Skolnick v. State

Decision Date25 October 1979
Docket NumberNo. 3-1076A233,3-1076A233
PartiesSherman H. SKOLNICK, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below), and Saul I. Ruman and Richard J. Lesniak, Appellees (Intervenors Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Sherman H. Skolnick, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Saul I. Ruman, Hammond, for appellee.

STATON, Judge.

On July 29, 1975, in an eight-page order of the Porter Superior Court, Sherman H. Skolnick was convicted three times of direct criminal contempt. For each conviction Skolnick was sentenced to thirty days' incarceration in the Porter County Jail and fined $100.00. Skolnick contends that the three direct contempt convictions are invalid because:

I. he was denied due process of law;

II. the trial judge was without jurisdiction to convict Skolnick of direct contempt;

III. the convictions abridged Skolnick's right to freedom of speech;

IV. the trial judge erred in permitting Ruman and Lesniak to intervene in Skolnick's case;

V. the trial judge was biased against Skolnick.

Having examined the issues presented, we affirm two of the direct contempt convictions and reverse one of them.

The present appeal concerns three of six direct contempt convictions against Skolnick in the Porter Superior Court during July of 1975. We have already addressed and disposed of the three other contempt convictions: Skolnick v. State, PSC 354 (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 1156, wherein we affirmed his two direct contempt convictions of July 16, 1975, and Skolnick v. State and Ruman and Lesniak, PSC 356 (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 1156, wherein we affirmed a conviction for direct contempt occurring July 21, 1975. The facts necessary for a determination of the instant case are as follows:

Skolnick filed in the Porter Superior Court on July 25, 1975, a motion for reconsideration of his July 21, 1975 direct contempt conviction. Skolnick also filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Strike and Expunge," in which he sought to strike two pleadings and two court orders relating to earlier direct contempt proceedings against him. In Paragraphs Four and Five of this latter pleading, Skolnick charged that the trial judge and local attorney Ruman sought to "connive and confederate" against Skolnick in order to cover up their alleged corruption in two earlier, unrelated cases.

On July 28, 1975, the trial judge set Skolnick's motions for hearing on July 29, 1975. Skolnick was notified of the date and time of the hearing. On July 29, Skolnick filed a pleading entitled "Motion to Submit Previous Motions Without Oral Argument." The substance of this motion was as follows:

"1. Nothing said herein constitutes a waiver of anything said in two previously filed Motions of defendant Skolnick.

"2. On July 28, 1975, in the afternoon, while near the courthouse a deputy sheriff handed Skolnick a paper stating 'The Court now sets this matter for hearing on July 29, 1975, at 2:00 p. m.'

"3. Recently, Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik has twice previously taken advantage of "4. Trial Rule 73(A) provides for the submission of motions without requiring oral argument or the physical presence of the person so submitting said motions.

Skolnick's presence in Pivarnik's courtroom to falsely imprison Skolnick, without specific charges made or legal requirements as specified by Burns 34-4-7-7 (3-907) (IC 1971, 34-4-7-7 (Burns Code Ed.)). Skolnick believes it is unsafe for him to further physically be present in Judge Pivarnik's courtroom that Pivarnik intends to further falsely imprison Skolnick, all to be done by Pivarnik under the sham and pretense of legal proceeding, without authority or jurisdiction, and in violation of Skolnick's rights, privileges, and immunities, made actionable under the Federal Civil Rights acts, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983, et seq.'

"5. To prevent further false imprisonment of himself, Skolnick submits the said heretofore Motions filed by him, without oral argument or his physical presence in the courtroom of Judge Pivarnik, or other oral hearings.

"WHEREFORE, Skolnick, defendant, pro se, moves as aforesaid and demands equal justice as provided by the state and federal constitutions.

S/ Sherman H. Skolnick, defendant

pro se 9800 So. Oglesby,

Chicago, ILL. 60617"

The July 29 hearing on these motions proceeded in Skolnick's absence. During the hearing the trial judge found Skolnick in direct contempt three times for (1) contumacious statements made in his motion to strike and expunge; (2) contumacious statements made in his motion to submit previous motions without oral argument; and (3) Skolnick's part in certain allegedly contumacious activities. These findings were reduced to writing in an order dated July 29, 1975:

"ORDER OF COURT

"Hearing is opened on Motion of Sherman Skolnick for a re-hearing and reconsideration of finding of said Sherman Skolnick guilty of direct contempt of this Court on Monday, July 21, 1975, and fixing punishment.

"Also to be heard at this hearing pursuant to notice to all parties are Defendants Motion to Strike and Expunge pleadings.

"Defendant Sherman Skolnick files Motion to Submit Previous motions without Argument.

"The Sheriff of Porter County files return showing service of notice of hearing on Sherman Skolnick. Defendant Sherman Skolnick fails to appear for this hearing and requests by written motion heretofore filed that the Court rule in his absence.

"The Court now denies all relief sought by Defendant in his motion for reconsideration and re-affirms its Judgment of July 21, 1975, finding the Defendant in direct contempt of this Court and sentencing him to the Porter County Jail for a period of 24 hours.

"Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied in all specifications.

"The Court in open court now takes notice of its own record and finds:

"1. That Sherman Skolnick filed a pleading in this cause on July 25, 1975, entitled 'Motion to Strike and "1. Petition to intervene pursuant to Trial Rule 24.

Expunge' the following pleadings and orders:

"2. Order and Judgment granting intervention.

"3. Motion to Quash subpoena issued by Sherman Skolnick to Richard Lesniak and Saul I. Ruman on Sunday, July 20, 1975, and for expenses and Attorneys fees; and

"4. Order and Judgment Quashing subpoenas pursuant to Trial Rule 45.

"2. That paragraph four (4) and five (5) of said pleading as pages two (2) and three (3) state as follows:

"Paragraph four (4): Hammond Attorney Saul I. Ruman and East Chicago Attorney Richard Lesniak had been subpoenaed by defendant to produce evidence, oral and documentary, in support of defendant's opinions as to the corrupt and improper activities of Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik as Special Judge to Lake County Causes Edward L. C. Broomes vs. City of East Chicago, Lake Superior Court Room Number Five, Cause No. 574-2139, Bryant et al. vs. Board of County Commissioners, Lake Circuit Court Cause Nos. C-71-1384 and C-71-1560. Saul I. Ruman was one of the principals in the fraudulent conspiracy widely known as the Apple Valley Village Fraud. In addition, Saul I. Ruman had been active in the procurement of a decree in the City of East Chicago case, supra, undertaking to 'whitewash' a corrupt group of city officials in East Chicago and some contractors from Milwaukee, Charles Zordani, Solomen Sidel, and Laurence Bursten, the latter being under indictment in the Lake Criminal Court for fraudulent and criminal misconduct in procuring a four-and-one-half million dollar public contract with the Park Board of the City of East Chicago. Richard Lesniak is a partner in the East Chicago, Indiana lawfirm (Sic ) of Given, Dawson & Cappas. Rudolph Val Dawson, a partner in the East Chicago lawfirm (Sic ), is Chairman of the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Indiana. The Commission has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over charges of misconduct on the part of Indiana State Court Judges as well as all members of the legal profession. On recent date, Ben Lesniak, brother of Richard Lesniak, was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for criminal offenses growing out of his activities as Chairman of the East Chicago Housing Authority. The lawfirm (Sic ) of Given, Dawson & Cappas acted and presently act as attorneys for the East Chicago Hosing (Sic ) Authority, receiving substantial fees from bond issues issued in the name of the City of East Chicago to finance public housing projects. Paragraph five (5): Without any authority, legal or otherwise, to represent the State of Indiana or the people of Porter County in respect to the prosecution of criminal offenses occurring in Porter County, Indiana, including charges of direct criminal contempt, said Saul I. Ruman undertook to intervene and usurp the office of Prosecuting Attorney, connive and confederate with Judge Pivarnik during the noon hour with a view and purpose of reaching an agreement as to a plan and scheme to abort any investigation into the charge of corruption and judicial impropriety urged by the defendant, procured the production of defendant in the Court room where he, Ruman, undertook to assail and impugn the character and integrity of defendant with vile, scurrilous and false characterizations and epithets, all with the malicious, improper and unprecedented motive and intent to discredit defendant as chairman of the Citizens Committee to Clean Up the Courts. Saul I. Ruman, on July 20, 1975, when he was "3. That said statements charge this court with connivance, conspiracy and improprieties so apparent in their content that further explanation herein is unnecessary.

served had severe misgivings with reference to the possibility that his unprecedented corrupt conduct in the East Chicago case, the Apple Valley Village fraud, and other notorious swindles and frauds would be exposed.

"4. That said charges are made to influence and intimidate this court in decisions pending before the court including...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Bottoms v. B & M Coal Corp., 1-379A63
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 4, 1980
    ...Wayne Community Concerts, Inc., (1963) 243 Ind. 521, 188 N.E.2d 274, Denny v. State, (1932) 203 Ind. 682, 182 N.E. 313, Skolnick v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 986.8 Because of this conclusion we need not address another issue raised by appellants, i. e., whether the trial court shou......
  • Skolnick v. State, 381S75
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 16, 1981
    ...Court receives this case on a petition to transfer from a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals October 25, 1979, and recorded in 397 N.E.2d 986. On July 29, 1975, the appellant was convicted of three counts of direct criminal contempt by the Porter Superior Court. The Court of Appeals ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT