Monday, July 13, 2020

Rent Dispute

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who defaulted on charges that include allegations of misconduct in her own eviction matter.

The Disciplinary Review Board described the origins of the controversy

Respondent informed [landlord] Ms. Beyer that she (Respondent) was not required to pay any rent because “She [Respondent] claimed to be a Moor, an aboriginal indigenous Moorish American, and she owned it all, and I [Ms. Beyer] had no right to do anything.”

The Respondent entered into a settlement that required her to vacate by May 17, 2015

On May 18, 2015, Respondent and three other individuals broke into the apartment and were arrested by members of the Philadelphia Police Department and charged with criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and criminal conspiracy.

...During the preliminary hearing proceeding, Respondent and her codefendants were “shouting,” “waving flags,” and otherwise behaving in court like it “was a circus.” Respondent and her co-defendants were asked “to leave the courtroom” as a result of their disruptive conduct.

She sued the landlord, her counsel and others 

The pleadings that Respondent filed with the federal court and documents she sent to Petitioner in response to its DB-7 request for a statement of her position contained multiple outrageous, outlandish, provocative, false, and derogatory statements and accusations regarding Ms. Beyer, Ms. Kupersmith, the courts, and the legal system. In her frivolous federal complaint, Respondent described her arrest by members of law enforcement as having been “captured…for booty and prize, on land pirating and human traffic…to become slaves and property for the City of Philadelphia...and sold into bondage and involuntary servitude.” ODC-38. Respondent without basis, accused the courts of corruption. Id. Respondent referred to Ms. Beyer, Ms. Kupersmith, and others as “demonic beings,” “reprobates,” “devils,” “pirates,” “thieves,” and “murderers,” and accused them of “raping,” “robbing,” “stealing,” “lying,” “cheating,” “murdering,” and “bribing.” ODC-14, ODC-17; ODC-38, ODC-39, ODC-59. Respondent accused Ms. Kupersmith of poisoning her with spiders. ODC-17; N.T. 66.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the landlord-tenant litigation.


It is clear from Respondent’s recalcitrant actions in her criminal matter, her frivolous and fraudulent filings, her disregard of the administrative suspension order, and her failure to participate in the instant proceeding, that she holds the courts, the legal system, and the disciplinary system in contempt and believes she is not subject to their authority. Although Respondent herself refused to acknowledge and submit to the court’s authority in the criminal matter, she felt no compunction about misusing the judicial system to her own ends when it suited her, seeking retaliation against those she believed were to blame for her predicament. By her misconduct in all aspects of this matter,  Respondent has shown that she is wholly unfit to practice law, and most certainly poses a danger to the public.

Our review of this matter must include consideration of any aggravating and mitigating factors. We find there are three weighty aggravating factors. By Order dated March 24, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended Respondent for a period of five years, reciprocal to the New Jersey Supreme Court Order dated November 4, 2019, which imposed an indeterminate suspension for Respondent’s client neglect, failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and failure to appear on an order to show cause. Respondent’s prior discipline aggravates this matter.

Respondent has shown no remorse or acceptance of responsibility for her actions; to the contrary, her defiant attitude demonstrates nothing but disdain for the processes of the legal system to which, as an officer of the court, she was obligated to adhere. Finally, as discussed above, Respondent’s failure to appear for the hearing or participate in any way in these disciplinary proceedings constitutes an aggravating factor. There are no mitigating factors.

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Post a comment