Loretta Rush's DEATH Threat Case Raises Questions About Indiana Justice System, Access to Counsel, and Scope of Actual Alleged Threats

Multiple threats of Intimidation after being driven crazy by Indiana's failed court and legal systems.

On June 2nd, The Indiana Lawyer reported: "Charges have been filed against an Indianapolis man who is accused of threatening Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

According to MyCase, Michael Cable, 52, was been charged with intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a level 5 felony. He was charged on May 15 in Marion Superior Court, but the case had been sealed until Tuesday." https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indianapolis-man-accused-of-threatening-indiana-supreme-court-chief-justice-charged-with-intimidation]

Here is a whitewashed new report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmhmGaiiEc

The criminal case filed against Indianapolis resident Michael Cable has generated headlines across Indiana after authorities charged him with intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a Level 5 felony, based on a certified letter mailed to Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush, leader of Indiana's failing courts, but not specifically naming her.

Yet a review of publicly reported facts raises broader questions not only about the criminal case itself, but also about the state of Indiana's justice system and what happens when citizens conclude that they can no longer obtain meaningful access to the courts.\

According to court records, Cable, 52, was charged on May 15 in Marion Superior Court. The case remained sealed until recently. He currently remains jailed without bond, and proceedings have been stayed while the court conducts a competency evaluation.

The probable cause affidavit reportedly states that Indiana State Police were notified after Chief Justice Rush received a certified letter containing threatening language.

Authorities stretch and somehow allege that the correspondence stated that Cable had been preparing on her "to perform a life hysterectomy on all of those who have caused my family so much irreparable harm" and that he thought constantly about death."

Significantly, however, the affidavit reportedly acknowledges that the handwritten narrative itself did not specifically mention Rush by name.

Instead, investigators concluded that the communication constituted a threat because it was mailed to the chief justice and allegedly included additional documents listing Rush as a recipient.

Public court records suggest that the latest allegations may not represent the first time Cable has used highly inflammatory language in legal filings.

For example, in a 2023 Marion Superior Court civil action styled In Re the Matter of: Michael James Cable, Cause No. 49D06-2311-CT-045890, Cable included extraordinary rhetoric directed toward unidentified individuals whom he apparently believed had harmed his family. In that filing, Cable accused unnamed persons of inflicting years of harm on the Cable family and issued broad threats against those he believed responsible.

The 2023 filing, like the more recent letter described in charging documents, did not identify specific individuals by name in portions of the challenged language, instead referring generally to "YOU" and other unnamed parties.

That distinction could become important as the criminal case proceeds.

Public court records suggest that Cable has for years directed inflammatory rhetoric toward broad and often unidentified groups of people whom he apparently believes harmed his family.

For example, in a 2023 Marion Superior Court negligence case filing, the clerk instead of naming the defendants per usual, wrongly titled, In Re the Matter of: Michael James Cable, Cause No. 49D06-2311-CT-045890, Cable wrote:

"YOU demon worshipping fiduciaries have been inflicting constant array of negative mental extrusions against the Cable family nonstop."

The filing continued with repeated references to unnamed individuals:

"We are here to inform ALL OF YOU the moment any of you decided to interfere with Michenzi and Michaela; was the moment the clock started ticking..."

The document repeatedly referred to "YOU," "ALL OF YOU," and other unidentified persons rather than naming specific individuals.

The earlier lawsuit was eventually dismissed and largely becuase he had no lawyer and it was lacking in form, substance, and could have used the help of legal counsel. Deference is suppose to be given to Pro Se filers but their is a famous Indiana book about how this doesn't happen here: Motion for Justice: -- I Rest My Case by Indiana author and former educator Brian Vukadinovich. https://www.amazon.com/Motion-Justice-Rest-My-Case/dp/1662473427

Supporters of the prosecution will likely argue that the totality of the circumstances—including the mailing of the documents directly by a crazy to the Chief Justice and the alleged references to her family—provided sufficient grounds for criminal charges. Besides it wouldn't be first attempt on her family or her life. There were plenty of red flags: In November 1998, before Rush's first term as a Tippecanoe County judge began, a former juvenile client kicked in the front door of Rush's home and tried to kill her husband. Rush hid their children and tried to get help, but she and her husband both were injured and she later had to have surgery. All the lawyers she has suspended never had a client mad enough to attempt murder. She clearly was not a good lawyer, so she became a judge and Chief Justice. Only in Indiana. Time to send her back to her hometown, Scranton, PA?

Critics, like HE, note facts that the publicly reported facts raise legitimate questions about whether the writings were directed at Chief Justice Rush personally or reflected broader grievances against a larger and largely unidentified group, like the unnamed 6 or 7 defendants in his earlier civil tort case that Cable believed had wronged his family, and which was dismissed albiet without prejudice, but he did not understand that he could have refiled it or had a lawyer do so. Courts can't and don't give legal advice or help pro se filers. They screw them, generally, here.

Ultimately, those questions of his threats and who were the targets will be decided in court.

What is this sags shows The same as the Tippecanoe County Court Judge Shot a month ago in his home.

Regardless of the legal outcome of this case, the case highlights a larger and troubling issue facing Indiana and much of the nation: access to justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmhmGaiiEc

When citizens cannot afford attorneys, cannot locate attorneys willing to take their cases, or conclude—rightly or wrongly—that the legal system is unwilling to hear their grievances, confidence in the courts inevitably suffers.

A functioning justice system depends not only on protecting judges and court personnel from threats and intimidation, but also on ensuring that ordinary citizens have realistic access to legal representation, meaningful hearings, and confidence that their claims will receive fair consideration.

When public confidence in the justice system erodes, frustration, alienation, and despair can follow. Many legal scholars and commentators have long warned that preserving faith in the courts is essential to maintaining the rule of law itself.

The allegations against Cable are serious, and he remains presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. The case is State of Indiana v. Michael James Cable, Cause No. 49D21-2605-F5-014915, pends and will likely not be further reported on here or anywhere. He does not conclude that Rush was the target, but she is seeking sympathy again when so many are calling for her resignation from the high court immediately.

Notice: 

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but charges have been filed against an Indianapolis man who is accused of threatening Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

According to MyCase, Michael Cable, 52, was been charged with intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a level 5 felony. He was charged on May 15 in Marion Superior Court, but the case had been sealed until Tuesday. HE does not seek to inflame politic violence and has no knowledge of the facts of the above threat at all.

"This independent investigation covers the judicial administration of Loretta Hogan Rush (frequently searched or referred to by critics as Loretta Rush or Chief Justice Rush)."