Nov 10, 2018 — the court for permission to file brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but Stan J. Caterbone’s History With The Lancaster City Police.
97 KB – 75 Pages
PAGE – 1 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP EME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se No. 1. 8 FILED CCI C 5 20i IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE .UNITEDSTATES STAN J. CATERBONE -. PETITIONER (Your Name) VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – RE$PONDENT(S) ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS. OF YOUR CASE) PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTI.ORAR. STAN J. CATERBONE (Your Name) 1250 FREMONT STREET (Address) LANCASTER, PA 17603 (City, State, Zip Code) 717-327-1566 (Phone Number) U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. I of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 2 ============
TO THE U.S. SUPI ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. S 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Did the United States of America err in not granting a juris prudential exception. See 28 U.S.0 •• 1291, 1292 in order to avoid having to consider the following, which would necessarily obligate another set of Congressional Hearings akin to the Church Hearings in 1973 whereby the CIA had to omit the existence of MK-Ultra? Which it declared abandoned. ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER ONE: With regards to Estaban Santiago (Mass-Shooter at the Ft. Lauderdale Airport), for which this AMICUS BRIEF was filed; and other Mass-Shooters that have made similar claims of being victims of U.S. Sponsored Mind Control with a history of Military Training – Are their CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS BEING COMPROMISED and Should the following not be GRANTED? VICTIMS OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES OPERATED BY OPERATIVES, AGENCIES, AND OR IN DIRECT PARTNERSHIP WITH UNITED STATES MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE ARE ENSURED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE AFFORDED THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIER ACTIONS, AND IF SUCH ACTIONS ARE DEEMED PROXY TO THEIR HANDLERS, OR CONTROLERS, AND THEY ARE GRANTED THE PROPER IMMUNITIVE DEFENSES DURING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, STATE ATTORNEYS, AND OR LOCAL MAGISTRATES. THAT ANY AND ALL SUCH DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE FIRST DEEMED TO BE SYMPTOMATIC OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL FIRST, AND TREATMENTS ARE TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS ARE PREPARED FOR A SAFE LIFE AND ASSURED THEY ARE NOT A THREAT TO SOCIETY. THAT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND LOCAL POLICE ARE TO BE ADVISED OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE PROHIBITED FROM TARGETING AND OR SURVEILLING THE VICTIMS IN ANY WAY. THAT HEARING VOICES AND SUCH RELATED SYMPTOMS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR MENTAL HEALTH WARRANTS AND OR HOSPITALIZATIONS ALONE WHITHOUT A THORUGH ANALYSIS OF THIER CLAIS OF SUFFERING SYMPTOMS OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL. IN THE 1990’S THEN PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND APPOLOGIES FOR MILITARY/ INTELLEGENCE PROGRAMS USING AMERICAN CITIZENS AS NON-CONSENSUAL EXPERIMENTEES. SUCH PUBLIC DISCLOSURES, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION OF VICTIMS OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL. U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 4 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 3 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se QUESTION NUMBER TW . Is PRO SE PETITIONER STA . CATERBONE, his father Samuel P. Caterbone, Jr., and his brother Samuel A. Caterbone VICTIMS OF U.S. SPONSORED MIND CONTROL TECH NOLOGIXES who Suffered Incidents and Violations of Civil, Constitutional Rights of Non-Consensual Experimentation paramount to TORTURE? ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO: YES. QUESTION NUMBER THREE – Did PRO SE PETITIONER STAN 3. CATERBONE fall victim to a CRIMINAL/CIVIL Conspiracy while engaging in Whistle-blowing Activities in the ISC/CIA International Arms Dealer Scandal in 1987 which continues to today that now has manifested into a cover-up and obstruction of justice case of mass proportions. ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER THREE: YES. U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 5 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 4 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se LIST OF PARTIES 0 [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: LIST OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS 1. STAN J. CATERBONE LIST OF RESPONDENTS 1. Noel J. Francisco Counsel of Record Solicitor General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@USDOi.gov 202-514-2217 U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No.6 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 5 ============
THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J.Caterbone, Pro Se 0 1 T E OF CONTENTS PAGE No. MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LEGNTH .2 PROOF OF SERVICE . (3) QUESTIONS OF WRIT . iisrOF PARTIES ..6 OPINIONS BELOW .. 18 JURISDICTION..19 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 20 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..21 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .29 COCSLUSION77 INDEX TO APPENDICES APPENDIX A – OPINIONS BELOW APPENDIX B – CATERBONE FAMILY AFFIDAVITS APPENDIX C – ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134 – REPLY BRIEF TO JURISDICTIONAL ORDER OF JANUARY 29, 2018 re FT. LAUDERDAL SHOOTER AMICUS APPEAL – February 3, 2018 APPLICATION FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No.7 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 6 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP E COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se TA EOFAUTHORITIESC D CASES 351 F.3d 1348 (2003) Robert S. WOLFF, Edward Turner, Edward E. Wailer, Grey Wolf Holdings, John G. Coughlin, Plaintiffs-Appel lees, Vp CASH 4 TITLES, d.b.a. Charles Richard Homa, et al., Defendants, Phillip S. Stenger, G. James Cleaver, Cayman Islands Liquidations Creditors’ Committee, Appellants. No. 01-16973. ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Filed December 5, 2003. STATUETES AND RULES 1. AMICUS CASE LAW Page No. A person with strong interest reviews on the subject matter of an action may petition the court for permission to file brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rational consistent with its own views. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 75 (5th ed. 1979) News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox, 700 F. Supp. 30, 31 (S.D.Fla. 1988) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lack of parallel provision for regulating amicus appearances at the district level. District courts have inherent authority to appoint or deny amici which is derived from Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Mobile Cnty. Water, Sewer & Fire Prot. Auth, Inc. v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., Inc. 576 F. Supp. 2D 1342, 1344 (s.D. Ala. 2008). “Inasmuch as an amicus is not a party ‘and does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the court is solely within the discretion of court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.” Cox, 700 F Supp. At 31 (citation omitted). The decision whether to allow non-party to participate as an amicus is solely within the broad discretion of the Court. Resort Timeshare Resales Inc. v. Stuart 764 F.Supp 1495, 1500 (S.D.Fla.1991); Ellsworth Associates Inc. v. United States 917 F. Supp. 841, 846 (D.D.C.1996). This case is a pending criminal trial. As such it is noteworthy that there are specific constitutional protections that exist in criminal cases that do not otherwise apply to parties and civil actions. See United States v. Ward 448 U.S. 242 248 (1980). U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 8 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 8 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se of Constitutional Rights, ileges, and immunities by Officia buse of his or her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. • 1983. 4. CIVIL CONSPIRACY Rico •263 42 • 1985 (2) Persons Involved In Litigation To Be Free From Conspiracy In the case of United States v. Hoick, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the following: “Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and it’s proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan”. This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities. Under Pennsylvania Law, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of facts formed for the purpose charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d. 219. In the same case the following was supported: “Arrestee’s allegations that the township (Conestoga) and it’s police officers were acting in concert and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestee’s constitutional rights by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two (2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and August 4th1 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody”. The preceding pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law. In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business. In the case of United States v. Hoick, 389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the following: “Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an indictment and it’s proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing acts in furtherance of an overall plan”. •1983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: “The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective for purpose of deterring violations U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 10 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 9 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se and to strike a balance een protection of individual righ rom state infringement and protection from state and local government from federal interference”, 18 U.S.C.A. •• 241, 242; U.S.C.A. – Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. 13, 14, 5, 15, • 2: 42 U.S.C.A. •• 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A. ANIT-TRUST The Following violations constitute a legitimate Anti-Trust violation under Title 15 of the Federal Statutes. In private Anti-Trust actions, Plaintiff, in addition to proving violations and an injury, must also show that a violation and an injury must also prove that the violation was direct and material to the cause of injury suffered; however, the Plaintiff’s burden in causations issues is not as heavy as the Plaintiff only needs to show a casual relation with reasonable probability to a fair degree of certainty (Anderson Foreign Motors, Inc. v. New England Toyota Distributors, Inc., D.C. Mass 1979, 475. Supp.). RICO † The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as 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 United States Code, 18 U.S.C. • 1961 through 18 U.S.C. • 1968. † It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named “Rico.” The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, has refused to confirm or deny this.[1] Summary Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes‡within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment. There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A “person damaged in his business or property” can sue one or more “racketeers.” There must also be an “enterprise.’ The defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 11 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 10 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se either Federal or State courtp://www.dealer-magazine.com,ex.asp?article481 7. • 3729. False claims FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT The Federal False Claims Act TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE SUBTITLE III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 37. CLAIMS SUBCHAPTER III. CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 31 USCS • 3729-33 • 3729. False claims • 3730. Civil actions for false claims • 3731. False claims procedure • 3732. False claims jurisdiction • 3733. Civil investigative demands • 3729. False claims S. CASE LAW FOR TORTURE AND JURISDICTION FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND REMEDIES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 07-21783-CIV-JORDAN TEOFILA OCHOA LIZARBE, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as the personal representative of the estates of Silvestra Lizarbe Soils, Gerardo Ochoa Lizarbe, Victor Ochoa Lizarbe, Ernestina Ochoa Lizarbe, Celestino Ochoa Lizarbe, and Edwin Ochoa Lizarbe, and CIRILA PULIDO BALDE†N, in her individual capacity, and in her capacity as the personal representative of the estates of Fortunata Balde‡n Guti…rrez and Edgar Pulido Balde‡n, Plaintiffs, V. TELMO RICARDO HURTADO HURTADO, Defendant. THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR TORTURE Case 1:07-cv-21783-A) Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/29/2008 Page 6 of 31 7need “to conduct and adhere to a strict choice of law analysis.” Id. at 422-23. In sum, the Tachiona court held that both federal law and international law apply to ATS and TVPA claims. The Ninth Circuit also conducted an examination of the applicable choice-of-law for damages in ATS cases, in Alvarez-Machain v. United States 331 F.3d 604, (9th Cir. 2003) rev’d on other grounds, Sosa v. Alvarez-Macham, 542 U.S. 692 (2004). After finding that federal common law applies to the choice-of-law determination, the court held that it should first look to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which states that choice of law principles in tort law are governed by the “most significant relationship” test. Id. at 633-34. (citing Section 145 Restatement •6). In order to determine what law has the most significant relationship to the tort, the Restatement looks to the following factors: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationali the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Id. At 634. The court then articulated competing policy factors that should be considered in ATS cases. These factors included: “(a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 12 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
PAGE – 11 ============
TO THE U.S. SUP ME COURT From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se the particular issue, (d) the ection of justified expectations, (e)ls basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.” Id. at 634 (citing Section 145 Restatement •6(2)). The Alvarez-Machain court held that the totality of the factors, including the “policy of the United States, as expressed in the ATCA, to provide a remedy for violations of the law of nations,” weighed in favor of applying United States law. Id. Case 1:07-cv-21783-A) Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/29/2008 Page 7 of 31 8 The federal common law analysis articulated in these precedents favors the underlying trumped by federal law where the applicable law is inconsistent with federal common law. As a practical matter, this means that federal courts typically apply federal common law to damages under the ATS. Here, under Eleventh Circuit precedent, federal common law would apply to the determination of damages under the ATS. Under the analysis articulated by the Tachiona court, the law of nations and federal common law would apply to the damages inquiry under the ATS. Tachiona at 419-20. Under the Alvarez-Machain standard, the “most significant relationship” test favors the application of Peruvian law, but the relevant polic considerations articulated in the decision favor the application of federal common law. The totality of the case law, thus, weighs in favor of applying federal common law to the determination of damages under the ATS. This Court should award Plaintiffs damages under federal common law for their ATS and TVPA claims. 9. JURISDICTION FOR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND REMEDIES Federal Common Law on Damages Once it has been determined that federal common law applies to the question of damages, it becomes necessary to determine how to ascertain what the federal common law of damages is, as it relates to damages under the ATS and the TVPA. In order to determine or to fashion federal common law remedies, “courts may be guided by appropriate statutes without adopting any in their entirety.” See Park v. Korean Air Lines Co., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16841, 20 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (citing Moragne v. State Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375, 406-408 (1970); 3 This is true under both the ATS, which is simply a jurisdictional grant of that enables plaintiffs to bring claims for violations of established international law, and under the TVPA, which creates a specific cause of action for claims of torture and extrajudicial killing. In each case, absent the federal statute, plaintiffs would have no ability to sue in federal court. 4 The application of federal common law to damages under ATS and TVPA cases is also supported by legal commentators. International Human Rights Litig. in U.S. Courts states that in ATS litigation “[t]he remedy however, is a ‘purely domestic tort remedy’ governed by ‘traditional, well-established concepts of federal common law.” Beth Stephens, International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts (Brill Publishers 2008), citing William R. Casto, The New Federal Common Law of Tort Remedies for Violations of International Law, 37 Rutgers L.J. 635, 641 (2006). Wright & Miller states that courts should look to a wide variety of sources, including “considerations of what rule is best designed to implement the underlying federal policy or statute involved [and] general considerations of equity jurisprudence.” Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure • 4518. Although some courts conceptualize this broad inquiry as a choice of law analysis, they only follow choice of law principles to the extent those principles are consistent with the federal common law policy objective – enforcing the intent of the ATS. Most federal court decisions that perform any choice of law analysis do so in the context of an inquiry over other aspects of ATS law, rather than damages. See e.g. In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation (Hilao v. Marcos) 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1126 (1995) (abatement); Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 157 F.Supp.2d 1345 (S.D. Fl. 2001 (standing). Many of these courts, although notably not the Eleventh Circuit, cite to the Restatement 2nd of Conflicts or refer to more traditional choice of law principles drawn from United States Supreme Court holdings such as Lauritzen v. Larsen 345 U.S. 571 (1953). See e.g. Tachiona at 420 (reviewing pre-2002 case law on choice of law issues). One outlier court based the choice of law analysis on the law of the U.S. state in which the federal court sits. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc., 453 F.Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (appeal pending). But federal courts have consistently refused to be shackled by any conventional choice of law principles in ATS cases and if they conduct a choice of law analysis at all, they do so only within the larger context of the federal common law U.S. SUPREME COURT PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 13 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018
97 KB – 75 Pages