Advanced Media Group Letter to the Editor of Lancaster Newspapers September 6, 2015 Full Version

Stan J. CaterboneMOVANT

1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA [email protected]

717-669-2163717-459-7588 Fax

September 6, 2015

Lancaster Newspapers8 West King StreetLancaster, PA 17602

RE: Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

I would like to address the current state of affairs regarding myself, Stan J.Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group with specific regards to your obligation tothe community of Lancaster Pennsylvania as it relates to your violations of the ethicsof a news organization.

You have the responsibility of reporting on events and affairs that affect thecitizens and the community of Lancaster; irregardless of adverse consequences toyour employees; to your partners; to your “friends”; or to your political allies. I havevisited your headquarters on numerous occasions with Press Releases from theAdvanced Media Group, my solely owned company, and have received nothing butharassment and abuse. I have been attempting to bring to the general publicimportant factual information concerning but not limited to the following:

• My Organized Stalking legislation, which I have been presenting tomembers of the State Assembly in Harrisburg.

• My efforts as MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambert HabeusCorpus case in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

• The current dire activities of local law enforcement, local hospitals,local psychiatrists, state agencies, and federal authorities as it relatesto U.S. Sponsored Mind Control with specific regards to discredit myVICTIMIZATION and that of several of my family members.

• The current use of CIA tactics where body doubles are being usedin the streets of Lancaster causing confusion and propaganda to thegeneral public and the community of Lancaster.

Given my record in the Federal and State Courts, this situation has thepotential to cause a social rift in this community that may be comparable to whatother cities have since witnessed, such as Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland.I am speaking of my current Criminal Allegations concerning the leadership and thepatrol officers of the Lancaster City Police Department.

Page 2

You, and you alone, are putting persons in harms way by promoting andfostering an environment of the wild west, where there is no rule of law. And yetyou present yourself as a Faith Based Conservative organization with a general biastowards those of the Republican party. Your philanthropic efforts and activities donot fool me for a moment. I know who you really are. You are promoting a silentsecular agenda for this community. I hope you can prove me wrong.

The Lancaster City Safety Coalition Cameras only see what they want you tosee. As to the fact that you are a DEFENDANT in U.S. District Court, Case No. 05-2288 and 06-4650 bears no consequence in relieving you of your moral and ethicalresponsibility to report these activities to the Lancaster Community for the purposeof preventing dire collateral damage when these events are disclosed in anothermanner; for example criminal indictments, or the release of Lisa Michelle Lambertfrom incarceration.

Please do not forget my DOCUMENTED RECORD with regards to thefollowing:

• My Federal False Claims Act of ISC.• My activities with regards to the development and revitalization of

Downtown Lancaster, Excelsior Place, Brunswick Movie Theater, and myUPS Store.

• My activism and legal suit concerning the Marriott and LancasterConvention Center.

• My efforts to bring national musicians to the Clipper Stadium, withspecific contractual talks with Sara McLaughlin.

• The Lisa Michelle Lambert Case.• My Amicus for the Meagan Lippiatt Case.• My Amicus for the ACLU v. the NSA case in the District Court of

Eastern Michigan.

Now my advise is to report on the attached PRESS RELEASE. This will at leastcalm the situation and the social ills that you may or may not be privy to.

I remain,

Respectfully,

Stan J. Caterbone

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUPADVANCED MEDIA GROUPADVANCED MEDIA GROUPADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

1250 Fremont Street

7/6/2015 FAXFAXFAXFAX

To:To:To:To: Fax Contact List

Phone:Phone:Phone:Phone: Not Available

Company Name:Company Name:Company Name:Company Name: Fax Contact List

Fax:Fax:Fax:Fax: Fax Contact List

From:From:From:From: Stan Caterbone

Phone:Phone:Phone:Phone: (717) 669(717) 669(717) 669(717) 669----2163216321632163

Company Name:Company Name:Company Name:Company Name: ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Fax:Fax:Fax:Fax: (717) 459-7588

Number of Pages:Number of Pages:Number of Pages:Number of Pages: 66 Plus Cover

Urgent:Urgent:Urgent:Urgent: Yes

Action Requested:Action Requested:Action Requested:Action Requested: Quick Settlement

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603

(717) 669-2163

(717) 459-7588 Fax

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Advanced Media Group Press Release For Organized

Stalking and Directed Energy Devices

2. Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus Corpus of May 22, 20141

U.S. District Court Docket

3. Stan J. Caterbone Cover Page of Amicus

4. Stan J. Caterbone Recorded Amicus in U.S. District Court

5. ORDER of U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond of

May 22, 2014

[email protected]

https://www.scribd.com/stan5j.5caterbone

Stan J. Caterbone

Advanced Media Group

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603

(717)669-2163

PRESS RELEASE

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Advanced Media Group and Stan J. Caterbone Proposed ORGANIZED

STALKING AND DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS HARASSMENT BILL to Pennsylvania House of Representative Mike Sturla (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) and City of Lancaster Mayor Richard Gray.

The draft legislation is the work of Missouri House of Representative Jim Guest, who has been working on helping victims of these horrendous crimes for years. The bill will provide protections to

individuals who are being harassed, stalked, harmed by surveillance, and assaulted; as well as protections to keep individuals from becoming human research subjects, tortured, and killed by electronic frequency devices, directed energy devices, implants, and directed energy weapons.

Stan J. Caterbone has been a victim of organized stalking since 1987 and a victim of electronic and direct energy weapons since 2005. He has also been telepathic since 2005. Stan J. Caterbone will help introduce measures that also pertain to remote viewing; mental telepathy and synthetic

telepathy in more detail. Personal accounts of his pain and torture are also filed in various United States federal and state courts. We are urging you to contact your local representatives and support our efforts to pass this

legislation. Below you will find the listings of Pennsylvania State Representatives.

For More Information Please Contact Us At: [email protected] and visit our library of

documents at https://www.scribd.com/stan5j.5caterbone

_________________________________________________

The draft of the legislation can be found on the following page:

Page 1 Monday, July 06, 2015

Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons Bill

Section 1. Short Title -

This bill may be cited as the “Organized Stalking and Directed Energy Devices and Weapons

Bill”””

Section 2. Findings and Purpose

A) Findings

1) The constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their person. The Declaration

of Independence asserts as self-evident that all men have certain inalienable rights and that among

these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2) As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928, “the framers of the Constitution sought

"to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations." It is for

this reason that they established, as against the government, the right to be let alone as "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.“

3) The first principle of the Nuremberg Code states that with respect to human research, the

voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The Nuremberg Code further asserts that such consent must be competent, informed, and comprehending.

4)There are current regulations implementing the obligations of the United States to adhere to

Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment including all terms that are Subject to any reservations, understandings, declarations, and provisions contained in the United States Senate resolution of ratification of the

Convention.

B) Purpose

To establish regulations and penalties for those who use any type of electronic frequency devices,

directed energy devices, implants, surveillance technology, and directed energy weapon to

purposefully cause any of the following: stalking, harassing, mental or physical harm, injury, harmful surveillance, torture, diseases, and death to any United States citizen.

Section 3. Organized Stalking

If two or more persons willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or willfully and maliciously

harass another person and who make a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, they are guilty of the crime of organized stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by not more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment,

or by imprisonment in a federal prison.

If two or more persons violate subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order,

injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, they shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,

or four years.

For the purposes of this section, "harass" means engages in a knowing and willful course of

conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the

person, or damages his personal property or possessions and that serves no legitimate purpose. * * *


For the purposes of this section, "course of conduct" means two or more acts occurring over a

period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected

activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."

For the purposes of this section, "credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that

performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern

of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, or personal property or possessions and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target

of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family or personal property or possessions. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to

prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "credible threat."

For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited

to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices.

The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any

contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his

or her immediate family.

For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, parent, child, any person

related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly

resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.

Section 4. Punishment for threats

Any person or persons who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great

bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in

writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and

thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in a federal prison not to exceed one year..

For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or

not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly

resided in the household.

"Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones,

computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices

Obscene, threatening or annoying communication

(a) Every person or persons who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes constant contact by

means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the

person or any member of his or her family, or any property or personal possessions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.


(b) Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by

means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or

electronic contacts made in good faith.

(c) Every person or persons who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand

dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a federal prison for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies only if one or both of the following circumstances exist:

(1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court order, or any

combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.

(2) The person or persons makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of

an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or electronic

contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement relationship.

(d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed where

the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed

when the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.

(e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a

telephone call requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) upon receiving the return call.

(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person

or persons convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.

(g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic communication device" includes, but is not

limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers or synthetic telepathy devices.

Section 5. Assault and battery with an electronic or directed energy weapon

Any person or persons who in the course of organized stalking and harassment, commits an assault

upon the person of another with an unauthorized directed energy weapon shall be punished by

imprisonment in a federal prison for two, three, or four years or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

For the purposes of this section the term directed energy weapon is defined as any device that

directs a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against a person or any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means of

inflicting death or injury; or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health,


mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person via land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies

directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.


Hon. P. Michael Sturla

8 North Queen Street

Suite 1100 The Griest Building

Lancaster, PA 17603

(717) 295-3157

Fax: (717) 295-7816

Hon. P. Michael Sturla

120 Main Capitol Building

PO Box 202096

Harrisburg, PA 17120-2096

(717) 787-3555

Fax: (717) 705-1923

Hon. Bryan Cutler

207 East State Street

Quarryville, PA 17566

(717) 786-4551

Fax: (717) 786-3645

Hon. Bryan Cutler

147A East Wing

PO Box 202100


(717) 783-6424

Fax: (717) 772-9859

Hon. John M. Perzel

7518 Frankford Ave.

Philadelphia, PA 19136

(215) 331-2600

Fax: (215) 708-3135

Hon. John M. Perzel


PO Box 202172


(717) 787-2016

Fax: (717) 783-7225

Hon. Michael H. O'Brien

610 North 2nd Street


(215) 503-3245

Fax: (215) 503-7850

Hon. Michael H. O'Brien

107 East Wing

PO Box 202175


(717) 783-8098

Fax: (717) 780-4787

Hon. Scott W. Boyd

852 Village Rd.,Municipal

Bldg

P.O. Box 268

Lampeter, PA 17537

(717) 464-5285

Fax: (717) 295-7817

Hon. Scott W. Boyd

432 Irvis Office Building

PO Box 202043


(717) 783-6422

Fax: (717) 787-7731

Hon. Katie True

2938 Columbia Avenue

Manor West Commons, Suite

501

Lancaster, PA 17603

(717) 295-5050

Fax: (717) 295-5053

Hon. Katie True

7 East Wing

PO Box 202041


(717) 705-7161

Fax: (717) 705-1946

Hon. Frank Louis Oliver,

Health & Human Services,

Chairman

2839 West Girard Avenue


(215) 684-3738

Fax: (215) 235-4629

Hon. Frank Louis Oliver

34E East Wing

PO Box 202195


(717) 787-3480

Fax: (717) 783-0684

Hon. Matthew E. Baker

Health & Human Services,

Chairman74 Main Street

Wellsboro, PA 16901

(570) 724-1390

Fax: (570) 724-2168

Hon. Matthew E. Baker

115 Ryan Office Building

PO Box 202068


(717) 772-5371

Fax: (717) 705-1850

Hon. Thomas R. Caltagirone,

Judiciary, Chairman

645 Penn Street, 2nd Floor

Reading, PA 19601

(610) 376-1529

Fax: (610) 378-4406

Hon. Thomas R. Caltagirone

106 Irvis Office Building

PO Box 202127


(717) 787-3525

Fax: (717) 772-5401

Hon. Ron Marsico

Judiciary, Chairman

4401 Linglestown Road, Suite B

Harrisburg, PA 17112

(717) 652-3721

Fax: (717) 652-6276

Hon. Ron Marsico

218 Ryan Office Building

PO Box 202105


(717) 783-2014

Fax: (717) 705-2010

Hon. Camille Bud George,

Environmental Resources &

Energy, Chairman

275 Spring Street

Houtzdale, PA 16651

(814) 378-6279

Fax: (814) 765-0609

Hon. Camille Bud George

38B East Wing

PO Box 202074


(717) 787-7316

Fax: (717) 783-8236


Hon. Scott E. Hutchinson,

Environmental Resources &

Energy, Chairman

302 Seneca Street

Oil City, PA 16301

(814) 677-6363

Fax: (814) 676-1653

Hon. Scott E. Hutchinson


PO Box 202064


(717) 783-8188

Fax: (717) 705-1945

Lloyd K. Smucker (R)

Senate District 13

Lancaster (part) and York (part)

Counties.

Senate Box 203013

Harrisburg, PA 17120-3013 185

Main Capitol

(717) 787-6535

D.O. ADDRESS:

44 North Christian Street

Suite 100

Lancaster, PA 17602

(717) 397-1309

[email protected]

http://senatorsmucker.com

Jeffrey E. Piccola (R)

Senate District 15

Dauphin (part) and York

(part) Counties.

Senate Box 203015


173 Capitol Building

(717) 787-6801

D.O. ADDRESS:

916-B Park Plaza

North River Road

Halifax, PA 17032

(717) 896-7714

[email protected]:

http://www.piccola.org

Michael W. Brubaker (R)

Senate District 36

Chester (part) and Lancaster

(part) Counties.

Senate Box 203036


16 East Wing

(717) 787-4420

FAX: (717) 783-3156

D.O. ADDRESS:

301 East Main Street

Lititz, PA 17543

(717) 627-0036

[email protected]

http://senatorbrubaker.com


Richmond council passes resolution supporting ban on space-based weapons

May 20, 2015FacebookTwitterMore9 comments

The Richmond City Council passed a resolution Tuesday supporting a ban on space-based weapons after a lengthy discussion over whether individuals are being psychologically and physically harmed by exotic government-patented attacks from high in the sky.

Councilmember Jovanka Beckles, a member of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), introduced the resolution, saying it begins to address concerns of a Richmond resident who claims she’s been targeted by “remote transmission” from space-based weaponry. Others claiming to have suffered physical and psychological attacks traveled from around the country to speak at Tuesday’s council meeting. One speaker claimed to have been zapped multiple times right before his testimony at council.

The resolution supports the Space Preservation Act and Space Preservation Treaty permanently banning “space-based weapons,” even though the legislation first introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in 2001 has never gained traction in Congress. It appears that Richmond is the first municipality in the U.S. to take up this lofty issue in more than a decade. In 2002, the City of Berkeley passed a similar resolution supporting the ban.

Conspiracy theorists believe the resolution is a step toward ensuring secret weaponry such as chemtrails, which are trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft that supposedly emit a chemical or biological agent, can no longer target unwitting citizens. For RPA members on the council, the resolution is also an anti-war initiative.

RPA members on council, Gayle McLaughlin and Eduardo Martinez, also voted in favor of the resolution. Vice Mayor Jael Myrick and Councilmember Nat Bates were the final two yes votes, although Bates claimed he was confused by the discussion.

“I’m going to support the resolution for the simple reason that we have voted on a lot of


http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/richmond-council-passes-resolution-supporting-ban-on-space-based-weapons-2/#comments

https://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/richmond-council-passes-resolution-supporting-ban-on-space-based-weapons-2/

dumb ideas,” Bates said.

Mayor Tom Butt voted no, saying he believes the conspiracy theory behind space-based weapons is above the heads of city leaders and has taken time away from more pressing city matters such as the budget deficit, potholes, and crime. Butt has complained in the past about the RPA attempting to hijack council sessions to push a radical agenda regardless of whether the issues are important to Richmond residents.

The mayor also pointed to a signed 1967 treaty banning the militarization of space.

The other dissenting vote came from Councilmember Vinay Pimple, who pointed out that supporting a limitation on the ability of the U.S. to defend against attacks from long-range missiles might not be wise.

Pimple disputed what he called “knee-jerk” reactions from RPA members who depicted President Ronald Reagan’s proposed space-based anti-missile program of 1983, known as the “Star Wars” initiative, as inherently evil. The Cold War initiative was intended to defend against USSR missiles during the Cold War and was shelved not for the project’s moral ambiguity but its perceived effectiveness, Pimple said.

The idea behind Star Wars, Pimple said, “is you can knock out someone’s weapons long before they enter your air space. The U.S. used Patriot missiles to knock out Iraqi Scuds targeting Israel and Saudi Arabia, he added.

RPA members, however, argued that this issue is not just about war but about the individuals in the U.S. who believe governments are using futuristic weapons in space for the purpose of inflicting pain and mind control. Martinez argued that they may very well be telling the truth. He recalled a science fiction novel he wrote a paper on during college that predicted truths 20 years in advance.

“It’s easy for me to see that things which are wrong can happen because we have the wrong mindset,” Martinez said.

Myrick said he supported the resolution because he doesn’t support war.

“The weaponization of space…is something I think is extremely immoral and we should not be as a nation engaging in,” Myrick said. “Maybe some wars are unavoidable, that may be true. But whatever we can do to get our country away from that mindset…..that’s why I support this resolution.”

Amy Lee Anderson, a “targeted individual” who brought the matter to Beckles’ attention, was thankful that the council took up the issue.

“No where in the United States, no targeted individual can get this support,” Anderson said. “We just needed one person, one city. Because of that, you all our heroes. We are dying within because the technology is so sophisticated. It’s hard for someone who has no experience to fathom it, it’s so sophisticated.”

Related posts:

1. Richmond councilmember pushes city resolution banning ‘exotic’ space-based weapons

2. Dirty bomb drill in Richmond alarms conspiracy theorists, including Alex Jones

Comments

1. C’mon Richmond Standard….your bias is showing!


http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/dirty-bomb-drill-in-richmond-alarms-conspiracy-theorists-including-alex-jones/

http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/richmond-councilmember-pushing-city-resolution-banning-exotic-space-based-weapons/

http://richmondstandard.com/2015/05/richmond-councilmember-pushing-city-resolution-banning-exotic-space-based-weapons/

CLOSED,HABEAS,A/R

United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:14-cv-02559-PD

LAMBERT v. BISSONETTE et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND

Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Date Filed: 05/02/2014

Date Terminated: 05/22/2014

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus:

(General)

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Petitioner

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT represented by JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIMLAW OFFICES OF JEREMY H.

GONZALEZ IBRAHIM

P.O. BOX 1025

CHADDS FORD, PA 19317

215-568-1943

Email: [email protected]

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Respondent

LYNN BISSONETTE

SUPERINTENDENT,

MCI-FRAMINGHAM

Respondent

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF

LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

Respondent

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

PENNSYLVANIA

V.

Movant

STANLEY J. CATERBONE

AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE1250 FREMONT STREET

LANCASTER, PA 17603

PRO SE

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?12332875607261-L_1_0-1

1 of 2 6/28/2015 9:08 AM

Date Filed # clear Docket Text

05/02/2014 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number

100526.), filed by LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover

Sheet)(ks, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)

05/22/2014 2 CJA 20 APPIONTMENT OF ATTORNEY JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM for LISA

MICHELLE LAMBERT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON

5/22/14. 5/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jpd) (Entered:

05/22/2014)

05/22/2014 3 ORDER THAT JEREMY IBRAHIM, ESQ., IS APPOINTED AS PETITIONER'S

COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY HER HABEAS PETITION IS DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A COUNSELED

MOTION FOR RELIEF. COUNSEL SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS

WHETHER PETITIONER MUST SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE COURT OF

APPEALS BEFORE FILING A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS

PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14.

5/23/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND

E-MAILED. (jpd) (Entered: 05/23/2014)

06/23/2015 4 BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CANTERBONE AND

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP IN SUPPORT OF LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S

HABEAU CORPUS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

or

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/28/2015 09:07:01

PACER

Login:am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:

Description: Docket ReportSearch

Criteria:

5:14-cv-02559-PD

Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.10

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?12332875607261-L_1_0-1

2 of 2 6/28/2015 9:08 AM

Case 5:14-cv-02559-PD Document 4 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 52



















































1 o: c.;1erK t-'age 1 or b LUl::>-Uf-Ul u:::i:ob:U4 {GMI) 1717 4597588 From: Stan Caterbone

"

FAX COVER SHEET TO Clerk

COMPANY Clerk of Courts USED

FAX NUMBER 12155976390

FROM Stan Caterbone

DATE 2015-07-01 09:51:08 GMT

RE LambertAmicusCase No.5: 14-cv-02559-PD

COVER MESSAGE

July 1, 2015

PleaseReviewAttached

StanJ. Caterbone

Advanced Media Group

717-669-2163

[email protected]

WWW.EFAX.COM


To: Clerk Page 2 of 6

Prim

:lU1 o-u1-u1 U!::l:oo:U4 (GM 1 J 17174597588 From: Stan Caterbone https: //us-111g6.mai I. yahoo. com/neo/1 aunch? .rand=fc.o 7k02vt72oo

Subject: HATE CRIMES?

From: Stan J. Caterbone ([email protected])

To: [email protected];

Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2 015 4 :51 AM

July 1, 2015

To: Detective Clark Bearinger, Lancaster City Police Department Detective James R Zahm, County Detective/SERT Commander Detective Michael Landis, Chief Detective of Lancaster County Detective Larry Ma1tin, County of Lancaster Detective William Chalfant, County of Lancaster

cc: Mr. Craig Stedman, Lancaster County District Attorney Mr. Kieth Sadler, Chief of Police, Lancaster City Police Department Mr. Richard Gray, Lancaster City Mayor Ms. Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania Attorney General U.S. Attorney General of the United States

Re: Computer and Cellphone Hacking

I. Tam a Federal Whistleblmver as defined by the law regarding Tnternational Signal & Control or TSC (1987)

2. l am a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control or Targeted Individual (Tl) 3. My father and brother were the same 4. I do have ~)'nthetic telepathy (full time since 2005) 5. I have met with or commwlicated with all of you regarding my computericellphone hacking on several

occasions 6. T have followed your instructions on how to proceed in enlisting a private firm to scan my computer 7. My complaints have been well articulated and my evidence to the same have been well documented 8. I have always presented myselfin a respected manner and have been civil in our meeting.-; 9. My complaints have been rebuffed by all of you

10. Your actions have put my life and property in a dire state-of-affairs l l. The Gang Stalkers have taken note of your actions and have demonstrated that they feel you have

supported their attitude that if it is legal for you to harass me that they have the same legal right to do the same

12. 111e computer/cellphone hacking has caused me undo in1luence, stress, and problems filing my Amicus in the US. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 5: I 4-cv-02559-PD, Lisa Michell Lambert Habeus Corpus

13. As of June 23, 2015 I am formally and officially named as a Pa11.y in the above mentioned case as the Movant

14. The above constitute OBSTRUCTTON OF DUE PROCESS, a federal crime 15. I am officially considered DISABLED by the Social Security Administration (SSA) as of December I,

2005 and was awarded benefits due to the same since April of 2008, which places my situation under the

American Disabilities Act of 1990 \Vhich prohibits Discrimination ofall kinds 16. The SSA has awarded me benefits for the illness and symptoms of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com l of 2 7/1/201.5 5:1.8 AM


1 o: 1,.;1erK !-'age ~ or b :.!Ulo-ur-01 09:56:04 (GMT) 17174597588 From: Stan Caterbone

Print·

2 of2

https://us-nig6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=fco7k02vt72oo

l 7. Since May l 2, 2015 or about my life has been under threat and harassment, as well as that of my family l 8. There is more reason to believe that according to Federal Statutes LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT's

Habeus Corpus will be successful and she will be released from prison in the near future 19. You all have no one to blame but yourselves for the consequences of you actions and you all have proven

my case as defined in my Amicus filing 20. Your actions are directly defined in the C01NTELPRO definitions, which is illegal under U.S. law 21. Your actions are clearly in line with the US. Sponsored Mind Control mandamus operandi which has a

goal of pushing the victim, or Targeted Individual (TI) to suicide 22. I have provide the County of Lancaster, including you, with my documentation of all of the above

ALL OF THE ABOVE DOC'.m'IENTATION CAN BE VIE\\''ED Al~D DO\\'NLOADED BY VISITING MY LIBRARY OF DOCUMENTS AT 1HE FOLLO\VL.~G LINK: bttps://www.scribd.com /stan5j.5caterbone'?tah=documents OR BY VISITING W\\l\V.SCRTBD.COM AND SEARCHING FOR STAN J. CATERBONE

Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant Advanced Media Group

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 Stat~ courts seeking financial remedies and a resolution of his Civil Uberties and his Constitutional Rights. In 1987 Stan J. Caterbone, while managing the financial firm the he founded, Financial Management Group, Ltd., Stan J. Caterbone became a Federal Whlstieblower when, as a shareholder, he claimed fraud and misconduct within the international arms dealer and local start-up International Signal & Control, Pie., Some 4 years later ISC was indicted and plead guilty to the 3rd largest fraud in U.S. history, some $1 Biiiion and 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 MicheUe Lambert.

7/l/201.5 5:18 AM


2010-01-01 0~:00:04 (C;;M 1 J 111 t4::i~t::i!j!j i-rom: ~tan c...;ateroone


To: Clerk Page 5 of 6 2015-07-01 09:56:04 (GMT) 17174597588 From: Stan Caterbone

~:~'**'~ct'.*-*tH:1::!>;i:;F,¥*****~·*:1'~»::$.:f.*;~*+***~'***'*'** C U S T D ~ E R A G R E E M E N T

:f:'!'·***"'**~'*************·'i't·t~***********"'·~***

Ver tzori ~i!i re-1 es.s HOO Fruitville Pike

Lancaster.I PA 17601~·4098 (7'17) 291M6591

www ~ veri zonw ire 1'ess, com

Ord.er Nuu1ber ~ Order Locat'ion~

Hece1ve Loc?ition~ Hece!pt Data/Time: Rep: Rt:!Jl$ter.~

L~ne 1 Mob 11 e Nwnbe r: Device IO: ICC.ID:

42'!303 04598 01

PS. 04596 01

D6/j0/~?.015 17; 37 ET schoctt~EGG40

51

C7H) 68:l~Zit33 3588200527475810

s-e14sooooo11005s~rsas ···~~-~-~-~~---~----------

Date of AcHvattcn: k~Clnt.ract .End Date .. :

Ot)/30/20 t 5

Line Access: LOYAL TY UNL T'l\Lk i; TXT 1GB $SO $50 . C!O iriont h 'ly

Cost Per- Month

Oec.1ine Equf.pment Protection

The iPhone 1s conf·lgurr;v:1 to Nork only \~ith tt1e iidrnh:ss se:r~'ices {1f V.i;rfzon

$0,00

~~i r"t~ less~ a.nd may not. 1,~1ork or! ·attother carri.er"s nch1or-k, aven after- .completion of your contn1ct term.

Please Note~ F-~at.ures and services may net be cumpatib1e with an deviteEL

A 'i/ar1z.on ~1li re1ess SIM may tn1ly be usr:d i•lith devices certHled for use on Verizon Wi re·12ss~; n(~t{~~ork ~

YCli ean c\1gc~ \ f o/OUr device 15 certlfi£Ki at

.· .. i1.um~L..\i.8l.J ... ~n.;,'J.W.JsE.1.t3S$ . .,..i:..'1r1~~!.C.tif.leddav1.c.e ..


To: Clerk Page 6 ot 6

****~************************************* PAYMENT R E C E I P T

Verizon Wireless 1700 Fruit.ville Pike

Lancaster, PA 17601-4093 (717) 291-6591

wv1w. verizonwireless. com

Order Number: Order Location: Order Type: Receive Location: Receipt Date/Time: Rep: Register:

427303 04593 01

PS 04598 01

06/30/2015 17:37 ET schocti-EGG40

51

Pmt 1 of 1 Payment Type:

Item Retail

Price

Tot.al Due *: Total Savings: This Payment

Customer Recycling Disclosure:

Sale Price

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Electronic waste should be recycled or disposed of properly. contact http:// www.depweb.stat.e.pa.us or 1-800-346-4242 for information.

Return Policy:

New and Certified Pre-Owned merchandise items may only be returned or exchanged within 14 days (07/14/2015). You are permitted to make one exchangt'!. A restocking fee of $35($70 for Net.books, Tablets and Notebooks) applies to any return or exchange of a wireless device (excluding Hawaii) . .See verizon~Jireless. com/returnpolicy for complete details. To receive a credit for the act:ivation fee, cancellations must occur within 3 days of activation of service.

Thank You

The NEW Mv Verizon. All The Tools. All The Features. More Convenience.

Visit verizonwi:r:eless.com for moi:-e.

************************************** Visit www.Verizonwirelesssurvey.com to tell us about. your experience.

****No .Signature Required****

Ill Ill II llll II I llllll II llllllllll 1111111111111111 VZJD4598010000427303

:.!Ulo-U/-Ul U!::l:oo:U4 (GM I) 17174597588 From: Stan Caterbone



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT, : Petitioner, : : v. : Civ. No. 14-2559 : LYNN BISSONETTE, et al., : Respondents. : :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED that

Jeremy Ibrahim, Esq. is appointed as Petitioner’s Counsel. Accordingly, her

Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to

Petitioner’s right to file a counseled Motion for relief.

Petitioner’s Counsel should be prepared to address whether Petitioner must

seek permission from the Court of Appeals before filing a second or successive

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2254.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Paul S. Diamond _________________________ Paul S. Diamond, J.


Documents

Advanced Media Group Letter to the Editor of Lancaster Newspapers September 6, 2015 Full Version