Skip to main content


        Twitter is again interfering with posting Cobble's tweets. These include not posting his recent posts, and posting false analytics. Twitter is also blocking of upload of .jpeg images. If elected to Congress, Mr. Cobble will push for requiring an "expedited Complaint process" for filing against social media companies. 


- Diana & Associates

- TEAZ Hair Salon

- Cafe 360

- Hikes Point Merle Norman

- J-town Hardware

- Bonafide Investment Group

- Natural Mystic

- D-50 Barber Salon

By definition, murder requires the perpetrator to create the conditions for the killing. Burdette's DUI is only one condition of the other conditions created by management in Gov'mt.

MASS SHOOTER UPDATE: Cassidy Was on Gov'mt's Radar, Too

May 26, 2021 San Jose, CA Shooter Samuel Cassidy. While detained in 2016, he told officials of his angry background. He killed 8 at the San Jose railway shooting. (PBS Newshour, May 27, 2021) His suicide is the same MO of the jihad killings in the Middle East, the same as most mass shootings in the U.S. It is critical that the shooter dies to shut down the trail of evidence to Gov'mt operatives. Americans must demand audits of FBI & Dept of Justice transactions, and others.

Posted by Daniel Cobble:

[Updates of] Lawsuit re: Courthouse Tarring (Louisville, KY)

Federal Cases 03:06-cr-93-R (criminal), and 03:08-cv-123-T (civil)

EVENTS SUMMARY: Study of the circumstances of the May 26, '06 federal courthouse tarring should alarm you, even if you disagree with that act of civil self-defense (though most people tell that they're glad I did it). While in jail, I had to fend-off persistent harassment from governmental officials. Ironically, their subsequent behavior exemplified my very reasons for doing the tarring.

Shortly after being released from jail, I learned that my original legal assessments were correct: A Grand Jury will likely not issue an indictment on an act of civil self-defense if governmental officials are committing criminal acts. The indictment I was jailed-on was a fake, fabricated by court officials and U.S. Attorney David L. Huber and not issued by a Grand Jury. The Mar. 7, '07 trial proceedings were quite a farce.

Three federal judges, including Chief Judge John G. Heyburn, II, have refused to take my civil case, for ratification of my 5/14/07 tort claim (also known as a Conditional Acceptance of Value). The case is in a no-contest status, whereas Defendants Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Treasury have not appeared before the Court. On Aug. 5, '08, the fourth judge, Amul R. Thapar, transferred my case to the Court of Federal Claims (CoFC) in Washington D.C. to further deny me due process. The CoFC does not handle tort claims. However, I have responded with a Petition to keep the case in Louisville for prompt payment of my claim.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sept. 19, 2008, Friday
I received a Sept. 18, '08 letter from the Veterans Administration's Regional Office Sept. 18, '08 letter from the Veterans Administration's Regional Office (Louisville) informing me that the VA will not reduce my benefits. Recall from the updates, below, that they were threatening to reduce my benefits due to a purported felony conviction. The letter stated that I was not convicted of a felony, as reported by the Court Clerk of the U.S. District Court in Louisville.

The VA letter is a findings-of-fact that contradicts the actual court records. For, if I was not convicted of a felony, then must I have been convicted of a misdemeanor? But there are no records of a misdemeanor charge throughout the court records and proceedings. So what gives? The finding-of-fact, in effect, is stating that I was not convicted. -- As I have repeatedly specified to the court, I was not convicted on Mar. 7, '07, and therefore, the court must pay my claim (for false imprisonment, the fake indictment, etc.) and expunge my record.

Sept. 17, '08, Wednesday,
I filed a Notice of Default of my Aug. 15, '08 Petition to Chief Judge Heyburn
to Intervene in this case. Recall that Trial Judge Thapar issued an illegal order to have the case transferred to the Court of Federal Claims (in Washington, D.C.). The 8/15/08 also detailed the latest conspiracies, fraud and obstructions-of-justice by U.S. Attorney David L. Huber and his cohort, Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller.

The 9/17/08 Notice specifies to Judge Heyburn that Defendants Dept. of Justice and Treasury have not responded to the 8/15/08 Petition, and therefore they both have acquiesced in "legal admission," thereof. Judge Heyburn is required by law to grant the Petition, as well as my claim, itself, since both defendants have not shown-up before the court to dispute my claims and the subsequent pleadings.

Sept. 9, '08, Tuesday, #3
I filed Notice in court of the three Sept. 8, '08 quo warrantos served upon U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Attorney David. L. Huber, and Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller, for their removal and prosecution.

Sept. 9, '08, Tuesday, #2
I sent a 3rd Reminder Letter to FBI Director Mueller demanding the removal of Ms. Pyles from office, pursuant to the April 21, '08 quo warranto. A copy of the letter was filed in court by Notice (case 3:08-cv-123-T).

Sept. 9, 2008, Tuesday, #1
Copies of all three of the Sept. 8, '08 quo warrantos have been sent of Sheriff John Aubrey of Jefferson Co., Kentucky, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, U.S. Rep. John A. Yarmuth, and Mayor Jerry Abramson (of Louisville).

Sept. 8, 2008, Monday
I served three, respective quo warrantos for the removal and prosecution of U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Attorney David. L. Huber, and Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller. They are due to the complicity, conspiracy, fraud, and obstruction-of-justice of which Huber attempted to have Judge Thapar to illegally dispose of this civil case. Please refer to my Aug. 15, '08 Petition to Intervene by the Chief Judge.

The defendants, U.S. Dept. of Justice and Dept. of Treasury have not showed-up before the court, and thus, Civil case 3:08-cv-123-T is in a status of no contest.

August 15, 2008, Friday
In response to Judge Thapar's Aug. 5, '08 unlawful transfer of my case (3:08-cv-123-T) to the Court of Federal Claims, I filed a Petition for Chief Judge Heyburn to Intervene. The Petition demands that the case stay in Louisville for prompt ratification of my undisputed administrative judgment as well as the lien against the Dept. of Treasury.

The Petition explains how Judge Thapar allowed local U.S. Attorney David L. Huber to step outside his jurisdiction and falsely claim that he represented Defendant Dept. of Treasury. But to the contrary, the Tort Division at the Dept. of Justice in Washington, D.C. has its own group of attorneys that argue tort cases in U.S. district courts. -- Representation from the Tort Division would include any of the federal agencies involved in a tort case, such as the Treasury in my case. -- So, Thapar was complicit with this fraud and obstructions of Huber and Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller in circumventing the legal process and "legal admissions" of Defendants Depts. of Justice and Treasury. Thapar ordered the transfer of my case based on these criminal acts of Huber and Miller.

In prior pleadings, I warned Judge Thapar that Huber had criminal motives to obstruct this case. (See my updates of May 21, May 29, June 5, June 13, and June 30). It was Huber who issued the June 27, '06 fabricated indictment in the criminal case of my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring (3:06-cr-93-R). When my claim is paid, then Huber's career is finished, and he will likely go to prison. In addition, I warned Thapar that Huber is covering-up interstate product liability fraud that's being committed by Value City Furniture (and its parent company, American Signature Furniture, Inc.). See the case summary and updates on Cobble et. al v. Value City Furniture. Huber refuses to grant my Petition for Grand Jury Investigation, even though Value City is in "legal admission" of my allegations and supporting evidence.

August 9, 2008, Saturday,
August 5, 2008, Tuesday,
I finally received from the Henderson Co. Detention Center (HCDC) the dates that I was jailed and released, beginning the day after the defunct Mar. 7, '07 trial proceedings. The 40 days jailed does not meet the requirement for the VA to reduce my benefits.

I sent a copy of HCDC's 8/5/08 confirmation to Michael Fairchild, Manager of the VA Service Center in Louisville (on Main St., Louisville). With that confirmation, I told Mr. Fairchild, by letter, that there's no need for a hearing, now. But I also stated that the burden-of-proof is on the VA, and that court records and witnesses will show that an actual conviction regarding the courthouse tarring did not take place.

August 5, 2008, Tuesday
U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar, under the color-of-law, transferred my civil case to the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. to further delay in the resolution of my May 14, '07 tort claim. His 8/5/08 order falsely stated that I did not assert my tort claim, even though my lawsuit mentions the interchangeable terms, tort claim and Conditional Acceptance of Value, at least 15 times.

I did not post-up the entire 10-page memorandum and order of Judge Thapar. It was only necessary to post his Page-10, where he explicitly states that I did not assert my tort claim. And I only posted the first page of my lawsuit so that you can clearly see that I did assert my tort claim from the very first paragraph. You can even see my entire lawsuit, 03:08-cv-123. - As seen on Page-10, Judge Thapar collaborated with the fraud of U.S. Attorney David L. Huber to deny due process of law (see the June 13, 30, July 30, and 31 updates, below).

This is another bold-face fraud and obstruction of justice by the court. That is why we have no choice but to default to administrative, common-law due processes. For, our corporate government has broken down from governmental officials refusing to follow the rule of law.

July 31, 2008, Thursday
I sent a third letter to Judge Thapar, asking him once again to rule in my case, but that the ruling can only go one way. I also informed him that quo warrantos must be served upon Louisville's U.S. Attorney David L. Huber and Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller, for fraud and obstruction-of-justice.

Due to the rampant shenanigans' in my cases from officers-of-the-courts, I may need to request a special prosecutor from Washington. The FBI in Louisville, from prior cases, have proven to not address felonies committed by judges and prosecutors. Of course, this is violation of the FBI's mandate.

July 30, 2008, Wednesday
July 28, 2008, Monday
I sent a second letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, requesting again that he honor the April 21, 08 quo warranto by removing Phyllis J. Pyles from head of the Tort Branch Office of the Dept. of Justice in Washington, D.C. Recall that Ms. Pyles sent me her May 15, '08 unlawful letter attempting to dismiss my tort claim, but whereas her office had already acquiesced (approved) to the "perfecting" of that claim.

Because of the terrible manner in which I have been treated in this case, I am insisting that Director Mueller remove and prosecute Ms. Pyles.

June 30, 2008, Monday
June 28, 2008, Saturday

Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller's filed a Reply to my June 13, '08 Notice of fraudulent pleading (see 6/13 update, below) to his ridiculous Motion-to-dismiss. He completely ignored my issue of me having the right to require that he validate his client. So I filed a second Notice-of-fraudulent-pleading on June 30, '08.

In fact, its not a practice for local U.S. Attorneys to prosecute tort cases. Tort cases filed in U.S. District courts are prosecuted by attorneys employed at the Dept. of Justice's (DoJ) Tort Branch in Washington, DC. This is consistent with Attorney Miller's unwillingness to validate his stated client, Dept. of Treasury, since Treasury would also be represented by the Tort Branch. In other words, Louisville's U.S. Attorney David L. Huber have not been assigned by Washington to prosecute this case. And thus, he has again committed fraud and obstruction-of-justice, along with his cohort, Brady Miller.

MOREOVER, Miller falsified his June 13 pleading by specifying that my tort claim does not belong in U.S. District Court. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, that's exactly where my claim belongs.

In my civil case, 03:08-cv-123-T, the DoJ Tort Branch has not appeared before the court, and so, this case is in "no contest" status.

June 21, 2008, Saturday
I sent a letter to Judge Thapar, asking him to go-ahead and close my federal case (03:08-cv-123-T) regarding my injuries ensued from my unlawful incarceration from the courthouse tarring. I asked him to treat my case like any other contract that must be enforced by the government.

June 13, 2008, Friday
I filed a Notice-of-Fraudulent Pleading in court in response to U.S. Attorney David L. Huber's unlawful intervention in this case. On May 9, '08, Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller filed for Attorney Huber a fraudulent Motion-to-dismiss my case, 03:08-cv-123-T.

Miller's action is unlawful, because he refuses to show that he was retained by the Dept. of Treasury, as he says he represents. As citizens, we have a right to require attorneys to validate their clients, as this has not been disputed by Miller or Judge Thapar. An attorney cannot appear out-of-the-blue and say he represents someone without our right to question the validity of his client. See the May 29, '08 update, below. Apparently, Huber and Miller are "bogarting" their way into this case to prevent me from prevailing.

(Keep in mind that it was U.S. Attorney Huber who issued the fake indictment in the courthouse tarring criminal case. And, he refuses to respond to my two Petitions for Grand Jury Investigation regarding the interstate product liability fraud being committed by Value City Furniture and its parent company American Signature Furniture.

So, U.S. Attorney Huber has powerful motives to illegally intervene in this case.)

June 5, 2008, Thursday,
I filed an objection to Judge Thapar's May 28, '08 order allowing the extension of time for Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller to respond to my lawsuit (Amended Complaint). The objection has a sub-Notice informing Thapar that Miller has twice refused to identify and validate his claimed client, Dept. of Treasury.

Miller's motion is most suspicious, since he and his boss, U.S. Attorney David L. Huber showed-up ten days after my May 9, '08 Notice of Default was filed. (It was later learned that Huber does not have jurisdiction to handle tort cases from Washingto, D.C.)

May 29, 2008, Thursday
May 27, 2008, Tuesday
May 23, 2008, Friday
In my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I asked local U.S. Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller to provide validation that he was actually retained by Defendant Dept. of Treasury. I believe that he is perpetrating a fraud, that he was not retained by Treasury. His May 27, '08 response letter refused to provide any such validation, but he misrepresents my request by falsely stating that I requested that he file an "Appearance of Counsel" (a formal notification to the court that he was retained by the defendant). I have a right to know who retained him, as I don't have to take his word for his claim. (Please refer to May 28, '08 update, below.)

With his 5/27/08 letter refusing to validate his purported client, Dept. of Treasury, I sent him a May 29, '08 follow-up letter to repeat my request for him to validate that client. But he did not respond to that second request. So, in my June 5, '08 Objection to Judge Thapar's May 28, '08 Order granting the extension, I informed him that Miller's pleadings cannot be recognized by the court. Judge Thapar has not addressed that legal premise that is undisputed my Miller.

May 21, 2008, Wednesday, Late Entry
I filed a response to Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller's highly-suspicious May 19, '08 Motion for extension of time to respond to my lawsuit (case 3:08-cv-123-T). I cannot believe that Judge Thapar would grant the extension at this late hour, for it is ten days past my Notice of Default. But in my "heart-of-hearts," I knew that it's likely that Thapar will be unreasonable and grant the unlawful motion.

Nevertheless, amongst other things, my Response informed Judge Thapar that U.S. Attorney David L. Huber has a [personal] motive to prevent payment of my claim. (Recall that it was Huber who issued the fabricated indictment on me in the courthouse tarring case.) I pointed out that Huber is using a similar tactic in obstructing Cobble v. Value City Furniture (VCF), by refusing to hold a grand jury for VCF's interstate product liability fraud.

May 13, 2008, Monday, Late entries
May 12, 2008, Tuesday
Regarding my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit from the injuries I suffered after my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I sent May 12, '08 update letters to the major media outlets in Louisville. They are WHAS News 11, WAVE News 3, WDRB Fox News, WLKY News 32, the Associated Press in Louisville, The Louisville Defender, LEO Magazine, and the Courier-Journal.

A copy of each of these letters were filed by separate May 13, '08 Notices in the lawsuit (case 3:08-cv-123-T), to keep the court aware and for the public record. So, only the notice w/ letter to WHAS News is posted, here, as an example. I felt that these updates to the media were necessary, because they did not treat my case truthfully after the tarring. (They would not even interview me during the 2006 media frenzy.) So the 5/12/08 update-letters place them on notice to "do the right thing," this time. . .to tell the public the truth.

May 28, 2008, Wednesday
May 21, 2008, Wednesday
May 19, 2008, Monday
In my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, Louisville's Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller filed a very suspicious May 19, '08 Motion for extension for responding to the lawsuit. He did not even file an "Appearance of Counsel" prior to that motion. He just came-out from nowhere, 110 days after I filed the lawsuit.

My May 21, '08 Response attempted to convince Judge Amul R. Thapar that the Extension was improper, since it was ten days past my May 9, '08 Notice-of-Default. But the court granted it, anyway. If Brady is running a scam (of which I think he is), then Judge Thapar must bear the responsibility for granting the motion.

I explained that the motion is a desperate attempt to prevent payment of the claim. My response explained to Judge Thapar that Chief U.S. Attorney David L. Huber (of Louisville) has motives for obstructing proper adjudication of the case. These include that 1) Huber initiated the fabricated indictment in the courthouse tarring matter. And 2), currently he is covering-up the interstate product liability fraud that's being perpetrated by Value City Funiture.

May 21, 2008, Wednesday
May 15, 2008, Thursday
Regarding my April 21, '08 quo warranto served upon Phyllis J. Pyles, Director of the DoJ Tort Branch in Washington, D.C., I sent a follow-up letter to Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requesting that Ms. Pyles be "promptly" removed from office. This is because she has "acquiesced" in "legal admission" of the allegations and evidence presented in the quo warranto.

The quo warranto is related to my May 26, '06 tarring of the federal courthouse and my May 14, '07 tort claim for the injuries I sustained while being jailed on an illegal indictment. Ms. Pyles sent me an April 15, '08-dated illegal letter-of-dismissal of my tort claim, to create a "color-of-law issue" in court for my Feb. 26, '08-filed lawsuit. (Yeah, I know it's complicated, but I have to get it onto the public record.)

A first-page copy of the quo warranto is attached for Director Mueller's ready-reference. And a copy of the letter to Director Mueller was filed by May 21, '08- Notice in the 2/26/08 lawsuit.

May 9, 2008, Friday
In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I filed a Notice-of-default against Defendants Dept. of Justice (DoJ) and Dept. of Treasury having a no showing upon the court. Thus, the court is required by law to promptly rule in my favor of my state claims, hands down.

My notice also informs the court of my 10-day Window for Settlement Offer. This extends my offer to settle the case for a much less amount than the original claim. However, it also informs the court that Defendants must pay the original claim if the case is not "disposed-of" past that 10 days.

Recall that a Quo Warranto has been served on Defendant's Phyllis J. Plyes, head of the DoJ's Tort Branch.

April 29, 2008, Tuesday, #2
April 25, 2008, Friday, #2
April 19, 2008, Saturday, #2
February 29, 2008, Friday
In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I have thus far received three recusal orders from judges removing themselves from that case. Naturally, it begs the question of Why? . . . . Despite their criminal violations during the trial of the courthouse tarring, I suspect that they still are trying to avoid following the law.

Why is it so difficult for our governmental officials to follow the law? Why is it so difficult for judges to allow citizens to prevail in law, as is what they are paid for? I have posted these orders so you can examine them yourself.

April 22, 2008, Monday #2
In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I filed a copy of the April 21, '08 quo warranto in court, for public notice (see update, below).

The April 22, '08 Notice of Quo Warranto informed the court that illegal actions from governmental officials were predicted and anticipated in my April 18, '08 Judicial Notice to the court. And true to form, Phyllis J. Pyles sent me her illegal letter that attempted to deny my administrative claim, where her office no longer has jurisdiction.

April 21, 2008, Monday, #2

In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I served a quo warranto upon Phyillis J. Pyles, Head of the Tort Div. at the U.S. Dept. of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Ms. Pyles sent me her May 15, '08 illegal letter in stating that my May 14, '07 administrative tort claim was denied. Her letter is a fraud, because her office had already acquiesced in "legal admissions" to my claim, including the "perfecting" of said claim by administrative judgment. In addition, when receiving my a Nov. 8, '07 affirming affidavit, Ms. Pyles acquiesced in confirming that her office stated denying my claim on Nov. 5, '08. So, she cannot at this late hour again declare that my claim is denied as a way to develop a defense for my lawsuit.

(Governmental officials cannot legally deny a claim if your allegations and evidence have not been disputed by law, fact, and evidence. under the Uniform Commercial Code the claim remains alive. But officials will misinform to intimidate you by telling you that your claim is denied. This is quite typical. It is appropriate to ignore such false information and continue with "perfecting" your claim.)

I served the quo warranto for Ms. Pyles to be removed from office. Since I now know about this powerful legal action, I will no longer accept such heavy-handed malfeasance from governmental officials.

April 3, 2008, Thursday
I took my first witness deposition in my Value City Furniture (VCF) lawsuit. Juris-dictionary Club founder, Don FitzGerald, came as the swear-in officer and witness, but he was not so needed, since VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly, brought his own stenographer (transcript recorder). For my first time, it went pretty smooth, and the process was quite interesting and lent heavily to the case.

I recorded the deposition for myself by video. So, I will ask Don if we can play parts of it at our next club meeting (on April 15). For location, we utilized a conference room at the federal courthouse in Louisville.

The deponent was the General Manager of the VCF store on Dixie Hwy in Louisville. It took approx. 3 hours. The deponent was very helpful in helping to validate many factual situations that I had already assessed. It verified many of my allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Reilly that I had complained to the court but was ignored. It verified that VCF and its parent company, American Signature, Inc., were indeed committing product liability fraud upon its unsuspecting customers, and for many years, now.

February 29, 2008, Friday
I received a recusal order from U.S. Chief District Judge, John G. Heyburn, II. He is "running for cover" by giving my lawsuit against the feds (re: the courthouse tarring drama) to the pro'se lynchman, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III.

With all the publicity, these feds may try to act like they are doing the right thing. But when Chief Judge Heyburn voluntarily unloads a case, it always mean that they are up to no good.

February 26, 2008, Tuesday
I finally filed my lawsuit (Complaint) against the feds regarding the May 26, '06 courthouse tarring. I received the California Secretary of State Apostille w/ Certificate of Protest (certifying the administrative judgment in my favor) in late January.

However, on Feb. 28, I filed an amended Complaint, because I erred in identifying the court. - For those of you who know that history, you are aware of the fabricated indictment of which I was jailed for 270 days. The trial court (on March 7, '07) held trial after allowing me to vacate the courtroom; and on two occasions my personal and legal records were taken from me and destroyed.

February 1, 2008, Friday
On Jan. 24, '08, I received an administrative judgment in my favor against the U.S. Government (Tort Branch of the U.S. Dept. of Justice). As some of you know, my claim regards the very many injuries that I suffered after tarring the federal courthouse in Louisville on March 26, '06.

Well, on or about January 26, I received a "Johnny-come-lately" response-letter from the Administrative Office of the Courts in Washington, DC. You may read from the letter of how Counsel, John L. Chastain, attempts to assume jurisdiction over the claim to try to deny it. But please see my response letter that clear things up for Counsel Chastain. The government cannot legally deny an administrative tort claim unless the "enumerated allegations" can be dis-proven.

Stay tuned for later actions to be taken in this case.