Threat Case Against Indiana Chief Justice Remains on Hold as Competency Review Looms—follow up story

Who’s crazier?

As for Chief Justice Loretta Rush, she has served on the Indiana Supreme Court since 2012 and has been Chief Justice since 2014.

The widespread and endless criticism of her failed leadership, DEI judicial philosophy, administration of the courts, or specific decisions is entirely legitimate in a democracy, but disagreements with a judge’s rulings or policies do not by themselves indicate her mental illness. She was paranoid after getting a letter from a soon to be evaluated and potentially crazy man who didn’t specifically threaten her. He may feel that he was denied justice in his mind as a recent pro se litigant who clearly had no attorney or couldn’t hire one in a state lacking in legal competence and in access to justice under Rush.

The criminal case against Indianapolis resident Michael James Cable, who is accused of threatening Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush, remains effectively on hold while the court awaits the results of a competency evaluation.

According to court records and published reports, Cable, 52, (pictured above) faces a charge of intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a Level 5 felony, in Marion Superior Court.

The proceedings were stayed after Cable allegedly interrupted an initial hearing and failed to respond to routine questions from the court, prompting the judge to order a competency evaluation before the case can move forward. Reports indicate Cable is being held without bond while that process is completed.

The allegations stem from documents and correspondence allegedly sent to Chief Justice Rush in May. Charging documents cited by media reports state that the materials contained language threatening violence against families. Prosecutors contend the communications caused Rush to fear for her own safety and that of her family.

One aspect of the case that has generated discussion is that published reports indicate Rush was not specifically named in portions of the threatening language. Nevertheless, investigators and prosecutors concluded that the communications, when viewed in their entirety and in context, constituted a threat directed toward the Chief Justice. After a review HE determined that this was a crazy stretch and most unlikely. the defendant was making a cry for help in a state with a failing court and legal system for a majority of its citizens,

Whether that interpretation ultimately satisfies Indiana’s criminal statutes is a question that will be decided by the courts if the case proceeds beyond the competency phase.

The case also raises broader questions about the increasingly hostile environment facing public officials and judges. Threats directed at members of the judiciary have risen nationally in recent years, leading many court systems to enhance security measures and take even ambiguous communications seriously.

At the same time, civil libertarians and legal reform advocates have long argued that criminal statutes involving threats must be applied carefully to ensure that constitutionally protected criticism, political speech, and unconventional legal arguments are not improperly criminalized.

For now, the most significant unresolved issue in the case is not guilt or innocence, but competency. Until the court receives and reviews the evaluation, the prosecution cannot move forward in any meaningful way.

Cable has not been convicted of the charge, and all allegations remain accusations that have yet to be proven in court.

Published reports state that Cable’s case was stayed pending a competency evaluation after his initial hearing, and that prosecutors allege the communications caused Rush to fear for her safety.

HE has repeatedly called for the impeachment of Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush, but do not condone any political violence especially the kind her weaponized courts have engaged in.