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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT