Open letter to those Police Officers with Integrity:

First, an important YouTube Video Message by "Josie the Outlaw" to Police Officers:

and Concerning my statements against San Jose Police:

Back in August of 2002 I drove the "Bad Cops" billboard truck around Mission and Hedding streets for several months targeting my Free Speech towards three groups:  The public, the City and County Governments, and the San Jose Police officers.  Needless to say the public and by extension the local governments couldn't care less about my accusations of criminal activity of the police department.  To them, altering evidence to get the "Bad Guys" was the cop simply "creatively doing his/her job".  Also, due to its nature of being somewhat driven by the politics, the San Jose Police Administration itself apparently only cares that police who alter evidence don't actually get caught.

But to you San Jose police officers with integrity, those accusations struck right at the heart of the legitimacy and purpose of your job; a job you take very seriously.  To you it is important that accusations of criminal activity by police be checked out to see if there is any truth in them.  In other words, my billboard truck was creating a conflict between you Good Cops who wanted to air the truth and the Police Administration and City Government that wanted to keep the past hidden.

It is precisely because that billboard truck was having an having an effect and couldn't be ignored that it had to be shut down by any means possible.  The City Attorney then presented an absurd paranoid view of my Free Speech activates to make it look like I was a threat to Lt. Herbert and her co-workers in order to get a restraining order.  For details and legal arguments for that restraining order. click here.

An additional hearing was called on Friday January 28, 2005 for "Re-clarification" of my Restraining Order since that Order had not succeeded in squelching my accusations of Lt. Herbert (what with letters to her neighbors, etc.).  Lt. Herbert included a description of the continuing Harassment in an attachment.  To see that attachment in PDF format click here.  One of the important points brought up in that attachment is that she will be retiring soon (see below).  Another interesting point is that she refers to my repeatedly making accusations of her altering evidence but not once does she claim that the accusations are not true.  To see the transcripts of that hearing in PDF Format click here.

News Flash... Lt. Brenda Wells Herbert retired in February of 2005

  and has moved from her residence on Halkins Dr. in south San Jose where I had sent letters to her neighbors (PDF version here). 

I recently (in August of 2012) did a people search for her on a popular Search Web-site {} and came up with a reasonable address for her in Grass Valley, California.

Note: It only took two days of being on this web-site for the previous statement about Lt. Herbert's address being available on a search engine before that address was removed. For those Police Officers needing her address see below.

Now, I had targeted other San Jose Police Officers (i.e. Good Cops) in my campaign of spreading my accusations that Lt. Herbert and other Bad Cops in the San Jose Police Department have altered evidence to get convictions. Because of this it makes her look pretty guilty when she and the San Jose City Attorney stop my actions with a Work Place Restraining Order but avoid the obvious legal remedy of suing me for Defamation of Character.

They claimed I was Harassing Lt. Herbert at her work place but avoid at all costs any situation where I could cross examine her to prove my accusations are true. And of course a suit against me for Defamation of Character would give me the legal right to do just that. In short they had no problem with the accusations I was making (as if "Police altering of Evidence" is no big deal), only on how I was making them.

Now it could be argued that since I have no money or assets that could be taken in a legal suit, that a Defamation of Character law suit would not accomplish anything. But the reality is that Good Police Officers have earned respect for being honest, so that a Jury normally believes their testimony without question. But when I make these accusations of San Jose Police altering evidence, and those accusations are simply ignored and prospective jurors learn about that, they might start questioning whether or not the altering of evidence by police, and them lying about it, is a normal occurrence. The result is that the perceived integrity of all San Jose Police Officers is put in jeopardy.

What this all means is if Lt. Herbert ignores the requests of fellow police officers for her to sue me for Defamation of Character, it is in effect an admission by her of her guilt. If this is what is happening then Internal Affairs and DA Jeff Rosen would be interested in knowing about it.

One thing that you can do is to demand that Internal Affairs contact Lt. Herbert (Ret.) telling her that in order to appease fellow S.J. officers that think my accusations might be true, that she either take a polygraph test to show she was not involve in altering evidence, or to sue me for "Defemation of Character" or to request that the District Attorney charge me with makeing false allagations of Police.

Note that I have already asked Internal Affairs to send such a request to Lt. Herbert, but they refused to do so since she has already retired and the crimes I alledge she took part in were a long time ago. You might want to remind them that shortly after she committed those crimes, Lt. Herbert herself was assigned to Internal Affairs (probably to protect her from my accusations). No doubt there is some conflict of interest, in that decision since if the truth came out it wouldn't look good for the integrety of I.A. itself.

If you have any questions please email me (

Also email me if you would like Lt. Herbert's address. Include your name and badge number; also use an email address that contains your last name. Do not ask me for suggestions for how you should use that address, nor mention what your intentions are. As a police officer you should of course strictly follow the law.

  An e-mail sent to San Jose Police (CyberCop) explaining some of my past activities:

From: John Webster []          Date: Wed 1/5/05 12:57 PM
Subject: My recent activity toward San Jose Police -- explained.

CyberCop: Please forward this to Police Chief Robert L. Davis and to Assistant Chief Wheatley.

 The reason that I was driving my "Bad Cops" billboard truck around the Police Admin building and City Hall was first to try and embarrass the Police Department or City Government into doing a real investigation into my allegations, or if failing that to get them to charge me with making false allegations against San Jose Police, or at the very least to apply pressure on Lt. Brenda Herbert to sue me for Defamation of Character (by her co-workers questioning her integrity).  Either of the last two possible outcomes would allow me the right to subpoena Lt. Herbert's testimony under oath to get to the truth about that 1990 sting.  And of course all of my allegations about a unit of the San Jose Police and Lt. Herbert in particular, participating in Organized Criminal Activity during that sting are completely true. 

All of my previous Free Speech attempts were having no effect since the Public, news media, and Government all apparently see police who break the law themselves to get the supposed "bad guys" as simply them "creatively doing their job".  The Courts even look the other way.  And of course Government tolerates Free Speech only as long as it can be ignored.

The truth is that the "Bad Cops" billboard truck couldn't be ignored.  It was a real irritant to those Good Cops that wanted to be proud of their San Jose Police Department and wanted it to stand for high integrity.  The problem is that apparently even the current Police Administration knows about and approves of the illegal tactics used to get the "bad guys" in the past. .  Since the billboard truck was having the effect of putting the Police Admin on the spot about this past illegal activity, and my Free Speech could no longer be ignored it was taken away.  That is what the TRO was about, not some bogus threat of violence.

The legal arguments in the hearing and appeal of that Restraining Order are in PDF format on my web-site at URL:

After reading those arguments it should becomes obvious that the real threat that both Lt. Herbert and the City is afraid of is that she will be deposed under oath and be forced to talk about her involvement in that illegal 1990 sting.  Since this could open up potential liabilities for both the San Jose City and the Police I am sure they are not looking forward to that deposition. 

Another important aspect of my Free Speech involving that billboard truck (before the TRO was used to shut it down) was that after I had driven it around the Police Admin building for about three weeks I gave the then Police Chief Landsdowne a call asking for feedback.  After he got through telling me that I had lost it and was crazy, he told me that since Lt. Herbert was a public figure that I was free to say what ever I wanted to say on that truck.

This is not what I wanted to hear, since part of the reason for the truck was to make it obvious to her co-workers that she was guilty by her refusal to sue me for defamation of character.  What Chief Landsdowne was saying was that she couldn't sue me anyway since she was a public figure and I was exercising my Free Speech in the Public forum.

The only thing I could do then is take my Free Speech out of the public forum and take it directly to Lt. Herbert's own neighborhood.  That is why I had to determine where she lived; it was not so that I could better threaten or harass her.

In October of 2004 then since I had located Lt. Herbert's address on Halkins Dr. and had verified that she actually lived there, I sent a letter to all of her neighbors on that street to notify them of the crimes that she had committed.  The text of that letter is on my web-site at URL: 

Also on December 30 of this last year I telephoned her next door neighbor (the Xxxxxxx family, phone # 408-555-1234).  On that call I spoke with a young man about Brenda Herbert's criminal acts, and how power corrupts.  I mentioned my web-page URL so he could get more information.  He agreed with me that simply informing people about Lt. Herbert's illegal conduct was not "Harassment" since I was willing to prove my accusations in Court.  I was also careful to only give information and not to ask him to do anything with or because of that information (supposedly if I had that would be a violation of that Restraining Order, and I wouldn't want to do that.).  The man was on a first name basis with his neighbor Brenda; I wonder if he will have less respect for her from now on?

Okay, now I have done it.  I have given Lt. Brenda Herbert all the justification she needs to sue me for Defamation of Character.  Oh, but of course it's all true.  That could be quite a dilemma for her.  Will she just ignore her co-workers demands for her resignation?  Will she sue me and hope I don't catch her when she lies in a deposition?  Or will she fess up about her crimes?

This could be an interesting and exciting year for all of us.

Yours in Truth,

John H. Webster


Notes to CC recipients:

Mercury New: You will find it interesting to observe the responses of Lt. Herbert, the Police Admin, and the City Attorney to items mentioned in this email.  If they ignore it or try to make it out as a violation of my Restraining Order that pretty well means that are all co-conspirators.  The only legitimate response would be to accuse me of making false accusations against police (or of course to actually investigate my accusations).

S.J.P.O.A:  The Organized Criminal Activity done by a Unit of the San Jose Police Department in the past, and Lt. Herbert's part in that activity has a direct negative effect on the integrity (perceived and actual) of the San Jose Police Officers.  Your members have a lot at stake so I would expect your organization would want to insist that the Police Administration clean up its act and allow the truth to come out.




[Return using your Web Browser]

Or [Return to Main Menu] or [Site Map]

This HTML document was updated 1/01/2014 at 11:00 PM.