Federal Court Case No. 05-2288 CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, Fulton Bank, et. al., OPEN Case...

8/17/2019 Federal Court Case No. 05-2288 CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, Fulton Bank, et. al., OPEN Case and U.S…

1/100

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STANLEY J. CATERBONE \ L E D

CIVIL ACTION

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISON, et a1 . h id c -

i

NO. 05-2288

T h , c A ~ ? . 5 ~ ~ .

I ii

9Je. ' , 2 i I <

y /

MEMORANDUM

ND

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff has made numerous allegations

against numerous defendants in his eighty-seven page complaint

The Court will dismiss the complaint as to moving defendants Me

Bank (named as Commonwealth National Bank ), Manheim Township

Police Department, and Fulton Bank for failure to state

a

claim

The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to non-moving

defendants Southern Regional Police Department, Stone Harbor Po

Department, AValOn Police Department, Lancaster County Prison a

Lancaster County Sheriff's Department for failure to serve the

complaint and summons.

I. Failure to State a Claim

Each of the moving defendants has moved to dismiss o

the ground that the plaintiff has failed to state a timely clai

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit peh&K

1

The pro se plaintiff has not opposed any @L RB

motions to dismiss. By letter to the Court dated March 2 2006

request filed March 6 2006 and letter to the Court dated Apri

2006 Fulton Bank, Manheim Township, and Mellon Bank respective

requested that their motions be granted as uncontested, pursuan

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.l(c). The United States Court

Appeals for the ~hird ircuit has indicated, however, that cour

should not grant motions to dismiss against unrepresented parti

without undertaking a merits analysis: stackhouse v. ~azu;kiew

951 F.2d 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1991).


2/100

limitations defense in a motio

under Rule 12(b) 6) if the time-bar is apparent on the

complaint. Robinson v. Johnson, 313

F.3d 128, 135 (3d C

The plaintiff's eighty-seven page complaint contains

allegations regarding numerous persons and entities. The

ntiff's sole allegation against Mellon Bank/Commonwealth

k, however, is that it wrongfully repossessed the

airplane in July 1987.'

According to the complaint,

k loaned the plaintiff $97,000 towards the purchase of a

in June 1987. The following month, before any payments

ue, the Bank allegedly repossessed the plane, with all of

tiff's personal and business files on board. The plaintiff

nk sought to harm the plaintiff's business to

e banking and financial

vices businesses, in violation of the 'lender liability laws.

25, 31, 34, 37, 83, 3.)

The plaintiff named Commonwealth National Bank

Mellon Bank) as the defendant, but apparently attempted t

service by sending a copy of the complaint to Legal

Mellon Bank, N.A. (Doc. No. 8 . According to Mellon

k, Mellon formerly owned Commonwealth National. For the

of its current motion, Mellon accepted the plaintiff's

tion of Commonwealth National's actions to Mellon.

lon's Mot. to Dismiss Mem. at 1 n.1.)

The Court assumes that the plaintiff intended to name

as a defendant for the actions of Commonwealth Natio

and will consider and grant Mellon Bank's motion to dismis

If

the plaintiff intended to sue only Commonwealt

nk, however, the complaint would be dismissed as to


3/100

The plaintiff has not explicitly asserted any cause

n against the Bank. Construing the allegations in the

aint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, howeve

asserted claims against the Bank fo

replevin, trespass, fraud, breach of fiduciary dut

reposse~

Plaintiffs bringing any of these claims must do so

years.

ee

42 Pa. C.S. 5524(3) and

7 )

two year statute of limitations on any action for

g, detaining or injuring personal property, including acti

ecific recovery thereof,'' and [alny other action or

to recover damages for injury to person or property

is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortio

action or proceeding sounding in trespass,

deceit or fraud ); Glaziers Glassworkers Union Loca

252 Annuity Fund v. Newbridqe SeC., 93 F.3d 1171, 1186 (3d

(a breach of fiduciary duty is tortious conduct, subject

year statute of limitations) 42 Pa.C.S.

§

5525(a) (imposin

statute of limitations on actions based on written,

ress, or implied contracts). The plaintiff initiated this

t in May 2005, over seventeen years after the alleged

ssion. It is clear from the face of the complaint that

tiff's claims against the Bank are time-barred.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.

P. 12(b) (61, a court accepts all facts and allegations lis

complaint as true and construes them in the light most

ble to the plaintiff.

H.J.

Inc.

v.

Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 49

229, 249 (1989); Rocks v. City of ~hiladel~hia,68 F.2d 6


4/100

With respect to the Manheim Township Police Departm

the plaintiff has alleged that: (11 when the plaintiff asked f

help regarding the repossession of his airplane in July 1987,

Department's response was to ask what bank branch repossessed

aircraft ; 2) on or around September 3, 1987, Detective Larry

Sigler falsely charged the plaintiff with making terroristic

threats;

3)

on the same day, after the plaintiff was arrested

taking his own files from his own office, Detective Larry Math

refused to take his statement or inform him of the charges aga

him, and unnamed officers used excessive force against him; and

in January 1991, a Lt. Madenspacher called the plaintiff regar

his letter to the Department of Defense about alleged blackmai

occurring in 1987, but failed to attend a scheduled meeting.

(Compl. at 5-6, 33, 39-40, 59.)

Again construing the allegations in the complaint i

light most favorable to the plaintiff, he has arguably asserted

1) assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicio

prosecution and/or malicious abuse of process claims arising ou

the charges and arrest in September 1987; and (2) civil rights

claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arising out of the Department's

actions or inactions in July and September 1987,

and January 19

The plaintiff's claims against the Manheim Township

Police Department are also time-barred. Plaintiffs must bring

claims for intentional torts such as assault, battery, false

imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and/or malici

abuse of process within two years. 42 Pa. C.S. 5524(1).

Plaintiffs must also bring any 1983 civil rights claims withi


5/100

years. Garvin v. Citv of Philadel~hia, 54 F.3d 215, 220 (

1

1983 claims are subject to Pennsylvania's two sta

governing personal injury actions). The plainti

is lawsuit more than fourteen years after his last

interaction with the Manheim Township Police Department.

Finally, the plaintiff has alleged that Fulton Bank:

involved in some sort of collusion in 1987; 2 ) embezzled

his checking account in 1990, did not credit the

ore than 60 days, and never credited the lost inte

3 )

refused

to

allow the plaintiff's brother, Thoma

ne, to deposit check in 1996, on the grounds that no f

available, and was therefore responsible for his

death later that year. The plaintiff has also

in February 2005: a) he had difficulty accessing

nts and was told that he had to pay for

those statements; and

b)

a bank customer representat

him that when a customer wants to deposit a check for

funds are available, the bank must give the customer a

siting the check or waiting until there are

Finally, the plaintiff has included in his complaint wha

6 2005 article from the Intelligencer Journ

k as a limited partner in Penn Square

s, an alleged stakeholder in a proposed Lancaster County

n Center. (Compl. at 6 a ) , 55-56, 80-81, 86.)

4 The complaint states that the plaintiff rescind

or due process immediately after loosing [sic] his home

business, but it also states that the plaintiff began to


6/100

The plaintiff has

arguably asserted claims against

on Bank for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and/or un

nt, for its actions toward the plaintiff in 1990; and

ud or wrongful death, for its actions toward the plaintiff's

1996. These claims are time barred as well. As

ere is a two-year statute of limitations on

breach of fiduciary duty or fraud. 42 Pa. C.S. 3

(7). There is a four-year statute of limitations o

which is a quasi-contractual claim. 42 Pa.

5525(4). Finally, there is a two-year statue of limitations

s for wrongful death. 42 Pa. C.S. 5524(2).

The plaintiff's reference to collusion in

1987

on

Fulton Bank is too vague to state a claim for anything,

under the liberal notice pleading standards. Likewise, th

ntiff's allegations regarding his ability to access certain

statements in February 2005 does not state any recogniz

im. The plaintiff does not allege that it was illegal for

atements, or

for Fulton Bank to say that it charged. The plainti

only that he found the charge disheartening, in light o

rofit status of the account holder. (Compl. at

81.

ilarly, the plaintiff's allegations regarding Fulton Bank's

on depositing checks with insufficient funds, and its sta

limited partner in Penn Square Partners, do not state any

against Fulton Bank.


7/100

Failure to Serve the Comolaint

The Court will also dismiss the complaint as to the

dants because

the plaintiff has failed to properly

e the complaint and summons, and has therefore failed to c

ourt's January 5 2006 Order. The plaintiff bears t

f showing that service was valid. Grand Entertainment

w, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d

476,

488 (3d Ci

The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that h

the Southern Regional Police Department.

For each of the other defendants, the plaintiff fil

of Service, certifying that the plaintiff mailed

pleadingn to certain a named or unnamed individual(s)

h the defendant, via certified mail.

The

plainti

service were improper as to the Lancaster County

ia) Prison and Sheriff's Department, and the Stone

(New Jersey) Police department^ ^ Each of th

Rule 4(j) 2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Service upon a state, municipal corporation or other

governmental organization subject

to

suit shall be

effected by deliverinq a copy of the summons and of

complaint to its chief executive officer r y servi

the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed b

Mellon Bank, Manheim Township Police Department

moved to dismiss for improper service.

e Court is dismissing the complaint as against them f

aim, the Court need not decide the suffici


8/100

the law of that state for the service of summons or

other like process upon any such defendant.

R Civ. P. 4 j) 2) emphasis added)

Rule 422(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proce

Service of original process upon a political subdivi

shall be made by handins a cowv to

1)

an agent duly authorized by the political

subdivision to receive service of process, or

(2) the person in charge at the office of the

defendant,

3) the mayor, or the president, chairman, secretar

clerk of the tax levying body thereof

R Civ. 0 422(b) (emphasis added)

Here, the plaintiff attempted to serve the Lancaster

iff s Department by mailing a copy of the

to Howard L. Kelin at Kegel, Kelin, Almy Grimm, LLP

aster, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff s attempt at service wa

under the federal and Pennsylvania rules of civil

a copy of the complaint and summons were not

served upon an appropriate person.

The New Jersey Court Rules also provide that the pri

obtaining in personam jurisdiction over a public body

summons and

int on the public body s presiding officer, clerk or

retary, or on a person authorized by appointment or by law to

e service of process on the public body s behalf. N.J. Co

By letter dated February

2, 2006

(on which the

cc d), Mr. Kelin informed the Court that he had be

Interim Special

Counsel to Lancaster County, but was n


9/100

R 4 :4-4 a)

1)

and 8) New Jersey permits plaintiffs to make

service by mail, but provides that service by mail is only

effective if the defendant answers the complaint or otherwise

appears in response thereto. If defendant does not answer or

appear within 60 days following mailed service, the plaintiff m

make personal service. N.J. Court R 4:4-4(c).

The plaintiff attempted to serve the Stone Harbor P

Department by mailing the complaint to Michael Donahue, an atto

at law in Stone Harbor, New Jersey, on January 17, 2006 The

plaintiff also attempted to serve the Avalon Police Department

mailing the complaint to Stephen Basse, an attorney at law in

Vineland, New Jersey, on that date. The plaintiff s attempts t

make service by mail were ineffective under federal or New Jers

law because neither the Stone Harbor or Avalon Police Departmen

have answered or otherwise responded to the complaint in well o

6 days. Moreover, the plaintiff has not shown that Mr Donahu

Mr. Basse are the appropriate persons to receive service for th

public bodies.


10/100


11/100


12/100


13/100


14/100


15/100


16/100


17/100


18/100


19/100


20/100


21/100


22/100


23/100


24/100

[email protected]://www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com/

Blog: http://advancedmediagroup.wordpress.com/ Video Biography at: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=advancedmediagroup

Stanley J. CaterboneAdvanced Media Group1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____________________________________________________________________

Stanley J. Caterbone :PLAINTIFF :

:v. : CASE NO. 05-2288

: CASE NO. 06-4650 :

Lancaster County Prison, et al. ::::

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

AND NOW on this 15th, day of October, 2007, I, Stanley J. Caterbone, PLAINTIFF, Pro Se

Litigant, do hereby file before the Courts an AMENDMENT to the above case. The PLAINTIFF

requests the Court to grant an additional 60 days to further amend this complaint and to amend

and/or dismiss case no. 06-4650 on or before December 15, 2007, at the time of the next

amendment to this complaint. The PLAINTIFF also seeks clarification from the Court per the rules

of original service; otherwise the PLAINTIFF will service all defendants, both original and the

additional defendants per the 120-day rule after the filing of the next amendment to this

complaint. The PLAINTIFF will also meet with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on October 15,

2007 at the time of this filing to report activities, which have prevented the PLAINTIFF from

completing this amended complaint per the order of July 25, 2007.

Date: October 15, 2007 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA [email protected] http://www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com/

Advanced Media Group Page 1 of 63 10/12/200

Case 5:15-cv-03984-JCJ Document 48 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 77


25/100


26/100

DEFENDANT’S LIST

LANCASTER COUNTY PRISONLANCASTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENTCOMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, MELLONBANKFULTON BANKSOUTHERN REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENTMANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENTAVALON POLICE DEPARTMENTSTONE HARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENTAMERICAN HELIX TECHNOLOGYCORPORATION

DAVID D. DERINGTHE HIGH GROUP PETER PENEROSSCOTT ROBERTSON (X)

RIC FOX, ATTORNEYROBERT CHERCICOFF, ATTORNEYPLANNERS SECURITIES GROUPYOLANDA CATERBONE (X)STEVE CATERBONE (X)PHIL CATERBONE (X)MICHAEL CATERBONE (X)COPELLO AND FOLEY LAW FIRMLEW SCHWELLER, ATTORNEYDR. LEVINE, PSYCHIATRISTANDREW APPEL, ATTORNEYAPPLE, YOST & SORENTINO LAW FIRM LANCASTER AVIATION, INC.,CHUCK SMITHFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LTD.,ROBERT F. KAUFMANMICHAEL HARTLETT

ROBERT R. LONG (X)JAMES WARNERBURDETTE TOMLIN HOSPITALCRAIG RUSSELL, ATTORNEYRUSSELL, KRAFT, GRUBER, AND HUBER,LAW FIRMLARRY SIGLER, MANHEIM TOWNSHIP POLICEDEPARTMENTLARRY MATHIAS, MANHEIM TOWNSHIPPOLICE DEPARTMENTNANCY ARMENT (X)STACY WALTERS (X)LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC.SOUTHERN REGIONAL HOSPITAL, FORMERSAINT JOSEPH HOSPITALROBERT BEYER, ATTORNEY (X)

JOSEPH RODA, ATTORNEYMARY LYNN DIPAOLO (X)MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUSTICE MURRAYHORTONMICHAEL MCDONALD, ATTORNEYJOHN DEPATTO

LT. MADENSPACHER, MANHEIM TOWNSHIPPOLICE DEPARTMENTDR. AL SHULZ, PSYCHIATRISTREGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ST JOSEPHHOSPITALLANCASTER NEWSPAPERS, INC.PFLUMM CONTRACTORS, INC.DAVID PFLUMM (X)PAMELA SUE PFLUMM

KERRY EGANOFFICER ROBERT FEDOR, SOUTHERNREGIONAL POLICESGT. ROBERT BUSSER, SOUTHERNREGIONAL POLICELANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITALDR. EMILY PRESSLEY




27/100

Judge Mary McLaughlin ORDER of July 25, 1987:

“AND NOW, this 25th day of July 2007, upon consideration of the plaintiff's Motion for

Continuance (Doc, No. 56) and defendant Mannheim Township's opposition thereto (Doc. No. 57), IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED, the plaintiff shall have until October 15, 2007 , to

amend his complaint: If the plaintiff does not do so, this case will be dismissed, with prejudice, The

Court will not grant the plaintiff any more time extensions for the filing of his amended complaint.”

I) INTRODUCTION – Not Complete

II) JURISDICTION: Not Complete

1. Count I - 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C.2. Count II - § 1968, RICO; 31 USCS

3. Count III - § 3729-33 Federal False Claims Act;4. Count IV - extortion,5. Count V - defamation of character,6. Count VI - slander,7. Count VII - wrongful interference with business relations,8. Count VIII - wrongful interference with contracts,9. Count VIIII - breach of contract10. Count X - a plea for an accounting;11. Count XI - deceptive and fraudulent practices12. Count XII - breach of fiduciary duty13. Count XIII - unfair competition14. Count XIIII - tortuous interference with business relationships15. Count XV - unjust enrichment

16. Count XVI - a pattern of racketeering in violation of the Racketeering Influenced andCorrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

17. Count XVII - “illegal retaliation”18. Count XVIII - “unlawful discrimination”19. Count XVIIII - intentional infliction of emotional distress20. Count XX - wrongful repossession21. Count XXI – trespass to person22. Count XXII – civil conspiracy23. Count XXIII – violation of due process24. Count XXIIII – conspiracy to commit fraud25. Count XV – loss of liberty26. Count XVI – false imprisonment

27. Count XVII – false arrest28. Count XVIII – collusion29. Count XVIIII – false statements30. Count XXX– trespass to property31. Count XXXI – conversion32. Count XXXII – replevin33. Count XXXIII - breach of contract arising out of the alleged repossession34. Count XXIV – assault35. Count XXXV – battery




28/100

36. Count XXXVI - malicious prosecution37. Count XXXVII - malicious abuse of process claims arising out of the charges and arrest38. Count XXXVIII – mail fraud

III) HISTORY OF COMPLAINT – Not Complete

IV) AMENDED COMPLAINT – Not Complete

1. Legal Arguments and issues of the Statute of Limitations and Time Barred Causes of

Actions that support that justice has been denied and due process subverted thus granting

relief to the PLAINTIFFS:

a. (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.; A claim may be barred by the statute of

limitations if you discovered or reasonably should have discovered your injury four

or more years ago.

b. Civil RICO claims are not subject to a statute of limitations. Congress failed to

include a statute of limitations when it passed the RICO Act, but the United States

Supreme Court has remedied that oversight and imposed a four-year statute of

limitations on all civil RICO claims.c. Civil Rico's statute of limitations begins to run when the victim discovers or

reasonably should have discovered its injury. Once a victim is aware or should be

aware of its injury, the victim has four years to discover the remaining elements of

its claim and bring suit. A victim cannot sit on its rights and refrain from filing suit

in the face of known injuries.

d. There are several equitable doctrines that may toll or suspend the running

of the statute of limitations. If a defendant fraudulently conceals facts that

are essential to the victim's ability to purse its rights, the running of the

statute of limitations may be tolled.

e. Acts of duress, such as "if you sue me, I'll kill you," may toll the running of

the statute of limitations.

f. All tolling doctrines are based upon whether it is fair, under the

circumstances, to bar the victim's claims on the basis of the running of the

statute of limitations.

g. If a defendant engages in a new pattern of racketing, that causes new and

independent injuries, a new limitations period may apply to those new and

independent injuries.

2. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to

as RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.;: RICO is a United States federal law which provides for

extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L.

No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (Oct. 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the




29/100

United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 through 18 U.S.C. § 1968. RICO addresses long-

term, not one-shot, criminal activity. Not only must a RICO claim be based upon criminal

activity, but the criminal acts must constitute a "pattern" of criminal activity.

a. A single criminal act, short-term criminal conduct, or criminal actions that bear no

relationship to each other will not give rise to a RICO claim. The United States

Supreme Court has ruled that criminal actions constitute a "pattern" only if they are

related and continuous.

b. In order to be "related," the criminal acts must involve the same victims, have the

same methods of commission, involve the same participants, or be related in some

other fashion. A pattern may be sufficiently continuous if the criminal actions

occurred over a substantial period of time or posed a threat of indefinite duration.

c. The former patterns are referred to as closed-ended patterns; the latter patterns

are referred to as open-ended patterns.

d. Accordingly, even if you have been injured by a criminal act, you will not have a

RICO claim unless that criminal act is part of a larger pattern of criminal activity.

CAUSES OF ACTIONS

3. Lancaster Aviation arrange for the selected aircraft to be flown in from the Midwest to be

inspected by PLAINTIFF. Pete Wolfson of Lancaster Aviation conducts the meeting, as an

official agent of Lancaster Aviation. Commonwealth Bank has approved the financing of

$97,000 for the purchase. The additional $25,000 required is not yet available. Pete

Wolfson insists that the plane must be purchased before being flown back to the Midwest.

Pete Wolfson requests a post-dated check from PLAINTIFF for the remaining balance.

PLAINTIFF refuses, citing that the remaining funds must be liquidated from the Keystone

Mutual Fund, and the exact receipt of the moneys is not guaranteed, and could take up to

10 days. Pete Wolfson agrees not to deposit the check until PLAINTIFF confirms that the

funds have been received and deposited in order to cover the check for the remaining

$25,000. PLAINTIFF makes sure that Pete Wolfson has the authority to make the

arrangement, and Pete Wolfson agrees. The purchase of the airplane was also subject to a

pre-purchase inspection by Lancaster Aviation. Lancaster Aviation also advises PLAINTIFF

to have his airplane included in their Fleet Insurance plan. PLAINTIFF also advises

Lancaster Aviation that he would like to offer the airplane to his business associates for

use in order to subsidize the costs and maintenance.

4. Chuck Smith, president of Lancaster Aviation, later discloses to PLAINTIFF that he had

deposited PLAINTIFF’s pre dated check for $25.000, without the confirmation by PLAINTIFF

that the funds had been transferred from accounts. PLAINTIFF had argued with Pete

Wolfson, the salesman for Lancaster Aviation, that he did not want to give them a post

dated check, however Chuck Wolfson insisted. Now, Chuck Smith had told PLAINTIFF that




30/100

Pete Wolfson did not have the authority to complete the transaction. However PLAINTIFF

reminded Chuck Smith that he was acting as an agent for Lancaster Aviation, and that was

not material to this dispute.

5. Lancaster Aviation and Commonwealth Bank engaged in Count IV - extortion, defamation

of character, slander, wrongful interference with business relations, wrongful interference

with contracts, obstruction of justice, trespass to person, unfair competition, fraud,

conspiracy, embezzlement, breech of contract and several violations in lender liability; in

later repossessing the aircraft on July 1, 1987 with no advanced notice and no reason or

cause. Commonwealth Bank was the mortgagor on the property of Olde Hickory, which

the PLAINTIFF had a loan commitment of $5 million to refinance that property. Lancaster

Aviation will deny the PLAINTIFF’s airplane to provide service to a scheduled charter by

Jim Bly of Source Management of Virginia on June 27, 1987. The PLAINTIFF had an

agreement for $300.00 per hour and an estimated 6-hour charter planned.

6. On June 23, 1987 Larry Resch, an executive of both International Signal & Control,

Plc,.(ISC) And United Chem Con visits PLAINTIFF at Financial Management Group, Ltd.,

headquarters in Lancaster, as scheduled to discuss business opportunities. Larry Resch

explains "we had to fly Carl Jacobson out of the country early this morning" as the reason

for his not being able to attend the meeting as planned. Larry Resch discusses possible

strategies to rescue Chem Con’s Minority 8A Set-aside contracts, and solicits financing for

new facility. PLAINTIFF becomes annoyed the context of the conversation, especially the

lack Of disclosure, and discusses allegations of wrongdoing by Guerin and International

Signal & Control, Plc, and the relationship to United Chem Con. After evaluating the

financial statements, PLAINTIFF also suggests there is approximately $15 to $18 million in

missing funds.

7. Mr. Larry Resch failed to inform the PLAINTIFF of his association and position with

International Signal & Control, Plc., while the PLAINTIFF formally began his whistle blowing

activities on International Signal & Control, Plc..

8. On June 23, 1987, at 2:00 pm immediately following the meeting with International Signal

& Control Executive, Mr. Larry Resch, the PLAINTIFF has his locks changed to his office by

Russell Locksmith of Lititz, in order to secure confidential personal and business files in

light of the current internal power struggle between himself, Michael Hartlett and Robert

Kauffman, and given the conversation with Mr. Larry Resch of International Signal &

Control, Plc., a few hours earlier.

9. The Plaintiff was a personal guarantor of a 5 year lease agreement with the Developer,

Fishcer Spounagle, Ltd., for the offices of Financial Management Group, Ltd., at 1755

Oregon Pike, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, that began in 1986 and did renew until 1991.

10. Robert Kaufman, President of FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., and other




31/100

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., executives burglarize PLAINTIFF's office removing

confidential personal and business tiles. Some of the mortgage banking and other

business files have yet to be found. Kauffman and Robert Long illegally issue FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., stock certificates to Peter Peneros and Scott Robertson.

Robert Long signs the stock certificates as Secretary of FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP,

Ltd., when PLAINTIFF was acting Secretary, and was the only person duly authorized to

issue FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd., stock certificates. PLAINTIFF learned of the

burglary by Robert Kauffman, President, in a telephone conversation while at Stone

Harbor, NJ; Kauffman inadvertently mentioned that the stock certificates were issued,

however, with all documents at risk of being stolen, PLAINTIFF did not mention the

incident, in hopes to first recover any potentially stolen business and personal files.

11. Financial Management Group, Ltd., executives engaged in obstruction of justice, in unfair

competition, wrongful interference with contracts, trespass to person, criminal trespass,

forgery, undo influence, conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress,

slander, defamation of character, wrongful interference with business relations, and

violated several bylaws of Financial Management Group, Ltd.,

12. On May 20, 1987, the PLAINTIFF and Attorney Ric Fox, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, draft

the legal Letter of Intent for investors of Power Productions I, which the PLAINTIFF was

general partner. The PLAINTIFF had several interested parties some which have made

verbal commitments, including Norris Boyd and Dave Cook, an executive of Turkey Hill

Minit Markets.

13. On June 29, 1987, the PLAINTIFF received patent research materials from patent attorney

Joel S. Goldhammer, of the prominent Philadelphia law firm Siedel, Gonda, Goldhammer &

Abbot regarding the "Digital" Movie, and the national franchising of Financial Management

Group, Ltd.,. PLAINTIFF had retained the services of Siedel, Gonda, Goldhammer, and

Abbot in order to investigate all relevant matters concerning the technology,

merchandising, and marketing of the "Mutant Mania" project, and the use of the "Power

Station" label. Research was required for the merchandising of consumer electronics,

professional audio/visual digital mixing consoles, and the "Power Station Digital Movie

System (PSDMS)”, as created by PLAINTIFF in the proposal for SONY Corporation of

Japan.

14. On May 11, 1987, the PLAINTIFF invested and paid Scott Robertson, executive vice

president of Financial Management Group, Ltd., $2,000 dollars from a personal account for

an advance for work on mortgage banking projects and the “Digital Movie”. On the same

day the PLAINTIFF paid film producer Marcia Silen, of Flatbush Films, Hollywood,

California, an advance of $750.00 for a cash advanced for work with the “Digital Movie”

project.




32/100

15. The PLAINTIFF was executor producer of the project, general partner of Power Productions

I, the investment group, and named in the “Mutant Mania” budget to receive a salary of

$100,000. In addition the PLAINTIFF had agreements to receive royalties on all revenues

associated with both the distribution of the film and video release and all branding of the

merchandise from the project.

16. Financial Management Group, Ltd., it’s officers and employees, along with other

Defendants including but not limited to Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank)

(Mellon), Fulton Bank, the Manheim Township Police Department engaged in unfair

competition, wrongful interference with contracts, trespass to person, criminal trespass,

forgery, undo influence, conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress,

slander, defamation of character, obstruction of justice, wrongful interference with

business relations, and other anti trust violations pertaining to the “Digital Movie” project.

17. The PLAINTIFF, on behalf of Financial Management Group, Ltd., began research and

discussions with corporate attorney, Jeff Jamanou of the law firm McNesse, Wallace and

Nurick regarding franchising the concept of Financial Management Group, Ltd, on a

national scale and considerations for a stock split. The PLAINTIFF handled all legal

endeavors of Financial Management Group, Ltd.,

18. Beginning in April of 1987, Financial Management Group, Ltd, officers and executives

engaged in a pattern of unfair competition, wrongful interference with contracts, trespass

to person, obstruction of justice, criminal trespass, forgery, undo influence, conspiracy,

embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress, slander, defamation of character,

wrongful interference with business relations, and other anti trust violations.

19. On June 18, 1987, the PLAINTIFF and Randy Grespin, corporate attorney for The Life

Underwriters Group, fly to Atlanta, Georgia, to visit with executives of Planners Securities

Group, a nationally known Broker Dealer, and joint venture partner that was in the midst

of a deal in which Financial Management Group, Ltd., had negotiated an equity interest.

The PLAINTIFF had initially consulted with both Kauffman and Hartlett concerning the trip,

however when both disagreed, The PLAINTIFF questioned why the PLAINTIFF was the only

principal to personally visit the operations of Hibbard Brown & Company, which lead the

PLAINTIFF his decision to terminate the ill fated merger.

20. Planners Securities Group, was regarded as the most successful Broker Dealers in the

financial planning community, and included several former presidents of the national board

of the International Association of Financial Planners. The company had previously been

recruiting Financial Management Group, Ltd.,., and offering an attractive equity interest.

Randy Grespin agreed to reimburse $600 to The PLAINTIFF for the expense and use of his

aircraft.

21. The PLAINTIFF had the following agenda for the trip and meeting:




33/100

a. Visit and discuss the joint venture and merger with Financial Management Group,

Ltd., and evaluate the various departments necessary to administer Financial

Management Group, Ltd.,'s., stock transactions and private real estate offerings.

b. Discuss and evaluate the opportunities of utilizing insurance products from Randy

Grespin's firm, and all matters related to the structuring of business.

c. Familiarize Greg Burie, a personal friend and recruitment of The PLAINTIFF’s who

was also visiting from Florida to consider opening a Florida office for Financial

Management Group, Ltd..

d. Conduct an extensive and thorough due diligence investigation of the stability,

efficiency, and security of the operations, in order to prevent a similar situation that

facilitated the previous termination of the recent Hibbard Brown & Company deal.

The PLAINTIFF left the meetings with very optimistic and impressive findings, that

only left more questions as to the decision of Kauffman and Bartlett to affiliate with

Hibbard Brown & Company, knowing that the Atlanta group had been aggressively

pursuing talks of a merger since the inception of Financial Management Group,

Ltd.,., On the return flight home, The PLAINTIFF confided to Randy Grespin,

requesting legal advise, regarding the recent problems and his allegations of

misconduct by Financial Management Group, Ltd.,., President Robert Kauffman.

Randy Grespin advised The PLAINTIFF to take some time and seek legal counsel.

22. On June 18, 2007, after arriving at the corporate offices of Upon entering the offices of

Financial Management Group, Ltd., Robert Kauffman pulls The PLAINTIFF into his office

and abruptly shouts "Who is running this corporation, me or you?". The PLAINTIFF quickly

answers "I don't give a damn who runs this company. as long as it's run right, and for the

right reasons!" The PLAINTIFF immediately left the office.

23. On June 18, 1987, later in the evening, Robert Kauffman, President visits the home of the

PLAINTIFF and engaged in a contractual dispute when the PLAINTIFF refused to agree to

approve the new contract and salary increase of Robert Kauffman, President,. Robert

Kauffman, President, engaged in retaliatory and activities, including fraud, Count IV -

extortion, libel, defamation of character, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy.

24. June 22, 1987, The PLAINTIFF hires Todd Dellinqer, a planner in Financial Management

Group, Ltd.,., to help administrate the daily activities of his personal clientele and to

perform administrative duties necessary due to the amount of time The PLAINTIFF is

conducting business out at the office, allowing The PLAINTIFF to focus attention on the

Strategic Planning, and allowing him to better manage his time. The PLAINTIFF sends a

memo to client and shareholder Dr. William Umiker that introduces his new assistant, in

addition to information regarding his pension accounts.

25. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd, Board of Directors meet to vote on PLAINTIFF's




34/100

request and demand to ratify the recent joint venture agreement/contract with Hibbard

Brown & Company, after PLAINTIFF learned of dire inefficiencies within Hibbard Brown &

company, and the "Born Again" relationships of Kauffman, that placed an unprecedented

amount of risk to FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, Ltd.,. PLAINTIFF voted by telephone

from the Chicago Airport, in the midst of his travel to Palm Springs and Hollywood

California. The Board also voted to negotiate and approve a deal with the Planners

Securities Group, of Atlanta, GA. PLAINTIFF had won the votes of Alan Loss and Robert

Long, overturning the decision of Robert Kauffman, President, and Michael Bartlett and

officially terminating the agreement. This vote, in and above itself, took control of the

Board of Directors from Kauffman and Bartlett, and put the power of the Board in the

direction of PLAINTIFF. This will eventually lead to the Coup conspired by Kauffman and

Hartlett to find a way to get PLAINTIFF out of the corporation.

26. On January 20, 1987, the PLAINTIFF and Al Dannatt, a principal and managing partner

with the commercial mortgage banking company Institutional Investors of Houston, Texas,

consummate a joint venture agreement where the PLAINTIFF will market and solicit clients

on the eastern part of the regional for commercial mortgages with a lending authority of

$3 to $100 million dollars. The agreement also calls for the PLAINTIFF to develop other

joint venture proposals and business transactions with a bank the Institutional Investors

was in the process of purchasing. The PLAINTIFF in turn would began to offer the joint

venture to members of Financial Management Group, Ltd., to offer finder fees to both

Financial Management Group, Ltd., and any members of Financial Management Group,

Ltd., which referred clients and projects.

27. The PLAINTIFF alleges that the following revenue sources:

a. Financial Planning Fees and Commissions

b. Financial Management Group, Ltd., Management Salary

c. Mortgage Banking Business

d. Real Estate Limited Partnerships (Dave Schaad, Jim Bly, Dave Cook)

e. Pension Fund Portfolio Management (Harsco, Inc., of Harrisburg)

f. Life Insurance Joint Venture Agreements

g. Personal Real Estate Investments

h. Air Charter Services

i. Reorganize Gamillion Film Studios

j. Equity Interests in Financial Management Group, Ltd.,

have the following violations Count IV - extortion, defamation of character, slander,

wrongful interference with business relations, wrongful interference with contracts,

trespass to person, unfair competition, fraud, conspiracy, embezzlement, breech of

contract




35/100

28. On June 25, 1987, Financial Group Executives burglarized the PLAINTIFF’s office and

began to extort the PLAINTIFF business interests in the Institutional Investors joint

partnership. Up to that point in time, the PLAINTIFF had developed a pipeline in excess of

$100 million in projects, a firm commitment for a satellite office in Hollywood, California,

and a commitment for a $5 million second mortgage on the Olde Hickory Properties, of

Lancaster, County. The PLAINTIFF was able to offer more attractive financing

arrangements than that of the local commercial lending institutions, including Fulton Bank

and Commonwealth Bank. Both banks would eventually engage in anti-trust violations.

29. On June 29, 1987, The PLAINTIFF visits with Dave Schaad, President of the York based

real estate firm of Bennett Williams, Inc., The PLAINTIFF was finalizing plans to secure

financing of a $2.5 million office complex for the new headquarters of Bennett Williams, as

well as 3 or 4 additional anchor tenants. The PLAINTIFF had been working with Dave

Schaad for the past 3 months, along with Scott Robertson. The PLAINTIFF had previously

discussed the deal with Dave Cook, and executive and former owner of the Turkey Hill

Convenience Stores. Dave Cook indicated a serious interest in providing the entire $2.5

million investment. The above deal would have provided over $150,000 of fees upon

settlement to The PLAINTIFF upon settlement. Prior to the meeting, Dave Schaad had

indicated by telephone, that Robert Kauffman had invited himself to the meeting, without

prior consent or notice to The PLAINTIFF, During the meeting, The PLAINTIFF disclosed the

current criminal activities within the principals of Financial Management Group, Ltd., being

facilitated by Robert Kauffman himself.

30. In June of 1987, Jill Carson, a Fulton Bank Branch Manager libeled and slandered the

PLAINTIFF in notifying Mr. Chuck Smith, owner operator of Lancaster Aviation, the Plaintiff

was bankrupt and had no liquid funds, which was totally fabricated. At the time of this

infringement and at least until August 8, 1987, the PLAINTIFF’s credit rating as reported

by the Lancaster Credit Bureau was perfect, with all creditors “paid in full within 30 days,

as agreed”. The credit report included 22 creditors. Being that the PLAINTIFF was a

customer, borrower, and a client in good standing with Fulton Bank, this amounts to

defamation of character, slander, wrongful interference with business relations, wrongful

interference with contracts, trespass to person, unfair competition, fraud, conspiracy,

embezzlement, breech of contract.

31. On July 1, 1987, the PLAINTIFF retained the counsel of Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq., of

Lancaster, to arrange for a meeting to discuss the recent events and Coup attempt by

Kauffman and Hartlett that included several criminal and security violations. The

PLAINTIFF visits with Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. and describes the incidents in detail,

including the "Digital Movie", ISC, and all related activities. Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq.

instructs The PLAINTIFF to have all of the files copied and arranges for the return of all




36/100

Financial Management Group, Ltd., corporate files. The PLAINTIFF had questioned Mr.

Joseph F. Roda, Esq. for a legal opinion as to his right of any moneys in Financial

Management Group, Ltd., checking accounts that he was authorized to sign for. Mr.

Joseph F. Roda, Esq. advised that The PLAINTIFF had no right to any funds. All checks

were returned to Financial Management Group, Ltd., along with all other documents.

32. The PLAINTIFF advises Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq. that he is in fear that someone is

deliberately orchestrating all of the recent incidents, which were quite extraordinary and

extremely criminal and have been coming from all directions. The PLAINTIFF advised Mr.

Joseph F. Roda, Esq. that he would like to take all of his files to Stone Harbor, New Jersey

for safekeeping while he pursued his legal recourse. The PLAINTIFF also explained that he

would feel safer leaving Lancaster until these circumstances were brought under control.

33. Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq., failed to provide any advocacy representation; colluded with

Financial Management Group, Ltd.,; failed to inform the PLAINTIFF of any conflicts of

interests with current clients (Mr. William Clark, in house legal counsel for International

Signal & Control, Plc.,); was negligent in not reviewing the hundreds of documents the

PLAINTIFF delivered and for not identifying causes of actions, which United States District

Judge Mary McLaughlin identified from similar documents in June of 2006; was negligent

in not believing the PLAINTIFF detailed account of the Commonwealth National Bank

(Mellon Bank) wrongful repossession, may have conspired to cover-up the PLAINTIFF’s

Federal False Claims Act against International Signal & Control, Plc,.

34. Mr. Joseph F. Roda committed fraud in invoicing the PLAINTIFF for services rendered,

without any actual benefit afforded to the PLAINTIFF.

35. The Defendants conspired to discredit the PLAINTIFF with a massive campaign of libel,

slander and deceit when immediately following the meeting with International Signal &

Control, Plc., meeting of June 23, 1987 the following contracts were terminated without

cause:

a. Planners Securities Group, Ltd., NASD Series 22 Securities License

b. Planners Securities Registered Representative Agreements

c. William O. Umiker Executor of Estate

d. Michael T. Caterbone Power of Attorney

36. On July 3, 1987, at approximately 12:00 am, Victor Miasnikowcs, owner operator of Romar

Aviation (Currently Venture Jets, Inc.) calls The PLAINTIFF to notify him that his aircraft

was reposed some hour earlier, and locked in the hanger of Lancaster Aviation, with all of

his personal and business files on board. Victor only would say that Commonwealth Bank

had taken part in the repossession, with no reasons given. The first payment of the loan

agreement with Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank) was not due until July 25,

1987 and the $25,000 cash deposit for the airplane was now officially extorted from the




37/100

PLAINTIFF. There was no money due to Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank). The

PLAINTIFF also becomes quite suspicious, after learning a few weeks earlier that his efforts

to provide a refinance of some $6 million to Boyd Wilson Properties, was more favorable

than the existing or proposed financing arrangements now place with Commonwealth

National Bank (Mellon Bank), which not only has a lender relationship with The PLAINTIFF,

but is also a competitor for his mortgage banking activities. It was also known that The

PLAINTIFF's lending authority was larger and more competitive than most of the local

banking community. The PLAINTIFF now becomes in fear for his life due to this incident,

and all other unexplained incidents in the preceding days and weeks.

37. Commonwealth Bank engaged in an illegal repossession, conversion, replevin, trespass,

fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and/or breach of contract arising out of the alleged

repossession, Count IV - extortion, lender liability, interference with business contracts

and relations, civil conspiracy, fraud, and violated anti-trust and lender liability laws.

38. On July 4, 1987 at approximately 9:00 am in the morning, The PLAINTIFF calls his

attorney Mr. Joseph F. Roda, Esq., under emotional duress from the previous conversation

with Victor and the repossession of his aircraft with all documents on board; Mr. Joseph F.

Roda, Esq. responds "Stan, you have to quit fabricating these allegations, it is July 4th,

what do you want me to do. This conversation reaffirms a conspiracy theory within

Lancaster to ruin him, and supports his efforts to leave Lancaster with his files to solicit aid

and support from legal and law enforcement authorities to suppress the conspiracy. The

PLAINTIFF realizes that the documents were authentic proof and evidence of all of his

allegations, and most importantly all of his business activities for the past 5 or more years.

The loss of the files would have devastating consequences for his life.

39. Mr. Joseph F. Roda committed fraud in invoicing the PLAINTIFF for services rendered,

without any actual benefit afforded to the PLAINTIFF.

40. On July 4, 1987, at approximately 9:30 am, after the disturbing phone, The PLAINTIFF

drives to the Cape May County Airport to solicit the services of a pilot to fly to Lancaster to

retrieve his files. Brad Donahue accepts the job, and agrees to a $200 tee, and an

additional $200 it there are any difficulties in obtaining the files. The PLAINTIFF provides

Brad Donahue with all documentation showing legal title to the aircraft in the event

authorities are notified. The PLAINTIFF gives explicit instructions to notify the police in the

event personnel will not return all of the files. Brad Donahue arrives a few hours later, with

boxes of files. Brad Donahue briefly describes an encounter at Lancaster Aviation, and

demands payment of $400 as agreed. An invoice is signed by all parties as proof of

payment and the activity, and $400 in cash is paid to Brad Donahue. Pilot Dave Austin, of

the Cape May County Airport witnesses the transactions and the event.

41. In the following weeks, Dave Austin, would later disclose to The PLAINTIFF that Brad




38/100

Donahue was killed in a mysterious "Air-Accident", while over water, with an unexplained

and questionable flight chart.

42. The PLAINTIFF solicits the legal services of Ric Fox, a Harrisburg attorney that has

prepared legal documents for the "Digital" Movie. Rio Fox flies his aircraft to the Cape May

County Airport, and arrives at The PLAINTIFF's house accompanied with another attorney

Robert Chercicoff. All of the recent activities were detailed and described concerning

Financial Management Group, Ltd.,; the "Digital Movie"; and the illegal repossession of the

aircraft. The PLAINTIFF questioned Mr. Fox and his associate of any relationship with

Commonwealth Bank, which headquarters were also in Harrisburg, and both gave a very

ambiguous answer. The meeting ended with both attorneys failing to recognize or admit to

any wrongdoing by any and all related parties, and further demanding a $2,000 retainer

fee to look further into the matters. The PLAINTIFF suspects the conspiracy theory again,

especially in light of the acknowledged relationship with Commonwealth Bank, and an

indirect relationship with Robert Kauffman, through Life Underwriters of Harrisburg, a joint

venture arranged by The PLAINTIFF some months earlier. By July 5, The PLAINTIFF had

already made two legitimate attempts to solicit legal aid for the unexplained events and

circumstances, both of which were maliciously sabotaged.

43. Ric Fox and Robert Chercicoff engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business

contracts, interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up

the PLAINTIFF’S Federal False Claims Act complaint.

44. On July 6, 1987, In an effort to document the conspiracy theory, PLAINTIFF requests Tom

Caterbone to call Robert Kauffman, President, to inquire about the status of his affairs, and

to tape the conversation. Tom Caterbone identifies himself as John Green, a client of

PLAINTIFF's and Robert Kauffman, President, states the following: "PLAINTIFF has moved

his office to Stone Harbor, NJ.. he is not taking care of business, and I need to see to it

that his clients are taken care of for the time being.. he has been spending a lot of money,

an airplane, a place at the shore, and he seems to think that he is too important for his

traditional clientele.. There is some history of mental disorders in his family history.. I

can't come right out and say that that is what's going on,.... I wish Stan would get some

professional help.. However for the time being, Stan is not taking care of business, and I

need to be concerned for his clients.”

45. On July 6, 1987, PLAINTIFF telephones Dr. Al Schulz, psychiatrist at St. Joseph Hospital,

and client of PLAINTIFF's in order to thwart the allegations of insanity. Dr. Al Shulz had

disclosed that several persons, including Mary Lynn Dipaolo and Jere Sullivan had called

him concerning PLAINTIFF's behavior and activities.

46. From the allegations, Dr. Shulz advised that PLAINTIFF was suffering from illusions of

grandeur, and prescribed Lithium treatment, and to return to Lancaster for consultation.




39/100

PLAINTIFF insisted that the allegations were purely fabricated, and that no one had any

legal right to interfere with his business and or legal affairs, let alone his confidential

medical records.

47. On July 6, 1987, PLAINTIFF contacts David Drubner, of Boston, Ma, a friend of PLAINTIFF's

brother’s Mike, and an attorney. During the conversation, David Drubner questions

PLAINTIFF about "taking some medication", and supports the allegations of insanity.

48. On July 17, 1987 PLAINTIFF travels to Hollywood, California to meet and visit with Ted

Gamillion and Gamillion Studios (Film Studio), and Marcia Silen of Flatbush Films. Ted

Gamillion had previously solicited the consulting of PLAINTIFF in order to help reorganize

the financing of the film studio, after earlier arrangements in North Carolina had gone

sour. PLAINTIFF had spent several days visiting and touring the studio. Ted Gamillion

agreed to allow PLAINTIFF to represent the studio in order to secure the required

financing. Ted Gamillion provided PLAINTIFF with substantial amounts of confidential

financial, legal, and tax documents for the project.

49. During the visit, Marcia Silen had disclosed to PLAINTIFF that Scott Robertson had made

allegations of insanity about him (PLAINTIFF) to persons at Power Station Studios and and

Flatbush Films.

50. In the following days, PLAINTIFF had made numerous telephone calls to local, state, and

federal authorities, for intervention and help regarding all of the preceding events and

circumstances. The following is a brief description of each: Manheim Township Police

Department, responded "what bank branch repossessed your aircraft"; Pennsylvania State

Senator Gib Armstrong, responded, "I will call the Pa Attorney General's Office and have

them call you; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Philadelphia-based field

office; U.S. Representative Robert Walker (R-Pa), a detailed and explicit conversation with

Mrs. Robert Walker, who would only advise PLAINTIFF to put his situation in writing and

submit it to the Congressman in his Washington, D. C. office. In addition: David Wouls

(Executive Vice President of the Lancaster chamber of Commerce & Industry), PLAINTIFF

talked at length, and in detail, making allegations of misconduct with members of the

same; National Association of securities Dealers (NASD), in Washington, D.C., PLAINTIFF

discussed the securities related violations. And also: the Securities & Exchange

Commission (SEC), also in Washington, D.C., and discussed securities laws violations; the

Pennsylvania Securities Commission, of Harrisburg, Pa, discussed the implications of

PLAINTIFF's illegal lock-out, and his legal and formal positions, including incorporating

officer of Financial Management Group, Ltd., PLAINTIFF received no support or follow-up

communications concerning all of the above requests, despite his apparent emotional

duress, and extreme situation.

51. On July 2, 1987, The PLAINTIFF negotiates with Romar Aviation to provide pilot; storage;




40/100

and insurance with his aircraft after many very questionable occurrences at Lancaster

Aviation, just a few hundred feet away. The PLAINTIFF secures insurance and pays

$1,000 to Romar Aviation for the flight to Stone Harbor and insurance, which was

conducted by Victor M. of Romar Aviation. In addition, at the referral of Victor, The

PLAINTIFF calls Sam Goode, of Sam Goode Assoc., to bind insurance for the aircraft. Sam

Goode Binds the insurance and instruct The PLAINTIFF to mail a payment of $750. The

conversation took place in Romar Aviation, at the time the $1,000 was paid to Victor. The

PLAINTIFF loads his aircraft with all of his personal and business files to be transported to

the Cape May County Airport, just a few miles outside of Stone Harbor, in the morning of

July 4.

52. In July and August of 1987 Mr. Robert Kauffman, President, had several meetings with

Millard Johnson, client of PLAINTIFF since 1982, in efforts to coerce Millard Johnson to

provide false statements to a bonding company that a legitimate loan from Millard Johnson

to the PLAINTIFF was instead an act of embezzlement of $25,000 of funds that were

transferred to the PLAINTIFF for an investment. Mr. Millard Johnson testified in person on

September 29, 1987 before Mr. Howard Eisler of the Pennsylvania Securities Commission

in a recorded interview and attested to the preceding. Mr. Millard Johnson refused and

notified Mr. Robert Kauffman that his attempt was a serious crime.

53. Mr. Kauffman and Mr. Michael Hartlett, a principal and partner of Financial Management

Group, Ltd., contracted with an insurance company on June 29, 1987 an errors and

omissions insurance policy for corporate officers of Financial Management Group, Ltd., in

an effort to collude, conspire, and defraud that insurance company of a claim, while at the

same time committing slander, libel, and conspiracy to extort the PLAINTIFF’s stock

holdings, and all other business interests.

54. On July 24, 1987, Michael M. Hartlett sends a letter to all creditors of Financial

Management Group, Ltd., informing them that stated the following: “The PLAINTIFF is no

longer an officer of the corporation; he was removed from office on July 1, 1987; he had

been purchasing items under Financial Management Group, Ltd., and obtaining corporate

discount and rates; and formally notifying them that The PLAINTIFF had never had the

right to purchase items through Financial Management Group, Ltd., or make corporate

commitments on behalf of Financial Management Group, Ltd., or contract or in any way

obligate Financial Management Group, Ltd.,.”

55. Mr. Michael M. Hartlett engaged in slander, libel, defamation of character, conspiracy to

commit fraud, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion, interference with business

relations, and interference with business contracts.

56. On July 7th, 1987, the PLAINTIFF contacts the law firm of Capello & Foley, of Santa

Barbara, California. The PLAINTIFF had conducted research (American Bar Association




41/100

Journal) in "Lender Liability", which had became a very popular legal issue, where banks

participate in illegal activities resulting in the financial ruin of it's borrowers. The

PLAINTIFF intended to file suit against Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank) for the

illegal and unjustified repossession of his aircraft. The PLAINTIFF discussed the case briefly

with Diane Campell that day, and The PLAINTIFF made arrangements to deliver supporting

documents to the office in Santa Barbara the following week, while visiting with Gamillion

Studios, in Hollywood.

57. On July 8, 1987, A formal notification of the termination of The PLAINTIFF's Registered

Representative Securities license with the Planners Securities Group Inc., of Atlanta, GA is

received, with a "cc: Robert Kauffman".

58. Planners Securities Group, Inc., engaged in conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion,

conspiracy, fraud, libel, defamation of character, slander, Count IV - extortion,

interference with business relations, interference with business contracts, and had violated

several anti-trust violations.

59. No explanation was provided, or any reasons for the termination. The PLAINTIFF’s reprisal

for disclosing criminal activities to the proper authorities is that he will illegally loose his

privilege to sell securities without any merit.

60. On July 8, 1987, The PLAINTIFF's brothers, Steve, Phil, Mike, and Tom, arrive

unexpectedly and uninvited at the residence of The PLAINTIFF's in Stone Harbor, NJ, and

refuse to leave until The PLAINTIFF agrees to take Lithium and return to Lancaster to

undergo treatment by Dr. Al Schulz, for mental illness.

61. Steve Caterbone, Phil Caterbone, Mike Caterbone, and Tom Caterbone had engaged in

conspiracy, libel, slander, defamation of character, conspiracy to commit Count IV -

extortion, interference with business relations, interference with business contracts,

invasion of privacy, and civil trespass.

62. On July 9th, 1987, The PLAINTIFF receives a notice by regular 1st class mail from

Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank) regarding the repossession of 9 days prior.

The following reasons are given for the repossession: Failure to provide adequate

insurance; Removal of aircraft from Lancaster Aviation; Intended plan to fly aircraft to

Florida without prior written notice.

63. Commonwealth National Bank (Mellon Bank) engaged in violations of lender liability by not

providing advanced notice of the repossession with any opportunity for the PLAINTIFF to

cure any legitimate deficiencies in the lending agreements.

64. On July 10, 1987, the PLAINTIFF receives a formal notarized notification from Dr. and Mrs.

William Umiker of Financial Management Group, Ltd., removing The PLAINTIFF as the

former Trustee for their Estates.

65. On July 10, 1987, Mr. Robert Kauffman also sends a personal letter to all of The




42/100

PLAINTIFF’s clients informing each and every one “ that he has moved to Stone Harbor,

NJ; that he may not handle investments at all; and that people close to The PLAINTIFF had

requested that he, Robert Kauffman, personally service his clientele.

66. Robert Kauffman engaged in Count IV - extortion, fraud, libel, slander, defamation of

character, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion, interference with business relations,

interference with business contracts, invasion of privacy, and civil trespass, and violated

several anti-trust statutes.

67. On July 15, 1987 the PLAINTIFF travels to Boston, Massachusetts to research lender

liability and other legal matters in a law library of Suffolk Community College.

68. On July 16, 1987, the PLAINTIFF travels to New York, from Boston, MA, to visit with Bob

Walters of Power Station Studios, to discuss the allegations of Blackmail, and to find out

who is involved, including Scott Robertson and Power Station Studios.

69. On July 17, 1987, the PLAINTIFF travels to Hollywood, California to meet and visit with

Ted Gamillion and Gamillion Studios (Film Studio), and Marcia Silen of Flatbush Films. Ted

Gamillion had previously solicited the consulting of The PLAINTIFF in order to help

reorganize the financing of the film studio, after earlier arrangements in North Carolina

had gone sour. The PLAINTIFF had spent several days visiting and touring the studio. Ted

Gamillion agreed to allow The PLAINTIFF to represent the studio in order to secure the

required financing. Ted Gamillion provided The PLAINTIFF with substantial amounts of

confidential financial, legal, and tax documents for the project. During the visit, Marcia

Silen had disclosed to The PLAINTIFF that Scott Robertson had made allegations of

insanity about him (The PLAINTIFF) to persons at Power Station Studios and at Flatbush

Films.

70. The PLAINTIFF discusses the illegal repossession and other related matters, however

during the conversation, becomes suspicious when Bob Walters and Tony Bongiovi disclose

that the "Digital" Movie project is suddenly suspended until a later time.

71. On July 21, 1987, At 2:30 pm The PLAINTIFF visits the law firm of Capello & Foley, in

Santa Barbara, California, and delivers 3 large blue binders for Diane Cambell and attorney

Barry Capello to review, concerning his allegations of dire violations of lender liability with

specific regards to the illegal repossession of his aircraft by Commonwealth National Bank

(Mellon Bank). The PLAINTIFF research the law firm of Capello & Foley at the Suffolk law

library and learned that it was the leading law firm in the nation leading the way in

violations of lender liability litigation.

72. The law firm of Capello & Foley and the PLAINTIFF had numerous communications,

although there was never any commitment for representation by Capello & Foley, it is

alleged that the law firm engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business

contracts, interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up




43/100

the PLAINTIFF’S Federal False Claims Act complaint by not acting in good faith with the

solicitation of the PLAINTIFF.

73. On July 24, 1987 The PLAINTIFF conducts a three (3) hour meeting at his residence in

Stone Harbor, NJ, with attorney Lew Schweller regarding legal action concerning all events

and activities of the prior days and months. The PLAINTIFF also gives Lew Schweller a

$500.00 retainers fee, for his representation.

74. Lew Schweller engaged in conspiracy, collusion, interference with business contracts,

interference with business relations, and had attempted to thwart and cover-up the

PLAINTIFF’S Federal False Claims Act complaint.

75. On July 24, 1987, Attorney Joseph Roda invoices The PLAINTIFF $527.00 for the time and

services of July 1 & 2, 1987.

76. On July 30, 1987, The PLAINTIFF had paid $600 to Dr. Levine, a Psychiatrist from North

field, New Jersey, for an objective evaluation of his mental state of mind, in order to prove

the fabricated allegations of 'insanity". Dr. Levine had conducted a 2-hour meeting in his

residence in Stone Harbor, NJ, and required The PLAINTIFF to complete the Minneapolis

Multiphase Personality Inventory (MMPI). The PLAINTIFF completed the test, and

immediately returned it to Dr. Levine. After several weeks without any communications

from Dr. Levine, The PLAINTIFF had called for the results. Dr. Levine had explained that

he had conducted telephone interviews with members of The PLAINTIFF's family, without

notice or consent, in addition to the original request of The PLAINTIFF to conduct an

objective and confidential examination. In addition, Dr. Levine prescribed Lithium drug

therapy, and disclosed a diagnosis of Bi-Polar Mood Disorder.

77. Dr. Levine engaged in Count IV - extortion, conspiracy to commit fraud, defamation of

character, slander, libel, and obstruction of justice.

78. On August 6, 1987, the law firm of Appel, Yost & Sorentino, of Lancaster, Pa., sends a

formal notice to The PLAINTIFF, demanding the return of a facsimile machine leased from

the ACM Company of Lancaster, Pa. Attorney Appel advises The PLAINTIFF that it is the

property of Financial Management Group, Ltd., and should be returned at once or legal

action will follow.

79. Appel Yost & Sorentino and Attorney Appel engaged in fraud, collusion, libel, slander,

defamation of character, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion, interference with

business relations, interference with business contracts.

80. On August 7, 2007 the PLAINTIFF receives a Credit Report from the Credit Bureau of

Lancaster County as requested. The credit report up to the date of August 1, 1987 verifies

and confirms that his credit report was excellent, without any blemishes. The history of all

accounts was "paid within 30 days, or as agreed".

81. On August 8, 1987, John M. Wolf, Executive Vice President of Commonwealth National




44/100

Bank (Mellon Bank) sends The PLAINTIFF a formal letter advising that the repossession of

July 2, 1987 was both lawful and appropriate, and declines to accept a settlement of $5

million for lender liability violations.

82. On August 10, 1987, the PLAINTIFF receives a facsimile from the Board of Directors of

Financial Management Group, Ltd., signed by Robert Long as “The FMG Board of Directors”

threatening to file criminal charges for "embezzlement (we have checks to prove it),

burglary, employee theft, corporate opportunity and slander against our firm".

83. Financial Management Group, Ltd., engaged in obstruction of justice, in unfair competition,

wrongful interference with contracts, trespass to person, criminal trespass, forgery, undo

influence, conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress, slander,

defamation of character, wrongful interference with business relations, and violated

several bylaws of Financial Management Group, Ltd.,

84. On August 12, 1987, Yolanda Caterbone, mother of The PLAINTIFF, Steve, Phil, Mike, and

Tom Caterbone, all brothers, arrive unexpectedly and uninvited to the residence of The

PLAINTIFF in Stone Harbor. After several requests for the visitors to leave the premises

are denied, several brothers refuse to let The PLAINTIFF leave the premises. The

PLAINTIFF flees, and the brothers chase after him. The PLAINTIFF runs into a neighbors

house to ask to use the telephone to phone the police. However, after realizing that he is

scaring the occupants, he flees to the Stone Harbor Police Department, a few blocks away,

in an effort to obtain a restraining order and to lawfully have the unwanted persons vacate

his residence and personal property. Officer Steve Conners and Officer Henry Stanford

refuse the request, and hold The PLAINTIFF in custody. After some 30 minutes, the

officers, accompanied by Steve and Tom Caterbone, place The PLAINTIFF into a Police

Cruiser and proceed to the Burdette Tomlin Hospital, in Stone Harbor. Upon arriving, The

PLAINTIFF is interrogated and questioned extensively about a "gun". A hospital staffer

then accuses The PLAINTIFF of an attempted suicide and keep him in custody for 4 or

more hours. An extensive mental health evaluation is performed by another hospital

staffer. The PLAINTIFF is given an ultimatum of signing a contract in order to be released

form the hospital, the contract stated: "I Stanley J. Caterbone will not take my life tonight

or at anytime".

85. Yolanda Caterbone, Steve Caterbone, Phil Caterbone, Mike Caterbone, Tom Caterbone

engaged in invasion of privacy, civil trespass, obstruction of justice, wrongful interference

with contracts, trespass to person, criminal trespass, forgery, undo influence, conspiracy,

embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress, slander, defamation of character,

wrongful interference with business relations; and engaged in psychiatric abuse.

86. The Stone Harbor Police, James Warner (Current Executive Director of the Lancaster

County Solid Waste Management Authority) and Burdette Tomlin Hospital engaged in




45/100

obstruction of justice, wrongful interference with contracts, trespass to person, criminal

trespass, forgery, undo influence, conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental

duress, slander, defamation of character, wrongful interference with business relations and

engaged in psychiatric abuse.

87. On August 13, 1987, the PLAINTIFF At approximately 9:30 am, The PLAINTIFF returns to

the Burdette Tomlin Hospital to obtain a formal copy of the incident the preceding night.

After some arguments1 hospital officials provide explicit records of the event, including the

following summary: "Stan was brought to the ER (emergency room) by two brothers and

police. Police received a phone call from Jim Warner, (872-9081, friend staying at the

Conestoga residence of the PLAINTIFF), who told them he believed ‘Stan planned to take a

gun, go to the beach & kill himself’. Client denied any such statement, thoughts or plans.

He has legal and difficult times, financial deals which have fallen through; license to do

financial planning (his business) revoked; repossessed material goods (airplane); being

blackmailed; and several major financial deals (in which he had invested personal funds)

fall through-but NO PROBLEMS! Denied any Depression”.

88. On August 14, 1987, the same family members again arrive unwanted at the residence of

The PLAINTIFF in Stone Harbor, NJ. After another confrontation, similar to the incident of

two evenings before, The PLAINTIFF fleas to the Avalon Police Department for another

attempt to get a restraining order. However, en route, just a few blocks from the Avalon

Police Station, an Avalon Police cruiser pulls The PLAINTIFF over and arrests him for the

following violations:

a. Driving Beyond the speed limit.

b. Driving an unregistered vehicle (all required registration materials were in

Lancaster, PA)

c. Containing an empty beer can in his vehicle (which was at .1 east three days old)

89. In addition, the Avalon Police Department repossessed his car and locked it in the Avalon

Police Department compound, which was his only means of transportation and

communication by car phone.

90. Again, Yolanda Caterbone, Steve Caterbone, Phil Caterbone, Mike Caterbone, Tom

Caterbone engaged in invasion of privacy, civil trespass, obstruction of justice, wrongful

interference with contracts, trespass to person, criminal trespass, forgery, undo influence,

conspiracy, embezzlement, Count IV - extortion, mental duress, slander, defamation of

character, wrongful interference with business relations; and engaged in psychiatric abuse.

91. The Avalon Police Department engaged in false arrest, false imprisonment, false

statements, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution and/or malicious abuse of process

claims arising out of the charges and arrest; and (2) civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §

1983, arising out of the Department's actions or inactions during court scheduled hearings




46/100

in 1987.

92. On August 24, 1987, Robert Kauffman sends a letter to Millard Johnson, The PLAINTIFF's

client, regarding his previous intentions of paying the $25,000 demand note of The

PLAINTIFF to Millard Johnson. Robert Kauffman had previously promised to pay the debt

to Millard Johnson during a meeting. Robert Kauffman, told Millard Johnson to contact the

Financial Management Group, Ltd., attorney, Craig Russell in order to file legal claim, and

formally disclosed that he would: “ no longer handle any discussions concerning Stanley J.

Caterbone”. In the last paragraph, Robert Kauffman discloses "attorney Mr. Patterson, no

longer represents the Caterbone family regarding his pending bankruptcy or

guardianship". The PLAINTIFF never gave any legal jurisdiction or rights to any family

member, has never filed for bankruptcy, was not bankrupt, or even knew of an attorney

named Mr. Patterson.

93. Robert Kauffman and Craig Russell engage in conspiracy to commit fraud, libel, slander,

defamation of character, conspiracy to commit Count IV - extortion, and false statements.

94. On September 1, 1987, in an attempt to resolve issues, The PLAINTIFF calls Financial

Management Group, Ltd., board member P. Alan Loss and requests a meeting with Robert.

long and Scott Robertson to explain allegations of misconduct of Robert Kauffman and

Michael Hartlett and the illegal lockout of The PLAINTIFF. P. Alan Loss agrees and a

meeting is set for September 4, 1987 at 10:00 am in the aide Hickory Inn, a mile away

from Financial Management Group, Ltd., The PLAINTIFF requests that the meeting be in

the strictest of confidence.

95. On September 3, 1987, Attorney Joseph Roda sends The PLAINTIFF a letter requesting

payment of $525.48 in outstanding legal tees for the meetings of July 1 & 2 and copying

charges.

96. The PLAINTIFF calls Victor of Romar Aviation (no charge) to schedule a charter flight from

Cape May County Airport to the Lancaster Airport for September 3rd at approximately

2:00 pm, the day before the meeting with Financial Management Group, Ltd., executives.

97. On September 3, 1987, Robert Kauffman calls detective Larry Sigler of the Manheim

Township Police Department to report an alleged Terroristic threat made two days prior,

on September 1, 1987, by The PLAINTIFF between the hours of 9:00 and 1 pm noontime.

Detective Larry Sigler issues a warrant for the arrest of The PLAINTIFF with District Justice

Murray Horton that was issued at about the same time as the arrival of The PLAINTIFF at

Romar Aviation.

98. On September 3, 1987, Larry Sigler and the Manheim Township Polic

Federal Court Case No. 05-2288 CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, Fulton Bank, et. al., OPEN Case...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Court Case No. 05-2288 CATERBONE v. Lancaster County Prison, Fulton Bank, et. al., OPEN Case...