Monday, August 12, 2013

Indianapolis Man Faces Federal Charges For Online Threats Against Judge And Attorney

A former client of Indianapolis attorney Mark Small is facing federal charges after posting online threats against him and a federal bankruptcy judge, Robyn Moberly. According to U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, 53-year old Delenore McTarsney faces up to five years in federal prison for threatening to kill Judge Moberly and Small, who also blogs at "Civil Discourse Now.". McTarsney began posting derogatory and threatening comments online in which he claims Small, Judge Moberly and various other officials conspired against him 15 years ago in a 1998 case, which he claimed former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith "illegally prosecuted" against him. McTarsney hired Small to represent him in the case which then-Marion Co. Superior Court Judge Moberly presided over.

Over one hundred threatening and defamatory comments were posted by McTarsney over the past nine months at the site of a YouTube clip where Small announced that he was filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of Indianapolis bar owners against Indianapolis' smoking ban ordinance. McTarsney first began posting the comments under the handle "delimac59." When Small posted a comment asking the commenter to identify himself, McTarsney gladly obliged, writing:
OH ,by the way "Mr Small" that is not only your name, but also your character! Delimac59 also goes by the name of Delenore Lowell McTarsney and my address is 2115 xxxxxxx. Indpls.Apt.#D my ph # is 317-xxx-xxxx. You have requested my info,indicating that I am too cowardly OR afraid to provide it! NOW you see that I am NOT afraid NOR am I a COWARD as you obviously are! I, in 1998 hired you to defend me against a MAYOR driven "Illegal" prosecution! You stabbed me in the back,lets play! COWARD!
McTarsney began taunting Small to file charges against him or sue him for defamation. The name-calling and threats against Judge Moberly and Small very quickly began to escalate. Eight months ago, McTarsney warned that justice was coming soon:
When things go BAD! No,REALLY BAD! Will the Police be there to protect you?OR, will they be protecting their OWN family?Will they be "Available" to protect "Judge" Moberly in her BIG white house tucked in the woods just off the main road? Will she "HIDE" in her in ground pool to escape justice?Will she "Cower" in fear as you obviously will in her final minutes? Justice comes to those who wait! I have waited MORE than long enough! Justice IS coming! THIS,I promise! Justice IS coming!!!
McTarsney assured Small that Judge Moberly, who he referred to as "SATAN reincarnate" would "pay the ULTIMATE price for her betrayal." McTarsney said Small "needs his f___ing head blown off." "Your time is nearing its end!," he wrote. "I would STRONGLY suggest that you put your final papers in place! A trip to your final resting place is quickly approaching! Make your arrangements while there is still time!" In one plea for legal help, McTarsney wrote, "I AM DESPERATE AND AM VERY,VERY, SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING MULTIPLE MURDERS AS MY ONLY DEFENSE!!! . . . I HATE THE THOUGHT OF MURDER,BUT I SIMPLY CAN SEE NO OTHER WAY!! I ONLY PRAY THAT GOD FORGIVES ME FOR WHAT I AM BEING FORCED TO DO! I WISH I DID NOT HAVE TO!"

McTarsney switched to a different handle, "hermanblurke," after his other account name was blocked. He then posted this specific death threat against Judge Moberly: "Sure,I KNOW Judges are corrupt, but SOON you will be missing ONE JUDGE! I (now pay attention here) FULLY INTEND to FORCEFULLY MAKE "Judge Moberly" pay for her CRIMES against me! THAT C___ IS TOAST I repeat! THAT C_____ IS TOAST! DEAD!!! F_____ING DEAD!" McTarsney continued leveling the death threats against Judge Moberly and Small until his arrest two days ago.

In announcing McTarsney's arrest, U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett said, “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.” “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.” It is unclear why law enforcement waited so long before taking action for the death threats he began making many months ago.


Anonymous said...

Given that all parties are within Indiana, how is this matter legitimately within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and does Hogsett ever do anything with his office besides protect the government and prosecute the smallest of small fish?

Will anyone look at how diligently and fairly all parties handled his case?

I'm interested in knowing the details of the injustice he believes he suffered, absent journalistic coloring.

Gary R. Welsh said...

The threats were made over the Internet. That gives the feds jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

While your answer is correct, Gary, you missed the question.

Gary R. Welsh said...

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused was a victim of some form of injustice, it would not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous said...

Again, you missed the question, but you invite an interesting sociological discussion.

"Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused was a victim of some form of injustice, it would not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right."

That argument has no logical proof, and it proffers a non sequitur at the end, when you go off presuming a "wrong" in absence of a supporting argument.

Your argument takes this form:

Premise: The accused was a victim of some form of injustice.

Conclusion: The injustice does not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney.

Without going afield for your answers, and confining yourself strictly to the argument, do you find that the argument holds? Universally? Can you imagine no case in which your argument doesn't hold?

Consider these possibilities:

If a judge and an attorney unjustly put your wife and child on a boxcar to Treblinka where they were, in the ordinary course of operations, killed, would not some sort of retribution be deserved?

If a judge an attorney conspired to sentence your wife to death for a farce so her heirs could sell her vast oil-rich lands that she was unwilling to let be used for such purposes, would you not be morally justified in seeking a private remedy?

Additionally, you note an interesting sociological dimension to the discussion. If the people feel themselves wronged in one form of dispute resolution forum, is it not possible that they will seek alternate forms of dispute resolution?

Governmental dispute resolution only has primacy because people find it legitimate or they bow to the guns of the state and accept it.

A government's dispute resolution forums are thus only as binding as the people allow them to be.

A government risks much if it allows the credibility and conduct of its forums and officers to be scorned, ridiculed and distrusted by the governed.