Sheila Moss Is Leaving Her Lake County Small Claims Bench. The Questions About Her 2016 Handling of Doug Bernacchi's Disciplinary Case Are Not, As His SC-Appointed Hearing Officer.

THE HOOSIER ENQUIRER | EDITORIAL | OCTOBER 27, 2026

St. Joseph County circa 2016....led to lawfare against Bernacchi and in favor Democrat Candidate John Broden, the current sitting Circuit Court Judge accused of corruption in a recent filing. https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/south-bend-pastor-asks-indiana-supreme-court-to-remove-judge-transfer-16-year-old-case-amid-corrupt

As Governor Mike Braun prepares to appoint a successor, the Hoosier Enquirer calls for answers about disputed testimony, judicial fairness and a disciplinary process Bernacchi has condemned as a “kangaroo court.”

CROWN POINT, Ind. — Lake Superior Court Judge Sheila Moss is retiring, but her departure should not close the book on one of the more troubling controversies surrounding Indiana's attorney-disciplinary system: her handling of proceedings involving former attorney Doug Bernacchi.

Bernacchi has long maintained that the disciplinary process denied him fundamental fairness, particularly concerning the presentation of witnesses and the treatment of evidence. He characterizes the proceeding as a "kangaroo court" — a process in which, he contends, the appearance of justice concealed serious procedural defects.

Those are grave accusations. They deserve an examination of the actual record, not dismissal simply because the proceeding was conducted under judicial authority.

The Witness Who Says He Was Ready to Testify

The controversy acquired new significance recently, when on September 3, 2026, when Pastor Mario Sims executed a notarized affidavit challenging important aspects of the disciplinary account involving Bernacchi.

Sims swore that Bernacchi never pressured or discouraged him from providing testimony. Instead, Sims asserted that he was willing and available to testify during the December 2016 proceedings and that disciplinary investigator Aaron Johnson instructed him to leave the location where testimony was to be taken.

That account directly challenges a central disputed factual premise in the Bernacchi matter: whether Bernacchi discouraged the disciplinary authorities from obtaining Sims's testimony.

Sims also disputed allegations concerning legal-fee arrangements, asserting that neither he nor his wife received legal fees from Sharon Perry for Bernacchi. Those assertions raise further questions about the evidentiary foundation of the disciplinary case.

The affidavit does not, by itself, establish that Moss knowingly disregarded truthful testimony or that investigators deliberately misrepresented evidence. But it creates a serious factual conflict that warrants examination against the hearing transcripts, investigative records and findings.

If the disciplinary system relied on an inaccurate account of an available witness, the public deserves to know how that happened, who was responsible and whether the resulting findings remain defensible.

A Kangaroo Court? The Record Deserves Scrutiny.

Bernacchi's criticism is not simply that he lost his case. His contention is that the process itself was fundamentally unfair.

The distinction is critical. An attorney-disciplinary proceeding can result in severe professional and reputational consequences. Its legitimacy depends on meaningful opportunities to present witnesses, contest adverse evidence and receive impartial consideration from the hearing officer.

If Sims's sworn account is corroborated, it could undermine important factual conclusions in the disciplinary matter. Whether it would establish legal grounds to reopen or modify the judgment is a separate question, requiring review of the governing rules and complete record.

Moss's responsibility as hearing officer was to conduct proceedings fairly and apply the law to the evidence properly before her. The Hoosier Enquirer believes the appropriate response to Bernacchi's allegations is not to presume either misconduct or innocence, but to demand an accounting of the disputed testimony and procedural decisions.

A judicial proceeding does not become fair merely because a judge presides over it. Nor should judicial findings become immune from scrutiny when a witness later provides sworn evidence contradicting the account on which those findings may have depended.

Governor Braun Must Choose Moss's Successor

Five finalists are under consideration to replace Moss: Christopher Bruno, Timothy Haraminac, Karyn Price, Eric Randall and David Urbanski. Governor Mike Braun will make the appointment from the names forwarded by the Lake County Judicial Nominating Commission.

The selection comes as questions about judicial transparency and professional discipline continue to attract attention in Indiana. The next judge will inherit the authority of the office, but not responsibility for Moss's prior decisions.

That distinction should not prevent serious questioning of the finalists. Each should be prepared to explain how they would handle disputed witness testimony, allegations of investigative misconduct, judicial recusal and requests to reconsider findings when new sworn evidence emerges.

Retirement Is Not a Substitute for Accountability

The Hoosier Enquirer has been critical of Indiana's disciplinary machinery, particularly the danger that concentrated regulatory authority can discourage lawyers from challenging those who control their professional livelihoods.

The Bernacchi matter illustrates why procedural protections matter. A disciplinary finding can follow an attorney long after the hearing ends, affecting professional standing, employment opportunities and public reputation.

Moss's retirement will not determine whether Bernacchi's allegations are true. It will not resolve the contradictions raised by Sims's affidavit. And it will not answer whether the original disciplinary record accurately reflects the evidence available at the time.

Those questions require records, testimony and an independent assessment, not speculation about motives.

Indiana's judiciary should be willing to confront credible challenges to its own proceedings with the same seriousness it expects from lawyers appearing before it. If the record supports the disciplinary findings, the judiciary should be able to demonstrate why. If material errors occurred, the system should provide a meaningful avenue to address them.

Sheila Moss is leaving the bench. Doug Bernacchi's allegations remain unresolved. The public interest in knowing whether justice was fairly administered does not expire with a judge's retirement.

• 

• 

Arron Johnson, left, prosecuted Bernacchi for the impossible: How Could Bernacchi Cause a Foreclosure That Happened Before He Was Hired? The Unanswered Question in Chief Justice Rush's 2017 Disciplinary Opinion Remains....Rush center awarded Bernacchi's crooked hearing officer shortly after in 2017 for her 24 years of service, which was not a common award, and then the black woman named Sharon Brown Perry from Kalamazoo MIchigan, who filed the RFI/complaint was a fraud, and no picture of exists online today.

A black complaintant, a black prosecutor and a black hearing officer. Does Gov. Braun, Loretta Rush, Marc Massa, or any one think Attorney Bernacchi got a fair hearing after reading Rev. Mario Sims' Affidavit in an earler HE article? NO.

Editor's note: This editorial discusses allegations concerning the Bernacchi's rigged disciplinary proceedings in December 2016. Pastor Sims's September 3, 2026 affidavit is a sworn statement, that if he'd been allowed by Moss to testify would have blown up the State's false and perjurious narrative pushed by Aaron Johnson, despite of the evidence. Johnson removed himself from the ballot and the Hamiltion County Bench in 2026 after HE expoesed this corruption and his and Moss' involvement. She retired. He remains missing from public view.

All HE can figure is he was aiming to stop human trafficking in South Bend's Juvenile Court, or that the Circuit Court Judge, which he was seeking to be, would have jurisdiciton over the public release of the yet sealed South Bend Police Tapes, and they needed to make sure the public never learned what was on those recordings.

Either way Rush needs to go.