Photos15 Jan 5-6
Uploaded by
Stan J. CaterbonePhotos15 Jan 5-6
Uploaded by
Stan J. Caterboneby Stan J.
Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant and THE ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP Copyright 2024©
TABLE OF CITATIONS
VICTITIOUS LITIGATION - Legal proceedings started with malice and without good case.
Vexatious litigation is meant to bother, embarrass, or cause legal expenses to the
defendant. A plaintiff who starts such litigation either knows or should reasonably know
that no legal basis for the lawsuit exists. To obtain a remedy for vexatious litigation, the
injured party often files a claim for malicious prosecution.
Source - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vexatious_litigation
tructural Error Doctrine - The Court then addressed the harmless error doctrine. It noted
that “[t]raditionally, the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating that any
prejudice . . . did not redound to the defendant’s detriment.” “a very limited class of
errors that trigger automatic reversal because they undermine the fairness of a criminal
proceeding as a whole.” United States v. Davila, 133 S.Ct. 2139 (2013) (citation
omitted).
Hempfield Township v. Hapchuck 153 Pa. Comwlth. 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…”.
§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 and to strike a balance between protection of individual rights from
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.
In Ascolese v. Southeastern Turnpike Authority, C 925 F. supp. 351, the case supports
the notion that “One of the principal purposes of § 1983 was to give remedy to parties
deprived of Constitutional Rights, privileges, and immunities by Official’s abuse of his or
her position, that is to provide remedy against individual officials who violate
Constitutional Rights, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
On January 4, 2007 the PETITIONER was illegally forced off his property and threatened
with criminal trespass by employees of Parula Properties and the Southern Regional
Police were summoned. Parula Properties were loading and stealing all of the
possessions and contents of 220 Stone Hill Road, Conestoga, in moving vans. This was
before the Sheriff’ Deed was transferred on February 1st, 2007; before the distribution of
funds held in escrow by the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office; and there was no eviction
notice served on the PETITIONER. In the Notice of Sheriff Sale filed on July 30, 2007 by
Fulton Bank it stated the following: “You have the right to remain in the property until
the full amount due is paid to the Sheriff and the Sheriff gives a deed to the buyer. At
that time, the buyer may bring legal proceedings to evict you”.
341 MAL 2024 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page No. 2 of 21 MONDAY January 6th, 2025
