Lichtman, J. v. Zelenkofske Axelrod (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A15008-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOAN LICHTMAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. ZELENKOFSKE AXELROD & CO., LTD. Appellee No. 978 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order March 20, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 01092 June Term 2003 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 14, 2014 Appellant, Joan Lichtman, appeals pro se, from the order entered on March 20, 2013, by the Honorable Gary S. Glazer, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm. This action started many years ago as a collection of judgment Lichtman. In 1998, Lichtman filed an action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against ZA alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. See Opinion, 6/3/08, at 1. ZA removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See id. Following a jury trial in September 1999, ZA was awarded a judgment. See id. ZA then filed a petition for assessment of fees and costs, which the court ordered Lichtman J-A15008-14 to pay $41,879.12. See id., at 2. Lichtman subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the order of the District Court. See id. On June 9, 2003, the United States District Court certified the judgment and counsel for ZA, Flamm, Boroff & Bacine, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. See id Flamm then filed a Praecipe to Issue Writs of Execution and Interrogatories in Aid of Execution for several financial institutions, including PNC Bank. See Writ of Execution, 6/13/03. On September 5, 2003, the trial court entered judgment against garnishee PNC Bank for $7,170.98. The trial court also entered judgment against garnishee, Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC for $1,354.46. Lichtman then spent several years filing many motions and petitions seeking the return of her money from Flamm, PNC Bank, and counsel for PNC, Jon Sirlin, Esquire. During this time, Lichtman preferred to plead with and insult court officials rather than advancing well thought out legal arguments. For example, in one letter to the court, which Lichtman titled . I have now lowered myself to begging for the truth, justice and the Law. Please, put an end to this nightmare help our judicial system and save my life --Sylvester and the Honorable Matthew D. Carrafiello, 10/8/03. -2- J-A15008-14 would be duly ashamed of yourself, if only you were mature enough and had even a modicum respect for yourself and for the law, not to mention, for Letter to Jon Sirlin, 10/15/03. On February 24, 2006, Flamm motioned to voluntarily substitute itself for ZA as a party defendant. See Opinion, 6/8/03, at 3. On October 20, ssets. See Order, 10/20/06. Flamm appealed to the Superior Court, and the trial court held a hearing at which it determined there was no evidence of a valid assignment from ZA to Flamm. See Opinion, 6/8/03, at 10. On February 25, 2009, the Superior Court affirmed reimbursement. See Order, 6/1/09. When the parties did not comply, Lichtman filed a petition for contempt, sanctions, costs, interest and punitive damages. See Motion for Contempt and For Sanctions, 4/17/09. On October moot due to the fact that the matter was pending in federal court. See Order, 10/2/09. Following this order, Lichtman again spent several years filing various motions and appeals, attacking Judge Glazer, Flamm, and PNC Bank. Lichtman even resorted to contacting the trial court in inappropriate -3- J-A15008-14 manners, such as e- I do not receive money immediately, I will soon be very dead. No way to eat; no means to survive. The manner of my death will be neither natural causes -mail to the Honorable Gary S. Glazer, 10/19/09. On March 20, 2013, the trial court entered the order from which Lichtman now appeals. See future filings, the trial court stated the following in its March 20 order: There is no question that this litigation, commenced by Joan Lichtman, is being continued in bad faith and constitutes a court, however, that the imposition of sanction against Joan Lichtman will only fan the flames of this senselessly prolonged matter and result in further waste of lawyer and court resources. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any sanction would be either to pursue wasteful, vexatious, baseless, and harassing litigation. Her misuse of the judicial process is pronounced, longstanding, and obsessive. It is comprised of specious pleadings, threatening letters, and efforts to communicate with the court via email. This inappropriate conduct must stop. Therefore, the pronthonoary is directed to not accept any further pleadings from Joan Lichtman in this case under any circumstances for any reason. In the event that the prothonotary fails to comply with this Order, this court will direct the prothonotary to remove the pleadings from the record. There is unfortunately little else this court can do as Ms. Lichtman is not a member of the bar and therefore not subject to the disciplinary process for her abusive and demeaning behavior. Id., at fn. 1. On appeal, Lichtman continues such behavior, making the following and conspiracy with attorneys Flamm and Sirlin has egregiously and literally -4- J-A15008-14 ably refuses to now, daily, faces an impending, premature Death, wondering if the Courts 17, 28. There are a multitude more of insults and a catalog of alleged nefarious activities by these entities throughout the brief, which we need not recite here. Lichtman raises five issues on appeal. Specifically, she claims the trial court abused discretion by sustaining perjury, fraud and deception committed by opposing counsel; the court refused to enforce its own orders; the court sustained the motion of an attorney who had no standing; the court disobeyed the Rules of Professional Conduct when it did not report opposing counsel to the disciplinary board; and the court disobeyed the Canons of Judicial Conduct by failing to recuse due to bias. The brief is nothing more than a rambling diatribe; it does not advance a coherent legal argument. It is well settled that the argument portion of an appellate brief must be developed with pertinent discussion of the issue, which includes citations Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 748. (Pa. -5- J-A15008-14 Super. 2012). The failure to develop an issue in an argument and failure to cite pertinent legal authority renders the issue waived. See id. Additionally, any reference to the pleadings, evidence, charge, opinion or order must be supported by a citation to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). Throughout -page argument section of her brief, she cites five, utterly irrelevant cases. Furthermore, she has very few record citations, and those that do exist are imprecise. Lichtman has completely failed to develop any of the issues she has raised on appeal. Therefore, we find the issues waived. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/14/2014 -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.