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.


Pro'se Cobble's Second Act of Civil Self-defense
     "Only insane people will attempt to jail someone who has sacrificed himself to help save their country from ruin. What kind of society do we really want?"

1. Why this Second Act?   Its a A Matter of Our National Security
2. My Two Court Lynchings & Seven Months of False Imprisonment
3. My Dramatic Release (Preparing for a Third Lynching)
     by Daniel Cobble

1. Why this Second Act?

As a matter of our national security, on Oct. 16, '08 I conducted a second “act of civil self-defense” upon the federal courthouse in Louisville, Kentucky (my first act was done on May 26, ’06). This time I broke-out four windows of that courthouse for the court’s refusal to hear my lawsuit / petition, Cobble v. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, et. al, Federal Civil Case 3:08cv-516-S, filed Sept. 29, ‘08 (et. al means that there are other defendants in the case). At that 10/16/08 scene I also took with me the evidentiary documents of twenty other cases of which the state and federal courts are refusing to hear (adjudicate). I brought the files inside a large box marked "EVIDENCE," and a shopping cart to assist with my "Cross of Denied Rights." In both my acts I have offered to pay for these damages as a civil matter, pending the resolution of my claims; I have taken responsibility for my acts. In fact, believe it or not, the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case as a criminal matter (Fed. Case 3:08cr-120-S; the legal premise is explained below.). The question of jurisdiction is now pending before the court.

          Cobble v. Bernanke identifies seven structural defects within our economy that are not being resolved by Government. Just to name a few: a) the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem, b) hedge funds operated by commercial banks, c) anti-trust violations of the Federal Reserve’s massive unsecured loans to banks, etc., the direct cause of our economic collapse. My assessment to the court stated that these issues were matters of national security until resolved by Government. Our economy remains in danger so long as these defects are not resolved. Since filing Cobble v. Bernanke approx. 6.5 million people have lost their jobs, and Americans have lost $6.4 trillion in wealth and property (reported by ABC News July 28, ’09 and June 30, ’09). So, Cobble v. Bernanke is, indeed, a matter of national security. – Hence, my legal premise for this act of civil self-defense is based on Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution – as a matter of equity - and the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence – instructing our duty to respond to a non-responsive, oppressive government. You and I have been injured by the Government in this crisis, yet we are being denied our First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have this “grievance” (lawsuit) heard by the court.

{Today, The Federal Reserve Seeks Legitimacy

            Due to the sheer size of the U.S. economy and thus its inherent value ($14.5 trillion annually, w/ Japan the second largest at $4.5 trillion) we can now afford to stop "printing money from nothing." To safeguard the economy, our future, we can now require the Federal Reserve (Feds) to fully monetize all dollars issued to banks; this is easily done by requiring banks to put-up full collateral for the money they borrow from the Feds. (Feds dollars issued to investment houses work against the economy. See Cobble v. Bernanke, the dangers of bank-operated hedge funds.) -- In addition, we must stop being afraid of the Federal Reserve, since our way-of-life, the American system, is at stake. The Federal Reserve is seeking, and must have, legitimacy to survive in today's politically conscious America. This is demonstrated by the unprecedented amount of 2009 media appearances by Feds. Chairman Ben Bernanke. Secret motives and unscrupulous financial functions can no longer be tolerated in this age of the internet and mobile phone communications. To wit, 255 Congressmen have signed-on to audit the Feds; HB 1207.}

                In my prior certified letters to four U.S. Senators in May and June ‘08, I predicted the dangers of President Bush ‘s and the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, informing Congress that our economy was in danger. That included letters sent to, then, Senator Barak Obama. With no response from Congress, not even with my calls of national security, I filed Cobble v. Bernanke on Sept. 29, ’08. Then, on Oct. 2, ’08, I filed an emergency motion for public hearings on the case. Then, on Oct. 8, ’08, presiding Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, denied that emergency motion. It was at that point that I decided I must conduct my secondact of civil self-defense, to generate yet another public spectacle, in an attempt to force the court to hearCobble  v. Bernanke. For here again, the courts are violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments to deny me access to the law. Conducting an act of civil self-defense, creating a criminal case, is the only way of getting our issues in front of the court. (But as stated above, the federal government does not have jurisdiction in this matter. Pursuant to Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Kentucky has not given over any such territorial jurisdiction of federal courthouses to the federal government. Thereby, my act is a civil matter for the federal government. – Most people mistakingly believe the feds have automatic jurisdiction over the property that it owns in a state, but that is not so. KRS 3.020 bars federal jurisdiction of federal courthouses.) Yet even if court ignore its lack of jurisdiction, I do not believe that a jury would convict me when learning the circumstances behind this case, that Government is practicing an unlawful, silent policy of not recognizing these rights of average taxpaying citizens. And here, the court is ignoring a national security matter.

The national security aspect of Cobble  v. Bernanke epitomizes the danger of that unlawful policy of Government. Government is, in effect, saying that average people cannot even raise the red flag of national security. Yet obviously, any red-blooded American must be allowed to raise a material issue of national security to Government, through to the courts, law-enforcement, legislature and the executive branch (state or federal), as I have tried many times.

(Here’s another improper action of the court: There exists a material conflict-of-interest by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III presiding over both Cobble v. Bernanke and the criminal case of me breaking the courthouse windows {3:08cr-120-S, United States v. Cobble}. However, I have not raised this issue but am awaiting his decision to dismiss 3:08cr-120-S. As I keep implying, this being so typical of the courts not following the law.)


2. My Tow Court Lynchings & Seven Months of False Imprisonment
          When preparing for my Oct. 16, ‘08 act, I tried to be as ready as I could be, given the time constraints I was under. I knew from past experience, as well as the circumstances of my first act on 5/26/06, that the court would avoid following the law to trip me up. So, as a pro’se litigant (representing myself without an attorney), 1) I was prepared to challenge federal jurisdiction, I had a statement ready to read that specified 2) my request to testify before the grand jury, and 3) I requested that all items I brought to the courthouse scene be entered into the record for the grand jury. However, a court lynching that took place anyway, as again, the abject denial my right to due process. As during my 5/26/06 act, the magistrate court once again swept me away to jail to keep me from the public. Otherwise, Louisville’s mainstream media would have been compelled to interview me to discuss my issues of national security.

So, at the initial 10/16/08 hearing, Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin jailed me even though he or Assist. U.S. Attorney Michael A. Bennett would not answer my challenge to jurisdiction (case 3:08cr-120-S). Instead, Whalin instructed Bennett to be prepared to answer my challenge at the preliminary hearing on Oct. 20, ’08, and he ordered that I remain jailed. (Preliminary hearings can be critical, to make or break a case. It is here that the defendant / accused has the opportunity to submit evidence, including statements and witnesses, into the court record for examination by the grand jury. As stated, I had intended to enter all items that I brought to the 10/16/08 courthouse scene for the grand jury.)

            While in jail for the initial four days, I hand-wrote 1) a motion-to-dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 2) a Request to the Grand Jury to testify before the Grand Jury, 3) a Statement for submission to the Grand Jury, and 4) a Petition for writ of habeas corpus. At the 10/20/08 hearing, I filed them with the court. However, by the Oct. 27, ’08 order by Trial Judge John G. Heyburn, II (later given to Judge Simpson), my Request and Statement to be submitted to the Grand Jury were unlawfully interpreted as motions to the court, and then given to Magistrate Whalin to be denied. My Petition for writ of habeas corpus was never heard by the court.

            So needlesstosay, on that day (10/20/08), jurisdiction still was not addressed by the magistrate court and nor was a preliminary hearing held. And since Bennett still was not prepared to answer the jurisdictional challenge, Whalin ordered the “preliminary” hearing to be held over to Oct. 28 for 9:30 a.m.

But to the contrary, on 10/28/08 I was brought from jail into the courtroom at 9:00 a.m., prior to my public supporters arriving at 9:30. It was here that Whalin and Bennett caught me by total surprise to complete their lynching by holding arraignment on me; they had an indictment waiting for me even with the open question of jurisdiction and without my preliminary hearing. I was outraged and demanded that the issue of jurisdiction first be resolved, and I demanded a preliminary hearing. I even demanded an Article III Court (under Article III the U.S. Constitution). Yet incredibly, Whalin said that the issue of jurisdiction is moot since the indictment had already been issued. And he said that I did not have a right to a preliminary hearing, and thus denied that, too. He then ordered that I remain jailed, in citing that I was a danger to the community. (40 USC § 3112, other statutes, case-law, and very many Supreme Court rulings instruct that the question of jurisdiction must be resolved prior to proceeding in a case, and that the court must presume not having jurisdiction where jurisdiction is not demonstrated by the court or government.) I was effectively held under false imprisonment by due process being denied me and with the court not having jurisdiction.

            Just as incredible as the improper indictment was the unrealistic Dec. 17, ’08 date for trial, that was set for only 40 days later. Here again, I knew that another trick was coming, that I would be lynched again, but I did not know how it would come. Then, on or about Nov. 12, ’08, Assist. U.S. Attorney Bennett filed a motion that I undergo yet another psychiatric examination, a third examination. On Dec. 9, ’08, Judge Simpson issued an order granting Bennett’s motion. However, he did not send me a copy of that order, and so I did not learn about an examination until I was taken to Federal Medical Center Lexington (FMC / Fed. Bureau of Prisons) on Jan. 7, ’08. 

            The fact is that I would have been stuck in jail for many more months if I had not actively protested at the various jail[s]. I was first at the Oldham County Jail (OCJ), as Jailer Mike Simpson was a Respondent in my 10/20/08 Petition for writ of habeas corpus, supra, along with a grievance that went unanswered. I also sent subsequent letters to Jailer Simpson demanding my release. When the trial did not occur on 10/17/08, a few days later, just before Christmas, I began my first jail cell protest at OCJ. I requested a jail-cell in isolation and then began to smear my feces-poop all over the cell door, and urinated on it, too. I even sent a letter to Judge Simpson explaining my intentions and again demanding my release from jail. I then interrupted this protest on Christmas Eve but resumed it the day after Christmas. By Jan. 29, I was removed from OCJ and transferred to the Marion County Jail (MCJ).

            When arriving at MCJ I immediately filed a grievance against my false imprisonment with Jailer Barry Brady. But when I did not get a response, by Jan. 6, ’09 I began my same protest. By the next day, Jan. 7, I was taken to FMC Lexington. There, I was given the surprise of my second lynching, that I would undergo yet another psychiatric examination. Again, I had not known about it, since the court had not sent me a copy of the Dec. 9, ’08 order. I was required a copy, because I am Pro’se Cobble, a pro’se litigant, without an attorney.

            My stay at FMC turned out to be a nightmare, too. I was forced to engage the staff into a legal dogfight to end-up with a good report from the examining psychologist, Judith Campbell, Ph.D. When arriving, I made a bit of a scene when learning why I was there. I was very upset and angry, but Dr. Campbell used her excellent bedside manner to calm me down. However, she must have given a negative briefing to her unit staff, assigned to me, because the unit manager at first refused to release me from isolation into the general population. It took about six weeks of no incidences for Dr. Campbell to convince the unit team that I must be given a chance to prove myself in the general population at the Commonwealth Unit. She told me several times that she informed them that I am not mentally ill. And so, on Feb. 23, ’09 I was finally released from isolation.

However, a very freaky thing happened at breakfast on that Wednesday, the morning of Feb. 25. As Warden Stephen M. Dewalt walked through the chow hall, I politely complained to him about a visitation problem that my wife was having. He then became impatient with me, ordered me to the Lieutenant’s Office, and from there, he returned me to isolation. At that point, I was effectively separated from my very many legal papers that were in my new room at the unit.  And incredibly, after constantly demanding and complaining from isolation, I finally received only a portion of my legal papers that following Saturday, Feb. 28. My strategic legal notes and two, stamped court pleadings, and many other personal items were still missing. My main concern was retrieving my strategic legal notes, of which I had spent hours compiling at the law library. However, the correctional officers kept telling me that these other papers were not in the property room, that they did not have them.

Then, on the following Monday, Feb. 30, another remarkable event occurred. During Dr. Campbell’s usual weekly walk-through through isolation, she told me that maybe I did have a mental problem, after all. She commented that this was based on the observations of other staff members, though she, herself, had not yet officially interviewed me. At that juncture I became very alarmed and frightened, for I did not want to labeled as crazy. Dr. Campbell had reversed her assessment of me only after her unit staff acquired my legal papers. They were convinced that my case involved governmental officials. (A cool correctional officer later told me that FMC typically does that; it specifies those inmates “crazy” whom have cases against governmental officials. This brings into question the viability, i.e. the conflicts-of-interest of governmental psychologists conducting evaluations on inmates. Apparently, they tend to exert unfair bias in favor of Government, that rails against justice and due process. 

So, I began to address the matter of writing to the good doctor, to argue against her intentions of finding me mentally ill. In March ’09, I even began a formal complaint process through the Bureau of Prisons’ Regional Office (BoP Regional), in Maryland. The unit staff became angry when BoP Regional received my first complaint. They responded by initiating a bogus incident report process that needed and acquired Warden Dewalt’s signature of approval. In other words, they involved the warden in their conspiracy. Hence, my second complaint involved this unlawful process of which can be proven by the documents that they, themselves, generated. With ongoing haggling over my missing legal papers and my complaints, on April 1, ’09, I was transferred from FMC to the Grayson County Jail (GCJ) in Lietchfield, Kentucky. 

At GCJ, I remained quiet until Dr. Campbell report was given to the court. Then on the unsuspecting evening of April 14, ’09, the GCJ staff informed me that I had a court date the following day. They gave me no other information, as I was transported to the Louisville courthouse on April 15, accompanied by my legal papers that were in possession of the GCJ transport officers. When reaching the courthouse I was placed in a holding cell, and the transport officers gave my legal papers to the U.S. Marshals for holding while I was there. The Marshals were to give my papers to me when court is held and then take them back for continued holding after court until my transport back to GCJ. Yet to the contrary, I sat there in the courthouse holding cell from 8:00 a.m. to approx. 6:00 p.m. without going into court. And for the entire day the Marshals strangely kept staring at me. They were eerily quiet and would not give me any information when I inquired about court. I could not figure out what the heck that was going on. 

That evening at my jail cell I called my wife to tell her about the strange events of the last 36 hours. As it turned out she, too, had had a most recently peculiar episode. On April 14, she got home from work with a message from Dr. Campbell on the answering machine. The message expressed the doctor’s interest in talking to her regarding my psychological examination. However, the next day, April 15, when my wife repeatedly returned Campbell’s call, the doctor was not in her office. In fact, Mrs. Cobble called Dr. Campbell’s office for the next few days until she finally reached her. Meanwhile, I started examining my legal papers to see if any were missing from my defunct visit to the U.S. Marshals. At first I noticed that some papers where out of their original places within my organized papers. This was evidence that my papers were taken and examined by unauthorized people while I was at the courthouse. During the course of those following days I would remember key, specific papers to check. 

Finally, I noticed that my “Grievance and Submissions” record-log (3 pages) was missing from my papers. This is the record of grievances and inmate requests that I submitted to the FMC Lexington staff during my stay there. So, at first, I could not figure what had happened to these papers. Then around that Friday (April 17) I received a letter from my wife telling me that she believed that Dr. Campbell traveled to the Louisville courthouse on April 15, and that that was why she, Mrs. Cobble, could not get-a-hold of Dr. Campbell in her office on that day. She believed that Campbell met with Trial Judge Simpson to discuss difficulties with my examination. 

At first I discounted Mrs. Cobble’s premonition. Then, one day it hit me like a ton-of-bricks that she was correct, that Campbell and her staff were at the courthouse on April 15. I am certain that the reason they set me up was to secretly examine my legal papers to steal the particular papers that implicated them, including Warden Dewalt, in their  February conspiratorial administrative action of the bogus incident report, supra. Dr. Campbell needed those papers, not only to get the warden, her staff and herself off the hook, but also, she would then be clear to label me in her report as being crazy. She could not say I was crazy so long as I could prove that they conspired to injure me at FMC. The very papers that they generated had them boxed-in. – Most accordingly, even while still at FMC, I consciously understood the value of those papers and that the staff may well attempt to steal them (the isolation staff had stolen other papers in a prior incident, but these papers were secretly returned to my cell when I requested an investigation into the matter). So, I hid the incident report papers very well so as not to be found. -- And Dr. Campbell never did return my wife’s “returned” calls, but Mrs. Cobble persistently called until she finally reached Campbell, to tell the doctor that I am not crazy and that I am a good husband.
          On April 24, ’09 I filed a “Motion to have Dr. Campbell and Her Unit Team Subpoenaed for Competency Hearing (w/ 5 Attachments).” My competency hearing was held on April 29, ’09, and needlesstosay, Dr. Campbell’s report cleared me as being highly competent and not suffering from a mental illness. Judge Simpson did not address that 4/24/09 motion, not even to say that it is moot (no longer relevant), for he knew it was his duty to investigate the matter. Nevertheless, I had survived this legal dogfight.

3. My Dramatic Release (Preparing for a Third Lynching
          Obviously the competency process was just another fiasco to keep me in jail, I had not even been given a detention hearing. And as mentioned, I had already been court-ordered examined twice. Moreover, I have been prosecuting my cases with these very judges for several years now with no complaints of incompetency or that I was abusing the system. I went along with the third examination process to show the public that I am not an obstinate person; I want to work with the system, but it must be reasonably uncorrupt and not make me a slave. In surviving that storm with Dr. Campbell and Warden Dewalt, it was now time to turn my attention to Judge Simpson for my release from jail.

            Even prior to the April 29 competency hearing (I did not receive notice of that hearing until the very early morning of April 29), I had resumed my jail cell protest at GCJ on or about April 25. Like the other jails, I informed Jailer Darwin Dennison by written grievance that I was being held under false imprisonment. My grievances specified that Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 3.020 bars the federal government from having territorial jurisdiction over its federal courthouses. (Also, recall that Article I, § 8, clause 17 requires state legislatures to cede territorial jurisdiction to the federal government.) And of course this information by grievance was given to Dr. Campbell and Warden Dewalt).

            But this time, when protesting at the GCJ, I did not use my feces poop, since Dr. Campbell warned me that this act could be perceived by psychologists as indicating mental illness. Instead, I took a much simpler path of covering-up the close-circuit camera in my isolation cell. (A one-man jail protest can only be conducted from an isolation cell.) This easy act troubled the correctional officers (Cos) to no end, for they were required to keep these cameras clear for constant monitoring of the isolation inmates. To deter me from this act, the COs pepper-sprayed me, and twice they held me bound to their brace chair. From April 25 through to April 29, I continued my protest. All totaled, I was sprayed 5 times, as this was very painful, indeed.

As mentioned, I was un-expectantly informed of- and taken to court for my competency hearing on April 29. At that hearing, Judge Simpson finally scheduled a detention hearing for May 11, ’09. Since I was not released that day, I resumed my protest that evening at the jail, as a show of solidarity. But that later that evening, I stopped my protest and called a truce with the jail staff to prepare for my May 11 hearing. I sent another letter to Jailer Dennison informing him that if was not released on May 11 then I would effectively resume the protest. 

For the five days of my protest I was pepper-sprayed five times by the jail staff. Wherever they sprayed on my body, it felt like I was on fire, literally. For maximum effect, the COs usually aimed at my eyes. The spray is not harmful, but it just burns like hell until it wears off, which can take a few days to completely do so. But I must admit that even the staff was glad to see the protest end. 

While preparing for the May 11 hearing, I received yet another surprise from the court, again from Magistrate Whalin. It was his May 1, ‘09 order, a copy sent by my wife, arrived to me on May 3. Magistrate Whalin knew well that I was in jail, yet he still sent the order to my home, not to me at the jail. Was this to chance that I would not receive it? That order instructed that I was scheduled for a second hearing on May 11, to confront the 10/16/08 courthouse window-breakage as a supervised release violation of my probation from the courthouse tarring case (3:06cr-93-R). Probation Officer Michael Clements and Assist. U.S. Attorney Bennett apparently believed that I would be released at Judge Simpson’s detention hearing on that day, and were trying this approach of a supervised release violation to ensure that I remain in jail. 

However, this new challenge was my opportunity to put into the court record the estranged rap-sheet on me that Bennett sent to me on Dec. 9, ’08. That official rap-sheet did not specify a conviction of me from the courthouse tarring case (3:06cr-93-R), though the court and Bennett were insisting that I was convicted. The rap-sheet information is consistent with a Sept. 18, ‘08 letter from the Veterans’ Administration that also confirms from the Louisville court clerk that I have not been convicted. Still, at the May 11 hearing, I argued to Magistrate Whalin that the warrant for a release violation was not proper / premature, since I was pleading not guilty to the 10/16/08 incident. Whalin, in knowing that I would soon be facing Judge Simpson in my detention hearing, held over the hearing to May 27.  Directly afterwards, Judge Simpson released me on my own recognizance.

Upon my release, Judge Simpson instructed Bennett and me to submit pleadings on my raised issue of jurisdiction. Though he specified that he wanted the pleadings filed promptly so he could issue his decision on jurisdiction, he has not yet ruled. Such delays are typical in cases when the law should prevail in the pro’se’s favor. You may study my pleading on jurisdiction.