Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Control Enforcement Online Complaint Form June 17, 2016

Online Complaint Form
http://www.psp.pa.gov/LCE/Pages/online-complaint-form.aspx#.V2RTr6...
Pennsylvania State Police > Liquor Control Enforcement > Online Complaint Form
Success
Success! Your submission has been saved!
Summary
2 of 4
Field
Value
Name of
Establishment
or Business
Bars of Downtown Lancaster, PA
Names of
individual(s)
involved:
owners, bartenders, patrons
Establishment
Street Address
Center City
Establishment
City or Town
Lancaster
Zip Code
17603
County
Lancaster
Please provide
a brief
description of
the observed or
suspected
violations:
I am constantly stalked, harassed, threatened, both verbally and

physically on just about every occasion that I frequent the
establishments. The Lancaster City Police do nothing but add
fuel to the fire. Please visit the following for more information https://www.scribd.com/doc/315897668/Case-No-08-Cv-02982U-S-District-Court-Re-CATERBONE-v-Lancaster-City-PoliceDepartment-and-Pete-Anders-Millersville-University-Policeas-of-June-16 Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP Freedom From Covert Harassment &
Surveillance, Registered in Pennsylvania 1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603 www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com 717-669-2163
Name
Stan J. Caterbone
Street Address
1250 Fremont Street
City
Lancaster
State / Province
/ Region
PA
Postal / Zip
Code
17603
Country
United States
Phone
(717) 669-2163
Email
stancaterbone@gmail.com
6/17/2016 3:56 PM
More
Agencies (
http://www.pa.gov/Pages
/Agency-Directory.aspx )
Privacy Policy (
/Privacy-Policy.aspx )
Settings
Share
Tech Help (
/contactus.aspx#whoson_chat_link
)
Links
Support
Social Media
Policies
Copyright 2016 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.
SHARE THIS
CLOSE
3 of 4
6/17/2016 3:56 PM
FONT SIZE
CLOSE
Font Reset
Font +
4 of 4
6/17/2016 3:56 PM
LNP analysis: Police in Lancaster County have paid out $2.4 million to se... http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/lnp-analysis-police-in-lancaster-co...
1 of 7
Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police
Page 1 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
2 of 7
Page 2 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
3 of 7
Page 3 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
4 of 7
Page 4 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
5 of 7
Page 5 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
6 of 7
Page 6 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
7 of 7
Page 7 of 52
50
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:39 AM
Millersville University - Pete Anders
1 of 1
http://millersville.edu/services/cdre/faculty/pete-anders.php
Pete Anders
CDRE Home
Pete Anders
Recent News
MSEM Master's Program
MDST Bachelor's Program
EHEM Minor
CERT
Storm Ready @ MU
Student Emergency Preparedess
Regional Business Preparedness
Campaign
Additional Information
Virtual Seminar Series
Pete Anders has an extensive background within law enforcement and has worked across the table
with other first responders during the preplanning of events and in response to critical incidents in the
International Association of
Emergency Managers
area. Pete became the Millersville University Police Chief in December of 2010 after a national
search. Being selected as Chief of Police is a return home, as Pete is an alumnus, having earned a
CDRE Faculty & Staff
Bachelors of Education in Psychology from Millersville University. Pete also graduated from the
Northwestern University School of Police Staff and Command.
External Advisory Board

Contact Us/Alumni Update Form
Founding Director
Quick Links
CDRE Blog
Department of Homeland Security
IAEM
FEMA
PEMA
ReadyPA.org
South Central Task Force
Pete retired from Lancaster City Police in 2010 as the Captain of the Criminal Investigative Division
after 20 years of service. Pete was also the Captain of the Patrol Division, and supervised and
worked as a violent crime detective, street drug investigator and bicycle community police officer in
the SE quadrant of Lancaster. During that time he has moved from serving as an officer to becoming
a detective, sergeant, lieutenant and then a captain. Pete was awarded by Lancaster clergy for his
work to reduce violent crime, and as the Lancaster County Human Relations Commission officer of
the year, and by the Bureau as the top investigator for solving a cold case homicide.
Pete has coordinated response to homicides, fatal accidents, chemical spills, officer involved
shootings and incidents of school and workplace violence. Pete had command positions in two of
President Obama campaign visits to Lancaster, and served as close ambassador protection to visiting
dignitaries including President Clinton, Lady Margaret Thatcher, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Rev. Jesse
Jackson. Pete has organized numerous large special events within the University community and
regionally including events that have attracted organized and anarchist protests.
At Millersville, Pete works regularly with local EMA partners, to coordinate activities both on and off
campus. Pete has completed ICS 100 400, All Hazards IMT and other response trainings and has
coordinated tabletop exercises for Millersville University Cabinet and essential personnel. Pete
instructs ALICE active shooter response to students and employees, and has made changes in
campus emergency communications by switching all emergency calls to Lancaster County Wide
Communications (911) dispatched response.
Page 8 of 52
June 16, 2016

6/16/2016 9:59 AM
28 October 2009
Stanley Caterbone
Pursuant to Act 188 of 1982, the University reserves the right to
ban from campus property those persons whose presence does
not benefit the campus community. Persons who are banned
from campus properties are subject to arrest under all
appropriate sections of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code if they
are found or reported to be on any property owned or controlled
by the University.
Caterbone is a white male, 50 years of age, with gray eyes and
graying hair. Caterbone has displayed a continued pattern of
harassment and threats toward University Officials since the
date of his original trespass notification. If Caterbone is
observed on any campus property University Police should be
notified immediately by calling 717.872.3911.
Authorized by the Millersville University Police and the Millersville University Threat Assessment Team
Page 9 of 52
June 16, 2016
Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 27 of 69
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CATERBONE and ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP (Plaintiffs)
v.
LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE, et. al., (Defendants)
Case No. 08-cv-02982
DEFENDANTS
CITY OF LANCASTER
CITY OF LANCASTER MAYOR RICK GRAY
SECTOR 9 OF THE LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE
LANCASTER CITY POLICE CHIEF KEITH SADDLER
LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE
CIVIL COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. Stanley J. Caterbone (CATERBONE) and Advanced Media Group were located at 220 Stone Hill
Road, Conestoga, Pennsylvania (Conestoga Township) until August 30, 2006 when CATERBONE
temporarily moved into a family residence at 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania (City
of Lancaster).
2. The PLAINTIFF, Stanley J. Caterbone (CATERBONE), alleges that the City of Lancaster and the
Lancaster City Bureau of Police and others colluded to deliberately ignore CATERBONES
complaints, an abuse of process, in an effort to retaliate, subvert, interrupt and deter current and
ongoing litigation and civil complaints against several major businesses and government agencies
with headquarters in the City of Lancaster and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Those would
include the Lancaster General Hospital; High Industries (not Penn Square Partners and the
Lancaster County Convention Center); Fulton Bank and Fulton Financial Corporation; a Wachovia
Bank branch (pending); Lancaster Newspapers; the County of Lancaster; the Lancaster County
Prison; the Hotel Brunswick (pending); James Street Investment District (pending); Aurora Films;
Haverstick Films (pending); and the Lancaster City Bureau of Police. The City of Lancaster and the
Lancaster City Bureau of Police are derelict in their duties in forcing CATERBONE to litigate for
duties and services due CATERBONE that are mandated in the bylaws of the City of Lancaster.
3. CATERBONE also alleges that the Lancaster City Bureau of Police were used to retaliate,
subvert, interrupt and deter other litigation and civil complaints against other police departments,
namely the Southern Regional Police Department, the Manheim Township Police Department, the
East Lampeter Police Department, the Millersville Boro Police, the Avalon Police Department and
the Stone Harbor Police Department. CATERBONE alleges that Southern Regional Police Chief John
Fiorill used is official capacity as President of the Red Rose Chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police
to help accomplish these civil torts.
4. CATERBONE alleges that by ignoring his complaints the Lancaster City Police Bureau of Police
gave the green light, or approval, for others to continue a long and successful period of
harassment, thievery, property damage, computer and electronic hacking, deletion and
manipulation of court related documents, records and evidence, mail fraud, eaves dropping,
invasion of privacy, criminal trespass, and the like. These activities are so intense that they have
taken on the characteristics of a hate crime.
5. CATERBONE alleges that the gross abuse and gross negligence defamed his name and that of
his company, ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP, which discredited his reputation in an effort to diminish
credibility in the courts; to thwart any reprimands by oversight agencies; and to disrupt and
thwart any possible business relations and operations of ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP. This has
resulted in direct and immediate financial loss, loss of time, and loss of income.
6. Chief Keith Sadler and the Lancaster City Police Bureau rejected and refused to resolve these
disputes through mediation when CATERBONE opened a case with the Lancaster Center for
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
Page10
827
of
ofof
50
5269
Page
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Mediation in May of 2008. Keith Sadler communicated to the Lancaster Mediation Center on May
8, 2008 that he would not cooperate and mediate with CATERBONE.
7. On several occasions in 2007 several police officers of the Lancaster City Bureau of Police
instructed CATERBONE, in person upon responding to complaints, not to call 911 or the Lancaster
City Police Department and that the Lancaster City Bureau of Police would not respond or take
complaints.
8. The Lancaster City Bureau of Police only took one (1) incident of gas siphoned and stolen from
CATERBONEs 1991 Dodge pickup truck, and refused to take the over 50 (from December 20,
2007 to present), or so other incidents as a complaint, regardless of the efforts to have Lancaster
City Mayor Rick Grey and the Lancaster City Solicitor to look into the allegations and complaints.
CATERBONE had meticulously documented the incidents in a journal and a log of gas receipts,
photographs, and odometer miles for all of the incidents. CATERBONE also made a thorough and
documented calibration of his 1991 Dodge Dakota Pick-Up truck with logs of mileage and times
and dates of gas purchases in a report to prove the gas was stolen. Lancaster City Police Bureau
Officer Cosmore returned the report with such words as counterfeit, fake, written on it and had
the audacity to ask CATERBONE if he had a certification of the gas pumps that were listed on
gas receipts. There were some days when the gas was stolen 2 or more times. CATERBONE
alleges that perpetrators were using a kerosene battery operated siphon, or like kind, to siphon
the gas from the gas tank.
9. The Lancaster City Bureau of Police had responded to approximately 10 or so 911 calls in the
last eighteen (18) months to 1250 Fremont Street, residence of CATERBONE, for complaints of
property damage; stolen property, missing legal and business files and evidence for litigation;
computer and electronic hacking with deleted electronic files; harassment; terrorist threats,
stalking, stolen mail, etc.,.
10. CATERBONE had complained of abuse of process to state and federal law enforcement
regarding the situation, including U.S. Senator Arlen Specters office. CATERBONE had also visited
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in both Harrisburg and Philadelphia for help and
intervention.
11. CATERBONE also had personal meetings with Lancaster City Mayor Rick Gray in Lancaster City
Hall on at least 4 occasions to find a solution to the problems and for help to mediate the
problems and or resolve the conflicts. The resulting pain and suffering, as well as loss and
destruction of property and financial loss that CATERBONE was undergoing was unprecedented.
12. In November of 2007, CATERBONE and the Advanced Media Group went public with their
Downtown Lancaster investments and business plans that were culminated over the past 9 years.
The Advanced Media Group also formerly and publicly introduced their Downtown Lancaster Action
Plan via handouts, websites, and blogs; and began meetings and negotiations with major
stakeholders, City of Lancaster Public Officials, Developers, and investors.
13. In 1997 CATERBONE had solicited Attorney Christina Rainville of Philadelphia and pro bono
attorney for Lisa Michelle Lambert in the Laurie Show murder case. The murder trials and appeals
of the Lambert case demonized Ms. Christina Rainville and U.S. District Court Judge Stewart
Dalzell. After CATERBONE submitted documents and audio recordings, Ms. Christina Rainville had
communicated with CATERBONE that she was not able to take his case due to the fact that her
Philadelphia law firm had banned her from taking on any more Lancaster County residents,
despite the fact that many more sought her legal counsel. On December 31, 1997, CATERBONE
had also personally delivered a CD-ROM to the chambers of U.S. District Court Judge Stewart
Dalzell in an effort to bring attention to his case. In May of 1998 CATERBONE submitted an
AFFADAVIT to the law firm of Schneider and Harrison outlining the prosecutorial misconduct or
Finding of Facts of the 1987 cover-up for Ms. Christina Rainville. CATERBONE alleges that these
facts were part of the attitude and the motives for the law enforcement-at-large of Lancaster
County and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ignore the rule of law and procedure in order to
bring these false arrests and malicious prosecutions. The Lancaster County community-at-large
had the same attitude toward CATERBONE. The Lambert case received national notoriety when
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
Page11
928
of
ofof
50
5269
Page
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
U.S. District Judge Stuart Dalzell freed Lambert on a Habeus Corpus appeal hearing citing she was
actually innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Dalzell was quoted in chambers as saying,
"I can tell you, Mr. Madenspacher, that I've thought about nothing else but this case for over three
weeks, and in my experience, sir, and I invite you to disabuse me of this at oral argument, I want
you and I want the Schnader firm to look for any case in any jurisdiction in the English-speaking
world where there has been as much prosecutorial misconduct, because I haven't found it. The
case was covered by a 3 part series in the Los Angeles Times by writer Barry Seigel on November
10, 1997 and a television episode on the A&E Network American Justice Series. The Lancaster
community gathered over 10,000 signatures on a petition to impeach U.S. District Judge Stewart
Dalzell for his rulings. In the end, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania took control of the case and
appealed the ruling that freed Lambert sending her back to prison. The case went all the way to
the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, after being denied any review. The case accentuated the rights
of Federal Law vs. State Law and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania solicited a team of attorney
generals from across the nation to help their cause. CATERBONE attended a hearing before former
Lancaster County Court Common Pleas Judge Larry Stengel in the Lancaster County Court of
Common Pleas. To this day, due to his knowledge and experience with the Lancaster County
Judicial System and Law Enforcement, and his own dire civil complaints, CATERBONE believes that
the over zealous prosecution proves that prosecutorial misconduct was never thoroughly
investigated or prosecuted in the Lambert case. CATERBONE will not let that happen in his cases.
CAUSES OF ACTION
14. On or about April 14, 2008 1999 HP Notebook n5150 laptop was rendered useless by an
intruder shorting the power cord. This was the third computer rendered useless since November of
2007, and the last computer available for use in the home and office. Other incidents were
happening while at 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, PA since 1997. The only computer available
for use was the public computer at the Lancaster County Library on North Duke Street in
downtown Lancaster.
15. On March 18, 2008 CATERBONE went to the Hotel Brunswick in Downtown Lancaster to
continue take measurements of the Movie Theater for his continued efforts of a business and
development plan. (The Brunswick Movie Theater, or Eric, had been closed since 1995.
CATERBONE and Advanced Media Group had an agreement with the Owner of the Brunswick,
Hamid Zahedi, to make a formal proposal and offer for leasing the site. CATERBONE had begun
discussions in 2006.) On March 18, 2008 CATERBONE noticed that the United States Department
of Justice Office of Trustee was conducting hearings for Chapter 11 petitioners in the Presidential
Room of the Hotel Brunswick. CATERBONE had not received ORDERS from his United States Third
Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 08-3054 for his appeal of an issue in his Chapter 11 Case No.
05-23059. CATERBONE alleged that the ORDERS were stolen or never mailed from the clerk of
courts. CATERBONE thought maybe Dave Adams, the trustee for the United States Department of
Justice Office of Trustee might be conducting the hearings. The following day CATERBONE received
a disturbing email from Mr. Barry A. Solodky, Esquire, of Blakinger, Byler & Thomas, P.C., 28 Penn
Square, Lancaster, PA 17603. CATERBONE had known Mr. Solodky since the 1980s and had even
solicited him to review his bankruptcy matters before the Appllent filed his Chapter 11 case on
May 23, 2005. The following email exchanges detail the incident and the false reports and
allegations from a member of Blakinger, Byler & Thomas, P.C.:
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
10
5069
Page12
29ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?490294791050398-L_1_0-1

CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:08-cv-02982-MAM
CATERBONE et al v. LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU et al

Assigned to: HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Date Filed: 06/18/2008

Date Terminated: 07/11/2008
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

1250 FREMONT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
717-669-2163
Email: scaterbone@live.com
PRO SE
Plaintiff
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
represented by ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

c/o STANLEY J. CATERBONE
1250 FREMONT STREET
LANCASTER, PA 17603
717-427-1821
PRO SE
V.
Defendant
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU
Defendant
SECTOR 9 OF THE LANCASTER CITY
BUREAU OF POLICE
Defendant
KEITH SADDLER
LANCASTER CITY BUREAU OF POLICE
CHIEF
Defendant
RICK GRAY
LANCASTER CITY MAYOR
Defendant
CITY OF LANCASTER
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
11
5069
Page13
30ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/7/2015 5:56 AM
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2 of 2
https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?490294791050398-L_1_0-1

Date Filed
# Docket Text
06/18/2008
1 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(ti, )

(Entered: 06/26/2008)
07/11/2008
2 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS

GRANTED. THIS COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED, WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMEDNED
COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE
THIS CASE STATISTICALLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON
7/10/2008.7/11/2008 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(ap, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
07/11/2008
3 COMPLAINT against LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, SECTOR 9 OF THE LANCASTER

CITY BUREAU OF POLICE, KEITH SADDLER, RICK GRAY, CITY OF LANCASTER, filed by
STANLEY J. CATERBONE, ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP.(ap, ) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
07/22/2008
4 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE..(ap, ) (Entered:

07/22/2008)
07/25/2008
5 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IS GRANTED. THE

PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THIS ORDER. IF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DO SO, THIS COMPLAINT WILL BE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. UPON THE FILING OF AN AMENDMENT, THE CLERK
SHALL NOT MAKE SERVICE UNTIL SO ORDERED BY THE COURT.SIGNED BY
HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 7/25/08.7/28/08 ENTERED AND COPIES
MAILED.(ah) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
09/25/2008
6 MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. with

EXHIBITS..(ap, ) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
10/10/2008
7 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS GRANTED; THIS

CASE SHALL REMAIND CLOSED STATISTICALLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A.
MCLAUGHLIN ON 10/10/2008.10/10/2008 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE.(ap, )
(Entered: 10/10/2008)
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
11/07/2015 05:55:41
PACER
Login:
am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:
Description:
Docket Report
Search
Criteria:
2:08-cv02982-MAM
Billable
Pages:
Cost:
0.10
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
12
5069
Page14
31ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/7/2015 5:56 AM
Case
Case5:15-cv-03984-JCJ
2:08-cv-02982-MAMDocument
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page32
1 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
13
5069
Page15
32ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page33
2 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
14
5069
Page16
33ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page34
3 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
15
5069
Page17
34ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page35
4 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
16
5069
Page18
35ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page36
5 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
17
5069
Page19
36ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page37
6 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
18
5069
Page20
37ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page38
7 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
19
5069
Page21
38ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page39
8 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
20
5069
Page22
39ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
373 Filed
Filed04/15/16
07/11/08 Page
Page40
9 of
of33
69
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
21
5069
Page23
40ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case 2:08-cv-02982-MAM
5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 41
10 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
22
5069
Page24
41ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 42
11 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
23
5069
Page25
42ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 43
12 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
24
5069
Page26
43ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 44
13 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
25
5069
Page27
44ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 45
14 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
26
5069
Page28
45ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 46
15 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
27
5069
Page29
46ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 47
16 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
28
5069
Page30
47ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 48
17 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
29
5069
Page31
48ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 49
18 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
30
5069
Page32
49ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 50
19 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
31
5069
Page33
50ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 51
20 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
32
5069
Page34
51ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 52
21 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
33
5069
Page35
52ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 53
22 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
34
5069
Page36
53ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 54
23 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
35
5069
Page37
54ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 55
24 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
36
5069
Page38
55ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 56
25 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
37
5069
Page39
56ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 57
26 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
38
5069
Page40
57ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 58
27 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
39
5069
Page41
58ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 59
28 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
40
5069
Page42
59ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 60
29 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
41
5069
Page43
60ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 61
30 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
42
5069
Page44
61ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 62
31 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
43
5069
Page45
62ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 63
32 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
44
5069
Page46
63ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Document37
3 Filed 04/15/16
07/11/08 Page 64
33 of 69
33
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
45
5069
Page47
64ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Case
Document
377 Filed
Filed04/15/16
10/10/08 Page
Page65
1 of 69
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY J. CATERBONE
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
v.
:
:
:
:
LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, et al.:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 08-2982
O R D E R
AND NOW, this
day of October, 2008, upon
consideration of plaintiffs Motion for Withdraw Without

Prejudice (Doc. No. 6), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)
Plaintiffs Motion for Withdraw Without Prejudice is
GRANTED; and
(2)
This case shall remain CLOSED statistically.

BY THE COURT:
/S/ MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN, J.
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
46
5069
Page48
65ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
Civil Rights Division Home Page
1 of 4
http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/polmis.php

Skip to content
En Espaol
ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT
Main Page
AAG Thomas E. Perez
LAWS ENFORCED BY THE
About Us
Section Sites
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOIA
Press Releases
Speeches & Testimony
Frequently Asked Questions
Special Topics
Post 9/11 Backlash
H1N1 Response
ADA
FACE
Cases & Briefs
Recruitment & Employment
Contact Us
Go to the
Department of Justice
Privacy Act Statement
The vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with
respect for their communities and in compliance with the law. Even so, there are incidents in which this is
not the case. This document outlines the laws enforced by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
that address police misconduct and explains how you can file a complaint with DOJ if you believe that
your rights have been violated.
Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover
the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition,
several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United
States (citizens and non-citizens).
Each law DOJ enforces is briefly discussed below. In DOJ investigations, whether criminal or civil, the
person whose rights have been reportedly violated is referred to as a victim and often is an important
witness. DOJ generally will inform the victim of the results of the investigation, but we do not act as the
victim's lawyer and cannot give legal advice as a private attorney could.
The various offices within DOJ that are responsible for enforcing the laws discussed in this document
coordinate their investigation and enforcement efforts where appropriate. For example, a complaint
received by one office may be referred to another if necessary to address the allegations. In addition,
more than one office may investigate the same complaint if the allegations raise issues covered by more
than one statute.
What is the difference between criminal and civil cases?
Hints...
Feedback Form
Criminal and civil laws are different. Criminal cases usually are investigated and handled separately from
civil cases, even if they concern the same incident. In a criminal case, DOJ brings a case against the
accused person; in a civil case, DOJ brings the case (either through litigation or an administrative
investigation) against a governmental authority or law enforcement agency. In a criminal case, the
evidence must establish proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while in civil cases the proof need only
satisfy the lower standard of a "preponderance of the evidence." Finally, in criminal cases, DOJ seeks to
punish a wrongdoer for past misconduct through imprisonment or other sanction. In civil cases, DOJ
seeks to correct a law enforcement agency's policies and practices that fostered the misconduct and,
where appropriate, may require individual relief for the victim(s).
Federal Criminal Enforcement

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive
another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C.
241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by
a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even
if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by
these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication
of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that
any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.
What remedies are available under these laws?
Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action
under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a
lawsuit on your own.
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
47
5069
Page49
66ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/23/2009 5:17 AM
2 of 4
Federal Civil Enforcement

"Police Misconduct Provision"
This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to
engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C.
14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other
things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive
sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be
covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it
may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in
court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted
a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed
below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to
prove a pattern or practice of misconduct.
What remedies are available under this law?
The remedies available under this law do not provide for individual monetary
relief for the victims of the misconduct. Rather, they provide for injunctive
relief, such as orders to end the misconduct and changes in the agency's
policies and procedures that resulted in or allowed the misconduct. There is
no private right of action under this law; only DOJ may file suit for violations of
the Police Misconduct Provision.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and the "OJP Program Statute"
Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion
by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of
Justice. (42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a
law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and
patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race,
color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice
Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests,
discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or
participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to
complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers.
DOJ may seek changes in the policies and procedures of the agency to remedy violations of these laws
and, if appropriate, also seek individual remedial relief for the victim(s). Individuals also have a private
right of action under Title VI and under the OJP Program Statute; in other words, you may file a lawsuit
yourself under these laws. However, you must first exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a
complaint with DOJ if you wish to file in Federal Court under the OJP Program Statute.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with
disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. 794). These laws
protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if
he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.
The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs,
services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects
people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section
504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
48
5069
Page50
67ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/23/2009 5:17 AM
3 of 4

from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal
agencies, including law enforcement agencies.
These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all
law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses,
providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and
holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the
investigation.
If appropriate, DOJ may seek individual relief for the victim(s), in addition to changes in the policies and
procedures of the law enforcement agency. Individuals have a private right of action under both the ADA
and Section 504; you may file a private lawsuit for violations of these statutes. There is no requirement
that you exhaust your administrative remedies by filing a complaint with DOJ first.
How to File a Complaint with DOJ

Criminal Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may
contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for investigating allegations of
criminal deprivations of civil rights. You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in
your district. The FBI and USAOs have offices in most major cities and have publicly-listed phone
numbers. In addition, you may send a written complaint to:
Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018
Civil Enforcement
If you would like to file a complaint alleging violations of the Police Misconduct Statute, Title VI, or the
OJP Program Statute, you may send a written complaint to:
Coordination and Review Section
P.O. Box 66560
You may also call the Coordination and Review Section's toll-free number for information and a complaint
form, at (888) 848-5306 (voice and TDD).
If you would like to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, you may send a
written complaint to:
Disability Rights Section
P.O. Box 66738
You may also call the Disability Rights Section's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice)
or (800) 514-0383 (TDD).
How do I file a complaint about the conduct of a law enforcement officer from a Federal agency?
If you believe that you are a victim of criminal misconduct by a Federal law enforcement officer (such as
the Immigration and Naturalization Service; the FBI; the Customs Service; Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms; or the Border Patrol), you should follow the procedures discussed above concerning how to file
a complaint alleging violations of the criminal laws we enforce. If you believe that you have been
subjected by a Federal law enforcement officer to the type of misconduct discussed above concerning
"Federal Civil Enforcement," you may send a complaint to the Coordination and Review Section, at the
address listed above. That office will forward your complaint to the appropriate agency and office.
What information should I include in a complaint to DOJ?
Your complaint, whether alleging violations of criminal or civil laws listed in this document, should include
the following information:
Your name, address, and telephone number(s).
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
49
5069
Page51
68ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/23/2009 5:17 AM
4 of 4

The name(s) of the law enforcement agency (or agencies) involved.
A description of the conduct you believe violates one of the laws discussed above, with as
many details as possible. You should include: the dates and times of incident(s); any
injuries sustained; the name(s), or other identifying information, of the officer(s) involved (if
possible); and any other examples of similar misconduct.
The names and telephone numbers of witnesses who can support your allegations.
If you believe that the misconduct is based on your race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, or disability, please identify the basis and explain what led you to believe that you
were treated in a discriminatory manner (i.e., differently from persons of another race, sex,
etc.).
Reproduction of this document is encouraged.
Return to Conduct of Law Enforcement Agencies Page

Return to Documents and Publications Page
Return to Special Litigation Section Home Page
Last updated October 13, 1999
Updated July 25, 2008
Case
08-cv-02982
v. Lancaster
City Claim
Police
Stan No.
J. Caterbone
Allstate
Property
Page
50
5069
Page52
69ofof52
June15,
16, 2016
2016
Friday, April
11/23/2009 5:17 AM

Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Control Enforcement Online Complaint Form June 17, 2016

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Pennsylvania State Police Liquor Control Enforcement Online Complaint Form June 17, 2016

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Online Complaint Form

Bars of Downtown Lancaster, PA

owners, bartenders, patrons

I am constantly stalked, harassed, threatened, both verbally and

1250 Fremont Street

Online Complaint Form

Copyright 2016 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All Rights Reserved.

Online Complaint Form

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Millersville University - Pete Anders

Virtual Seminar Series

CDRE Faculty & Staff

External Advisory Board

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case No. 08-cv-02982 v. Lancaster City Police

June 16, 2016

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 27 of 69

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 28 of 69

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 29 of 69

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 30 of 69

United States District Court

CATERBONE et al v. LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU et al

Date Filed: 06/18/2008

represented by STANLEY J. CATERBONE

represented by ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 31 of 69

1 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE.(ti, )

2 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS

3 COMPLAINT against LANCASTER CITY POLICE BUREAU, SECTOR 9 OF THE LANCASTER

4 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE..(ap, ) (Entered:

5 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IS GRANTED. THE

6 MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE filed by STANLEY J. CATERBONE. with

7 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS GRANTED; THIS

PACER Service Center

am6446:3514696:0 Client Code:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

day of October, 2008, upon

consideration of plaintiffs Motion for Withdraw Without

Plaintiffs Motion for Withdraw Without Prejudice is

This case shall remain CLOSED statistically.

/S/ MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN, J.

Civil Rights Division Home Page

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 37 Filed 04/15/16 Page 66 of 69

ADDRESSING POLICE MISCONDUCT

LAWS ENFORCED BY THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Criminal Enforcement