Down the Rabbit hole with Former Indiana Justice Pivarnik
This one is a windy twisty tale. It's about about a gadfly conspiracy theorist, Sherman Skolnick
who happened to hit upon a conspiracy theory that led to the unseating of at least three Judges in Illinois. It's about all the things that came from Skolnick from venturing out to Valparaiso Indiana.... and it's about Indiana Justice and the "system" and the 'special world' of Judges.
In July of 1975, Skolnick got himself found in contempt of the Porter County Circuit Court which was presided over at that time by Judge Alfred Pivarnik. Skolnick had a private conspiracy theory that generally banks and the banking system were in bed with crooked judges and so were able to take people's property dishonestly and corruptly and that because the bankers were willing to buy off judges or perhaps simply part of the good old boys club (whether it appeared as a country clubhouse card room or an actual masonic or like masonic fraternity such as The Oddfellows).
Skolnick operated in the Chicago area. He was a bane to Judges and Bankers and protected crooks. His passion began when as a child, " a broker, through bad investments, lost $14,000 entrusted to him by Skolnick's parents. It was their life savings, earmarked to provide for their son's support. Childhood polio left Skolnick paralyzed below the waist and dependent on a wheelchair. In 1958, the Skolnicks sued to recover the money from the broker. "We went all the way to the state Supreme Court — Solfisburg and Klingbiel were justices then — and lost," Skolnick recalled to the Tribune in 1988. "I vowed to my parents that I would devote my life to helping others in the courts." See Chicago Tribune article; https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-sherman-skolnick-conspiracy-theory-flashback-perspec-1204-20161201-story.html
Skolnick got himself involved in a Valpo case, Portage National Band v. Skaggs. This was a case where the Bank was trying to foreclose on certain property owned by the Skaggs. Skolnick was on a campaign alleging the bank was crooked, the bank's lawyers were crooked and Judge Pivarnik was crooked. He had come down and skattered leaflets around the courthouse saying as much. Then it starts getting weird.
Before we get in tooo deep. It might be good to set up a timeline to get a sense of how events transpired and who all the people involved were. Here's an outline:
June 18, 1975, a lawsuit was filed by Portage National Bank against Robert P. and Joy Ann Skaggs d/b/a Aero Space Engineering. The action was filed in Porter Superior Court under Cause No. 75 PSC 1233. The complaint was in two parts and sought payment on two past due notes. The lawsuit proceeded with the Skaggs being represented pro se. Almost immediately after the suit was filed, the Plaintiff sought to replevy certain secured items. At this point, Judge Nixon, presiding judge in the cause, notified all parties that due to a crowded docket, the cause was being transferred on his motion to Porter Circuit Court and its presiding judge, Judge Pivarnik. source
July 7, 1975 " (Monday) "That on July 7, 1975, while this Judge (Pivarnik) was sitting at a table with several members of the Bar in a public restaurant in this city, one attorney Glenn Moody, a confederate of these persons approached this Judge and in a threatening manner verbally abused him in a loud manner until the owner of said restaurant physically removed the said Glenn Moody from the premises.
July 7, 1975, while this matter was pending, Judge Pivarnik was having lunch with several attorneys at a local restaurant in downtown Valparaiso, Indiana. Respondent approached the Judge and said to the Judge, "Prince Alfred, you are stupid and dishonest". This remark was made in a loud and threatening manner resulting in the owner of the restaurant physically removing the Respondent from the premises. (id.)
July 16, 1975, (Wednesday) Skolnick testified as a witness during a show cause hearing in Portage National Bank v. Skaggs.[2] Skolnick was denied the chance to get an attorney to help him. and a very unusual hearing occurred. Skolnick was called as a 1161*1161 witness in the action by Anderson, counsel for the plaintiff Bank. Skolnick held in contempt and jailed.
Here's the exchange with Pivanik that got him thrown in jail:
"MR. SKOLNICK: Judge, look, it is no secret that I'm investigating your corruption. He's trying to accuse me of practicing law as the chairman of a citizens group.
"THE COURT: Mr. Skolnick, answer the question.
"MR. SKOLNICK: I shouldn't be in this Court. You're trying to get me on something. You're trying to question me on irrelevant matters. If I had an attorney representing me, he would object to this.
"THE COURT: Mr. Skolnick ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: It is no secret I've made public statements about you, I shouldn't be in this court and I shouldn't be here with you sitting on what I say and what I don't say.
"THE COURT: Mr. Skolnick, answer the question that's been put to you.
"MR. SKOLNICK: I have answered the question.
"THE COURT: Will you re-ask the question.
"Q. Whose idea, Mr. Skolnick, what it that this form be used for the filing ____
"A. I do not recall.
"Q. You do not know at all?
"A. And I don't feel safe at making answers in the presence of him when I've made public statements that I'm out to get him indicted. He being the Judge, Alfred J. Pivarnik.
"THE COURT: All right. Mr. Skolnick are you sitting here in this Court and calling me corrupt? Is that what you're doing?
"MR. SKOLNICK: I am of that opinion as the head of a citizens group. I've said it publicly that I believe you're corrupt. I believe that there's been the appearance of impropriety in respect to you and violation of judicial ethics and I believe that I, the member of the public, could make such comment outside of Court which I have.
"THE COURT: I'm aware of that. I'm aware of that. You're not outside of Court Mr. Skolnick, you're inside of Court, you're here as a witness.
"MR. SKOLNICK: But it's unfair for you to be ruling on me because you are trying to use him (pointing to Mr. Anderson) to ask me questions about what I do 1162*1162 as the head of the citizens committee to clean up the court which is not your business.
"THE COURT: Do you realize Mr. Skolnick enough about the law to know that you have just charged me with a very serious charge?
"MR. SKOLNICK: I have not charged you, I've said it as of my opinion ____
"THE COURT: Are you telling me that I have set up this situation to have a lawyer come in here and set you up because of my corruption?
"MR. SKOLNICK: I have no personal knowledge but I'm of the belief that you did because it serves your purpose and if it serves your purpose, I'm entitled to believe ____
"THE COURT: And what purpose are you refering [sic] to, Mr. Skolnick?
"MR. SKOLNICK: To discredit me so that my statements, such as I intend to make on the radio such as Alex Bottas [sic], my chief investigator has made and intends to make on WLNR this Thursday accusing you will be discredited and be reported in the paper that you threatened me with arrest or contempt for failure to answer this that or the other. All in respect that a charge that I've made which I'm entitled to make about your breach of judicial ethics. I'm entitled to have that opinion.
"THE COURT: Is that your opinion now? You're telling me that I did this?
"MR. SKOLNICK: I'm saying that I believe that you did it. I'm saying that we're investigating certain matters, we're a citizens group that has been involved for 13 years in investigating charges and our record is a matter of record. We have put 12 judges either off the bench or into jail. I'll give you a list of them if Your Honor wants to know. Since that is so, he serves your purpose whether you conspired exactly or not this man, Mr. Anderson, serves your purpose to discredit me by asking about what I do as the head of the citizens committee to clean up the courts in respect to members which is not your business or Mr. Anderson's."
July 17, 1975. (Thursday) Skolnick makes bail.
Monday; July 21 - Skolnick again found in contempt. Interesting new developments as Saul Ruman and Richard Lesniak get involved in the case and against Skolnick:
On the afternoon of July 21, at approximately 1:15, a Porter County sheriff removed Skolnick from his jail cell and escorted him back to the courtroom. On the way to the courtroom the sheriff gave Skolnick copies of two motions which Ruman filed some time during the morning of July 21:[7] (1) a petition to intervene in Skolnick's case, pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 24, or to appear as an amicus curiae, on behalf of himself and Lesniak; and (2) a motion to quash Skolnick's subpoenas duces tecum directed to him and Lesniak. The motion to quash also requested sanctions — expenses and attorney fees — under TR. 37 and TR. 45, for work Ruman and Lesniak performed in response to the subpoenas. The sheriff also handed Skolnick copies of orders signed by the trial judge which (1) permitted Ruman and Lesniak to intervene and allowed Ruman to appear as well as an amicus curiae; and (2) granted their motion to quash. On this latter order Ruman and Lesniak were awarded expenses and attorney fees,
Any lawyer who reads that last statement of an award of expenses and attorney fees against Skolnick for Ruman and Lesniak knows what time it is. That's very rare and one might say 'unprecendented' in a matter where said lawyers haven't been in the case before.
Then, the hearing was convened.
Here is a bit of what happened.
When Skolnick arrived at the courtroom, he learned that the purpose of the proceeding was to hear Ruman and Lesniak's motion for expenses and attorney fees. During the hearing, Skolnick was convicted of direct criminal contempt after the following exchange:
"MR. SKOLNICK: You allowed him to talk for a half an hour defaming me and I was the gentleman that didn't object. Then, when I start, every other word you allow him to object and I want to be allowed to make my defense to his statement.
"THE COURT: All right, now that we've each had our say on that ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: I haven't had my say. He keeps interrupting me.
"THE COURT: I'm going to have my say Mr. Skolnick.
"MR. SKOLNICK: Go ahead.
"THE COURT: Now, we're here on that limited area. What happened in 1168*1168 other cases, I told you this morning, I'll tell you now, if you have any issue to take up with this Court on the conduct of this Court in this office or for that matter, if you wish to take my entire public record and my personal life to the Supreme Court of the United States, you may do so and I will willingly come there and meet that board. Now, have [sic] having been said, we are not here to hear anything of ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: Well you brought up the relevance.
"THE COURT: Mr. Skolnick, we are here to hear this issue only.
"MR. SKOLNICK: Sir, will you start it back to the jail. You're not going to allow me to make my defense.
"MR. RUMAN: Ah ____
"THE COURT: And I'm telling you now I don't want to hear any more.
"MR. SKOLNICK: Am I going to be allowed to make my statement ____
"THE COURT: I;m [sic] sure now that you understand Mr. Skolnick that what contempt is and that if you make reference to these matters it will be contemptable [sic].
"MR. SKOLNICK: What matters?
"THE COURT: You will not any more refer to records not ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: They're in my affidavit ____
"MR. RUMAN: Your Honor, may it please the Court, he's been interrupting the court. He asked if you would send him back to jail because he can't make a defense, that's contempt. I'm going to ask the Court, send him back to jail and we'll delay hearing on this but find him in contempt for his conduct in making a statement that he can't make his proper defense. Let him sit in jail until he's satisfied he wants to come out and then we'll come over for a hearing.
"MR. SKOLNICK: He went on for half an hour defending and I didn't interrupt him.
"THE COURT: I'm trying to explain to you what this ____
"MR. RUMAN: I'm not ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: The issue of relevance is involved with these subpoenas and you have a personal interest. Common decency requires that another judge be put up to hear the questions of the subpoenas because you are going to be forced to rule on whether they testify in a matter where in explanation of the alleged contempt, I say that you were corrupt and the truth would be the defense.
"MR. RUMAN: May it please the Court ____
"THE COURT: Do you want to state now, Mr. Skolnick, what you mean by saying to me that I have a personal interest? What do you mean by that statement?
"MR. SKOLNICK: It's obvious you have a personal interest. You're mentioned in my affidavit as being involved in this situation. Obviously you're going to award damages and not force them to testify because cross examination of them may bring out something about the corruption that I brought out in my affidavit.
"THE COURT: Mr. Skolnick ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: You have a personal interest.
"THE COURT: You are again in direct and criminal contempt of this Court.
"MR. RUMAN: And I'm going to ask the Court to find him in contempt, Your Honor, and to not submit to his efforts to make the Court disqualify himself by continued attacks on the Court, again, a technique of Mr. Skolnick which can destroy the judicial system. I submit Your Honor, you could not permit yourself to be continually attacked. He's asked to be found in contempt again and jailed. I would ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: I said ____ I said this hearing was of no avail, I should go back there because he's not going to allow me to make a statement.
"THE COURT: The Court doesn't do things that people wants him to do. The Court does things the Law orders that he do. And this Court, Mr. Skolnick, is not 1169*1169 going to face a frontal attack by you or anyone else on it and prevent it and gag it from performing its proper function.
"MR. SKOLNICK: Why was I brought to a hearing?
"THE COURT: I've attempted to explain that to you time after time, you would not listen ____
"MR. SKOLNICK: I'm not allowed to be heard."
For his remarks and conduct Skolnick was found in direct contempt and sentenced to an additional twenty-four hours in the Porter County Jail.
July 24,1975
source the Respondent (GLENN MOODY) entered his appearance in 75 PSC 1233 on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Skaggs. Between July 25, 1975, and August 11, 1975, during the course of his representation of the Skaggs, the Respondent personally contacted Portage National Bank, the plaintiff, with full knowledge that the bank was being represented by counsel, Richard Anderson. This contact was made while Anderson was on vacation; however, the Respondent had been given the name and address of "substitute counsel" by Anderson. The Respondent telephoned John Lear, President of the Portage National Bank, and demanded he withdraw the bank from the case and dismiss Anderson, threatening a suit against Lear personally as a defendant. Further, the Respondent visited Lear at the bank and made similar statements.
Friday, July 25 Skolnick files a motion to reconsider
Monday, July 28: Judge sets Motion for hearing for the 29th And 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.
Tuesday: July 29 Skolnick files a motion on the date of the hearing
In part it Recently, Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik has twice previously taken advantage of
989*989 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.'
says and the Court held the hearing and Skolnick refused to appear at the hearing. He was found in contempt.
PIVARNIK notes in his ruling the actual claims made by Skolnick which
"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 991*991 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.
And also Skolnick produced a witness: and an affidavit:
one Elmer L. Jacobsen was filed in this cause attached to Sherman Skolnick's "Motion for Reconsideration and entitled, `Affidavit of Elmer L. Jacobsen In Support of Motion Under Burns Indiana Statutes Annotated Code Edition, Title 34, Section 34-4-7-7 (3-907) By Way of Exception to the Opinion and Judgment of the Court and for a Reconsideration of its Opinion and Judgment of the Court and for a Reconsideration of its Opinion and Judgment of the Case.'
"That said affidavit states that affiant observed Alfred J. Pivarnik, the regular judge of this court, and Attorney Saul I. Ruman leave the Courthouse and go to the Old Style Restaurant and later return to the Courthouse.
"That said affidavit suggests that the judge and attorney Ruman spent the noon hour together.
"That affiant knew full well the judge and attorney Ruman did not spend the noon hour together.
But the local Sheriff backed up the old Judge.
"That Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik was accompanied by the Sheriff of Porter County and one of his deputies for the purpose of personal protection and no other persons going and coming from lunch such facts being substantiated by four affidavits in 992*992 this record and obviously in the knowledge of the judge.
"That said affidavit was filed with and in support of pleadings stating that this court connived and conspired with Attorney Saul I. Ruman during the noon hour.
So we get a picture of a Judge so beleagured he has to have a Sheriff and 4 deputies escort him to lunch being so 'endangered" and so of course Skolnicks witness is lying his ass off when he claims Judge had Lunch with the lawyer that 'set up Skolnick'.
Was that true? As for Judge Pivarniks activities, he had been the trial judge on the Broomes v. City of East Chicago case. When the plaintiff's brought the case before him with undisputed facts that the Court of Appeals later found clearly and unequivocably made the contract that Broomes and his fellow citizens were fighting was ILLEGAL.... Judge Pivarnik had summarily denied their claims. So he got that one wrong by a country mile. Skolnick and other suspicious minded folks may have wondered why such a bright legal mind would 'miss' something so obvious?
On that same Monday, July 28th there was quite a demonstration going on as the Court noted:
""The Court further finds that Sherman Skolnick, Alex J. Bottos and David Glenn Hoffman as officers of the Citizens Committee to Clean up the Courts have cause to be printed a one page scurrilous and defamatory statement captioned `Padlock Pivarnik' an original of which is attached hereto.
"That Alex J. Bottos, as representative of this group was granted a permit by the City of Valparaiso to have a `protect demonstration prade [sic]' on Monday, July 28, 1975, Tuesday, July 29, 1975, and Wednesday, July 30, 1975, at the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.
"That said demonstration did take place on Monday July 28, 1975, and was in progress during the time this cause was being heard from 2:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on July 29, 1975.
"That these statements or leaflets were passed out by these persons or caused to be passed out by them and other persons unknown to this Court on the sidewalks surrounding and approaching the courthouse housing this Court. That copies of these leaflets were given to members of the public using the sidewalks and members of the public having business with the courts and other court house offices.
"That copies of these leaflets found their way into the Court room during the hearing of this cause and into the chambers of the judge during this hearing.
"That one of the `charges' on these leaflets refers to this matter now under consideration by the Court and being heard by the Court at the very time, a fact well known to these persons.
"That all charges are scurrilous, false, untrue, purposeful and malicious attacks on this Court printed and published for the sole purpose of embarrassing and harassing this court so as to bring it into disrepute in the community and render it ineffective in its judicial capacity.
July 29, 1975, (TUESDAY)
the Moody filed a "Motion to Strike Pleading, styled `Order of Court, Jul. 29, 1975 with the Porter Circuit Court under the aforementioned cause of 75 PSC 1233. This cause was captioned Portage National Bank v. Skaggs d/b/a Aero Engineering. The Respondent disregarded this caption and styled the following to head his Motion to Strike: Alfred J. Pivarnik v. Glenn R. Moody, Jr.
Judge Pivarnik set a hearing on August 6 for the accused (Skolnick and Jameson) to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
August 6, 1975 (Wednesday) Mr. Jacobsen was brought to the court and testified. "Jacobsen admitted at the August 6, 1975 hearing that he did not know what had occurred in the Old Style Restaurant nor with whom the trial judge had lunch. Moreover, Jacobsen admitted that he did not see the trial judge and the attorney return from the restaurant area together nor enter the courthouse building, but that the first time he saw the trial judge and the attorney together after the noon hour was approximately six feet west of the elevator portion of the courthouse lobby. " source
August 13, 1975, while still engaged by Mr. and Mrs. Skaggs, Glenn Moody filed an action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under Cause No. 75 H 173. The complaint was captioned, Aero Engineering, Inc., Robert D. Skaggs and Joy Ann Skaggs, Plaintiffs versus Alfred J. Pivarnik, Richard L. Anderson, Portage National Bank, Jack J. Bradshaw (Porter C. Sheriff), Defendants.
The suit requested the return of goods replevied by Portage National Bank under the aforementioned 75 PSC 1233, as well as damages in the amount of $15,000.00. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the defendants had conspired to steal and did steal personal property belonging to the plaintiffs. In support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Respondent submitted an affidavit which, in part, stated that Judge Pivarnik had pursued a personal vendetta against Respondent ( MOODY) for four or more years; that defendants Bradshaw, by H. Highland, the Portage National Bank by Richard Anderson and John Lear stole plaintiff's equipment at gunpoint and that the equipment was being held as ransom.
August 27, 1975: The trial court issued an order finding: (1) That the Porter County Sheriff had informed the court that Skolnick had fled the court's jurisdiction into Illinois in order to avoid arrest. This was supported by Skolnick's attempt to file pleadings which were mailed from Chicago, Illinois, and Skolnick's statement over a "telephone hotline" that he was in Illinois to avoid 1104*1104 the jurisdiction of the Porter Superior Court. (2)
September 26, 1975: Skolnick attempted to file his motion to correct error,
May 13, 1977 Alfred Pivarnak is sworn in as an Indiana Supreme Court Justice.
April 25, 1979. Skolnick's pro se appeal was denied in the Court of appeals. The 'other side was represented by the Attorney General for Indiana on behalf of Ruman and Lesniak.
March 16, 1981 The Indiana Supreme Court, with Pivarnik on board dismisses Skolnick's efforts to appeal his contempt conviction It is a 3-2 decision> We accept transfer of this cause, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. GIVAN, C.J., and HUNTER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., dissents with opinion. PIVARNIK, J., not participating. DeBRULER, Justice, dissenting.
December 18, 1981 The Indiana Supreme Court disbarred attorney Glenn Moody.
The conduct of Respondent cannot be condoned in the slightest degree if we are to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. Accordingly, this Court now concludes that the strongest sanction available under the Constitution of the State of Indiana should be imposed. It is therefore ordered that, by reason of the misconduct found in this cause, the Respondent be, and he hereby is disbarred as an attorney in the State of Indiana.
Costs of these proceedings are assessed against the Respondent.
PIVARNIK, J., not participating.
******************************************
footnote 1 Skolnick had a record of uncovering corrupt judges. For example it was noted:
Skolnick's motion sought disqualification of Judge Campbell because of "disquieting" published reports that he was a director of a foundation which reportedly derives much of its income from a mortgage on a Las Vegas hotel and gambling casino. On January 2, 1967, Judge Campbell issued a press release asserting that he had originally been a member of the board, had attended the initial meeting, had resigned several months ago, and had no idea of its investments. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/398/23/29937/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/398/23/29937/
This Judge retired 2 years after this information came out. Hon. William J. Campbell of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois retired as Chief Judge on March 19, 1970. To honor Judge Campbell and to commemorate his many distinguished years of service as Chief Judge, a ceremony was held on February 27, 1970, and the Library of the United States Courts was named "The William J. Campbell Library of the United States Courts." This was a particularly fitting tribute as Judge Campbell was the leading proponent of the 1964 merger of the then separate libraries of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
William J. Campbell was born on March 19, 1905 in Chicago, and was a graduate of St. Rita High School. He received an LL.B. degree from Loyola University in 1926 and an LL.M. from the same school in 1928. Admitted to the Illinois Bar, he practiced law in Chicago from 1927 to 1938 as a private practitioner with the Chicago firm of Campbell and Burns.
On Cambells wikipedia we find: Although Campbell is regarded as a forefather in the state of today's justice system, he has been criticized by some prominent investigative persons for his actions. In 1947, General Motors and a number of its allies in the scheme to buy out all trolley systems in the United States, using a number of front corporations (thereby wiping out railway competition with vehicle competition), were indicted on federal anti-trust charges. Two years later the workings were exposed during a trial in Chicago. The investigative journalist Jonathan Kwitny later argued that the case was "A fine example of what can happen when important matters of public policy are abandoned by government to the self-interest of corporations." Judge Campbell was not so outraged. As punishment, he ordered GM and the other companies to pay a fine of $5,000 each. The executives were fined $1 each. The actions by GM and its allies illegally created zero competition and opened the automobile production to America without further challenge.[4]
Footnote 2. Attorney Glenn Moody had alleged Pivarnik had a 'vendetta' against him. In 1972 he wrote a letter to Pivarnik...apparently before the damage had begun:
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
My dear Judge Pivarnik:
By letter dated August 3, 1972, from Mr. Everitt, I first learned on August 9, 1972, that the case styled Scott v. Moody, 72 PSC 942, had been venued to Porter Circuit Court on May 18, 1972. The record reflects my appearance in the Scott Circuit Court. The record reflects that I was not notified when the case was transferred out of Scott Circuit Court, and the record reflects that I was not notified as to the name of the court to which the cause had been transferred. The record indicates that plaintiff appeared in your court by correspondence only, and that no part of the damages is supported by oath or affirmation, even though the order of July 7 does recite that the Court heard the evidence and was duly advised in the premises. On June 5, 1972, you acknowledge my status as a member of the bar of this court, Moody v. Moody, 72 PSC 619. The Scott v. Moody record also reflects that Mr. Everitt mailed a motion for judgment by default, dated July 3, 1972, and that you entered judgment by default on July 7, 1972. I conversed with you on July 6; no reference was made to the fact that there was the Scott v. Moody matter pending before you at that time. Your usual practice of date stamping incoming motions was not followed in this case; I cannot state that at the time of our conversation of the 6th, you knew that Mr. Everitt's motion for judgment by default was pending.
Attention is invited to Trial Rule 55 B, in relevant part as follows:
If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, he . . . shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing of the application. If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearing or order such reference as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required.
Before publicly attacking your honor, integrity and intelligence, I wish to consider any private explanation you may care to offer. It is hoped that you will see fit to vacate the judgment on your own motion.
With all due respect, I remain yours very truly,
(signed) Glenn R. Moody, Jr. Glenn R. Moody, Jr.
August 10, 1972
Just over a year later, The same Attorney Richard Anderson who showed up to fight Moody on the Portage Band case had sued Moody. September 21, 1973, the State of Indiana, by its local counsel, Richard Anderson, brought suit against the Respondent for failure to pay $46.50 in unpaid personal income tax due the State of Indiana. The matter was filed in the Porter Superior Court, Valparaiso, Indiana, under Cause No. 73 PSC 1561 before Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik as the presiding judge.
One can see how things appeared to Glenn Moody.
Who was Glenn R. Moody? Here's his obit:
Glenn R. Moody Jr.
March 21, 1929 - Dec. 20, 1998
Glenn Ray MOODY Jr., 69, South Bend, died Sunday at Hospice of St. Joseph County, South Bend.
Born in Pontiac, Mich. to Frances and Glenn MOODY Sr., he attended Central High School, South Bend and Indiana University where he received his law degree. He practiced as an attorney in Washington, D.C. and Indiana. He was a Korean War veteran.
Survivor include his mother, Rochester, a daughter, Elizabeth [MOODY], Missouri; a son, Ray MOODY, and a grandson, Nathan [MOODY], both of Ohio; a sister, Margaret WICKIZER, South Bend.
A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. Wednesday at First Christian Church. Rochester.
The family requests in lieu of flowers a donation be made to Hospice of St. Joseph County, 111 Sunnybrook Court, South Bend, IN 46637.
Footnote 3:
As noted above, Elmer Jacobsen, who got crossways with Judge Pivarnik was found in contempt of court. He appealed his conviction pro se. Opposing him in his conviction, as amici was the Judge's friend, Saul Ruman (see above). His conviction was upheld on January 15 1979.
3 years later with Pivarnik on the Supreme Court Elmer Jacobsen was still after him.
"April 27, 1983, Henrichs, as editor-in-chief of a newspaper called the Lake-Porter Leader, published an article authored by Elmer L. Jacobsen entitled "Court Corruption in Indiana Courts" which vilified Pivarnik, then a justice on the Indiana Supreme Court, by claiming that he was connected with vice and organized crime and that he had committed several acts which would have constituted criminal abuses of the power of his judicial office when he was the judge of the Porter County Circuit Court. Eight thousand (8000) copies of the newspaper with the defamatory article were circulated."
What was it, Jacobsen claimed connected Pivarnik with vice and crime? We get a clue from the 'admissions' that were 'deemed to be true' (Because no one responded or denied them) from the defamation case Pivanik filed against the newspaper and Jacobsen. (these were deemed to be lies and defamation)
Jacobsen wrote: "`One of the major frauds in which Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik was involved was signing on April 30, 1975 the `clean bill of health' findings submitted by an East Chicago law firm, Given, Dawson and Cappas relative to the fraudulent 5.3 million dollar contract of November 12, 1974 between the Metro Construction and the East Chicago Board of Parks and Recreation. Pivarnik had full knowledge of the fraud when he signed the findings.' d. `In an effort to prevent an investigation of the facts and circumstances under which he signed the findings of April 30, 1975 in the Metro case, acting in collusion with certain members of the bar and acting contrary to law, Porter Circuit Judge Alfred J. Pivarnik violated his oath of office in several particulars including 1) unlawfully jailing his critics or driving them from the state, 2) blocking their appeals by entering an order prohibiting the court clerk from preparing records on appeal, 3) closing his court to certain litigants by directing the clerk not to receive their praecipes, pleadings or court papers, 4) breaking up a lawful picket line and suppressing free speech, 5) causing indictments to issue without probable cause, 6) intimidating witnesses to abuse of his judicial office, 7) knowingly entertaining a collusive lawsuit through a fraudulent declaratory judgment, and 8) conspiring with certain Lake County lawyers to use his judicial power to destroy the Northwest Indiana Crime Commission when it undertook to investigate and expose his judicial misconduct)
Well, we know that he did, indeed, jail critics and 'drove them' from the State. Skolnick went into exile from Indiana and tried to file his appeals and challenges without coming to Porter County. But, by failing to explain or deny the claims...these became 'deemed' falsehoods so it's hard to figure what the REAL truth was from this distance. Skolnick obviously was concerned about this 5.3 million dollar deal between Metro Construction and East Chicago Board of Parks and Recreation. But how the heck did Pivarnik get involved?
Here is an intriguing story about the murder of one of the law firm's attorneys on May 15, 1981. Jay Given was executed.
the crime was never solved. But the story supports the idea that the a. The Given Dawson and Cappas firm made tons of money off of deals like the one identified and that b. they were exposed or compromised, possibly, by organized crime..or someone willing to shoot a man down in cold blood.
In September 1976, During a Hammond Indiana Grand Jury, Jay Given was called in as the GJ investigated corruption. He was the City attorney for East Chicago. He and his firm was represented by Richard Lesniak. And in this source we see that the Grand Jury called on the firm to produce it's files on the East Chicago Parks and Recreation AND Metro Construction Company. We also learn from that source that the Metro Construction Co. Partners were 'Convicted of fraud schemes in that and other projects". (see the last paragraph).
If the news story is correct, then the deal that Justice Pivarnik had signed off on giving Given Dawson and Cappas a 'clean bill of health' was, indeed, a fraudulent deal.
That same story reveals the GJ was investigating whether there was a 'conflict of interest' in awarding bond issue deals to Given's law firm whilst he was the City Attorney. Was THIS the area where Pivarnik was called in to 'give a clean bill of health' to the firm?
(That is not, however, the same as saying that Given Dawson and Cappas were 'in on' the corruption. Nor that Pivarnik 'knew' of it. It DOES show that there was SOMETHING going on that Jacobsen and Skolnick were chasing.)
Footnote 4 Attorney Saul Ruman
is a regularly appearing character in this story. He had a good career and reputation. See: Source
Saul appears as a defender of East Chicago on the "Metro Construction" deal that was attacked by a citizens group as being illegal and referred to in passing by Judge Pivarnik. The Metro Case shows Ruman working with Richard Lisniak as co-counsel for East Chicago in the case. On March 10, 1976 there was a rare victory for the Citizens as the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Citizens noting the abysmal deficiencies in the way Metro had been awarded the contract.
Footnote 5 Justice Alfred J. Pivarnik could be a nasty 'inside' (and outside) player. When Randall Shepard was selected to be Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, (a spot Pivarnik coveted) he made a nasty campaign to unseat him. " in 1988 when he accused Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard of abusing alcohol and marijuana, just before Shepard's retention vote. Pivarnik also alleged that a cover-up allowed Shepard, who was chosen over Pivarnik to be chief justice, to be named to the court." Pivarnik also claimed that Shepard had been "indiscrete" in his overtures to young men. He started a whisper campaign that Shepard was gay.
Footnote 6 Richard and Ben Lesniak. Our old source tells us that Ben Lesniak (Richard's brother) was a co-owner of "Travel Associates Agency" a 'travel' firm used by East Chicago City officials used 'city money' to finance trips for themselves and their families 'under the guise of official business'. This 'travel agency' was owned by Ben, Jay Given, the Mayor of East Chicago Robert Pastrick and a former IRS agent, Russell Barron. WOW! How much you want to bet every body connected to East Chicago Govenrment at the time booked all travel throught Travel Associates? LOL
For more on BEN LESNIAK here you go. He was corrupt as hell and got caught and then ratted out other rats.
Footnote 7 The disbarrment of Owen W. Crumpacker. In the Judicial opinion on the disbarment complaint against Attorney Crumpacker the Supreme Court of Indiana sneared at his defense...." Respondent attempts to weave thirty years of litigation in which he has been involved, including these disciplinary proceedings, into one grand master plan of conspiracy involving judges, courts and attorneys. The whole world is a fraud, everyone is driven by corrupt motives, and the only exception to this evil design is the Respondent, Owen W. Crumpacker. Consequently, the Respondent concludes that the whole world is now out to destroy Owen W. Crumpacker." In the legal ruling on Crumpacker's ultimate disbarment, we can find a description of the convuluted "Apple Valley Village Fraud". This was apparently collusion by lawyers with land developers up in Lake County to zone for and build a big trailer park. Crumpacker gives the rough outlines here Interesting to note: Crumpacker was another who grieveously disparaged Justice Pivarnik. In a nod to decorum Pivarnik did not participate in the Disbarment proceedings on Crumpacker. The Crumpackers were a distinguished family of lawyers in Porter County where Judge Pivarnik originated. Here is a link to a bio on his uncle (I believe) and namesake: Crumpacker BIO
Footnote 8 Richard Anderson
Mr. Anderson was the original attorney on the case of Portage National Bank v. Skaggs that led to this whole rabbit hole. By my calculation, he would have been 2 years out of law school. What a damned introduction to the world of lawyering. He survived intact and looks like went on to develop a thriving firm where it seems his sons practice.
Comments