INDIANA’S JUDICIAL SYSTEM ON TRIAL: BRODEN, RUSH AND THE FORECLOSURE CASE THAT EXPOSES A FAILURE IN INDIANA JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

• 

• 

• 

Indiana's two most incompetent jurists sitting on our benches: C.J. Loretta Rush and her pal the current St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge John Broden, both IU law school graduates, destroying the soical fabric, confidence, trust, and legal system of this state. HE can't make this stuff up, and it shines a bright light on the corrupt courts here, sadly.

Again, Sixteen years of litigation; Conflicting judicial decisions; Unanswered motions. An unexplained dismissal. An expired 180-day sheriff’s writ. Now St. Joseph County needs outside lawyers to ask a judge what the judge’s own order means.

HOOSIER ENQUIRER | JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITYSOUTH BEND, INDIANA — November 5, 2026

Indiana’s judicial system has a problem, and the Sims foreclosure litigation in St. Joseph County is becoming an extraordinary illustration of it. After 16 years of litigation, the dispute has expanded beyond the underlying mortgage to raise serious questions about judicial procedure, accountability and the administration of justice.

The issue is not simply that a litigant lost a motion. Judges are entitled to reject arguments, dismiss legally insufficient complaints and enforce final judgments. But they are also obligated to follow procedural rules, address properly presented motions and explain consequential decisions. In the litigation involving Mario and Tiffiny Sims, the public record raises troubling questions about whether those responsibilities are being fulfilled.

At the center of the controversy is Judge John Broden, whose October 27 dismissal of the Sims’ latest challenge came while a separate dispute over judicial disqualification and change of venue remained unresolved. Above him stands the Indiana Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Loretta Rush, with responsibility for ensuring that Indiana's judicial system operates within the law. So far, the developments have produced more questions than answers.

One judge, two cases, two different standards?

The central controversy involves the Sims’ assertion that Broden granted a change of judge in another proceeding involving Mario Sims, the Corbett litigation, but refused to step aside in the foreclosure case. The Sims contend that circumstances warranted a different judge in both proceedings and challenged Broden's continued participation in the foreclosure litigation.

They filed motions seeking a change of judge and a change of county, alleging systemic corruption. The court denied the change-of-judge request while the county-venue request remained pending.

A prior recusal does not automatically disqualify a judge from every subsequent case involving the same litigant. Nor does an unopposed motion automatically establish entitlement to relief. Indiana's procedural rules impose specific requirements. But that makes an explanation more important, not less.

If the circumstances in the Corbett matter were materially different, the court should explain why. If the Sims' motions failed to satisfy the applicable requirements, the court should identify those requirements and explain the deficiency. Litigants and the public should not have to reconstruct the court's reasoning from an unexplained result.

Broden dismissed the case without answering the central questions

On October 27, Broden granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Sims' verified complaint. The stated grounds included that the issues had already been litigated, that the complaint improperly attacked final judgments and appellate decisions, and that it failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

But the dismissal order, as examined in HE's earlier reporting, did not identify the particular earlier judgments supporting its conclusion or explain how those judgments disposed of the individual claims. More importantly, it did not address the outstanding venue motions.

That omission raises a fundamental procedural question: Was Broden entitled to proceed with the dismissal while the challenge to his continued authority and the separate county-venue request remained unresolved?

A judge should not be able to make a challenge to his authority disappear simply by issuing a dismissal on the underlying complaint. The public deserves an explanation of why the motions were denied, why the treatment of the Corbett case was different and what happened to the separate county-venue request. Tim Corbett was the cop who admitted to a reporter that he framed Sims for rape according to early articles. You'd think that the Supreme Court would care about that.

Today, HE reached Reverend Sims at his Church in South Bend, the Doulos Chappel, which really deserves your support and donations, and he told us this: After he filed his Writ with the Supreme Court, then Judge Broden ruled, only then. Rush signed an order that "artfully" said there was no evidence profived but failed to mention the appendex full of evidence, which she likely never read or considered. He said he was not willing to discuss the case since the Sheriff had also filed a motion that should resolve the matter and put the liablity on the loan servicer or it's insurance carrier. "The sheriff is fair and he and the county attorney can see that the order is years outdated and why this attack persists is one of obvious lawfare, by some really bad people. "The Lord Jesus Christ is my savior and the only judge I follow and that matters," he concluded as patient and pius and bible quoting Christian who has spent much of his life fighting the crooked courts, prosecutors, appealate courts and Supreme Court of Indiana. He is likely their eneny on a short numbered list if not No. 1. The continue to cover up his illegal arrest, conviction, and prosecution, which is said to be part of the subject matter on the never released South Bend Police Department tapes.

South Bend and Indiana would owe him $100M in damages if those tapes proved this innocence, which even his exwife from years ago who brought the charges against him had claimed were false before she passed away. (He has been married to Tiffany his current wife since and shortly after his release from ISP, decades ago.). This why his church is deserving of a gofundme effort, he has never asked for help and continues to help others.

Plus no other media outlet has had the courage to report the truth and the Indiana Lawyer has writen fake news stories about this man and his plight. Enough is enough.

The Indiana Supreme Court: Rush's responsibility cannot be avoided

The Sims escalated their challenge to the Indiana Supreme Court, seeking mandamus and prohibition. This is where Chief Justice Loretta Rush's institutional responsibility becomes particularly important.

The Supreme Court's responsibility is to administer justice, enforce judicial standards and ensure that lower courts remain within their lawful authority. It need not agree with the Sims, accept their allegations of corruption or grant extraordinary relief. But the legal questions they raise deserve consideration under the applicable standards.

Sims has also questioned the Supreme Court's treatment of an evidentiary addendum exceeding 80 pages. He maintains that the submission contained evidence supporting his allegations, yet the Court's response emphasized an absence of evidence. That raises an important distinction: Was the evidence considered and found insufficient, or was the submission not meaningfully addressed?

Those are different things. If the Court considered the addendum and found it inadequate, that is a judicial determination. If relevant material was overlooked, that raises a different procedural concern. The public should not have to guess.

HE is not alleging that Rush and Broden have a personal relationship that improperly influenced any decision. The concern is institutional: Broden remains in a position to exercise judicial authority while the litigant's challenges to that authority have not received the public explanation this controversy demands. The Supreme Court should be prepared to explain how it handled the challenge and why.

Now the County needs outside counsel to interpret its own Sheriff's order

The latest development may be the most revealing.

On November 3, St. Joseph County, through attorneys Peter J. Hutson and Samuel W. Hughes of Church, Church, Hittle + Antrim, filed a request for judicial clarification. The County is seeking permission to intervene under Indiana Trial Rule 24 for the limited purpose of determining whether the Sheriff has authority to conduct a foreclosure sale scheduled for January 21, 2027.

Consider what that means: A county government has retained outside counsel to ask a court whether its Sheriff can execute a court-ordered sale.

The County says it does not intend to litigate the merits of the foreclosure or determine what the Sims owe. Instead, it wants protection from potential liability for conducting an unauthorized or void sale. Its filing acknowledges that the Sims contend the January 16, 2025 Order of Sale expired, while the bank argues that an earlier January 7 judicial authorization remains effective. The County takes no position on which interpretation is correct.

But the County's own filing reproduces the language central to the dispute: the January 16, 2025 Clerk's Order of Sale commanded the Sheriff to return the writ within 180 days. That is an express instruction in the document being used to support the proposed sale.

Why does this require another layer of litigation, and why must taxpayers pay outside counsel to obtain an interpretation of a court order?

There is also a procedural question about the County's approach. The Sheriff is a ministerial officer executing judicial process, not an adversarial participant in the underlying mortgage dispute. The County seeks to become an intervening party, but describes its interest as obtaining instructions to protect the Sheriff's office. The court should explain whether intervention is necessary or whether the question can be resolved without adding another party to an already complicated case.

Importantly, the November 3 document is a motion for permission to intervene, not an order granting intervention.

The 180-day problem

The January 16, 2025 writ expressly directed the Sheriff to return it within 180 days. That period expired in July 2025. The bank subsequently filed a new Praecipe for Order of Sale on October 21, 2026, and the County identifies January 21, 2027, as the scheduled sale date.

The bank's position is that the January 7 judicial authorization remains effective and that the Clerk's later writ was merely ministerial. But the distinction between an underlying foreclosure judgment, judicial authorization to execute and the particular writ issued to the Sheriff matters. The court must explain what authority supports the proposed sale if the original writ expired and whether a new, properly issued order is required.

The County has effectively acknowledged that this question needs an answer before the Sheriff acts. The Sims should not lose their home while government officials debate what their own paperwork means.

Another motion remains unresolved

On November 4, Mario and Tiffiny Sims filed a Praecipe for Withdrawal of Submission, invoking Indiana Trial Rule 53.1(E). Their filing concerns the September 3 verified motion for change of venue of county.

According to the Sims, the bank was given until October 21 to respond. Rather than filing the ordered response, the bank filed a motion to dismiss. Broden ruled on the dismissal motion but, according to the Sims' November 4 filing, had not ruled on the county-venue request.

The Sims have now asked the Clerk to forward the praecipe and Chronological Case Summary to the Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration.

This is another procedural issue requiring attention. Trial Rule 53.1(E) establishes a specific procedure for addressing matters that have remained under submission beyond the applicable time limits. Filing a praecipe does not automatically remove a judge or establish that the time requirements have been satisfied. The administrative officer must determine whether the rule applies.

Nevertheless, the filing places the unanswered motion before the judicial administration system. Indiana should be able to resolve that administrative question without another round of unnecessary litigation.

There is also a question about the money

Beyond the procedural disputes, the foreclosure raises a basic financial question: How much does Bank of New York Mellon actually claim remains owed, and has Shellpoint, its mortgage servicer, properly accounted for all payments, credits, reimbursements and recoveries associated with the loan?

A creditor cannot obtain an impermissible double recovery on the same debt. If payments or other recoveries legally reduce the mortgage obligation, they must be properly reflected in the accounting. Mortgage-servicing rules also require servicers to address qualifying disputes involving payment crediting, fees and payoff amounts.

This does not mean that insurance payments or servicing advances automatically eliminate a mortgage balance. But after 16 years of litigation, an accurate, itemized accounting is essential. Bank of New York Mellon and Shellpoint should be able to explain precisely what remains due and how that figure was calculated before another sheriff's sale proceeds.

The pattern is the story

Consider the sequence: A litigant says a judge stepped aside in one case but refused to do so in another. The change-of-judge request is denied while the county-venue request remains unresolved. The judge dismisses the litigant's complaint without addressing the venue questions in the dismissal order. The litigant seeks extraordinary relief from the Indiana Supreme Court and questions whether an extensive evidentiary submission received meaningful consideration.

Now a county government has retained outside counsel to determine whether its Sheriff can execute a writ containing an express 180-day return command. Meanwhile, the Sims have filed another praecipe seeking administrative action on the unresolved venue motion.

None of these developments, standing alone, proves corruption or improper personal motives. But their cumulative effect raises legitimate questions about transparency, procedural consistency and judicial administration. Judicial independence is not judicial immunity.

A judge's authority. or his long and close relations with the Chief Justice, does not excuse unexplained procedural inconsistencies, and the Supreme Court's responsibility does not end when a lower-court judge issues an order.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED

The Sims' experience illustrates the painful truth behind the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. When people believe they have been victimized, they turn to the legal system for answers, accountability and relief. But when the process stretches into decades, the delay itself becomes another form of injustice.

Time does not stand still for victims. Financial losses accumulate, families endure prolonged uncertainty, evidence becomes harder to preserve and the opportunity for meaningful relief diminishes. A judicial system that cannot resolve disputes in a reasonable time risks compounding the very harm it is supposed to remedy.

After 16 years, the question is no longer simply whether the Sims will receive justice, but whether justice delayed for this long can ever truly be justice delivered.

Indiana deserves answers

Again, CJ Rush is a DEI disaster for this state. The question for Chief Justice Rush is whether the Supreme Court will ensure that the judicial decisions and procedural issues raised in this litigation receive appropriate consideration and explanation. The question for Judge Broden is whether he will address the outstanding motions, explain the treatment of the competing venue requests and clarify the legal authority for the proposed sheriff's sale.

St. Joseph County also faces a practical question: Should taxpayers have to pay outside counsel to protect the Sheriff from potential liability arising from the execution of a court order whose legal effect should be capable of being determined by the court?

And the larger question for Indiana's judicial system is whether it can correct procedural problems without forcing ordinary citizens to become appellate lawyers, constitutional litigants and court-watchers simply to receive an answer.

Indiana's judges are entrusted with extraordinary authority. They decide whether families keep their homes, whether claims receive hearings and whether citizens have access to a fair tribunal. That authority carries an equally extraordinary obligation to follow the law and explain consequential decisions.

The Sims case is no longer just a foreclosure dispute. It has become a public test of judicial transparency and accountability. The questions about the writ, the outstanding motions, the financial accounting and the Supreme Court proceedings deserve answers before another family-changing event takes place.

Chief Justice Rush, Indiana doesn't care she has no risk apparently of impeachment, recall, or being required to address her many mistakes on the high court. This case included. The public deserves answers, not another unexplained order. SHE JUST NEEDS TO RESIGN, PERIOD.

The Hoosier Enquirer will continue reporting on the Supreme Court proceedings, Judge Broden's rulings, the County's intervention request, and the mortgage-servicing liability/