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.
MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT and MICHAEL K. SCHAEFER,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

DOCKET NO.: CI-06-08490

:
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,

Date: March 26, 2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

____________/s/_______________________

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant

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

Page 1 of 20

03.26.2007

_____________________________________________________________________
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. TR0002183-06 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.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 2 of 20

03.26.2007

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.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 3 of 20

03.26.2007

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.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 4 of 20

03.26.2007

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.

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.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 5 of 20

03.26.2007

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

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 6 of 20

03.26.2007

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.

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 7 of 20

03.26.2007

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

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 8 of 20

03.26.2007

EXHIBIT A

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 9 of 20

03.26.2007

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

1
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 10 of 20

03.26.2007

COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
17123
HARRISBURG, PA
09/11/06

STANLEY J CATERBONE
2 2 0 STONE H I L L RD
CONESTOGA

D e a r MR.

DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER: 1 8 1 9 5 7 8 2

BIRTH DATE:
07/15/58
E L I G I B I L I T Y DATE:
04/02/07

PA 1 7 5 1 6

CATERBONE :

T h i s i s a RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS LETTER.

I t l i s t s what YOU
must do t o r e s t o r e Your d r i v j n g p r i v i l e s e .
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT
T H I S LETTER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE YOU TO DRIVE.
You w i l l b e 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 has 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 a b o v e .
T h i s i s t h e date you 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 no o t h e r v i o l a t i o n s
a r e processed against your d r i v i n g record.
This date i s effective
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 .
Please 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 and 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 Your 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 any documents and/or
f e e s t o t h e M A I L I N G ADDRESS l i s t e d a t t h e e n d o f t h i s l e t t e r .
RESTORATION FEE
- Y o u m u s t P a y a $ 2 5 . 0 0 r e s t o r a t i o n f e e t o PENNDOT.
Write your
d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e n u m b e r ( 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
Y o u r c h e c k o r money o r d e r s h o u l d b e made
t o ensure Proper c r e d i t .
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 o n e 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 :
*Insurance I D card
* D e c l a r a t i o n page of y o u r i n s u r a n c e P o l i c y
*Insurance Binder
*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
IfY O U 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 ,
s e n d 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 d o
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 on the statement.
TERM SUSPENSION/REVOCATION
- Y o u h a v e a 6 HONTHCS) s u s p e n s i o n / r e v o c a t i o n

MEDIA GROUP age 11 of 20

ADVANCED ADVANCED
MEDIA GROUP

Page 11 of 20

t h a t began ( o r

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 12 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 13 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 14 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 15 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 16 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 17 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 18 of 20

03.26.2007

EXHIBIT B

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 19 of 20

03.26.2007

ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

Page 20 of 20

03.26.2007