Court Opinion

ID: 9375731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 18:06:45.071199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.204984
License: Public Domain

J-S03006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: OTHER                               :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: AISHA BRADLEY                   :
                                               :
                                               :     No. 393 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 8, 2021
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-MD-0003368-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                  FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2023

        Aisha Bradley appeals pro se from the order that dismissed her appeal

from the disapproval of her private criminal complaint by the Philadelphia

County District Attorney’s Office (“DA”). We dismiss this appeal.

        The history of this litigation, in pertinent part, is as follows. Ms. Bradley

filed   a   private    criminal    complaint       concerning   property   owned   by

Patricia Simon, a seventy-year-old friend of Ms. Bradley for whom Ms. Bradley

alleged she had been appointed agent pursuant to a power of attorney

(“POA”).1     Ms. Bradley summarized the factual basis of her complaint as

follows:

____________________________________________

1  Rather than follow the normal channels for filing her complaint with the DA
in person, Ms. Bradley was asked to submit hers by e-mail, as the assistant
district attorney who spoke with Ms. Bradley about the matter over the
telephone found her “extremely difficult to deal with” and did not wish “to
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S03006-23

             So, basically, what previous City employees did was land
       locked her property and took it for Fairmount Park property
       without providing eminent domain or without the authority of the
       law. You can’t just take somebody’s property for park property
       without the authority of the law.

             So when Patricia Simon came to sell her property -- she’s
       old. It’s almost an acre of land. She can’t do anything with that.
       So, when she wanted to sell her land, she found out it was
       landlocked.

             See, I found out about Patricia Simon because I wanted to
       build my own real estate business. That’s how I came in touch
       with her. Then I found all this stuff happened to her property, and
       we became friends.

             So, when I go to the City of Philadelphia to find out what
       happened, well, hey, where’s her right of way? Why is her
       property land locked? They lied and put in false statements in
       government documents.      They lied.      They said, “Oh, the
       development of where she lived is a failed plan.”

             I mean, they told all types of lies and what happened is,
       they covered up previous City actions from 1960. Now, 1960,
       we’re talking about Martin Luther King alive, JFK, is alive, and all
       that. So what they did in 1960, they landlocked her property.

             So this rich woman, Eleanor Houston Smith, said, “Hey. I’ll
       donate six acres to Fairmount Park, but you can’t build a road on
       this six acres.” So what they did to honor her bequest they
       landlocked her property.

N.T. Hearing, 12/7/21, at 11-13.

____________________________________________

submit [the DA’s] intake workers to what [he] was experiencing,” which he
described as “bullying to an unprofessional degree.” N.T. Hearing, 12/7/21,
at 42-43. The trial court described Ms. Bradley’s efforts as “over the top and
well beyond just communicating and exercising your right as a citizen to hold
elected officials and public servants accountable.” Id. at 48. This Court’s
experiences comport with the trial court’s assessment in that regard.

                                           -2-
J-S03006-23

       The    DA    disapproved      the       complaint   for   the   following   bases:

“Prosecutorial discretion. Judicial economy. Intent on behalf of the accused

parties unclear.     Matters not appropriate for a private criminal complaint.

Complainant advised to seek remedy in civil court.”2 See Trial Court Opinion,

5/6/22, at 1 (cleaned up). Ms. Bradley, after unsuccessfully appealing the

disapproval to the Philadelphia Municipal Court, appealed to the trial court.

The court held a hearing at which it asked to see the POA that gave Ms. Bradley

the authority to proceed on Ms. Simon’s behalf, since Ms. Simon was the party

aggrieved by the alleged criminal activity and she was not present at the

hearing.3    See N.T. Hearing, 12/7/21, at 13-14.                The trial court directed

Ms. Bradley to appear the following day with the original POA. Ms. Bradley

returned with a ten-page document that the trial court determined lacked an

____________________________________________

2 Although it does not impact our disposition of this appeal, we note that our
Supreme Court recently changed the law such that the same standard of
review applies regardless of the basis that the DA offers for disapproving a
private criminal complaint. See In Re: Private Complaint Filed by Luay
Ajaj, ___ A.3d ___, 55 MAP 2021, 2023 WL 308130 (Pa. Jan. 19, 2023) (“We
hold that . . . a court of common pleas may only overturn that decision if the
private complainant demonstrates that the disapproval decision amounted to
bad faith, occurred due to fraud, or was unconstitutional. In so holding, we
denounce the prior rubric, where the applicable standard of review depended
on the asserted basis for the prosecutor’s disapproval decision.”).

3 Ms. Bradley represented that Ms. Simon was at home at the time of the
hearing, but she did not know Ms. Simon’s address. See N.T. Hearing,
12/7/21, at 14.

                                           -3-
J-S03006-23

original signature and was otherwise defective.4 Accordingly, the trial court

dismissed the appeal. See N.T. Hearing, 12/8/21, at 5.

       Ms. Bradley filed a timely appeal to this Court. On January 19, 2022,

the trial court ordered Ms. Bradley to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) within twenty-one

days. In addition to a deluge of other documents, Ms. Bradley filed for an

extension of time to comply, which the trial court granted, giving Ms. Bradley

twenty-one days from March 4, 2022, to file her concise statement.         That

order advised Ms. Bradley that she must “concisely identify each ruling or

error that [she] intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all

pertinent issues for the trial judge” and that “failure to comply with this

directive may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections

to the order, ruling, or other matters complained of on appeal.” Order, 3/4/22

(unnecessary capitalization omitted).

       Rather than file her statement, Ms. Bradley inundated the trial court

with filings, prompting it to issue the following:

       [I]t is hereby ORDERED that the Appellant/Aisha Bradley is not
       permitted to send any further emails, or other written
       communications of any kind directly to the undersigned judge or
       her judicial staff related to the above-captioned matter.

       It is hereby further ORDERED that Appellant/Aisha Bradley is not
       permitted to make any further phone calls directly to the
____________________________________________

4 For example, the trial court noted that one page of the document was signed
and dated a week after the date it was notarized as indicated by the
handwritten notary information. See N.T. Hearing, 12/8/21, at 4.

                                           -4-
J-S03006-23

      undersigned judge’s chambers or her judicial staff related to the
      above-captioned matter.

      It is hereby furthered ORDERED that Appellant/Aisha Bradley shall
      limit her communications to the undersigned judge, or her judicial
      staff to the filing of pleadings related to the orders issued by the
      Court pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
      Appellate Procedure.

Order, 3/17/22 (cleaned up).

      On March 23, 2022, Ms. Bradley filed her statement of errors. However,

she prefaced it by stating that she would not file a concise statement because

such was impossible since the transcripts were defective and the trial court

refused to provide an audio recording of the proceedings. What followed, after

allegations of statements purportedly made by the trial court that were

missing from the transcripts, was 172 numbered paragraphs, replete with

subparagraphs, spanning approximately 300 pages, including exhibits of

reproduced communications and legal authorities. In response, the trial court

authored a Rule 1925(a) opinion suggesting that Ms. Bradley waived her

appellate issues by failing to comply with its Rule 1925(b) order by concisely

identifying issues for it to address.   See Trial Court Opinion, 5/6/22, at 4-6.

Alternatively, the trial court opined that Ms. Bradley lacked standing to seek

judicial review of the dismissal of the private complaint because she failed to

proffer evidence that she had an interest in the litigation beyond that of any

private citizen. Id. at 7-8 (citing In Re Hickson, 821 A.2d 1238, 1243-45

(Pa. 2003) (providing that traditional standing principles, namely that the

appellant is “able to show that the crime visited upon them a substantial,

                                        -5-
J-S03006-23

direct and immediate injury,” apply to what is now Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, which

allows an affiant submitting a private criminal complaint to seek judicial review

of a DA’s private disapproval)).

       In this Court, Ms. Bradley continued in the same vein, filing more than

thirty applications for relief, all of which were denied. In her brief, Ms. Bradley

states 102 questions, most of which accuse judges and assistant district

attorneys of official oppression, misconduct, obstruction, conspiracy, and

other offenses.5 The summary of the argument portion of Ms. Bradley’s brief

is thirty-six pages, while her argument is fourteen pages, and is not divided

into 102 separate parts to correspond with her 102 questions as is required

by Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).         According to Ms. Bradley’s certification, her brief

contains more than 14,000 words, which is contrary to Pa.R.A.P. 2135(a)(1).

       It is well-settled that,

       [a]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed
       by a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special
       benefit upon an appellant. A pro se litigant must comply with the
       procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court.
       Any layperson choosing to represent himself or herself in a legal
       proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that
       his or her lack of expertise and legal training will prove his or her
       undoing.
____________________________________________

5  For example, Ms. Bradley claims that the ADA with whom she spoke acted
in bad faith and abused his discretion by calling her on the phone to discuss
the matter when she told him she wanted to do so in person, and engaged in
official oppression by refusing to email her the private complaint application
that she requested. See Appellant’s brief at 18, 26 (questions 16 and 32).
Ms. Bradley accuses the trial court of criminal offenses based upon the
allegation that the trial judge did not perform a judicial review of the
disapproval of her complaint. Id. at 52 (questions 80-82).

                                           -6-
J-S03006-23

Smithson v. Columbia Gas of PA/NiSource, 264 A.3d 755, 760 (Pa.Super.

2021) (cleaned up).

      This Court has explained that “Rule 1925 is . . . a crucial component of

appellate process.” Commonwealth v. McBride, 957 A.2d 752, 758

(Pa.Super. 2008) (cleaned up).       To facilitate “meaningful and effective

appellate review” of the issues the appellant presents, we require a trial court

opinion explaining its reasoning. Id. (cleaned up). To aid the trial court in

this process, Rule 1925 mandates, among other things, that the appellant

“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with

sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b)(4)(ii). “The Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy

explanations as to any error.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). While raising a large

number of errors is not alone indicative of non-compliance, the issues

nonetheless must be “non-redundant, non-frivolous[, and] set forth in an

appropriately concise manner” in order to preserve the issues for appeal. Id.

      Where an appellant refuses to comply with the letter and spirit of Rule

1925, overwhelming the trial court and subverting our ability to conduct

meaningful review, the appellant waives all issues on appeal.       See, e.g.,

Mahonski v. Engel, 145 A.3d 175, 182 (Pa.Super. 2016) (holding, where the

appellant stated eighty-seven claims of error, which included “flippant

remarks demonstrating disrespect of the judicial process” and the trial court

refused to address the “overly vague, redundant, and prolix” claims of error,

                                     -7-
J-S03006-23

that the record supported the trial court’s finding that the “voluminous

1925(b) statements failed to set forth non-redundant, nonfrivolous issues in

an appropriately concise manner”); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401

(Pa.Super. 2004) (“The Defendants’ failure to set forth the issues that they

sought to raise on appeal in a concise manner impeded the trial court’s ability

to prepare an opinion addressing the issues that the Defendants sought to

raise before this Court, thereby frustrating this Court’s ability to engage in a

meaningful and effective appellate review process. By raising an outrageous

number of issues [(more than one hundred)], the Defendants have

deliberately circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have

thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they now seek to

raise.”).

      Likewise, where an appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing

requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure unduly hampers our ability

to conduct meaningful review, we may decline to conduct a review and instead

dismiss the appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101 (“[I]f the defects are in the brief or

reproduced record of the appellant and are substantial, the appeal or other

matter may be . . . dismissed.”); Smithson, supra at 7961 (dismissing

appeal because the appellant’s disregard for appellate rules left this Court

unable to conduct effective review).

      Here, Ms. Bradley has declined to file (1) a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal, instead overwhelming the trial court with an unduly

                                       -8-
J-S03006-23

lengthy and repetitive statement replete with extraneous information; and (2)

an appellate brief that conforms with Rules 2119 and 2135(a)(1), instead

providing a mere fourteen pages of argument for more than one hundred

questions stated over fifty-two pages, without indicating which questions are

encompassed by which portions of the argument. These rules violations have

hampered our ability to conduct meaningful review of the substance of this

appeal.6 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2023

____________________________________________

6  Both parties have advised us that Ms. Simon passed away during the
pendency of this appeal. Since we dispose of this appeal without addressing
Ms. Bradley’s issues or the trial court’s ruling that she lacked standing to
appeal, we need not examine what impact, if any, her death and estate plan
have on Ms. Bradley’s standing.

   Also in light of our disposition, we deny Ms. Bradley’s January 20, 2023
application for the appointment of special investigative counsel pursuant to 18
Pa.C.S. § 9512 (governing petitions to the Special Independent Prosecutor’s
Panel), and for this Court to petition the Attorney General to intervene.

                                           -9-