You are on page 1of 242

STAN J.

CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-528-2200

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION LAW

___________________________________________________________

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP :


STAN J. CATERBONE : Case No. CI-08-13373

V. :

DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, et. al., :

PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS


AMVETS, WEIS PHARMACY, CVS, CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR
AND EXHIBIT
___________________________________________________________

TO THE PROTHONOTARY:

Kindly reinstate the Complaint originally filed on December 3, 2008 in the above captioned
action.
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 401(b)(2) Time For Service, Reissuance, Reinstatement and
Substitution of Original Process, Copies for Service, which states "A writ may be reisued or a
complaint reinstated at any time and any number of times. A new party defendant may be named
in a reinstated writ or a reinstated complaint".
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 126 Liberal Construction and Application of Rules, which
states "the rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable. The court at
every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of
procedure which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 1
1 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

KINDLY ADD THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

1. AMVETS POST 19, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA


2. SONS OF SQUADRON 19, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
3. KEVIN MILLER, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
4. WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA
5. JOHN DOE, PHARMICIST ONE, WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE,
LANCASTER, PA
6. JANE DOE, PHARMICIST TWO, WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE,
LANCASTER, PA
7. CVS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA
8. JOHN DOE, PHARMICIST ONE, CVS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER,
PENNSLVANIA
9. CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, WASHINGTON, D.C.
10. U.S. TREASURY and U.S. TRUSTEE OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE CLAIMS ARE AS FOLLOWS
1. THE ABOVE ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGE IN AN ORGANIZED PROGRAM
OF
A. WEIS PHARMACY, CVS PHARMACY FRAUD, ATTEMPTED MURDER
B. CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI, COLLUSION TO COMMIT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
C. HARASSMENT
D. STALKINGT
E. WITH THE AID, KNOWLEDGE, AND COOPERATION OF THE LOCAL
POLICE DEPARTMENTS, WHO ENCOURAGE THE PROGRAM AND
REMAIN UNDERCOVER.
F. U.S. TREASURY AND U.S. TRUSTEE OFFICE - FRAUD re $416.00 FEE for 17-10615 CH.11
Stan J. Caterbone is a private citizen and the majority shareholder of the United States
incorporated business Advanced Media Group, Ltd.,. 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.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 2
2 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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
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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 3
3 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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.
The following are the effects of the ILLEGAL AND LANDMARK COINTELPRO PROGRAM
COUPELD WITH THE TORTURE PROGRAM:

1. 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.
2. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SIGNED (3) EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT BROADENED THE
POWERS OF THE CITY OF LANCASTER POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COINCIDE WITH THE
ABOVE.
3. 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.
4. THE TARGETING CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING:
I. AN UPRECEDENTED HARASSMENT PROGRAM CARRIED OUT BY RESIDENTS,
NEIGHBORS, STALKING GROUPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND OTHERS.
II. AN UNPRECEDENTED HACKING PROGRAM OF ALL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT.
III. AN UNPRECEDENTED TORTURE PROGRAM UTILIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC AND OTHER
EXOTIC WEAPONS DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
IV. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN DESIGNED TO DRAIN THE APPELLANT STAN J.
CATERBONE OF ALL CASH RESOURCES, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A CASH POSITION

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 4
4 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

OF SOME $60,000.00 IN JUNE OF 2015 TO NOTHING TODAY.


V. 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.
VI. AN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAIGN OF DAILY HARASSMENTS AND THREATS BY THE
RESIDENTS OF 1252 FREMONT STREET, WHICH HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE 2006.
VII. UN UNPRECEDENTED CAMPAING OF THREATS OF PHYSICL HARM IN PUBLIC
SPACES.
VIII. 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
ON A DAILY BASIS. THIS ALSO INVOLVES THE THEFT AND MANIPULATION OF COURT
FILINGS AND EVIDENCE.
IX. THE ABOVE ARE ALL FACILITATED AND SUPPORTED WITH VIOLATIONS OF DUE
PROCESS IN THE COMPLAINTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
X. 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 PLAINTIFF 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 PLAINTIFF STAN J. CATERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP 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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 5
5 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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.

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.

STAN J. CATERBONE is relevant to THESE 2 DEFENDANTS 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 PLAINTIFF 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 PLAINTIFF 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 PLAINTIFF 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 PLAINTIFF 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.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 6
6 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 7
7 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

significant implications for subsequent responses to stress.

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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 8
8 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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
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.

DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2017

Respectfully,

__________/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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 9
9 of
of 240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?

ACTIVE COURT CASESACTIVE 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. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle
Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-10615; Case No.
17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650,
08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-1751
PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen
Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA
2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472
INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-
03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 10
10 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

EXHIBITS

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 11
11 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
Gmail - AMVETS Post 19 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>

AMVETS Post 19
9 messages

. AMVETS <amvetspost19@comcast.net> Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:31 AM


Reply-To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>
To: stancaterbone@gmail.com
Cc: Dave Ream <dreamdr56@verizon.net>, Bryan & Christy Schmalhofer <bschmalhofer@wellspan.org>

Good Morning

Thank you so much for stopping to see AMVETS Post 19 at Community Days! We would love to see you at the Post!

We have some great events in September and wanted to give you a preview (our monthly newsletter will go to press this week)

Labor Day Monday Sept 4th 12Noon Picnic in the Pavilion Bring a Covered Dish to Share DJ Bob 1PM-5PM Raffles Family Friendly Guests
Welcome $3 charge for non-members

Sat Sept 2 8PM-Midnight Firestorm classic, progressive rock band

Fri Sept 8 8PM-Midnight Clockwork rock, funk, oldies --- super entertaining and dancing

Sat Sept 23 8PM-Midnight Funktion did you say dance?? you won't want to sit down!

Sat Sept 30 8PM-Midnight FlyBoys songs we all remember and love

Veterans Class A Post Meeting Thursday September 7 7PM Banquet Hall All veteran members are strongly encouraged to attend this meeting.
There will be discussion about building, grounds that was presented at the meeting held on August 14th. We value our members input and
expertise.

Ladies Auxiliary Meeting Thursday Sept 13 7PM All auxiliary members are welcome and encouraged to attend and support our programs

Home Association Meeting Thursday Sept 14 7PM ALL members of AMVETS Post 19 are welcome and encouraged to attend this meeting. We
need and value ALL our members to help us promote AMVETS Post 19!

If you have specific questions, please email us and we will be glad to help!

We look forward to seeing you at AMVETS Post 19!

Barb Arms

Volunteer

AMVETS Post 19

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>

August 28, 2017

TO BARB ARMS RE: SONS OF AMVETS MEMBERSHIP.

/S/ Stan J. Caterbone


Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
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.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 12
12 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

1 of 5 9/3/2017, 3:18 AM
Gmail - AMVETS Post 19 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

[Quoted text hidden]

UPDATED-Samuel Caterbone Naval Air Gunners Honors 1943 and Documents for AMVETS APPLICATION December 7, 2016 AUGUST
28, 2017.pdf
4303K

. AMVETS <amvetspost19@comcast.net> Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:08 PM


Reply-To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>
To: Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Ream <dreamdr56@verizon.net>, Jeff Dawn Todd <dawnjeff01@gmail.com>, kmiller@coresource.com

Hi Stan

I will print and pass this information to our Sons Squadron 19 Membership Chairperson, Kevin Miller. I do apologize that you have been trying to get
assistance in joining and have not received any information.

I am hoping the documentation you have included will be sufficient for proof of your father's veteran status, which would then make you eligible to
become a Son.

I am also including information for you to secure a copy of his DD214, in case you need or would like to have it.

https://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records

If you have any other questions, please contact us and we will be glad to help.

Barb Arms

Volunteer

AMVETS Post 19

On August 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone


[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:35 PM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>

Barb, Thank you so much for your help! You don't know how much it means to me to be able enjoy THE AMVETS LIVE MUSIC!

And of course if you knew what MY FATHER AND BROTHER SACRIFICED for the U.S. MILITARY - Well, it means a lot to me for thier sake.

Stan
[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:01 AM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>

Friday September 1, 2017

Barb, I already signed and sent in the REQUEST to the MILITARY RECORDS. Could you please let me know where my membership status
stands at this time?

Much Appreciated, Stan.

/S/ Stan J. Caterbone


Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
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

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 13
13 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

2 of 5 9/3/2017, 3:18 AM
Gmail - AMVETS Post 19 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

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.

[Quoted text hidden]

UPDATED-Samuel Caterbone Naval Air Gunners Honors 1943 and Documents for AMVETS APPLICATION December 7, 2016 AUGUST
30, 2017.pdf
4533K

. AMVETS <amvetspost19@comcast.net> Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:23 AM


Reply-To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>
To: Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Dawn Todd <dawnjeff01@gmail.com>, kmiller@coresource.com

Hi Sam

We are having printer issues --- you need to speak with the Sons Squadron Membership Chair Kevin Miller his cell phone is 717-471-0138

I will keep trying to print the information but you may need to meet with Kevin and bring the information to him - also wasn't sure if you paid yet?

I have copied Kevin Miller, 1st Vice Sons Squadron and Jeff Todd, Commander Sons Squadron on this email

We do have DJ King James this evening, Firestorm Saturday night 8PM-Midnight -- guests are welcome for a small cover charge

[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:49 PM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>
Cc: kmiller@coresource.com, Jeff Dawn Todd <dawnjeff01@gmail.com>

Will do.
[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:27 PM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>

Tell Gary Martin and Company to lawyer-up!


[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 3:14 AM


To: ". AMVETS" <amvetspost19@comcast.net>, Chambers_of_Judge_Edward_G_Smith@paed.uscourts.gov, stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us,
sector5@lancasterpolice.com, andrew.warden@usdoj.gov, Kevin Steele <ksteele@montcopa.org>
Bcc: "1751-br@laborready.com" <1751-br@laborready.com>, "ablackburn@lnpnews.com" <ablackburn@lnpnews.com>, "acrable@lnpnews.com"
<acrable@lnpnews.com>, "adegrace@lnpnews.com" <adegrace@lnpnews.com>, Adrian Soh <adrian.soh@mcpayment.com>, "ageli@lnpnews.com"
<ageli@lnpnews.com>, "agillhoolley@lnpnews.com" <agillhoolley@lnpnews.com>, "ahan@lnpnews.com" <ahan@lnpnews.com>, amil minora
<amil.minora@gmail.com>, "amil.miora@gmail.com" <amil.miora@gmail.com>, Ana Larrubia <predestined2succeed@gmail.com>, Andrew Keane
<keanea@nationwide.com>, Ann Ehrenzeller <everythingeverywhere1000@gmail.com>, "ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov"
<ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov>, Anna Caterbone <acaterbone@yahoo.com>, "apeiffer@lnpnews.com" <apeiffer@lnpnews.com>, Apple Support
<applesupport@insideapple.apple.com>, "arios@lnpnews.com" <arios@lnpnews.com>, Arlena Blackburn <blaca2@nationwide.com>,
"ashank@lnpnews.com" <ashank@lnpnews.com>, Ashley Garcia <agarcia@lcci.com>, Ashley Patrick <abpatrick8@gmail.com>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov"
<askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "asohaney@lnpnews.com" <asohaney@lnpnews.com>, "awilliams@lnpnews.com" <awilliams@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Hough
Roda <broda@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Sheppard <bsheppard@selectsecurity.com>, "barrett@rklcpa.com" <barrett@rklcpa.com>, Barry Miller
<barrymiller@epix.net>, "barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com" <barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com>, "bbarr@hearst.com" <bbarr@hearst.com>,
"bbert@lnpnews.com" <bbert@lnpnews.com>, "bbrubaker@pennwaste.com" <bbrubaker@pennwaste.com>, "bbumsted@tribweb.com"
<bbumsted@tribweb.com>, "bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com" <bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "beckyh209@aol.com"
<beckyh209@aol.com>, "benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu" <benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu>, Bernie Schriver <bernardschriver@gmail.com>,
"bill@ezmarketing.com" <bill@ezmarketing.com>, "billing@ebay.com" <billing@ebay.com>, Bob Kauffman <robert.kauffman@axa-advisors.com>,
Bonnie Lee <polygraphsolutions@verizon.net>, Brad Roda <broda@fult.com>, "brian@claypoollawfirm.com" <brian@claypoollawfirm.com>,
"broche@hearst.com" <broche@hearst.com>, "bseal@alm.com" <bseal@alm.com>, "bwilson@lnpnews.com" <bwilson@lnpnews.com>, Capitol Copy
<lanc@capitolsupport.net>, Carbonite Support <reply@carbonite.com>, "Carl J. Frederick" <cjfrederick@lancaster.k12.pa.us>, Cassidy Bolen
<cltshudy@gmail.com>, "cemlet@lnpnews.com" <cemlet@lnpnews.com>, "cesbenshade@lnpnews.com" <cesbenshade@lnpnews.com>,
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 14
14 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

3 of 5 9/3/2017, 3:18 AM
Gmail - AMVETS Post 19 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
"chambers_of_judge_edward_g_smith@paed.uscourts.gov" <chambers_of_judge_edward_g_smith@paed.uscourts.gov>, Cheryl Welssh
<welsh@mindjustice.org>, Chris Hausner <clh@rkglaw.com>, Christine Flowers <cflowers1961@gmail.com>, "Christopher M. Reeser"
<cmreeser@mdwcg.com>, "circdispatch@lnpnews.com" <circdispatch@lnpnews.com>, City Of Harrisburg <info@harrisburgpa.gov>,
"ckreider@lnpnews.com" <ckreider@lnpnews.com>, "clangley@lnpnews.com" <clangley@lnpnews.com>, "class@lnpnews.com" <class@lnpnews.com>,
"clillis@hearst.com" <clillis@hearst.com>, "cmccoy@phillynews.com" <cmccoy@phillynews.com>, "coleen@netwerk.com" <coleen@netwerk.com>,
Comcast Business <reply@get.comcastbusiness.com>, "complaint-response@paypal.com" <complaint-response@paypal.com>, "complaints@ic.fbi.gov"
<complaints@ic.fbi.gov>, "contact@smilecaregroup.com" <contact@smilecaregroup.com>, "cotto@lnpnews.com" <cotto@lnpnews.com>,
"cpratt@lnpnews.com" <cpratt@lnpnews.com>, "creditdept@efax.com" <creditdept@efax.com>, Cultivate Lancaster <cultivatelancaster@gmail.com>,
"cumble@lnpnews.com" <cumble@lnpnews.com>, "dabreu@lnpnews.com" <dabreu@lnpnews.com>, "dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us"
<dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Dan Naumann <danielnaumann@allstate.com>, Daniel Naumann <danielnaumann1@allstate.com>, Dave Brown
<dave@pearsonkoutcherlaw.com>, Dave Hickernell <dhickern@pahousegop.com>, Dave Pflumm <dpflumm@yahoo.com>, "dave@mywclawyer.com"
<dave@mywclawyer.com>, "daviesj@shnj.org" <daviesj@shnj.org>, "dbethea@lnpnews.com" <dbethea@lnpnews.com>, "dbyrne@lnpnews.com"
<dbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "dcody@lnpnews.com" <dcody@lnpnews.com>, Derrick Robinson <derrickcrobinson@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson
<freedomfchs@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson <dcr618@msn.com>, "dharper@lnpnews.com" <dharper@lnpnews.com>, Diana Crone
<CRONED1@nationwide.com>, "dleed@lnpnews.com" <dleed@lnpnews.com>, "dmarschka@lnpnews.com" <dmarschka@lnpnews.com>,
"dmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <dmontgomery@lnpnews.com>, "dmoyer@teamemerald.com" <dmoyer@teamemerald.com>, Dmsutton
<dmsutton@aol.com>, "dnephin@lnpnews.com" <dnephin@lnpnews.com>, "Donald J. Trump for President Inc." <info@donaldtrump.com>,
"donotreply@lowes.com" <donotreply@lowes.com>, "dpugliese@lnpnews.com" <dpugliese@lnpnews.com>, "dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net"
<dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net>, "drodriguez@lnpnews.com" <drodriguez@lnpnews.com>, "drote@gojones.com" <drote@gojones.com>,
"dsmyre@dauphinc.org" <dsmyre@dauphinc.org>, E ~ Eric Deatrick <music@ericdeatrick.com>, "E: Philep Wenger" <pwenger@fultonbank.com>,
"ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov" <ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov>, "ecornelius@lnpnews.com" <ecornelius@lnpnews.com>, "egruver@lnpnews.com"
<egruver@lnpnews.com>, Elmo <jere.sullivan@edelman.com>, "email@gop.com" <email@gop.com>, "emily33jones@gmail.com"
<emily33jones@gmail.com>, "enegley@lnpnews.com" <enegley@lnpnews.com>, "epatton@lnpnews.com" <epatton@lnpnews.com>, Eric Deatrick
<doctoreric8@gmail.com>, "estark@lnpnews.com" <estark@lnpnews.com>, "eweinstock@hearst.com" <eweinstock@hearst.com>,
"foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com"
<foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com>, Frances Chapman <fchapman@hillaryclinton.com>,
"gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov" <gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov>, "gallagherm@shnj.org" <gallagherm@shnj.org>, "galspach232@aol.com"
<galspach232@aol.com>, "gdm@stevenslee.com" <gdm@stevenslee.com>, GEICO <reply-fec615777d67047b-22_html-
356468497-1058498-139@email1.geico.com>, George Parry <lgparry@dpt-law.com>, "george@coasttocoastam.com" <george@coasttocoastam.com>,
"graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us" <graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Guardian <reply-fec415787360057a-1493_html-
19766001-1059028-0@mail.theguardian.com>, Heidi Wann <hwanncrm@lcmotors.net>, Hillary for America <info@hillaryclinton.com>,
"housing@cityoflancasterpa.com" <housing@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "hstauffer@lnpnews.com" <hstauffer@lnpnews.com>,
"info@launchmusicconference.com" <info@launchmusicconference.com>, "iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk" <iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-
office.x.gsi.gov.uk>, James Lemonias <james.lemonias@carbonite.com>, James Walbert <inventor0207@yahoo.com>, "jbetti@hearst.com"
<jbetti@hearst.com>, "jcalhoun@hearst.com" <jcalhoun@hearst.com>, "jcassidy@lnpnews.com" <jcassidy@lnpnews.com>, Jean Pallas
<pallasj@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Jeff Sentz <jsentz@pennwaste.com>, Jere Gish <jgish@hearst.com>, "jferguson@lnpnews.com"
<jferguson@lnpnews.com>, "jfortune@lnpnews.com" <jfortune@lnpnews.com>, "jgreene@lnpnews.com" <jgreene@lnpnews.com>,
"jhawkes@lnpnews.com" <jhawkes@lnpnews.com>, "jhersh@lnpnews.com" <jhersh@lnpnews.com>, "jholahan@lnpnews.com"
<jholahan@lnpnews.com>, Jim Doran <james_doran@msn.com>, Jim Warner <jwarner@lcswma.org>, Jimmy Karpathios <jimk@keareselectric.com>,
Jimmy Karpathios <jkarpathios@comcast.net>, "jjanci@lnpnews.com" <jjanci@lnpnews.com>, "jkensinger@lnpnews.com" <jkensinger@lnpnews.com>,
"jkopf@lnpnews.com" <jkopf@lnpnews.com>, "jloose@lnpnews.com" <jloose@lnpnews.com>, John Garofolo <john.garofolo@nist.gov>, John Hall
<info@satweapons.com>, John Walker <jwalker@steinmancommunications.com>, "jroda@rodalaw.com" <jroda@rodalaw.com>, "jtodd@lnpnews.com"
<jtodd@lnpnews.com>, Judicial Watch <reply_cpnfea_wszjzsc@news.judicialwatch.org>, "jwalk@lnpnews.com" <jwalk@lnpnews.com>, Katelyn Smith
<ksmith@hearst.com>, Kay Daly <kay@kaydaly.com>, "kbyrne@lnpnews.com" <kbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "kdaminger@lnpnews.com"
<kdaminger@lnpnews.com>, Ken Rhoades <kenrhoades2008@yahoo.com>, Kevin Steele <ksteele@montcopa.org>,
"kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com" <kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com>, "kfreeman@lnpnews.com" <kfreeman@lnpnews.com>,
"klemon@hearst.com" <klemon@hearst.com>, "knewhouse@lnpnews.com" <knewhouse@lnpnews.com>, "kramarj@shnj.org" <kramarj@shnj.org>,
Kristen Ost <kekost223@gmail.com>, Kristi Aurand <kaurand@lcci.com>, "kschweigert@lnpnews.com" <kschweigert@lnpnews.com>,
"kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us" <kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "lancasterletters@lnpnews.com" <lancasterletters@lnpnews.com>,
"lanek@shnj.org" <lanek@shnj.org>, "laporchajohnson@hearst.com" <laporchajohnson@hearst.com>, Laura Wagner-Miller
<lwagner@pahousegop.com>, "LB, Legal" <ra-lblegal@pa.gov>, "lblest@lnpnews.com" <lblest@lnpnews.com>, "lbrown@lnpnews.com"
<lbrown@lnpnews.com>, Lesa Stambaugh <lstambaughcrm@lcmotors.net>, Leticia <letie049@gmail.com>, "lgoodlin@lnpnews.com"
<lgoodlin@lnpnews.com>, Lionel Barber <lionel.barber@ft.com>, Lisa Miller <millerli@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Liz Maurer
<liz@launchmusicconference.com>, "ljoseph@lnpnews.com" <ljoseph@lnpnews.com>, Lori Burkholder <lburkholder@hearst.com>, Love My Life
<lovemylife101@verizon.net>, "lstein@21st-centurymedia.com" <lstein@21st-centurymedia.com>, "lthompson@lnpnews.com"
<lthompson@lnpnews.com>, Lynn and Marie <lynnandmarie@live.com>, Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>, "Marc Steinberg
Esq. Kathleen Kane ATTY" <mrs@rgsglaw.com>, "martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com" <martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com>, Marylinn Gerber
<mgerber@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "mastrangelob@shnj.org" <mastrangelob@shnj.org>, Matt Miller <mmiller@pennlive.com>, Meredith Cooke
<mjorgensen@hearst.com>, "mfinnerty@lnpnews.com" <mfinnerty@lnpnews.com>, "mgross@lnpnews.com" <mgross@lnpnews.com>, michael mc
donald <mpm@mcdonaldatlaw.com>, Michael S Hagen <hagenm@lancasterpolice.com>, Michelle Bohnke <mbohnke@pahouse.net>,
"mike@blackfordventures.com" <mike@blackfordventures.com>, "mikeh@financialnetwork.net" <mikeh@financialnetwork.net>,
"mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "mkabik@lcci.com" <mkabik@lcci.com>, "mlong@lnpnews.com"
<mlong@lnpnews.com>, "moltocaprone@hotmail.com" <moltocaprone@hotmail.com>, "mstraub@hearst.com" <mstraub@hearst.com>,
"murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com" <murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com>, "mwright@lnpnews.com" <mwright@lnpnews.com>, Nancy Eshelman
<neshelman@pennlive.com>, National Whistleblower Center <mjw@whistleblowers.org>, "news@lnpnews.com" <news@lnpnews.com>, Office Max
<ods0651cpc@officedepot.com>, Officer Binderup <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "pacer@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacer@psc.uscourts.gov>,
"pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov>, "paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov" <paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov>, Pam Stehman
<pamsu@aol.com>, Paul Newhart <drpaul87@gmail.com>, "perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com" <perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com>, Peter Anders
<Peter.Anders@millersville.edu>, Peter Anders <peter.anders@millerville.edu>, "pgrubic@lnpnews.com" <pgrubic@lnpnews.com>, Phil
<caterbone@sbcglobal.net>, Phil Caterbone <philip.caterbone@gmail.com>, "philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov" <philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov>,
"pkauffman@lnpnews.com" <pkauffman@lnpnews.com>, "pkirchner@lnpnews.com" <pkirchner@lnpnews.com>, "preynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<preynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "pschober@lcci.com" <pschober@lcci.com>, "pwolf@lnpnews.com" <pwolf@lnpnews.com>, Raymond Pennino
<raymond1957@comcast.net>, rebeca shinsky <rzzamatzz@gmail.com>, RentalZone of PA <counter@rentalzonepa.com>,
"rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net" <rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net>, "rfalin@montcopa.org" <rfalin@montcopa.org>, "rhertzler@lnpnews.com"
<rhertzler@lnpnews.com>, "rhess@lnpnews.com" <rhess@lnpnews.com>, "rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org"
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 15
15 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

4 of 5 9/3/2017, 3:18 AM
Gmail - AMVETS Post 19 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
<rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org>, Richard Cosmore <cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "richj@shnj.org" <richj@shnj.org>,
"rmanieri@lnpnews.com" <rmanieri@lnpnews.com>, "rmartin@hearst.com" <rmartin@hearst.com>, "rmellon@lnpnews.com" <rmellon@lnpnews.com>,
"rmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <rmontgomery@lnpnews.com>, Robbie Millward <robbie_millward@cable.comcast.com>, Robert Yeagley
<robertyeagley@eaglesecuresolutions.com>, Ron <ron@lancastercomp.com>, Ron Harper <ron@seey.com>, Ron Harper <ronharperjr@gmail.com>,
Ron Soltes <r.soltes@yahoo.com>, Ron Southwick <rsouthwick@readingeagle.com>, "rrobinson@lnpnews.com" <rrobinson@lnpnews.com>,
"rswift@timesshamrock.com" <rswift@timesshamrock.com>, Samuel Myers <sjmyers1996@gmail.com>, Sarah Guggenheimer
<sguggenheimer@hillaryclinton.com>, Sarah Schmehl <seschmehl@mail.roanoke.edu>, "sbaldrige@lnpnews.com" <sbaldrige@lnpnews.com>,
"scassidy@lnpnews.com" <scassidy@lnpnews.com>, Scott Rhoades <scottr@newtraditionscelebrations.com>, Scott Rhoades
<scottr@lancasterfreethought.org>, "sdeck@mtb.com" <sdeck@mtb.com>, "secretary@stleos.org" <secretary@stleos.org>, Sector 9
<sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "sector5@lancasterpolice.com" <sector5@lancasterpolice.com>, "senateaddress@pasen.gov"
<senateaddress@pasen.gov>, Senator Leach <senatorleach@pasenate.com>, "senator@casey.senate.gov" <senator@casey.senate.gov>,
"sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "service@paypal.com" <service@paypal.com>,
"sfarber@winston.com" <sfarber@winston.com>, "sjanesch@lnpnews.com" <sjanesch@lnpnews.com>, Soleilmavis <soleilmavis@yahoo.com>,
"sports@lnpnews.com" <sports@lnpnews.com>, "sscp@epix.net" <sscp@epix.net>, Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>, Stan Caterbone
<sjcaterb@marauder.millersville.edu>, Stan Caterbone <scaterbone@live.com>, "stan.caterbone@yahoo.com" <stan.caterbone@yahoo.com>,
"stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us" <stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Steve Caterbne <stevecaterbone@yahoo.com>, "steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov"
<steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov>, "submissions@truthdig.com" <submissions@truthdig.com>, Susan Shapiro <susanshapiro@hearst.com>,
"swenger@lnpnews.com" <swenger@lnpnews.com>, Synchrony Bank <reply@synchrony.com>, "tanderson@lnpnews.com"
<tanderson@lnpnews.com>, "tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov" <tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov>, "tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com"
<tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com>, Tee Grossi <mario771@aol.com>, "tgross@lnpnews.com" <tgross@lnpnews.com>, "tim@friendlytransportation.com"
<tim@friendlytransportation.com>, "tknapp@lnpnews.com" <tknapp@lnpnews.com>, "tmekeel@lnpnews.com" <tmekeel@lnpnews.com>,
"tmurse@lnpnews.com" <tmurse@lnpnews.com>, "tmw@goingandplank.com" <tmw@goingandplank.com>, Todd Stephens
<tstephen@pahousegop.com>, Tony Bongiovi <joe@bmt-inc.net>, Tracy Lin Horst <thorst@ppmproperties.com>, "tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "tspidle@lnpnews.com" <tspidle@lnpnews.com>, "tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com" <tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com>,
"ups3413@gmail.com" <ups3413@gmail.com>, "usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov" <usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov>, "usapam.contact@usdoj.gov"
<usapam.contact@usdoj.gov>, "v2support@v2.com" <v2support@v2.com>, Verizon Wireless <emailcampaign@verizonwireless.com>,
"vmarschka@lnpnews.com" <vmarschka@lnpnews.com>, "vtennis@lnpnews.com" <vtennis@lnpnews.com>, W M <wyman399@gmail.com>,
"walterss@shnj.org" <walterss@shnj.org>, "wecare@palocaltax.com" <wecare@palocaltax.com>, "whightower@lnpnews.com"
<whightower@lnpnews.com>, "wmccormick@avalonboro.org" <wmccormick@avalonboro.org>, "wmckelvey@pennlive.com"
<wmckelvey@pennlive.com>, YourHealthPartners <yourhealthpartners@matrixhealth.net>

September 3, 2017 -

I HAVE BEEN CALLING AND LEAVING MESSAGES WITH NO REPLY - CONSIDER THIS A WARNING - YOU WILL BE ADDED AS
DEFENDANTS IN LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEASE CASE NO. CI-08-13373 NEXT WEEK - IDIOTS!

/S/ Stan J. Caterbone


Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
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.

[Quoted text hidden]

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 16
16 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

5 of 5 9/3/2017, 3:18 AM
Gmail - Sons membership https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>

Sons membership
5 messages

Kevin miller <pequea.pres56@yahoo.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:27 AM


Reply-To: Kevin miller <pequea.pres56@yahoo.com>
To: stancaterbone@gmail.com
Cc: mykolj@comcast.net, dawnjeff01@gmail.com, pequea.pres56@yahoo.com

Good morning Stan,

I tried calling you yesterday and was hung up on. After a brief meeting with the officers, we are denying your membership to Sons Squadron 19 at
this time. Should you have any questions or concerns about our decision, you are more than welcome to attend our monthly meeting on Sunday,
October 1st at 12 noon. It is held at AMVETS Post 19, 715 Fairview Avenue Lancaster, PA. Thank you!

Kevin Miller
1st Vice Commander
Sons Squadron 19

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:44 AM


To: Kevin miller <pequea.pres56@yahoo.com>
Cc: mykolj@comcast.net, Jeff Dawn Todd <dawnjeff01@gmail.com>
Bcc: andrew.warden@usdoj.gov, Chambers_of_Judge_Edward_G_Smith@paed.uscourts.gov, stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us, Kevin Steele
<ksteele@montcopa.org>, sector5@lancasterpolice.com, Sector 9 <sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Peter Anders <peter.anders@millerville.edu>,
Officer Binderup <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Richard Cosmore <cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, complaints@ic.fbi.gov, "1751-
br@laborready.com" <1751-br@laborready.com>, "ablackburn@lnpnews.com" <ablackburn@lnpnews.com>, "acrable@lnpnews.com"
<acrable@lnpnews.com>, "adegrace@lnpnews.com" <adegrace@lnpnews.com>, Adrian Soh <adrian.soh@mcpayment.com>, "ageli@lnpnews.com"
<ageli@lnpnews.com>, "agillhoolley@lnpnews.com" <agillhoolley@lnpnews.com>, "ahan@lnpnews.com" <ahan@lnpnews.com>, amil minora
<amil.minora@gmail.com>, "amil.miora@gmail.com" <amil.miora@gmail.com>, Ana Larrubia <predestined2succeed@gmail.com>, Andrew Keane
<keanea@nationwide.com>, Ann Ehrenzeller <everythingeverywhere1000@gmail.com>, "ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov"
<ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov>, Anna Caterbone <acaterbone@yahoo.com>, "apeiffer@lnpnews.com" <apeiffer@lnpnews.com>, Apple Support
<applesupport@insideapple.apple.com>, "arios@lnpnews.com" <arios@lnpnews.com>, Arlena Blackburn <blaca2@nationwide.com>,
"ashank@lnpnews.com" <ashank@lnpnews.com>, Ashley Garcia <agarcia@lcci.com>, Ashley Patrick <abpatrick8@gmail.com>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov"
<askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "asohaney@lnpnews.com" <asohaney@lnpnews.com>, "awilliams@lnpnews.com" <awilliams@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Hough
Roda <broda@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Sheppard <bsheppard@selectsecurity.com>, "barrett@rklcpa.com" <barrett@rklcpa.com>, Barry Miller
<barrymiller@epix.net>, "barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com" <barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com>, "bbarr@hearst.com" <bbarr@hearst.com>,
"bbert@lnpnews.com" <bbert@lnpnews.com>, "bbrubaker@pennwaste.com" <bbrubaker@pennwaste.com>, "bbumsted@tribweb.com"
<bbumsted@tribweb.com>, "bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com" <bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "beckyh209@aol.com"
<beckyh209@aol.com>, "benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu" <benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu>, Bernie Schriver <bernardschriver@gmail.com>,
"bill@ezmarketing.com" <bill@ezmarketing.com>, "billing@ebay.com" <billing@ebay.com>, Bob Kauffman <robert.kauffman@axa-advisors.com>,
Bonnie Lee <polygraphsolutions@verizon.net>, Brad Roda <broda@fult.com>, "brian@claypoollawfirm.com" <brian@claypoollawfirm.com>,
"broche@hearst.com" <broche@hearst.com>, "bseal@alm.com" <bseal@alm.com>, "bwilson@lnpnews.com" <bwilson@lnpnews.com>, Capitol Copy
<lanc@capitolsupport.net>, Carbonite Support <reply@carbonite.com>, "Carl J. Frederick" <cjfrederick@lancaster.k12.pa.us>, Cassidy Bolen
<cltshudy@gmail.com>, "cemlet@lnpnews.com" <cemlet@lnpnews.com>, "cesbenshade@lnpnews.com" <cesbenshade@lnpnews.com>, Cheryl
Welssh <welsh@mindjustice.org>, Chris Hausner <clh@rkglaw.com>, Christine Flowers <cflowers1961@gmail.com>, "Christopher M. Reeser"
<cmreeser@mdwcg.com>, "circdispatch@lnpnews.com" <circdispatch@lnpnews.com>, City Of Harrisburg <info@harrisburgpa.gov>,
"ckreider@lnpnews.com" <ckreider@lnpnews.com>, "clangley@lnpnews.com" <clangley@lnpnews.com>, "class@lnpnews.com" <class@lnpnews.com>,
"clillis@hearst.com" <clillis@hearst.com>, "cmccoy@phillynews.com" <cmccoy@phillynews.com>, "coleen@netwerk.com" <coleen@netwerk.com>,
Comcast Business <reply@get.comcastbusiness.com>, "complaint-response@paypal.com" <complaint-response@paypal.com>,
"contact@smilecaregroup.com" <contact@smilecaregroup.com>, "cotto@lnpnews.com" <cotto@lnpnews.com>, "cpratt@lnpnews.com"
<cpratt@lnpnews.com>, "creditdept@efax.com" <creditdept@efax.com>, Cultivate Lancaster <cultivatelancaster@gmail.com>, "cumble@lnpnews.com"
<cumble@lnpnews.com>, "dabreu@lnpnews.com" <dabreu@lnpnews.com>, "dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us" <dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Dan Naumann
<danielnaumann@allstate.com>, Daniel Naumann <danielnaumann1@allstate.com>, Dave Brown <dave@pearsonkoutcherlaw.com>, Dave Hickernell
<dhickern@pahousegop.com>, Dave Pflumm <dpflumm@yahoo.com>, "dave@mywclawyer.com" <dave@mywclawyer.com>, "daviesj@shnj.org"
<daviesj@shnj.org>, "dbethea@lnpnews.com" <dbethea@lnpnews.com>, "dbyrne@lnpnews.com" <dbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "dcody@lnpnews.com"
<dcody@lnpnews.com>, Derrick Robinson <derrickcrobinson@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson <freedomfchs@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson
<dcr618@msn.com>, "dharper@lnpnews.com" <dharper@lnpnews.com>, Diana Crone <CRONED1@nationwide.com>, "dleed@lnpnews.com"
<dleed@lnpnews.com>, "dmarschka@lnpnews.com" <dmarschka@lnpnews.com>, "dmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <dmontgomery@lnpnews.com>,
"dmoyer@teamemerald.com" <dmoyer@teamemerald.com>, Dmsutton <dmsutton@aol.com>, "dnephin@lnpnews.com" <dnephin@lnpnews.com>,
"Donald J. Trump for President Inc." <info@donaldtrump.com>, "donotreply@lowes.com" <donotreply@lowes.com>, "dpugliese@lnpnews.com"
<dpugliese@lnpnews.com>, "dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net" <dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net>, "drodriguez@lnpnews.com"
<drodriguez@lnpnews.com>, "drote@gojones.com" <drote@gojones.com>, "dsmyre@dauphinc.org" <dsmyre@dauphinc.org>, E ~ Eric Deatrick
<music@ericdeatrick.com>, "E: Philep Wenger" <pwenger@fultonbank.com>, "ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov" <ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov>,
"ecornelius@lnpnews.com" <ecornelius@lnpnews.com>, "egruver@lnpnews.com" <egruver@lnpnews.com>, Elmo <jere.sullivan@edelman.com>,
"email@gop.com" <email@gop.com>, "emily33jones@gmail.com" <emily33jones@gmail.com>, "enegley@lnpnews.com" <enegley@lnpnews.com>,
"epatton@lnpnews.com" <epatton@lnpnews.com>, Eric Deatrick <doctoreric8@gmail.com>, "estark@lnpnews.com" <estark@lnpnews.com>,
"eweinstock@hearst.com" <eweinstock@hearst.com>, "foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com"
<foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com>, Frances Chapman <fchapman@hillaryclinton.com>,
"gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov" <gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov>, "gallagherm@shnj.org" <gallagherm@shnj.org>, "galspach232@aol.com"
<galspach232@aol.com>, "gdm@stevenslee.com" <gdm@stevenslee.com>, GEICO <reply-fec615777d67047b-22_html-
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 17
17 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

1 of 5 9/6/2017, 6:41 AM
Gmail - Sons membership https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
356468497-1058498-139@email1.geico.com>, George Parry <lgparry@dpt-law.com>, "george@coasttocoastam.com" <george@coasttocoastam.com>,
"graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us" <graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Guardian <reply-fec415787360057a-1493_html-
19766001-1059028-0@mail.theguardian.com>, Heidi Wann <hwanncrm@lcmotors.net>, Hillary for America <info@hillaryclinton.com>,
"housing@cityoflancasterpa.com" <housing@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "hstauffer@lnpnews.com" <hstauffer@lnpnews.com>,
"info@launchmusicconference.com" <info@launchmusicconference.com>, "iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk" <iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-
office.x.gsi.gov.uk>, James Lemonias <james.lemonias@carbonite.com>, James Walbert <inventor0207@yahoo.com>, "jbetti@hearst.com"
<jbetti@hearst.com>, "jcalhoun@hearst.com" <jcalhoun@hearst.com>, "jcassidy@lnpnews.com" <jcassidy@lnpnews.com>, Jean Pallas
<pallasj@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Jeff Sentz <jsentz@pennwaste.com>, Jere Gish <jgish@hearst.com>, "jferguson@lnpnews.com"
<jferguson@lnpnews.com>, "jfortune@lnpnews.com" <jfortune@lnpnews.com>, "jgreene@lnpnews.com" <jgreene@lnpnews.com>,
"jhawkes@lnpnews.com" <jhawkes@lnpnews.com>, "jhersh@lnpnews.com" <jhersh@lnpnews.com>, "jholahan@lnpnews.com"
<jholahan@lnpnews.com>, Jim Doran <james_doran@msn.com>, Jim Warner <jwarner@lcswma.org>, Jimmy Karpathios <jimk@keareselectric.com>,
Jimmy Karpathios <jkarpathios@comcast.net>, "jjanci@lnpnews.com" <jjanci@lnpnews.com>, "jkensinger@lnpnews.com" <jkensinger@lnpnews.com>,
"jkopf@lnpnews.com" <jkopf@lnpnews.com>, "jloose@lnpnews.com" <jloose@lnpnews.com>, John Garofolo <john.garofolo@nist.gov>, John Hall
<info@satweapons.com>, John Walker <jwalker@steinmancommunications.com>, "jroda@rodalaw.com" <jroda@rodalaw.com>, "jtodd@lnpnews.com"
<jtodd@lnpnews.com>, Judicial Watch <reply_cpnfea_wszjzsc@news.judicialwatch.org>, "jwalk@lnpnews.com" <jwalk@lnpnews.com>, Katelyn Smith
<ksmith@hearst.com>, Kay Daly <kay@kaydaly.com>, "kbyrne@lnpnews.com" <kbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "kdaminger@lnpnews.com"
<kdaminger@lnpnews.com>, Ken Rhoades <kenrhoades2008@yahoo.com>, "kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com"
<kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com>, "kfreeman@lnpnews.com" <kfreeman@lnpnews.com>, "klemon@hearst.com" <klemon@hearst.com>,
"knewhouse@lnpnews.com" <knewhouse@lnpnews.com>, "kramarj@shnj.org" <kramarj@shnj.org>, Kristen Ost <kekost223@gmail.com>, Kristi Aurand
<kaurand@lcci.com>, "kschweigert@lnpnews.com" <kschweigert@lnpnews.com>, "kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us"
<kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "lancasterletters@lnpnews.com" <lancasterletters@lnpnews.com>, "lanek@shnj.org" <lanek@shnj.org>,
"laporchajohnson@hearst.com" <laporchajohnson@hearst.com>, Laura Wagner-Miller <lwagner@pahousegop.com>, "LB, Legal" <ra-lblegal@pa.gov>,
"lblest@lnpnews.com" <lblest@lnpnews.com>, "lbrown@lnpnews.com" <lbrown@lnpnews.com>, Lesa Stambaugh <lstambaughcrm@lcmotors.net>,
Leticia <letie049@gmail.com>, "lgoodlin@lnpnews.com" <lgoodlin@lnpnews.com>, Lionel Barber <lionel.barber@ft.com>, Lisa Miller
<millerli@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Liz Maurer <liz@launchmusicconference.com>, "ljoseph@lnpnews.com" <ljoseph@lnpnews.com>, Lori Burkholder
<lburkholder@hearst.com>, Love My Life <lovemylife101@verizon.net>, "lstein@21st-centurymedia.com" <lstein@21st-centurymedia.com>,
"lthompson@lnpnews.com" <lthompson@lnpnews.com>, Lynn and Marie <lynnandmarie@live.com>, Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-
daemon@googlemail.com>, "Marc Steinberg Esq. Kathleen Kane ATTY" <mrs@rgsglaw.com>, "martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com"
<martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com>, Marylinn Gerber <mgerber@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "mastrangelob@shnj.org" <mastrangelob@shnj.org>, Matt Miller
<mmiller@pennlive.com>, Meredith Cooke <mjorgensen@hearst.com>, "mfinnerty@lnpnews.com" <mfinnerty@lnpnews.com>, "mgross@lnpnews.com"
<mgross@lnpnews.com>, michael mc donald <mpm@mcdonaldatlaw.com>, Michael S Hagen <hagenm@lancasterpolice.com>, Michelle Bohnke
<mbohnke@pahouse.net>, "mike@blackfordventures.com" <mike@blackfordventures.com>, "mikeh@financialnetwork.net"
<mikeh@financialnetwork.net>, "mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "mkabik@lcci.com" <mkabik@lcci.com>,
"mlong@lnpnews.com" <mlong@lnpnews.com>, "moltocaprone@hotmail.com" <moltocaprone@hotmail.com>, "mstraub@hearst.com"
<mstraub@hearst.com>, "murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com" <murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com>, "mwright@lnpnews.com"
<mwright@lnpnews.com>, Nancy Eshelman <neshelman@pennlive.com>, National Whistleblower Center <mjw@whistleblowers.org>,
"news@lnpnews.com" <news@lnpnews.com>, Office Max <ods0651cpc@officedepot.com>, "pacer@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacer@psc.uscourts.gov>,
"pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov>, "paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov" <paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov>, Pam Stehman
<pamsu@aol.com>, Paul Newhart <drpaul87@gmail.com>, "perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com" <perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com>, Peter Anders
<Peter.Anders@millersville.edu>, "pgrubic@lnpnews.com" <pgrubic@lnpnews.com>, Phil <caterbone@sbcglobal.net>, Phil Caterbone
<philip.caterbone@gmail.com>, "philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov" <philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov>, "pkauffman@lnpnews.com"
<pkauffman@lnpnews.com>, "pkirchner@lnpnews.com" <pkirchner@lnpnews.com>, "preynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <preynolds@police.stone-
harbor.nj.us>, "pschober@lcci.com" <pschober@lcci.com>, "pwolf@lnpnews.com" <pwolf@lnpnews.com>, Raymond Pennino
<raymond1957@comcast.net>, rebeca shinsky <rzzamatzz@gmail.com>, RentalZone of PA <counter@rentalzonepa.com>,
"rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net" <rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net>, "rfalin@montcopa.org" <rfalin@montcopa.org>, "rhertzler@lnpnews.com"
<rhertzler@lnpnews.com>, "rhess@lnpnews.com" <rhess@lnpnews.com>, "rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org"
<rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org>, "richj@shnj.org" <richj@shnj.org>, "rmanieri@lnpnews.com" <rmanieri@lnpnews.com>, "rmartin@hearst.com"
<rmartin@hearst.com>, "rmellon@lnpnews.com" <rmellon@lnpnews.com>, "rmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <rmontgomery@lnpnews.com>, Robbie
Millward <robbie_millward@cable.comcast.com>, Robert Yeagley <robertyeagley@eaglesecuresolutions.com>, Ron <ron@lancastercomp.com>, Ron
Harper <ron@seey.com>, Ron Harper <ronharperjr@gmail.com>, Ron Soltes <r.soltes@yahoo.com>, Ron Southwick <rsouthwick@readingeagle.com>,
"rrobinson@lnpnews.com" <rrobinson@lnpnews.com>, "rswift@timesshamrock.com" <rswift@timesshamrock.com>, Samuel Myers
<sjmyers1996@gmail.com>, Sarah Guggenheimer <sguggenheimer@hillaryclinton.com>, Sarah Schmehl <seschmehl@mail.roanoke.edu>,
"sbaldrige@lnpnews.com" <sbaldrige@lnpnews.com>, "scassidy@lnpnews.com" <scassidy@lnpnews.com>, Scott Rhoades
<scottr@newtraditionscelebrations.com>, Scott Rhoades <scottr@lancasterfreethought.org>, "sdeck@mtb.com" <sdeck@mtb.com>,
"secretary@stleos.org" <secretary@stleos.org>, "senateaddress@pasen.gov" <senateaddress@pasen.gov>, Senator Leach
<senatorleach@pasenate.com>, "senator@casey.senate.gov" <senator@casey.senate.gov>, "sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "service@paypal.com" <service@paypal.com>, "sfarber@winston.com" <sfarber@winston.com>,
"sjanesch@lnpnews.com" <sjanesch@lnpnews.com>, Soleilmavis <soleilmavis@yahoo.com>, "sports@lnpnews.com" <sports@lnpnews.com>,
"sscp@epix.net" <sscp@epix.net>, Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>, Stan Caterbone <sjcaterb@marauder.millersville.edu>, Stan
Caterbone <scaterbone@live.com>, "stan.caterbone@yahoo.com" <stan.caterbone@yahoo.com>, Steve Caterbne <stevecaterbone@yahoo.com>,
"steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov" <steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov>, "submissions@truthdig.com" <submissions@truthdig.com>, Susan Shapiro
<susanshapiro@hearst.com>, "swenger@lnpnews.com" <swenger@lnpnews.com>, Synchrony Bank <reply@synchrony.com>,
"tanderson@lnpnews.com" <tanderson@lnpnews.com>, "tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov" <tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov>,
"tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com" <tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com>, Tee Grossi <mario771@aol.com>, "tgross@lnpnews.com" <tgross@lnpnews.com>,
"tim@friendlytransportation.com" <tim@friendlytransportation.com>, "tknapp@lnpnews.com" <tknapp@lnpnews.com>, "tmekeel@lnpnews.com"
<tmekeel@lnpnews.com>, "tmurse@lnpnews.com" <tmurse@lnpnews.com>, "tmw@goingandplank.com" <tmw@goingandplank.com>, Todd Stephens
<tstephen@pahousegop.com>, Tony Bongiovi <joe@bmt-inc.net>, Tracy Lin Horst <thorst@ppmproperties.com>, "tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "tspidle@lnpnews.com" <tspidle@lnpnews.com>, "tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com" <tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com>,
"ups3413@gmail.com" <ups3413@gmail.com>, "usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov" <usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov>, "usapam.contact@usdoj.gov"
<usapam.contact@usdoj.gov>, "v2support@v2.com" <v2support@v2.com>, Verizon Wireless <emailcampaign@verizonwireless.com>,
"vmarschka@lnpnews.com" <vmarschka@lnpnews.com>, "vtennis@lnpnews.com" <vtennis@lnpnews.com>, W M <wyman399@gmail.com>,
"walterss@shnj.org" <walterss@shnj.org>, "wecare@palocaltax.com" <wecare@palocaltax.com>, "whightower@lnpnews.com"
<whightower@lnpnews.com>, "wmccormick@avalonboro.org" <wmccormick@avalonboro.org>, "wmckelvey@pennlive.com"
<wmckelvey@pennlive.com>, YourHealthPartners <yourhealthpartners@matrixhealth.net>

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 18
18 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

2 of 5 9/6/2017, 6:41 AM
Gmail - Sons membership https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

September 5, 2017

TO: KEVIN MILLER, Sons Squadron 19 - Lancaster AMVETS Fairview Avenue

YOU ARE FORMALLY BEING INFORMED THAT YOU WILL BE ADDED AS A DEFENDANT IN CASE NO. 08-13373 IN THE LANCASTER
COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

GIVEN THE MILITARY RECORDS OF MY FATHER AND 2 BROTHERS, YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
ALL OF THE VETERANS THAT HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY WITH DIGNITY AND SACRIFICE, INCLUDING MY FATHER AND BROTHERS.

YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED BY NOW, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT MY FEDERAL SCHEDULE OF CASES TOOK PRIORITY.

WHAT IS THE NAME OF YOUR SOLICITOR?

/S/ Stan J. Caterbone


Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
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.

[Quoted text hidden]

3 attachments

08-13373 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas OPEN CASE CATERBONE v. Duke Street Business Center re UPDATED
Defendants List of FRIDAY AUGUST 18, 2017.pdf
100K
Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 PRAECIPE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
UPDATED JULY 31, 2017.pdf
1435K
Duke Street Business Center 08-13373 DOCKET REPORT AS OF JULY 12, 2017.pdf
107K

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:52 AM


To: Kevin miller <pequea.pres56@yahoo.com>
Bcc: "1751-br@laborready.com" <1751-br@laborready.com>, "ablackburn@lnpnews.com" <ablackburn@lnpnews.com>, "acrable@lnpnews.com"
<acrable@lnpnews.com>, "adegrace@lnpnews.com" <adegrace@lnpnews.com>, Adrian Soh <adrian.soh@mcpayment.com>, "ageli@lnpnews.com"
<ageli@lnpnews.com>, "agillhoolley@lnpnews.com" <agillhoolley@lnpnews.com>, "ahan@lnpnews.com" <ahan@lnpnews.com>, amil minora
<amil.minora@gmail.com>, "amil.miora@gmail.com" <amil.miora@gmail.com>, Ana Larrubia <predestined2succeed@gmail.com>, Andrew Keane
<keanea@nationwide.com>, Ann Ehrenzeller <everythingeverywhere1000@gmail.com>, "ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov"
<ann_murphy@paed.uscourts.gov>, Anna Caterbone <acaterbone@yahoo.com>, "apeiffer@lnpnews.com" <apeiffer@lnpnews.com>, Apple Support
<applesupport@insideapple.apple.com>, "arios@lnpnews.com" <arios@lnpnews.com>, Arlena Blackburn <blaca2@nationwide.com>,
"ashank@lnpnews.com" <ashank@lnpnews.com>, Ashley Garcia <agarcia@lcci.com>, Ashley Patrick <abpatrick8@gmail.com>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov"
<askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "asohaney@lnpnews.com" <asohaney@lnpnews.com>, "awilliams@lnpnews.com" <awilliams@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Hough
Roda <broda@lnpnews.com>, Barbara Sheppard <bsheppard@selectsecurity.com>, "barrett@rklcpa.com" <barrett@rklcpa.com>, Barry Miller
<barrymiller@epix.net>, "barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com" <barry@barrygoldmanlaw.com>, "bbarr@hearst.com" <bbarr@hearst.com>,
"bbert@lnpnews.com" <bbert@lnpnews.com>, "bbrubaker@pennwaste.com" <bbrubaker@pennwaste.com>, "bbumsted@tribweb.com"
<bbumsted@tribweb.com>, "bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com" <bburkholder@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "beckyh209@aol.com"
<beckyh209@aol.com>, "benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu" <benjamin.carlson@law.villanova.edu>, Bernie Schriver <bernardschriver@gmail.com>,
"bill@ezmarketing.com" <bill@ezmarketing.com>, "billing@ebay.com" <billing@ebay.com>, Bob Kauffman <robert.kauffman@axa-advisors.com>,
Bonnie Lee <polygraphsolutions@verizon.net>, Brad Roda <broda@fult.com>, "brian@claypoollawfirm.com" <brian@claypoollawfirm.com>,
"broche@hearst.com" <broche@hearst.com>, "bseal@alm.com" <bseal@alm.com>, "bwilson@lnpnews.com" <bwilson@lnpnews.com>, Capitol Copy
<lanc@capitolsupport.net>, Carbonite Support <reply@carbonite.com>, "Carl J. Frederick" <cjfrederick@lancaster.k12.pa.us>, Cassidy Bolen
<cltshudy@gmail.com>, "cemlet@lnpnews.com" <cemlet@lnpnews.com>, "cesbenshade@lnpnews.com" <cesbenshade@lnpnews.com>,
"chambers_of_judge_edward_g_smith@paed.uscourts.gov" <chambers_of_judge_edward_g_smith@paed.uscourts.gov>, Cheryl Welssh
<welsh@mindjustice.org>, Chris Hausner <clh@rkglaw.com>, Christine Flowers <cflowers1961@gmail.com>, "Christopher M. Reeser"
<cmreeser@mdwcg.com>, "circdispatch@lnpnews.com" <circdispatch@lnpnews.com>, City Of Harrisburg <info@harrisburgpa.gov>,
"ckreider@lnpnews.com" <ckreider@lnpnews.com>, "clangley@lnpnews.com" <clangley@lnpnews.com>, "class@lnpnews.com" <class@lnpnews.com>,
"clillis@hearst.com" <clillis@hearst.com>, "cmccoy@phillynews.com" <cmccoy@phillynews.com>, "coleen@netwerk.com" <coleen@netwerk.com>,
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 19
19 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

3 of 5 9/6/2017, 6:41 AM
Gmail - Sons membership https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
Comcast Business <reply@get.comcastbusiness.com>, "complaint-response@paypal.com" <complaint-response@paypal.com>, "complaints@ic.fbi.gov"
<complaints@ic.fbi.gov>, "contact@smilecaregroup.com" <contact@smilecaregroup.com>, "cotto@lnpnews.com" <cotto@lnpnews.com>,
"cpratt@lnpnews.com" <cpratt@lnpnews.com>, "creditdept@efax.com" <creditdept@efax.com>, Cultivate Lancaster <cultivatelancaster@gmail.com>,
"cumble@lnpnews.com" <cumble@lnpnews.com>, "dabreu@lnpnews.com" <dabreu@lnpnews.com>, "dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us"
<dalton@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Dan Naumann <danielnaumann@allstate.com>, Daniel Naumann <danielnaumann1@allstate.com>, Dave Brown
<dave@pearsonkoutcherlaw.com>, Dave Hickernell <dhickern@pahousegop.com>, Dave Pflumm <dpflumm@yahoo.com>, "dave@mywclawyer.com"
<dave@mywclawyer.com>, "daviesj@shnj.org" <daviesj@shnj.org>, "dbethea@lnpnews.com" <dbethea@lnpnews.com>, "dbyrne@lnpnews.com"
<dbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "dcody@lnpnews.com" <dcody@lnpnews.com>, Derrick Robinson <derrickcrobinson@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson
<freedomfchs@gmail.com>, Derrick Robinson <dcr618@msn.com>, "dharper@lnpnews.com" <dharper@lnpnews.com>, Diana Crone
<CRONED1@nationwide.com>, "dleed@lnpnews.com" <dleed@lnpnews.com>, "dmarschka@lnpnews.com" <dmarschka@lnpnews.com>,
"dmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <dmontgomery@lnpnews.com>, "dmoyer@teamemerald.com" <dmoyer@teamemerald.com>, Dmsutton
<dmsutton@aol.com>, "dnephin@lnpnews.com" <dnephin@lnpnews.com>, "Donald J. Trump for President Inc." <info@donaldtrump.com>,
"donotreply@lowes.com" <donotreply@lowes.com>, "dpugliese@lnpnews.com" <dpugliese@lnpnews.com>, "dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net"
<dr.richard.cordero_esq@verizon.net>, "drodriguez@lnpnews.com" <drodriguez@lnpnews.com>, "drote@gojones.com" <drote@gojones.com>,
"dsmyre@dauphinc.org" <dsmyre@dauphinc.org>, E ~ Eric Deatrick <music@ericdeatrick.com>, "E: Philep Wenger" <pwenger@fultonbank.com>,
"ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov" <ecf_paed@paed.uscourts.gov>, "ecornelius@lnpnews.com" <ecornelius@lnpnews.com>, "egruver@lnpnews.com"
<egruver@lnpnews.com>, Elmo <jere.sullivan@edelman.com>, "email@gop.com" <email@gop.com>, "emily33jones@gmail.com"
<emily33jones@gmail.com>, "enegley@lnpnews.com" <enegley@lnpnews.com>, "epatton@lnpnews.com" <epatton@lnpnews.com>, Eric Deatrick
<doctoreric8@gmail.com>, "estark@lnpnews.com" <estark@lnpnews.com>, "eweinstock@hearst.com" <eweinstock@hearst.com>,
"foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com"
<foxnews_41b72ba96c2ba34677ca5aa93ea72058@newsletters.foxnews.com>, Frances Chapman <fchapman@hillaryclinton.com>,
"gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov" <gail_olson@paed.uscourts.gov>, "gallagherm@shnj.org" <gallagherm@shnj.org>, "galspach232@aol.com"
<galspach232@aol.com>, "gdm@stevenslee.com" <gdm@stevenslee.com>, GEICO <reply-fec615777d67047b-22_html-
356468497-1058498-139@email1.geico.com>, George Parry <lgparry@dpt-law.com>, "george@coasttocoastam.com" <george@coasttocoastam.com>,
"graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us" <graefft@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Guardian <reply-fec415787360057a-1493_html-
19766001-1059028-0@mail.theguardian.com>, Heidi Wann <hwanncrm@lcmotors.net>, Hillary for America <info@hillaryclinton.com>,
"housing@cityoflancasterpa.com" <housing@cityoflancasterpa.com>, "hstauffer@lnpnews.com" <hstauffer@lnpnews.com>,
"info@launchmusicconference.com" <info@launchmusicconference.com>, "iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk" <iraqinquirymedia@cabinet-
office.x.gsi.gov.uk>, James Lemonias <james.lemonias@carbonite.com>, James Walbert <inventor0207@yahoo.com>, "jbetti@hearst.com"
<jbetti@hearst.com>, "jcalhoun@hearst.com" <jcalhoun@hearst.com>, "jcassidy@lnpnews.com" <jcassidy@lnpnews.com>, Jean Pallas
<pallasj@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Jeff Sentz <jsentz@pennwaste.com>, Jere Gish <jgish@hearst.com>, "jferguson@lnpnews.com"
<jferguson@lnpnews.com>, "jfortune@lnpnews.com" <jfortune@lnpnews.com>, "jgreene@lnpnews.com" <jgreene@lnpnews.com>,
"jhawkes@lnpnews.com" <jhawkes@lnpnews.com>, "jhersh@lnpnews.com" <jhersh@lnpnews.com>, "jholahan@lnpnews.com"
<jholahan@lnpnews.com>, Jim Doran <james_doran@msn.com>, Jim Warner <jwarner@lcswma.org>, Jimmy Karpathios <jimk@keareselectric.com>,
Jimmy Karpathios <jkarpathios@comcast.net>, "jjanci@lnpnews.com" <jjanci@lnpnews.com>, "jkensinger@lnpnews.com" <jkensinger@lnpnews.com>,
"jkopf@lnpnews.com" <jkopf@lnpnews.com>, "jloose@lnpnews.com" <jloose@lnpnews.com>, John Garofolo <john.garofolo@nist.gov>, John Hall
<info@satweapons.com>, John Walker <jwalker@steinmancommunications.com>, "jroda@rodalaw.com" <jroda@rodalaw.com>, "jtodd@lnpnews.com"
<jtodd@lnpnews.com>, Judicial Watch <reply_cpnfea_wszjzsc@news.judicialwatch.org>, "jwalk@lnpnews.com" <jwalk@lnpnews.com>, Katelyn Smith
<ksmith@hearst.com>, Kay Daly <kay@kaydaly.com>, "kbyrne@lnpnews.com" <kbyrne@lnpnews.com>, "kdaminger@lnpnews.com"
<kdaminger@lnpnews.com>, Ken Rhoades <kenrhoades2008@yahoo.com>, Kevin Steele <ksteele@montcopa.org>,
"kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com" <kevin.odonnell@interstatehotels.com>, "kfreeman@lnpnews.com" <kfreeman@lnpnews.com>,
"klemon@hearst.com" <klemon@hearst.com>, "knewhouse@lnpnews.com" <knewhouse@lnpnews.com>, "kramarj@shnj.org" <kramarj@shnj.org>,
Kristen Ost <kekost223@gmail.com>, Kristi Aurand <kaurand@lcci.com>, "kschweigert@lnpnews.com" <kschweigert@lnpnews.com>,
"kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us" <kwoodjacobs@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "lancasterletters@lnpnews.com" <lancasterletters@lnpnews.com>,
"lanek@shnj.org" <lanek@shnj.org>, "laporchajohnson@hearst.com" <laporchajohnson@hearst.com>, Laura Wagner-Miller
<lwagner@pahousegop.com>, "LB, Legal" <ra-lblegal@pa.gov>, "lblest@lnpnews.com" <lblest@lnpnews.com>, "lbrown@lnpnews.com"
<lbrown@lnpnews.com>, Lesa Stambaugh <lstambaughcrm@lcmotors.net>, Leticia <letie049@gmail.com>, "lgoodlin@lnpnews.com"
<lgoodlin@lnpnews.com>, Lionel Barber <lionel.barber@ft.com>, Lisa Miller <millerli@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Liz Maurer
<liz@launchmusicconference.com>, "ljoseph@lnpnews.com" <ljoseph@lnpnews.com>, Lori Burkholder <lburkholder@hearst.com>, Love My Life
<lovemylife101@verizon.net>, "lstein@21st-centurymedia.com" <lstein@21st-centurymedia.com>, "lthompson@lnpnews.com"
<lthompson@lnpnews.com>, Lynn and Marie <lynnandmarie@live.com>, Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>, "Marc Steinberg
Esq. Kathleen Kane ATTY" <mrs@rgsglaw.com>, "martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com" <martorres@cityoflancasterpa.com>, Marylinn Gerber
<mgerber@co.lancaster.pa.us>, "mastrangelob@shnj.org" <mastrangelob@shnj.org>, Matt Miller <mmiller@pennlive.com>, Meredith Cooke
<mjorgensen@hearst.com>, "mfinnerty@lnpnews.com" <mfinnerty@lnpnews.com>, "mgross@lnpnews.com" <mgross@lnpnews.com>, michael mc
donald <mpm@mcdonaldatlaw.com>, Michael S Hagen <hagenm@lancasterpolice.com>, Michelle Bohnke <mbohnke@pahouse.net>,
"mike@blackfordventures.com" <mike@blackfordventures.com>, "mikeh@financialnetwork.net" <mikeh@financialnetwork.net>,
"mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <mjackson@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "mkabik@lcci.com" <mkabik@lcci.com>, "mlong@lnpnews.com"
<mlong@lnpnews.com>, "moltocaprone@hotmail.com" <moltocaprone@hotmail.com>, "mstraub@hearst.com" <mstraub@hearst.com>,
"murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com" <murtaza.hussain@theintercept.com>, "mwright@lnpnews.com" <mwright@lnpnews.com>, Nancy Eshelman
<neshelman@pennlive.com>, National Whistleblower Center <mjw@whistleblowers.org>, "news@lnpnews.com" <news@lnpnews.com>, Office Max
<ods0651cpc@officedepot.com>, Officer Binderup <binderuc@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "pacer@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacer@psc.uscourts.gov>,
"pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov" <pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov>, "paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov" <paedmail@paed.uscourts.gov>, Pam Stehman
<pamsu@aol.com>, Paul Newhart <drpaul87@gmail.com>, "perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com" <perpshavesourgrapes@hotmail.com>, Peter Anders
<Peter.Anders@millersville.edu>, Peter Anders <peter.anders@millerville.edu>, "pgrubic@lnpnews.com" <pgrubic@lnpnews.com>, Phil
<caterbone@sbcglobal.net>, Phil Caterbone <philip.caterbone@gmail.com>, "philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov" <philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov>,
"pkauffman@lnpnews.com" <pkauffman@lnpnews.com>, "pkirchner@lnpnews.com" <pkirchner@lnpnews.com>, "preynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<preynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "pschober@lcci.com" <pschober@lcci.com>, "pwolf@lnpnews.com" <pwolf@lnpnews.com>, Raymond Pennino
<raymond1957@comcast.net>, rebeca shinsky <rzzamatzz@gmail.com>, RentalZone of PA <counter@rentalzonepa.com>,
"rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net" <rep.mikesturla@pahouse.net>, "rfalin@montcopa.org" <rfalin@montcopa.org>, "rhertzler@lnpnews.com"
<rhertzler@lnpnews.com>, "rhess@lnpnews.com" <rhess@lnpnews.com>, "rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org"
<rhutchison@eastlampetertownship.org>, Richard Cosmore <cosmorer@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "richj@shnj.org" <richj@shnj.org>,
"rmanieri@lnpnews.com" <rmanieri@lnpnews.com>, "rmartin@hearst.com" <rmartin@hearst.com>, "rmellon@lnpnews.com" <rmellon@lnpnews.com>,
"rmontgomery@lnpnews.com" <rmontgomery@lnpnews.com>, Robbie Millward <robbie_millward@cable.comcast.com>, Robert Yeagley
<robertyeagley@eaglesecuresolutions.com>, Ron <ron@lancastercomp.com>, Ron Harper <ron@seey.com>, Ron Harper <ronharperjr@gmail.com>,
Ron Soltes <r.soltes@yahoo.com>, Ron Southwick <rsouthwick@readingeagle.com>, "rrobinson@lnpnews.com" <rrobinson@lnpnews.com>,
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 20
20 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

4 of 5 9/6/2017, 6:41 AM
Gmail - Sons membership https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=acf0584318&jsver=EfWGX...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
"rswift@timesshamrock.com" <rswift@timesshamrock.com>, Samuel Myers <sjmyers1996@gmail.com>, Sarah Guggenheimer
<sguggenheimer@hillaryclinton.com>, Sarah Schmehl <seschmehl@mail.roanoke.edu>, "sbaldrige@lnpnews.com" <sbaldrige@lnpnews.com>,
"scassidy@lnpnews.com" <scassidy@lnpnews.com>, Scott Rhoades <scottr@newtraditionscelebrations.com>, Scott Rhoades
<scottr@lancasterfreethought.org>, "sdeck@mtb.com" <sdeck@mtb.com>, "secretary@stleos.org" <secretary@stleos.org>, Sector 9
<sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, "sector5@lancasterpolice.com" <sector5@lancasterpolice.com>, "senateaddress@pasen.gov"
<senateaddress@pasen.gov>, Senator Leach <senatorleach@pasenate.com>, "senator@casey.senate.gov" <senator@casey.senate.gov>,
"sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us" <sepreynolds@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "service@paypal.com" <service@paypal.com>,
"sfarber@winston.com" <sfarber@winston.com>, "sjanesch@lnpnews.com" <sjanesch@lnpnews.com>, Soleilmavis <soleilmavis@yahoo.com>,
"sports@lnpnews.com" <sports@lnpnews.com>, "sscp@epix.net" <sscp@epix.net>, Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>, Stan Caterbone
<sjcaterb@marauder.millersville.edu>, Stan Caterbone <scaterbone@live.com>, "stan.caterbone@yahoo.com" <stan.caterbone@yahoo.com>,
"stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us" <stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us>, Steve Caterbne <stevecaterbone@yahoo.com>, "steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov"
<steve_tomas@paed.uscourts.gov>, "submissions@truthdig.com" <submissions@truthdig.com>, Susan Shapiro <susanshapiro@hearst.com>,
"swenger@lnpnews.com" <swenger@lnpnews.com>, Synchrony Bank <reply@synchrony.com>, "tanderson@lnpnews.com"
<tanderson@lnpnews.com>, "tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov" <tashia_reynolds@paed.uscourts.gov>, "tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com"
<tbuckwalter@lnpnews.com>, Tee Grossi <mario771@aol.com>, "tgross@lnpnews.com" <tgross@lnpnews.com>, "tim@friendlytransportation.com"
<tim@friendlytransportation.com>, "tknapp@lnpnews.com" <tknapp@lnpnews.com>, "tmekeel@lnpnews.com" <tmekeel@lnpnews.com>,
"tmurse@lnpnews.com" <tmurse@lnpnews.com>, "tmw@goingandplank.com" <tmw@goingandplank.com>, Todd Stephens
<tstephen@pahousegop.com>, Tony Bongiovi <joe@bmt-inc.net>, Tracy Lin Horst <thorst@ppmproperties.com>, "tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us"
<tschutta@police.stone-harbor.nj.us>, "tspidle@lnpnews.com" <tspidle@lnpnews.com>, "tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com" <tstuhldreher@lnpnews.com>,
"ups3413@gmail.com" <ups3413@gmail.com>, "usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov" <usapae.usattorney@usa.doj.gov>, "usapam.contact@usdoj.gov"
<usapam.contact@usdoj.gov>, "v2support@v2.com" <v2support@v2.com>, Verizon Wireless <emailcampaign@verizonwireless.com>,
"vmarschka@lnpnews.com" <vmarschka@lnpnews.com>, "vtennis@lnpnews.com" <vtennis@lnpnews.com>, W M <wyman399@gmail.com>,
"walterss@shnj.org" <walterss@shnj.org>, "wecare@palocaltax.com" <wecare@palocaltax.com>, "whightower@lnpnews.com"
<whightower@lnpnews.com>, "wmccormick@avalonboro.org" <wmccormick@avalonboro.org>, "wmckelvey@pennlive.com"
<wmckelvey@pennlive.com>, YourHealthPartners <yourhealthpartners@matrixhealth.net>

KEVIN, MY NEPHEW JUST SIGNED WITH ARMY ON A FULL SCHOLARSHIP - BEWARE OF HIS CONNECTIONS!

MEET COLE CATERBONE - http://247sports.com/player/cole-caterbone-46037862

HAVE A NICE DAY!

/S/ Stan J. Caterbone


Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
Advanced Media Group
www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com
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.

[Quoted text hidden]

Ana Larrubia <predestined2succeed@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:33 PM


To: Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Dawn Todd <dawnjeff01@gmail.com>, Kevin miller <pequea.pres56@yahoo.com>, mykolj@comcast.net

I cordially request to be removed and tho cease and desist communication with me.

Thank you
[Quoted text hidden]

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 5:39 PM


To: Ana Larrubia <predestined2succeed@gmail.com>

Unfortunately my account is HACKED and I cannot access the contact list - have not been able to FOR almost 2 YEARS.

DID YOU EVER HEAR OF "BLOCK" ?


[Quoted text hidden]

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 21
21 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

5 of 5 9/6/2017, 6:41 AM
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 22
22 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

EMAIL OF TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 AT 6:29 PM

UPMC STATEMENT OF CLAIM AT WEIS MARKETS STORE 41 FLU SHOT of August 23, 2017 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

UPMC STATEMENT OF CLAIM AT WEIS MARKETS STORE 41 FLU SHOT of August 23,
2017 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017.pdf
1 message

Stan Caterbone <stancaterbone@gmail.com> Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:29 PM


______________________
To: andrew.warden@usdoj.gov, stedmanc@co.lancaster.pa.us, sector5@lancasterpolice.com, Sector 9
<sector9@police.co.lancaster.pa.us>, Barbara Hough Roda <broda@lnpnews.com>, Lionel Barber <lionel.barber@ft.com>,
Lori Burkholder <lburkholder@hearst.com>, Bob Kauffman <robert.kauffman@axa-advisors.com>,
philadelphia.complaints@ic.fbi.gov, E: Philep Wenger <pwenger@fultonbank.com>, Phil Caterbone
<philip.caterbone@gmail.com>, bcaterbone@icloud.com, rachel beneld <rbeneld30@gmail.com>, Raymond Pennino
<raymond1957@comcast.net>, Peter Anders <peter.anders@millerville.edu>, Robert DANO <rjmkd3@verizon.net>, Jim Doran
<james_doran@msn.com>, Jimmy Karpathios <jkarpathios@comcast.net>, Jim Warner <jwarner@lcswma.org>

SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

1. FRAUD, ATTEMPTED MURDER?

2. 36,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM THE FLU IN 2016-2017!

3. ON AUGUST 23, 2017 WEIS PHARMACY REFUSED TO GIVE ME A FLU SHOT. THEY TOLD ME MY POLICY WAS
CANCELLED - I ARGUED AND SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE SINCE IT IS A MEDICARE SUPPLIMENTAL POLICY AND
PREMIUMS ARE AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM MY SS DISABILITY BENEFIT EVERY MONTH.

4. TODAY I RECEIVED MY STATEMENT AND MY POLICY WAS BILLED FOR THE FLU SHOT!

UPMC STATEMENT OF CLAIM AT WEIS MARKETS STORE 41 FLU SHOT of August 23, 2017 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

UPMC STATEMENT OF CLAIM AT WEIS MARKETS STORE 41 FLU SHOT of August 23, 2017 SEPTEMBER 5,
2017.pdf
2MB

5. A FEW DAYS LATER I WENT TO CVS IN THE MANOR SHOPPING CENTER AND THEY TOO REFUSED
TO GIVE ME A FLU SHOT STATING THAT I WOULD FIRST HAVE TO PAY THE FULL MARKET RATE
AND GET REIMBURSEMENT FROM UPMC. I TOLD THE PHARMACIST THAT HE WAS LYING.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 23
23 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 24
24 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 25
25 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 26
26 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 27
27 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
Fluarix Quadrivalent, Fluzone Quadrivalent (influenza virus vaccine qua... http://reference.medscape.com/drug/fluarix-quadrivalent-fluzone-quadriv...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

influenza virus vaccine quadrivalent (Rx)


Brand and Other Names: Fluarix Quadrivalent, Fluzone Quadrivalent, Fluzone Intradermal Quadrivalent, FluLaval
Quadrivalent, Flucelvax Quadrivalent, Afluria Quadrivalent
Classes: Vaccines, Inactivated, Viral

Dosing & Uses


Adult Pediatric

Dosage Forms & Strengths

IM suspension

0.5mL/syringe
0.5mL/vial
Note: Flucelvax uses mammalian culture instead of chicken embyros

intradermal suspension

0.1mL/microinjection system

Influenza Prophylaxis

CDC's ACIP recommends that everyone 6 months of age and older receive an annual influenza vaccination

0.5 mL IM x1 dose/season

For more vaccine information see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/

Intradermal

18-64 yr: 0.1 mL ID x1 dose at beginning of flu season

Dosing Considerations

Contains the following 4 viral strains for 2017-2018 northern hemisphere season

A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (new for 2017-2018)


A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus (no change from last season)
B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) (no change from last season)
B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (B/Victoria lineage vaccine virus) (no change from last season)

Dosage Forms & Strengths

IM suspension

0.25mL/syringe (Fluzone Quadrivalent)


0.5mL/syringe
0.5mL/vial
Note: Flucelvax uses mammalian culture instead of chicken embyros

Influenza Prophylaxis

CDC's ACIP recommends that everyone 6 months of age and older receive an annual influenza vaccination;
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/

See Administration section for information regarding if 1 or 2 doses are required for children up to age 8 years

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 28
28 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

1 of 2 9/5/2017, 5:09 PM
Fluarix Quadrivalent, Fluzone Quadrivalent (influenza virus vaccine qua... http://reference.medscape.com/drug/fluarix-quadrivalent-fluzone-quadriv...
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
6 months through 35 months (Fluzone Quadrivalent): 0.25 mL IM x 1-2 doses/season

6 months through 35 months (FluLaval Quadrivalent): 0.5 mL IM x 1-2 doses/season

3-8 years: 0.5 mL IM (deltoid) x1-2 doses/season

9 years: 0.5 mL IM x1 dose/season

Safety and efficacy not established

<6 months: Fluzone Quadrivalent, Flulaval Quadrivalent


<3 years: Fluarix Quadrivalent
<4 years: Flucelvax Quadrivalent
<18 years: Afluria Quadrivalent, Fluzone Intradermal

Dosing Considerations

Contains the following 4 viral strains for 2017-2018 northern hemisphere season

A/Michigan/45/2015 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (new for 2017-2018)


A/Hong Kong/4801/2014 (H3N2)-like virus (no change from last season)
B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) (no change from last season)
B/Brisbane/60/2008-like virus (B/Victoria lineage vaccine virus) (no change from last season)

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 29
29 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

2 of 2 9/5/2017, 5:09 PM
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Overview of Influenza Surveillance in the United States


The Epidemiology and Prevention Branch in the Influenza Division at CDC collects, compiles and analyzes
information on influenza activity year-round in the United States and produces FluView, a weekly influenza
surveillance report, and FluView Interactive, which allows for more in-depth exploration of influenza
surveillance data. The U.S. influenza surveillance system is a collaborative effort between CDC and its many
partners in state, local, and territorial health departments, public health and clinical laboratories, vital statistics
offices, healthcare providers, clinics, and emergency departments. Information in five categories is collected
from eight different data sources that allows CDC to:
Find out when and where influenza activity is occurring
Track influenza-related illness
Determine what influenza viruses are circulating
Detect changes in influenza viruses
Measure the impact influenza is having on hospitalizations and deaths

Five Categories of Influenza Surveillance


1. Virologic Surveillance Approximately 100 public health and over 300 clinical laboratories located
throughout all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia participate in virologic surveillance for
influenza through either the U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Laboratories System or
the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS). Influenza testing practices
differ in public health and clinical laboratories and both sources provide valuable information for monitoring
influenza activity. Clinical laboratories primarily test respiratory specimens for diagnostic purposes and data
from these laboratories provide useful information on the timing and intensity of influenza activity. Public
health laboratories primarily test specimens for surveillance purposes to understand what influenza viruses are
circulating throughout their jurisdiction and the population groups being affected. A subset of specimens from
clinical laboratories may be submitted to public health laboratories for further testing. In order to use each data
source most appropriately and to avoid duplication, reports from public health and clinical laboratories have
been presented separately in both FluView and FluView Interactive beginning in the 2015-2016 influenza
season. All public health and clinical laboratories report each week to CDC the total number of respiratory
specimens tested and the number positive for influenza viruses, along with age or age group of the person, if
available. Data presented from clinical laboratories include the weekly total number of specimens tested, the
number of positive influenza tests, and the percent positive by influenza virus type. Data presented from public
health laboratories include the weekly total number of specimens tested, the number of positive influenza tests,
and the number by influenza virus type, subtype, and influenza B lineage. In order to obtain enough
specimens to produce this detailed information in an efficient manner, public health laboratories often receive
samples that have already tested positive for an influenza virus at a clinical laboratory. As a result, monitoring
the percent of specimens testing positive for an influenza virus in a public health laboratory is less useful (i.e.,
we expect a higher percent positive). Fortunately, it is not necessary to monitor this parameter when clinical
laboratory data are available instead.
In addition, the age distribution of influenza positive specimens reported from public health laboratories is
visualized in FluView and FluView Interactive. The number and proportion of influenza virus-positive
specimens by influenza A subtype and influenza B virus lineage are presented by age group (0-4 years, 5-24
years, 25-64 years, and 65 years) each week and cumulative totals are provided for the season. A subset of
Page 1 of 5

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 30
30 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

the influenza viruses collected by public health laboratories are sent to CDC for further characterization,
including antiviral resistance testing and antigenic and/or genetic characterization, and this information is
presented in the antiviral resistance and virus characterization sections of the FluView report.
Surveillance for Novel Influenza A Viruses In 2007, human infection with a novel influenza A virus became
a nationally notifiable condition. Novel influenza A virus infections include all human infections with influenza A
viruses that are different from currently circulating human seasonal influenza H1 and H3 viruses. These viruses
include those that are subtyped as nonhuman in origin and those that are not able to be subtyped with
standard laboratory methods and reagents. Rapid detection and reporting of human infections with novel
influenza A viruses viruses against which there is little to no pre-existing immunity is important to facilitate
prompt awareness and characterization of influenza A viruses with pandemic potential and accelerate the
implementation of effective public health responses.
2. Outpatient Illness Surveillance Information on patient visits to health care providers for influenza-like
illness is collected through the U.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILINet). ILINet
consists of more than 2,800 enrolled outpatient healthcare providers in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands reporting more than 36 million patient visits each year. Each week,
approximately 2,000 outpatient healthcare providers around the country report data to CDC on the total
number of patients seen for any reason and the number of those patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) by age
group (0-4 years, 5-24 years, 25-49 years, 50-64 years, and 65 years). For this system, ILI is defined as
fever (temperature of 100F [37.8C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a KNOWN cause
other than influenza. Sites with electronic health records use an equivalent definition as determined by public
health authorities.
The percentage of patient visits to healthcare providers for ILI reported each week is weighted on the
basis of state population. This percentage is compared each week with the national baseline of 2.2%.
The baseline is developed by calculating the mean percentage of patient visits for ILI during non-
influenza weeks for the previous three seasons and adding two standard deviations. A non-influenza
week is defined as periods of two or more consecutive weeks in which each week accounted for less
than 2% of the seasons total number of specimens that tested positive for influenza in public health
laboratories. Due to wide variability in regional level data, it is not appropriate to apply the national
baseline to regional data; therefore, region specific baselines are calculated using the same
methodology.

Regional baselines for the 2016-2017 influenza season are:


Region 1 1.4%
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont
Region 2 3.0%
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Region 3 2.2%
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
Region 4 1.7%
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
Region 5 1.9%
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin

October 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 31
31 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Region 6 4.1%
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas
Region 7 1.8%
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska
Region 8 1.4%
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming
Region 9 2.5%
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada
Region 10 1.1%
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington

ILI Activity Indicator Map: Data collected in ILINet are used to produce a measure of ILI activity for
all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and New York City. Activity levels are based on the
percent of outpatient visits in a jurisdiction due to ILI compared with the average percent of ILI visits
that occur during weeks with little or no influenza virus circulation (non-influenza weeks). Because the
number of sites reporting each week is variable, baselines are adjusted each week based on which
sites within each jurisdiction provide data. To perform this adjustment, provider level baseline ratios are
calculated for those that have a sufficient reporting history. Providers that do not have the required
reporting history are assigned the baseline ratio for their practice type. The jurisdiction level baseline is
then calculated using a weighted sum of the baseline ratios for each contributing provider.

The activity levels compare the mean reported percent of visits due to ILI for the current week to the
mean reported percent of visits due to ILI for non-influenza weeks. The 10 activity levels correspond to
the number of standard deviations below, at or above the mean for the current week compared with the
mean of the non-influenza weeks. There are 10 activity levels classified as minimal (levels 1-3), low
(levels 4-5), moderate (levels 6-7), and high (levels 8-10). An activity level of 1 corresponds to values
that are below the mean, level 2 corresponds to an ILI percentage less than 1 standard deviation above
the mean, level 3 corresponds to ILI more than 1, but less than 2 standard deviations above the mean,
and so on, with an activity level of 10 corresponding to ILI 8 or more standard deviations above the
mean.

3. Mortality Surveillance Rapid tracking of influenza-associated deaths is done through two systems:
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) mortality surveillance data NCHS collects death
certificate data from state vital statistics offices for all deaths occurring in the United States.
Pneumonia and influenza (P&I) deaths are identified based on ICD-10 multiple cause of death codes.
NCHS surveillance data are aggregated by the week of death occurrence and as a result, P&I
percentages based on the NCHS surveillance data are released two weeks after the week of death to
allow for collection of enough data to produce a stable P&I percentage. The NCHS surveillance data
based on P&I percentage for earlier weeks are continually revised and may increase or decrease as
new and updated death certificate data are received from the states by NCHS. The seasonal baseline
of P&I deaths is calculated using a periodic regression model that incorporates a robust regression
procedure applied to data from the previous five years. An increase of 1.645 standard deviations
above the seasonal baseline of P&I deaths is considered the epidemic threshold, i.e., the point at
which the observed proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia or influenza was significantly higher
than would be expected at that time of the year in the absence of substantial influenza-related mortality.

October 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 32
32 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance System Influenza-associated deaths in


children (persons less than 18 years) was added as a nationally notifiable condition in 2004. Any
laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated death in a child is reported through this system.
Demographic and clinical information are collected on each case and are transmitted to CDC.

4. Hospitalization Surveillance Laboratory confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations in children and


adults are monitored through the Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET).
Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET) FluSurv-NET conducts
surveillance for population-based, laboratory-confirmed influenza related hospitalizations in children
(persons less than 18 years) and adults. The network covers over 70 counties in the 10 Emerging
Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, and TN) and three additional
states (MI, OH, and UT). Cases are identified by reviewing hospital laboratory and admission
databases and infection control logs for patients hospitalized during the influenza season with a
documented positive influenza test (i.e., viral culture, direct/indirect fluorescent antibody assay
(DFA/IFA), rapid influenza diagnostic test (RIDT), or molecular assays including reverse transcription-
polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)). Data gathered are used to estimate age-specific hospitalization
rates on a weekly basis during the influenza season and to describe characteristics of persons
hospitalized with associated influenza illness. Laboratory-confirmation is dependent on clinician-
ordered influenza testing. Therefore, the rates provided are likely to be underestimated as influenza-
associated hospitalization can be missed, either because testing was not performed, or because cases
may be attributed to other causes of pneumonia or other common influenza-related complications.

5. Summary of the Geographic Spread of Influenza State health departments report the estimated level
of geographic spread of influenza activity in their states each week through the State and Territorial
Epidemiologists Reports. States report geographic spread of influenza activity as no activity, sporadic, local,
regional, or widespread. These levels are defined as follows:
No Activity: No laboratory-confirmed cases of influenza and no reported increase in the number of
cases of ILI.
Sporadic: Small numbers of laboratory-confirmed influenza cases or a single laboratory-confirmed
influenza outbreak has been reported, but there is no increase in cases of ILI.
Local: Outbreaks of influenza or increases in ILI cases and recent laboratory-confirmed influenza in a
single region of the state.
Regional: Outbreaks of influenza or increases in ILI and recent laboratory confirmed influenza in at
least two but less than half the regions of the state with recent laboratory evidence of influenza in those
regions.
Widespread: Outbreaks of influenza or increases in ILI cases and recent laboratory-confirmed
influenza in at least half the regions of the state with recent laboratory evidence of influenza in the
state.

Together, the five categories of influenza surveillance are designed to provide a national picture of influenza
activity. FluSurv-NET data provides population-based, laboratory-confirmed estimates of influenza-related
hospitalizations but are reported from limited geographic areas. NCHS mortality surveillance data are reported
on the national, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regional, and state-level. Outpatient
influenza-like illness and laboratory data are reported on a national level and by HHS region. The state and
territorial epidemiologists' reports of the geographic spread of influenza activity and the ILI activity indicator
map display state-level information. Human infections with novel influenza A viruses and influenza-associated
pediatric deaths are reported on the state-level but no personal identifying information is released.
October 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 33
33 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

It is important to maintain a comprehensive system for influenza surveillance for several reasons:
Influenza viruses are constantly changing and thus ongoing data collection and characterization of the
strains are required.
Influenza strains can rapidly undergo changes leading to pandemics of influenza; surveillance of
viruses will detect these changes.
Vaccines must be administered annually and are updated regularly based on surveillance findings.
Treatment for influenza is guided by laboratory surveillance for antiviral resistance.
National responses to emerging pandemic strains are triggered by surveillance data.
Varying segments of the population are affected by influenza and may require targeted interventions.
These groups are determined through influenza surveillance.

It is important to remember the following about influenza surveillance in the United States:
All influenza activity reporting by public health partners and health-care providers is voluntary.
The reported information answers the questions of where, when, and what influenza viruses are
circulating. It can be used to determine if influenza activity is increasing or decreasing, but cannot be
used to ascertain how many people have become ill with influenza during the influenza season.
The system consists of eight complementary surveillance components in five categories. These
components include reports from more than 350 laboratories, 2,800 outpatient health care providers,
the National Center for Health Statistics, research and healthcare personnel at the FluSurv-NET sites,
and influenza surveillance coordinators and state epidemiologists from all state, local and territorial
health departments.
Influenza surveillance data collection is based on a reporting week that starts on Sunday and ends on
Saturday of each week. Each surveillance participant is requested to summarize weekly data and
submit it to CDC by Tuesday afternoon of the following week. Those data are then downloaded,
compiled, and analyzed at CDC. FluView and FluView Interactive will be updated weekly each Friday.

October 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 34
34 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States | S... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 35
35 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

1 of 4 9/5/2017, 5:16 PM
Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States | S... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 36
36 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

2 of 4 9/5/2017, 5:16 PM
Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States | S... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 37
37 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

3 of 4 9/5/2017, 5:16 PM
Estimating Seasonal Influenza-Associated Deaths in the United States | S... https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

What's this? (http://www.cdc.gov/emailupdates/)


Submit (javascript:quicksubscribe();return false;)

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 38
38 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017

4 of 4 9/5/2017, 5:16 PM
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 39
39 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

Invoice Invoice Case Date No. of Hourly


Item
Date No. Number Of Billing Line Description Hours Rate Amount
Description
3/1/2007 7001 05-2288 01/01/05 Jan 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
CI-06-03401 02/01/05 Feb 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Case Meetings & Communications with Chief of Southern Hours Billed
Regional Police Fiorill
02/01/05 Feb 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
03/01/05 Mar 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Civil Case Meetings & Communications with Chief of Southern Hours Billed
Regional Police Fiorill
04/01/05 Apr 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
7002 05-23059 05/01/05 May 2005 Research Filing of Petition for Bankruptcy, Russell Kraft, Chapter 11 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Nettleton & Fenefrock Hours Billed

05/01/05 May 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 60 $75.00 $4,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
05/01/05 May 2005 General Hours Billed For May 16 2005 Legal Work Done Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
On Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al U.S. District Court Hours Billed
05-2288 Pro Se Civil Case
05/01/05 May 2005 Prepare all Chapter 11 Filing Submittals for Case 05- Chapter 11 40 $125.00 $5,000.00
23059 Hours Billed

3/18/2007 CP-36- 05/10/05 May 10 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
SA0000141-2005 Se Criminal Case 18$2709$$A3 Harassment w/Tim Decker Killing Criminal Case
of Cat SRPD Humane Legue Witness
05/16/05 May 16 2005 File for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection in Federal Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Reading Hours Billed

06/01/05 Jun 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
06/01/05 Jun 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
06/01/05 Jun 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
06/21/05 June 21 2005 Notice of Appeal Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Regarding 6/13/2005 Order Dismissing Case for Debtor's Failure Appeal Hours
to Timely File Required Documents to

Page No. 1 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.40
1 of
40 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

07/01/05 Jul 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
07/01/05 Jul 1 2005 In Reading Appellant Designation of Contents For Chapter 11 5 $125.00 $625.00
Inclusion in Record On Appeal, and Findings of Fact Filed by Hours Billed
Stanley J. Caterbone . (Attachments: #
07/01/05 Jul 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
May-89 07/25/05 Jul 25 2005 Appeal Judge Twardowski Order of June 13, 2005 Hours Billed For 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Civil Appeals
Case
08/01/05 Aug 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
08/01/05 Aug 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
09/01/05 Sep 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
09/01/05 Sep 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
09/28/05 Sep 28 2005 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Se Criminal Appeal Case Notice of Appeal Stolen From Mail, Criminal Appeal
Never Appeared For Trial, Judge Allison
10/01/05 Oct 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
10/01/05 Oct 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
11/01/05 Nov 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
11/01/05 Nov 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
11/19/05 Nov 19 2005 Letter (dated 11/3/2005) Filed by Debtor Stanley J. Chapter 11 7 $125.00 $875.00
Caterbone addressed to Department of Justice, US Trustee Office Hours Billed
- RE: Summation on reason to fi
12/01/05 Dec 2005 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
12/01/05 Dec 2005 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
CP-36- 12/05/05 Dec 5 2005 Preliminary Hearing Judge Reuter, Bezzard had to Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
CR0002843-2006 Refile or Dismiss General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Case
Pro Se Criminal Case East Lampeter Twp

Page No. 2 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.41
2 of
41 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

12/15/05 Dec 15 2005Chapter 11 341 Meeting of Creditors in Reading Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Bankruptcy Court with Hugh Ward/Joe Adams Hours Billed

12/15/05 Dec 15 2005 Amended Schedules F & G Filed by Amended Matrix Chapter 11 3 $125.00 $375.00
Stanley J. Caterbone ; Receipt Number 20074028, Fee Amount Hours Billed
$26.00. (P., Cathy) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
12/16/05 Dec 16 2005 Response dated 12/14/2005 Filed by Stanley J. Chapter 11 3 $125.00 $375.00
Caterbone Regarding HEMAP Appeal Hearing Request. (P., Hours Billed
Cathy)
01/01/06 Jan 2006 General Hours Billed For Jan 23 2006 Legal Work Civil Litigation 30 $125.00 $3,750.00
Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al 05-2288 Case Served Hours Billed
Defendants per Judge Mclaughlin
01/01/06 Jan 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
01/19/06 Jan 19 2006Certificate of Service Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone - Chapter 11 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
RE: AmendedSchedules and Response to Creditor Status Order Hours Billed
(related document(s)27). (P., Cath
01/30/06 Jan 30 2006 Advanced Media Group Income Statements for the Chapter 11 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
the year 2005 Filed in Reading Bankruptcy Court Hours Billed

02/01/06 Feb 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
02/01/06 Feb 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
02/08/06 Dec 8 2006 Filed Writ of Mandamus From Lancaster County Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
PrisonGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
02/21/06 Feb 21 2005 Hearing Held on 31 Motion for Relief from Stay Filed Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
by Fulton Bank Represented by SHAWN M. LONG (Counsel). Hours Billed
Matter Taken Under Advisement.
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 120 $75.00 $9,000.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Court Time 30 $150.00 $4,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Hours Billed
Data
03/01/06 Mar 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
03/17/06 Mar 17 2006 Notice of Appeal - RE: Order dated 2/23/2006 Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Granting Motion for Relief from Stay Regarding Property 220 Appeal Hours
Stone Hill Road, Filed byFulton Bank ;
03/18/06 May 18 2006 Lancaster County DA Office Refile Charges General Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case 4 Criminal Case
Charges-Harras Dis Ord,Theft,Harrasment
03/19/06 Mar 19 2006 Debtor Request for Hearing, and Certificate of Chapter 11 2 $125.00 $250.00
Service thereto Filed by Stanley J. Caterbone Hours Billed

Page No. 3 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.42
3 of
42 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

03/26/06 Mar 26 2007 File Response to Preliminary Objections to Lancaster Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
County Court of Common Pleas General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case
04/01/06 Apr 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
04/01/06 Apr 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
04/04/06 Apr 4 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Civil Case Prepared Complaint and Email to Don Totaro, Hours Billed
Lancaster County DA
04/06/06 Apr 6 2006 Request for Continuance of Chapter 11 Case Filed by Chapter 11 2 $125.00 $250.00
Stanley J. Caterbone from Lancaster General Hospital Hours Billed

CI-06-03349 04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Filed Complaint, walked to Courthouse directly after Civil Litigation 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
discharge from Hospital - General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed
Done On Pro Se Civil Case
04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Motion for Continuance Caterbone v. Lancaster Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
County Prison, et al from Lancaster General Hopital to Judge Hours Billed
McLaughlin Granted
04/10/06 Apr 10 2006 Motion for Continuance Caterbone v. Lancaster Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
County Prison, et al from Lancaster General Hopital to Judge Hours Billed
McLaughlin Granted
CI-05-03403 04/11/06 Apr 11 2006 Filed Complaint - General Hours Billed For Legal Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

04/11/06 Apr 11 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint Hours Billed

04/28/06 Apr 28 2006 Ammend Complaint General Hours Billed For Legal Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

04/28/06 Apr 28 2006 Filed Amended Complaint - General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

05/01/06 May 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 30 $75.00 $2,250.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
05/01/06 May 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
06-1538 05/15/06 May 15 2006 File Appeal to Automatic Stay Order of Judge Fehling Hours Billed 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
to Judge Anita Brody General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done Criminal Appeal
On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
05/15/06 May 15 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Se Civil Case Certificate of Service Personal Delivery to William Hours Billed
Cambell of Quarryville
CI-06-04939 05/24/06 May 24 2006 Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Application - Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed
IFP Denied by Judge Reinaker

Page No. 4 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.43
4 of
43 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

06/01/06 Jun 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
06/01/06 Jun 1 2006 Motion for Ex Parte Meeting w/Judge McLaughlin Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Caterbone v. Lancaster County Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05- Hours Billed
2288 Case
06/01/06 Jun 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
06/06/06 Jun 6 2006 Filed Important Notice of Default - General Hours Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

06/10/06 Jun 10 2006 Motion for Continuance General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

06/14/06 Jun 14 2006 REPLY to Fulton Bank's response to plff's motion for Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
ex parte meeting with Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin, Hours Billed

06/15/06 Jun 15 2006 Reponsive Brief to Preliminary Objections General Civil Litigation 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

06/22/06 Jun 22 2006 Debtor's Objection/Answer to United States Trustee's Chapter 11 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Motion to Dismiss or Convert Case to Chapter 7 ; Answer and Hours Billed
Exhibits Filed by Stanley J. Cate
06/23/06 Jun 23 2006 Meeting with Matt Bomberger, Public Defender Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Case
Case
06/25/06 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Court Time 10 $150.00 $1,500.00
Hours Billed

06/26/06 Jul 26 2006 File In Forma Pauperis Granted General Hours Billed Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case

TR-0000085-- 06/28/06 Jun 28 2006 Hearing Preparation General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
2006 Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case

06/28/06 Jun 28 2007 Hearing at 1281 S 28th St. Harrisburg Guilty MDJ Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Smith Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

06/29/06 Jun 29 2006 Hearing Held - RE: Motion to Dismiss Case, or Court Time 7 $150.00 $1,050.00
Conversion of Case to Chapter 7 Filed by United States Trustee ( Hours Billed

07/01/06 Jul 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
07/01/06 Jul 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
CP-36- 07/05/06 Jul 5 2006 PrelimiHearing General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed For 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
CR0003179-2006 Done On Pro Se Criminal Case MDJ Hamilton, Fire M. Bomberger, Criminal Case
Public Defender, MDJ Hamilton Guilty

Page No. 5 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.44
5 of
44 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

CI-06-06658 07/14/06 Jul 14 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Denied by Hours Billed
Georgelis
CP-36- 07/14/06 Jul 14 2006 Hearing MDJ Hamilton General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
CR0000160-2006 Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Fines $367.50 Criminal Case

CI-06-07188 07/25/06 Jul 26 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint with Advanced Media Group Hours Billed

07/25/06 Jul 25 2006 Appealed to Superior Court of Pennsylvania General Hours Billed For 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Case Civil Appeals

07/25/06 Jul 25 2006 Notice of Summary Appeal to Court of Common Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
PleasGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
Criminal Appeal Case
07/26/06 Jul 26 2006 Fromal Arraignment Lanaster County Court of Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Common PleasTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

1462-MDA-2006 08/01/06 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Civil Case Hours Billed

CI-06-07330 08/01/06 Aug 1 2006 Complaint & Informa Pauperis Filed with Advanced Civil Litigation 20 $125.00 $2,500.00
Media Group - General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed
Se Civil Case, IFP Granted by Georgeli
CP-36- 08/01/06 Aug 2006 Filed U.S. Post Office Correspondence & Complaint to Court Time 10 $150.00 $1,500.00
SA0000028-2007 SRPDTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

3/17/2007 TR-0003557- 08/01/06 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
2006 Criminal Case Downtown Lancaster Parking Meter Violation MDJ Criminal Case
Simms
TR-0004428- 08/01/06 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
2006 Criminal Case Downtown Lancaster Parking Meter Violation MDJ Criminal Case
Simms
08/01/06 Aug 2006 Research Billed for Caterbone v. Lancaster County Research Hours 20 $75.00 $1,500.00
Prison, et al U.S. District Court 05-2288 Case Finding of Facts and Billed
Data
08/01/06 Aug 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
CI-06-07376 08/02/06 Aug 2 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Civil Case Filed Complaint Hours Billed

08/02/06 Aug 2 2006 File Motion Bill of Particulars Discovery General Hours Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case

08/09/06 Aug 09 Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Time For Court Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Appearance and Litigation Shawn Long Appeared at Defendants Hours Billed
Table before Court, walked out
08/10/06 10 Aug 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Chapter 11 1 $125.00 $125.00
Se Chapter 11 Case Transfered to Chapter 11 Case by PP&L Hours Billed

Page No. 6 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.45
6 of
45 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

08/15/06 Aug 15 2006 Hearing MDJ Commins Robert M. Fedor General Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case 2 Criminal Case
Girls Walking Guilty Fine $315.66
08/18/06 Aug 18 2006 RESPONSE to Fulton Bank's motion to establish Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
deadline for plff to file amended complaint in accordance with the Hours Billed
Court's order of 6/19/06,
08/24/06 Aug 24 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Se Civil Case Filed Default Notice Hours Billed

08/24/06 Aug 24 2006 Important Notice of Default Filed - General Hours Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

08/25/06 Aug 25 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
Case Refiled In Forma Pauperis Granted by Cullen Hours Billed

CI-06-08490 09/01/06 Sep 1 2006 Complaint & In Forma Pauperis Filed General Hours Civil Litigation 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case IFP Granted Hours Billed
Judge Ashworth
09/01/06 Sep 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
09/01/06 Sep 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Case Hours Billed

09/01/06 2006 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation For Parking Meter Court Time 3 $150.00 $450.00
Violation Hours Billed

09/05/06 Sep 5 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Civil Appeal Case Filed Appeal to Superior Court of Pennsylvania Civil Appeals

09/05/06 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
Case Transfered from Superior Court to Commonwealth Court of Civil Appeals
Common Pleas
CI-06-08742 09/11/06 Sep 11 2006 Filed Complaint & In Forma Pauperis General Hours Civil Litigation 8 $125.00 $1,000.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case IFP Denied by Hours Billed
Judge Reinaker
09/14/06 Sep 14 2006 Second In Forma Pauperis Application Filed & Civil Litigation 4 $125.00 $500.00
Approved by Judge Joseph Madenspacher Hours Billed

09/14/06 Sep 14 2006 Pretrial Conference Judge AllisonTime For Court Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

09/27/06 Sep 27 2006 Filed Reply to Preliminary Objections - General Civil Litigation 7 $125.00 $875.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

10/01/06 Oct 2006Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
Jun-54 10/03/06 Oct 3 2006 Filed Appeal General Hours Billed For Legal Work Hours Billed For 25 $125.00 $3,125.00
Done On Pro Se Civil Appeal Case Civil Appeals

Page No. 7 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.46
7 of
46 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

10/05/06 Oct 5 2006 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation MDJ Simms Court Time 3 $150.00 $450.00
Parking Meter Violation Hours Billed

10/08/06 Oct ?? 2006 Phone Call & Letter For Payment of Fine & Costs Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Case
Case
10/12/06 Oct 12 2006 Pretrial Conference Case Continued Judge Allison Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Hours Billed
Case $75$3733$$A M2
10/20/06 Oct 20 2006 Call of the Trial List Judge Farina Time For Court Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

10/23/06 Oct 23 Filed Brief in Support of Arbitration - General Hours Billed Civil Litigation 5 $125.00 $625.00
For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

10/30/06 Oct 30 2006 Filed Amended Complaint from Bausman Post Hours Billed For 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Office, General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
10/30/06 Oct 30 2007 Plead Not Guilty to MDJ Eckert Picked Up by Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Constables General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
3/16/2007 06-cv-5138 11/01/06 Nov 2006 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 15 $125.00 $1,875.00
Civil Appeal Case Harbeas Corpus filed from Lancaster County Civil Appeals
Prison on November 17, 2006
11/01/06 Nov 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
11/06/06 Nov 09 2006 Pretrial Conference Case Continued Judge Allison Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Hours Billed
Case From Lanc Co Prison
11/07/06 Nov 7 2006 Filed for Continuance from Lancaster County Prison Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

11/07/06 Nov 7 2006 Filed Motion for 60 Day Continuance - General Hours Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

11/14/06 Nov 14 2006 File Habeus Corpus to U.S. District Court of Eastern Hours Billed 7 $125.00 $875.00
District of PA General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Criminal Appeal
Se Criminal Appeal Case Lanc Pri
11/14/06 Nov 14 2006 Filed Motion for Continuance From Lancaster County Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
PrisonJudge Cullen Denied General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
11/22/06 Jan 22 2007 Call of the Trial List Scheduled for Trial Judge Farina Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
(Cullen) General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed
Criminal Case Janice Longer Appo
11/27/06 Nov 27 2006 Call of the Trial List Judge FarinaTime For Court Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Appearance and Litigation From Lancaster County Prison Hours Billed

12/01/06 Dec 2006 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059

Page No. 8 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.47
8 of
47 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

12/01/06 Dec 2007 Filed Appeals & Motions General Hours Billed For Legal Hours Billed 6 $125.00 $750.00
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case From Lancaster Criminal Appeal
County Prison
12/01/06 Dec 2006 Research Billed For Case From Lancaster County Research Hours 5 $75.00 $375.00
Prison Law Library Billed

12/01/06 Dec 2006 Lancaster County Prison Law Library Research Billed Research Hours 5 $75.00 $375.00
For Case Billed

12/04/06 Dec 4 2006 Trial Judge Farina Sent to 1250 Fremont & 220 Stone Court Time 7 $150.00 $1,050.00
Hill Rd to get files Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed
Dismiss Harassment, Change to Summa
12/05/06 Dec 5 2007 Trial Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Guilty Court Time 5 $150.00 $750.00
Harrasment & Disorderly Conduct, Not Guilty Thef of Service Hours Billed

12/05/06 Dec 5 2006 Trial Judge Perezous Granted Motion For Continuance Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Hours Billed

12/08/06 Time For Court Appearance and Litigation Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Hours Billed

12/14/06 Dec 14 2006 Call of the Trial List Continued Judge Ashworth Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
(Cullen) General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed
Criminal Case From Lanc Co Prison
12/15/06 Dec 15 2006 Summary Appeal Trial Judge Perezous Found Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Guilty ?? April 2 Day of Daylight Person Broke Into 220 Stone Hill Criminal Appeal
Road, Mike on Cell Phone, Kennet SPoli
CP-36- 12/22/06 Dec 22 2007 Filed Writ of Mandamus v. MDJ Eckert From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
MD0000006-2007 Lancaster County Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
12/22/06 Dec 22 2006 Motion for Transcripts Filed from Lancaster County Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
Criminal Appeal Case
12/22/06 Dec 22 2007 Filed Writ of Mandamus v. MDJ Commins From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
Lancaster County Prison General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
12/28/06 Nov to Dec 2006 Research Billed For Case From Lancaster Research Hours 7 $75.00 $525.00
County Prison Law Library Billed

01/01/07 Jan 2007 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
01/01/07 Jan 1 2007 Letter to MDJ Smith Re Payment of Fines General Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Criminal Appeal
Case
3/22/2007 MDA 125-2006 01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Filed Notice of Appeal to Superior Court Filed at Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Lancaster County Clerk of CoGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Notict of Appeal to Superior Court Case No. MDA 125 Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Appeal
Appeal Case

Page No. 9 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
LAWNo.No.48
9 of
48 of240
58
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

01/04/07 Jan 4 2007 Filed Motion for Continuance/Change Venue General Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case
Moved From Eckert to Stotlzfus
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File Nunc Pro Tunc for MDJ Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000010-2007 Simms Citations General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File Nunc Pro Tunc for MDJ Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000011-2007 Simms Citations General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File In Forma Pauperis for MDJ Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
CR0000011-2007 Simms Citations General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
CP-36- 01/05/07 Jan 05 2007 Filed Application to File Nunc Pro Tunc for MDJ Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000012-2007 Simms Citations General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
CP-36- 01/09/07 Jan 09 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
MD0000010-2007 Se Criminal Appeal Case Filed Nunc Pro Tunc, Denied by Criminal Appeal
Reainaker
01/09/07 Jan 09 2007 Filed Motion for Change of Venue Deinied Judge Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Reinaker General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
01/11/07 Jan 11 2007 Motion for Continance Filed Denied Judge Reinaker Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Criminal Case
Case
01/11/07 Jan 11 2007 Filed Motion For Continuance Granted General Hours Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case Criminal Appeal

3/20/2007 CP-36- 01/12/07 Jan 12 2007 File Change of Venue/ Continuance MDEckert Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
CR0000051-2007 Citations Denied by Judge Cullen General Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
01/17/07 Jan 17 2007 Motion for Reconsideration Filed Denied Judge Hours Billed For 4 $125.00 $500.00
Reinaker General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
01/18/07 Jan 18 2007 Trial MDJ StoltzfusTime For Court Appearance and Court Time 6 $150.00 $900.00
Litigation Guilty Harr, Dis Con, Obs, Dismiss DUSus Fin Responsi Hours Billed
Fine $954 Joe Caterbone
CP-36- 01/19/07 Jan 19 2007 Filed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis General Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
CR0000055-2006 Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Criminal Case

01/19/07 Jan 19 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Se Criminal Appeal Case Refiled, Denied Again Criminal Appeal

01/25/07 Jan 25 2007 Filed Trial De Novo Appeal to Lancaster County Court Hours Billed 5 $125.00 $625.00
of Common Pleas General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Criminal Appeal
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
01/25/07 Jan 15 2007 Filed Application For Leave Nunc Pro TuncGeneral Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Criminal Appeal
Case
01/26/07 Jan 26 2007 Meet with Court Reporters Office to Get Electronic Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Version of Transcript & ReGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case

Page No. 10 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.49
LAWNo. 10of
49 of240
of 242
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

01/26/07 Jan 21 2007 Filed Motion For Continuance Granted Judge Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Perezous General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
Criminal Appeal Case
02/01/07 Feb 2007 Administration, Reporting and Communication with Chapter 11 10 $125.00 $1,250.00
Creditors and Accounts Payables for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Hours Billed
05-23059
02/07/07 Feb 7 2007 Meet with Andrew Wagner of Court Collections Office Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
for Payment of Fines and Costs and Remove Payment Due Criminal Appeal

02/12/07 Feb 12 2997 Filed Concise Statement of Matters Complainted on Hours Billed 12 $125.00 $1,500.00
Appeal General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal
Criminal Appeal Case
02/15/07 Feb 15 2007 Filed In Forma Pauperis In Dauphin County Court of Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Common Pleas Granted General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
02/23/07 Feb 23 2006 Complaint Filed to Lancaster County Bar v. Janice Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Longer General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
02/23/07 Feb 23 2007 Meet with Andrew Wagner of Court Collections to Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Have Payment Due Removed General Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
02/25/07 Fines $442.00 Paid General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Hours Billed 2 $125.00 $250.00
Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case Criminal Appeal

02/26/07 Feb 26 Call of the Trial List Scheduled for Trial General Hours Court Time 4 $150.00 $600.00
Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case Hours Billed

02/28/07 Feb 28 2006 Filed Response to Longer Petition to Withdraw From Hours Billed For 6 $125.00 $750.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
03/01/07 Mar 1 2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Criminal Case Meeting with Janice Longer To Prepare Criminal Case

03/04/07 Mar 4 2007 Trial Court Judge Cullen Continued Case to April Court Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
ScheduleTime For Court Appearance and Litigation Criminal Case

03/04/07 Mar 4 2007 File Supreme Court Diciplinary Complaint v. Janice Hours Billed For 5 $125.00 $625.00
Longer General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
03/07/07 Mar 7 2007 Filed Amended Complaint - General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 7 $125.00 $875.00
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

03/08/07 Mar 8 2007 Filed Notice of Appeal to Superior Court in Dauphin Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
County Court MDA 435-2007 General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Appeal
Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
03/22/07 Mar 22 2007 Research & Review Pa Consolodated Statutes Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Annotated at Law Library General Hours Billed For Legal Work Criminal Case
Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
MDA 435-2007 03/25/07 Mar 25 2007 Filed Docketing Statement to Superior Court of Hours Billed 4 $125.00 $500.00
Pennsylvania General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Criminal Appeal
Se Criminal Appeal Case

Page No. 11 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.50
LAWNo. 11of
50 of240
of 242
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

STAN J. CATERBONE
PRO SE BILLINGS - $1,217,382.00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CASE No. 17-01233

03/26/07 Mar 26 Letter to Janice Longer & Review Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 2 $125.00 $250.00
QuashGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Case
Criminal Case
3/28/2007 248 MAL 2007 03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 File Response to Fulton Bank Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 Meeting with Lancaster County Clerk of Courts Hours Billed 3 $125.00 $375.00
Review & Correct Index of RecorGeneral Hours Billed For Legal Criminal Appeal
Work Done On Pro Se Criminal Appeal Case
39169 248 MAL 2007 03/27/07 Mar 27 2007 File Response to Fulton Bank Motion to Dismiss Hours Billed For 3 $125.00 $375.00
Case General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Civil Appeals
Appeal Case
Fulton Bank v Caterbone, Stan

06-cv-4734 03/16/07 Mar 16 2007 Letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter Regarding Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
Obstruciton of Justice General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done Hours Billed
On Pro Se Civil Case
03/12/07 Mar 12 2007 Meet Lisa Owings staffer on Judiciary Comitte from Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Senator Specter at Chamber Building General Hours Billed For Hours Billed
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case
03/13/07 Mar 13 2007 Letter to Lisa Owings of Senator Specter Office Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

03/19/07 Mar 19 2007 Letter to Lisa Owings of Senator Specter Office Civil Litigation 3 $125.00 $375.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

03/20/07 Mar 20 2007 Letter to Lisa Owings of Senator Specter Office Civil Litigation 1 $125.00 $125.00
General Hours Billed For Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

03/24/07 Mar 24 2007 Letter to Senator Specter General Hours Billed For Civil Litigation 2 $125.00 $250.00
Legal Work Done On Pro Se Civil Case Hours Billed

Totals Hours Billed 2,114.00 $225,550.00


Weeks of Billing 52.85
March Hours 57 $225,550.00
YEAR 2008 $225,550.00
YEAR 2009 $120,000.00
YEAR 2010 $120,000.00
YEAR 2016 $225,550.00
YEAR 2017 $150,366.00

$1,217,382.00

Page No. 12 of 12 Thursday August 31, 2017

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.51
LAWNo. 12of
51 of240
of 242
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373
PRS CASE
THE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.52
LAWNo. 13of
52 of240
of 242
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

St. John's Law Review


Volume 55
Article 4
Issue 3 Volume 55, Spring 1981, Number 3

July 2012

Pro Se Litigant's Eligibility for Attorney Fees Under


FOIA: Crooker v. United States Department of
Justice
Lyn Batzar Boland

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview

Recommended Citation
Boland, Lyn Batzar (2012) "Pro Se Litigant's Eligibility for Attorney Fees Under FOIA: Crooker v. United States Department of
Justice," St. John's Law Review: Vol. 55: Iss. 3, Article 4.
Available at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss3/4

This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in
St. John's Law Review by an authorized administrator of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
cerjanm@stjohns.edu.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE ADD
CASE
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page
Page No.
LAWNo.No.53
No. 531 of
14 of240
of 45
242
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

COMMENTS

PRO SE LITIGANT'S ELIGIBILITY FOR


ATTORNEY FEES UNDER FOIA: CROOKER
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
The traditional American rule regarding attorney fees requires
that, absent an equitable1 or statutory2 exception, each party liti-

The courts have developed three major equitable exceptions to the general rule
against fee shifting: the "bad faith" theory, the "common benefit" theory, and the "private
attorney general" theory. See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240,
275 (1975) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Whether the private attorney general theory remains a
basis for an award of attorney fees is doubtful. See note 2 infra. For a discussion of the rise
and fall of the private attorney general theory, see Hermann & Hoffmann, FinancingPublic
Interest Litigation in State Court: A Proposalfor Legislative Action, 63 CORNELL L. REV.
173, 175-83 (1978).
The more traditional theories of "bad faith" and "common benefit" derived from the
equity powers of the English Court of Chancery. See Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City S.
Ry., 28 F.2d 233, 240-41 (8th Cir. 1928), rev'd on other grounds, 281 U.S. 1 (1930). Under
the bad faith exception, which was originally recognized in the United States in the case of
Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 166-67 (1939), an award of attorney fees is
justified when a party engages in a continual pattern of evasion and obstruction, Fairley v.
Patterson, 493 F.2d 598, 606 (5th Cir. 1974); Bell v. School Bd., 321 F.2d 494, 500 (4th Cir.
1963) (en banc), or where the plaintiff was forced into unnecessary litigation, even if the
defendant ultimately prevailed, McEnteggart v. Cataldo, 451 F.2d 1109, 1112 (1st Cir. 1971),
cert. denied, 408 U.S. 943 (1972); Marston v. American Employers Ins. Co., 439 F.2d 1035,
1042 (1st Cir. 1971).
The "common fund" theory is based on the premise that a single party should not be
charged with the entire cost of attorney fees when his legal victory benefits an entire class.
Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5-9 (1973); Sprague v. Ticonic Nat'l Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 167 (1939).
Although counsel fees generally are drawn from the funds recovered in the litigation, fees
may be awarded where no actual monetary fund has been created. Mills v. Electric Auto-
Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 392 (1970). For examples of other nonstatutory exceptions to the
American rule, notably contractual provisions for attorney fees, see Comment, Theories of
Recovering Attorney's Fees: Exceptions to the American Rule, 47 U. Mo. KAN. CITY L. REv.
566, 567-68 (1979).
' The federal statutory exceptions to the rule that each litigant must pay his own attor-
ney are numerous. E.g., Securities Act of 1933 11, 15 U.S.C. 77k(e) (1976); Copyright Act
101, 17 U.S.C. 116 (1976); Servicemen's Group Life Insurance Act, 38 U.S.C. 784(g)
(1976). For a list of 90 statutory fee award provisions, see SUBCOMMrrEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY CoMmITTEE, CivIL RIGHTS ATroRNEY's FEES AwARDs ACT OF

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.54
No.
LAWNo.
No. 542of
15 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

gant pay his own attorney. 3 One such statutory exception is con-
tained in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),' which permits

1976-SouRcE BOOK: LEGISLATr HMsTORY, TExTs AND oTHmR DoculszaS (1976). The stat-
utes vary in the degree of discretion which the judiciary may exercise in making fee awards
and in the nature of the eligible parties. See generally Note, The Civil Rights Attorney's
Fees Awards Act of 1976, 52 ST. JoHN's L. Rv. 562, 562 n.4 (1978). Statutory exceptions
also arise at the state level. E.g., ALASKA STAT. 09.60.010 (1978); ALAsKA STAT.
09.60.015(a) (1973); NEv. REv. STAT. 18.010 (1977). For a discussion of state attorney fee
statutes based on "bad faith conduct," see Nussbaum, Attorney's Fees in Public Interest
Litigation, 48 N.Y.U.L. REv. 301, 336 & n.154 (1973).
The statutory exceptions have assumed greater importance in light of the Supreme
Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). In
Alyeska, the Supreme Court severely curtailed use of the "private attorney general" doc-
trine as a basis for an award of attorney fees. Id. at 269. Confirming prior law to the effect
that "bad faith" and "common fund" are proper equitable bases for fee awards, id. at 257-
59, the Court stated that courts must find justification for any other award of fees in a
specific statutory authorization. Id. at 262. The Court reasoned that it would be a usurpa-
tion of legislative power to base a fee award on judicial estimates of the importance of the
policy at issue. Id. at 269.
3 Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975); Hall v. Cole,
412 U.S. 1, 4 (1973). The American rule differs from the practice in some other nations.
Comment, Court Awarded Attorneys' Fees and Equal Access to the Courts, 122 U. PA. L.
Ray. 636, 641 (1974). For example, in Great Britain, attorney fees are awarded to the pre-
vailing party. Id. The origin of the American rule has been attributed to a general distrust
of lawyers, id., to distinctively American traditions of individualism, Note, Attorney's Fees:
Where Shall the Ultimate Burden Lie?, 20 VmD. L. Rav. 1216, 1220-21 (1967), and to the
failure of statutory attorney fees to keep up with the rising costs of living. Ehrenzweig,
Reimbursement of Counsel Fees and the Great Society, 54 CALn. L. Ray. 792, 798-99
(1966). For a brief discussion of the British rule, see Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier
Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 717 (1966).
The American rule against "fee shifting" has been severely criticized, however, prima-
rily because it lacks the deterrent qualities inherent in fee shifting and, therefore, may en-
courage groundless litigation. See Kuenzel, The Attorney's Fee: Why Not a Cost of Litiga-
tion?, 49 IowA L. Rv. 75, 78 (1963). It also has been contended that the plaintiff is not truly
made whole when he still must pay his attorney fee. Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of Counsel
Fees and the Great Society, 54 CALIF. L. REv. 792, 792 (1966). For a discussion of the need
to reform the American rule, see Kuenzel, supra,at 78; McLaughlin, The Recovery of Attor-
ney's Fees: A New Method of Financing Legal Services, 40 FoRDHAM L. Ray. 761 (1972);
Stoebuck, Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development, 38 U. COLO. L. Rev. 202
(1966). Proponents of the rule argue, however, that a contrary rule unfairly penalizes a liti-
gant who brings a claim in good faith and discourages poorer litigants from pressing claims.
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 718 (1967); Oelrichs v.
Spain, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 211, 231 (1872); see Comment, Theories of Recovering Attorneys'
Fees: Exceptions to the American Rule, 47 U. Mo. KAN. CrrY L. Rzv. 566, 590-91 (1979).
Nevertheless, the continuing vitality of the American rule is evident. See Farmer v. Arabian
Am. Oil Co., 379 U.S. 227, 235 (1964).
4 5 U.S.C. 552 (1976 & Supp. I 1979). The premise underlying the FOIA is that full
public disclosure ensures decisionmaking by an informed electorate. H.R. RE'. No. 1497,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in [1966] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEws 2418, 2429. As
such, it is one of a series of laws relating to disclosure. See, e.g., Privacy Act of 1974, 5
U.S.C. 552a (1976); Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b (1976); Federal

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.55
No.
LAWNo.
No. 553of
16 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

a court to award "reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs rea-


sonably incurred." 5 A prerequisite to an award of attorney fees

Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 1 (1976). The policy favoring government disclo-
sure is not, however, without exceptions. Congress specifically excluded nine categories of
information from the FOIA disclosure requirements. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b) (1976 & Supp.
III 1979). Exempted materials may include national defense secrets, internal agency rules,
trade secrets, and medical files. Id. Not all exempt documents, however, must be withheld.
Even clearly exempt documents must be released unless the agency determines that such
release would be harmful "to the public interest." Letter from Attorney General Griffin Bell
to heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies (May 5, 1977), reprinted in [1979] GOV'T
DISCLOSURE (P-H) V300,775. For example, law enforcement material must be released unless
public disclosure would decrease the efficacy of specific crime detection techniques. Attor-
ney General's Memorandum on the 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act
(February 1975), reprinted in [1979] Gov'T DISCLOSURE (P-H) 1 300,701.
The 1974 Amendments to the FOIA, Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561 (codified at 5
U.S.C. 552 (1976)), strengthened administrative procedures and penalties in order to effec-
tuate the general aims of the Act and to encourage prompt and complete government re-
sponses to requests for information. For example, a strict timetable was enacted whereby
agencies must reply to an information request within 10 days of receipt, with either a release
of the information or a denial accompanied by a notice of the appeal process. 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(6)(A)(i) (1976). Appeals must be decided within 20 days, id. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), with
one discretionary 10 day extension at either the initial or appeal stage. Id. 552(a)(6)(B).
An agency's failure to comply with the appropriate deadline entitles the complainant to file
suit immediately to force disclosure. Id. 552(a)(6)(C). Also, penalties were imposed for
violations of the Act. Agency employees who withhold information "arbitrarily or capri-
ciously" are subject to disciplinary action. Id. 552(a)(4)(F). See generally Vaughn, The
Sanctions Provision of the Freedom of Information Act Amendments, 25 Am. U.L. REv. 7
(1975).
5 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976 & Supp. III 1979). What amount will be deemed a "rea-
sonable" attorney fee is determined on a case-by-case basis by evaluating various factors.
See, e.g., Evans v. Sheraton Park Hotel, 503 F.2d 177, 187-88 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The Ameri-
can Bar Association has suggested eight factors upon which the amount of a fee may be
based:
(1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions in-
volved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
(2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular
employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
(3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
(4) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
(6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
(7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services.
(8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
ABA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL REsPONSIBIIrry, DR 2-106(B) (1976). These criteria have been
adopted by the First Circuit, see King v. Greenblatt, 560 F.2d 1024, 1027 (1st Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 (1978), and similar criteria have been used in other circuits, see
Finney v. Hutto, 548 F.2d 740, 742 (8th Cir. 1977), afl'd, 437 U.S. 678 (1978); Kerr v. Screen
Extra's Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951 (1976); John-
son v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-20 (5th Cir. 1974).
Despite the language of the statute, attorney fees do not necessarily have to be "in-

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.56
No.
LAWNo.
No. 564of
17 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

under the FOIA is that the plaintiff must have "substantially pre-
vailed."' Once this threshold determination has been made, the
court then balances various factors in order to determine whether
an award is appropriate in the particular case.7 Conflict has arisen,

curred" in order to be recoverable. Courts have approved awards of attorney fees in cases
involving legal service organizations where plaintiffs incur no actual fee, Palmigiano v. Gar-
rahy, 616 F.2d 598, 601 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 115 (1980); Mid-Hudson Legal
Serv., Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1978); Fairley v. Patterson, 493 F.2d 598,
606-07 (5th Cir. 1974), and where legal expenses were covered by insurance, Ellis v. Cassidy,
625 F.2d 227, 230 (9th Cir. 1980).
6 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976). A plaintiff may substantially prevail by showing that
the suit was necessary for and causally related to disclosure. Vermont Low Income Advoc.
Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 513 (2d Cir. 1976). A final judgment, however, is not a
prerequisite to an award of attorney fees. Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559
F.2d 704, 709 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364-65 (D.C. Cir. 1977);
accord, Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509, 513 (2d Cir.
1976); Biberman v. FBI, No. 79-2313 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1980) (authorizing award of in-
terim attorney fees when appropriate). Nor must all the requested documents be released.
Vaughn v. Rosen, 383 F. Supp. 1049 (D.D.C. 1974), af'd, 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1975). In
addition, the complainant may be deemed to have substantially prevailed even if the litiga-
tion terminated due to the government's acceding to disclosure of the information re-
quested. Kaye v. Burns, 411 F. Supp. 897, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). This prevents the govern-
ment from averting an attorney fee award by releasing the information subsequent to
commencement of the suit. Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d
509, 513 (2d Cir. 1976).
7 The judicial award of attorney fees is discretionary. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E) (1976).
The Senate, however, had proposed that the following factors be considered in making such
awards: the benefit to the public from the case; the commercial benefit to the complainant;
the nature of the complainant's interest in the records; and whether the government's with-
holding of information had a reasonable basis in law. S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 19
(1974), reprinted in HousE COMM. ON GOV'T OPMAxxONS & SENATE COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY,
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AcT AMENDMENTS OF 1974, pt. 1, at
171 (Joint Comm. Print 1975). The Senate report also gave examples illustrating eqch of the
four factors:
Under the first criterion a court would ordinarily award fees, for example, where a
newsman was seeking information to be used in a publication or a public interest
group was seeking information to further a project benefitting the general public,
but it would not award fees if a business was using the FOIA to obtain data relat-
ing to a competitor or as a substitute for discovery in private litigation with the
government.
Under the second criterion a court would usually allow recovery of fees where
the complainant was indigent or a nonprofit public interest group versus [sic] but
would not if it was a large corporate interest (or a representative of such an inter-
est). For the purposes of applying this criterion, news interests should not be con-
sidered commercial interests.
Under the third criterion a court would generally award fees if the complain-
ant's interest in the information sought was scholarly or journalistic or public-
interest oriented, but would not do so if his interest was of a frivolous or purely
commercial nature.
Finally, under the fourth criterion a court would not award fees where the
government's withholding had a colorable basis in law but would ordinarily award

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.57
No.
LAWNo.
No. 575of
18 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

however, as to whether the FOIA authorizes an award of attorney


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

them if the withholding appeared to be merely to avoid embarrassment or to frus-


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

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.58
No.
LAWNo.
No. 586of
19 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

period prescribed by law, Crooker filed a FOIA suit to force disclo-


sure. 12 Subsequently, two documents were tendered by the Depart-
ment of Justice. Satisfied with the receipt of these materials,
Crooker moved for a dismissal of the action and an award of attor-
ney fees.13 Although the motion to dismiss was granted, the district
court denied the motion for attorney fees, holding that no award
was warranted since Crooker had not "substantially prevailed" on
his claim and had appeared pro se. 1
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed the denial of attorney
fees, holding that awards of attorney fees to pro se litigants are not
authorized under the FOIA.15 Writing for a unanimous panel,
Judge Bownes initially addressed the requirement that the plain-
tiff substantially prevail and concluded that this requirement had
been met. 6 The court then turned to the question of whether the

12 Id.; see note 4 supra. At approximately the same time that Crooker filed suit, the
United States Attorney's office advised Crooker that it did not have the documents re-
quested. 632 F.2d at 917. After receiving this response Crocker notified the U.S. Attorney
that he had filed suit to compel disclosure. Id. Approximately 6 weeks later, a 42-page pam-
phlet entitled "Material Relating to Prosecutorial Discretion" was released to Crooker. Id. A
second document, specifically relating to prosecution officials in the District of Massachu-
setts, was released and forwarded 6 months after the initial release. Id. The second release
may have been due in part to Crooker's motion requesting a Vaughn-type index. Id. The
Vaughn motion, a crucial discovery tool for the FOIA litigant, asks the court to order a
detailed justification for the denial of disclosure, indexed by cross reference to the docu-
ments. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-28 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S.
977 (1974).
Although previous FOIA actions had been commenced by Crooker in the District of
Columbia, e.g., Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 635 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir.
1980), this action was commenced in the District of Connecticut, which was a proper venue
district under the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) (1976). Crooker may have been influ-
enced by a favorable ruling on pro se fees handed down 2 weeks earlier by the Connecticut
district court. See Marschner v. Department of State, 470 F. Supp. 196 (D. Conn. 1979).
Xl 632 F.2d at 917. Crooker requested $165 in attorney fees. Id.
14 Id. at 918. In denying the motion for attorney's fees, the district court found that the
reasoning in Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509 (2d Cir.
1976), was dispositive. 632 F.2d at 917-18 & n.4; see note 16 infra.
15 632 F.2d at 920.
16 Id. at 919. Examining the request-reply pattern, the court employed the guidelines
suggested in Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery (VLIAC), 546 F.2d 509 (2d
Cir. 1976), and concluded that Crooker had substantially prevailed. 632 F.2d at 919. In
VLIAC, the Second Circuit set forth the following test for determining whether a FOIA
plaintiff had substantially prevailed: "A plaintiff must show at a minimum that [the action
was] necessary and that the action had substantial causative effect on the delivery of the
information." Vermont Low Income Advoc. Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d at 513. Judge
Bownes noted that the agency reaction to Crooker's requests was neither timely, 632 F.2d at
918, nor fully responsive, id. at 919. Although the request was not difficult, the government's
reluctant and dilatory compliance differed from the efforts at "amicable resolution" which
distinguished the VLIAC situation. Id. Moreover, the government's failure to demonstrate

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.59
No.
LAWNo.
No. 597of
20 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

FOIA "encompasses an award of attorney fees where no attorney


was involved" and concluded that it does not.17 In reaching its de-
termination, the court rejected any claim that the provision for at-
torney fees was intended either to "reward" a successful litigant or
to "punish" a recalcitrant agency. 18 Rather, Judge Bownes found
that, in permitting the recovery of attorney fees, Congress sought
to provide an economic incentive for the prosecution of claims of
agency abuse. 9 This purpose, the court concluded, was not served
by granting attorney fees where no attorney fees were incurred.2 0
Reasoning that a pro se plaintiff incurs no expense in litigating his
FOIA suit, the court stated that an award of fees would amount to
an impermissible payment for the plaintiff's time and effort. 21 In-
stead of an incentive to pursue his disclosure rights, a recovery of
"fees" not incurred for representation by an attorney would be a
windfall.2 2 Judge Bownes found, moreover, that an award of costs
actually incurred would suffice to remove any economic barriers to
suits by pro se litigants.2 3 Therefore, a recovery confined to litiga-
tion costs would make a pro se FOIA plaintiff whole, without giv-
ing him a windfall2 4

that their subsequent "piecemeal" disclosures were causally unrelated to Crooker's suit re-
quired the conclusion that Crooker had substantially prevailed within the meaning of the
Act. Id.
In FOIA suits, the government has the burden of proof on the issue of whether a with-
holding of records was proper. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) (1976). To meet this burden, they
must prove "in a concrete manner" that the materials requested were exempt. Crooker v.
Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 919; Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir.), cert.
denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974). Another procedural advantage for a plaintiff seeking informa-
tion is that FOIA cases generally are expedited at every stage of the litigation. 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(D) (1976).
17 632 F.2d at 920-22.
Is Id. at 920; see Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704,711 (D.C. Cir.
1977).
19 632 F.2d at 920. The cost of a simple FOIA suit has been estimated at $1,000. Pro-
ject, Government Information and the Rights of Citizens, 73 MICH. L. Rv. 971, 1133
(1975). More complex suits may generate up to $70,000 in fees. Id. at 1133 n.1018.
20 632 F.2d at 920.
:I Id.
2 Id. at 921 (citing Davis v. Paratt, 608 F.2d 717 (8th Cir. 1979); Hannon v. Security
Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1976)).
21 632 F.2d at 921. Although the Crooker court's holding extends to all pro se litigants,
the identification of costs as the sole "financial barriers" seems uniquely appropriate to the
prison situation. This reasoning may be inadequate to justify denial of fees to a pro se liti-
gant who forgoes employment income to pursue his case. See note 24 and accompanying
text infra.
24 632 F.2d at 921. Another factor considered by the Crooker court in refusing to award
attorney fees to pro se litigants was the difficulty in calculating the value of a nonlawyer's

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.60
No.
LAWNo.
No. 608of
21 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

In contrast to the First Circuit, the District of Columbia Cir-


cuit has held that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not ineligible per se
for an award of attorney fees.2 51 Noting that all pro se plaintiffs
function as attorneys, the latter court has refused to disqualify a
litigant from receiving a fee award merely because he had not in-
curred expenses for a lawyer in prosecuting his claim. 26 Rather, it
has determined that a pro se plaintiff who substantially prevails
could recover attorney fees in the district court's discretion.
It is submitted that the District of Columbia Circuit has ex-
pressed the better view on whether a pro se plaintiff may recover
an attorney fee under the FOIA. Provided that the factors favoring
a fee award are present, no compelling reasons exist for denying
attorney fees to pro se litigants. The arguments for denying such
fee awards fail to consider that they may advance the aims of the
FOIA. Rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on attorney fee
awards to pro se litigants, the better view is to allow such awards,
relying on the district court to ferret out non-meritorious claims by
exercising its discretion.

services as an attorney. Id. The court noted that the factors considered in determining a
reasonable amount for attorney fees are "specifically geared toward examining the work of
an attorney." Id. The Crooker court also rejected the contention that the language of the
statute requires the award of attorney fees to pro se FOIA litigants. Id. at 921 & n.7. This
semantic argument was developed in Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115, 116 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd
sub nom. Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The Holly court stated that "[t]he
phrase 'reasonably incurred' modifies the phrase 'other litigation costs,' not the larger
phrase 'reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs,'" since the repetition of the word
"reasonable" distinguished "attorney fees" from "other litigation cost." 72 F.R.D. at 116.
Consequently, only costs would have to be actually incurred. Id. Rejecting this argument,
the Crooker court stated that it is "quite clear that a lawyer's charge for his services might
be reasonable while at the same time a client's retention of that lawyer or direction that he
perform particular services in a specific case was unreasonable." 632 F.2d at 921 n.7. Thus,
the court concluded that the "more natural reading" of the provision requires "that attor-
ney fees, like 'other litigation costs,' be actually incurred in order to be compensable." Id.
25 Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980). The
District of Columbia Circuit first enunciated its position in Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115,
116 (D.D.C. 1976), aff'd sub nom. Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977), wherein it
was held that the language and intentions of the FOIA mandated awards to pro se litigants.
See note 24 supra. The court reaffirmed its position in Cox v. Department of Justice, 601
F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (per curiam), holding that a complainant need not actually incur an
attorney's fee in order to be eligible for an award. Id. at 5-6. The Cox court referred to the
decision in Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364-65 (D.C. Cir. 1977), which awarded fees
to an attorney appearing in propriapersona. See 601 F.2d at 5-6.
, Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980).
17 601 F.2d at 6-7. The circuit court remanded the case to the district court to deter-
mine the propriety of awarding attorney fees in the case, and if attorney fees were proper,
the amount. Id.

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
- CASEPage
Page No.61
No.
LAWNo.
No. 619of
22 of
of 45
of240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

THE CASE AGAINST ATTORNEY FEES FOR PRO SE FOIA PLAINTIFFS

Although Congress' position on pro se litigants' eligibility for


attorney fee awards under the FOIA is not apparent from either
the statute or its legislative history,"8 it is clear that the courts
were empowered to award attorney fees in order to implement the
overall purposes of the Act. 9 The FOIA embodies a congressional
determination that an informed electorate is essential for the oper-
ation of democratic processes.30 Thus, the FOIA set up a mecha-
nism to promote disclosure of government information.3 1 Later, the
FOIA was amended with the intention of eliminating government
obduracy in compliance.82 Although not precisely punitive in char-
acter, the amendments embody a legislative distaste for govern-
ment foot-dragging and evasion in complying with the Act. 3 The
creation of a right to recover attorney fees was one of several pro-
visions designed to encourage private litigation as a means of dis-
couraging government noncompliance.3 4 The decision to exclude
nonattorneys appearing pro se from eligibility for an award of fees

2 See Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, No. 80-1421 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980).
29 S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974); accord, GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Con-
sumer's Union of United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 387 (1980); Blue v. Bureau of Prisons,
570 F.2d 529, 533 (5th Cir. 1978); Nationwide Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Sampson, 559 F.2d 704,
711 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
10 See note 4 supra.
31 A FOIA request is relatively uncomplicated to make. After ascertaining which agency
holds the desired information, the requester must make a written application which must
comply with that agency's individual regulations, and which must include the following ba-
sic information: (1) identification of the party requesting the information, (2) specific identi-
fication of the material to be released, and (3) an address and phone number where the
requester can be contacted. [1980] Gov'T DISCLOSURE (P-H) 1 10,023-024.
32 The FOIA was enacted in 1964 to supersede the public information section of the

Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 324, 3, 60 Stat. 238 (1946) (current version at 5 U.S.C.
551-554 (1976)). Under prior law, the government could "withhold . . . virtually any
piece of information that [it did] not wish to disclose." S. REP. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Seass.
4 (1965); H.R. REP. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprintedin [1966] U.S. CODE CONG. &
AD. NEWS 2418, 2421-22. As originally enacted, the FOIA suffered from many of the
problems of the prior laws. See H.R. REP. No. 876, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 1, reprinted in
[1974] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 6267. Consequently, Congress amended the Act in
1974, strengthening the legislation to encourage private actions to compel compliance. See
Pub. L. No. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561-64.
13 See GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 385

(1980) (1974 amendments to FOIA reflect a congressional concern with "needless denials of
information"). See generally Katz, The Games BureaucratsPlay: Hide and Seek Under the
Freedom of Information Act, 48 TEx. L. REv. 1261 (1970); Nader, Freedom from Informa-
tion: The Act and the Agencies, 5 HARv. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 1 (1970).
", For a discussion of other measures added to FOIA in 1974, see The Freedom of
Information Act Amendments of 1974: An Analysis, 26 SYRACUSE L. REV. 951 (1975).

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.62
LAWNo. 10of
62
23 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

must be viewed, therefore, as a judicial determination not to en-


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

The Fear of Abuse Argument


The judiciary has long been apprehensive about becoming
clogged with a flood of frivolous and burdensome pro se suits.36
Indeed, one federal district court judge has characterized pro se
motions as "disorderly, numerous, repetitious, discursive, and
sometimes mad. ' 37 It is argued, moreover, that the award of attor-

:5See Cox v. Department of Justice, 601 F.2d 1, 6 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The Cox court
stated that implicit in the congressional emphasis on judicial discretion in attorney fee
awards, was a responsibility to "encourage or discourage" certain kinds of suits. Id.
38Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980); Graham v.
Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 135 (4th Cir. 1977); Carter v. Telectron, 452 F. Supp. 944, 948-49 (S.D.
Tex. 1977). While recognizing the right to appear without counsel, United States v. Mitchell
137 F.2d 1006, 1010 (2d Cir. 1943), the judiciary remains apprehensive about the layman's
ability successfully to represent his own interests, Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774, 775-
76 (2d Cir. 1944). Thus, the attitude of the courts toward the pro se litigant is necessarily
ambivalent. Describing pro se efforts as "inartistic," id. at 775, "inartfully drawn, unclear
and equivocal," Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 112 (1976), the courts nevertheless attempt
to safeguard the legal rights of the pro se litigant. In Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972),
the Supreme Court refused to dismiss a pro se complaint unless it could be said "with assur-
ance" that the plaintiff could not prove his claim. Id. at 520-21. Furthermore, the Court
indicated that pro se pleadings would be judged by "less stringent standards." Id. at 520.
Despite the demonstrations of leniency toward pro se litigation, the Court's emphasis is
clearly on professional legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 831 (1977); The
Bounds majority stated, "[P]ro se petitioners are capable of using law books to file cases
raising claims that are serious and legitimate. . . ." Id. at 826-27. In contrast, the dissent
took the position that "access to a law library will. . . simply result in the filing of plead-
ings heavily loaded with irrelevant legalisms-possessing the veneer but lacking the sub-
stance of professional competence." Id. at 836 (Stewart, J., dissenting).
'7 Becker, Collateral Post Conviction Review of State and Federal Criminal Judg-
ments on Habeas Corpus and Section 2255 Motions-View of a DistrictJudge, 33 F.R.D.
452, 453 (1963).
A common denominator among pro se litigants is their ignorance of the law and the
consequent inadequacy of their legal petitions, applications, and motions. Ziegler & Her-
mann, supra note 10, at 176-87; cf. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)
(pro se complaints held to less stringent standards than attorneys). Lack of legal expertise,
and the concomitant judicial exasperation, is the major hurdle for pro se litigants. See, e.g.,
Marlow v. Tully, 79 App. Div. 2d 546, 547, 433 N.Y.S.2d 787, 789 (1st Dep't 1980). In Mar-
low, the pro se plaintiff was advised that further proceedings without counsel would only
result in "wasteful legally inappropriate procedures." Id.
The courts are especially sensitive to the threat which prisoners "with idle time and

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.63
LAWNo. 11of
63
24 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

ney fees to nonattorneys would encourage additional spurious liti-


gation because the award of such fees would constitute a "wind-
fall."" s The reluctance of the American courts to award attorney
fees thus becomes an abhorrence in the case of awards to unde-
serving laymen.39 When the pro se litigant is a prisoner, the courts
seem particularly anxious to protect the federal fisc against claims
for fees, ostensibly since such awards are more difficult to calculate
than in the nonprisoner context.4 0
If the FOIA were interpreted narrowly to prohibit the award
of attorney fees to pro se plaintiffs, the potential dangers imposed
by such awards would be diminished. It is submitted, however,
that these objections should not automatically preclude awards of
attorney fees to pro se litigants under the FOIA. First, the fear of a

free paper" present to overcrowded court calendars. Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453, 463
(1972) (citing Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 327 (1972) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). See
Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980) ("The Freedom of
Information Act was not enacted to create a cottage industry for federal prisoners"). Even
one active jailhouse lawyer can be responsible for a good deal of legal activity. Turner, supra
note 10, at 635. For a detailed study of a pro se prisoner filing 178 cases, see Carter v.
Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 944 (S.D. Tex. 1977). According to the Cartercourt, as of June
30, 1977, prisoner suits accounted for 15% of pending federal civil cases. Id. at 948. More-
over, in the pro se prisoner context, out-of-court settlements are difficult and rare. Conse-
quently, some kind of judicial action is required on virtually every case. Turner, supra note
10, at 637-38.
City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 469 (2d Cir. 1974); White v. Arlen
Realty & Dev. Corp., 614 F.2d 387, 389 (4th Cir. 1980). Courts also are sensitive to accusa-
tions of fee generation, and, therefore, have attempted to stem public disapproval by main-
taining moderation in fee awards. See City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d at 469.
" Typically, the judicial arguments against pro se fees rest on the narrow premise that
only an attorney is an attorney. Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.
1976). In Hannon, a law school graduate, albeit unlicensed, was denied attorney fees be-
cause, as the court stated, "he was not an attorney and could not provide attorney services."
Id. at 329; accord, Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d 717, 718 (8th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); Barrett v.
United States Customs Serv., 482 F. Supp. 770, 789 (E.D. La. 1980); Burke v. Department of
Justice, 432 F. Supp. 251, 253 (D. Kan. 1976); Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 354 F. Supp. 310, 311
(N.D. Cal. 1973). This approach has been called the "closed shop philosophy." Johnson v.
Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 491 (1969) (Douglas, J., concurring).
Generally, the courts have been less grudging with regard to the attorney who repre-
sents himself. Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Wells v. Whinery, 34
Mich. App. 626, 192 N.W.2d 81 (Ct. App. 1971). The courts reason that the attorney appear-
ing in propria persona is giving up the economic benefit of other professional opportunities.
Winer v. Jonal Corp., 169 Mont. 247, 545 P.2d 1094 (1976). See also Crooker v. Department
of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980). Moreover, the burden on the defeated party
is the same whether or not the plaintiff is an attorney. Winer v. Jonal Corp., 169 Mont. 247,
545 P.2d 1094 (1976). But see Parquit Corp. v. Ross, 273 Or. 900, 543 P.2d 1070 (1975);
O'Connell v. Zimmerman, 157 Cal. App. 2d 330, 321 P.2d 161 (1958); Cheney v. Ricks, 168
Ill. 533, 549, 48 N.E. 75, 81 (1897).
40 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 921 (1st Cir. 1980); see note 49 infra.

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.64
LAWNo. 12of
64
25 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

flood of litigation arising from sanctioning fees for pro se parties is


often unfounded. 4 1 To be sure, there has been a sharp increase in
the number of FOIA requests since the 1974 amendments were en-
acted. 2 There is no indication, however, that the cause has been
the availability of attorney fees.'3 Moreover, the pro se litigant's
4
chances of being put on a federal court docket are slim. " Most
complaints are disposed of during the initial stages.' 5 Even if the
case goes to trial, the plaintiff still must prevail and satisfy the
discretionary guidelines before attorney fees may be awarded.46 In
addition, chances of abuse, if any, are minimized by applying the
discretionary factors. 7 For example, pro se plaintiffs whose acts
are merely fee-generating and serve no public purpose may be de-
nied fees on these grounds without arbitrarily barring recovery by
all pro se plaintiffs. 4 8 Further, abuse can be controlled through
methods devised for calculating the value of pro se services.4 9

41 See Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994, 1007
(D.C. Cir. 1966); Ziegler & Hermann, supra note 10, at 196-97.
42 See Open American v. Watergate Special Prosec. Force, 547 F.2d 605, 617 n.3 (D.C.

Cir. 1976) (Leventhal, J., concurring) (FBI received 447 FOIA requests in 1974, as compared
to 13,875 in 1975).
43 The increase might be attributed to a greater public awareness of the rights con-
ferred by the FOIA. The added burden on the judiciary is not, however, sufficient reason for
curtailing fee awards. There are alternative solutions to overcrowded courts. Institution of
an individual assignment system and the appointment of additional judges could meet any
additional burden precipitated by awards of attorney fees to pro se litigants. See Committee
on Federal Courts, Recommendationsfor the Improvement of the Administrationof Pro Se
Civil Rights Litigation in the Federal District Courts in the Southern and Eastern Dis-
tricts of New York, 30 Rc. A.B. Crry N.Y. 107, 108 (1975) [hereinafter cited as Bar Recom-
mendations]. Interestingly, one commentator has noted the connection between judicial at-
titude and judicial burden: "If those who must decide [pro se] prisoners cases feel that they
are a bothersome nuisance, most of the complaints will be read in a narrow grudging man-
ner; most of the cases will be dismissed as frivolous; and the task of deciding so many
groundless claims will indeed seem burdensome." Turner, supra note 10, at 638 n.144.
44 See Bar Recommendations,supra note 43, at 109-10; Ziegler & Hermann, supra note
10, at 160.
4 See Bar Recommendations, supra note 43, at 113 n.8. One commentator has noted:
It is apparent that it is futile for prisoners to proceed pro se. Not only is it un-
likely that the complaints will survive the.. . screening, but even assuming that
the cases are not dismissed prior to service, they will languish in the courts' dock-
ets. They are prime candidates for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Prisoners
generally have neither the knowledge nor the resources to conduct discovery and
move their cases to trial.
Turner, supra note 10, at 625.
4' See notes 5 & 7 supra.
" See notes 71-80 and accompanying text infra.
41 See note 75 and accompanying text infra.
4, The fee awarded a successful pro se litigant does not threaten the federal purse,

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.65
LAWNo. 13of
65
26 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

The Semantic Argument


Those opposing attorney fee awards for pro se litigants also
advance two arguments based on the language of the FOIA's fee
provision. As stated previously, the FOIA sanctions an award of

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

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.66
LAWNo. 14of
66
27 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

"reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs reasonably incurred."


It is argued that "incurred" modifies "fees" as well as "costs."
Therefore, since attorney fees are not incurred by a party appear-
ing pro se, no award is proper." Alternately, it is argued that the
inclusion of nonattorneys as eligible for an award of "attorney"
fees violates the "clear language" of the statute.51 Although entic-
ingly straightforward, both arguments must fail. The first argu-
ment overlooks two situations where attorney fees are sanctioned
although no fees are "incurred" by the plaintiffs. While neither
lawyers appearing in propria persona nor legal service organiza-
tions representing FOIA plaintiffs charge their "clients" a fee, at-
torney fees under the FOIA are recoverable nonetheless. 5 2 The sec-
ond argument can be overcome by focusing on an alternate
meaning of the term "attorney fees." Commonly, attorney fees are
understood to be payments for the services of a qualified lawyer.5 3
Additionally, however, the term may mean payments for legal ser-
vices without regard to whether or not they were performed by a
lawyer.54 Thus, "attorney" fees have been awarded to paralegals
and other persons not admitted to the bar for their work in con-
nection with litigation.5 5 The existence of this "functional" defini-
tion of the term "attorney fees" belies the argument that its mean-
ing is "clear."

80 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir. 1980).
" Barrett v. United States Customs Serv., 482 F. Supp. 779, 780 (E.D. La. 1980); ac-
cord, Hannon v. Security Natl Bank, 537 F.2d 327, 329 (9th Cir. 1976). It is argued further
that the absence of a specific inclusion of nonattorneys in the statute implies that Congress
did not wish to compensate them for their services. Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537
F.2d at 328.
2 Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc. v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1978); Cuneo
v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 444
F.2d 143, 147 n.3 (5th Cir. 1971); Miller v. Amusement Enterps., Inc., 426 F.2d 534, 538-39
(5th Cir. 1970). See also Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir.
1980). The awards to legal service organizations are justified on the ground that attorneys
are actually involved. Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 n.1 (2d Cir.
1980); Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d 916, 921 n.7 (1st Cir. 1980) (citing
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 616 F.2d 598 (1st Cir. 1980)). Furthermore, the courts want to sup-
port the public interests represented by these organizations. Mid-Hudson Legal Servs., Inc.,
v. G & U, Inc., 578 F.2d 34, 37 (1978).
63 See note 51 supra.
5 See Holly v. Acree, 72 F.R.D. 115, 116 (D.D.C. 1976), af'd without opinion sub nom.
Holly v. Chasen, 569 F.2d 160 (D.C. Cir. 1977); note 49 supra.
5 See note 49 supra.

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.67
LAWNo. 15of
67
28 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

The Economic BarrierArgument


Opponents of awards of attorney fees in pro se suits further
argue that such awards are outside the ambit of the FOIA.5 e This
argument is based on the premise that the aim of the Act was to
promote government disclosure by removing the expense of an at-
torney as a potential deterrent to prosecuting FOIA claims. The
opponents conclude, therefore, that since the pro se litigant never
contemplates the payment of such a fee, he does not need the ben-
57
efit of the statute.
Assuming arguendo that removal of economic barriers to suit
is the sole purpose underlying the decision by Congress to sanction
fee awards in FOIA suits, this argument still is unpersuasive. In-
deed, no economic barrier in the form of a bill for the services of
an attorney exists for a pro se litigant. Nevertheless, real economic
barriers in other forms do exist. It is difficult for indigent parties to
obtain legal counsel, 5 and even more difficult when the indigent
party is a prisoner.5 9 For these parties, a pro se appearance may be
the only realistic route available for forcing disclosure under the
FOIAY The indigent's lack of means bars his appearance by an
attorney and forces him to perform this function himself. Addi-
tionally, an economic barrier may exist for nonprisoner pro se
plaintiffs since they may forego income-producing activity to pur-
sue a FOIA claim."1 Admittedly, most pro se claims are made by

'" But see LaSalle Extension Univ. v. FTC, [1980] I Gov'T DISCLOSuRE (P-H) 80, at
171 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1980). Shermco Indus. Inc. v. Secretary of United States Air Force,
452 F. Supp. 306, 326 (N.D. Tex. 1978).
17 Crooker v. Department of Justice, 632 F.2d at 921.
68 See Nussbaum, Attorney's Fees in Public Interest Litigation, 48 N.Y.U.L. REv. 301,

306 n.16 (1973). The key to the problem Hes in the large number of people below the pov-
erty level and the small number of legal service lawyers. Id.
Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 493 (1969) (Douglas, J., concurring).
80 Larsen, A PrisonerLooks at Writ-Writing, 56 CALn'. L. REv. 343, 345-46 (1968). One

commentator tersely summarized the problem as follows: "Lawyers generally require at least
a fifty dollar fee to travel to the prisons to consult with a prisoner. The ones not able to pay
this sum must resort to the next best course of action-act as their own lawyers." Id. at 345.
Even if counsel is assigned, the prisoner may be at a disadvantage since "some attorneys do
not feel an obligation to put forth their best efforts for a client who is not paying them and
who they probably will never see." Note, Legal Services for Prison Inmates, 1967 Wis. L.
REv. 514, 526.
61 The Second Circuit has recognized that an economic barrier may be presented in
either of two ways: "by the prospect of having to pay an attorney or having to forego an
opportunity to earn one's regular income for a day or more in order to prepare and pursue a
pro se suit." Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980). See S.
REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974) (quoting Sen. Thurmond).

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.68
LAWNo. 16of
68
29 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

1981] PRO SE LITIGANTS

prisoners who do not lose tangible economic benefits in pursuing a


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

THE CASE IN FAVOR OF ATTORNEY FEES FOR PRO SE FOIA


PLAINTIFFS

The primary consideration in deciding whether pro se plain-


tiffs should be denied attorney fees must be the effectuation of the
policy underlying FOLA. In enacting the FOIA, Congress created a
disclosure statute which depended on suits by private litigants for
enforcement." When private enforcement proved ineffective,6
measures were adopted to curb government abuse of the Act by
removing the chief barriers to individual litigation. What consti-
tuted a violation of the Act was defined with greater precision; pu-
nitive measures against intentional misconduct were created;6 5 and
attorney fees became available.6 6 Indeed, these measures have been
so successful in encouraging the pursuit of FOJA rights that courts
now fear plaintiff abuse. Specifically, some courts are afraid, in the
case of pro se plaintiffs, that fee awards under the FOJA will give
rise to a "flood" of burdensome litigation and undeserved "wind-
fall" awards. Inexplicably, plaintiff abuse does not appear to be a
problem when the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer.6 8 It is ironic,
but in categorically refusing to award attorney fees to pro se liti-
gants, courts are refusing to apply a statutory provision aimed at
encouraging FOIA suits to a class of plaintiffs on whom the provi-
sion is having the desired effect. 9 The public benefit is real and

62 Carter v. Telectron, 452 F. Supp. 944, 046-49 (S.D. Tex. 1977). But see Johnson v.
Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 494 n.10 (1969) (citing Larsen, A PrisonerLooks at Writ-Writing, 56
CALm. L. REV. 343, 345-46 (1968)).
'3 See note 4 supra,
See note 33 and accompanying text supra.
" See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(F) (1976).
See id. 552(a)(4)(E).
67 See, e.g., Crooker v. Department of the Treasury, 634 F.2d 48, 49 (2d Cir. 1980);
Hannon v. Security Natl Bank, 537 F.2d 327, 329 n.1 (9th Cir. 1976).
" See Luzaich v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 31, 36 (D. Minn. 1977). Some commenta-
tors recommend the assignment of counsel as the most effective solution to the problems of
pro se litigation. Ziegler & Hermann, supra note 10, at 213.
9 See S. REP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1974); accord, Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553
F.2d 1360, 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Goldstein v. Levi, 415 F. Supp. 303, 305 (D.D.C. 1976);

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.69
LAWNo. 17of
69
30 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

their legal activity deserving of compensation. 0


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

Kaye v. Burns, 411 F. Supp. 897, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).


70 "Many of the landmark prisoner rights cases were commenced by prisoners pro se."

Bar Recommendations, supra note 71, at 114 n.13; see, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.
335 (1963). It is submitted that pro se litigants should not be denied fee awards, regardless
of whether they forego any income in prosecuting claims. Whether a pro se claimant is a
prisoner or unemployed is irrelevant to a determination of whether he is eligible for an
award. If a suit promotes the disclosure policy of the Act, economic status alone should not
preclude an award of attorney fees. If economic status is determinative of a litigant's eligi-
bility for a fee award, some inequities would result. For example, a lawyer who comes out of
retirement to pursue a FOIA claim would be ineligible because he did not forego other
income.
7 See notes 6 & 7 supra.
71 See note 7 supra.

1 Marschner v. Department of State, 410 F. Supp. 196, 201 (D. Conn. 1979).
74 See note 7 supra.
1 See, e.g., Polynesian Cultural Center, Inc., v. NLRB, 600 F.2d 1327, 1330 (9th Cir.
1979). The intentions of the Act do not include financing private actions where there is
already sufficient impetus to proceed. Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529, 534 (5th Cir.
1978).
" See, e.g., Fenster v. Brown, [1980] Gov'T DisCLOSURE (P-H) 79,148 (D.C. Cir. Dec.
18, 1979).
7 Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Project, Government Infor-
mation and the Rights of Citizens, 73 MICH. L. REv. 971, 1141 n.1 (1975).

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.70
LAWNo. 18of
70
31 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

19811 PRO SE LITIGANTS

right to recover attorney fees.7 8 The courts are eminently capable


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

CONCLUSION

The FOIA presents a unique situation requiring responsive ju-


dicial interpretation: no overt wrong has been committed against
the FOIA plaintif8 1 and no damage award is available to attract
counsel. Without assertive public enforcement, a silent erosion of
Congressional policy may ensue. 82 It is submitted that awards of

78 See Pope v. United States, 424 F. Supp. 962, 965-66 (S.D. Tex. 1977). In Pope, the
plaintiff, although obtaining much of the information sought, was held not to have substan-
tially prevailed. Furthermore, the government's withholding was deemed proper, there was
no public benefit, and the plaintiff's interest was commercial and personal. Id. at 966;
accord,Fenster v. Brown, [1980] Gov'T DxsCLosuRE (P-H) %79,148 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 1979).
79 The application of the four factors for determining the appropriateness of an award
of fees requires sensitivity to the issues at hand. S. RP. No. 854, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 19
(1974). In Shermco Indus., Inc. v. Secretary of the United States Air Force, 452 F. Supp.
306, 326 (N.D. Tex. 1978), a fee award was granted despite a commercial interest due to the
unreasonable withholding by the defendant. Id. In contrast, the government had valid rea-
son for refusing the disclosure of the material requested in Flower v. FBI, 448 F. Supp. 567,
574 (W.D. Tex. 1978). Attorney's fees were awarded, however, because of the strong public
benefit. Id.
80 Courts are more willing to grant fees where the information sought will benefit the
public. See Goldstein v. Levi, 415 F. Supp. 303, 305 (D.D.C. 1976); Consumers Union of
United States v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 410 F. Supp. 63, 64 (D.D.C.
1975).
" See Clark, Holding Government Accountable: the Amended Freedom of Information
Act, 84 YALE L.J. 741, 767 (1975).
82 Cf. Knight v. Auciello, 453 F.2d 852, 853 (1st Cir. 1972) (plaintiff's financial inability
to litigate may foster deliberate noncompliance with the civil rights laws). In Knight, the
district court had refused to award attorney's fees in a civil rights case, but the First Circuit
reversed and granted the award. Although not a FOIA case, the Knight court stated
incisively.
The violation of an important public policy may involve little by way of actual
damages, so far as a single individual is concerned, or little in comparison with the
cost of vindication, as the case at bar illustrates. If a defendant may feel that the
cost of litigation, and, particularly, that the financial circumstances of an injured
party may mean that the chances of suit being brought, or continued in the face of
opposition, will be small, there will be little brake upon deliberate wrongdoing.
453 F.2d at 853 (emphasis added).

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.71
LAWNo. 19of
71
32 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.by
PUBLISHED PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
Stan J. Caterbone, -Pro
LANDMARK
Se andPro
HUMAN
THESe ADVANCED
and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA MEDIA GROUP
GROUP CASE

538 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [Vol. 55:520

attorney fees to pro se FOIA litigants will further the FOIA's goal
of an informed electorate by encouraging agency compliance.
Lyn Batzar Boland

PRS
THE SEPRO
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373
CASE SE LITIGANTS
PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
& PRO ADD
SETO -DEFENDANTS
CASE
BILLINGS
SE
ADD LAW
LITIGANTS - CASEPage
DEFENDANTS Page
Page
Page No.
No.
No.72
LAWNo. 20of
72
33 of
of
of 45
240
242
58 Friday September
Wednesday
Wednesday 1, 20176,
September
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE ADD
CASE
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.73
LAWNo. 21of
73
34 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE,byPRO
StanSE
J. Caterbone,
- LANDMARK ProHUMAN
Se and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

William Mitchell Law Review


Volume 39 | Issue 1 Article 4

2012

Pro Se Litigation and the Costs of Access to Justice


Dan Gustafson

Karla Glueck

Joe Bourne

Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr

Recommended Citation
Gustafson, Dan; Glueck, Karla; and Bourne, Joe (2012) "Pro Se Litigation and the Costs of Access to Justice," William Mitchell Law
Review: Vol. 39: Iss. 1, Article 4.
Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews
and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for
inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator
of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact
sean.felhofer@mitchellhamline.edu.
Mitchell Hamline School of Law

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE ADD
CASE
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SE
ADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.74
LAWNo. 22of
74
35 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

PRO SE LITIGATION AND THE COSTS OF


ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Dan Gustafson, Karla Gluek, and Joe Bourne

I.INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 32
II.FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER SURVEY ......................................... 36
III.PRO SE PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW....................... 38
IV. EXAMPLES OF EXPERIENCES IN PRO SE PROJECT CASES ........... 44
A. Prisoner Civil Rights and Religious Freedom ........................ 44
B. Civil Rights and the Fourth Amendment ............................. 45
C. Due Process Rights in a Treatment Facility .......................... 47
D. Employment Discrimination ................................................ 48
V. STATISTICS ON PRO SE PROJECT CASES .................................... 48
VI. ASSESSING THE PRO SE PROJECTS EFFECTIVENESS AND
PROPOSED FUTURE STEPS ........................................................ 50

I. INTRODUCTION
Legal services are expensive to provide. Attorneys fees alone
are expensive: the average attorneys hourly billing rate in the
1
United States is $295. This rate may vary significantly depending
on a number of factors, including the attorneys experience level,
2
practice area, and legal market. In addition, out-of-pocket costs in
a litigation matter that proceeds to trial (such as filing fees, expert

Dan Gustafson and Karla Gluek are the founding members of Gustafson
Gluek PLLC. Joe Bourne is an associate attorney at Gustafson Gluek.
1. Debra Cassens Weiss, Are Female Lawyers Worth $50 an Hour Less than Men?
Average Billing Rates Show Gap, A.B.A. J. (Apr. 8, 2011, 1:16 PM),
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/average_lawyer_billing_rates_are_more
_than_20_percent_lower_for_women_than_/.
2. Leigh Jones, Rich Lawyers Are Getting Richer Faster, THOMSON REUTERS NEWS
& INSIGHT (Apr. 16, 2012), http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal
/News/2012/04_-_April/Rich_lawyers_are_getting_richer_faster/ (experience
level); Orin Kerr, Average Billing Rates Charged by Washington DC Lawyers, VOLOKH
CONSPIRACY (Sept. 10, 2010, 1:57 PM), http://www.volokh.com/2010/09
/10/average-billing-rates-charged-by-washington-dc-lawyers/ (legal market); id.
(practice area).

32

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.75
LAWNo. 23of
75
36 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 1
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 33

witness fees, depositions, and travel expenses) may easily add up to


3
tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. While law firms
representing plaintiffs may sometimes use contingency fee
arrangements, in which the firm advances attorneys fees and costs
and recovers them only as part of any recovery by the client, this
4
places the risk on the firm. As a result, a firms decision whether
to represent a plaintiff on a contingency basis often depends on the
5
firms expectation that the case will pay. This can result in firms
being unwilling to take contingency caseseven when those cases
appear to have some meritif the firms anticipated investment in
6
the case is greater than its expected recovery. Meanwhile,
defendants generally cannot benefit from contingency fee
arrangements because they do not stand to recover from being
sued, even when their defenses are successful. Due to the high cost
of legal services in litigation matters, many litigants appear pro se.
In some instances, due process and other constitutional law,
statutes, or regulations may require that counsel be provided to
litigants who cannot afford counsel. For example, criminal
defendants are guaranteed the right to publicly funded trial
7
counsel when they cannot afford it, and that right continues on
8
direct appeal. Similarly, civil commitment respondents have the
statutory right to appointed counsel in civil commitment
9
proceedings. Although the United States Supreme Court has not
expressly decided the question, federal and state case law suggest
that due process should also guarantee the right to appointed
10
counsel in civil commitment proceedings. The Supreme Court

3. Court Costs and Attorney Fees: The Contingency Fee, HARRELL & HARRELL,
http://www.harrellandharrell.com/court-costs-and-attorney-fees.php (last visited
Oct. 17, 2012).
4. Id.
5. Why Do You Use Contingency Fees?, MCCLANAHAN MYERS ESPEY LLP,
http://www.mmellp.com/faqs/why-do-you-use-contingency-fees/ (last visited Oct.
17, 2012).
6. See id. ([Contingency fees] discourag[e] attorneys from presenting
claims that have negative value . . . .).
7. U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 34445
(1963).
8. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 396 (1985).
9. E.g., MINN. STAT. 253B.07, subdiv. 2c (2010).
10. See, e.g., Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 497 (1980); Heryford v. Parker, 396
F.2d 393, 396 (10th Cir. 1968); Jenkins v. Dir. of Va. Ctr. for Behavioral Rehab.,
624 S.E.2d 453, 460 (Va. 2006). But see Beaulieu v. Minn. Dept of Human Servs.,
798 N.W.2d 542, 549 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), review granted, No. A10-1350, 2011
Minn. LEXIS 459, at *1 (Minn. July 19, 2011). In the interest of full disclosure, we

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.76
LAWNo. 24of
76
37 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 2
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

34 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

has long recognized that in our adversary system of criminal


justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a
lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for
11
him. The Court has also held that due process requires the
provision of court-appointed counsel to indigent parties in civil
matters in which their liberty is at stake for many of the same
reasons: even in informal proceedingsespecially when the
proceedings resemble an adversarial triala party will struggle to
make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the
proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to
12
prepare and submit it without the assistance of counsel.
There are some areas other than deprivation of physical liberty
when due process may require the appointment of counsel. These
13
include cases involving the termination of parental rights. In
other areas, such as civil rights cases, the legislature has provided
statutory attorneys fees, which are designed to encourage
contingency fee representation for plaintiffs with civil rights and
14
other kinds of claims.
But the need for the assistance of counsel holds true in civil
litigation more broadly, such as cases in which a partys monetary
claim or defense is at stake. Despite this need, there is no general
15
right to appointed counsel in civil litigation. A recent survey of
the chief judges of the U.S. district courts shows that common
problems civil pro se litigants face are pleadings that cannot be
understood, untimely or incomplete pleadings or submissions, lack

represent Mr. Beaulieu in litigation seeking to vindicate his right to the effective
assistance of counsel at all stages of civil commitment proceedings, including
direct appeal. We recently argued this issue in the Minnesota Supreme Court; the
court has not yet issued an opinion. See Beaulieu, 2011 Minn. LEXIS 459, at *1.
11. Gideon, 372 U.S. at 344.
12. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967) (finding right to appointed counsel in
non-criminal juvenile delinquency proceedings); see also Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411
U.S. 778, 787 (1973) (finding right to appointed counsel in some probation and
parole proceedings).
13. William L. Dick, Jr., Note, The Right to Appointed Counsel for Indigent Civil
Litigants: The Demands of Due Process, 30 WM. & MARY L. REV. 627, 63239 (1989)
(citing and discussing a mixed bag of cases in this area).
14. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) (2006).
15. See Lassiter v. Dept of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cnty., N.C., 452 U.S. 18,
2627 ([T]he Courts precedents speak with one voice about what fundamental
fairness has meant when the Court has considered the right to appointed counsel,
and we thus draw from them the presumption that an indigent litigant has a right
to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical
liberty.); Hughen v. Highland Estates, 48 P.3d 1238, 1240 (Idaho 2002); In re
Smiley, 330 N.E.2d 53, 5557 (N.Y. 1975).

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.77
LAWNo. 25of
77
38 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 3
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 35

of knowledge about legal decisions, failure to know when to object


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

16. DONNA STIENSTRA ET AL., FED. JUDICIAL CTR., ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE


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

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.78
LAWNo. 26of
78
39 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 4
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

36 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

II. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER SURVEY


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

23. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16.


24. Id. at v.
25. Id. at 4.
26. Id.
27. Id. at 1213.
28. Id. at 15.
29. See infra text accompanying notes 7779.
30. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16, at 19.
31. Id.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.79
LAWNo. 27of
79
40 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 5
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 37

pro se litigants. These include the use of broad standards in


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

32. Id. at 30.


33. Id. at 31.
34. Id. at 3334.
35. Id. at 35.
36. Id.
37. Id. at 2123.
38. Id. at 21.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.80
LAWNo. 28of
80
41 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 6
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

38 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

numerous unnecessary materialscan create a risk that the judge


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

III. PRO SE PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW


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

39. Id. at viii.


40. Id. at 26.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. See Caseload Statistics Archive, U.S. CTS., http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics
/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics_Archive.aspx
(last visited Oct. 17, 2012) (showing more civil cases filed in U.S. District Courts in
2011 than in any preceding year dating back to 2001; same for 2010).
44. Kirstin Kanski, District of Minnesota is Fifth Busiest District in the Country,
MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Mar. 28, 2012, at 1, available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Bar
-Talk-March-2012.pdf; Federal Court Management Statistics: September 2011, U.S. CTS.,

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.81
LAWNo. 29of
81
42 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 7
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 39

45
Eighth Circuit. Each judges weighted caseload is over 600, which
is 20% higher than the national average of about 500 weighted
cases per judge and far exceeds the 430 weighted cases threshold,
which is a key factor in determining when additional judicial
46
resources may be needed. Busy courts and heavy caseloads have a
47
cost to the court system and to taxpayers who fund the courts.
And pro se cases, in particular, require extra time and attention
48
from the courts (both judges and staff). The District of
Minnesota has seen about 100 to 200 civil, nonprisoner pro se cases
49
each year.
The Minnesota Federal Pro Se Project (Pro Se Project) was
founded on May 1, 2009, as a joint initiative by the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Chapter of the Federal Bar Association (FBA) after Chief Judge
Michael J. Davis approached the Minnesota Chapter of the FBA in
the summer of 2008 to initiate discussions about how to provide pro
50
bono representation to pro se litigants. At its core, the Pro Se Project
51
is about access to justice. The Pro Se Project is designed to help
address both of these issues: the disadvantage and difficulties pro se
litigants face in our adversarial system, and the strain on the courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics
/DistrictCourtsSep2011.aspx (last visited Oct. 17, 2012).
45. Kanski, supra note 44, at 1.
46. Id.
47. These issues can cause delay in processing cases, require funding of
additional judges and staff in order to process the cases, or both. See, e.g., ADMIN.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, FEDERAL JUDICIAL CASELOAD: RECENT TRENDS 13 (2001),
available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics
/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2001/20015yr.pdf (discussing creation of
additional judgeships).
48. STIENSTRA ET AL., supra note 16, at 37.
49. Lora Friedemann, Get Involved in the FBA Pro Se Project, MINN. CHAPTER
FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Oct. 21, 2009, at 1, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/October-2009.pdf (estimating
100 to 150 cases per year). In 2011, the number of civil, nonprisoner pro se cases
filed was 201. Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, 2011 Civil Cases 2 (Aug.
20, 2012) (on file with authors).
50. Molly Borg, The Pro Se Projects Invaluable Assistance to the Court, MINN.
CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Oct. 21, 2009, at 4, available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk
/October-2009.pdf; Friedemann, supra note 49, at 1.
51. See generally U.S. DIST. COURT, DIST. OF MINN. & FED. BAR ASSN, MINN.
CHAPTER, PRO SE PROJECT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 (2011)
[hereinafter PRO SE PROJECT], available at http://www.fedbar.org
/proseproject2011.pdf.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.82
LAWNo. 30of
82
43 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 8
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

40 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

The Pro Se Project has four enumerated goals:


Provide every civil pro se litigant in the District of Minnesota
the opportunity to consult with counsel and, where
appropriate, to be represented by counsel;
Improve access to justice in the Minnesota District Court;
Decrease the number of civil pro se litigants in the District; and
Communicate effectively with the Court regarding the status of
52
cases referred to the project.
Ideally, the Pro Se Project would enable every civil litigant to be
represented by counsel, even when those litigants cannot afford
counsel.
The Pro Se Projects process begins after a pro se plaintiff files a
case or a pro se defendant makes an appearance in the District of
53
Minnesota. Initially, the court must refer the pro se litigant to the
Project, which occurs by the court writing a letter to the pro se
litigant advising her that she should contact the Pro Se Project
Coordinator if she would like to arrange a consultation with a
54
volunteer attorney. There are no fixed, formal criteria for
determining whether or when the court should refer the case to
the Pro Se Project. Instead, the court makes this determination on a
case-by-case basis. The court may consider any factor that is
appropriate in a given case, including whether pairing the pro se
litigant with a volunteer attorney will aid the court in processing
the case, whether the pro se litigant appears to complain of a
genuine injury (even if the claim would not ultimately have legal
merit), whether an attorney could help the party understand his or
her options, whether a political agenda is apparent from the
55
pleadings, and whether the litigant is a so-called frequent filer.
Another issue that may influence the timing of a referral is when
the court first has personal interaction with the party, such as at a
pretrial scheduling conference before the magistrate judge or at a
motion hearing (which could be before either the magistrate judge

52. Id. at 3.
53. Id.
54. Id.
55. Parties who have developed reputations for bringing numerous, typically
meritless claims are often referred to as frequent filers, and their cases are
sometimes viewed skeptically. See Michael C. Dorf, How Should Courts Handle
Frequent Filers? A Trampling Incident at a Florida Wal-Mart Highlights a Dilemma,
FINDLAW (Dec. 10, 2003), http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20031210.html.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.83
LAWNo. 31of
83
44 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 9
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 41

or district judge, although the magistrate judge is involved earlier


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

56. PRO SE PROJECT, supra note 51, at 3.


57. Id.
58. Id. at 4.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id.
62. Id.
63. See id.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.84
LAWNo. 32of
84
45 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 10
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

42 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

64
required to pay the costs and expenses actually incurred. Of
course, a pro se litigant may be indigent and unable to afford
reimbursing costs and expenses. In that instance, several options
must be explored. The attorney should seek to limit costs as much
as possible, including by trying to obtain free services from
65
professionals and process servers. Some legal services programs
already have existing arrangements with programs that provide
these free services, such as pro bono court reporting services for
66
indigent litigants. If the court has not issued a scheduling order,
the attorney should also seek to limit costs by requesting an early
settlement conference with the magistrate judge or by requesting
67
limits on discovery. Costs may be reimbursed from an attorneys
68
fees award. When costs and expenses must be incurred and the
client is indigent and cannot afford them, [t]he FBA will endeavor
to pay costs and expenses actually incurred for incidentals that are
69
not reimbursed. The Pro Se Project does not guarantee that the
FBA will reimburse, or will be able to reimburse, out-of-pocket costs
and expenses actually incurred; it guarantees only that the FBA will
70
[r]eview and consider[] them. In fact, due to a number of
factors (including the generosity of Pro Se Project participants), the
Pro Se Projects cost-reimbursement policy has never been tested.
As a result, even the Pro Se Project Coordinator does not know how
reimbursement will work in practice when a request is made.
The Pro Se Project has taken other steps to encourage and
71
facilitate participation. In 2010, the Project sought and obtained
designation from the Minnesota Board of Continuing Legal
72
Education as an approved legal services provider. As a result,

64. Id. at 5.
65. See id.
66. For example, the Minnesota Association of Verbatim Reporters and
Captioners has a Pro Bono Committee that provides guidelines to and works with
the Minnesota State Bar Association and other organizations to provide pro bono
court reporting services to indigent litigants. See About Us: Committees, MINN. ASSN
VERBATIM REPS. & CAPTIONERS, http://www.mavrc.org/about/committees.php (last
visited Oct. 17, 2012).
67. PRO SE PROJECT, supra note 51, at 5.
68. See id.
69. Id.
70. Id.
71. See id. at 6.
72. Tiffany Sanders, Chief Judge Davis Recognizes Volunteers, Firms and Court
Personnel for Contributions to Pro Se Project, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK,
Dec. 15, 2010, at 1, available at http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters
/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/December-2010.pdf.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.85
LAWNo. 33of
85
46 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 11
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 43

attorneys participating in the Pro Se Project may now obtain


Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit for time spent on pro
73
bono representation undertaken through the Pro Se Project. This
may encourage attorneys to participate in the Project because CLE
requirements are mandatory for Minnesota lawyers. In 2011, the
Pro Se Project began working with the Minnesota Justice
74
Foundation (MJF). Law students participating through MJF
may volunteer to work with attorneys on their cases referred by the
75
Pro Se Project. This creates legal experiences for law students who
can provide additional resources to Pro Se Project cases and is
intended to encourage attorneys to participate in the Project by
76
providing them with law clerks to help with those cases.
The District of Minnesota has also taken steps outside of the
Pro Se Project to facilitate pro se litigation. These steps are intended
to assist pro se parties in litigating their cases and enhance the
efficiency of the cases as they proceed through court. The District
of Minnesota launched a Representing Yourself (Pro Se) webpage
77
in December of 2009. The Representing Yourself (Pro Se)
webpage contains answers to frequently asked questions, a pro se
civil guidebook, information sheets, forms, case initiation
assistance, a glossary of legal terms, the federal rules, the local
rules, resources for finding an attorney and for legal research,
specific information tailored to prisoner litigants, and contact
78
information for the clerks office and for electronic case filing. As
the Honorable Franklin L. Noel aptly put it, this effort helps pro se

73. Attorneys may receive one hour of CLE credit for every six hours of pro
bono representation provided through an approved legal services provider, such as
the Pro Se Project, with a maximum of six hours total per reporting period. See
RULES OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BD. OF CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC. R. 6(D) (Minn.
State Bd. of CLE 2010), available at http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us/MBCLE/pages
/user_documents/CLE%20RULES%202-2010.pdf.
74. See Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Update, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Mar. 16, 2011, at 9, available at http://fedbar.org/Image-Library
/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/March-2011.pdf.
75. See id.
76. See id.
77. Clerks Corner: New Help for Pro Se Litigants, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Dec. 21, 2009, at 11, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Winter-2009.pdf.
78. Representing Yourself (Pro Se), U.S. DIST. CT. DIST. MINN.,
http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Pro-Se.shtml (last visited Oct. 17, 2012).

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.86
LAWNo. 34of
86
47 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 12
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

44 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

litigants get their foot in the courthouse door, and, once there,
the Pro Se Project can continue to assist those who would benefit
79
from meeting with an attorney.

IV. EXAMPLES OF EXPERIENCES IN PRO SE PROJECT CASES


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

A. Prisoner Civil Rights and Religious Freedom


A state prisoner filed multiple amended complaints and
conducted significant motion practice while proceeding pro se,
raising claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
80
Persons Act (RLUIPA) and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation
81
of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He alleged
numerous claims that prison policies unlawfully infringed his right
to practice Islam, only one of which survived summary judgment:
that the prison failed to provide halal meals, thereby causing him
82
to consume food in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
In its order denying summary judgment with respect to that
claim (and granting summary judgment with respect to the others),
83
the district court referred the plaintiff to the Pro Se Project. The
referral specifically contemplated representation limited to
assisting Plaintiff in reaching a settlement of his claim or
continuing with an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual issues,
84
which remain regarding the provision of halal meals. The Pro Se
Project Coordinator referred the matter to a volunteer lawyer; the

79. Tricia Pepin, More Help for Pro Se Litigants, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN:
BAR TALK, Mar. 17, 2010, at 8, available at http://fedbar.org/Image
-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/March-2010.pdf.
80. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a)(b)(2) (2006).
81. Jihad v. Fabian, Civ. No. 09-CV-01604 (SRN/LIB), 2011 WL 1641767,
at *1 (D. Minn. May 2, 2011).
82. Id. at *1.
83. Id. at *10.
84. Id.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.87
LAWNo. 35of
87
48 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 13
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 45

lawyer entered an appearance and was able to help negotiate a


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

B. Civil Rights and the Fourth Amendment


One pro se plaintiff brought a 1983 action against a number
of peace officers, who were members of a drug task force, and
85
against other governmental defendants. The plaintiff alleged
violations of various constitutional rights centered on a search of
86
two stores he owned. Members of the task force searched the
plaintiffs stores and his residence pursuant to search warrants; the
search warrants were later determined to lack probable cause with
87
respect to his businesses. The district court granted the
defendants motions for summary judgment, except regarding the

85. Kind v. Nw. Metro. Drug Task Force, Civ. No. 09-1265 (JSM) (D. Minn.
Mar. 31, 2011) (order granting summary judgment in part and denying summary
judgment in part).
86. Id.
87. Id.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.88
LAWNo. 36of
88
49 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 14
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

46 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

claim that the searches of the stores, which caused a mess and
88
damaged his property, were executed unreasonably.
The plaintiff litigated his case pro se for more than two years
before the case was referred to the Pro Se Project, which found
volunteer lawyers to enter appearances on the eve of trial.
Following additional discovery and pretrial motion practice, the
volunteer lawyers tried the case to a jury, which ultimately reached
a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants. The volunteer
lawyers benefitted from their involvement in this case. Multiple
attorneys received valuable experience, including various firsts,
such as being first chair at trial, examining witnesses at trial, taking
a deposition, and arguing pretrial motions. The plaintiff and the
court also benefitted from the lawyers involvement in the case.
Trial is the most difficult part of the adversarial process for a pro se
litigant to navigate, and the assistance of counsel resulted in the
skillful presentation of evidence by attorneys who understood the
legal claims and defenses at issue. In other words, the plaintiff had
a fair chance, which is all that a party can ask for, and which a court
is supposed to ensure (although there is potential tension with the
courts neutrality, which the court must maintain).
This case also highlights some of the difficult aspects of the Pro
Se Project. This was not a frivolous or meritless caseit had
enough merit to survive two years of litigation while the plaintiff
proceeded pro se, and there was enough evidence supporting the
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim to withstand summary
judgment. It is fair to say that the plaintiff was disadvantaged in the
discovery and pretrial litigation process because he lacked counsel
until shortly before trial. Had he been represented from the start,
the case may have been more likely to settle. Litigation of difficult
issues is always uncertain, and when parties reach settlement
agreements, more parties can be satisfied with the result. This type
of case can pose a dilemma for the Pro Se Project because it
requires a significant commitment on the part of the volunteer
89
lawyer. Additionally, the volunteer attorney may be brought in
after the close of discovery or rulings on significant motions and
therefore may be limited in the evidence or legal arguments that
may be available.

88. Id.
89. By contrast, Rule 6.1 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct sets
an aspirational goal for each lawyer to provide fifty hours of pro bono legal services
per year. MINN. RULES OF PROFL CONDUCT R. 6.1 (2005).

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.89
LAWNo. 37of
89
50 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 15
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 47

C. Due Process Rights in a Treatment Facility


A civilly committed sex offender filed a pro se civil rights suit
alleging that staff members at the treatment facility to which he was
committed lied by reporting that he threatened staff members in
order to get the patient sent back to jail, in violation of his due
90
process rights. At the request of a federal judge, volunteer lawyers
agreed to represent the plaintiff, and they represented him from
91
February 2008 through a jury trial in June 2010. The jury awarded
the plaintiff both compensatory and punitive damages, and the
court ultimately entered an order requiring the state to change its
92
policies. Counsel sought attorneys fees as the prevailing party in
93
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). The court
approved the firms request for over $370,000 in attorneys fees,
94
representing over 1200 attorney and staff hours, portions of which
were donated to the Pro Se Project and to the Volunteer Lawyers
Network.
This case is an example of pro bono attorneys facilitating access
to justice by providing legal representation to a pro se litigant who
otherwise could not afford it. In the case, the firm was
compensated for its time. But the case also raises some difficulties.
Although attorneys fees are available in civil rights cases, they are
not available in all categories of cases. And many cases may involve
complex litigation issues, but do not offer the prospect of a large
enough damages award to make a contingency fee retention
sensible from a cost perspective. Finally, cases that are tried to
juries frequently could go either way, and firms may flinch at the
prospect of volunteering hundreds of thousands of dollars worth
of attorney and firm time that could be spent on fee-paying billable
matters.

90. Holly v. Anderson, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN), 2008 WL 1773093, at *3


(D. Minn. Apr. 15, 2008).
91. Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees at 1, Holly v. Konieska,
No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 16, 2010), ECF No. 249.
92. Id.
93. Id.
94. Holly v. Konieska, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2010)
(order granting plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees); Affidavit of Mark G.
Schroeder at 2, Holly v. Konieska, No. 04-CV-1489 (JMR/FLN) (D. Minn. Aug. 16,
2010), ECF No. 250.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.90
LAWNo. 38of
90
51 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 16
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

48 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

D. Employment Discrimination
A pro se plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint
against her former employer, alleging that she was terminated
because of her race and in retaliation for complaining about being
95
mistreated by her colleagues. Before the case was referred to the
Pro Se Project, the plaintiff tried but was unable to find a lawyer to
represent her on a contingency basis. After referral, a volunteer
attorney entered an appearance on her behalf; this occurred
before the first status conference and before any dispositive
motions were filed. The parties began the discovery process,
including interrogatories and production of documents, and
depositions were taken of the plaintiff and of her immediate
supervisor. They ultimately reached an agreement to settle the
matter at a settlement conference, which successfully resolved the
plaintiffs claims without the delay and uncertainty of further
litigation and relieved the court of the burden of presiding over
any further proceedings or motion practice.
The volunteer attorney was able to develop important
litigation skills by taking and defending depositions and
conducting discovery and settlement negotiations. The main
difficulty presented by this case related to costs. The pro se litigant
was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status by the court because of
her financial status, which meant the court would waive filing fees
but not remove all costs of litigation. The plaintiff was able to
obtain pro bono court reporting services for the deposition of her
supervisor, but it only covered up to two hours and seventy-five
pages. The deposition required more time than that, and how the
Pro Se Projects reimbursement policy will operate in regard to the
volunteer lawyers request for reimbursement remains to be seen.

V. STATISTICS ON PRO SE PROJECT CASES


We have access to statistics concerning the Pro Se Project for
three time periods: May 2009 through December 2011; the year of
96
2011; and January through April 2012. These statistics

95. Complaint at 1014, Triplett v. Essentia Health, No. 11-2545 RHK/LIB


(D. Minn. Sept. 6, 2011).
96. Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Plans 2nd Annual Pro Se/Pro Bono Bar
Summit and Expands Outreach Efforts, MINN. CHAPTER FED. B. ASSN: BAR TALK, Mar.
28, 2012, at 15 [hereinafter 2nd Annual Bar Summit], available at
http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Chapters/Minnesota-Chapter/Bar-Talk/Bar

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.91
LAWNo. 39of
91
52 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 17
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 49

demonstrate a few trends. First, there is a great need for counsel in


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

-Talk-March-2012.pdf; Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, 2012 Referrals


(Aug. 20, 2012) [hereinafter 2012 Referrals] (on file with authors); Tiffany
Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, IFP and Representation Status of Referrals:
May 2009December 2011 (Feb. 7, 2012) [hereinafter IFP and Representation
Status of Referrals] (on file with authors); Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project
Coordinator, Referrals by Law Firms: May 2009December 2011 (Apr. 2, 2012)
(on file with authors); Tiffany Sanders, Pro Se Project Coordinator, Referrals by
Nature of Suit: May 2009December 2011 (Jan. 25, 2012) [hereinafter Referrals by
Nature of Suit] (on file with authors).
97. IFP and Representation Status of Referrals, supra note 96.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. 2nd Annual Bar Summit, supra note 96.
101. Id.
102. See 2012 Referrals, supra note 96; Referrals by Nature of Suit, supra
note 96.

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.92
LAWNo. 40of
92
53 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 18
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

50 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

consultations significantly outpaces the number of times that


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

VI. ASSESSING THE PRO SE PROJECTS EFFECTIVENESS AND


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

103. IFP and Representation Status of Referrals, supra note 96.


104. 2nd Annual Bar Summit, supra note 96.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.93
LAWNo. 41of
93
54 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 19
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 51

Project at various stages of litigation. Thus, even participating pro se


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

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.94
LAWNo. 42of
94
55 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 20
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

52 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

There are various possibilities that relate to improving access


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

105. RULES OF THE MINNESOTA STATE BD. OF CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC. R. 9


(A)(B) (Minn. State Bd. of CLE 2010), available at http://www.mbcle.state.mn.us
/MBCLE/pages/user_documents/CLE%20RULES%202-2010.pdf.
106. MINN. RULES OF PROFL CONDUCT R. 6.1 (2005).
107. Anne Barnard, Top Judge Makes Free Legal Work Mandatory for Joining State
Bar, N.Y. TIMES, May 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion
/new-lawyers-in-new-york-to-be-required-to-do-some-work-free.html?smid=pl-share.
108. Kendra Emi Nitta, An Ethical Evaluation of Mandatory Pro Bono, 29 LOY. L.A.
L. REV. 909, 92729 (1996) (discussing the concern for lower quality of services
provided in a mandatory pro bono system).
109. Id.; see also Barnard, supra note 107 (I worry about poor people with
lawyers who dont want to be there.).
110. Jonathan R. Macey, Mandatory Pro Bono: Comfort for the Poor or Welfare for the
Rich?, 77 CORNELL L. REV. 1116, 1120 (1992).

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.95
LAWNo. 43of
95
56 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 21
William Mitchell
STAN J.PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, byLaw
PROReview,
Stan SEJ. Vol. 39, Iss. 1 [2012],
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK Art.
Se4 and RIGHTS
ProHUMAN THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

2012] PRO SE LITIGATION 53

senior litigators, who would not reap the same kinds of experience
benefits as younger lawyers.
We think the better course is to continue to use volunteer
attorneys, but to publicly fund and guarantee reimbursement of
their out-of-pocket costs. Softer incentives are already in place to
convince attorneys to volunteer their time. The availability of CLE
credit to attorneys participating in the Pro Se Project is one such
incentive. A second is the public good that comes from assisting
people and resolving these disputes. Federal judges and the FBA
consistently recognize the efforts of volunteer attorneys in Pro Se
Project cases and the effects these efforts have on access to justice.
Finally, participation in the Pro Se Project provides lawyers with
experience that they may otherwise struggle to obtain early in their
careers. All volunteer lawyers interact with the pro se clients, and
the client contact allows the lawyers to develop their skills in that
area. Depending on the case, the attorneys may also conduct
discovery, submit and argue motions, take and defend depositions,
negotiate a settlement with opposing counsel, or even try the case
to a jury or the court. Gaining this experience is a real benefit to
young lawyers careers, as it helps them become better lawyers; in
the same way, it helps their law firms by making them more
valuable assets.
Public funding of costs would be an important compromise
with real financial benefits to the system. It is one thing for a
lawyer or law firm to volunteer time, but it is another to ask them to
pay money out of pocket. Public funding and a firm costs
reimbursement policy will remove the disincentive to participate
that the prospect of out-of-pocket expenses creates. With that out
of the way, the incentives discussed above will weigh even more
strongly in favor of attorney participation in the Pro Se Project.
Although this is an important issue concerning access to justice that
independently justifies public funding of costs reimbursement, it is
also possible that some of the funding may be recaptured through
savings. As pro se litigants receive the assistance of counsel, the
special demands and burdens that pro se litigants place on the court
should be lessened. It is worth noting that these costs are likely
self-controllingeven with reimbursable costs, attorneys are
unlikely to devote uncompensated time to a matter when it will not
benefit the clients caseand they could easily be further
contained through a reasonableness review as part of the
reimbursement process. At the same time, because funding

CI-08-13373
PRO CASE
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
SE PRAECIPE
SE BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FOR
PRAECIPE
PRO TO
&-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAW
LITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.96
LAWNo. 44of
96
57 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss1/4 22
Gustafson
STAN J. et al.: Proby
PUBLISHED
CATERBONE, Se Litigation
PRO
StanSE J.and the Costs of Access
Caterbone,
- LANDMARK to
SeJustice
ProHUMAN and RIGHTS
THE ADVANCED
AND ANTI-TRUST
MEDIA GROUP
CASE

54 WILLIAM MITCHELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39:1

attorneys fees does not appear to be necessary, this is a fair


compromise that will limit the financial burden in publicly funding
the Pro Se Project.

CI-08-13373
PROby
PRS
THE
CI-08-13373
CASE
SE
SE PRAECIPE
BILLINGS
LITIGANTS
FORPRAECIPE
PRO & TO
-PRO
SE
CASEADD
TO DEFENDANTS
BILLINGS
SEADD
LAWLITIGANTS
DEFENDANTS Page
- CASEPage
Page No.
No.97
LAWNo. 45of
97
58 of240
of 242
45
58 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
Friday September 6, 2017
1, 2017
Published Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2012 23
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - LANDMARK HUMAN RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPETOTO
ADD DEFENDANTS
ADD Page No.
DEFENDANTS Page No. 98
98 of
of240
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-528-2200

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS


OF LANCASTER COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION

___________________________________________
DEFENDANTS LIST AS OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017

STANLEY J. CATERBONE and


ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP CASE NO. CI-08-13373
PLAINTIFFS

v.

DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, et., al.


INSIDE LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY
NORTH DUKE STREET, LANCASTER, PA
DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS LIST AS OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 -

1. Steve Midciff Ceo Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;


2. Dr.Anthony Mastropietro Medical Director Lancaster Regional Hospital
Lancaster,Pa.;
3. Linda S. Wenger Pa-C Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
4. Christine M.Dang M.D. Lancaster Regional Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
5. Mastropietro Associatesfamily Practice Noll Drive Lancaster Pa.;
6. BLack And Black Dental Willow St. Pa.;
7. Dr. John Black Iii Black And Black Dental Willow St. Pa.;
8. Southeast Health Clinic Brightside Baptist Church Lancaster Pa.;
9. Dr. Leo Dorizynski Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster
Pa.;
10. Dr. Sean Coldren M.D. Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster Pa.;
11.Dr. Emily Pressley M.D. Psychiatry Department Lancaster General Hospital
Lancaster Pa..;
12.Dr. Daniel Mcintyre M.D. Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
13.Lancaster General Hospital Department Of Psychiatry Lancaster Pa.;
14.Dr. Tate Lancaster Emergency Associates Of Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster
Pa..;
15.Amy Millhouse Lancaster General Hospital Lancaster Pa.;
16.Officer Eric Mccrady, Lancaster City Bureau Of Police Lancaster Pa.;
17.Lancaster County Mental Health/Mental Retardation Department County Of
Lancaster Lancaster Pa.;
18.JAMES McLAUGHLIN DISRECTOR MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION
DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF LANCASTER LANCASTER PA.;
19.CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
No.99
PageNo.
No. 99 of
11of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
20.MR. McCARDY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER
COUNTY'
21.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
22.DENNIS STUCKEY CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF
LANCASTER PA.;
23.HOUSE OF PASTA BAR & RESTAURANT MILLERSVILLE PIKE LANCASTER PA.;
24.YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR NORTH QUEEN ST. LANCASTER PA.;
25.UPS COPY STORE STONE MILL PLAZA LANCASTER PA.;
26.ART WARD PROPERIETOR UPS COPY STORE STONE MILL PLAZA LANCASTER PA.;
27.PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST LANCASTER
PA.;
28.COMMANDER PA. STATE POLICE TROOP J LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST LANCASTER
PA.;
29.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT);
30.BEVERLY POINTS ESQ. LEGAL COUNSEL PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION;
31.LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
32.TERRY BERGMAN SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS
COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA.;
33.MARK REESE CHIEF DEPUTY LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS
COUNTY OF LANCASTER PA. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE PRO SE. REINSTATED
AS DIRECTED.
34.RANDALL O. WENGER PROTHONOTARY.
35.LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER COLLEGE AVENUE LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA
36.DR. L. WENGER LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
37.WEIS MARKETS SADSBURY PENNSYLVANIA
38.WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY PENNSYLVANIA
39.AMY BRENT PHARMICIST DISTRICT MANAGER WEIS MARKET
40.CVS PHARMACY MANOR SHOPPING CENTER LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
41.FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
42.FULTON BANK LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
43.MR. R. SCOTT SMITH CEO FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION
44.PHILLIP WENGER COO FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION
45.MR. CRAIG RODA CEO FULTON BANK
46.MS DANA CHRYST BOARD OF DIRECTORS FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION
LANCASTER
47.GENERAL HOSPITAL
48.NEW HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC NEW HOLLAND PENNSYLVANIA
49.DR. WEST NEW HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS INC.
LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
50.STEVE WEAVER MANAGER LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS
51.JOHN BUCKWALTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHAIRMAN LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS
52.HIGH INDUSTRIES LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
53.FRANK MCCABE HIGH HOTELS
54.S. DALE HIGH HIGH INDUSTRIES
55.BARLEY SNYDER LLC. LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
56.SHAWN LONG ESQ. BARLEY SNYDER LLC
57.WGAL TV-8 LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
58.PAUL QUINN GENERAL MANAGER WGAL TV-8
59.DOUG ALLEN WGAL TV-8
60.JANELLE STELLSON WGAL TV-8
61.SUSAN SHIPIRO WGAL TV-8
62.BARBARA BARR WGAL TV-8
63.LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LANCASTER COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
64.COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX RED ROSE COMMONS LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.100
100
22of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
65.LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
66.RYAN P. AUMENT LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
67.LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT
68.NURSE 1 OF JULY 13 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT
69.NURSE 2 OF JULY 13 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT
70.DR. VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT
71.WACHOVIA BANK HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS LANCASTER
PENNSYLVANIA
72.BRANCH MANAGER WACHOVIA BANK HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS
LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA
73.ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR
74.MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT AND BAR
75.MARION STREET CAFE
76.MIKE GEESEY PROPRIETOR MARION COURTROOM
77.ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
78.JOHN KATRAS PROPRIETOR ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
79.BRETT STABLEY MANAGER ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT
80.ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT
81.THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB GEORGE SOUKAS MANAGER THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB
82.RUBY TUESDAY RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL MANOR SHOPPING CENTER
83.VALENTINOS CAFE LANCASTER
84.BRICKYARD BAR
85.LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION
86.DAVID PFLUMM
87.PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK LIBERTY PLACE LANCASTER
88.LANCASTER EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA)
89.MARK SPRUNGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LETA
90.RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA)
91.DAVID KILMER RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY
92.LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU
93.KIETH SADDLER CHIEF OF POLICE LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU
94.SGT. RICHARD COSMORE LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU LANCASTER
95.CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
96.MR. MCGUIRE LANCASTER CITY HOUSING INSPECTION
97.DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION REPRESENTATIVE
98.LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION
99.RICHARD GRAY MAYOR CITY OF LANCASTER
100. LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS
101. WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK
102. RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET LANCASTER PA
103. LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE
104. CRAIG STEDMAN LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
105. MICHAEL LANDIS DETECTIVE LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE
106. PRESIDENT JUDGE LOUIS FARINA LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
107. JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
108. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
109. ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE THOMAS CORBETT PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL
110. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA
111. ERIC HOLDER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.101
101
33of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
112. FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) HARRISBURG OFFICE
113. FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) PHILADELPHIA OFFICE
114. SHERYL CROW INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST
115. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA)
116. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.)
117. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA)
118. ROBERT GATES UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
119. BARRACK OBAMA UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
120. DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN PH.D. VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
121. JODIE RICHARDSON SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
122. LORI B. AUSTIN DIRECTOR OF JUDICIAL AFFAIRS MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
123. VICTOR DESANTIS DIRECTOR GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEACH
PROGRAM MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
124. MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND
LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY
125. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY
126. NATHANIEL BOMBERGER LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT
127. P. MICHAEL STURLA PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
128. JOHN ROCHAT CHIEF OF POLICE MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT
129. MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
130. ROBERT S. WALKER,
131. ATT MOBILE PHONE,
132. SPRINT MOBILE PHONE,
133. BEST BUY,
134. HILDEY'S BAR,
135. THE JUKE BOX, JOHN KATRAS, LANCASTER
136. FLEET AND AUTO,
137. PRESS ROOM, LNP ENTERPRISES,
138. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,OFFICE
139. MAX, LANCASTER REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
140. PATIENT FIRST URGENT CARE, ALTANA
141. RESTAURANT, BEN FRANK, AMALFI PROPERTIES,
142. TELLUS360 BAR AND RESTAURANT,
143. CORTY BYRON, ANNIE BAILEY'S RESTAURANT, JOSHUA FUNK,
144. CIGAR BAR, DANIEL FALCON,
145. LANCASTER DISPENSING COMPANY, BRADLEY DEFORGE, JUDY ROSS,
146. YORGOS BAR AND RESTAURANT, GEORGE KATSAROS, AND MRS.
KATSAROS,
147. LENS CRAFTERS, LANCASTER, PA., DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES,
OPTOMETRISTS, LANCASTER, PA.
148. CARTRIDGE WORLD, LANCASTER, PA.,
149. KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE LANCASTER, PA.,
150. EYEMART EXPRESS STORE, LANCASTER, PA.,
151. DR. HARRY BREITMAN, LANCASTER, PA.,
152. OFFICE MAX STORE #854, LANCASTER, PA.,
153. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA,
154. LEON PANETTA, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, LANGLEY,
VIRGINIA
155. MARRIOTT MOTELL, PENN SQUARE GRILL AND BAR, INTERSTATE HOTELS &
RESORTS
156. SPRING HOUSE BREWING COMPANY, TAPROOM
157. JAMES COMEY, DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OR FBI

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.102
102
44of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
158. PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE
159. MR. JEFFREY SESSIONS, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
160. MASON PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
161. ABIGAL PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREAT
162. ELIZABETH PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
163. KEAGAN PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
164. WILLIAM PFLUMM STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
165. GREG BURIE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
166. KEVIN HOBDAY STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
167. ANNA CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
168. STEVE CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
169. PHIL CATERBONE STALKING, HARASSMENT, THREATS
170. KIESHLA CALCORFI-PRTIZ/ENTERPRISE AUTO FALSE STATEMENTS TO
AUTHORITIES
171. LANCASTER BARNSTORMERS, DAKOTA BASEBALL, IAN RIZOW, BOB LISS,
STEVE ZUCKERMAN, BOB ZUCKERMAN; Doing Business at 650 NORTH
PRINCE STREET, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17603

FREMONT STREET NEIGBORS


172. 1. GEIGER, ROBERT AND CAROL 1261 FREMONT ST REAR
173. 2. WEICKSEL, CHARLES 1257 FREMONT ST REAR
174. 3. TANNER JOSHUA M, 1267 FREMONT ST
175. WEICKSEL, CHARLES 1255 FREMONT ST REAR
176. 5. AREAS, KARLA 1263 FREMONT ST
177. 6. WILSON THEODORE R JR, AND JENNIFER, N 1261 FREMONT ST
178. 7. GEIGER, ROBERT AND CAROL 1261 FREMONT ST REAR
179. 8. WEICKSEL CHARLES S SR, 1257 FREMONT ST
180. 9. NOLL, LINDA 1255 FREMONT ST
181. 10.FIX FRANK C II & A MARLENE, 1251 FREMONT ST
182. 11.MCELROY JANICE L, 1249 FREMONT ST
183. 12.HERR E NORBERT&BERYL M, 1247 FREMONT ST
184. 13.HOLZ WILLIAM C, 1231 FREMONT ST
185. 14.SHORT, JILL 1245 FREMONT ST
186. 15.MCCUEN, CHRISTINE 1243 FREMONT ST
187. 16.PATEL, VIVAK 1239 FREMONT ST
188. 17.TROUT RONALD N & JEANETTE E, 1262 FREMONT ST
189. 18.SHAMBAUGH, KATHERINE 1237 FREMONT ST
190. 19.CULLERS BRUCE E & TRACEY L, 1235 FREMONT ST
191. 20.LAUKHUFF KENNETH W & MARLENE, 1260 FREMONT ST
192. 21.BAUER M EILEEN, 1233 FREMONT ST
193. 22.PARIS BRIAN M, 1258 FREMONT ST
194. 23.FISHER JUSTIN E, 1231 FREMONT ST
195. 24. 789 MAIN STREET LLC, 1256 FREMONT ST
196. 25.SCHRECK DAVID M, AND EDWARD EVINS 1252 FREMONT ST
197. 26.FOEHLINGER FRANCES C, 1227 FREMONT ST
198. 27.BOWMAN RONALD D, AND LORI, C. 1225 FREMONT ST
199. 28.COLON DANIEL, 1223 FREMONT ST
200. 29.SUTTON DAWN M, AND KENDALL 1248 FREMONT ST
201. 30.GRAHAM, ERIK AND COURTNEY 1246 FREMONT ST
202. 31.GROFF RONALD L & HELEN E, 1221 FREMONT ST
203. 32.BOAS RICHARD L & SYLVIA F, 1244 FREMONT ST
204. 33.BECHTEL, MARYANN AND PETE AND MEGAN 1219 FREMONT ST
205. 34.HERZOG WALTER F &, SAGERER, BARBARA 1242 FREMONT ST
206. 35.NGUYEN THU VAN &, HOI THI DOAN 1238 FREMONT ST
207. 36.DINGS FRED L II &, MELODY, M 1236 FREMONT ST
208. 37.DEAN ELIZABETH M, 1234 FREMONT ST
209. 38.ALI, FAIZA 1232 FREMONT ST

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.103
103
55of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
210. 39.HILL RICHARD L & LINDA L, 1230 FREMONT ST
211. 40.TORIBIO MANUEL, AND TORIBIO 1228 FREMONT ST
212. 41.KAUFFMAN SABRINA, 1224 FREMONT ST
213. 42.DELAHOZ, SANDRA 1222 FREMONT ST
214. 43.BORTZFIELD JAMES T, 1220 FREMONT ST
215. 44.MOYER, LINDA AND DANIEL IVGARAGES AND ORCHARD1258 REAR
FREMONT ST
216. 45.ARMARTER THERESA A, 1218 FREMONT ST
217. 46.MELVIN, STEPHANIE 1216 FREMONT ST
218. 47.MCDOWELL, JONATHAN MICHAEL 1214 FREMONT ST
219. 48.ZETTLEMOYER ROBERTA M, 1210 FREMONT ST
220. 49.PROGRAM ASSISTANCE CORP, 1208 FREMONT ST
221. 50.FLAHARTY JACQUELINE N, 1206 FREMONT ST
222. 51.DARRAH, DAVID 1204 FREMONT ST
223. BELLVEDERE INN, N.QUEEN AND LEMON STREET, LANCASTER, PA
224. THE HONORALBE EDWARD G. SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA, ALLENTOWN, PA
225. CENTER CITY BRANCK LANCASTER YMCA, HARRISBURG AVENUE,
LANCASTER, PA
226. RAYMOND PENNINO AND VILLANOVA WEST BAR AND RESTUARANT,
Columbia Avenue, Lancaster, PA
227. RANDY, BARTENDER AND HOUSE OF PASTA, Millersville Pike, Lancaster, PA
228. ASHLEY DOE, 1242 Fremont Street -
229. THE GRAHAMS, 1246 Fremont Street, Lancaster, PA -
230. LOWES STORE, Columbia Ave., Lancaster, PA
231. MILLER OPTICAL, LANCASTER, PA
232. TJ ROCKWELLS RESTAURANT AND BAR, ELIZABETHTOWN, LANCASTER, PA
233. MANHIEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
234. M&T BANK, COLUMBIA AVENUE, LANCATER, PA
235. KRISTINA E. FINDIKYAN
236. HEARST CORPORATION
237. WGAL-TV
238. SGT CHARLES M. MELHORN OF MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
239. PETE ANDERS OF MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
240. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
241. TURKEY HILL CONVENIENCE STORES
242. PENNSLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT PROTHONOTARY
243. PENNSLVANIA SUPREME COURT PROTHONOTARY
244. MARC ZUCKERBERG AND FACEBOOK
245. PA FILE AND SERVE
246. JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN BRUCE JESSEN, CIA TORTURE
PSYCHOLOGISTS
247. NAUGHTY GOOSE BAR, NORTHEAST, MARYLAND
248. LOXLEY'S BAR AND RESTAURANT, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
249. SKETCHERS STORE, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
250. AMVETS POST 19, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
251. SONS OF SQUADRON 19, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
252. KEVIN MILLER, FAIRVIEW AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSLVANIA
253. CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, WASHINGTON, D.C.
254. WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA
255. JOHN DOE, PHARMICIST ONE, WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE,
LANCASTER, PA
256. JANE DOE, PHARMICIST TWO, WEIS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE,
LANCASTER, PA
257. CVS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA
258. JOHN DOE, PHARMICIST ONE, CVS PHARMACY, MILLERSVILLE PIKE,
LANCASTER, PA

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.104
104
66of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

SEPTEMBER 6, 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
717-528-2200

Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?

ACTIVE COURT CASESACTIVE 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. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-
10615; Case No. 17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014
CATERBONE v. United States, et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for
Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650, 08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-
1751 PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint
against Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus
for Kathleen Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary
Appeal Case No. CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA
2016; Case No. 1561 MDA 2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of
2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-
08472 INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-
13373; 15-10167; 06-03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case
No. 16-10157

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.105
105
77of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
PROTHONOTARY OF LANCASTER COUNTY
Katherine Wood-Jacobs George Alspach
Prothonotary Solicitor

STANLEY J CATERBONE (et al.)


Case Number
vs.
CI-08-13373
DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER AT LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY (et al.)

PROTHONOTARY DOCKET ENTRIES


12/03/2008 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE,
PRO SE.
12/03/2008 CAPTION ENTRY IS: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, STAN J. CATERBONE VS DUKE STREET
BUSINESS CENTER AT LANCASTER COUNTY LIBRARY, DIANE PAWLING BUSINESS REFERENCE
LINRARIAN OF DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER, BILL HUDSON DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR/IT
MANAGER LIBRARY SYSTEM OF LANCASTER COUNTY, LANCASTER PUBLIC LIBRARY,
LANCASTER PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM, HIGH FOUNDATION, UNIDENTIFIED BUSINESS
REFERENCE LIBRARIAN DUKE STREET BUSINESS CENTER
12/03/2008 COMPLAINT FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/03/2008 COPY OF COMPLAINT(1) HANDED TO PLAINTIFF AT COUNTER ON 12/3/O8.

12/04/2008 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT C FILED. BY: STANLEY M. CATERBONE, PRO SE

12/08/2008 ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008, UPON PRESENTATION
AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED INFORMATION, REGARDING THE REQUEST OF
STANLEY J. CATERBONE TO FILE IFP SAID REQUEST IS GRANTED. BY THE COURT: JOSEPH C.
MADENSPACHER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236 NOTICE TO: BEVERLY J. POINTS, ESQ., STANLEY J.
CATERBONE, (6)
12/31/2008 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT. COMPLAINT REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL
O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
01/28/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
02/09/2009 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT C FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/11/2009 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT D FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/12/2009 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT E FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/20/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT F,G,H,I TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE - ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP.
02/26/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
03/10/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT J FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/11/2009 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT K FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/12/2009 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT L FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT M FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/24/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT N FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/24/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.


REINSTATED AS REQUESTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
03/26/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT O FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/27/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT P FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
Page No.
No.No.
No. 106
106
88ofof 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
04/01/2009 STAN
PRAECIPE TO FILE STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
EXHIBITS PROPRO
Q;R;S;T;U;V FILED SESE
BY - LANDMARK
STAN- LANDMARK HUMAN
CIVIL
J. CATERBONE, PRORIGHTS
SE. AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

04/09/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A1 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/15/2009 ORDER (NO FEE) ENTERED AND FILED. AND NOW, THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, BASED UPON
THE ATTACHED FORENSIC REPORT, AND IT APPEARING THAT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
ACCEPTED BY THE PROTHONOTARY FOR FILING WERE SIGNED IN HUMAN BLOOD, THE
PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO STRIKE THE FILING OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIVIL
DOCKET RECORD AND IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THEY REMAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND FOR ANY APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE OFFICE OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY DETECTIVES AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY. THE DOCUMENTS AT CI-08-13373 ARE: "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT W" , "MOTION TO
FILE EXHIBIT X" , "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Y" THE DOCUMENT AT CI-07-03924 IS: "MOTION TO
FILE EXHIBIT Z" UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF COURT NO DOCUMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF,
ACTING PRO SE, SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN INSPECTED BY AND
CLEARED AS FREE OF HEALTH HAZARDOUS TAINT BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. BY THE
COURT: LOUIS J. FARINA, PRESIDENT JUDGE COPIES W/236 NOTICE HAND DELIVERED TO:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, JAN WALTERS, COUNTY DETECTIVE, RANDALL WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY, TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF, AND MAILED TO STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE
04/17/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT W FILED BY: STANLELY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE (CORRECT
FILING DATE APRIL 17, 2009 AT 11:41 A.M.)
04/17/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT Y FILED BY: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

04/17/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT X FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

04/20/2009 ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, THE ORDER ISSUED APRIL
15, 2009 IS VACATED AND SUBSTITUTED WITH THE FOLLOWING: CORRECTIVE ORDER: AND
NOW, THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009, BASED UPON THE ATTACHED FORENSIC REPORT, AND IT
APPEARING THAT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ACCEPTED BY THE PROTHONOTARY FOR
FILING WERE SIGNED IN HUMAN BLOOD, THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO STRIKE THE
FILING OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM THE CIVIL DOCKET RECORD AND IT IS FURTHER
DIRECTED THAT THEY REMAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND FOR
ANY APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICE OF THE
LANCASTER COUNTY DETECTIVES AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THE DOCUMENTS
DOCKETED TO CI-08-13373 ARE: "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT W" , "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT X",
"MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Y", AND "MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT Z". UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF
COURT NO DOCUMENTS FROM THE PLAINTIFF, ACTING PRO SE, SHALL BE ACCEPTED FOR
FILING UNTIL THEY BEEN INSPECTED BY AND CLEARED AS FREE OF HEALTH HAZARDOUS
TAINT BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. BY THE COURT: LOUIS J. FARINA, PRESIDENT JUDGE,
COPIES W/236 NOTICE TO: DISTRICT ATTORNEY (HAND DELIVERED) / JAN WALTERS, COUNTY
DETECTIVE (HAND DELIVERED), RANDALL WENGER, PROTHONOTARY (IN FILE-CI-07-03924)
TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF (HAND DELIVERED), STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, (MAILED)
04/21/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A2 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/23/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT Z FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/23/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT ORGINALLY FILED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008 FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF
REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY
04/27/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-4 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/27/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-3 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/27/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBITS A-5 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/30/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-6 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/06/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-5 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO RENAME EXHIBIT A-5 OF MAY 6, 2009 TO EXHIBIT A-7 FILED BY STAN J.
CATERBONE.
05/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-8 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

05/20/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-9 FILED.

05/22/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS
REQUESTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.
No.107
107
99of
of 240
of142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
06/03/2009 STAN
PRAECIPE TO FILE STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J.A-10.
EXHIBIT CATERBONE,
FILED BY:PRO
PRO
SE
STAN J.SE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
CATERBONE, HUMAN
PROCIVIL
SE. RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

06/08/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-11. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/09/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE PLAINTIFF.


REINSTATED AS REQUESTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND ADD THE
FOLLOWING PARTIES TO THE CAPTION: DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT
STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF STUDENT
AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF JUDICIAL AFFAIRS,
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEACH
PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER, PH.D. HUMANTIES
LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, NATHANIEL
BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN ROCHAT, CHIEF OF POLICE, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
06/09/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-12. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/11/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBT A-13. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 108
No.10810
10of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
06/15/2009 AMENDED CAPTION STANENTRY
STAN J.IS: ADVANCEDPRO
J. CATERBONE,
CATERBONE, MEDIA
SEGROUP
PRO SE / STAN J. HUMAN
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK CATERBONE VS. DUKE
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA , LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL / UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 109
No.10911
11of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
06/15/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE
STAN
STANJ. COMPLAINT
CATERBONE,FILED
J. CATERBONE,PROBYSE
STAN
PRO SE -J.LANDMARK
CATERBONE,
- LANDMARK PRO SE.
HUMAN
CIVIL REINSTATED
RIGHTS AS
AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
REQUESTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND ADD THE FOLLOWING PARTIES TO
THE CAPTIONED: ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA , LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL / UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
06/17/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS
REQUESTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
06/18/2009 AMENDED CAPTION ENTRY IS: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP / STAN J. CATERBONE VS. DUKE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 110
No.11012
12of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
06/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE
STAN
STANJ. COMPLAINT.
CATERBONE, REINSTATED
J. CATERBONE,PRO
PRO - AS
SESE DIRECTED HUMAN
LANDMARK
- LANDMARK BYCIVIL
RANDALL O. WENGER,
RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AND ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMES
TO THE CAPTIONED COMPLAINT: LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
06/24/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-14. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/26/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-15. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

06/29/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-16. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/01/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-17. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/02/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-18 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

07/07/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-19. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/13/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-20. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/14/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-21 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

07/14/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY AND TO ADD THE FOLLOWNG PARTIES TO
THE COMPLAINT. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOPITAL
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2 OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR. VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR
STREETS, LANCSTER, PENNSYLVANIA / BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY
AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 111
No.11113
13of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
07/14/2009 AMENDED CAPTION STANENTRY
STAN J.IS: ADVANCEDPRO
J. CATERBONE,
CATERBONE, MEDIA
PROSEGROUP
SE / STAN J. HUMAN
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK CATERBONE VS. DUKE
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA , LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL / UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RESEACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPE TODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 112
No.112
14
14ofof240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
STAN
STAN JOHN ROCHAT,
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,PRO
PROCHIEF
SESE -OF POLICE, MILLERSVILLE
- LANDMARK
LANDMARK HUMAN BOROUGH
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT
07/16/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-22 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/17/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-23 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/23/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-24 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/28/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-25 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

07/29/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-26 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/03/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-27 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/03/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-28 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/05/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-29 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/07/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT AND TO ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMED PARTIES TO
THE COMPLAINT:STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO, LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR.
ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER,
PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C, LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M.
DANG, M.D., LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES
FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.;
DR. JOHN BLACK III, BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC,
BRIGHTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY
PRESSLEY, M.D., PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER,
PA..; DR. DANIEL McINTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.;
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE,
LANCASTER EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..;
AMY MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA. FILED BY:
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL O. WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 113
No.11315
15of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
08/07/2009 AMENDED CAPTION STANENTRY
STAN J.IS: ADVANCEDPRO
J. CATERBONE,
CATERBONE, MEDIA
PROSEGROUP
SE / STAN J. HUMAN
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK CATERBONE VS. DUKE
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA , LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL / UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RESEACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPE TODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 114
No.114
16
16ofof240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
STAN
STAN JOHN ROCHAT,
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,PRO
PROCHIEF
SESE -OF POLICE, MILLERSVILLE
- LANDMARK
LANDMARK HUMAN BOROUGH
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M. DANG, M.D., LANCASTER
REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL
DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; DR. JOHN BLACK III,
BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC, BRIGHTSIDE
BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D., PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY PRESSLEY, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; DR. DANIEL
McINTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE, LANCASTER
EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; AMY
MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.
08/11/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-30 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/14/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-31 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

08/20/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-32 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF

08/31/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT AND TO KINDLY ADD THE FOLLOWING NAMED
PARTIES: LENS CRAFTERS; DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES; CARTRIDGE WORLD;
KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE; EYEMART EXPRESS STORE; DR. HARRY BREITMAN; OFFICE MAX
STORE; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA; LEON PANETTA, DIRECTOR CIA FILED BY STAN
J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED. RANDALL O. WENGER, ESQ.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 115
No.11517
17of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
08/31/2009 AMENDED CAPTION STANENTRY
STAN J.IS: ADVANCEDPRO
J. CATERBONE,
CATERBONE, MEDIA
PROSEGROUP
SE / STAN J. HUMAN
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK CATERBONE VS. DUKE
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
STREET BUSINESS CENTER, ET AL, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COLLEGE
AVENUE, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. L. WENGER, LANCASTER REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, WEIS MARKETS, SADSBURY, PENNSYLVANIA, WEIS PHARMACY SADSBURY,
PENNSYLVANIA, AMY BRENT, PHARMICIST, DISTRICT MANAGER, WEIS MARKET, CVS
PHARMACY, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FULTON BANK, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, MR.
R. SCOTT SMITH, CEO, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, PHILLIP WENGER, COO, FULTON
FINANICAL CORPORATION, MR. CRAIG RODA, CEO FULTON BANK, MS DANA CHRYST, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, FULTON FINANICAL CORPORATION, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, NEW
HOLLAND DENTAL CLINIC, NEW HOLLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, DR. WEST, NEW HOLLAND DENTAL
CLINIC, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, STEVE WEAVER,
MANAGER, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, JOHN BUCKWALTER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, HIGH INDUSTRIES, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
FRANK MCCABE, HIGH HOTELS, S. DALE HIGH, HIGH INDUSTRIES, BARLEY SNYDER, LLC.,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SHAWN LONG, ESQ., BARLEY SNYDER, LLC, WGAL TV-8,
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, PAUL QUINN, GENERAL MANAGER, WGAL TV-8, DOUG ALLEN,
WGAL TV-8, JANELLE STELLSON, WGAL TV-8, SUSAN SHIPIRO, WGAL TV-8, BARBARA BARR,
WGAL TV-8, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, LANCASTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, COPY MAX/IMPRESSO OFFICE MAX, RED ROSE COMMONS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, RYAN P. AUMENT, LANCASTER COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, LANCASTER
GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 1 OF
JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSE 2
OF JULY 13, 2009 OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, DR.
VITO DICAMILLO OF THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT,
WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,
BRANCH MANAGER, WACHOVIA BANK, HERSHEY AVENUE AND MANOR STREETS, LANCASTER,
PENNSYLVANIA, ANNIE BAILEYS RESTUARANT AND BAR, MARION COURTROOM RESTUARANT
AND BAR, MARION STREET CAFE, MIKE GEESEY, PROPRIETOR, MARION COURTROOM, ALLEY
KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, JOHN KATRAS, PROPRIETOR, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT,
BRETT STABLEY, MANAGER, ALLEY KAT BAR AND RESTUARANT, ROSA ROSA RESTUARANT,
THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, GEORGE SOUKAS, MANAGER, THE VILLAGE NIGHTCLUB, RUBY
TUESDAY, RESTUARANT BAR AND GRILL, MANOR SHOPPING CENTER, VALENTINOS CAFE,
LANCASTER BRICKYARD BAR, LANCASTER COUNTY RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION, DAVID
PFLUMM, PENNSYLVANIA CAREER LINK, LIBERTY PLACE, LANCASTER, LANCASTER
EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AGENCY (LETA), MARK SPRUNGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LETA, RED
ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (RRTA), DAVID KILMER, RED ROSE TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, KIETH SADDLER, CHIEF OF POLICE, LANCASTER CITY
POLICE BUREAU, SGT. RICHARD COSMORE, LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, LANCASTER
CITY HOUSING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT, MR. MCGUIRE, LANCASTER CITY HOUSING
INSPECTION DEPARTMENT AND NON-UNIFORMED UNION, REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER CITY
POLICE UNION, LANCASTER CITY POLICE UNION, RICHARD GRAY, MAYOR , CITY OF
LANCASTER, LANCASTER COUNTYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS, WILLIAM RICHARD PLANK,
RESIDENTS OF 1200 BLOCK FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PA , LANCASTER COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE, CRAIG STEDMAN, LANCASTER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
LANDIS, DETECTIVE, LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY. OFFICE, PRESIDENT JUDGE, LOUIS
FARINA, LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE JAMES P. CULLEN,
LANCASTER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL OFFICE, THOMAS CORBETT, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL / UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OFFICE FO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSLVANIA IN PHILADELPHIA, ERIC
HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
HARRISBURG OFFICE, FEDERAL BUREA OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), PHILADELPHIA OFFICE,
SHERYL CROW, INTERSCOPE RECORDING ARTIST, UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY
AGENCY (NSA(, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (D.O.D.), DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, (DIA), ROBERT GATES, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, BARRACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, DR. AMINTA HAWKINS-BREAN, PH.D.,
VICE PRESIDENT STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, JODIE RICHARDSON,
SECRETARY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, LORI B. AUSTIN, DIRECTOR OF
JUDICIAL AFFAIRS, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, VICTOR DESANTIS, DIRECTOR, GRADUATE
STUDIES AND RESEACH PROGRAM, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, MARJORIE M. WARMKESSLER,
PH.D. HUMANTIES LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARIAN INSTRUCTION COORDINATOR, MILLERSVILLE
UNIVERSITY, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY,
NATHANIEL BOMBERGER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, P. MICHAEL STURLA, PENNSYLVANIA
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPE TODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 116
No.116
18
18ofof240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
STAN
STAN JOHN ROCHAT,
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE, PRO CHIEF
PRO
SESE -OF POLICE, MILLERSVILLE
- LANDMARK
LANDMARK HUMAN BOROUGH
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, STEVE MIDCIFF, CEO,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. ANTHONY MASTROPIETRO, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR, LANCASTER REGIN HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LINDA S. WENGER, PA-C,
LANCASTER REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; CHRISTINE M. DANG, M.D., LANCASTER
REGIONAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; MASTROPIETRO ASSOCIATES FAMILY PRACTICE, NOLL
DRIVE, LANCASTER, PA.; BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; DR. JOHN BLACK III,
BLACK AND BLACK DENTAL, WILLOW ST., PA.; SOUTHEAST HEALTH CLINIC, BRIGHTSIDE
BAPTIST CHURCH, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. LEO DORIZYNSKI, PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT,
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. SEAN COLDREN, M.D., PSYCHIATRY
DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. EMILY PRESSLEY, M.D.,
PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; DR. DANIEL
McINTYRE, M.D., LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER GENERAL
HOSPITAL, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, LANCASTER, PA.; DR. TATE, LANCASTER
EMERGENCY ASSOCIATES OF LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA..; AMY
MILLHOUSE, LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, LANCASTER, PA.; OFFICER ERIC McCRADY,
LANCASTER CITY BURAEU OF POLICE, LANCASTER, PA.; LANCASTER COUNTY MENTAL
HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.;
JAMES McLAUGHLIN, DISRECTOR, MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION DEPARTMENT,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA.; CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY;
MR. McCARDY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS INTERVENTION OF LANCASTER COUNTY' BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; DENNIS STUCKEY, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; HOUSE OF PASTA, BAR & RESTAURANT,
MILLERSVILLE PIKE, LANCASTER, PA.; YORGEY'S RESTAURANT & BAR, NORTH QUEEN ST.,
LANCASTER, PA.; UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; ART WARD,
PROPERIETOR, UPS COPY STORE, STONE MILL PLAZA, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA STATE
POLICE TROOP J. LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; COMMANDER, PA. STATE POLICE
TROOP J, LINCOLN HIGHWAY EAST, LANCASTER, PA.; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION(PENNDOT); BEVERLY POINTS, ESQ., LEGAL COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS,
COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; TERRY BERGMAN, SHERIFF OF LANCASTER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.; MARK REESE, CHIEF DEPUTY,
LANCASTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFFS, COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PA.,LENS
CRAFTERS, LANCASTER, PA., DR. JOHN H. BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, OPTOMETRISTS,
LANCASTER, PA., CARTRIDGE WORLD, LANCASTER, PA., KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORE,
LANCASTER, PA., EYEMART EXPRESS STORE, LANCASTER, PA., DR. HARRY BREITMAN,
LANCASTER, PA., OFFICE MAX STORE #854, LANCASTER, PA., CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, CIA, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA, LEON PANETTA, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY, LANGLEY, VIRGINIA
09/03/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-33 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/16/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-34 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/16/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-35 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/29/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-36 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

09/29/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER,


PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
10/02/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-37 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/06/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-38 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/13/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-39 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/16/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-40 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/19/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-41 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/21/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-42 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/23/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-43 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/28/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

10/30/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-44 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/10/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-45 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/20/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-47 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
CI-08-13373
CI-08-13373PRAECIPE
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 117
No.117
19 of240
19of 142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
11/20/2009 STAN
PRAECIPE TO FILE STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J.A-48
EXHIBIT CATERBONE,
FILED BY PRO
PRO
STAN SE SE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
J. CATERBONE, HUMAN
PRO CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
SE.

11/20/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-46 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

11/25/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
12/09/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-49 WITH CD-ROM AS EXHIBIT FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO
SE.
12/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER,
PROTHONOTARY. FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.
12/18/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-50. FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/29/2009 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-51 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

12/29/2009 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (EMERGENCY) FOR RELIEF. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE,


PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.
12/29/2009 ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR
RELIEF, THE REQUEST IS DENIED. PA. R.C.P. 1531(A) PROVIDES, THAT A COURT MAY ISSUE AN
EX PARTE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ONLY AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE AND HEARING UNLESS IT
APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY
WILL BE SUSTAINED BEFORE NOTICE CAN BE GIVEN OR A HEARING HELD, IN WHICH CASE THE
COURT MAY ISSUE (THE) INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING OR WITHOUT NOTICE. IN
DETERMINING WHETHER (THE) INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AND WHETHER NOTICE OR
A HEARING SHOULD BE REQUIRED, THE COURT MAY ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE AVEMENTS OF
THE PLEADINGS OR PETITION AND MAY CONSIDER AFFIDAVITS OF PARTIES OR THIRD
PERSONS OR ANY OTHER PROOF WHICH THE COURT MAY REQUIRE. HERE, THE IRREPARABLE
HARM ALLEGED IS LOSS BY PLAINTIFF OF (1) PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE; (2)
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE PERSONAL PROPERTY, BUSINESS ASSETS, AND COURT RELATED
ASSETS, INFORMATION, AND EVIDENCE; (3) PROTECTION FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AT EVERY
LEVEL [:] LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL; (4) RELATIONSHIPS INCLUDING FAMILY [,] FRIENDS [,]
AND PROFESSIONAL; (5) TIME AND LIFE AS A NORMAL PERSON WOULD KNOW IT; (6) TIME WITH
MOTHER, WHO IS IN HER LAST STAGE OF LIFE. . .; (7) FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT [:]
COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN DENIED EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE HIS PERSONAL AND
BUSINESS ASSETS AT 1250 FREMONT STREET, LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA [,] MAKING IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO TRAVEL OR LEAVE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME. . .; (8) FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
MAY CONSTITUTE FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MAY INVOKE THE FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
LAWS OF FREEDOM [SIC]; (9) FEMALE COMPANIONSHIP; (10) BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES; AND
(11) ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES. THE SOURCES OF THE ALLEGED IRREPARABLE HARM ARE
APPROXIMATELY 82 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, ELECTED OFFICIALS,
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, BUSINESS OF VARIOUS TYPES, MEDICAL PRACTICES AND
PRACTITIONERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND NUMEROUS PRINCIPLES, EMPLOYEES
AND AGENTS OF THE NAMED ENTITIES, WHICH ARE NAMED IN A PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
MADE PART OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. IN HIS REQUEST
FOR RELIEF,: THE COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM THE ABOVE IN THE FORM OF
SANCTIONS AND FINES FOR THOSE GUILTY OF EXTORTATION AND EMBEZZLEMENT AND
THOSE WITHHOLDING ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES. COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF
FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT CONTINUE ABUSE OF PROCESS.
COMPLAINANT SEEKS IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOUND GUILTY OF
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS. COMPLAINANT SEEKS RELIEF, IN AS MUCH AS THE
COURTS ARE ABLE, WITH REGARDS TO THE HARASSMENT AND TORTURE FROM THOSE
FOUND GUILTY OF SUCH CRIMES. GIVEN THE STRICT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE ENTRY
OF EX PARTE RELIEF, THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S
PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT PROVIDE A CREDIBLE FACTUAL BASIS ON WHICH TO GRANT
RELIEF. WHILE PLAINTIFF MAY BELIEVE THE FACTUAL AVEMENTS AND LEGAL
TRANSGRESSIONS TO BE PROVEN, THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT PROVIDED TO THE
COURT. MOREOVER, IN MANY INSTANCES, THE HARM CITED AND RELIEF REQUESTED ARE NOT
RATIONALLY RELATED TO THE PERSONS/ENTITIES IDENTIFIED, OR THEIR ALLEGED ACTS OR
OMISSIONS. WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED, A
CLEARER STATEMENT OF THE SPECIFIC HARM AND NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTOR'S BEHAVIOR,
AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AT WHICH ALL PARTIES MAY PRESENT PROOFS, INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF WILL NOT LIE. BY THE COURT: MARGARET C. MILLER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236 NOTICE
TO: STAN J. CATERBONE (1). MAILED ON 12/30/09.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 118
No.11820
20of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
01/04/2010 MOTION PRELIMINARY
STAN EMERGENCY
STAN INJUNCTION
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,PRO SEFOR
PRO SE - RELIEF
- LANDMARK MOTION
LANDMARK FORRIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
HUMAN
CIVIL
RECONSIDERATIOIN FOR EX PARTE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29, 2009
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE. (FORWARDED TO JUDGE MILLER ON JAN. 4, 2010)
01/06/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-52 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/07/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY RANDALL O. WENGER, PROTHONOTARY.
01/11/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-53 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/19/2010 ORDER (NO FEE) FILED. AND NOW, THIS 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010, UPON CONSIDERATION
OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY EMERGENCY INJUNCTION FOR RELIEF MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR EX PARTE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF ORDER DATED DECEMBER 29,
2009, THE REQUEST IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: MARGARET C. MILLER, JUDGE. CC'S WITH 236
NOTICE TO: STAN J. CATERBONE/ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP (1). MAILED ON 1/21/10.
01/19/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

01/22/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-54 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/05/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-55 PLUS C-D ROM FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/16/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

02/18/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-56 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/19/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-57 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

02/22/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-58 FILED BY: STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE

03/04/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-59 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/09/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-61 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/09/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-60 FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/10/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

03/10/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-62 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/17/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE PRAECIPE EXHIBIT A-64 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE,
DEFENDANT.
03/18/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-63 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

03/19/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE.

03/31/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-65 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/01/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-66 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

04/20/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STANLEY J. CATTERBONE.

04/27/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-67 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/03/2010 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT A-68 FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PRO SE.

05/11/2010 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, ProSe.

08/31/2015 PRAECIPE, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/01/2015 PRAECIPE REINSTATE COMPLAINT, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, FILED BY STAN J.


CATERBONE
09/02/2015 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT TITLED "MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT", FILED BY STAN J.
CATERBONE
09/10/2015 PRAECIPE, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/10/2015 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE. REINSTATED AS


DIRECTED BY KATHERINE WOOD JACOBS, PROTHONOTARY.
09/22/2015 PRAECIPE TO FILE EXHIBIT, FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE

09/30/2015 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE: KINDLY REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT ORIGINALLY FILED ON


DECEMBER 3, 2008 IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A.
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 119
No.11921
21of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
10/02/2015 STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE: J. CATERBONE,
KINDLY PRO
REINSTATEPROSESE
THE - LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
COMPLAINT HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
ORIGINALLY FILED ONAND ANTI-TRUST CASE
DECEMBER 3, 2008 IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED ACTION ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT.
FILED BY STAN J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.
02/03/2016 PETITION - IFP- GENERAL: TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES
WITH AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL STATUS. FILED BY STANLEY J. CATERBONE, PLAINTIFF, PRO SE.

SENT TO JUDGE REINAKER ON 2/5/2016.


02/10/2016 ORDER (NO FEE) FILED.
AND NOW, THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ATTACHED
PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT OF FINANCIAL STATUS, IT IS HEREBY DENIED.
BY THE COURT: DENNIS E. REINAKER, PRESIDENT JUDGE
COPIES WITH 236 NOTICE MAILED TO STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ESQ., ON 2/10/16.
02/10/2016 IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED.

05/12/2016 Praecipe to file exhibit-Corroborating Expert And Former Nsa Whistleblower Karen Stewart's Disclosure
Of Electrogagnetic Weapons Used To Kill May 12 - Copy filed by Stan Caterbone
11/16/2016 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE AND TO ADD DEFENDANTS, ROBERT S. WALKER, ATT MOBILE PHONE,
SPRINT MOBILE PHONE, BEST BUY, HILDEY'S BAR, THE JUKE BOX, JOHN KATRAS, LANCASTER
FLEET AND AUTO, PRESS ROOM, LNP ENTERPRISES, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,OFFICE
MAX, LANCASTER REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, PATIENT FIRST URGENT CARE, ALTANA
RESTAURANT, BEN FRANK, AMALFI PROPERTIES, TELLUS360 BAR AND RESTAURANT, CORTY
BYRON, ANNIE BAILEY'S RESTAURANT, JOSHUA FUNK, CIGAR BAR, DANIEL FALCON,
LANCASTER DISPENSING COMPANY, BRADLEY DEFORGE, JUDY ROSS, YORGOS BAR AND
RESTAURANT, GEORGE KATSAROS, AND MRS. KATSAROS, FILED. REINSTATED AS DIRECTED,
KATHERINE WOOD-JACOBS, PROTHONOTARY.
11/17/2016 EXHIBITS FILED

11/23/2016 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE FILED BY STAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

11/30/2016 Exhibit

12/03/2016 EXHIBIT

12/05/2016 EXHIBIT

01/13/2017 EXHIBIT FRIDAY JANUARY 13, 2017, FILED

01/23/2017 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE FILED BY STAN CATERBONE ESQ.

01/28/2017 EXHIBIT RE THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND STAN J. CATERBONE AS OF JANUARY 28,
2017 FILED.
01/29/2017 PRAECIPE TO AMEND COMPLAINT FILED BY STAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

01/31/2017 EXHIBIT FILED BYSTAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/02/2017 EXHIBIT FILED BY STAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/02/2017 EXHIBITS FILED BY STAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/04/2017 EXHIBIT FILED BY STAN CATERBONE, PRO SE

02/05/2017 EXHIBIT FILED

02/10/2017 EXHIBIT FILED

02/23/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD/REMOVE DEFENDANTS FILED

02/25/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD/REMOVE DEFENDANTS FILED

02/25/2017 EXHIBIT FILED

03/02/2017 AFFIDAVIT OF "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH", FILED

03/21/2017 MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT TITLED LETTER TO HUNTINGTON BANK ANDREW GRIMMIT RE MARCH
7 LIQUIDATION OFFER MARCH 17, 2017, FILED
04/28/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD/REMOVE DEFENDANTS FILED (NOT SIGNED)

04/29/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS FIL;ED (NOT SIGNED)

05/05/2017
CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE TO
TO ADD DEFENDANTS filed Page No. 120
CI-08-13373PRAECIPE ADD DEFENDANTS
UPDATED DEFENDANTS
PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
PageNo.
No.
No.120
22 of240
22of 142
23
242
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
05/16/2017 STAN
STAN
Lancaster County Court J. CATERBONE,
CaseJ.No.
CATERBONE,
08-CI-13373PRO
rePRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
PRAECIPE HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
TO ADD DEFENDANTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE
LANCASTER
YMCA - REMOVE JAMES COMEY MAY 16, 2017
05/30/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS VILLANOVA
WEST-HOUSE OF PASTA-ASHLEY-GRAHAMS May 29, 2017 filed by stan caterbone
06/06/2017 LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP re INTERVENTION IN THE STAN J. CATERBONE OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE LANDMARK CASE June 5, 2017 filed by stan caterbone
06/10/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS MILLER OPTICAL
AND JT ROCKWELLS BAR & RESTUARANT WITH NSA EXHIBIT June 10, 2017 filed by stan caterbone
06/16/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 PRAECIPE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Friday June 16, 2017 filed by Stan Caterbone
06/16/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS MANHEIM
TOWNSHIP POLICE AND M&T BANK WITH EXHIBIT re COMEY June 15, 2017 filed by stan caterbone
06/17/2017 STAN J. CATERBONE v. FBI, NSA, CIA, and The United States of America, et.al., June 17, 2017 filed by
Stan Caterbone
06/20/2017 FEDERAL PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Filed in U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICE OF PHILADELPHIA June
19, 2017 FILED BY STAN CATERBONE
07/10/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS KRISTINA E. FINDIKYAN, HEARST CORPORATION, WGAL-TV,
SGT CHARLES M. MELHORN OF MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, MANHEIM
TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, FILED
07/27/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS TURKEY HILL CONVENIENCE STORES, PROTHONOTARY OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR AND SUPREME COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT WITH EXHIBITS AND
DVD EXHIBIT, FILED
08/02/2017 EXHIBITS, FILED

08/09/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS MARK
ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK, AND PA FILE AND SERVE Wednesday August 9, 2017
08/10/2017 EXHIBITS, FILED

08/18/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS JAMES ELMER
MITCHELL and JOHN BRUCE JESSEN, CIA TORTURE PSYCHOLOGISTS August 18, 2017
08/23/2017 EXHIBITS ANTI-TRUST VALUATION, FILED

08/27/2017 Lancaster County Court Case No. 08-CI-13373 re PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS NAUGHTY
GOOSE AND LOXLEYS BAR August 27, 2017
08/29/2017 PRAECIPE TO ADD DEFENDANTS SKETCHERS STORE AND EXHIBIT, FILED

September 05, 2017

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page
PageNo. No.
No. 121
No.12123
23of of240
142
23
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
(c) CountySuite Prothonotary, Teleosoft, Inc.
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
J. CATERBONE,
PROPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
- LANDMARK
HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI-TRUST CASE

DOCUMENT DIVIDER

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 122
No.122 of240
24 of 142
242 Wednesday
Wednesday September6,
September 6, 2017
2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

%
!"" # $
&! ! '" !

((( &&" " ! & )#


# *& !" #
+,+-./0+.,122

3 4
4 3 35$ 54
4 3 64 7

8
3 3 9 8 .:;.,//+/

< 3 39 3 $ "$

3 4 3

==> >
8 ,2$ 0:,+ " ' $
# ) !
,01:
4 # $ ,+2:/
((( &&" " ! & )#
# *& !" #
?+,+- /0+.,122

!# ! #" ! 8 @ # ! )@ " $ A $ ) "!#"'


! # ! ! # ,B;+ & ! & ) "!# ?7@! " 9" ( - (! @ "" & ! A ! # # A (! @!
! " !& " "$ "# A4 # $ ? )" & !" ' ""! & C ! @ A !#
D, 9!""! ! ,BB0- A "' ( A # A ) ! @ @ (! @ @ ! A
" ( A # @ ! $ (@!#@ ( " ""' ) # E) ) "!# # ) ! 7 !"!F
# !# ! @( A @ "! " "!#! #G ) $ ) ) '$ ! 7
# ! A!&@ A H !# @ &@ @ $ # !# ! A) # ! & !&@
# ! ) ! A H !# # ! ) ! " A @ ! )"' !A ' (! @
A # 4! (" &# 4 # ' 4 # ! ' @! ! . )
' 7@! " 9" (! & A @ # "? @ 3 A ) ! "-I

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 123
No.123
1 of
25 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

3 3
:/.,2.B:::1 AA!# A @ ! # ! E # ! $ ! 3@! ! # ! A )) " .
4 3 4 3 9 4 35 J :/.,2.B:::K2 44
44 3 3 3 3
) ,2.2;00 3 3 7 3 3 ! "#$ %&
' "' ( )) *
3@! ! # ! A )) " ,+.,B:K 3 9 $ " $ 3@ )) " A @
"! ! ' H # ! & #' "! A ,+.:;2;J ! + , ! 3
A 4! !#@ "" 4 , 3A 4! !#@ "" 4 J, ,
! !# ! !# A ,+.:,0// @ ) ,, )) " A ,+.,:2,1J ,+.
:;2+ "! ! ' H # ! A ! " ! !# J ,2.K:,K 3 9 ! $ )!,
! - , + , 3A 4! !#@ "" 4 J ++, + + J
! !# ! " ! !# A ,2. 01,/ 3 J ,2.# .,+1, 3 3
9
( " @ A '" ! !#! " # 9 6 0:,2.K20 .) ' / '
0 1 0 & ) & 4 9 (
'" ! ) 0 ! "% , "% J + "" !# A < @" <
) ! A '" ! /1+1 0:,2 !# A < @" < , ' )) " !
A < @" < ,,2K 0:,2, ! "2 , "2 J
,2.,0,B "! ! ' H # ! A 0:,2
4 # ' A " ! + 3 40 ' , ! + 3 56 %3# '
" , ! ') ' ' , ! + , , 3
9 G ) #' A 3@ ! !# A '" ! ,+.,:2,1J !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 124
No.124
2 of
26 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

4 36 4 3
K0 L ,B;/ . ! !" # ! A ) ! ! A !&@

%( .) ' 7')) * &') 0 6! ! 8 + '-') ' & . '- ' & '/( ! 3
0 1 ( 0 ' ) (@ $ # " A ' $ ! # $ & " ! $
# $ & $ A ' 3 ! ' @ ! !# A " ! $ H # $ #
H # $ ' #! !F A @ ! @ ) (! @! @ H ! !# ! @ A @
) ! ! A ' !&@ $ ) ! !" & $ ! ! ! # ' @ ! ! " ( $ @ "" "! "
@ ) ' ! H ! # ! " ($ ! ! C ! '$ @ ) ) ) # ! & A $ E# )
@ ! ' # ! &@ & ! H !#! " AA!# A # ! ! G ! #@ AA!# M
H !#! " # ) #! '$ ! H # ! "! A @ "" & " #" ' # (
! " #" ' "! A ( !" "

@ ) ) A @! # ! $ ' # A & ))"!# " E#" ! "' @ ! !# A


" ! @ "" # ! A @ ! !# A " !

3 8 ,2$ 0:,+

===========> >============
$ 4! !&

%
!"" # $
&! ! '" !
,01:
4 # $ ,+2:/
((( &&" " ! & )#
# *& !" #
+,+./0+.,122

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 125
No.125
3 of
27 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

> # ! ) 9! & )@'

. # ! )$ ! $ ( $

,B;+ 3 9 * & ) 7(' ) *) 7 & ( & ) ) &


3 ' ) '/ ) ) 3 ! 3 7 *) 9 . . / & ( 3 ( 7
-' ' & ) * ( 3 : ( "' ) ; 0 ' 7' ( *
1 & 7 . *)1 )0 * * ! 3 7 ( (' ) / & 0 ' 6! ! <' 1 (
' ! 3 9 ( * -' ' & / '= )9' / ' + -' ' & ) '
' /1 7 . ' ! 3 9 ( ) * ) . (' ' ! 3 (
6! ! . "' ) 0 ' )) 0 0) & ) ) . (1, 1 ( ' ) . (1,
( 9' / & )) ) ' -' , - ')' ( & & . ) . . 1 > ' ' )) 0 )
. . 1 -' ) ' * 0 ' & 40 ' , -' ) ' & 0 . , ( & '&' ' & 0
0 , . ' 0 ( 0/( ( 0 & ' /1 -' 7 . ( 0 0 ))1
&' ) 7 & :0 1 ) / ' /1 ( / -' ' ! %(' 0) 7 ' ' '
( ' * / ' 0) 0 )1 7' ( ( &')' / & ( & ) ' ' 6! ! 2' ' 0 %;?@# ; -!
0 1 ' ! )! - ++! %(' 0) * / & ( ( ) )1
' A 1 ( '= 5! * 7' ( ) ) . (1! %( ' '&& ..
( -' ' & (' ( ) /1 ' ( 3 9 ' A 7' ( ( . 7(
) ) . (' ))1 ( ' 9 7 ) * ' 1! #- ( 0 & 1 3 9 ( *
) . (' 7' ( ) 9 7 . ( - . 1 1' / - )' &' ( '
' '' 7' ( 0 0 ! " 6! ! ' ))'/ / ' &0 . ( ) @0 0
& 3 - '/ ' ( 6! ! 1B #&&' &0 ( 0 0 & )
.) ' ( &') ' ( ' . '- &&' ! " .) ' & 0 ( 0'
-' ' '= ' B & / ' '-' 0 ) ' )0 ' / *0 )' ' )9' / ( (
- )' ( & > ' *0 /) ' & ) ' . ' & * ' ) ( )( 7
' - )0 1 ' . ' 0 ( * 1 & ( 0 & * 0 ' &
40 ' ' ( .0 ( 9' /!

3 9 ( - 1 .(' ' 0( ' )'* 1 & -' & ( 0 & 6! ! .


"' ) ( ) /' 1& ( * ( ( * 9 ( B 7(') 1 & ( 7
' ( 6! ! -1 & ( / 0 7' ( ( & ' C0 ( ) ' ) ' ' )0 ' /
&&' -' '= 0( ' *1 1 & ( ' ! "1 * ( - ' ( 6! ! ' &
7 -' ' 2 >. ' & ( ' & 0 "D6 %? . / ' ( ) B !

0:,2 3 9 7 ( "3 6 & 1)- ' 1 C ) D () D ' (


1)- ' 0. ' 0 ! ;2 ' ( #""# E; %< # ; F $ 3 -!
D 7(' ( ' )0 . 40 1 ( / 0 ' / ( )) / ) 9' / & / 40 1 ' & ' ! D ()
D 9 ( GC #) @ 1H 7 9 / ' / 40 ' ' ) & ' ( 7 )( &
1)- ' ' && ' ( & ( ) / ' / .0*)' 0. ' ' / ( 7 -'
& ) )) 7 & 0. 0 50 ' - 1 ' * 7 !

0:,1 3 9 &') ' 0 0 ' * ( )& & ' "' ( )) * 7( 7 -' '
& ( 0 & 0 ' ( 7 * ( & 1)- ' ! 3 9 0 )1 '
)' '/ ' ' ( 6! ! %(' ' 0' 0 & .. ) ' * 0 1 & ' "' ( )) *
.0*)' ( ( * 9 ') G 0. ' ' 0 1 I "1 1H 7(' ( ' - ') *) ' * 9
= ! ! 3 9 ! ' & :0 7' ( ( 0( 2 - @ 7 &
(') ).(' 1)- ' !

0::B 3 9 . #?C 3J;2 % D3 C 2 23?; %;2 ; ;?CF E; #


< ? "; % @3 1)- ' < 0 & ? . '- "'9 0 ) 1)- ' K
'1 & " 1 ?' ( C 1 ' ! %( & ) /' ) ' ' ( 7 9 & "' 0 ' < 0 &
? . '- 5' C0 7( ( * 7 9' / ( ).' / -' ' & ( ( 0 ' &
1 ! %( *')) 7')) . -' . ' ' '-' 0 ) 7( * ' / ( )9 ( *1
0 - ')) 0) , 7 )) . ' 9 . ' '-' 0 ) & * ' / (0 (

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 126
No.126
4 of
28 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

0*4 0 9')) *1 ) ' & :0 1 -' ' /1 -' ' .)


' /1 7 . ! 3 9 / ' ' 0 ( *')) ( 1)- ' C )
*)1 ' & :0 ( 1)- ' .' ) 1' / &' 0.. . , 7(' (
3 9 ')) (' 1!

0::2 3 9 * / (' ) '-' ( ( ) & 0) ' ' ) 7(' ( ' )'


L 6 %L ( 2 M 9 > ( / ! & 0 & ' ' ) " / C 0. ! &0))
-' &' ' ) &' 5! * ( 7 0. ( 0 ' - ) .' / ( /' -' '
& (' . 1 ( >. ' / ' ' ' ' / ( ) / ) && ' .0*)' && ' / && '
)' / 7' ( 0) ' ' )! 3 9 ( * ' ' 0 ' 7' ( ( 0) ' ' )
@ & 2' 7' ( / - ' 0 .) ' )' / 7' ( 0 ( ' 0 ( ? 0 @ 9
:0' ' ' ( 0*. ' & ')0 ! 3 9 * )' - ( 0) ' ' ) /
* // '- ' ' B /' .) ' / ( . & ' >. & 'B
/ ' ' ( ( ) - )0 ! ;>. ' / ( & . ' & ( /' )* 9
( 1' ) ' ( * )' ( ' ' 7' ( ( >. ' & ( ( ) !
0 1 ( - ) ) ) * 9' / ' '0' :0' *1 ) / /' ) * 9 (0
' ' / ( . '' 0) ' ' ) 7')) ' 'B ) ) 9 .) 7 )) ' 'B /' )
& . ' !
0::1 3 9 ' '/ &') - ) '-') ' 3 9 N ( '
0 )' '/ ' ' ( 6 ' 2' ' 0 & ( ; 2' ' & 1)- ' ( 6 '
%(' 2' ' 0 & .. ) ( 1)- ' 0. 0 %( 1)- ' 0. '
0 ( 7 )( 0 & 1)- ' %( 0 & ) & 0 1
1)- ' ! %( )' '/ ' ' )0 -' ) ' &' )) 0 ) . . 1 '/( ' 0 -' ) '
' & & ) ' / - ) *0 ' ' ! ) (' )' '/ ' ' ( 2'/' )
" -' 2'/' ) % ( ) /' ' ' ) " / C 0. A "C -' 1 ! 'N &&')'
*0 ' ) / 7' ( ) ) ) ' ) E(' ) *) 7 / ' / ( &' &
3 ' ) '/ ) ) ) ! 3 K ( O @'))' 2 )) 0 ( ;>. -' ) ' &
))' / 0( & ' 3 :! %(' )' '/ ' * 9 + ! 5! * 7
( ( ) & 3 7 )' ' *1 3 > 0 '- & . & ' ) -' ! %( ) )
) ' ' 0 )1 . & ?3 # '-') .) ' ' ( 6 ' 2' ' 0 & ( ;
2' ' & 1)- ' ( %(' ' 0' 0 & .. ) 9 ! ++!
0::1 3 9 - " ' C 0.A 4 < . &') '-') ' ' ( 0 &
) & 0 1 / ' 2 7 ( ( ; ? 3 & ( ' . 7' (( )
( % 0 ' % > < )% > ( 0.. ( 2 7 7 - ' P" ' !E
) . . ) '- .) - ( - ' ( < ) @ 0 7' 9
:0 )) & ( 4 9 ( ) ! %( 0 1 - ' ' &' ))1 0
0 ' 7' ( " ( #. ' / !
0::1 3 9 ( " # @ "! " " ! ! ! ' 7 F 9 '1 &
0* ' ' & 1 7' ( ..)' ' ! 3 9 '- ( ' -' ' & @ 0 ?!
' 1 (' & ;> 0 '- #&&' & ( E'))' 5! )' 0 ' !
0::1 3 9 * / 0 .(') ( .' - *1 . ' / 0 /' 7 9' / 7' (
0 ( / '= ' , # ;! / '- /! / E 0 E ' ! / %( )' C) * ) 3 ' ' '-
- ' 0( '1 ( * & % N 4 < . .)
.) 3 ' ) C) * )E ' /! / A < 0 0' ' < )' ( '*
' ' 0 0 ( !
0::K 3 9 * 9 0 . - ' ( 0 ' ' ' 0 ' 7' (
.( ' ' ' /& ( & ' :0' *) ' '*0 ' & ' '/( 1 )' ' ( &'/(
/ ' ) ' .' 1! E ( - . ' ' - ) .' / 7 *0 ' )
( - / & .(1 ' ) ) ' '0 , ' ' .) 1 )' - 0 & (
' / . ' / )'- ' / / & ' -' 7' ) 7 9 !
0::: 0::0 3 9 - ) . 1 & 9 ' / 0 ' ' ) &
7( ) ) & ( 3" 3 - C 0. / - ) 0 ' ' . / & - ) &

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 127
No.127
5 of
29 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

( . 1 7( ) ) ( 0/( 0 ( 6 ' ?' ! E ) * / 2 1 % ' /


. 4 ( ) 0 ') 7' ( 0 !
,BBB 3 9 - ) . . ( '- *0 ' .) - ) . ( & . (
@ 7 1 9 7 ( ;> ) ' @0') ' / ;! D' / ' 1)- ' ! %(' .) 7
- ) . ' 40 ' 7' ( ( . ( '- ; ' 2 - ) . ) & ( ? -' )'= ' &
2 7 7 ( 2 7 7 - ' & ( & E P (
*0') ' /!
,BBB 3 9 '*0 ( * ( ' .) ' & /'
0 ( && & ( /) * ) F D ( ( 7 ) .0 ( ) /' ! 3 9
( 6! ! . F D 1 . '0 & ' E (' / 2! ! ( *1 (
F D 0* ' E'))' @ !
,BB; 3 9 ( * / ' ' ( ( ' 1 /'-' / & % N 4 < . . &'
/ '= ' . ' / 0 ' 7 & ) ')) 0' ' . - ' ! E (
. -' &0 ' / & ( " ) < ) ( ))' & 0 1 %( A
0' ' - ' < )' K %( ( '* ' ' ( ( ' *) / '= ' & '(
* ( ' ' ! %( -' L 0 * 2 B ' L ( - * ' '*0 ( ) . &'
/ '= ' & '( * ' ' ' '- 0 ' '. )' ' . -' 0 ' ) 0.. & (
. - ' & 0' ' * ' / 7 ) ')) . *) !
,BB2 3 9 ( 0) ' / & . ' 0 D 0 ' / ( 3
' ! (
3 9 7 )) & &)0 3 ! 3 9 ' 7
*1 C )) ?
? 0 @ .0 '= ( ' 0 ' / & / . * !
3 9 ( ) . -' 0) ' / & ( .0 '= ' 0 ' / & . 1 )) &
' 3 ! & E (' / @ ! 3 9 7 ' - )0 - ) .
' .) '/ ( 3 & ' % ( ) /' & ( 5 1 C 0. & ))1 & ? 9 7
) 7 O "'))' 2 )) ( :0 ) ' E < .&' ) % 7 ('. &
0 1! %( 5 1 C 0. ( * 0 ' / 3@" ' & ( ) /' ( *1 ( .0
- ! 3 9 7 0) ' / ( ' & '/ ' / * ) ' 7 9' /
1 ( 0/( 0 ( ' / '= ' ! 0 )1 ( 5 1 C 0. .) 1 .) 1
7' ( - 0 ' > &O "'))' 2 )) . 1 !
,BB/ 3 9 7 ' *1 &)0 3 ! )) 7 . '*) &
-' / ( . 1 & . ' ) * 9 0. 1! ( ' 0 - ) 0 . ' (
. 1 7 & ' / > . 0 & ) ( * ' / ' 0 . 1! E 7
. '*) & ' .) ' / .0 '= 0 ' / 0 ' / . )' '
. 0 (0 0 . )' ' . 0 9 ' / /' . & 0
. ' / / ' & ( . 1 & 0 . ' ! %( * ' / . 1 7 . ' ))1
. *) ' ' ' 7 ( )'& )' ' 0 7 9 *' ' / & .0*)' ! %( @ 9 &
0 1 .) 0 ' / & ( . ' ' - && & 0)
( ) ' 7 ( ) ' /! E ' ))1 - . ( ' . ' ! E' (' 1 (
. 1 )'= ' ' . &' & ' ' . -' 0 1 - 0 !
,BB, 3 9 7 ) .) .) 3 ' ) ( ' '= *
/ 7(' ( 7 & 0 *1 ' 27'/( 2! ;' ( 7 ' ! %( . / 7 & 0
G% /'- . ' )' & ( 0/( 0 ( 7 ) / .. 0 ' ' 7 9 / ( && '- )1
0 ' 7' ( . %( ' '= * . / ' ' & & ' '&' ( ' )
. & ' ) > ( / ( 0/( 0 ( 7 ) !3 0 ' 5 ( !D 1 (
2 . *)' ( . &' . '- & 0 ' ' ' ( . / ! E 7 ( 0)
0 ( -' 6 ' ; ;0 . ' 0 . ' ' / .0*)' (' / ( ) /' 7' (
' ' ( ' ' 0 ( 7 ) !
,BB: 3 9 ( 7 9 - ) .' / - ' / '' 1 & ( / - N
( ) /1 (' 9 9 3 % ' ) 3 '0 & P % ( ) /1K! 3 9
0( ( ' ) G; .' / ( 6 '> % ' H 7' ( ' ' & 3 % ( 7 .0*)' ( ' (
/ =' G23 H ( & ( ) ' / .0*)' ' & ( 2 ?#" ' 0 1! % 1 )) ))
.) 1 ( ( ) /1 7( - 1 0 )) + 0 * - ' / '' ' . - ) '
)) 1. & ..)' ' ' - )-' / ) 0 ' ' !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 128
No.128
6 of
30 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

,B;B 3 9 ( & 0 - " ' C 0. ! 7 & )1 6! !


' . ' ( ( ( . *')' 1 0& 0 2 ?#"B ! E ' *0 ' 7' (
' ) . ' / - / ' 0 ' ) ' '0' & '/ . ' !
3 9 . & -' & ( 2 . & 2 & ' )
3 '0' & P % ( ) /1 3 %K 2 . &2 & %( 2 & - ? (
4 / 1 2 ? K ( 2 & " ..' / / 1 ) 3 ))'/ / 1 3 K 3@"
"' & " .0 ' @ 9 @ @01 ( & ( !
3 9 ) 7 7 9' / 7' ( ?!? 2 ))1B C 1 7(' ( 7 - ) .' / - ' 0
' '- ..' / ( ) /' 7(' ( ' 7 4 & " . M0 ! " . M0 ' ( . '
. -' & ..' / &7 ..)' ' & ( ' ' & 0 ' )'- ' / .
' ' & 0 . ' ! E ( / & <'/( 3 0 ' )) ' < )'> (
0& 0 & . ' ?!?! 2 ))1! E ( * 9 ) ( > 0 '- &
2 ))1N (' / ( :0 &) 7 ' 0 ( ) . & 0 ')'/ & (
0& 0 ' / & ')' 1 ) ' ( C &' ) 3 0 ' ) 9!
,B;+ ( ! ! A ( 5 G 3 ' 9 &! ! ' 3 9 > 0 '-
. 0 & ' .' 0 . 4 ! %( ( ' ) -' ) 7 * )'- ' '/' )
& , ( &' & ' N 9' ! E ( '/' ( 9 ' / & ( ( ) /1 (
. & ( 7 ' 2'/' ) " -' 1 2" K 7(' ( 7 0) & )) 7 ( .1 '/(
9 ' /& 0) & ( 2# @F ( ) /1 9!
3 9 ( ) - ) . 9 ' / . ( & ( - ) .
' )'= ' & :0'. ( 7 ' 0& 0 9 ( ' /' 0 1
& 0 ' / ( '/' ) ( ) /1! ' ) C C ) ( ** ! ! & (') ).(' 7 ( )
. ) 7 &' ( E ( ' & ( . 4 ! 7 ' 0 ' 7 ( * ' (') & % 1
@ /' -' ) ' / /' ' / / '0 ' - *1 " 7 7( ( 7 !% 1 7 '
0 ' 7 & ( ) ' / ' / 0 ' ' ( 0 1 7 . '*) & - ) .' /
@ 5 -' 0 ' ! 7 ' 0 ' )' ' )0 , @ 0 . ' / 2' ? 1 '
0. % )9' / < " %( ? - E' 7 1 ( ! % 1 7
' 0 ' ( . 0 ( '/' ) 0 % 9 & ( '/' ) G E H ' .' 0 ! 3
7 ) & ' '*0 ' 7 ( 0 * 0 % 9 ' / &' ' !
3 ' 9 &! ! 7 ) '- ' 7 9' / (' / '&& . ( ) /' ! Q
3 9 ( - ) . 0( 5 ' $ 0 . ) & # F . 7' ( 0 '
)'- ' / ( 2'/' ) " -' 'N ) ( ) /' ( 9 .) ! %( - 0 7 ' )0
( ' )'= ' & ( ) /' 7(' ( % 1 @ /' -' ( - ) . & ( ' / ' 0 1
' 0) 0 )1 7' ( ( ) & ( 2'/' ) " -' !
3 9 ) ( . & ( 2" 9 7(' ( 7 * ( % 9 ) /
& ( ( ) /1 ' ') ( 2# @F 0 1 N 9! %( 1 N & ( 7
' 2'/' ) " -' 1 ! % 1 2$2 ' ( ' 1 & )'- ' / '/' ) -' . *)
'0 . ' !

,B;+ 3 9 ( - ) . "C " / / @ 9' / . 1 ( 7


&0 *1 4 * 9' / &' ' < 0 % > ! E ( ( . *')' 1 &' . 4 & O
O '))' )) ! #0 7 '- ( 7 ( :0' 9)1 '- )' ' '
& - ) . ( 0 1! E 7 ) - 1 '- . ' ( 7 '
.' ) ( ' )0 * ( * :0' 1! %( 0/( 1 . 1 "C 7 0) ' :0' 1 &0 ' /
( 0/( . '- .) * &0 ' / ( 0/( "C " / / @ 9' /! E 7 ' *1
C '))' 0 ' & < ))17 )'& ' 0 &' ' / & ( ' . . 0 ' ') 0 ' (
7 ) 9' / ) ( )' ! E ( 0 &' ' / . 9 / & ' @ 1 &
( #) <' 9 1 7 ' ( ' & .) ' / ( 0 ) ( 7 7' ( 7 )(
' ) @ 9! E ( ' / ' 0 ' 7' ( 2 7 & ( ; ? & &' ' /
. ' & (' * . & )' ! E 7 :0' 9)1 9' / ' & ) ) & 7F 9
)'& ' ! E ) ( 0 * & ( . ' ) ) - ) . 9' / 0 . ' '-
&0 ' / ' )0 ' / #7 D0/ ) <'/( 3 0 ' ( " 1 . 0/) . & %( ' ( C 0.
7 & ( ?! #0 ) K! E 7 )1 ) ( 0 &' ' / . 9 / 7
. ' '- ( ) )' '0' !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 129
No.129
7 of
31 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

,B;2 3 9 ( & 0 ' ' )" / C 0. "CK, ) / &' ' ) -'


/ '= ' . ' & - ' 1 & . & ' ) . ' / ' ) ' ! E ( - ) .
9 .0 ( . / & 7( - 1 ( ( .. 0 '1 & :0' 1 7 ('. ' ( 7 &' !
"C ( &' ' ) .) ' - / 0 1 ) )' *')' 1 ' 0
-' > . . .) . ' / 0 & 0 . ( :0 ' !
3 1 7 ( . .) && ( .. >' )1 &&' ' 1)- ' - )
))' &&' ' ( ! E ( ' > & O '))' 0 / 0 -'
7 / ' / ) O '))' & ' ' 7(' ( ' ' )0 ( & & ( (
. & ' ) ! 3 9 ( :0' 0 7 @ 9 2 ) &' 7 - )0 * 0 O
O '))' !
,B;1 3 9 - ) . ( ; ? /' ) / . ( &' / . &
( & ' ) * )) ' 0 1, 7(' ( 7 -' . & ' '*0 ' ( 0' /
. ! E (' / R. / ' ) &" ( + K 0 . 7 .
( 0 - ) & ) 9' / & 0' ! E ( - ) . /1 &
-' .' / ( . ( ' '*0 ' / .1 & & ( / ( )) & ( 0' /
. & ' )) ( ) /0 E ! "1 * ( 7 '/ ( . *1 (
# 7 ? 0/( ' & ( 7 * ) ' / '- 7(') 5! ! E 7 & (
) /0 . ' :0 * 9 ! "1 * ( ) .) 1 1 7' ( ( "' ' 2 ).(' 7(')
2 " ' 7 ' / :0 * 9! E 7 '&' / & ( ' ) * )) /0
) 1 ' ' ! C 6. ( 7 ( ' & ( ( /'- ( ).&0) (' & 1
. 7(') 7 7 & & / & ( ! %( E (' / 7 &0)) . /
' ) * 0 0 . ' ' 7' ( ( . ( 7 :0 ' *) * 0 ( ' . ' !
0 ))1 ( 7 ( - 1 & 0 .! E ( 1 ( . 0 (
0 1 ( 7 - 1 7 )) / '= & 7 '& 1 0 ! E ( * 0
. ' '. 7' ( .) 1 ' / & & 7 1 < 7 ''! E ( ) ( .
( )' 7' ( . & ' ) . 0 ' . 1 &') ' / ( ' . 7(') 3 9 ' (
'' / . 0 ( -' ! %( 7 )) . 7' )1 ) ' . & ' )& * )) 0 C')
@ & ( 2 )) 7* 1 ( /'- 0.. & 1 . 0 ' / - ' E (
7' ( (' ' ( ) 9 & 7 -' 7' / ( . & 1 ( . &0) 0' !
,B;1 3 9 7 ) $' ' & ( ) 1)- ' ( . & (
3 ' ) ' ' & ' ' ) ) ( ). *0') ( ( . *1 ' ' / * ('.
' ! E ( . ))1 ' ( ' ))1 ) ' ' ))1 1 ' ' ' )
) " ! ) > ' / & E (' / 2! !, ( 4 &0 ' ! " (
. & ' ) ( ' - ( 7 ( ) ( ; ? P & ! " !
/ ' 0 &' ' ) .) ' / ( 7 )) & ( . & ' 7 9 / ( '
* && '- & ( ' )' ! E 7' - ' 1 & . & ' ) ' )0 ' /, * 9
) 71 0 ) > . ' )' .) * 9 ' - -' !
% 1 ' ( * -' ( &' ' ) .) ' / 7 ( 7 1 & ( &0 0 ! 3 + > 0 '-
.. ( 0 & @)0 @ )) ' ) @ 9 ( ). ( - ) . ' ' ) ) ' / .
7' (' ( ' * 9!
,B;K 3 9 ( ( ). - ) . /' .) ' / & 1 E ')) & ' &
' ' C 0. ( ) / * 9' / '1 ' ( 6! K! E 7 & - ) ' 9 ( ).
-' ( &0 0 & ' ' ) ) ' / ( 7 ' 7 0) ' . ( * 9 / ( ' -
' 0 1 ) / ! " ! E ') 7 . & ' / 0 ')'/ & ( / & ' ;>. 32
3 - 2'- '&' -' K! E 7 ( ' ' )) ' ( . 1' )'- ' /
@ ' ' ) ) ' / -' 7(' ( 7 7 . ' ( ' - 0 '1
' ' - ! %( . ' 7 7' )1 ( ) *1 ' - -' !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 130
No.130
8 of
32 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

" (! " ! & @ A "" (! & (!"" #! 8


, " !& ! '
0 3@ '" ! " # !
/ "" # " ) '4 (
K . #G A" # ) & !F ! #
1 ! 9!"" A !&@
2 !# ! !"! ! # $
+ '" ! " " @ # #
; ,; L 0KB . # ! #
B 3 4 . 4 ( 3@ ! ! A ) $ ' "! 3 '"
@
'$ + ! # ! #! ! $ # 1$ 0:,2
,: 3@ 4 & " @! ! ! & ! 3 . 3@ ) @! ! ! & ! ! A! "'
! # '! ! " " ($ ! ! " ! !& ' @
! $ ! " ( @ ) A @ $ @
O ! @ " & !& )) A @ ! ! " A!&@ & !
P ' ! A& '" " (! @! @ ! !
# ! $ '" ( ( "" ' ) "!#'$ @ ) # ! A @ ! ! ! "N "!A $
"! ' )@' !# " ! & ! 'O Q ) A $O ! ! " ) A @
! A !# @ ! & ! 3 O # ,1$ ,BBB ?,1
0::,-R 3@ # ! @ " $!
) @ ( " ( #@ @ ( @ ) @ #@ "" & A !
A @ ( # '& AA!#! " A !& &
! ! A!&@ & ! ! $! ( " '! ( ) ! #!)" $ " ( $
! ! " ' "!& ! ( " ! ) "' ( G ! ! & ))
" (@ ! @ ( " ! ( " ) ! @ ' E# @
& ) @ ! ( ! " # ! ' H # ! ?3@
4 & " @! ! ! & ! 3 @ ) 8>>((( @ ( &> ( >0::/>:/>,,>" & ".
) @! ! ! . & ! . -
,, 9 3 3 3 6 L ,1,0 3 ) ! & (! @ (! $ !# ! $
! A 3 ) ! & (! @ 7! $3 ) ! & 7! @ ! # $ ! &
3 4 .4 < & # !#
,0 9 7 6 ! & 94 # !#

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page
Page
Page No.
PageNo.
No. 131
No.131
9 of
33 240
of118
of 142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

5 4 3

# " 1 ( ' ) G H # N #" ! @ 4 # 'N !


! & @! (! @ ! # "H@1 " "')) & )'- ! . ( & )) 7' /

S '$ ! A 4 # ' 3@ ) ! ' " '


# N ' A "G! & @! ! & (! @ @! ! ?3@ ' ! ! )
@ "" & ! - . ) & ( 0 . '> * B ' .' ' 50 / 0)
' # ' 0 %0 1! M0' & 9)1 # 7 * / - ( 40 / &'
>.) ' & 7( ( 7 ) ' ' / 7( & 1( 7 & !< 0 B 0)' / 0.( )
0/0 ' ' *1 0 1 50 / 5 && 1 2! E '/( ' ' * B ) 7 0' & '- ) 0 !
' / # * ' / (' 7 ) 71 &') ( ' 0 1 0 / ' (
L ' & ( 0 1 & 1)- ' L 9' / ( ) *0 ( ) ' ( 7
0&& ' / ( ' ( ! %( 0 0 ' & . ' '. ' / ' L / '= )9' /
A ) ' ' '.0) ' 0 * ' / ' / ' (' L # ! ) (
7 * 9 ( 0 1 40 / )' ( ) ) 7 ' ' . '/ ' &
0 ' K . ' ' / (' !H

! # @ !#" ( L / '= )9' / A ) ' ' '.0) ' 0 * ' /


' / ' (' 5! * KL@ # " ! A )! #@ ( )1 )' '
0 '& ) & 7' ( 0 0 0 I $ !#! $ ) " & ) ) '#@ !

& ( )) ' & 0( ' '. & ( % / 3 '-' 0 ) ' )0 ' /


E(' ) *) 7 D 7 6! ! 1 3 ))'/ #&&' 50)' " D' 1 >. -
7 ) 7 ) 0 2 ! ' 9 @ /' ( 5! * ' 7 . . &') ( .) ' !
3 ' @ ( #* ? * C & 1 & 2 & & 2' &
( 3 ( ' ) 0 '1 / 1 K 0 ) ( 7 )) ' ' ')
.) ' ' ( 0 1 0 & ) ! 3 + 3 9 @
G 9 ! $ " $ %( ' ')) )' # ; ' ( 0 1
( 1 #&&' !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 132
No.132
34 of240
10 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

3 5 9 < 3 3

3@ A "" (! & ! A @ # ! ) E # ! '


A 0::B .

! " " # $ !
! " %

& ' ' ( &


) (& * + , -#
!" , . "

/ ) ' 0
1 '23 ' '
' 4 "# & ' 5 / ) 6 7 & ' 58
'811 ' 1 1

) '
' 1& *
'

! "! # ! $# % & ' ! "!


( ! ) ' ! * +' $ ,
+ ' - ) ).' $ / $' 0 '
0 / ! 12 3

3 5 4 3

3 + 5! * 7 .0*)' 7' ( )) / ' & & 0 7' (' 3 ' ) '/ )


) 3 ( 17 )1 & ! & ' 0 ' 7' ( 3 6 ' (
&&' ' ) 3 A5 C0 ' 7 . 1K ( ( ) & ' + &3
5! * ( ' / 7' ( 3 > 0 '- 50 + 7(' ( 0) ' 1 ) / )
1 1! %( ' 0 ' ' - )- 4 ' - 0 7' ( (' . 1 ' ' )" / C 0. !
"C ! *0 ' ' ) 0 & (' .0*)' )) / ' && 0 ! 0 1 ) 3
& 0 ( ' 5 C0 ' ( &&' ' ) . ' .) /0') 1 O @'))'
2 )) 0 >. -' ) ' ' )0 ' / ( ))' / & ( 0/( 0( & ' 3 :
<0 ' ! < 7 - 1 . 7 ' &)0 .0*)' 0. ' ( * 0 - 0.
( '-' ' ) ) ) ' -' ) ' & 5! * & ( > '/( 1 !
%( 0 ) *) 9 & )) 6 ' 0 & )) 1 - ') *) '
7' ( & ) ) ) ) 7 ! %(' ' )0 - 1 & (' *0 ' ' ,
' )) 0 ) . . 1, ) ,. ) *0 ' ) . . 1, (' 0 *) ' ( ' . '-
.0 ' , (' - )0 *) ( *')' 1 . 0 ' ! %(' '/( * ) / ))1 &
( ?'/( % E 9 0 & ) 0 ! 7' ( ' / 5! * ( -
* ' - - ) . *0 ' ( ' 9 . &' - ( > 1 ! %('
' )0 7 ) . . ' ( 7 ')) / ))1 '= ( 0/( & ) 0 . ' / !

' + 5! * ( * . ' 1 & ( ! 3 7


2 . &2 & 2#2K . 7' ( 6 ' 3 ))'/ / ' '
' B * /' ' / ' ( )1 B ! # & ' B &' 7 4 S 7' ( ( ' ) 0 '1
/ 1 & !" " 1) !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 133
No.133
35 of240
11 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

3 0 1 ( & )) 7' / & . & ( .0*)' / ' / 3 3 4


4 3 4 8

# ( @! ?/ - " & )" ' ' ( 0 1 & 1)- ' 7' ( -


.) 1 !
! $A 7 ( ) / .(') ( .' ( ' *)
/ '= ' ' ( 0 1 & 1)- ' !
3@ > ! # "7 ( (' K) / 7(' )) & 0 7' (' ( 6 '
& !
%( & )) 7' / & ( .0*)' &&' ' ) . )' ' ' ' 7' ( 3
& 7 9 @ & 6! ! ' 2' & ( )3 ))'/ / 1
3 K!
& 2' & ( )3 ))'/ / 1 3 K 0
1 &2 & !
9 ' ' & @ & 2' '& 3 & 2' & (
0 )1 ' ' )1 ' - )- 7' ( "' )? ( / '= ' !
" E !& & 6! ! 1 & 3 ) **1' @ & 2' T
)@ # & 1)- ' < 0 &? . '- ( ' & (
.. . ' ' ' 7( 7 ) ' - '/ & ( 6 ' ( )!
" > ! 4 ' - 0 . 7' ( 3 (
& ( )0 * * 7( - 0 ))1 ) 3 : ( "' ) ; 0 ' 0
6! ! ' !
3 7 ' 7' ( ( '/ & ( )0 * * ( . &') ' ( 6! !
#&&' !
3 + 3 .) ( / 7' ( ( ) / & &C @ ' '
'3 ' ), 7( . ' O *'))' )) & 3 )) & ' B 0* ' ' ' !
9 ( > ! #! " 3! ' .' @ '/( )' 7' ( % D .. ) / ' /
( 3 A 3 & 7 . , ( ) /' , )0 * * 3 : 1 ) '
( )) / ' ( ( ' & ( 2' & 3 ? * C 7 ' - )- 7' ( 3
( ))' / & 3 :!
9 ( 0:>0: ' 1 ( 3 A 3 && )) )0 * *
<0 ' 3 : * 0 1 1 & ( & ( ' C0)& E 3 7' ( (
' '' )* *' / ' 1' / )0 * *& 1 *0') ' 3 : *1 ) !
"' , 0 A ,B;+ 5! * )' ' ( ) / ) 0 ) &
15 .( ? & 0 ) / ' / "C ! 3 ' ) '/ ) P ) 3 K,
7 )(@ 9 ! 7 *')) & (' -' ! 5 .( ? ' * )0 )1
(' / *0 &0 5! * B ) ' 7 0) * )' - (' !
" G ! .,BB:.::+K 0 1 0 & ) K
15 .( ? . E'))' ) 9 3 B ' ( 0 ) / ) 0 ) -
' 1 &)' 5! * ' + !
" G ! 3 0 1 0 & ) K 5 C0 '
. ' O ! '))' )) ' 7 0 0) @ 9 0 1!
" G ! 3 0 1 0 & ) K @ ! )@
@!"" & < 6 (')) P @ 0* 9 . 5 C0 ' ! 3 ( ' .(
6 (')) . ( " ( ' % 7 ('. )' 2 . - ++ 6! ! 2' '
0 & ( ; 2' ' & 1)- ' K %;?@# ; -! 0 1 ' !
)! !
" G ! 3 0 1 0 & ) K (') ).('
15 .( % . 5 C0 ' 3 ' 5 .( %
. '**1 0 ' / (' & ). 0' *1 6! ! . ' ) 0
' =. ' 9!

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 134
No.134
36 of240
12 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

0:,1 # ! ) ( / ' 0 ) )
& ) 0 ! / ' ( * 0 ' & 0 . ( ) ) / / )9' / 0 .
( & ( )'9 * / ' ! ( & * ' '' & 3 - )0 1 1 (' '
' & . ') *1 2 '- ) 9 @ ' / 0 ') 5 0 1 & 5! *
- " ' C 0. ( * ' )0 ' ' & ( *')' ' 0 ( &
' ' *1 ' 0 @ ( -' ) < .' ) 2 ! ')-' C =! %( . 1 ( .' 0/ 0 1 0
9')) .0 1 0 ' > & &0 ' ! @1 ( & ( 0 & - 1
' ) ' ' ' )0 ' / ( 777! //) * ) ' / 0.! 7 * ' 7 9 && )' 0
( ' ' ' ' ' *1 2 '- ) 9@ ' / !

3 " 1 5! * ( / ' 0 ( G 9 H G% 0 H & ( .) 1 &


( 0 1 0 ( 0 ( 0 1C - @0') ' /! %( & (
? ' & 0 1 / / ' '- # / '= )9' / . '/ ! 3 ''
> ) #G! & ) !& 7 ' ' ' > 0 ' && / ' 3 ; ;
5! * - " ' C 0.! / ' ( ' 1 )' 2 . 9 (
) ) ! 0 0 ) 5! * 0 & ) 0( '' & ( ). '
' )0 ' / ' 0 ' ' 7' ( ( E(' < 0 ( ) @0 0 & 3 - '/ ' (
1)- ' 1 C )B #&&' D () D %( 1)- ' )' (
1)- ' C ) *)1 - ) 6! ! / & 0 ( 0 1 2' '
1B #&&' ! ' 0/0 ( C 9 :0 ( . & ' / ' . ' '> K
' 0 .0 ( 9' /! # ) ' ( ' ( '- ( * 7'. )
!

0/$ 0:,1 ( 3 ! @ 0:,K )


! ! ' 4! !#@ "" 4 $ ,K8:011B ! @ ! !# A @
! !# A '" ! A A!"! & !# @ # & " ! (
) ! ! & ! # ! N A!"! & ! 0:,K ( $ @ ! ! ( " & @
# ( "" H ! !# ! " " ( ( # ) ""! & ! # $ " #G @
A 3@ !# ( A!" # @ A!#! #' (! @ ! # (! # ! @
# ! " ! # # # # A 4! !#@ "" 4 A # ( G! & @ '
( A!" @ && @ @ 4 ) "!# ) & & ! &' A
S ) T @ " @ A ! ,BB, 3@! $ ( " A # $ "" (
( &A " @ #" ! A!" ' @ @ (A !"' 3@ # ! ( A @ 3@! ! # !
A )) " $ ,1./K:: 3@ @ ?/- C ! @ @ 3@! ! # ! '
" J (@ @ A 4! !#@ "" 4 $ & @ @ ) $ (@ @
& ' & ! "" #! !" # ! ! @ A "
#

%7 7 9 ) 50)1 2 '- ) 9@ ' / &') ( & * ' '' &


3 - )0 1 1 (' ' ' ! / ' 5! * 0 1 ' ( ' 0
@ ( -' ) < .' ) ' (') ).(' ! < 7 - (' ' ( 7 3 5 3
& # *1 ( 0 1 0 & ) ! 5! * ' 0
&')' / ' ( 0 & ' )0 ' ! 3 0/0 ' . . . ( ) )
0 . '/ ( ; / 1 3 40 ' 7 &') ' ( 0 1 0 &
) ! # 0/0 5! * 7 & 0 9 & ' ) )1/ .( %
' ' *1 @ ' & )1/ .( )0 ' & E ( 1)- ' ! %( 0.
* ' / / 0 )' / ( 0 & 0 &O ! !

# 50)1 ( '- ' ' ) .) ' 7 &') / ' 2 '- ) 9 @ ' /


#&&' E'))' #&&' @' 0. 0 ' '&' . ) ! %( .) ' ' )) / ' &
0 *0 - 1 & ! %( '1 )' 2 . 7
. & )' ' & ( ' 0 &')' / ' ( ' "' ( )) * ( ( 1 0 ))1
* 9 ( ' & ' > 0 ( & * ' . ' ' ! %(
.) ' 7 ' *1 ( 0 1 2' ' 1 0/0 + ( ! %( .) ' ' 7
0 '' & ? -' 7 *1 ( 0 1 0 & ) !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 135
No.135
37 of240
13 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

# 0/0 ( ; / 1 3 40 ' & ? )' & 7 &') ' ( 0 1


0 & ) ! + ! %( 3 40 ' 7 ( *1 50 / 5 && 1 E '/( 7(
' ' ' & '- ) 0 ! .. ) "2 ' . ' /' ( 0. ' 0 & 1)- ' !

3 '' *1 . * 5! * ( * / ;) ' ')' /


'-') / ' ( ) ) & ) 0 ! %(' ( 0) )) -' ( & 0 *0 & ( 6! !
) -' ( .0 ( 9 !

3 5! * ' '&' ( 0// ( ( 0 1


0 '1 ) / 7 0*4 '( 0 '1 / ' / 0 ' 1 (1. ' ! %( 0 '1
/ ' / ( 1 ' 0.. *1 >. 50))' " D' 1 ( 1) E ) ( 2 ! 5 ( < ))! %(
0 ' 1 (1. ' ( 1 ' 0.. *1 ' . ) ) ' ('. 7' ( ( =' / D 9'
0 ) ! * 5! * !

3 . * & 5! * * /' '/' '= )'* 1 & .. >' )1 0 '


. & (' & ( 0 ) ! * ! %( . / ' & ! %(
. . - ! !# " / ' / . '/ / ' * ( 0 ) ! * 5! * !
3 '' ( . &' ( - ! * * ( & 5! * 7 )'9 )1
/ ' /* 9 ( )1 B ! 3 '' ( ( & 0 ) ! * 50)1
7 &' * ( & 0 0 ) 0 !

3 ( )1 B 2 ! ('))'. * * ( ( * )' ' *1 ( ' ) 3 '0 &


< )( 3< ' E (' / 2! ! & & )) 7 ('. ( ) / 0 1 &' / '
9 & . ' ' 3 9 & ')1! (') ' -' 7 )) )'-' / ) '- &
1 & ( 0 ) ! * 5! 9 *) .) ! 3 )) /' / ( (' 7 )'*
' 0 ( - 1 & ) ')) ' . -' .) 0 '*) ' *')' 1 & 1
)' 9 / 6! ! . "' )!

3 3 .

)1 ' ( )) / ' & & 0 7' (' 3 ( - * ') ' 7( /


/ ' ' 7 / ' / 7' ( ' *0 )) & ( & 0 , > ' , .0*)' 0. ' , *0 /) ' ,
'-') '/( -' ) ' , ' 0 ' )) 0 ) . . 1 '/( -' ) ' , ) )' *')' 1 , & )
, & ) ' . ' , 7 )) ( '-') ' ' ) '-' ' ( * - 0.
*0 ' ' *0 0 ' . ! 3 & ' &' ' / ')) * ' / 0 - ' -
(' 1! 1 . .0) * )' & 0. 0 ') / 40 1 ' - '/ ' ' 3 7 ')) / ' /!
3 ' 9 7 7( ( ' ( ) ! )) & ( '- '0 ?3 # ' 0 (
. / '= ' & ( . . ! %( . 0 & ( '-' ' *
* 9 + 7' ( 0*/ 0. ( /' / - ' *0 ')) / /' / ' ( . ' ! %(
& )) 7' / .) & ' 7 & )) 7 ' . . ( - 0.

% ))1 ' ' ) 1 5! * 1 )) )) / ' ' - 17 1. '*)


* ' (' 1 & ) '))
* ' ' ' )
( (' ( ( 1 7' ( 0 . . /
;> ' ' (' 7 ( O= ) (' 7' ( *
D . (' 0 & 1. & ' 0. ' 7( 7( . '*)
% ))1 ' ) (' ' & (' (' & (' & ' )) /0 & ')1
( 7. 0 ( 0 '1 & 0 1 *01 ' (' .)
6 * '* 1 7' ( > 0/ ' &)0 . ' & - !
)7 1 . ('*' 1 1 )1 ' - )- 7' ( ( ) / ) 0 ' 1!
E( . ( 6! ! ) / ) 1 ' ' ) ( >
1 ' A . ' &- )0
( / ( (' 1 & - ( 0(

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 136
No.136
38 of240
14 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 3

+ 1 & + 0 ') K ' ( )7 1 * & ' )1 1 9 . ( ' 0 &


0 9 40 / ! 20 ' / ( 1 5! * ( )' ' ) 7 1 1
& ) / &' 7' ( ' ) / '' ' ( ' . '- &' ) & . ' )' ! 1 &
7F 9 '1 @ * 2' / )'& ' 7 -' ' 0) 7 )) / 0.
& > @3 / 7( . ' )'= ' 7(' )) ' ( 7 /) * ))1 / '= ! < 7 - (
1 ' &)0 & . '' ( 7 ( ' 0 ') )7 1 . - ') ! %(
' 0 7 .) > - )0 ' - )- 0 ( ('/( . &') . )' ' ' 6! ! / ' '
7 & ' ( ( 7 ( ' 7 ) ' ( 7 0) 0) ' 1
! @ 7 ( ? .0*)' 1 ( 2 . & 2 & ( 3 ( (
7 1 ( 0) * ' &)0 ! %( * 0 ' & 40 ' 0 . ' ('
' )'9 )1 0 . ' 0 ' )' !

< 7 - ' ( )) ( / 7( 5! * .. . )' '/


. ' / (' )& 7' ( 0 1 0 ) ' ( 6 ' 2' ' 0 &
( ; 2' ' &
1)- ' ' %;?@# ; -! %( 0 1 ' ! )! ! - ++! 3@! #
! !"" " @ (! @ ( ' 3 9 ! # A
0::; A ## A " "! & ! @ 3@! ! # ! A )) " ?:+.KK+K- !
) A 0::; 3@ # (!"" # ! ) @ # ! ' A ! # @ #
! A # ! AH !# ) # # " 1 ( ) 0 ( 0
' (') ).(' 5! * &') ( 0 )! # 7 9 ) ' ( 6 '
@ 9 0. 1 0 & ; 1)- ' ' ? ' / 1)- ' / ' .. ' / . 5!
* &') . '' & . ' 0 ( ( . @ 9 0. 1 ' ! !

%( & ' / ( 6 ' ) / ) 1 7' ( ( ' 0 '// 1 (


0 & . 9 . ( & ( 0 40 / # / '= )9' / 7' ( 2'
; /1 2 -' E . *0') & 0 ' & ) ) . (1 ) "' )!

3 7 J U 3 4< J 3 5 7

# / '= )9' / ( * / ' + & )) 7' / ( .0*)' )) / ' & & 0 7' ('
3 ! %(' / '= )9' / ( 7 0/( '- ' 1. 0' ' ! &
* 9 ( ) + B 5! * 9 7 ( (' ' 7 * ' / L )1 -' 7 L!
%(' 7 - '&' &' 7( ' & ' )1 9 7 (' - 7 ' . 9
1. 7 . *1 ( ! 3 + 7(') )' ' ' / ( 0 ) & (') ).(' 1 ( ' '
? ' -')) ? ' -')) . ' "' ( )) * ' ( 0 ' ( 7 0 K
' 0 ( -' 7' / ( 0/( ')! %( 7 ( ) ' ' 7 ' 0 0 ')
! %( 7 ( *0 ( 7 ( > & ( .' ! ? $' 7 1 ( -
. ' ' ' 0 0 7 1 7' ( 0 0 !

3 ( 6! ! . ' ) 0 ' )) 0 0) & ) ) . (1,


1 ( ' ) . (1, . ' 0 ( 0/( ( 0 & ' /1 -' 7 . (
0 0 ))1 &' ) 7 & :0 1 ) / ' /1 ( / -' ' ! %(' 0) 7
' ' ' ( ' * / ' 0) 0 )1 7' ( ( &')' / & ( & ) ' ' 6! ! 2' ' 0
%;?@# ; -! 0 1 ' ! )! - ++! %(' 0) * / & ( ( )
)1 ' 5! * 7' ( ) ) . (1! %( ' '&& .. (
-' ' & (' ( ) /1 ' ( 5! * ' A 7' ( . 7( ) (
( ' 3 . ' / ' ( 1) 7 &D "' 0 '! 5! * ( . 1
1' / - )' &' (' . 7' ( 0 0 ! " 6! ! ' ))'/ / ' &0
. ( ) @0 0 & 3 - '/ ' ( 6! ! 1B #&&' &0 !
( 0 & ' & ' !

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 137
No.137
39 of240
15 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

3 ( * /' ' / & 5! * * / (' > '- ( ' )


) . (1, ' ) ( ) /' , -' 7' /, ( 3 ' ) . / ) * ) "D
6 %? 'B 0*. / !

45 3 5
3& 1 0 )' ( . . / (' ( 0 '1 & 0 1 1)- '
' )0 ' / . & ' ) ( & ')1 (' 1 & 5! * / (' / )'9 ( & )) 7' /
@ $ " $ ! ('= .( ' 7( 0 (' & ')1 * 0 & - 0
* 9 7 7(') 1' / 0 )) 1 ) ' / *0 ' ! < - ) ( 7 ) ) 9' / &
( @) " ( " 1 . )' ! < 0. )'-' / ' / - 0* ' '=
( 0 ' /* 9 7' ( - ) ')) !
9 @ $ " 0&& & ( - 1 ')) ( (' & (
('= .( ' 7( &' ))1 9')) (' )& 1' / )'- ' )'& ' !
9 @ $ 3@ 7 0&& & ( - 1 ) ')) (' * (
5! @'. ) " 2' 7( ) 7 *0 ' &' ))1 ' 0' ' )1
/ !
0&& & @'. ) " 2' " ' 2 . ' (
- 0 * 9 7 ' + 1' / . ' (
&' ' ) -' ' 0 1! E( ( (
(' - 0 * 9 7 ( )7 1 ( 0 - 1 ' 0 ' .)1 . ' '
(' 9' / ( 7( ) 7 ) ' / ' (' ! < )7 1 . )) & (' 1 0 ' / (' &' &
' ( )0 ' * 0 (' 0 *0 ' !

3@ !"' ! ' 7 & 0) * 9 ' ( B 7( 0 ) * 5! & ( &


5! * * / / ' *) 9 *0 / ' ) . / ( * / 0 ' / ('
-' ' ( 6 ' -1 ' ' /0 ! 0 ) * 5! 7
)'9 )1 ' . 0 & "D 6 %? & ' B 0*. / ! <' * ( 0 ) ! * 7
)'9 )1 . & ( 2 >. ' & "D 6 %? ! 5! * ' )'9 )1 . &
. / . *1 ( 2 . &2 & / ' 0 ( 2 ? ( 2 & 3 ))'/
/ 1 23 K! %( & & 5! * B ' ' ' 0 ' 7' ( * ( (' & ( * (
- ( 1 * & ( 1 ' ( )' 1 & 0 ( 7 . - ' ( ' ' )0 ' /
-' , ) , &&' ' ) 0 . . , ('/( ( ) 0 , ( )'9 )) 7')) . - (
( 17 ' & . & "D 6 %? & ' B 0*. / ! %( & )) 7' / ( & ( )
& ( & ')1 (' 1

" $ $? @ - - ' ( -1 & / 0 7' (


( & ' C0 ( ) ' 5 9 -')) ) ' ! < 7 > .' ) 0 A ()
7(') ' / ( )' <'/( ( ) . ' '. ' / ' ( * 7 )) . ! <
7 ) (' ' ) 1A 0 ! & ( -1 ( 7 *0') 0 &0)
1 ) ' / *0 ' 7(' ( ( ' ' 7' ( ' - ' / &') ' 1 & ( )- ! <
) - ) . - 1 / ' - ' ) ) / ( " ( ' '9 7 ' / - )
. . ' ! @1 (' 7 7 '' / & (' . ) 0 ( 7 &' ' )1
-' 7 ' & 6! ! / 1 7' ( ) . (' *')' ' ! <' -' 7' / '
0 ( - * /0 * 9 ' ( )1 B ! < ) 0&& & / '= )9' /
7 ' 1 . ' & ( ! @ 9 ' ( B ( 7 7 )
- ) (' ' 0 *1 (' . . ! 0 ) ! * 5! 1( - * -
' & ' ' ))'/ ! 0 ) ! * 5! ( (' ) ( ) ( (' 1)
7' ( ) ( 9 ( .1! ;) ( 9 %( .1 ;>. ' ' ( 0*. / & "D
6 %? ! 3 '' . ' ))1 ' 0 *' / ' (' ' ' ) 7' ( ( '1 )'
2 . ( 0 1 0 & ) ! 3 0 ) ! *
5! 7 -' & & /' / ( 9 & 3 9 ) 3 ! ( 9' / 0 !
%( ( 9 5 ( " ' ( " ( ..' / 7 - '
-' ' 7 & ) & O ! ! %( ( ( 9 7 0 1
5 ( & O ! 7' ( L '- . ' / L 7 ' ' ( ! %(' 7 (' )1
' ' ) ! 0 ) ! * 5! 7 1 . * ' *1 '
50 / E'))' 5 ( ! < 7 - 0/0 & ' ( 50 / 5 (
7 #?2;? ) ' / (' & . * ' ' / (' L) - ( -' ' ' 1 & (

CI-08-13373 PRAECIPE
CI-08-13373 AMENDED
UPDATED
PRAECIPETODEFENDANTS
ADD
TO DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
ADD DEFENDANTS
LIST Page No.
Page
Page No. 138
No.138
40 of240
16 of 118
142
242 Wednesday September
Friday
Wednesday 6, 2017
June 16,
September 6, 2017
STAN
STAN
J. CATERBONE,
STAN J. CATERBONEJ. CATERBONE,PRO
and ADVANCEDPRO
SESE
- LANDMARK
MEDIA - LANDMARK
GROUP HUMAN
CIVIL RIGHTS
- A LANDMARK AND ANTI-TRUST
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICECASE
CASE

0 1 & 1)- ' L! %( ' 50 / & 0 1 0 &


) )' ))1 ( 7 1 & ( 0 & 0 1 & & /' / ( 9 & (' 7
. ' !
3 + 3 9 7 & )' / 1 7 &') & 1 7 . 1 ' ' )
" / C 0. ! F 0 ( ( )'& & 1 5 D #B@ ' )
(' .' ! 0 ) * 5! ( ) & 0/( 7 ' ' / 0 ' 9 7
( (' )'& &' ( ) & / ' '-' 0 ) .) 7' ( ' 0' ' ) '
' & (' & & ')1 & ' & 0 & * ' ) ')) (' 1! F 0
-' 7 & (' )' ! # * 0 " 1 + 0 ) ! * 5 ! &' ))1
'- ' ( ' & (' ( B " 1 * K ! %( ( 9 7 &
O ! ! %( 7 . * ' - * & ! 7 7 9 )
" ' ) 2 1 E 9 & ( ( )) 7 F 9 '1 ( ). &
(' ! < 7 ' . & ( ) ( 0 ') (' ' ! 3 & '> K 7 9 ( ( 0 0 *
)0 / ! . 50)' " D' 1 & ' ))'/ &&' & ( 6! ! 1 -' '
'-' & 6! ! . "' ) ( 7 . ) ( ) 0/( 9')) G( (' /
( 3 7 1 * 0 ' ( & 1' / & H . .( K! %( ' 0* 7 ( 1
& ( B (7 0 0 )!
" $ ?9 @ - - ' ( 6 ' ' ' + ! 3
5! * 0 ( 6 ' C - & 0 ' / (' * ( 0 ) !
* & . & ( 2 >. ' ' ) "D 6 %? ! '= ) &
# * 7 '&' ') ( )'& ' 1 C ) ( 0*4
7' ( 0 ) & ( )'& ' 1 C ) 5 0 1 ! @1 ('
7 ' ' * & (' ( 0 ) ! * ' ) 5! * & ( L*
2L '. 7(') ' ( ' ! ' (' ( &2 * + 5! *
( :0 ' ( ) '&' ' & 0' ' )) / ' & & 0) .) 1 ( 7
0) ' )1 . '*) & (' (! ' ))1 ' ' / ' @ * )'& ' 7' ( (
@ * 0*)' C0 ' B #&&' &&' ' ( ( (7 )'9 )1 0
& 0) .) ( 0' ' ! 0 ) ! * 7 ) > .' ) 0 () 7(')
' / ( )' <'/( ( )! & .) 1' / - '1& * )) .( ( (
0 & 0 ' 7(') (0 ' / ( & )) 7' / - * ! E(') ' ( 7 '
@ )) & 1)- ' (' (0 ' / . 0/( &' 1' / 1 7 ! 3 ) & (' ' (
C ) < .' ) & ( / ' / ( 0/( . ' &0) 9' / & ' ) ' ! %(
(0 ' / ' ' 0. (' () ' (' ) / & )'& ! %( ('= .( '
' / ' 7 *' ' & 2 &) (* 9 / '= )9' / ( !
3@ $ ?9 @ - ( 0 & 0 ' 0) @ 9 (
0 & ' ( 0) ' 0' ' ! ) ( 0/( ' / 7' ( @'. ) 2'