Supreme Court of the United States

1 TO THE 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 STAN J. CATERBONE (Your Name) 1250 FREMONT STREET (Address) LANCASTER, PA 17603 (City, State, Zip Code) 717-327-1566 (Phone Number) Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. I of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 TO THE 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 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?

2 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 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 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.

3 THAT ANY AND ALL SUCH DIAGNOSIS OF MENTAL ILLNESSES ARE FIRST DEEMED TO BE SYMPTOMATIC OF 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 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 SPONSORED mind control .

4 Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 4 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 TO THE 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 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.

5 ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER THREE: YES. Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 5 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 TO THE 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 202-514-2217 Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 THE SUP ME Court From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No.

6 18-10134, by Stan , 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 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 20 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..21 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ..29 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 Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 TO THE SUP E Court From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se TA EOFAUTHORITIESC D CASES 351 1348 (2003) Robert S. WOLFF, Edward Turner, Edward E. Wailer, Grey Wolf Holdings, John G.

7 Coughlin, Plaintiffs-Appel lees, Vp CASH 4 TITLES, 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 ( 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.

8 See Mobile Cnty. Water, Sewer & Fire Prot. Auth, Inc. v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., Inc. 576 F. Supp. 2D 1342, 1344 ( 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 1495, 1500 ( ); Ellsworth Associates Inc. v. United States 917 F. Supp. 841, 846 ( ). 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.

9 See United States v. Ward 448 242 248 (1980). Supreme Court PETITION OF CERTORARI Page No. 8 of 77 Saturday November 10, 2018 TO THE SUP ME Court From THE ELVENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 18-10134, by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se . PRO SE & IN FORMA PAUPERIS Commonwealth v. Haggentstaller, 699 A. 2d 767 (Pa Superior, 1997), Pro Se Appellant sought review of Conviction for violation of County for violation of County ordinance with Rule of Appellant Procedure, Court conducted a "thorough, independent review of the record", and found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. 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.

10 Pa. R. App. P. Rule 552, 561 Indigent In Forma Pauperis, Griffen v. Illinois, 351 12, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956) States Indigent has right to free Trial Transcript for Appeal of Right. 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.". The first issue to address is that of the Plaintiff's right to due process, as prescribed by law. In Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District, the courts interpreted due process, as "Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due process means".