A senior judge lifted a lawsuit complaint filed by a Grove City man against District Justice Lawrence T. Silvis, Worth Township, alleging Silvis set bail too high for a 1998 arrest.

Silvis was dismissed April 12 from a malicious prosecution suit filed by Philip Schneider

Senior Judge Barry Feudale heard the case because common pleas judges from Mercer County recused themselves from hearing Schneider’s lawsuit.

Schneider, who was arrested on stalking, terroristic threats and harassment charges in April 1998 and held overnight at the Mercer County Jail, charged that his $35,000 bail was too high and violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail.

Attorney Darren Breslin, representing Silvis argued that his client had immunity from lawsuits while performing his duties as a judge.

Feudale agreed.

"It’s correct that reasonable bail should be posted," he said. However, court judges at all levels are immune from lawsuits. "The exceptions are with administrative responsibilities, like if I made a pass at my secretary or court officers," he said.

Along with his case against Silvis, Schneider filed suit against seven others in Commonwealth Court in connection to his 1998 arrest. Several lawyers arrived to defend their parties or themselves in Schneider’s hearing last Thursday.

Attorney Eric Cottle, of Pittsburgh, represented Steven J. Gilford, former district attorney of Forest County.

Besides Gilford, the only other defendant present at the hearing was R. Paul Rockwell, who is the current DA of Forest County.

Pittsburgh attorneys Samuel F. Zets and Michael C. Maselli represented Erla Como and Albert Mulnar, and Constance and Paul Como, respectively.

Attorney Thomas Dill, of Sharon, represented Attorney James Goodwin, also of Sharon.

With exception to his case against Goodwin, Schneider represented himself in the lawsuits. Attorney Thomas Bashara, of New Castle, represented Schneider in the Goodwin lawsuit.

Schneider filed suit against the individuals primarily because of information Grove City patrolman Wesley P. Carson received in April of 1998 that led to his arrest.

The Comos and Mulnar are Schneider’s estranged in-laws. Schneider claimed that they and others lied to Carson about threatening the brother and boyfriend of Schneider’s estranged wife.

The Grove City man claimed that the in-laws wanted revenge on him because of a bitter divorce between he and his wife and other family issues.

Schneider believed Silvis was part of the conspiracy, which is why he set the bond at $35,000.

Gilford and Rockwell became involved because Carson stated in his affidavit against Schneider that family members and "independent sources" revealed that he had "shot at people in the past."

Over 10 years ago, Schneider was found not guilty for charges in Forest County that he fired a shotgun at loggers on his land. Schneider has admitted that he pretended he was hunting and shot the gun so the loggers would leave, but didn’t shoot at them.

Before becoming the DA of Forest County, Rockwell represented Schneider in the logging dispute. Gilford, who is now a private attorney, had prosecuted Schneider.

Schneider believed the two were Carson’s "independent sources" in the 1998 arrest.

On Thursday, Cottle argued that Schneider didn’t have specific time, date or situation to indicate that Gilford had slandered him. "There’s no cause of action against Mr. Gilford whatsoever," he said.

Schneider said he is still trying to secure phone records to help prove his argument. "I’m almost 100 percent sure they’ll come back (affirmative)," he added.

"I’ll take this matter under advisement," Feudale responded.

Feudale gave Schneider 10 days to respond to Rockwell, Zets and Maselli’s preliminary objections, which had not been properly received by the plaintiff prior to the hearing.

Some arguments they gave to Feudale at the hearing, however, were various. Rockwell had similar objections as Cotter to the specificity of Schneider’s claims.

"There appears to be an absolute privilege to witnesses ... to testify in a frank and candid manner, so they don’t have to worry about repercussions," Maselli added.

Schneider was candid. "Again, if I’m hearing this correctly, their opinion about this is that they can lie to law enforcement agencies and know they have no repercussions is ludicrous," he said.

In his suit against Goodwin, Schneider filed a complaint of professional negligence.

Goodwin represented Schneider in the 1998 arrest. Schneider claims that he was not properly informed of legal matters surrounding the arrest and that he was told his records would be expunged immediately, which was why he followed Goodwin’s legal advice.

In August of 1998, the charges were withdrawn without prejudice, which means they could be reopened at a later time.

"As a direct consequence ... Mr. Schneider lived with the uncertainty of the criminal charges and the stigma," Bashara said. "The fact that he suffered mental anguish is clear."

Dill said the only agreement made by Goodwin and county prosecutors was the dismissal, not an expungement. There was nothing on file about an expungement agreement. Also, "since the charges were not brought back up, he wasn’t affected (mentally)," Dill added.

Feudale would also take the matter into advisement, he said. Schneider would also be given 10 days to respond to Dill’s preliminary objections, which were just handed to the plaintiff at the hearing.