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

CLOSED,APPEAL,HABEAS,A/R,DOC-RESTRICT

United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown)

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

LAMBERT v. BISSONETTE et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND

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

Date Filed: 05/02/2014

Date Terminated: 05/22/2014

Jury Demand: None

Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus: (General)

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Petitioner

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT represented by JEREMY H.G. IBRAHIM

LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY H. GONZALEZ IBRAHIM

P.O. BOX 1025

CHADDS FORD, PA 19317

215-568-1943

Email: [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. CATERBONE

1250 FREMONT STREET

LANCASTER, PA 17603

717-669-2163

Email: [email protected]

PRO SE

Date Filed # Docket Text

05/02/2014 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 100526.), filed by LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT.

(Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ks, ) (Entered: 05/05/2014)

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

HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/22/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jpd) (Entered: 05/22/2014)

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

PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A COUNSELED MOTION FOR

RELIEF. COUNSEL SHOULD BE PREPARED TO ADDRESS WHETHER PETITIONER MUST SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE

COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE FILING A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL

S. DIAMOND ON 5/22/14. 5/23/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)

(Entered: 05/23/2014)

06/23/2015 4 BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE STANLEY J. CANTERBONE AND ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP IN SUPPORT OF

LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT'S HABEAU CORPUS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

07/06/2015 5 STATEMENT OF MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (jpd, ) (Entered: 07/07/2015)

08/14/2015 6 LETTER FROM STAN J. CATERBONE DATED 8/7/15 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE J. CURTIS JOYNER AND

THE HONORABLE JUDGE PAUL S. DIAMOND RE: ELECTRONIC CASE FILING PRIVILEGES. (jpd) (Entered: 08/14/2015)

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105904368343628-L_1_0-1

1 of 2 10/2/2015 6:53 PM

09/02/2015 8 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015 7 ORDER THAT MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE

DOCUMENTS (DOC. NO. 6) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/3/2015. 9/3/2015 ENTERED

AND COPIES E-MAILED; AND MAILED TO PRO SE. (ems) (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015 9 MOTION TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(jaa, ) Modified on 9/3/2015 (afm, ). Modified on

9/4/2015 (jaa, ). (Entered: 09/03/2015)

09/03/2015 10 MOTION TO FILE STATEMENT OF MOVANT filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. (ems) (Entered: 09/04/2015)

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

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

09/09/2015 13 LETTER APPLICATION FROM TIMOTHY RICE #DU-2363 ADDRESSED TO THE HONORALE TIMOTHY R. RICE, UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (jpd) (DOCKETED IN ERROR SEE 15-CV-291). (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/09/2015 14 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT OF MOVANT. (jpd, ) (Entered: 09/10/2015)

09/14/2015 15 ORDER THAT MR. CATERBONE'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 8 AND 9) AND MOTIONS TO FILE

EXHIBITS OR STATEMENTS (DOC. NO. 10, 11, 12, 14) ARE DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT

STANLEY J. CATERBONE MAY NO LONGER SUBMIT FILINGS-WHETHER ELECTRONIC OR IN PAPER FORMAT IN THE

ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL NOT DOCKET ANY SUCH FILINGS WITHOUT MY

APPROVAL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PAUL S. DIAMOND ON 9/11/15. 9/14/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO

SE MOVANT AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL. (jpd) (Entered: 09/14/2015)

09/30/2015 16 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 15 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Order, Order on Motion for

Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. IFP PENDING Copies to Judge, Clerk

USCA, Appeals Clerk.(jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/01/2015 17 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 16 Notice of Appeal, : (jpd, ) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

10/01/2015 18 MOVANT STANLEY J. CATERBONE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: 10/02/2015)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/02/2015 18:50:37

PACER Login: am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 5:14-cv-02559-PD

Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.20

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?105904368343628-L_1_0-1

2 of 2 10/2/2015 6:53 PM

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

I previously dismissed Petitioner’s pro se motion for habeas relief so that she could file a

counseled motion. (Doc. No. 3.) She has not yet done so. On June 23, 2015, Stanley

Caterbone—who has nothing to do with Petitioner, her motion, or this case—filed a pro se

amicus brief in support of the dismissed motion. (Doc. No. 4.) Caterbone neither sought leave

to file, nor indicated that he had received the Parties’ consent to file an amicus brief. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 29(a).

The amicus brief—although providing some arguments in apparent support of the

dismissed motion—essentially focuses on the damages Caterbone allegedly suffered from “his

years of torture as a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control” or as a “victim of gang-stalking or

organized stalking by more than 100 people.” (Doc. No. 4 at 7, 9). He also includes a lengthy

discussion of the “perplexing question of Stan Caterbone’s intelligence, or lack thereof,” and his

work on a “digital movie” that is “directly responsible for the development of the ‘internet.’”

(Id. at 16-26). In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at “mind control,” including:

1) “Blanketing my dwelling and surroundings with electromagnetic energy”; 2) “Invading my

thoughts via remote sensing technologies”; and 3) “Making me mentally ‘hear’ others’ voices

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

of 3

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

Caterbone’s involvement in the matter did not end with his amicus brief. On July 6,

2015, he filed with this Court an email that he had sent to the Lancaster Police, asserting that he

has “synthetic telepathy.” (Doc. No. 5.) On September 2 and 3, 2015, Caterbone moved for

“summary judgment.” (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On September 3, 2015, he moved to file a copy of his

motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis in

Pennsylvania state court, (which had been “dismissed as frivolous”). (Doc. No. 10.) On

September 9, 2015, he also moved to file: 1) an email exchange with the subject “Muslims Using

My Situation to Fight Against the USA”; 2) a Wikipedia article on “Entrapment”; and 3) an

exhibit of billing statements of his estimated fees for his 2007 work on wholly unrelated federal

and state court cases. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14.) On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my

Chambers, demanding to speak with me, and then abruptly hung up.

I have already denied Caterbone’s request to file documents electronically. (Doc. No. 9.)

He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.


of 3

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.

Caterbone’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and Motions to File Exhibits or

Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED

that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit filings—whether electronic or in paper format—

in the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not docket any such filings without my approval.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Paul S. Diamond _________________________ September 11, 2015 Paul S. Diamond, J.


[email protected] http://www.amgglobalentertajomentgroup.com/

Blog: http://adyanc;edmedjagroup.wordpress.com/ Research Blog: www.advancedmediagroupresearch.wordpress.com

Video Biography at: http: //www.youtube. ccim/profile?user==advancedmediagroup

Stanley J. Caterbone Advanced Media Group 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RJR·TRE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lisa Michelle Lambert PETITIONER

v.

Lynn Bissonnette, et al., RESPONDANT

f H,,ED ·SEP .3 0 2015

l .

r·ri;c1·iAEl E. K\.!MZ1 C!Gr!{, By De~C!wt.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

CASE NO. 14-2559

Notice is hereby given that Stanley J. Caterbone, MOVANT in the above captioned case,

hereby files an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from an ORDER

that failed to consider the INTERESTS AND FILINGS OF THE MOVANT, and DENIED Motion for

Summary Judgment in the above captioned case, entered in this case on the 141h day of

September, 2015. The MOVANT requests an expedited resolution to this case considering it is

central to the HABEUS CORPUS of the PETITIONER, Lisa Michelle Lambert, filed in May of 2014.

Date: September 30, 2015 ao&&-1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603 [email protected] http://www.amgglobalentertajnmentgroup.com/

Page 1of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Clearly the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond had intentions other than that of fair and eq

uitable jurist prudence regarding this C:;;tse. The MOVANT, Stan J. Caterbone, has been fighting for·

his reputation, his integrity, his intellectual property, his personal property, his basic human

rights, and most importantly his constitutional rights In this court for the past ten (10) years as

pro se. The MOVANT had made a bona fide attempt to provide as much factual background to

the Honorable Judge Diamond as humanty possibte- tn as an efficient manner as possible so as not

to dutter the courts and the dockets. You must remember the MOVANT has the burden of articu -

latlng to the COURTS a 30 plus year legal quagmire. See Case No. 07-4474 in the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals.

If you review the ORDER of September 14, 2015 in an objective manner you will see that

the Honorable Judge Paul s. Diamond went out of his way not to Include any reference to the ac

tual Interest of the MOVANT in this case, but rather distracted the COURT with mentions of back

ground information tn a dear and convincing effort to fibel and slander the MOVANT. The last

sentence in the ORDER of September 14, 2015 reads "He has nonetheless continued to submit fil

ings that have nothing to do with this case.'' I beg to differ. In addition the MOVANT was granted

electronic filing priveledges by the Honorable Judge Joyner on September 2, 2015 in the

MOVANT'S Petition for Habetts corpus case no. 15-3984.

The following are items that are on the record In this case and should compel the said

Court to remand the Summary Judgment back to the lower court for further review, or grant the

MOVANT Summary Judgement and release Lisa Michelle Lambert from further custody.

Statement of Havant, lune 20, 2015 - clerks maliciously placed this statement as the last few pages of the Movant's Amlcus Fiiing of June 23, 2015.

"TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:

AND NOW comes before the said court Stanley J. Caterbone, appearing Pro Se, and Ad

vanced Media Group, as Movant, to file an Amicus in the above captioned case.

The Movant has an interest in this case as a corroborating witness to the prosecutorlal mis

amduct that was found tn this court before the Honorable Stewart Dafzelf tn l997. The Movant

has made several personal attempts to bring his evidence to the courts. In November of 1997

the. MOYijnt had :Jollc;ited the counsel of M5. Christina Ralnvllle and her firm Schnader & Harrison

Page2 of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


of Philadelphia. The Movant had arranged and delivered a letter and evidence of his own prosecu

torial misconduct by the Lancaster County District Attorney and local authorities at Ms. Rainville's

request. Ms. Rainville then returned a letter to the Movant that explained that Schnader & Harri

son had made the decision that she could no longer accept any additional dients from Lancaster

County. At that time Ms. Rainville was already involved the Darrell McCrakken case of Lancaster

County.

In December of 1997 the Movant hand delivered a CD-ROM to the chambers of the Honor

able Judge Stewart Dalzall that contained evidence of the same.

This amicus provides a voice for the movants as well as providing another perspective and

opinion that should benefit the courts; the parties; and the public-at-large. The matters presented

In this amicus have a direct relevancy in the disposition of this case as it does In the opinion and

ORDER of the Honorable Paul S. Diamond on May 22, 2014."

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMNT filed on September 3. 2015

"MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMNT

Given the preponderance of evidence associated with the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATE

MENTS, the courts must conclude that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District

of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge Stuart Dalzall's findings of April 14, 1997, in the Lisa Lambert case

identifying acts of prosecutorial Misconduct, now, by virtue of the MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATE

MENTS, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, In the Com

monwealth of PennsyNania and in the .County .of Lancaster.

Criminal law may determine if these disclosures would warrant investigations of a possible

criminal enterprise. The MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS is of material interest to the

Habeus Corpus filed by Lisa Michelle Lambert in May of 2014, for the very fact that this MOVANT'S

AMICUS and STATEMENTS compromises the very same integrity .of the court, whidl would tip the

scales of justice even further from the peoples deserving rights.

In the truthfulness of MOVANT'S AMICUS and STATEMENTS, The Commonwealth must con

cede and immediately release Lisa Michelle Lambert from incarceration in order to balance the

scaJes of justice, which no .other act could accomplish. The Commonwealth must yield the criminal

culpability of Lisa Michelle Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the Integrity to the courts;

by it's own admission of wrongdoing, assuring the peoples of It's commitment to administer

equalities of justice, not Inequalities of justice, balancing the scales of justice. Anything less,

would take the full scope of jurisdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democra

cy and impugning the Constitution of the United States.

Page3of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


In addition the MOVANT must be restored to whole by administering SUMMARY JUDGE

MENTS in cases 05-2288; 06-4650; and all other cases filed by the MOVANT in this court. SUM

MARY JUDGEMENTS must also be administered In Case No. 08-13373 in the Lancaster Court of

Common Pleas, and other cases filed by the MOVANT In that said court."

AFFIDAVIT OF 1998 TO HONORABLE JUDGE STEWART DAI.ZELL

"I, Stanley J. Caterbone being duly sworn according to law, make the following affidavit

concerning the years during which I was maliciously and purposefully mentally abused, subjected

to a massive array of prosecutorial misconduct, while enduring an exhaustive fight for the

sovereignty of my constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties, and right of due access

to the law. I will detail a deliberate attempt on my life, In 1991, exhibiting the dire consequences

of this complaint. Thes.e allegations are substantiated through a preponderance of evidence in

duding but not limited to over 10,000 documents, over SO hours of recorded conversations, tran

scripts, and archived on several digital mediums. A "Findings of Facts" is attached herewith pro

viding merits and the facts pertaining to this affidavit. These Issues and Incidents identified herein

have attempted to conceal my dlsdosures of International Signal & Control, Pie. However, the

merits of the violations contained in this affidavit will be proven incidental to the existence of any

conspiracy.

The plaintiff protests the courts for all remedial actions mandated by law. Financial consid

erations would exceed $1 million. These violations began on June 23, 1987 while I was a resident

and business owner In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and have continued to the present. These

issues are a direct consequence of my public dlscfosure of fraud within International Signal & Con

trol, Pie., of County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which were in compliance with federal and state

statutes governing my shareholder rights granted In 1983, when I purchased my interests In In

ternational Signal & Control., Pie •• I will also prove intentional undo Influence against family and

friends towards compromising the credibility of myself, with malicious and self serving accusations

of "insanity". I conclude that the courts must provide me with fair access to the law, and most

certainly, the process must void any technical deficiencies found in this filing as being material to

the conduslons. Such arrogance by the Courts would only challenge the judicial integrity of our

Constitution."

1. The activities contained herein may raise the argument of fair disclosure regarding the scope

of law pertaining to issues and activities compromising the National Security of the United States.

The Plaintiff will successfully argue that due to the criminal record of International Signal & Con

trol, including the illegal transfer of arms and technologies to an end user Iraq, the laws of disclo

sure must be forfeited by virtue that "said activities posed a direct compromise to the National

Security of the United States".; the plaintiff will argue that his public allegations of misconduct

within the operation~ of International Signal &. Control, Pie., as early as June of 1987 ;demon-,



strated actions were proven to protect the National Security of the United States •• The activities

of International Signal & Control, Pis., placed American troops in harms way. The plaintiff's actions

should have taken the American troops out of harms way causing the activities of the Internation

al Signal & Control, Pie., to cease and desist. All activities contained herein have greatly compro

mised the National Security of the United States, and the laws of jurist prudence must apply to

wards the Plaintiff's intent and motive of protecting the rights of his fellow citizens. Had the plain

tiff been protected under the law, and subsequently had the law enforcement community of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the County of Lancaster administer justice, United States

troops may have been taken out of harms way, as a direct result of ceasing the operations of In

ternational Signal & Control, Pie., in as early as 1987.

2. The plaintiff wlll successfully prove that the following activities and the prosecutorial miscon

duct were directed at intimidating the plall)tiff from continuing his public disdosures regarding il

legal activities within International Signal & Control, Pie,. On June 23, 1998, International Signal

& Control, Pie was negotiating for the $1.14 billion merger with Ferranti International, of England.

Such disclosures threatened the integrity of International Signal & Control's organization, and Mr.

James Guerin himself, consequently resulting in adverse financial considerations to all parties if

such disclosures provided any reason to question the integrity of the transaction, which later be

came the central criminal activity in the in The United States District Court For The Eastern Dis

trict Of Pennsylvania.

3. The plaintiff will prove that undo influence was also responsible for the adverse consequences

and fabricated demise of his business enterprises and personal holdings. The dire consequences

of the plaintiff's failed business dealings will demonstrate and substantiate financial incentive and

motive. Defendants responsible for administering undo influence and Interference in the plaintiff's

business and commercial enterprises had financial Interests. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

as a taxing authority, Lancaster County had a great investment who's demise would facilitate

grave consequences to It's economic development •• Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon) would

have less competition in the mortgage banking business and other financial services, violating the

lender liability laws. The Steinman Enterprise's, Inc., would loose a pioneer In the information

technologies industries, and would protect the public domain from truthful disclosure. The plaintiff

will also provide significant evidence of said perpetrators violating common laws governing intel

lectual property rights.

4. Given the plaintiff's continued and obstructed right to due process of the law, beginning in

June of 1987 and continuing to the present, the plaintiff must be given fair access to the law with

the opportunlty_for any and all remedial actions required under the federal and state statutes. The

plaintiff will successfully argue his rights to the courts to rightfully daim civil actions with regards



to the totality of these activities, so described in the following "Findings of Facts", regardless of

any statute of limitations. Given the plaintiff's genuine efforts for due process has been inherent

ly and maliciously obstructed, the courts must provide the opportunity for any and all remedial

actions deserving to the plaintiff •.

5. Under current laws, the plaintiff's intellectual capacity has been exploited as means of discred

iting the plaintiff's disclosures and obstructing the plaintiff's right to due process of the law. The

plaintiff has always had the proper rights under federal and state laws to enter Into contract. The

logic and reason towards the plaintiff's activities and actions are a matter of record, demonstrated

In the "Findings of Facts", contained herein •• The plaintiff will argue and successfully prove that

the Inherent emotional consequences to all of the activities contained herein have resulted in Post

Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The evidence of the stress subjected to the plaintiff, will prove to be

the direct result of the activities contained herein, rather than the exhibited behavior of any men

tal deficiency the plaintiff may or may not have. The courts must provide for the proper Interpre

tations of all laws, irrespective of the plaintiff's alleged intellectual capacity. The plaintiff success

fully argue that his "mental capacity" Is of very little legal consequence, if any; other than in it's

malicious representations used to diminish the credibility of the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff will demonstrate that the following incidents of Illegal prosecutions were purpose-j

fully directed at Intimidating the plaintiff from further public disclosure into the activities of Inter-

national Signal & Control, Pie., consequently obstructing the plaintiff's access to due process of

the law. Due to the fact that these activities to which the plaintiff's perpetrators were protecting

were illegal activities, the RICO statutes would apply. To this day, the plaintiff has never been con

victed of any crime with the exception of 2 speeding tickets. The following report identifies 34 in

stances of prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutions and activities beginning on June 23,

1987 and continuing to today.

7 .Given the preponderance of evidence associated with this affidavit, the courts must conclude

that In The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Federal Judge

Stuart Dalzall's findings of Aprll 14, 1997, In the Lisa Lambert case identifying acts of prosecutori

al Misconduct, now, by virtue of this affidavit, now discloses evidence of a bona fide pattern of

prosecutorlal misconduct, In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the County of Lancaster.

Criminal law must now determine If these disclosures would warrant Investigations of a possible

criminal enterprise. This affidavit is of material interest to the Lambert case, for the very fact that

this affidavit compromises the very same integrity of the court, which would tip the scales of jus

tice even further from the peoples deserving rights.. In the truthfulness of this affidavit, The

Commonwealth must concede Lisa Michelle Lambert to balance the scales of justice, which no

other act could accomplish. Commonwealth must yield the criminal culpability of Lisa Michelle

Lambert to the superior matter of restoring the integrity to the courts; by it's own admission of

wrongdoing, assuring the peoples -Of It's commitment to admlnlster equalities of justice, not in-



equalities of justice. Balancing the scales of justice. Anything less, would take the full scope of ju

risdiction out of the boundaries of our laws, negating our democracy and impugning the Constitu

tion of the United States. The plaintiff must be restored to whole."





LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT, Petitioner,

v.

LYNN BISSONETIE, et al., Respondents.

Civ. No. 14-2559

ORDER

I previously dismissed Petitioner's prose motion for habeas relief so that she could file a

counseled motion. (Doc. No. 3.) She has not yet done so. On June 23, 2015, Stanley

Caterbone-who has nothing to do with Petitioner, her motion, or this case-filed a pro se

amicus brief in support of the dismissed motion. (Doc. No. 4.) Caterbone neither sought leave

to file, nor indicated that he had received the Parties' consent to file an amicus brief. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 29(a).

The amicus brief.-although providing some arguments in apparent support of the

dismissed motion-essentially focuses on the damages Caterbone allegedly suffered from ''his

years of torture as a victim of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control" or as a "victim of gang-stalking or

organized stalking by more than 100 people." (Doc. No. 4 at 7, 9). He also includes a lengthy

discussion of the ')>erplexing question of Stan Caterbone's intelligence, or lack thereof," and his

work on a "digital movie" that is "directly responsible for the development of the 'internet."'

ffiL. at 16-26). In addition, he details thirty governmental attempts at ''mind control," including:

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

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




through the microwave hearing effect." ffiL at 27-30.)

Caterbone's involvement in the matter did not end with his amicus brief. On July 6,

2015, he filed with this Court an email that he had sent to the Lancaster Police, asserting that he

has "synthetic telepathy." (Doc. No. 5.) On September 2 and 3, 2015, Caterbone moved for

"summary judgment." (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On September 3, 2015, he moved to file a copy of his

motion for reconsideration of the denial of his petition to proceed in Jonna pauperis in

Pennsylvania state court, (which had been "dismissed as frivolous"). (Doc. No. 10.) On

September 9, 2015, he also moved to file: 1) an email exchange with the subject ''Muslims Using

My Situation to Fight Against the USA"; 2) a Wikipedia article on "Entrapment"; and 3) an

exhibit of billing statements of his estimated fees for his 2007 work on wholly unrelated federal

and state court cases. (Doc. Nos. 11, 12, 14.) On September 9, 2015, Caterbone called my

Chambers, demanding to speak with me, and then abruptly hung up.

I have already denied Caterbone's request to file documents electronically. (Doc. No. 9.)

He has nonetheless continued to submit filings that have nothing to do with this case.

Pagel of3 Page9of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015



AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr.

Caterbone' s Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 8, 9) and Motions to File Exhibits or

Statements (Doc. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 14) are DENIED as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED

that Stanley J. Caterbone may no longer submit filings-whether electronic or in paper format-

in the above-captioned case. The Clerk shall not docket any such filings without my approval.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

ls/Paul S. Diamond

September 11, 2015 Paul S. Diamond, J.

Page3 of3 Page 10 of 24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 1HE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-4474

STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Appellant

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT; AV ALON POLICE DEPARTMENT; COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank; SOUTH REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHEIUFFS DEPT.; FULTON BANK

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-2288) District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

No. 07-4475

STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP,

v.

MR. RANDALL 0. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary; lvlATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of

Page 11 of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


Lancaster County; JUDGE MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County; LEO J. ECKERT JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; KELLY S.

BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MAYNARD HAMIL TON, JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; DENISE COMMINS,

Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge; RICHARD H. SIMMS, Lancaster County District Magistrate; STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County

District Magistrate; WILLIAM G. REUTER, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MICHAEL SMIIB, Dalphin County District Magistrate; OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department; OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police;

OFFICER ADAM CRAMER, of the Southern Regional Police Dept.; CHIEF JOHN FIORILL; OFFICER ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police

Department; OFFICER RoaER.T M. FEDOR, of the Southem Regional Police Department; ROBERT BOURNE, of the Southern Regional Police Department;

JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office; NELSON BREWSTER, Investigator, of the PA Attorney General Office; OFFICER MICHAEL K.

SCHAEFER; LUIS FURINA; DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County District Attorney; DETECTIVE MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-04650)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR34.I(a) September 26, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit Jud2es

(Filed: September 30, 2008 )

OPINION

-2-



PERCURIAM

Stanley 1. Caterbone appeals from the dismissals of two civil cases for his failure

to comply with the District Court's orders. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate

and remand to the District Court for further consideration.

I.

In May 2005, Caterbone sued Lancaster County prison and others asserting that his

constitutional rights, shareholder rights, civil liberties and "right of due access to the law"

were violated (E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 05-cv-02288). Several of the Defendants moved to

dismiss the complaint and on June 13, 2006, the District Court granted the motions to

dismiss and also dismissed the complaint as to the non-moving Defendants because they

were never properly served. The following day, Caterbone filed a document which the

District Court construed as a request for leave to file an amended complaint. The District

Court granted the request and subsequently set a deadline of August 20, 2006, for filing

an amended complaint. The District Court indicated that it would dismiss the case with

prejudice if Caterbone failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline.

After granting three continuances~ the District Court set an October 15, 2007

deadline, again warning Caterbone that failure to comply would result in dismissal with

prejudice. The District Court also stated that it would not grant any additional extensions

of time. On October 15, 2007, Caterbone filed a rambling, sixty-three page "Amendment

to Complaint and Motion for Continuance," asserting thirty-eight causes of action against



several dozen defendants and requesting an additional sixty days to file another amended

complaint. On October 23, 2007, the District Court issued an order denying the request

and dismissing the case with prejudice. The District Court explained in its order that the

incomplete complaint submitted by Caterbone did not constitute a valid amended

complaint, and that he had failed to file a valid amended complaint in the sixteen months

since he was granted leave to do so. Caterbone filed a notice of appeal, and the appeal

was docketed at C.A. No. 07-4474.

Caterbone commenced a second action on October 18, 2006, by filing a complaint

asserting federal civil rights and RICO claims against twenty-five defendants (E.D. Pa.

Civ. No. 06-cv-04650). Caterbone requested and was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. On November 17, 2006, the District Court issued an order directing Caterbone

to file an amended complaint containing a more definite statement of his claims or face

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The District Court also granted

Caterbone's motion for continuance, placing the case in civil suspense until April 19,

2007. After granting two additional continuances, the District Court directed him to file a

status report on or before August 31, 2007. On September 12, 2007, in response to

Caterbone's status report requesting an additional continuance, the District Court issued

an order denying the request and directing him to serve his amended complaint on the

defendants on or before October 15, 2007, noting that the case had been pending for

nearly a year and that he had not yet served any of the defendants. On October 15, 2007,



he flled the same sixty-three page document that he filed in E.D. Pa. No. 05-2288, which

included an identical request for an additional sixty days to file an amended complaint.

On October 23, 2007, the District Court entered an order dismissing the case because be

had failed to serve his complaint as directed in the previous order. Caterbone's appeal in

this case was docketed at C.A. No. 07-4475. The two appeals have been consolidated for

disposition.

n.

Before we discuss the merits of the case we must first determine whether we have

jurisdiction over the appeals. Appellees Fulton Bank and Manheim Township Police

Department have filed motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that

Caterbone's notice of appeal in C.A. 07 .. 4474 was untimely filed. Caterbone has filed

responses asserting that the notice of appeal was timely in both cases.

In a civil case such as this one, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of

the entry of the District Court's judgment or order. ~Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l){A). The

time limits prescribed for filing a notice of appeal in a civil case are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Bowles v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). Both of Caterbone's

cases were dismissed on October 23, 2007, and he filed notices of appeal on November

23, 2007, or 31 days after the October 23 orders. November 22, however, was the

Thanksgiving holiday; therefore, Caterbone had until the following day to comply with

the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(l )-( 4).

-5-

Page 15of24 WedneSday, September 30, 2015


Thus, the notices of appeal were timely filed. Accordingly, we deny Appellees' motions

to dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

m.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the District Court's

dismissals for abuse of discretion. Mindek y. Rigatti, 964 F.2d 1369, 1373 (3d Cir.

1992).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b ), a district court may dismiss an action

sua sponte if a litigant fails to comply with a court order or to prosecute his case. ~

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Before dismissing an action,

however, a district court should determine the propriety of punitive dismissals in light of

the factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir.

1984). The factors are: 1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility; 2) the

prejudice to the opponent; 3) any history of dilatoriness; 4) whether the conduct of the

party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; 5) whether effective alternative sanctions

are available; and 6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense. !sh at 868. Only in the

rarest of circumstances, those demonstrating the most contumacious of conduct, may a

district court dispense with the Poulis factors altogether. ~Guyer v. Beard. 907 F.2d

1424, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1990); 1" also Spain y. G3llegos, 26 F.3d 439, 454-55 (3d Cir.

1994 ). We have repeatedly emphasized that the "drastic sanction" of dismissal is

disfavored except in the most egregious circumstances. ~ United States y.



$8.221.877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 161 (3d Cir. 2003).

The District Court erred by dismissing Caterbone's suits without analyzing the

Poulis factors. While it is true, as Appellees argue, that Caterbone delayed filing his

amended complaints for several months, such behavior cannot be characterized as

"flagrant bad faith." See Adams v. Trustees ofN.J. Brewety Employees' Pension Trust

Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 875 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

After all, the District Court granted, and Caterbone relied on, continuances. Nor is this an

instance where Caterbone abandoned the case (Spain) or where his behavior was so

egregious as to amount to an abandonment of the case (Gu)!er). To the contrary, it

appears that Caterbone made a good-faith effort to file an amended complaint, See

Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Com., 677 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1982) (behavior not

contumacious where effort made to comply with court order). We do not find that

Caterbone's conduct was so contumacious that the District Court could proceed under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b) without analyzing the Poulis factors at all.

The District Court also improperly dismissed Caterbone's suit in 06~cv-04650 by

citing Caterbone' s failure to serve process. As a litigant proceeding in forma pauperi§,

Caterbone was not responsible for the service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("the

officers of the court shall issue and serve all process ... ");see~ Welch v. Folsom. 925

F.2d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 1991) (district court erred by dismissing complaint on the ground

that a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis failed to serve the defendant). Once

-7-



Caterbone filed his amended complaint, the District Court was obligated to appoint a

United States marshal to effect service. Fed. R Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In any event, it may be

that the dismissal in 06-cv-04650 was prompted by the same concerns motivating the

court in 05-cv-02288.

For these reasons, we will vacate the District Court's orders dismissing

Caterbone's complaints and remand the cases for further proceedings. We emphasize that

we are not holding that the Pou1ia factors dictate something less than dismissal in this

case; we hold only that the District Court must, at this stage, perform a Poulis analysis to

guide its exercise of discretion. Given that Caterbone filed identical amended complaints

in both cases, the District Court may wish to consider whether the cases should be

consolidated on remand.

-8-



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-4474

STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON; MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT; STONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT; AV ALON POLICE DEPARTMENT; COMMONWEAL TI-I NATIONAL BANK, i.e. Mellon Bank; SOUTII REGIONAL POLICE DEPT.; LANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT.; FULTON BANK

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-2288) District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

No. 07-4475

STANLEY J. CAIBRBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

v.

MR. RANDALL 0. WENGER, of the Lancaster County Prothonetary; MATTHEW BOMBERGER, Office of the Public Defender of

Lancaster County; JUDGE MICHAEL GEORGELIS, Lancaster County; LEO J. ECKERT JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; KELLY S.

BALLENTINE, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MAYNARD HAMIL TON, JR., Lancaster County District Magistrate; DENISE COMMINS,



Lancaster County District Magistrate Judge; RlCHARD H. SIMMS, Lancaster County District Magistrate; STEVEN MYLIN, Lancaster County

District Magistrate; WILLIAM G. REUTER, Lancaster County District Magistrate; MICHAEL SMI1H, Dalphin County District Magistrate; OFFICER RONALD BEZZARD, of the East Lampeter Police Department; OFFICER THOMAS GJURICH, of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police;

OFFICER ADAM CRAME~ of the Southern Regional Police Dept.; CHIEF JOHN FIORILL; OFFICER ROBERT BUSER, of the Southern Regional Police

Department; OFFICER ROBERT M. FEDOR, of the Southern Regional Police Deparbnent; ROBERT BOURNE, of the Southern Regional Police Department;

JOLYNN STEINMAN, Postmaster, Conestoga Post Office; NELSON BREWSTER, Investigator, of the PA Attorney General Office; OFFICER MICHAEL K.

SCHAEFER; LUIS PURINA; DONALD TOTARO, Lancaster County District Attorney; DETECTIVE MICHAEL L. LANDIS, Lancaster County

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-04650)

District Judge: Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a) September 26, 2008

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and NYGAARD, Circuit ludges

JUDGMENT

These causes came to be considered on the record from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and were submitted pursuant to Third

Circuit LAR 34.l(a) on September 26, 2008. On consideration whereof, it is now hereby



ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the judgments of the District

Court entered on October 23, 2007, be and the same are hereby VACATED and the cases

are REMANDED for further proceedings. Costs will not be taxed. All of the above in

accordance with the opinion of this Court.

DATED: September 30, 2008

ATTEST:

~I Marcia M. Waldron Clerk



OFFICE OP 'llIB CLBRK

MARCIA M. WALDRON

CLERK UNITED STATES CouRT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

S~phanie Cartley, Esq. Barley Snyder 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-0000

George M. Gowen III, Esq. Cozen & O'Connor 1900 Market Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

Robert W. Hallinger, Esq. Appel & Yost 33 North Duke Street Lancaster, PA 17603-0000

William H. Howard, Esq .

21400 UNITED STATES COURTIIOUSE 601 MARKET S'IRBBT

PHU.ADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

September 30, 2008

. Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney 30 South 17th Street Suite 1700, United Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000

Christopher S. Underhill, Esq. Hartman, Underhill & Brubaker 221 East Chestnut Street Lancaster, PA 17602-0000

Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603-0000

Page22of24

TELEPHONE

215-597-2995

Wednesday, September 30, 2015


RE: Caterbone v. Lancaster Cty Prison, et al Case Number: 07-4474 District Case Number: 05-ev-02288

ENTRY OF JUPGMBNT

Today, September 30, 2008 the Court has entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir. LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

Time for Filing: 14 days after entry of judgment 45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.

Page Limits: 15 pages

Attachments: a copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are permitted without first obtaining leave from the Court.

Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be construed as requesting both panel and en bane rehearing. If separate petitions for p~el rehearing and rehearing en bane are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not provide for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en bane in the event that the petition seeking only panel rehearing is denied. A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must file an itemized and verified bill of costs within 14 days from the entry of judgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on the proper form which is available on the court's website.

A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.R.App.P. 41. Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.



Very truly yours,

Pt.~~./V~ Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By:('~ -C,~~ Cha~e Crisden, CaSe Manager 267 .. 299-4923




LISA MICHELLE LAMBERT 14-CV-2559

District Court Docket Number vs. LYNN BISSONNETTE, ET AL Notice of Appeal Filed 9/30/15 Court Reporter(s)/ESR Operator(s) N/A Filing Fee: Notice of Appeal Paid X Not Paid Seaman Docket Fee Paid X Not Paid USA/VI CJA Appointment (Attach Copy of Order) Private Attorney Defender Association or Federal Public Defender Motion Pending Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis status, if applicable: (Attach copy of the Order) Motion Granted Motion Denied X Motion pending before district judge Certificate of probable cause (state habeas corpus): (Attach copy of the Order) Granted Denied Pending Defendant's Address (for criminal appeals) Prepared by: s/James Deitz James Deitz Deputy Clerk/Signature/Date

PLEASE APPEND TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND FORWARD TO THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

notapp.frm


Stcmfey J. -Caterbone Advanced Media Group 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

www .amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com [email protected]

717-669-2163

IN THE UNITED;STATES. DISTRICT COURT FOR THIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF P.ENNSYLVANIA

Lisa Michelle Lambert PETITIONER

v.

Lynn Bissonnette, et al., RESPONDANT

CASE NO. 14-2?59 \

Motion for Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperls

I hereby on this 30th day of September, 2015, request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in The 3RD Circuit

Court Of Appeals UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

p

Date: September 30, 2015



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Motion for Leave To Proceed In

Forma Pauperls has been served this 30th day of September, 2015, by first class mail, Postage

prepaid, or by electronic mail upon, or by hand deliver to:

Date: September 30, 2015



Affidavit accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis

United States Oi$trict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Lisa Michelle Lambert

PETI110NER

v.

Lynn Bissonnette, et al.,

RESPONDANT

Atlldavtt In Support of Motion

I swear or affinn under penalty of perjury that, because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket fees of my appeal or po&t a bond for ...._ IL _u I -.&!.ti !•- -'- I

or aflirm under penally of perjury that my answers on this form are true and correct. (28 u.s.c. § 1746. 18u.s.c.§1821)

Signed:.

My issues on Appeal are:

CASE NO. 14-2559

Instructions

Complete all questions on this application and then sign it Do not leave any blanks. If the answer to a question is "O," "none," or"not

• ,.._llA \ 11 •• -:.a._ i- ·• io1

need more space to answer a question or fu explain your answer, attach a separate piece of paper identified with your name, your case's docket number, and the question number.

Date:

1. Was Appellant Provided Opportunity To Respond To Lower Court Order? 2. Did the lo-wer court judge rule according to the court record? 3. Was Appellant Afforded Due Process In Accordance To Law? 4. Did the Honorable Judge Paul S. Diamond violate RICO Anti-Slapp Statute in

Retaliation Against Federal VVhisUe-Blo\lller?



1 . For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each of the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannuaDy, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use gross amounts, that is, amounts Wore any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

INCOME SOURCE

Employment

Self Employment

Income from real property (such as rental income)

Interest and Dividends

Gifts

/>Jimony

ChDd S111pport

Retirement (such as social se&Urity, pensions, annuities, insurance)

Unemployment payments

Disability (such as social security, insurance payments)

Public Assistance (such as welfare)

Other (specify): ____ _

Total monthly income

AVERAGE MONTHLY AMOUNT EXPECTED AMOUNT DURING THE NEXT MONTH PAST 12 MONTHS

You Your Spouse

s s

s_ s

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ $

$ 136Q.00 $

$ $

$ $

$ 1360.00



2. List your employment history, most recent ef1'1:)1oyer first (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.

Employer Address Dates of Employment Gross Monthly Pay Advanced Media Group 1250 Fremont street 1998 To Present 2005 to Present = $0.00

Lancaster, PA 17603 1998 to 2005 = $4,000.00

Pftumm Contractors, Inc. 54 S. Duke street 1994to1998 $3200.00 Millersville, PA 17551

Advanced Media Group 1857 Colonial Village Lane 1988to 1992 $4,000.00 Lancaster, PA 17602

Financial Management Group 1755 Oregon Pike · 1sasto1988 $9,000.00 Lancaster, PA 17601

3. List your spouse's employment history, most recent employer first (Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.

Employer Address Dates of Employment Gross Monthly Pay

4. How much cash do you and your spouse have? $1300.00

Below, state any money you or spouse have in bank accounts or in any other financial institution.

Financial Institution Type of Account Amount you have

$ ___ _

$ ___ _

$ ___ _

Amount your spouse

has $. ___ _

$. ___ _

$. ___ _

If you are a prisoner, you must attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts, expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. If you have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions, attach one certified statement for each account

Pages of24 Wednesday, September 30, 2015


5. List the assets, and their values, >Mlich you own or your spouse owns. Do not list dothing and ordinary household furnishings.

Home 1250 Fremont St

(Value) Other real estate (Value) MotorVehide # (Value) $9,000.00

Motor Vehide #2 (Value)

Make&year_

Model:

Registration #:

Other assets

Make & year 2007 Honda CRV

Model: Honda CRV

Registration #:

(Value) Other assets (Value)

6. State every person, business or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the amount owed.

Person owing you oryour spouse money

Halileysville Insurance Company Sam Lombardo High Industries Mike Caterbone Thomas Grassel Drew Anthon/Eden Resort Inn Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Fines & Costs Paid (Appeals Won 4/30/07) Fulton Bank

Amount owed to you

$14,000.00 $1,871.00 $15,221.00 $10,000.00 $ Amount not available $ 24,000.00

$ 954.00 $ 85,000.00

7. State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support

Name Relationship

Page6 of24

Amount owed to your spouse

Age

Wednesday, September 30, 2015


8. Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your famUy. Show separately the amounts paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly, quarterty, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate.

You Your Spouse

Rent or Home Matgage $SEE ATTACHED $ Onclude lot rented for mobDe home) Are real estate taxed

included? ayes a no Is property insurance included? a yes n no

Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, $ $ water, sewer, and telephone)

Home maintenance (repairs $ $

and upkeep)

Food $ $

Clothing $ $

Laundry and dry.cleaning $ $

Medical and dental expenses $ $

Transportation (not including $ ~ motor vehicle payments)

Reaeation, entertairvnent, $ $ newspapers, magazines, etc.

Insurance (not deducted from $ $_ wages or included in mortgage payments)

Homeowners or renters $ $_ Life $ $_ Health $ $_ Motor Vehicle $ $_ Other: $ $

Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)(specify):



You Your Spouse

Installment payments $ $

Credit Card (name): $_

Department Store (name):_ $ $_

Other: $ $_

Alimony, maintenance and $ $_ support paid to others

Regular expenses for operation $ $_ of business or farm (attach detailed statement)

Other (specify): Postage $ $_

Total monthly expenses: $ t.

9. Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or liabilities during the next 12 months?

o Yes X NO If yes, describe on an attached sheet.

10. Have you paid_Orv.111 you be paying.,. __ an attorney any money for services in connection

v.1th this case, including the completion of this form?

a Yes X No If yes, how much?$ ____ _

If yes state the attorney's name, address and telephone number:



11. Have you paid_ Or will you be paying___ anyone other than attorney (such as a paralegal or

typist) any money for services in connection with this case, including the completion of this form?

o Yes X No If yes, how much?$ ___ _

If yes state the person's name, address and telephone number.

12. Provide any other information that v.iill help explain why you cannot pay the docket fees for your appeal.

I HAVE BEEN THE VICTIM OF NUMEROUS FEDERAL AND ST ATE STATUTES AND HAVE BEEN FIGHTING TO BE RESTORED TO WHOLE FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS. THE MONIES THAT I HAVE AND THE LIABILITIES, LOSSES, AND THE LIKE ARE NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DENY ME IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IN ANY COURT OF LAW, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT I AM A FEDERAL WHISTLE-BLOWER AND VICTIM OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL. IN ADDITION THE PRECEDING HAS PREVENTED ME FROM OBTAINING AND SECURING COPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PAST 30 YEARS AND PUT ME IN THE UNFORTUNATE POSTION AS PRO SE.

13. State the address of your legal residence.

1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

Your age: JI 51 , '( Your years of SchooHng: Bacbelor of Science Business Admjnistratipn 1980

Rev: 9/29/04



•

•

Case 05-23059-ref Doc_ 132 osfitmti§»A/lleed iliRffar~;tW~Altiio~an ~JM~1, 2010 Document Page 30 of 31

Stan J. Ceterbone and Advanced Media Group Case No. OS-23059

Date of St.attment

Cash Wachovia Bank Checking Social Security Debit Card Inventory Accounts Receivables Total cunent aueta

Property & Other MMt8 Residence Home Fuml$hlngs 1991 Dodge Pick Up Dakota Advanatd1Medla Group Stock Advanced1Medla Group Equipment Litigation Value

Net Property and Other .Aaets

TotatAue•

Accounts payable Citl Bank Crt!dit Card Bank of America PayPal Buyer Credit Discover Bank of America Chase/Bank One AAA F1nanclal Services AAA Financial Services Wells Fargo Flnancial services Wells Fargo Financial Services Fulton Mortgage services Honda Financial Servic:es Beneficial! Comcast Sprint Capitol Blue Cross Donegal Mutual Insurance Verizon FedEx PP&L Wiiiow Run Veterinary Clink:

Balance Sheet January 1, 2010

1.Jan-10

50.00

346.00 1,000.00

0.00 2, 714,832.35 2,716,228.35

0.00 10,000.00 2,000.00

1,000,000.00 1,000.00

50,000,000.00

51,013,000.00

53,729,228.35

$12,111.93 $10,187.52

$1,809.80 $3,743.10

$623.69 $238.35

$18,827.63 $1,585.97 $3,466.00

$0.00 $0.00

$12,369.70 $7,000.00 $1,813.11

$806.76 $32.00 $74.00 $26.00 $41.38

$1,089.00 $74.00

Qm.'11d~

ti nllnr'9professi<l¥.1ai Reorganization Plan Page 30 of 31 -ftffl:~h-llhl~~~-



•

•

Case 05-23059-ref Doc 132 o~~d~~~ iatltaEHhall~~~l>ta~arMiifl 11, 2010 Document Page ·31-of!ff'"

Stan J. Cebal'bofta and Advanced Media Group case No. OS-23.059

Yamell Security Systems Yolanda caterbone Cingular Wireless sovereing Bank PowerNet Global Communications Windstream Lancaster.County Probation BMG MuSic Service Microsoft Pacer Service Center-U.S West Publlcatlons Salute Visa

MEDICAL BILLS Lancaster Regional Medical Ctr Conestoga Oral a. Maxillofacial AssOI Anestesia Ass«t~ Of Lancaster, L SE Lancaster Health Ctinlc Abbeyvllle Family Practice of LGH Lancaster Genentl Hospltal Lancaster Radiological AsSociates Health Port Lancaster Emergency Associates TOTAL BALANCE

Charges are inflated; wrong; or liability of another person or entity. $53,211.1&

Total Uabilities

Lone Term Debt

Net Worth

Balance Sheet January 1, 2010

$1,076.32 $25,000.00

$509.98 $404.85

$2.82 $9.55

$1,800.00 $120.33

$59.95 $41:92 $92.22

$906.49

$459.98 $1,269.00 $1,034.00

$12.55 $149.00

$31,264.90 $568.00

$61.17

~95.0' iUi(S7.9

Non-Contested

$141,557.97

$0.00

$5315871670 .. 38

C1~W(1h

tt .._....professional Reorganization Plan Page 31 of 31

4~~~~~·-~~~

Page 11of24 Wednesday, September 30,, 2015


Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main

Case: 07-2151 Docu~O!Atr04M1cJ>dde:1 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STA1ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TIDRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CA1ERBONE, Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 1HE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Civil No. 06-cv--05012)

District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a) March 17, 2011

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 4, 2011)

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro se Advanced Media Group 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

William Kanter, Esq. Jeffrica I. Lee, Esq. . Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Room 7537 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530-0001



Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04/11 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main

Case: 07-2151 Docurf?~~~mM~f-2 qf;~e: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq. Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Court Duane Moms LLP 1940 Route 70 East Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

OPINION OF THE COURT

BARRY, Circuit Judge

This case involves an lUltimely notice of appeal to the District Court after the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal, for cause, of a Chapter 11 petition. The question before us is whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an lllltimely filing such as the one at issue here deprives subsequent reviewing courts-here, both. the District Court and this Court-of jurisdiction over the appeal. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we will dismiss the instant aj>peal and remand to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the appeal to it from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Background

Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in May 2005. The United States Trustee subsequently moved to dismiss the petition for cause, and the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 3, 2006, citing various substantive and procedural deficiencies. See 11 u.s.c. § l l 12{b).

The order of dismissal was mailed to Caterbone by first class mail on October S, 2006. On October 16, he sent a notice of appeal by first class mail and electronic mail. However, the notice of appeal was filed with the District Court on October 19; rendering it lllltimely because it occurred outside the ten-day window, then in place, for filing

2




Case: 07·2151 oocu&~~:~3q\04&1~9 3 ~abl: 3 Date Filed: 04104/2011

a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).1 It is undisputed that Caterbone did not file a "request to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal ... by written motion ... before the time for filing a notice of appeal ha[ d] expired," nor did the Bankruptcy Court grant such an extension following "a motion filed not later than 20 days after the expiration of the time for.filing a notice of appeal ..• upon a showing of excusable neglect" Id 8002( c )(2).

Despite its untimely ftling, Caterbone' s appeal was docketed in the District Court on November 14, and the Trustee did not argue that it was untimely. On March 15, 2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal, citing Caterbone's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006, which requires that a petitioner designate "items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented" Caterbone appealed to this Court. Shortly thereafter, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing, for the first time, Caterbone's initial lllltimely notice of appeal, and arguing that, as a result of the untimely filing, the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Following various intervening events, including the appointment of amicus curiae, the case is now before us. The Trustee argues that, consistent with Bowles v. Russell, 551

1 In amending Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), effective December 1, 2009, to expand the time for filing a notice of appeal to fourteen days, the Supreme Court's accompanying Order provided that the amendment "shall govern in all proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending." Supreme Court of the United States, Order Amending Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Mar. 26, 2009). The Trustee argues that the "just and practicable" rationale is inapplicable here. Moreover, the Trustee notes that Caterbone's notice of appeal was dated, but not filed, on Ociober 16, and argues, persuasively in our view, that even if the expanded period were to apply, the notice of appeal was still untimely because it was filed the sixteenth day after entry of the Bankruptcy Court's order.

3




Case: 07-2151 Docu~ei~~lRF.J.1~04-4 q\/Je: 4 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

U.S. 205 (2007), Section 158(c)(2) established a mandatory, jurisdictional deadline that statutorily encompasses Rule 8002(a)'s specified timeline for. appealing the judgment of a bankruptcy court, such that the timeline is not. akin to a freestanding, waivable "claim-processing rule'' within the meaning of Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004). Amicus argues similarly. Caterbone, on the other hand, elides the Bowles analysis and argues, inter alia, that his untimely filing should be addressed, and excused, under the standard of "excusable neglect" set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Bnmswick.A.ssocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).

For the reasons explained below, we hold that the prescribed timeline within which an appeal from a banktuptcy court must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional, thus affirming, in light of Bowles, the rule that we applied in Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1997).

Il. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

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

Ordinarily, we apply plenary review to final orders of a district court sitting as an appellate court reviewing the decision of a bankruptcy court. In re Carnegie Ctr . .A.ssocs., 129 F .3d 290, 294 (3d Cir. 1997). However, following from

4




case: 07-2151 Docun2~tllm§~;04Elifif 5 ~: s Date Filed: 04/04/2011

our obligation to detennine the threshold issue of subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at .514, and where, as here, a party "contest[sl our jurisdiction and that of the District Court, ... (w]e exercise de novo review over [the] question[] of subject matter jurisdiction." Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010). This is the case even where, again as here, a district court "exercis[es its] jurisdiction" and dismisses a cause of action for some other reason. Id If our independent review yields the conclusion that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, the appropriate.disposition is dismissal of the appeal. In re Caribbean Tubular Corp., 813 F.2d 533, S3S (1st Cir. 1987) (holding that where it is found that a district court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcy court order, the court of appeals must dismiss the appeal to it, and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate its order and to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court).

ID. Discussion

An appeal from a decision of a bankruptcy court is subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 158(cX2), which provides that appeals "shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by Rule· 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." When Caterbone filed his appeal, that rule provided, in relevant part, that "notice of appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed :from." Fed. R. Banlcr. P. 8002(a) (2006).

Although Kontrick affmned as "'axiomatic"' the proposition that requirements contained in a bankruptcy rule alone are not jurisdictional (and, hence, are waivable), 540 U.S. at 453 (citation omitted), Section 158 provides the statutory basis for the courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) & (d) (specifying circumstances of "district courts['] . . . jurisdiction to hear appeals" and the "courts of appeals['] . . . jurisdiction"). Because Section 158 also specifies the time within which an

5




Case: 07-2151 0ocunf6Q£l\m§q;04JA8if 6 ~a\Jl: 6 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

appeal must be taken-i.e., "in the time provided by Rule 8002"-that requirement is jurisdictional. As Bowles clarified, both acknowledging and distinguishing Kontrick, ''the taking. of an appeal within [a statutorily] prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional." 551 U.S. at 209 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, "failure to file [a] notice of appeal in accordance with the statute therefore deprive[s] •u [courts) of jurisdiction[, and bars a party from) ... rely[ing) on forfeiture or waiver to excuse [a] lack of compliance with the statute's time limitations." Id. at 213 (citation omitted).

Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that specifies the time within which an appeal must be filed, the statutory incorporation of that rule renders its requirement statutory and, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable. As the Supreme Court recently observed, while "the distinction between jurisdictional conditions [i.e., a la Bowles) and claimprocessing rules [i.e., a la Kontrick] can be confusing in practice[,] ... Bowles stands for the proposition that context, including th[e] Court's interpretation of similar provisions in many years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a requirement as jurisdictional." Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct 1237, 1243, 1247-48 (2010).

Beyond the fact that the statutory text of Section 158(cX2) incorporates a time condition, historical context also supports our holding. Prior to Kontrick and Bowles, we regarded Rule 8002(a)'s time limit for filing a notice of appeal as jmisdictional. See Shareholtkrs, 109 F .3d at 879; Whitemere Dev. Corp., Inc. v. Cherry Hill Twp., 786 F.2d 185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals, Inc., 155 F .2d 309, 311 (3d Cir. 1985). Kontrick-and, later, Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (2005}-arguably provided the opportunity to question whether this rule remained correct. That being said, a careful reading of Kontrick, Bowles, and Reed Elsevier confirms that the rule we affirmed in Shareholders, Whitemere, and Universal Minerals remains the rule today.

In holding that time constraints for objecting to a

6




Case: 07-2151 DocunQRf.'6B!¥104aiM 1 'abi:7 Date Flied: 04/04/2011

discharge in bankruptcy are non-jurisdictional "claimprocessing rules," Kontriclc noted that Congress's statutory grant of jurisdiction to the courts to adjudicate discharges in bankruptcy contains no reference to a time condition. 540 U.S. at 452-53 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(l), (b)(2)(1), and (b)(2)(J)).2 To the contrary, in holding that the statutorilyprescribed time provision for filing an appeal in a federal habeas corpus proceeding is jurisdictional, Bowles expressly stated: "Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictionalrequirement." 551 U.S. at 214. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that .Arbaugh could be read to state that a clear statement rule applies to Congress, s identification of a statutory limitation as juri$dictional, see 546 U.S. at 515-16,3 Reed Elsevier more recently clarified that, again a la Bowles,

the relevant question . . . is not . . . whether [a particular statutory provision] itself has long

2 Likewise, in Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 21, the Court concluded that time provisions in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were non-jurisdictional, and thus waivable. In Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, the Court concluded that a numerical provision affecting Title VII claims, but which was separate from Title Vll's jurisdictional provision, thereby was not jurisdictional.

3 As the Court stated in Arbaugh: [W]e think it the sounder course to refrain from constricting § 1331 or Title VIl's jurisdictional provision, and to leave the ball in Congress' court. If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute,s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then comts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction -as nonjurisdictional in character.

546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citations and reference omitted).

1




Case:07-2151 Docurlr£<i~lWJ\~~8 <f>tae: 8 Date Filed: 04/0412011

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

130 s. Ct. at 1248.

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

4 For purposes of reference only, we note In re Taylor, 343 F. App'x 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2009), and In re Jacobowitz, 384 F. App'x 93, 94 (3d Cir. 2010).

8



I ,J

I

case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Desc Main

Case: 07-2151 DocurR'h'i-,J~g 9 q!J-Je: 9 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

cases after a certain period has elapsed from final judgment." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Taking all of this into consideration, we conclude that the rule we enunciated in Shareholders remains good law. 5

Given the fact that subject matter jurisdiction over Caterbone's appeal to the District Court was, and is, lacking-and that jurisdictional defect also bars us from reviewing the merits of his appeal to us-we need not address the Court's dismissal· of his appeal for failure to prosecute. Nor need we address Caterbone's argument that his "excusable neglect" saves his untimely filing, given the clear text of Rule 8002 and the guidance of Shareholders:

Rule 8002( c) ... requires that even in cases of excusable neglect, the issue must be raised and the appeal filed within the ... window of Rule 8002 (Rule 8002(a)'s [timeline] for the appeal+ 8002(c)'s [timeline] for the extension). The rule does not allow a party to claim excusable neglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired.

109 F3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). Finally, we decline to address Caterbone's remaining arguments, because they do not pertain to the threshold issue of jurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the instant appeal and remand to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

5 Our conclusion is consistent with the holdings of our sister circuits that have affirmed that the filing timeline for bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. See In re Latture, 605 F.3d 830, 837 (10th Cir. 2010); In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2007); In re B.A.R. Entm't Mgmt., Inc., 2010 WL 4595554 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing In re Siemon, 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)).

9




Case: 07-2151 DocurR&Wt.'~104-lO tJt3~: 1 Date Filed: 04/0412011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TIIIRD CIRCUIT

No. 07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE, Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 1lIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012) District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.l(a) March 17, 2011

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This cause came to be heard on the appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on March 17, 2011.

After consideration of all the contentions raised, it is

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and this

matter is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal

from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No costs. All in

accordance with the Opinion of the Court.



Case 05-23059-ref Doc 133 Filed 04/04111 Entered 08/04/1114:01:54 Oesc Main

Case: 07 ·2151 Docu~Qn~rn8~\ 104§8a311 ;alii: 2 -Date Filed: 04/0412011

Dated: April 4, 2011

ATI'EST:

Isl Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

2




Case: 07-2151 DocuirtQfiH-104~2 ~i: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

MARCIA M. WALDRON

CLERK

• .

i

..

Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

Jeffrica J. ~' Esq.

omcEOF nm CLERK

UNl'J'ED STATES CoURT OF APPEALS 21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA. PA 19106-1790

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

April 4, 2011

United States Department of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvani~ Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq. Duane Morris 1940 Route 70 East Suite200. Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

RE: In re: Stanley Caterbone Case Number: 07-2151 District Case Number: 06-cv-05012

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

TELEPHONE

215-597-2995

Today, April 04, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir. LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.


'-"·-



Case: 07-2151 Docu~itt~~l§\104i8U'113 ~ahl: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2011

Time for Filing: 14 days after entry of judgment. 45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.

Page Limits: 15 pages Attachments: A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are pennitted without first obtaining leave from the Court.

Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be construed as requesting both panel and en bane rehearing. If separate petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en bane are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not provide for the subsequent tiling of a petition for rehearing en bane in the event that the petition seeking only panel rehearing is denied.

A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must tile an itemized and verified bill of costs within 14 days from the entry of judgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on the proper fonn which is available on the court's website.

A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.RApp.P. 41.

Review of this Court's final decision may be pursued in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and requirements for tiling a petition for v..Tit of certiorari.

Very truly yours,

7'(~ ;.,. VJiN,... Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By: Charlene/jk Case Manager 267-299-4923



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

Documents

Transcript of DOCKET and NOTICE to THIRD CIRCUIT Lisa Michelle Lambert Habeus 14-2559 September 30, 2015 Pd