Submitted: June 26, 2019
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas:
Bond, pro se, Appellant.
Shoneika Moore, pro se, Appellee.
W. WHARTON, J.
day of July, 2019, upon consideration of Appellant Lynez
Bond's ("Bond") Opening Brief,  the Amended
Answering Brief of Appellee Shoneika Moore
("Moore"),  Bond's Reply Brief,  and the record,
appears to the Court that:
underlying complaint in this appeal was for defamation and
libel. At trial in the Court of Common Pleas, as on appeal in
this Court, both parties appeared pro se. After
trial, Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff Moore
and against defendant Bond for $10, 050.00 with pre and post
judgment interest and costs. This appeal followed.
lists four reasons why the judgment of the Court of Common
Pleas should be reversed. They are set out below, which is
also the entirety of his opening brief:
(1) The judge asked me what did you mean by your statement in
the PFA saying "broke on my neck several time" I
explained to the Judge I meant necklace; his reply was, No,
you said Ms. Moore broke your neck; I did not say
Ms. Moore broke my neck but the judge made his
ruling on that alone!
(2) Ms. Moore has no evidence I caused her to miss
her business trip, scheduled for 06/14/15 and 16th
of 2018 she missed her trip because she filed a petition for
child support, hearing date 06/18/18. Case
(3) Ms. Moore claims I called her Job as a DFS
worker and I jeopardized her employment with no evidence to
prove it! Ms. Moore claims I am the reason she was
demoted from full to part time but yet presented as evidence
in court on 2/11/19 her employer at the time (Harvest
Christian academy) says due to Ms. Moore having only
four (4) student in her daycare classroom they could no
longer accommodate her full-time position.
(4) Judge said I was the reason for her being treated like a
criminal! My PFA was ordered on 1/30/18 Ms. Moore
was not arrested until a Maryland peace order, I had nothing
to do with, for Harrassment by my fiance, hazel Hart, was
transferred to a PFA on 07/10/18.
Moore disputes each of Bond's four points. As to the
first three, she argues that the trial judge had all of the
information before him and drew his own conclusions from the
record evidence and exhibits. As to the fourth, she reargues
and expands upon factual issues contested at
reply, Bond again asserts that the trial judge was wrong to
base his decision on a statement in the PFA complaint Bond
brought against Moore in which he claimed that Moore broke
his neck several times. Bond claims he meant to say that
Moore broke his necklace, not his neck. Bond also introduces
for the first time allegations of Moore's bad character