What's gone wrong with our Government and Society,

and how we can fix it.

The Major flaws in our Government:

1. Our Government has enforced the belief that it alone is the ultimate Moral Authority and that its Law is Sacred.  This is just not so, since there is nothing in place to require its laws to respect the difference between that which is owned by the group (the Public) and that which is owned by the Individual (i.e.: property and inalienable Rights).  The “Bill of Rights” in the US Constitution was originally written to do this (even it did not go far enough) but now even that is seen as only a historical document with little significance in today’s courts.

2. Because of the structure of our representative government, but without the safeguards to protect Rights and property of the Individual, various groups have had laws passed that give that group free benefits and Special Group Rights at the expense of others paying the bill and loosing their Individual Rights.  Over time this has resulted in the “Tyranny of the Politically Correct Majority” being enforced by our Government. 

Today, our Government is truly Evil.

  Return to Main Menu or Return using your Web-Browser or [Site Map]


Our Courts Enforcing Bad Laws - and giving themselves more power

One of the "built in" problems with a Democratic/Republic form of Government is the potential for that Government to become a "Tyranny of the Majority". Where the Politically Correct Majority imposes its will through laws that steal away the rights and property of the individual, in favor of supposed "Group Rights", or that impose the "values of the majority" onto individuals with different values.

Examples of this abound. A few years ago a law went into effect that made gas station owners supply "free air" to their customers; bars now have to be non-smoking establishments; and all kinds of establishments are now required to have facilities that cater to the "disabled" -- all installed at the owner's expense. After the facade of "fairness" is striped away, these laws are simply an example of "Political Might makes Right" and of the majority voting itself free benefits and making someone else pay the bill.

Other laws impose the "Politically Correct" method of raising our own children on us, equating raising children differently, to committing child abuse. For example, after I was raised in an environment where as a child even having sexual thoughts was evil, I would chose instead to raise my own children in a sexually liberal environment, perhaps even arranging for them to have pleasant sexual experiences. I would be doing this to be the best father that I could be, for them.

Yet for even talking about this I could be arrested, spend many years in prison, and be required to register as a "Sex Offender" for the rest of my life. My "talk/thought crime" would be seen as being as evil as if I had committed multiple violent rapes.

With all these examples of "Bad Law" it brings up the question of "What is Good Law?" What laws does the Government have the legitimate right to make?

To answer this question we have to look at how Government gets the jurisdiction over the items that it is trying to control. There are three basic categories here:

1. Where a person has given up their basic rights by having intentionally violated the rights of others (ie. by having killed, stolen, initiated violence). They have given society the right to treat them in kind. Laws that impose the "Will of the People" on the offender are totally justified.

2. Where Government is enforcing a "Rule of Liability". When an offender has been seen to have "damaged" a victim -- whether or not it was intentional, the offender can legitimately be forced by Government to make reasonable compensation to the victim.

Our Government has abused its powers in this category by not allowing people to "give up their rights" either before or after the offending incident. For example, a Bar owner should be able to have a disclaimer sign at the entrance warning patrons of the dangers of entering a smoke-filled room; or an informed customer should be able to sign a release of product liability for the supplier before making a purchase.

All too often, our Government, ignoring previously agreed-to contracts to the contrary, instead enforces so-called "fairness".

3. Where Government is managing "Public Property" it has the right to make "reasonable laws" restricting the use of that property so that it is not "abused" and so that all can best use that property. The traffic laws are a good example.

Again our Government has abused its powers in this category by expanding these laws to include private property that just has "Public Access". Resulting bad laws of this type enforce the same rules of conduct on patrons of a xxx-rated movie theater, as on people at a Public Park.

Other than these three categories there just is no legitimate excuse for Government control of things that the public -- that is, the group -- does not even own. Such things as "taxes" must be in a contractual agreement between the individual and the Government in exchange for benefits -- for example to maintain the benefits of citizenship.

When Our Government was founded the Constitution and Bill of Rights had specific items designed to restrict the powers of Government and to force it to acknowledge the pre-existing unalienable rights of the individual. For example the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution includes the statement "... nor shell private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Over the years our Government has come up with cute cleaver ways to get around the restrictions enumerated in the Bill or Rights, and to come up with exceptions that serve the "Powers that Be". Laws such as those already mentioned that take away control of property from the owner do so without regard for compensation to that owner.

  

These bad laws have led to the all too true joke that the "Bill of Rights is Void where prohibited by Law". A few weeks ago I personally ran into an example of this. The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that "Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of Speech"; the California Constitution has a similar statement. Yet, I was arrested for handing out a flyer near a courthouse. Seems that I have the right to speak freely unless and until I might actually influence someone.

The law that I supposed broke is penal code 169 which states: "Any person who pickets or parades in or near a building which houses a court of this state with the intent to interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice or with the intent to influence any judge, juror, witness, or officer of the court in the discharge of his duty is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Now the flyer I was handing out was giving information to citizens and prospective jurors about their rights and powers. Similar information should have been make available to them from the Court itself except that the Court has a conflict of interest since it itself benefits from having an uninformed jury.

Back to Menu


Jury Information -- Free Speech except when you might actually influence someone.

  

One of the checks on our government making Bad Law, is that juries can refuse to enforce that law. Unfortunately Courts and Judges go out of their way to make the jurors think that they have to uphold the law rather then seek Justice.

On May 21, 2001 at 8:30 in the morning while I was on the public sidewalk near (but not in front of) the Court House on Hedding Street, San Jose California, handing out the flyer displayed below. I was arrested for violating penal code #169, which states:

"Any person who pickets or parades in or near a building which houses a court of this state with the intent to interfere with, obstruct, or impede the administration of justice or with the intent to influence any judge, juror, witness, or officer of the court in the discharge of his duty is guilty of a misdemeanor."

This is a good example of how the Bill of Rights and Constitution are "Void where prohibited by law". In other words, we have freedom of speech just so long as we don't intend to actually influence anyone in Government. Of course I was not "Picketing or Parading" yet they were concerned that I might be influencing someone important.

Back to Menu Or return using your Web-Browser


Information for prospective Jurors

(i.e. -- US citizens who are registered to vote)

In a courtroom, the Jurors are in charge and are empowered to seek Justice. The Judge is there only to serve as administrator and adviser. However, over the years our courts, with the help of the State Legislature, has devised ways to steal back control from the Jurors and put it into the hands of the Judge who is sworn to "uphold the law" rather then to seek Justice. This difference between Justice and Law is important to understand since lately more and more laws ignore and/or violate the rights of the individual in favor of enforcing so called "Fairness", "Political Correctness" or "Cultural Standards".

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a Jury does have the right to question the law but that they can be legally kept in the dark about it so as to discourage their use of this power. As a result the courts now use questionnaires to try to weed out those jurors that know about this right. During the trial an attorney can even be cited with Contempt of Court if he so much as mentions to the jury that they have this power. For more information visit the Fully Informed Juror Association web-site: http://www.fija.org/

Once the jury is selected the judge then attempts to control what evidence that the jury even hears about. For example, where a defendant is facing a "Three Strikes" conviction that would result in an absurd amount of time in prison for a minor crime, the jury is purposely left uninformed. The hope is that they will only judge the "facts of the case" and blindly enforce the law rather then act to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

The Big Lie: "That Law is Sacred". That because someone "Broke the Law" gives the Justice System the moral right to put that person in prison or otherwise punish him or her. This just isn't so. More and more it is the law that is morally wrong and not the lawbreaker. Laws that fail to acknowledge the rights and property of the individual are simply Bad Laws and should be ignored by Juries in their search for Justice.

The Drug War: Controlling what people put in their own bodies. These laws are about things that the "Public" doesn't even own therefore has no right to enforce on the individual. Only if the drug user/seller was initiating violence or was on public property while "drunk and disorderly", or operating a vehicle while under the influence, does the public have the jurisdiction to enforce these laws. Even then the punishment must be consistent with the crime -- say, comparable to that for the misuse of alcohol.

Because the punishment for possessing or transporting a "Controlled Substance" on public property is so completely out of proportion to what at most should only be a "ticketed infraction", the Juror may choose to find the defendant "Not Guilty".

The Witch-Hunt: Catching the Child Molester. Yes, people that commit Sexual Assault/Rape against a child should be put away forever. However some people charged with molesting a child are really only guilty of "Inappropriate Affection". This is particularly the case if the instigator is someone close to the child such as a parent, sibling, uncle, or teacher. The "Harm" supposedly done is in introducing that child to the pleasures of sexual contact at too early an age; this could result in the child becoming sexually active in their teenage years, having many sexual partners, and not fitting into our monogamous Christian culture.

While some punishment would be appropriate in these cases, the punishment resulting from a "Guilty" verdict is again so far out of proportion to the real crime of "Custodial Interference" that a juror may choose to find the defendant "Not Guilty" just to avoid a miscarriage of Justice.

Fact: Police Falsify Evidence and lie in Sworn Statements. After the police decide who is guilty, they don't trust a jury to reach the same decision so they "stack the deck" against the defendant by blatantly lying under oath and falsifying evidence. Recent examples where the police where actually caught include LA Rampart division and Oakland Police corruption.

The police know that the judge will usually look the other way and at most will simply disallow the evidence. In reality evidence tampering is a far more heinous crime then that committed by many of the defendants the police are witnessing against.

Example:

San Jose Police and Fed's commit Organized Criminal Activity. Back in 1990 the San Jose Police in cahoots with the US Postal Inspection Service ran an illegal entrapment sting that was blatantly active. Before they could bring charges against the victims of this scam for certain talk/thought crimes, they had to remove much of the undercover policewoman's talk (her solicitations, encouragement, fantasies, etc.) from the evidence tapes so as to make her out as only a passive listener.

In one such case, Officer Brenda Herbert of the SJPD even provided voiceovers to help an edited portion of conversation fit in better with the original conversation. Later in a sworn statement she says that the tapes were not altered in any fashion (as if a police officer that altered evidence would actually admit it), and sites her long service in the police department as proof. Judge Daniel Creed of the SCC Superior Court then used her statement as justification as to why he would not allow the tapes to be analyzed by a forensic expert for proof of alteration. He had to know he was covering up for Bad Cops.

In Summation: A Juror has the Right to question the law (and can decide to do this even after answering a questionnaire to the contrary) and has the Duty to stop a miscarriage of justice. Also, if a juror strongly suspects that a police officer has lied, or has planted, altered or hidden evidence then the defendant needs to be found "Not Guilty" simply to stop police from using these tactics in the future.

The major threats to our freedoms come not from the occasional lawbreaker that goes free but from the corrupt Legislature, Judge and Police Officer that continue to subvert our Justice System into a Police State.

This paper has been written by: John Webster -- Libertarian Activist

See web-site http://www.JWebster.com for more information.

Back to Menu


A Guilty Verdict -- No Free Speech for unpopular ideas or when asking others to break the Law.

On November 30, 2001 I was found guilty of one count of violating penal code #169. While at this point I have had no feedback as to what went on in the jury deliberation room, certain ideas came up in the DA's arguments.

-- Since Mr. Webster agreed that he handed out his flyers at three different places near the courthouse that morning, so he must have walked to get between these places. Therefore he met the criteria of penal code #169 of parading.

-- Several places in the flyer ask the potential juror to judge whether the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime committed. The "Law" states that a juror is not allowed to consider the punishment. Therefore the flyer was asking the potential juror to break the law.

 --

Back to Menu


 A Mobile Billboard -- A cheap way of saying what you want to say.

Billboard Truck in front of SJ Police

The above mobile billboard was designed to prove to the public that the allegations I have made against Lt. Herbert and the San Jose Police are in fact true. Lt. Brenda Herbert of course knows that my allegations against her are correct and would be afraid to sue me. If the SJ Police and the City of San Jose refuse to sue me it will show that they both are aware that such a suit would backfire; that would make them both parties of the ongoing cover-up.

I am currently being kept from driving this truck around the San Jose Police Administration building and City Hall by a Restraining Order. For details go to Restraining Order page.

   

The City of San Jose is alleging that I was Harassing Lt. Brenda Herbert with this truck.  But of course the billboard truck has been for notifying her co-workers and other police officers about her criminal past.  Such activity is protected Free Speech where Lt. Herbert’s legitimate response would be to sue Mr. Webster for slander.  Guess what folks; all the accusations are true.

   

Back to Menu

 


  

A Mailer to the Family/Neighbors -- When they ignore messages to the Public.

It is becoming obvious that the City of San Jose, the Police Department, and Lt. Brenda Herbert herself couldn't care less what the public believes so I will be attempting to inform people in the Herbert and Wells family directly of Brenda's evil deeds. Hopefully there will be someone who receives it that will be able to apply family pressure on Lt. Herbert to "Do the right thing."

PDF version of mailer for Herbert or Wells residence.

It turns out that the actual address of Lt. Brenda Herbert was available from the SCC Assessors office where their database is accessible to the public.

PDF version of letter to Lt. Herbert’s neighbors.  This letter was carefully written so as to inform the neighbors of Lt. Herbert’s past criminal activity, without actually Harassing her.  Clearly her recourse would be to bring a defamation action against Mr. Webster.  Guess what folks; all the accusations are true.

Back to Menu


This file updated on May 28, 2005 at 8:30 PM