South Bend Pastor Asks Indiana Supreme Court to Remove Judge, Transfer 16-Year-Old Case Amid Corruption Allegations

Mario and Tiffiny Sims challenge the St. Joseph County Circuit Court's handling of their case, citing an earlier judicial recusal, unanswered motions and constitutional due-process concerns ("systemic corruption").

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — A South Bend pastor and his wife have escalated a long-running legal dispute to the Indiana Supreme Court, asking the state's highest judicial authority to intervene after the St. Joseph County Circuit Court denied their request for a different judge than former St. Joseph County Democrat Party Chairman, The Honorable St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge John Broden, and alleged that he failed to act on a separate motion seeking to move the proceedings to another county.

Remember the South Bend Police Tapes remained sealed hiding them from the public, which has left a huge shadow on this Indiana city and county. Furthermore, Sims who once ran for Mayor as a Black Republican as was falsely arrested, convicted, and imprisoned as well there in the past. He was also widely mention in an attorney disclinary case that suspended a lawyer who once hired his paralegal firm. This is 'systemic corruption' all the way up the ladder to Loretta Rush.

Pastor Mario L. Sims and his wife, Tiffiny Sims, submitted a verified petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition, accompanied by a seven-page supporting brief, on October 22, 2026. The filings allege circumstances warranting judicial disqualification and raise accusations of systemic corruption in St. Joseph County's judicial system.

The underlying case, No. 71D04-1003-MF-000164, originated in 2010 as a mortgage foreclosure matter. The couple is now seeking extraordinary relief rather than waiting for the normal appellate process.

One Court, Two Motions and No Opposition

The dispute centers on two motions filed in September. On September 3, the Sims requested a change of county venue, alleging systemic corruption. On September 24, they submitted a verified motion seeking a different judge, pointing to an earlier proceeding in which the St. Joseph County Circuit Court had reportedly recused itself from another matter involving Sims.

According to their brief, the court rejected the judicial-change motion on September 29, just five days after it was submitted, even though no opposition had been filed. The court also extended the deadline for responses to the county-venue motion through October 21. The Sims report that deadline passed without an opposing filing.

Their argument is that the court should not continue exercising authority over proceedings when its impartiality is reasonably in question. The supporting brief contends that the requested changes are necessary to preserve fundamental due-process rights.

The September 29 denial is especially important because the judge's stated reasoning has not been provided in the materials reviewed. An unopposed motion is not necessarily entitled to automatic approval, but a court must still apply the governing procedural and disqualification standards.

Indiana Law Provides a Direct Route to the Supreme Court

Indiana's legal framework expressly allows the Supreme Court to issue extraordinary writs supervising lower courts. Indiana Code § 34-27-1-3 authorizes writs compelling certain judicial duties, including changes of county venue when the legal requirements have been met and a sufficient motion has been refused.

The state's Rules of Procedure for Original Actions also recognize special procedures for disputes involving changes of judge or county. Such proceedings are limited, however, and cannot simply substitute for an ordinary appeal.

There is another significant legal consideration. Indiana amended Trial Rule 76 effective February 2, 2026. The current rule provides for county venue changes when established grounds demonstrate that a party is unlikely to receive a fair trial because of local prejudice or bias. It also contains timing requirements and procedures for changes of judge.

Whether the Sims satisfy those requirements, particularly in litigation dating back to 2010, will be a central question.

The Earlier Recusal Could Become Important

Perhaps the most consequential factual assertion in the supporting brief concerns the court's earlier recusal from another matter involving Sims.

If that recusal involved circumstances that remain relevant to the present litigation, the petitioners could have a substantial factual argument for judicial disqualification. But an earlier recusal, standing alone, does not automatically disqualify a judge from every subsequent proceeding involving the same litigant.

The Sims cite Indiana Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 and appellate decisions addressing judicial impartiality. They argue that the appearance of partiality, not merely demonstrable actual bias, is sufficient to require a judge to step aside when the legal standard is met.

The supporting brief also cites State ex rel. Heller v. Marion Superior Court, 130 N.E.3d 695 (Ind. 2019), and Harris v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), as additional support for extraordinary relief.

The justices must determine whether those authorities apply to the facts presented.

What Happens at the Supreme Court?

Under Indiana's original-action rules, Supreme Court Services reviews submitted papers before they are formally filed. The Chief Justice or Acting Chief Justice may dismiss an incomplete or legally insufficient petition, refer the matter for consideration, or allow further proceedings. The court can also decide an original action without holding a hearing.

The Sims' October 22 certificate of service states that their documents were electronically submitted and that the required notice was provided to Supreme Court Services.

The materials supplied do not yet establish that the petition has been accepted for filing, assigned a Supreme Court cause number, or scheduled for consideration. Nor do they establish that the allegations of corruption have been independently substantiated.

The Hoosier Enquirer has not received the trial court's explanation for denying the change-of-judge motion, or any responses from the court and other parties.

A Test of Judicial Accountability

The Sims litigation raises questions extending beyond one foreclosure case. How should courts respond when litigants raise concerns about impartiality? What circumstances justify transferring a case to another county? And what remedies are available when a party believes a trial court has refused to perform a mandatory legal duty?

Those questions have answers under Indiana law, but their application depends on the specific evidence and procedural history.

For Mario and Tiffiny Sims, the immediate request is clear: They want a new judge, a new county and an opportunity to proceed before a tribunal whose impartiality they do not question.

For the Indiana Supreme Court, the task is to determine whether the record establishes grounds for extraordinary intervention. The petition presents allegations that deserve examination under the governing rules, but neither judicial misconduct nor systemic corruption has been established by the filing itself.

The Hoosier Enquirer will continue following the case, including the Supreme Court's response and any further explanation of the lower court's disputed rulings and filings in this latest original cause of action, showing one again, why Loretta Rush needs to be replaced with someone capable of leading the Indiana Courts and Legal System, which she clearly has demonstrated she is not capable of doing.