SCHWARTZ v. SCHWARTZ (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Lamar Ray Schwartz, pro se, appeals following the trial court's order denying his “Writ of Error,” in which he asked the court to reconsider its denial of his Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment after the court modified a prior custody order and placed his minor children in the custody of his former wife, Malinda Schwartz (“Malinda”).¹ Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 85. Schwartz purports to raise five issues, including due-process violations, bias, criminal acts, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, because Schwartz does not present cogent argument on any purported issue, he has waived his arguments, and we affirm the trial court.²

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Schwartz and Malinda were married on November 22, 2003, and they had five children together: J.S., born in 2002; R.S., born in 2003; D.S., born in 2007; J.A.S., born in 2009; and C.S., born in 2011. In October 2013, both parties filed petitions for dissolution of their marriage. On November 24, 2014, the trial court issued its Decree of Dissolution in which it dissolved the parties’ marriage, granted “sole custody” of the minor children to Schwartz, gave Malinda parenting time, and ordered Malinda to pay child support. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 81.

[3] On July 25, 2022, Malinda filed a motion for rule to show cause and alleged that Schwartz had violated the court order regarding parenting time. Following a hearing on August 5, the court found Schwartz in contempt. In addition, the court determined that “it is in the best interest of the children of the parties that full custody be immediately vested” in Malinda and that Schwartz “shall not be allowed any visitation[.]” Id. at 118. Thereafter, on August 29, the State filed a limited appearance for child support purposes and filed a petition to modify child support. Following a hearing at which Schwartz appeared but was “removed from the courtroom due to disruptive behavior,” the court issued an order establishing child support. Id. at 58.

[4] On August 4, 2023, Schwartz filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B), which provided, in relevant part:

Lamar Schwartz, one of the sovereign people of Indiana, alleged defendant in the above[-]styled case[,] brings this motion for relief from a Judgment or Order of this court for cause of fear, force, fraud, threat, duress, and coercion by actors who misrepresented themselves to be acting as representatives of the State of Indiana, while in fact they are privateers, private contractors, and not acting by authority of the State of Indiana, but by private contract.

Id. at 225. He further moved the court to “overturn” its August 5, 2022, order modifying custody because he had been “deni[ed] due process,” because “no lawful and valid contract exists” between Schwartz and any other party, and because of “unethical behavior” by the trial judge.” Id. at 226-27. Schwartz also alleged “intrusion of the State of Indiana” because

Lamar Schwartz and his offspring are not State agents, employees, or otherwise living on land belonging to the State of Indiana or the United State of America, but always dwell[ ] on and is domiciled on private soil, Indiana, subject to the Articles of Confederation which acknowledges Lamar Schwartz as of the free sovereign and independent states of the union of the United States of America. Territorial jurisdiction is herewith challenged for his private family matter to be in State of Indiana courts.

Id. at 229.

[5] The court held a hearing on Schwartz’ motion on September 18, at which Schwartz appeared. Following the hearing, the court denied his motion “in all respects.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 157. Thereafter, Schwartz filed a “Writ of Error” and alleged that the court had made numerous errors when it denied his Trial Rule 60(B) motion. In relevant part, Schwartz alleged that the judge had demonstrated “actual bias or prejudice” when he “thwarted Schwartz’ efforts to place upon the record a showing of his denial of due process.” Id. at 87. And he alleged that the judge was “acting unethically toward Schwartz, with improper motives and with deep seated [sic] antagonism” toward him. Id. On November 13, the trial court denied Schwartz’ Writ of Error. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Schwartz appeals from the trial court's denial of his Writ of Error. We initially note that Schwartz proceeds pro se. “It is well settled that pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys. This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (internal citation omitted).

[7] The Indiana Appellate Rules require an appellant to include in his brief an argument section that “contain[s] the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citation to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on[.]” Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). This is because cogent argument supported by adequate citation to authority “promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal. A court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has not adequately presented them runs the risk of becoming an advocate rather than an adjudicator.” Young v. Butts, 685 N.E.2d 147, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). We will not address arguments so poorly developed or expressed that they cannot be understood. Basic, 58 N.E.3d at 984 (quotation marks omitted).

[8] Here, Schwartz’ argument wholly fails to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Indeed, Schwartz’ argument on appeal is as follows:

Unrebutted Affidavits, material facts and prima facia evidence of criminal intent on the respondent actors at the trial court level. ADA violations by the court requiring Appellant to make his disability public as well as ADA counsel denied and ADA disabilities ignored. Trial court judge bias and prejudicial behavior and refusal to recuse after being named in an affidavit with criminal implications of aiding a sexual predator and ADA violations defined, all unrebutted. Unrebutted affidavits on the record ignored or overlooked by the trial court support a reversal of the Court's Orders, or a trial de-novo. [F]acts, including facts with criminal implications for the actors involved, are supported within his unrebutted affidavits. Unrebutted Affidavits become the judgment in commerce․

* * *

This Appellate court has now been noticed of the Federal criminal acts of [the trial judge], is in possession of the court record complete with first hand testimony of these acts by sworn affidavit of the witnesses, and it is therefore now believed to be fully liable to correct the [trial judge] to the full extent of the law per Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, Misprision of Felony. No one is above the law, not even [the trial judge], as there is no judicial, sovereign or qualified immunity that could grant [the trial judge], immunization for this egregious behavior, sworn to under penalty of perjury, committed upon children, and an American with a disability.

Appellant's Br. at 25-26. In addition, Schwartz alleged that the judge “conspired with private Title IV-D agency actors,” that the Guardian Ad Litem had acted with impropriety,” and that the judge had performed a “criminal act.” Id. at 26-28.

[9] However, other than his bald assertions, Schwartz has not supported his contentions with cogent reasoning, and he fails to cite any relevant case law or other legal authority to support his assertions. Further, he has failed to state our standard of review as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(b), and he has failed to provide any transcripts from any of the hearings held by the trial court.

[10] Nevertheless, to the extent we can discern them, we have read and considered Schwartz’ arguments on appeal. As far as he asserts that he was denied due process, we note that the August 5, 2022, order was issued following a “hearing on the rule to show cause” motion. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 118. Further, the order demonstrates that “the man: Lamar Schwartz” appeared in person. Id. In addition, the court held a hearing on his Rule 60(B) motion at which Schwartz again “appear[ed] in person.” Appellant's Vol. 3 at 157. Thus, contrary to Schwartz’ assertions, the court held hearings on his motions that he attended in person. Schwartz has not demonstrated that the court violated his due-process rights. As for the remainder of his arguments, we conclude that, even if he had complied with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, they are, at their core, requests that this Court reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. See Steele-Giri v. Steele, 51 N.E.3d 199, 124 (Ind. 2016). Thus, Schwartz has failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court erred, therefore we affirm the trial court's order.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Swartz attached eighteen orders from the trial court to his December 13, 2023, Notice of Appeal. The orders were issued between July 2022 and November 2023. However, the only order he attached to his Appellant's Brief is the order denying his Writ of Error. Further, an appeal from any of the other errors would be untimely.

2.   Malinda does not participate in this appeal.

Bailey, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Foley, J., concur.