mailto:amgroup01@msn.com 717.731.8184 Phone

717.427-1621 Fax

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

_________________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________________________________________________

STANLEY J. CATERBONE, : Plaintiff :

: v. : DOCKET NO.: CI-06-08490 : : MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE : DEPARTMENT and MICHAEL K. SCHAEFER, : :

Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : :

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

AND NOW, on this 26th Day of March, 2007, the Plaintiff files the following Responses to the

Defendants Preliminary Objections.

Respectfully submitted,

____________/s/_______________________ Date: March 26, 2007 Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603 717-431-8184 717-427-1821 facsimile amgroup01@msn.com

_____________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(a)(l), RULE 1028(a)(2), AND RULE 1028(a)(4k PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

___________________________________________________________________________ 1. Plaintiff, Stanley Caterbone initiated this civil action by filing a Complaint on or about September 1, 2006 against Defendants, Officer Michael K. Schaeffer [misnamed Schaefer] and the Millersville Borough Police Department Response: True 2. According to the Certificate of Service, Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Complaint via first class mail to Officer Schaeffer and the Millersville Borough Police Department at the Borough's offices located at 10 Colonial Avenue, Millersville, PA 17551. Response: True 3. Contemporaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the pro se Plaintiff also filed a Praecipe to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and supporting documents. Response: True 4. By Order dated September 6, 2006, Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis was granted. Response: True 5. According to the Complaint, on the evening of August 30,2006, Defendant Schaeffer effectuated a traffic stop of Plaintiff's vehicle on Wabank Road in the vicinity of Brenner's Quarry Lot. (Comp. 71) Response: True 6. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Schaeffer illegally detained the Plaintiff and his vehicle (Comp. 73) and illegally seized Plaintiff's driver's license and vehicle registration card. (Comp. 74) Response: Defendant Schaeffer and another Officer of the Millersville Borough Police Department did illegally detain the Plaintiff and his vehicle and illegally seize the Plaintiffs drivers license and vehicle registration card on August 30, 2006. On January 18th, 2007, before Magisterial District Justice Isaac Stoltzfus, (Intercourse, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania), Docket No. TR-0002183-06 and Docket No. TR-0002183-06 were dismissed for lack of cause. Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus ruled that S 75 1543 A Driving Under Suspension was not violated and dismissed the charge. Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus further ruled that S 75 1786 F Operating a Vehicle Without Required Financial Responsibility was dismissed because Officer Schaeffer did not have a reasonable cause to stop and detain the Plaintiff. Subsequently, both charges were dismissed as Summary Cases, and Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus instructed the Plaintiff to communicate with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Drivers License Division to restore the Plaintiffs drivers privileges (See Exhibit A). Magisterial District Justice Stoltzfus also stated that other Magisterial District Justices would dismiss 2 similar charges.

7. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff had filed appeals from the previous suspension of his driver's license to the Commonwealth Court (Comp. 74) and/or Superior Court. (Comp. 76) Response: False, there was no previous suspension. 8. Plaintiff avers that the filing of the appeal automatically vacates the suspension of his driver's license, bat Defendant Schaeffer failed to acknowledge that explanation. (Comp. 77 4-6) Response: See Response to paragraph 6. 9. The Complaint further avers that Defendant Schaeffer illegally seized the Plaintiffs vehicle and turned it over to the jurisdiction and possession of the St. Dennis Towing Company of Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. (Comp. 77) Response: True. The Millersville Police Officers had no cause to stop and detain the Plaintiff, and further no jurisdiction to take possession of the Plaintiffs vehicle. 10. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Schaeffer totally took away all access to the federal, state and local courts and took away the Plaintiff's right to due process and fair process by illegally taking away his only means of transportation. (Comp. Response: True, see response to paragraph 6 and 9. 11. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant Schaeffer took the Plaintiff's access to his mail at Plaintiffs residence (Comp. 7 9) and interfered with Plaintiff's business operations and contracts. (Comp. 7 10) Response: True, Plaintiffs only mode of transportation to his residence from 1250 Fremont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where the Plaintiff was temporarily living, was taken away and left with no public transportation to receive his mail on a daily basis. That caused the Plaintiff to have an interruption in the normal course of business and operations of the Advanced Media Group and his litigation of all civil actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, the Third Circuit District Court of Appeals, and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff did not have any funds to pay for the $60.00 towing fee and his vehicle was stored at the St. Denis Towing Company at a rate of $25.00 per day for at least 90 days resulting in a cost of over $2,000.00. 12. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a stolen item report ($743.00 cash) with the Defendant on or about April 21,2006 and requested a copy of the incident report for use in Plaintiff's pending litigation against the Lancaster General Hospital and the Southern Regional Police Department. (Comp. l/ 11) Response: True. 13. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' actions were retaliatory in nature and in affirmation of defendants' support for the corrupt activities and harassment of Officer Busser of the Southern Regional Police Department. (Comp. 7 12) Preliminary Objections pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(l), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure - - improper service.

Response: In part true, in part false. Plaintiff does allege that the Defendants actions were both malicious and retaliatory. Plaintiff also personally hand delivered a copy of the complaint on September 1, 2006 to the Millersville Borough Police Department Precinct at 1012 hrs and Officer Howard R. Br signed a receipt (See Exhibit B) 14. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments of paragraphs 1 through13 of their Preliminary Objections as if fully set forth at length herein. Response: Defendant failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure for a timely filing and waited over 180 days to file Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs Complaint without reason or cause. 15. Rule 400 (a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that: "accept as provided in subdivisions "b" and "c" and in Rule 400.1 and 1930.4, original process shall be served within the Commonwealth only by the sheriff." Response: Plaintiff was barred from using the Sheriffs Department of Lancaster County. Plaintiff had been granted In Forma Pauperis status for this complaint, and the Office of the Sheriff had refused to accept the In Forma Pauperis status in lieu of payment for the fees to effectuate service. The Courts enforcement that the Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed for ineffective service would constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutional Right of Access to the Courts, and discrimination of the indigent in access to the Courts. 16. None of the exceptions enumerated in Rules 400 (b) and (c), 400.1 and 1930.4 apply to the circumstances of this case. Response: Moot 17. Neither Defendants, nor the authorized agent has accepted service 01 original process by filing an acceptance of service form with the Prothonotary office. Response: False see Respons to paragraph 13. 18. Plaintiff has failed to comply with requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of original process. Response: See paragraph number 15.

WHEREFORE, Defendants, Officer Michael Schaeffer and Millersville Borough Police Department respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their Preliminary Objections pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(l), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for improper service of process. Preliminary Objections pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(2), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure - -failure to conform to Rules of Court. 19. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments of paragraphs 1 through 18 of their Preliminary Objections as if fully set forth at length herein. 20. Rule 1028(a)(2), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the filing of Preliminary Objections for failure of a pleading to conform law or Rule of Court.

Compaq_OwnerCross-Out

Response: False. The complaint does provide a claim of action of false arrest, illegal detention, extortion, interference with business contracts and obstruction of justice. 21. Pursuant to Rule 1018.1, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, "every Complaint filed by a plaintiff, shall begin with a Notice to Defend in substantially the form set forth in subdivision (b)." Response: The Plaintiff, a Pro Se Litigant must be afforded Due Process1 of the Law, and the Court must consider the possible criminal elements of Defendants under RICO statutes that are outlined in other civil actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed by the Plaintiff that are now currently being litigated. The Defendants claim of a technical deficiency of this kind is moot2. 22. Plaintiff's Complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 10i2.1, in that it did not contain a Notice to Defend. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. 23. Rule 1021(a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that "any pleading demanding relief shall specify the relief sought." Moreover, Rule 1021(c), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that "in counties having Rules governing compulsory arbitration the Plaintiff shall state whether the amount claimed does or doe! not exceed the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. 24. Plaintiff's Complaint does not comply with the requirements of Rule 1021(a) and (c), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in that it does not contain an) prayer for relief. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.

1 In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights. 2 Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case.

25. Rule 1019(a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that "the material facts in which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. 26. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to plead the material facts upon which his claims and/or causes of action are purportedly based, and therefore, fails to comport with the requirements of Rule 1019(a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Officer Michael Schaefer and Millersville Borough Police Department respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their Preliminary Objections pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(2), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and strike Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to comply with the rules of court.

Preliminary Objections pursuant - to Rule 1028(a)(4), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure - - demurrer/legal insufficiency of a pleading.

27. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments of paragraphs 1 through 26 of their Preliminary Objections as if fully set forth at length herein. Response: 28. Rule 1028(a)(4), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes a Defendant to file Preliminary Objections asserting the legal insufficiency of a pleading. Response: 29. Rule 1019(a), Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that the material facts in which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the

following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights. 30. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege the material facts upon which Plaintiff': claims and/or causes of action are based. Response: In Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Commonwealth. 173620 A. 2d. 668 (1993) Pro Se Brief failed to comply with Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, but the failure to comply did not substantially impede the Courts ability to review the issues presented and therefore considered the merits of the case. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means. Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (1978, 524 F 2d. 644) have concluded the following: Even the probability of unfairness can result in a defendant being deprived of his due process rights. 31. The Complaint fails to state any claims or causes of action against Defendants for illegally detaining the Plaintiff and/or illegally seizing Plaintiff's drivers license, vehicle registration card and/or vehicle. Response: See Response to paragraph 11. 32. The Complaint fails to allege any material facts establishing cognizable claims for denial of access to the Court and/or for violation of Plaintiff's due process rights. Response: See Response to paragraphs 6, 11, 13, and 15. 33. The Complaint fails to allege material facts establishing claims or causes of action for denial of access to mail and/or interference with business operations and contracts upon which relief can be granted. Response: See Response to paragraph 11. 34. The Complaint fails to state any material facts establishing cognizable claims for retaliation against the Defendants. Response: See Response to paragraph 21. _____________________________________________________________________

ORDER __________________________________________________________________________________________________

AND NOW, this __________ day of __________, 2007, The Court Denies the Defendants Preliminary Objections. The Court ___________________________

J.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE

has been served this 26th day of March, 2007, by first class mail, Postage prepaid, by electronic

mail upon, or by hand delivery:

James D. Young, Attorney 225 Market Street, Suite 304 P.O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 171 08-1245 (717) 233-6633 (telephone) (717) 233-7003 (facsimile) Atty No. PA53904 jyoun@laverylaw.com Attys for Defendants Michael Schaefer and Millersville Borough Police Department

Date: March 26, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

____________/s/____________ Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603 717-427-1821 facsimile amgroup01@msn.com

EXHIBIT A

1

www.amgglobalentertainmentgroup.com amgroup01@msn.com

717.427-1621 Fax

Stan Caterbone Advanced Media Group 1250 Fremont Street Lancaster, PA 17603

February 13, 2007

Ms. Janet Dolan, Director Mailing Address: PENNDOT Bureau Of Driver Licensing P.O. Box 68693 Harrisburg, Pa 17106-8693 Re: Drivers License # 18195782 WID # 062498025000030 Dear Ms. Dolan: On January 18, 2007, Magisterial District Justice Isaac Stoltzfus of Intercourse dismissed a Driving Under Suspension Citation due to the fact that I had provided verification that the violation on 05/01/06 of Section 3736 was properly appealed in The Court of Common Pleas. I had several communications with your Department in the past months since my suspension, with no results. MDJ Stoltzfus instructed me to write to you again. I had submitted a copy of my Certified Record. Enclosed you will find another Certified Copy, along with 2 additional documents verifying that the other items were removed from the record. I am requesting that my drivers license be returned to me. I do not currently own any motor vehicles currently registered in Pennsylvania. I assume that since the Suspension was in error, you might forego the $25 restoration fee. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Respectfully, Stan J. Caterbone Cc: Enclosures

COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING HARRISBURG, PA 1 7 1 2 3

09 /11 /06

STANLEY J CATERBONE 220 STONE H I L L RD

DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER: 18195782 BIRTH DATE: 07 /15 /58 E L I G I B I L I T Y DATE: 04 /02 /07

CONESTOGA PA 1 7 5 1 6

Dear MR. CATERBONE :

T h i s i s a RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS LETTER. I t l i s t s what Y O U mus t do t o r e s t o r e You r d r i v j n g p r i v i l e s e . PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE. You w i l l be n o t i f i e d b y t h e D e o a r t m e n t o f T r a n s a o r t a t i o n (PennDOT) t h a t y o u r d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e h a s been r e s t o r e d . O n l y a f t e r t h a t may y o u d r i v e .

An E L I G I B I L I T Y DATE i s l i s t e d above . T h i s i s t h e d a t e y o u a r e e l i g i b l e t o have y o u r d r i v i n g P r i v i l e g e r e s t o r e d , p r o v i d e d n o o t h e r v i o l a t i o n s a r e p r o c e s s e d a g a i n s t y o u r d r i v i n g r e c o r d . T h i s d a t e i s e f f e c t i v e r e g a r d l e s s of a n y o t h e r d a t e s l i s t e d w i t h i n t h i s l e t t e r .

P l e a s e r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n c a r e f u l l y a n d b e s u r e t o c o m p l e t e a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s t o have You r d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e r e s t o r e d . U n l e s s a n o t h e r a d d r e s s i s i n d i c a t e d , r e t u r n a n y documents a n d / o r f e e s t o t h e MAILING ADDRESS l i s t e d a t t h e end o f t h i s l e t t e r .

RESTORATION FEE -You mus t Pay a $25.00 r e s t o r a t i o n f e e t o PENNDOT. W r i t e y o u r

d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e number ( l i s t e d a b o v e ) o n t h e c h e c k o r money o r d e r t o e n s u r e P r o p e r c r e d i t . Your c h e c k o r money o r d e r s h o u l d b e made p a y a b l e t o PENNDOT.

PROOF OF ENSURANCE - W i t h i n 30 d a y s o f y o u r E L I G I B I L I T Y DATE, p r o v i d e a C O P Y o f one o f

t h e f o l l o w i n g t o PENNDOT t o show t h a t a l l m o t o r v e h i c l e s c u r r e n t l y r e g i s t e r e d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a i n y o u r name a r e i n s u r e d :

* I n s u r a n c e I D c a r d * D e c l a r a t i o n page o f y o u r i n s u r a n c e P o l i c y * I n s u r a n c e B i n d e r *An a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n s u r a n c e t o t h e PA A u t o I n s u r a n c e P l a n

If YOU do n o t own a m o t o r v e h i c l e c u r r e n t l y r e g i s t e r e d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a , send a s i g n e d s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s f a c t t o PENNDOT w h i c h r e a d s " I do n o t own a n y m o t o r v e h i c l e s c u r r e n t l y r e g i s t e r e d i n P e n n s y l v a n i a " . P l e a s e i n c l u d e Y o u r name, a d d r e s s , d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e number a n d d a t e o f b i r t h o n t h e s t a t e m e n t .

TERM SUSPENSION/REVOCATION -You have a 6 HONTHCS) s u s p e n s i o n / r e v o c a t i o n t h a t began ( o r

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP age 11 of 20

EXHIBIT B