ILNews

Speedway man charged with threatening judge, attorney

Dave Stafford
August 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Speedway man accused of posting online death threats against a judge, an attorney and others has been charged in federal court, according to a statement from the office of Joe Hogsett, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Indiana.

Delenore L. McTarsney, 53, is charged with two counts of transmitting a threat through interstate communications for posting threats in rants made in the comment section in response to a YouTube video.

Charges unsealed Tuesday accuse McTarsney of making the threats last year and early this year that he would injure or kill people he believed conspired against him in a politically motivated prosecution during the tenure of former Indianapolis Mayor Steven Goldsmith.

McTarsney was specifically charged for making death threats against Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Robyn Moberly, formerly a Marion Superior judge, and Indianapolis attorney Mark Small, according to the charging information.

McTarsney was arrested at his home Saturday. An FBI agent who questioned McTarsney at his home asked him if he knew why he was being questioned, to which McTarsney responded, “probably about my rantings on the Internet,” according to the charging affidavit.

McTarsney faces two counts of violating Title 18 of U.S.C. Section 875(c), since the comments posted online were received by YouTube owner Google Inc., based in California. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon M. Jackson, who is prosecuting the case, said McTarsney faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted, as well as fines and a federally-supervised release at the end of his prison term.

“We in the law enforcement community are committed to doing all within our power to ensure the safety of all those who work in or around our criminal justice system,” Hogsett said in the statement. “Due to the very real threat posed by violence and terrorism, the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes seriously all threats – whether they are made online or offline.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT