
17-01233 OPENING STATEMENT FOR HEARING Page No. 1 of 48 Tuesday August 29, 2017
13. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSTY GRADUATE STUDIES ACCOUNTS

14. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE SNAP (FOOD STAMPS)
ACCOUNT
15. ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS USED TO SEND FABRICATED EMAILS
16. FAX BY INTERNET ACCOUNTS
17. BANK ACCOUNTS TOO MANY TO MENTION
18. TD AMERITRADE ACCOUNTS
19. HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY INSURANCE ACCOUNTS
20. MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN HOSPITALIZATION ACCOUNTS
21. MEDICAL FILES AND REPORTS
THE ABOVE LIST RESULTS IN THE FINANCIAL LOSSES OF TENS OF

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS SINCE 2005 AND CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
The Plaintiff alleges that he has been a prisoner of the state since 1987, and that the
activities surrounding the APPEALANT'S life has escalated into a daily occurrence of assaults.
Unfortunately while the APPEALANT has made many in person complaints to just about every law
enforcement agency, the most recent to the Manheim Township Substation in Lancaster Township
regarding an assault at the Manor Shopping Center minutes previously (December 9, 2015
9:00pm), the pleas for help and assistance have yielded nothing but more attacks to the
APPEALANT'S person, property, electronics, home, auto, reputation, intellectual
property, and lastly his mental state-of-mind A BRUTAL ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
TORTURE. The APPEALANT 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 APPEALANT will provide evidence to support this writ and offer a
final remedy and redress in accordance with federal law.
Due to the actions and criminal activity of the above named DEFENDANTS, it is reasonable
to prove that every aspect of the Complainants life, Stan J. Caterbone, 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 in Part II, Finding of Facts, 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 APPEALANT has made many failed attempts to the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania in 1987 to address these very same issues, specifically the Pennsylvania
Securities Commission (Agent Howard Eisler), the Pennsylvania Attorney General's
Office (Detective Bodan), the Civile Rights Enforcement Division of the Pennsylvania
Attorney General (Investigator ....). The APPEALANT will argue that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is unable to address these issues without prejudice,
without discrimination, and without corruption. This can be best described in the
following Letter to the Editor of the NEWSLANC organization of 2016:
I have been the victim of a widespread civil and criminal conspiracy that dates back to
1987, made up of the very same actors that Kathleen Kane is up against, the "good old boys". In
1987 I blew the whistle on a local company, International Signal & Control, or ISC, that was
indicted for selling arms and weapons to Iraq via South Africa with the aid and support of the CIA
and the NSA. It was the 3rd largest white collar crime at that time, valued at $1 Billion Dollars. I
was the victim of a widespread wholesale cover-up through an elaborate slander campaign that
included 29 false arrests, multiple false imprisonments, and a fabricated mental illness record that
to this day is still resonating.
Kathleen Kane must be commended for her courage and her determination for taking on
this culture of arrogance and total disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law that they
so emphatically espouse to uphold. They believe and conduct their affairs in a manner that
suggests they are above the law and we, the Pennsylvania taxpayers, are beneath the law. The
sad fact that it reaches into the judiciary and law enforcement agencies is undeniably the most
outrageous and deplorable truth to this scandal. Case in point, until yesterday I was the
APPELLANT in a case before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals that involves the Habeus
CORPUS for convicted and imprisoned Lisa Michelle Lambert. A murder case in the early 1990's
that was made famous when in 1997 U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found her actually
innocent due to "one of the worst cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the English speaking
language" and released her from prison. The case drew nationwide attention when then
Pennsylvania Attorney General, then Mike Fischer, enlisted the help of 9 other state attorney
generals to curtail the reach of the federal bench in state matters concerning Habeus CORPUS
cases. To make matters worst, 38,000 Lancastrians signed petitions to remove the Honorable
Stewart Dalzell from the federal bench.
Mike Fisher and company won and Lisa Michelle Lambert was back in prison within 9
months while the case went back to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas. The Honorable
Judge Lawrence Stengel held a bench hearing where she was again found guilty and sentenced to
life in prison. The case was covered by the LA Times in a multi-part Sunday series, A&E producer
Bill Curtis did a 48 Hours special, and Lifetime Movies made it into a prime time movie.
This year, these "Good Old Boys" made it so difficult for me to litigate my efforts to free
Lisa Michelle Lambert, that I had to dismiss my appeal and effectively withdraw as her MOVANT
and Advocate. I was trying to persuade the courts that my own demise was the result of the same
type of wholesale prosecutorial misconduct by some of the very same principals that Lisa Michelle
Lambert fell victim to. My efforts were so distasteful to the powers to be that her court appointed
attorney threatened me with criminal prosecution for no other reason than I might actually be
successful in helping her win the Habeus CORPUS she filed in May of 2014. I allege the U.S.
District Judge was trying in vain to invalidate and derail my own federal court cases that seek to
restore me to whole from a life of ruin, misery, torture, and financial collapse.
For the record, I founded a financial firm in the 1980's that reached 5 states and raised
some 90 million dollars in a matter of 9 months. In the late 1980's and early 1990's I was one of
5 domestic companies that had the capabilities of manufacturing CDROM's that included a client
list that reached across the globe and included government agencies and fortune 500 companies.
And in 1987, myself and a genius recording engineer named Tony Bongiovi and his famous
recording studio, Power Station Studios of New York, were developing and producing the first
"digital movie". The intellectual property rights and the RICO statutes that apply to my legal
claims in federal courts were too much for the "Good Old Boys" to handle....
In a December 30 editorial to the Washington Post titled Pornographic email scandal roils
Pennsylvania politics regarding the jurisprudence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania the
following was quoted by the editor of Newslanc.com;
"Anyone who neutrally looked at Pennsylvania and tried to gauge the quality of
jurisprudence in the state would have to laugh and say, What in the world is going on
there? . . . Our justice system is about as out of control as it can get. "EDITOR:
These matters cannot properly be settled within Pennsylvania. Everybody from the
prosecutors, to the attorney general, to the justices have skin in the game. It is time for
these matters to be given over to U. S. Attorney General so assure as close to a
disinterested investigation as circumstances permit."
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 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]
History
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]
Program exposed
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
17-01233 OPENING STATEMENT FOR HEARINGPage No. 10 of 48 Tuesday August 29, 2017
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 programs'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]
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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;
and 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:
1. 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.
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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
"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.
1999) p. 527-529
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), (MarchApril): 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.
RESUME AND BIOGRAPHY OF APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
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.
DATE AUGUST 29, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
ACTIVE COURT CASES

CETIFICATE OF SERVICE
And now on this 29th day of AUGUST, 2017, I, Stanley J. Caterbone,

APPELLANT do hereby certify that a true copy of the above filing was
sent via electronic mail AND OR U.S. FIRST CLASS MAIL SERVICE to the
following:
Dave Adams, U.S. Office of the Trustee

Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
AUGUST 29, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
REQUEST FOR HEARING OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IMPEDIMENTS
The following are the reasons for the request to come before the U.S.
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, CASE NO.
17-01233:
7. SINCE JUNE 23, 1987, (THE DAY THE WHISTLEBLOWING ACTIVITIES OF

INTERNATIONAL SIGNAL & CONTROL, PLC., OR ISC) THE LANCASTER
COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE HAS ENGAGED IN A STRATEGIC TACTIC OF
THWARTING ALL EFFORTS OF APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE'S ATTEMPT AT
PROVIDING AND ENGAGING ANY AND ALL EFFORTS AT PRODUCING AN
INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND/OR EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES. WHEN THE
ATTEMPTS AT THWARTING THOSE ATTEMPTS AT INCOME WOULD FAIL, AND
APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE DID PRODUCE INCOME AND BUILD UP CASH
RESERVES, THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ELIMINATING THOSE VERY SAME
INCOME ACTIVITIES, COUPLED WITH VANDALISM; BURGLARIES, AND THE
LIKE, THE CASH RESERVES WOULD BE DEPLETED PAYING FOR NORMAL
LIVING AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURES. THIS CYCLE WENT FULL CIRCLE
WITH BUILT-UP CASH RESERVES IN 1987, 1991, 1998, 2005, 2007, AND NOW
2017. A FULL AND COMPLETE AUDIT OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND TRAILS OF
CASHIERS CHECKS WILL PROVE THIS ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL PROGRAM. SEE
THE MARCH 31, 2008 LETTER TO MIKE CATERBONE, BROTHER OF APPEALANT
STAN J. CATERBONE FOR EVIDENCE OF THIS PROGRAM.
8. IN 1987 THE NET WORTH OF APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE EXCEEDED

$1MILLION DOLLARS.
9. SINCE THE FILING OF CIVIL ACTIONS IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
SINCE 2005, APPEALANT STAN J. CATERBONE HAS EVIDENCED AND STATED
FOR THE RECORD THAT SUCH CIVIL ACTIONS TO BE LEGALLY AND
FINANCIALLY ESTIMATED TO BE OVER AT LEAST $40 MILLION DOLLARS,
WITH THE VERY REASONABLE LIKELYHOOD THAT WITH THE ANTI-TRUST
CLAIMS THE CIVIL COMPLAITS ARE MOST LIKELY IN UPWARDS OF $100
MILLION DOLLARS.
10.COURT FILINGS SINCE 2005 IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WILL PROVIDE
EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF ITEMS 1 TO 4.
11.THE LAST FEW DAYS HAVE ESCALATED INTO A FEVER PITCH OF TERROR ATTACKS
BY EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY 1252 FREMONT STREET. OF COURSE THE LANCASTER
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,
AND THE FEDERAL BUREUA OF INVESTIATION HAVE ALL BEEN COMPLICIT IN
THESE OPERATIONS. THIS ALL COMES AT A TIME WHEN MY COURT CASES IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, THE UNITED STATES THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT, AND THE LANCASTER COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ARE ALL ADVANCING AND MOST BEFORE JUDGES
AWAITING DECISIONS. CASE-IN-POINT MY CASE IN THE U.S THIRD CIRCUIT,
CASE NO. 17-1904 IS NOW CENTRAL AROUND MY TORTURE MEOMO AS I HAVE
HAD TO DELIVER 4 FLASH DRIVES TO THE CLERK OF COURTS ON MONDAY, JUNE
26, 2017 IN PHILADELPHIA.
12.ON SEVERAL OCCASSIONS I HAVE BEEN HELD AGAINST MY WILL INSIDE MY

HOME AT 1250 FREMONT STREET WITH THE USE OF A BLACK PIT BULL. IN JUNE
OF 2016 THAT SAME SAID PIT BULL ATTACKED ME AND PUT ME IN THE
LANCASTER REGIONAL EMERGENCY ROOM WITH A DEEP WOUND TO MY LEFT
HAND, SEE ATTACHED.
13.EVERYDAY MY HOME IS SUBJECTED TO VANDALISM, THEFTS, AND MOST

RECENTLY INFESTATION OF ROACHES. I HAVE USED THE BEST INSECTICIDE AND
EVEN USED A FOGGER, AND THEY KEEP PUTTING ROACHES BACK IN WHEN I
LEAVE THE HOUSE. THE ATTACKS BY THE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS OF 1252
FREMONT STREET IS CREATING A VERY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT FOR ME IN
THAT THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO OWNING LICENSED GUNS, WHICH I HAVE
COMMUNICATED TO THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH NO
PROTECTION TO ME. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT 1252 FREMONT STREET IS
PROTECED BY THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO CARRY
OUT A HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT MY DEMISE, IN ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.
14.THERE IS A VERY ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMPATIC PROGRAM OF HARASSMENT,

STALKING, VANDALISM, ETC., BY THE OCCUPANTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET,
NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.
15.FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED REGARDING THE HARASSMENT

PROGRAM OF 1252 FREMONT STREET SINCE 2006.
16.THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THESE INCIDENTS ARE IN COMPLETE REVERS
WHERE BY THE STAN J. CATERBONE WAS THE PERSON HARASSED WHILE THE
COMPLAINTANTS OF 1252 WERE THE PERPETRATORS, WHICH IS A TEXT BOOK
CASE OF FALSE STATEMENTS TO AUTHORITIES ON SEVERAL CITATIONS FILED
BEFORE MAJISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES OF LANCASTER COUNTY SINCE JUNE OF
2017.
17.THE LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, AND

CHIEF KIETH SADLER, WHOM ARE ARE DEFENDANTS IN THE CURRENT COURT
PROCEEDINGS NOW BEING ADJUDICATED:
A. U.S.C.A. FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 17-1904
(CATERBNONE V. THE NSA, ET.AL.,)
B. UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 17-0867(CATERBNONE V. THE NSA, ET.AL.,)
C. UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 06-4650 (CATERBNONE V. RANDALL WENGER,
ET.AL.,
D. SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASE NO. 1219 MDA 2016
E. LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CASE NO. 08-13373
F. LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASE CASE NO. 16-05815
IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, I, STAN J. CATERBONE, APPEALLANT, DO HEREBY A

REQUEST OF THE COURT TO HOLD SUCH HEARING IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF
PHILADELPHIA, OR VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING DUE TO THE FACT THAT APPELLANT
STAN J. CATERBONE IS NOW WITH LITTLE OR NO CASH RESERVES AND THE TRAVEL
EXPENSES AND LODGING EXPENSES THAT WERE INCURRED FOR THE HEARING OF MAY
26, 2017 WOULD BE COST PROBIBATIVE.
AUGUST 16, 2017
___________/S/____________

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
717-327-1566
EXHIBIT
2 DVD DISC SET

CASE LAW - IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON August 11, 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

CASE LAW - IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON August 11, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT COPY - NOT

IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 21

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 22

Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 23

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 24

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 25

Dated AUGUST 11, 2017

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM,

JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 1 of 84

Dated AUGUST 11, 2017

ACTIVE COURT CASES

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 2 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 3 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 4 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 5 of 84

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 6

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 7

ARGUEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2017 STRIKING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

1. The Application (ECF No. 237) is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2017.

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 15

THE COURT HAS PERFORMED A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FILING,

1. THE AMIUS BRIEF AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT PROVIDE A BONA FIDE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 16

G. THE LANCASTER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

ON AUGUST 9, 2017 CNN REPORTED THAT COVERT MICROWAVE WEAPONS

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 17

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 18

THE FOLLOWING LINK IS THE CNN BROADCAST ON THE YOUTUBE CHANNEL OF

CNN U.S. EMABASSY MICROWAVE ATTACK VIDEO AUGUST 10, 2017

STAN J. CATERBONE has also, AS PRO SE MOVANT for the nationally

In the matter of the the ESTEBAN SANTIAGO, FT. LAUDERDALE SHOOTER

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 19

SEE THE DIGITAL FILES OF THE ABOVE AMICUS FILINGS ON THE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 20

IS THERE A DUTY TO REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY DISCOVERED DURING THE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 21

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 22

Does a waiver of the attorney client or work product privilege in a federal

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 23

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 24

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 25

Dated AUGUST 11, 2017

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 26

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 27

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 28

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 29

THE CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE LAYS THE FOUNDATION FOR AN

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 30

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF AMICUS CURIE

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 31

Smoking Gun on CIA Torture Conspiracy? Human Experimentation

Posted By Jeffrey Kaye On September 27, 2009 @ 4:26 pm In Torture | 4 Comments

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 32

15-CV-286 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 33

of the proposed techniques.