Getting a Judge, Part 8: Sherman Skolnick’s Contempt of Court

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

It makes me so sad that our institutions have gone bad. Being a reasonable person I like to think that when I hit an interpersonal problem I can show the way out by reasoning.

In regard to what we have been covering at Gumshoe about Family Law, one can easily identify two areas in which one’s normal human reactions have to be restrained.

One is the threat of being held in contempt of court if you to explain reasonably what’s going on.

The other is dealing with police who have now been trained to see citizens as the enemy. So if you “stand up to them” they can find a way to charge you with unruly behavior, resisting arrest, or whatever. Having committed no crime you now commit the crime of reasoning. All very frightening!

Sherman Skolnick

The late Sherman Skolnick was an activist in Chicago who formed a group called “Clean Up the Courts.” Before Youtube was available, he ran a cable TV show that stirred up a lot of people. I believe he was self-trained in law, or possibly had a law degree.  In either case, he knew his onions.

Skolnick was an Orthodox Jew who credited his parents for his moral righteousness. I believe he got polio ion the 1955 epidemic. He spent at least his later decades in a wheelchair, and died at age 77.

The following is a transcript of his interactions with a judge for which he twice went to jail, although only one night each time. You will see that he had right on his side, but that the judge does not think arguing the right should be done before the Bench. American right to free speech doesn’t work in this place.  (Below, all bolding was added by me, and I abridged it.)

Transcript from April 25, 1979

Sherman Skolnick v. State  Indiana Court of Appeals

Precedential Status: Precedential. Citations: 388 N.E.2d 1156. Docket Number: PS 356.  STATON, Judge.

Sherman H. Skolnick was convicted twice in the Porter Superior Court of direct criminal contempt on July 16, 1975. On July 21, 1975, Skolnick was convicted of direct criminal contempt for a third time. For each conviction Skolnick was sentenced to twenty-four hours’ incarceration in the Porter County Jail.

Skolnick has appealed the three direct contempt convictions in two separate causes…. In addition to alleging insufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions (I.), Skolnick contends: II. the trial judge failed to comply with direct contempt procedural requirements when he convicted Skolnick; III. the trial judge erred in not providing Skolnick with counsel; IV. the trial judge denied Skolnick his privilege against self-incrimination; V. Skolnick was “entrapped” into committing direct contempt; VI. the direct contempt convictions violated Skolnick’s right to freedom of speech;

VII. the trial judge erred in quashing Skolnick’s subpoenas duces tecum and in foreclosing Skolnick’s further use of the subpoena process.

PSC 354

The record indicates that on July 16, 1975, Skolnick testified as a witness during a show cause hearing in Portage National Bank v. Skaggs.  Skolnick was called as a witness in the action by Anderson, counsel for the plaintiff Bank.

Anderson examined Skolnick on how much help Skolnick gave to the defendants, who were appearing pro se, in preparing two motions they filed with the trial court..

Skolnick also stated that he believed the trial judge to be corrupt and to have breached judicial ethics. For these remarks the trial judge found Skolnick twice in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him to two twenty-four hour jail terms.

1. Sufficiency

Skolnick’s first direct contempt conviction came after the following exchange in open court:

“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 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.”

Skolnick was again convicted of direct contempt a short time later for this assertion in open court:

“MR. SKOLNICK: I’m saying that you as a corrupt judge staged this to arrest me, that’s what I’m stageing [sic]. I want to get some help.”

[The Law To Be Applied]

Indiana statutes define direct criminal contempt as follows:

“34-4-7-1 [3-901]. Direct — Disturbing business of court. — Every person who shall, by the commission of any felony, misdemeanor, or other unlawful act; or who by talking, moving about, or by signs, or gestures, or in any other manner, in any court of record, while the same is open for the transaction of business, and engaged therein, create any noise or confusion therein, whereby the business and proceedings of said court shall be disturbed, shall be deemed to be guilty of a direct contempt of said court.”

“34-4-7-2 [3-902]. Direct — Refusing to testify — Demeanor on witness stand. — Every person who, being sworn to testify as a witness in any court of record, in any trial or proceeding therein, shall refuse to testify touching the same; or who, being required by any court to be sworn in any such trial or proceeding, shall refuse to take an oath or affirmation therein; or who, while upon the witness stand, shall purposely so demean himself, as to retard or disturb the proceeding thereof, shall be deemed guilty of a direct contempt thereof.”

These statutory definitions are not all-inclusive of what constitutes direct criminal contempt; they are merely legislative recognition of the court’s inherent power to cite and punish for contempt. Indiana courts have ruled further that one may be in direct contempt for filing in open court pleadings containing contumacious statements. Kerr v. State (1923).  Direct contempt was deemed to be “any act which manifests a disrespect for and defiance of a court.” The act must be committed in the presence of and with knowledge of the court. Brennan v. State (1961).

After examining the record we conclude that Skolnick’s conduct warranted his two convictions for direct criminal contempt.

… [Skolnick’s] statements were made in the presence of the trial judge, and they retarded the progress of the Skaggs proceedings. The trial judge acted properly in summarily and immediately convicting Skolnick in order to preserve order in and respect for the court.

In concluding that the evidence before us is sufficient to affirm the two direct contempt convictions, those questions remaining for our consideration concern whether any alleged procedural irregularities, violation of Skolnick’s constitutional rights, or abuses of discretion will work to overturn the convictions.

1. Contempt Procedure

Skolnick maintains that the trial judge never set out a written statement describing the allegedly contumacious conduct and never gave Skolnick the opportunity to respond to the charges before convicting him.

…Before an individual may be convicted of direct contempt, the court must“distinctly” state the act, words, signs or gestures, or other conduct of the defendant which is alleged to constitute such contempt; and such statement shall be reduced to writing … together with any statement made in explanation, extenuation, or denial thereof, which the defendant may make in response thereto …”

… A trial judge’s recital of mere conclusions as to the conduct is not a sufficient statement. See, e.g., State ex rel. Stanton v. Murray (1952), (statement reciting conclusion that appellant made statements before the court in a “rude, insolent and disrespectful manner” held insufficient); see also State ex rel. Allen v. Vermillion Circuit Court (1967).

The purpose behind the requirement is twofold. It provides the alleged contemnor with a concise record of why he was found in contempt and thus assists him in setting his course for an appeal. But more importantly, it works to diminish the possibility of arbitrary and rash action on the part of the trial judge, since he is forced to articulate the basis for his finding.

… Although the trial judge in the present case made no such written record of Skolnick’s conduct before convicting him, we are easily able to discern the nature of that conduct from the transcript of the July 16 proceedings. The trial judge’s failure in this respect does not hamper our ability to examine the instant case. …Hence, Skolnick has not shown how he has been harmed by the absence of a written statement describing his conduct. The failure of the trial judge to provide one does not warrant reversal of the two direct contempt convictions.

[All emphasis added]

See what I mean? When you are in court and have the brains to be able to reason something out, a judge can prevent your doing so.

Case closed.

— Mary Maxwell is on record as citing Skolnick as her “rabbi,” in her book Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully