Hoosier ONLY Want Indiana's Chief Justice Rush to Resign

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MAN ACCUSED OF THREATENING CHIEF JUSTICE RUSH? Cable Case Raises More Questions About Indiana's Justice System

The worst justice to serve on the Indiana Supreme Court in History-the first DEI female Chief Justice Loretta Rush

INDIANAPOLIS — More than two months after Indianapolis resident Michael James Cable was arrested and accused of threatening Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush, the sensational headlines surrounding his arrest have largely disappeared.

Cable has not.

And neither have the questions raised by his unusual case. Clearly, this guy did not threaten her own incompetence does. Nobody wanted her dead, everyone wants her gone--there is a difference. She needs to resign or call it retire but she has failed on so many levels so many Hoosiers. It is ironic for her to speak of accountability, she's shown none -- while to many good people have suffered her errors, incompetence, and arrogance.

Cable, 52, was charged May 15 in Marion Superior Court with intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a Level 5 felony. The prosecution arose from a bizarre package of documents allegedly mailed to Chief Justice Rush at the Indiana Statehouse.

The case initially generated considerable attention because of the disturbing language contained in the documents and Cable's extraordinary assertions about himself and government. But after the arrest, something important happened that received considerably less attention: the criminal prosecution essentially stopped while the court confronted the question of whether Cable is mentally competent even to stand trial.

That distinction matters.

Competency is not the same thing as insanity, and a competency evaluation does not determine whether Cable committed the charged offense. It addresses whether a defendant presently has sufficient ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel in his defense.

Published reports indicate that the court ordered the competency evaluation after an attempted initial hearing went badly. Cable reportedly repeatedly interrupted the proceeding and failed to answer basic questions from the court.

The judge then stayed the criminal proceedings pending completion of the competency process.

Cable was reported to be held without bond.

As of this follow-up, the Hoosier Enquirer has found no reliable publicly indexed report establishing that the competency stay has been lifted or that Cable has been convicted of the intimidation charge.

That means Cable remains an accused man, not a convicted one.

What Cable Allegedly Sent Rush

The underlying allegations are unquestionably serious.

According to charging documents previously reported by The Indiana Lawyer and other news organizations, Indiana State Police became involved after a certified mailing addressed to Rush reached the Statehouse in May.

The materials reportedly contained a handwritten narrative and documents written in a pseudo-legal style frequently associated with so-called "sovereign citizen" arguments.

Cable allegedly described himself in extraordinary terms, including claiming to be the "last grandson of Jesus Christ."

More importantly for prosecutors, the correspondence contained violent language concerning what would happen to families.

Chief Justice Rush reportedly told investigators that she had received threats before but considered this communication sufficiently serious to make her fear for herself and her family.

Those facts deserve to be taken seriously. Political criticism of judges is protected expression. Threatening judges or their families with actual violence is another matter entirely.

The Hoosier Enquirer has been among Rush's harshest critics and has repeatedly questioned her leadership of Indiana's judiciary. Nothing about that criticism excuses genuine threats of violence against her, her family, another justice, a lawyer or anyone else.

But neither should the frightening nature of an allegation eliminate scrutiny of the prosecution.

The Strange Detail That Still Matters

There is an important wrinkle in the charging allegations.

Published accounts of the probable-cause materials reported that Rush's name did not specifically appear in the portion containing some of the most violent language.

Instead, prosecutors appear to rely upon the entire package, its delivery to Rush, surrounding documents identifying her and the overall context to establish that Cable communicated a threat against the Chief Justice.

That may ultimately be sufficient under Indiana law.

Or it may become something Cable's lawyer contests.

That is precisely why criminal cases have trials, lawyers, evidentiary rules and constitutional protections.

Cable is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. She is punsishing him becuase she can -- if only not for long.

Cable Was Still Trying to Litigate From Jail

There is another chapter to this story that received far less publicity than his arrest.

While incarcerated at the Marion County Adult Detention Center, Cable attempted to bring an old Indiana criminal matter into federal court.

On June 23, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker dismissed the proceeding.

Cable attempted to remove a state criminal case identified as 49G17-0907-FD-062422 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

There was a rather fundamental problem: according to Barker's order, the state case had already been dismissed in 2009.

Cable invoked the federal civil-removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1441, even though that statute concerns civil actions. Barker explained that removal of state criminal prosecutions is governed by different federal statutes and that Cable had not established a legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction.

The federal court consequently dismissed the action as frivolous.

But the order is noteworthy for another reason.

The judge warned Cable that repeated frivolous filings could eventually result in sanctions.

That episode does not prove Cable threatened Rush. It does not prove that Indiana courts mistreated him. And it certainly does not establish that his unusual legal theories have merit.

What it does establish is that Cable's obsession with courts and litigation did not suddenly begin with the May letter to Chief Justice Rush.

Cable's Court History Goes Back Years

Federal records reveal that Cable was litigating complaints about the justice system years before the current Rush case.

In 2017, while incarcerated at Marion County Jail II, Cable filed a federal civil-rights action involving conditions at the jail.

Among other things, Cable alleged that he had lost approximately 30 pounds while incarcerated and complained about the nutritional quality and quantity of jail food.

The federal court ultimately granted summary judgment to defendant Aramark because Cable had failed to exhaust available administrative remedies.

Again, that ruling does not establish that Cable was right about the jail.

But it adds important context missing from the original splashy coverage of the Rush allegations.

Cable did not simply wake up one morning in 2026, invent bizarre legal terminology and decide to write Indiana's Chief Justice.

There is a documented history of incarceration, litigation, grievances against government institutions and unconventional legal filings.

That history deserves examination.

A Defendant Who May Need Help, Not Just Punishment

There is also an uncomfortable question Indiana cannot avoid.

What exactly should the justice system do with a defendant who makes disturbing statements but may not presently be competent to participate in his own criminal case?

The answer cannot simply be: lock him up and forget about him.

If Cable is competent, the criminal proceeding can continue and prosecutors will have the burden of proving the charge.

If he is not competent, Indiana law provides procedures designed to address competency and possible restoration before a prosecution proceeds.

Either way, the competency determination is not some technical inconvenience delaying the "real" case. It is part of the real case.

A criminal justice system worthy of the name must be capable of doing two things simultaneously: protecting judges and the public from legitimate threats while protecting mentally impaired defendants from being processed through criminal proceedings they cannot understand.

Indiana's Larger Access-to-Justice Problem

The Cable case also arrives while Indiana continues confronting a problem the Hoosier Enquirer has repeatedly highlighted: access to lawyers.

Large areas of Indiana face shortages of attorneys. Courts regularly encounter people representing themselves because they cannot afford counsel, cannot find counsel or believe — sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly — that nobody within the system is listening to them.

None of that excuses violence.

None of it excuses a true threat.

But there is an enormous distance between explaining how someone reaches a point of extreme alienation from government and excusing what he allegedly does after getting there.

Indiana should be willing to investigate the former while prosecuting the latter when the evidence warrants prosecution.

The easy version of this story is that a "crazy sovereign citizen" threatened Indiana's Chief Justice and SWAT arrested him.

The harder journalistic question is: How did Michael James Cable get here?

What were his previous criminal cases? What happened in the courts that he repeatedly references? When did his unconventional legal theories begin appearing? Did attorneys ever represent him? What treatment or competency issues, if any, previously arose?

Which grievances were actually adjudicated, and which were dismissed procedurally?

And what exactly is happening to him now while he sits in custody?

Those questions require records, not assumptions.

Criticizing Rush Is Not Threatening Rush

There is another principle worth defending precisely because the allegations against Cable are so extreme.

Chief Justice Rush is a public official.

Her decisions, judicial philosophy, administrative record and leadership of Indiana's court system are legitimate subjects of aggressive public criticism. Citizens can demand her resignation. Newspapers can investigate her. Lawyers can criticize Supreme Court decisions. Legislators can propose changing the structure or administration of Indiana's judiciary.

None of those activities becomes illegitimate merely because someone else allegedly sent Rush a threatening letter.

Conversely, legitimate criticism of Rush cannot transform an actual threat of violence into protected political speech.

The First Amendment protects extraordinarily harsh criticism of government. It does not provide a blank check for true threats. And it sure like he was crying for legal help in a stater where so many do and get none, thanks to Loretta Rush.

Determining on which side of that constitutional line Cable's communications fall requires examining the actual evidence and context — not simply repeating the prosecution's characterization of the documents.

Where Is the Case Now?

For the moment, the most accurate answer is less dramatic than the original headlines.

Michael James Cable was charged with a Level 5 felony.

He has not been convicted.

The trial court stayed proceedings for a competency evaluation after his behavior during an initial hearing raised questions about whether he could meaningfully participate in his defense.

He remained incarcerated according to the latest records located in preparing this report.

And while incarcerated, he continued filing unusual litigation in federal court, including an unsuccessful effort involving a state criminal case that had been dismissed approximately 17 years earlier.

A federal judge dismissed that action and warned Cable about further frivolous filings.

The competency question therefore deserves much more attention than it received when the story first broke.

HE Will Keep Asking

The Hoosier Enquirer previously reported on Cable's prosecution because the case sits at an unusual intersection of judicial security, mental competency, free speech, access to counsel and public confidence in Indiana's courts.

Those issues have not disappeared merely because the television cameras did.

If anything, they have become more important.

Chief Justice Rush and every Indiana judge deserve protection from genuine threats.

Michael Cable deserves due process, competent representation and a judicial determination based upon evidence rather than headlines.

And Hoosiers deserve to know what happened to the man whose arrest briefly became statewide news.

The answer, at least for now, appears to be that the criminal justice system itself has hit the brakes because it first must determine whether the defendant is competent enough for that system to proceed.

That may ultimately prove to be the most important fact in the entire case.

State of Indiana v. Michael James Cable, Marion Superior Court, Cause No. 49D21-2605-F5-014915. Cable is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.