John Webster for 13th State Senate (CA) -- 2020

There is a movement within the Libertarian Party that believes that the only way to get our candidates elected is for them to appear to the public to be more mainstream and less threatening of the status quo.  I am NOT part of that movement. I steadfastly stick to the basic ethical principles of the Libertarian Party even when those views are counter to the Majority's views.

Foremost I wish to share with the voters that I realize that Socialism, currently promoted by the Democratic candidates and legislators, destroys communities by financially punishing success and entrepreneurship through taxes and regulations, and in turn by rewarding failure/dependence through “free” handouts. In effect our Government now has too much democracy/majority-rule and not enough preserving of the Right to be Different.

This idea that the rich and successful can be taxed to pay for all the "needs" of the many (freeloaders?) doesn't work because those people that normally work to produce and succeed, give up fighting the system and just switch to taking the "free" handouts to survive. In effect the source of that "extra" free money disappears until everyone is equally poor.

I am quite aware that we are critically close to loosing all of our precious freedoms.  Our country's freedom is already little more than a facade covering a Dictatorship elected by the politically correct majority.  I know what needs to be done to restore our Government to being the Servant of the people not their Master.


Main Menu

E-Mail address of John Webster: <>

Return to main Web-Site   or   [Site Map]

Response to San Jose Mercury News Article

In the 2004 SJMN article "Vote count worries Libertarians" admittedly Dan Stober could have done far worse in presenting the facts. However there were some statements that I made to Mr. Stober that were taken out of context in that article that I believe need to be corrected. Otherwise the public will have the incorrect view of myself, libertarian philosophy, and the Libertarian Party.

First, the primary point that I made in my phone call with Mr. Stober that somehow never made it to the article is this: That Parents are the ones that should be deciding how to raise their own children, including deciding what level of exposure to sexual matters is appropriate, not the legislature or the Public at large.

I further stated that much of the law against inappropriate interaction with children needs to be replaced with laws against "Custodial Interference". This would allow the parents to decide what is appropriate, and make it illegal for even Government to interfere.

The statement I made about allowing "teenagers to have sex with parents and adult neighbors" was taken out of context. I actually had given that situation as an example of when society might want to jump in to remove the parents parenting rights. The parent's interaction with the child must always be for the benefit of the child. One can not at the same time be both a good parent and a good lover; the goals of each are just too much in conflict.

An important libertarian truth is that we get our Rights of Self-Ownership because of our ability to have independent thought and because those thoughts have the ultimate control over our bodies. A clear result of this truth is that when children reach the point of asserting their own independence they then have demonstrated that the above applies to them; they therefore have acquired those Rights.

I did state that if a teenager has gone to the extent of contacting an adult through the Internet, and arranging a meeting for consensual sex that the teenager pretty obviously was asserting their independence. Laws against this type of interaction then are in direct violation of the teenager’s newly acquired Rights of Self-Ownership.

One thing that we all agree on is that sexual interaction between an adult and a child/teenager is risky and that the adult must be held accountable for any resulting harm, be it emotional or physical.

This issue about the freedom that parents should have in raising their own children in sexual matters is but a footnote in my campaign. On other issues I am extremely well versed in libertarian theory and in how we need to change our Government so that it does not self-destruct. Other candidates like Michael Laursen are not as well prepared as I am in pushing to fix our Government and restore our freedoms.

John H. Webster,

Libertarian Candidate for 13th State Senate.


Back to main menu.


13th State Senate district -- district boundaries

In general, the 13th California senatorial district lies in Santa Clara County and makes up most of what is referred to as "Silicon Valley". It includes the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, a major portion of San Jose (northern portion), and Gilroy (but not Morgan Hill).

Map derived from CalVoters Map

Since I am representing a philosophical viewpoint (personal freedom) more than a specific region (Santa Clara County), I welcome questions, concerns, and of course, donations of time and money from all that share the values expressed on these Web pages.

Back to main menu.

Biography of John Webster

Born in March of 1945 in Los Angeles area, attended high school in Redondo Beach California. Served in the US Navy from 1964 to 1968, including time in Vietnam arena. Married upon getting out of the service. In 1972 Received a BSEE from University of Washington. Worked for a number of high tech companies in the San Francisco bay area. In 1980 received a MSCS from University of Santa Clara. Now divorced with two grown children.

Discovered the Libertarian Party in 1978, have been active ever since. Ran for 13th State Senate in 1992 and received 8% of the vote in a three-way race.

Detailed Biography

Back to main menu.

Fixing the Basic Problems -- Forcing Government to respect the Rights of Individuals.


There are two main "must fix" problems that will require major changes to our state (and also Federal) government to fix.

The first problem is the tendency for the legislature to pass laws over things and rights that the group (i.e.. the "People") does not even own. This is a form of "Political Might makes Right"; where the "Tyranny of the Majority" is inflicted on the Individual with different values. These are truly immoral and sometimes even evil acts done for the supposed good of the Public. It's like if everyone in my household voted to use the neighbor's swimming pool. Its not ours to vote on. Even giving the neighbor his one vote doesn't make it right.

The solution is that every law (both old laws and newly enacted ones) must be categorized by the type of moral justification for our Government even having the Right and Jurisdiction to make such a law. A particular law would then automatically acquire the limitations of that category. Any law that could not be placed in one of the following categories would have to be repealed.

The category types:

  1. Against acts of violence, killing, or stealing. Here the perpetrator has given up their own rights and after he/she is found guilty the system can pretty well do what ever it wants to them. The only limit is that the act must have been intentional (accidents are covered in category #2) and the punishment should fit the crime.
  2. Enforcing rules of liability. Where a perpetrator either with intent or by accident, damages another's property or person then the perpetrator can be forced by government to pay for the damage done. An important limit on this is that there really must be a victim that accepts that role (or who was killed and therefore assumed to take that role). There is a whole slew of laws against "Victimless Crimes" that would not pass this test. Also, if the supposed victim and the perpetrator reach a settlement out of court then that settlement should replace any punishment mandated by the law.
  3. Where Government has taken on the management of Public Property for the public’s use. It has the right to make reasonable rules and restrictions on the use of that managed property so that the value to the Public is not destroyed by the abuse of the few. Traffic laws over public roads are an example. The limits are that laws must be "Reasonable and Necessary" for preserving the value to the Public.

Please note that this category does NOT include laws over private property that only has Public Access. Also note that "Seatbelt and Helmet laws" do not legitimately fall in this category since they were not written to prevent the abuse to the public from the individual’s actions but only to prevent the individual from endangering him/herself.

  1. Internal Rules governing how Government Agencies run their own business. Okay, there really is no reason (other than efficiency and good management practices) why Government Agencies cannot require "Fairness and Equal Opportunity" in there own hiring and employment practices. Unfortunately, in part because of the political influence of Public Employee Unions, the Agencies end up paying way too much in salaries and benefits.


Please note that there is NOT a category for enforcing "Fairness Laws" other than in category #4 above. Also Drug laws and laws against prostitution could only be enforced over Public Property and public roads (i.e. category #3 above). Private property could only be included in those laws at the request and expense of the owner of that property (i.e. an apartment complex could be deemed a "No Drug Zone" by its owner; the tenants having signed an agreement accepting this restriction).


The second problem is that people that have had their Rights violated by the System of Government Agencies have no recourse; they have no way to have their grievances redressed by Government. Currently only when enough people in a particular group (i.e. Blacks, Hispanic, gays, women) get their Rights violated by a law, does that law get modified or repealed. This has led to "Group Rights" (i.e. Group Privileges) being enforced instead of and many times even at the expense of the Rights of the Individual.

The average citizen of California and the USA pays taxes and expects those governments to protect his/her property and personal Rights. Often though it is those governments themselves that violate the property and personal Rights of the citizen.

In the Free Market, if a customer has a complaint about a product that was purchased at some store, say Macy’s, that store will normally go out of its way to make the customer happy. It does this because it knows that it doesn’t automatically get the customer’s money but instead has to earn it. This is not the case for both our State and Federal Governments that see the taxpayer as an asset to fleece instead of a customer to serve.

A solution would be to allow a citizen to not pay taxes for those years that he can convince a jury in court that one of following occurred:

    1. If the Rights of the citizen were violated by an agency of that government. Imagine the IRS or Franchise Tax Board agents checking up on other State/Federal agencies to make sure that they treat the citizen with respect and that they don’t violate the citizen’s Rights.
    2. If the taxes required of that citizen were far in access of the benefits received. Even the wealthy must be able to expect to get their moneys worth from their taxes. Too often the payer of the tax is not the one who benefits from the services paid for by the tax; this is wrong.
    3. If the taxes received from that citizen would be used by the government to commit an act that is morally reprehensible to that citizen. At a Federal level this might occur when taxes are used to finance an attack on another sovereign nation or to pay for abortions, etc.

With this change of tax law it wouldn’t take very many cases of citizens having their tax liability suspended before the responsible Government Agency would be "called on the carpet" to explain its actions. This also would provide the negative feedback that would reduce the occurrences of tax abuse by the Government.

Back to main menu.


Our Government gone bad

The basic problems are a manifestation of the mindset of our Government legislature and even of much of the public, that sees a Government elected by the people (i.e. our Government) as the highest form of moral authority. Therefore supposedly, its authority, its laws and mandates are not to be questioned. NOT!

We must require our Government to conform to a higher moral authority. In other words stealing rights and property away from the individual is still evil even when it is done by a majority vote of the public.

Our Bill of Rights was supposed to keep our Government from violating those rights or stealing property from the individual. However over the last ten years, our "Justice" system has perfected its techniques for getting around literally every provision of our Bill or Rights. This has allowed our government legislatures to enact more and more laws that define the relationship between the Government and the People as that between a master and its slaves. What has resulted is a supposedly "Benevolent" Police State enforcing laws of Politically Correctness.

Back to main menu.

The Big Lie - "That LAW is sacred...

... and that since it was created by a representative government it represents the "Will of the People" and therefore the Government has the moral right to enforce that law at the point of a gun, the right to initiate violence against even peaceful people who would choose to ignore the law".

The truth is that even our government must be held to basic moral principals. That it can not be allowed to violate the natural right of an individual simply because it used "Due Process". Only when an individual has violated the natural rights of another does he give up his own rights to life, liberty, and property thereby giving government the right to have their way with him. In all other cases where our government and its law enforcement agencies have incarcerated or killed people or confiscated their property it is our government that is the evil villain, and those of us that have stood silently on the sidelines are accessories to that evil action.

The forefathers of our government set up a system of checks and balances with three competitive branches: a legislative, executive(law enforcement), and judicial; to slow down the process by which that government would infringe on the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, these branches of government while quarreling between themselves about who gets the biggest piece of the power pie, have reached an agreement on all wanting a bigger pie.

In addition both the legislative and judicial branches of government have come to realize that it is only through the real power of law enforcement agencies that their own edicts get any real teeth. So over time the legislature and courts have established a supposedly "benevolent" police state. They have given the police more and more power to give them the ability to enforce the latest laws that are more and more an invasion of individual rights.

This process has proceeded to the point where our Bill of Rights is now little more than a historical artifact. The police now are free to use active entrapment to enforce victimless crimes law where their would be no victim to make a complaint. Gun laws have gotten tighter and tighter, and the police get looser and looser restrictions on being able to search and confiscate those weapons by which the people could fight back. Laws requiring the carrying of an identity card have gotten stronger where lack of identification is now enough to detain a person. The cards themselves are carrying magnet strips that allow police to easily locate an individual's records within a government data base. And of course Law enforcement agencies are now even rewarded for enforcing the law with their cut of the loot from asset forfeiture.

The assault at Waco Texas was simply a test enforcement to see whether or not the propaganda had succeeded in convincing the general public that "Law is sacred". Testing as to whether or not the people will stand by and allow the continued escalation of government power even when it involves the killing of children. To add insult to injury, the survivors at Waco of course were charged with murdering their attackers for having shot back.

The biggest proof that law is not sacred is that the law enforcement agencies themselves blatantly disregard the law. In my own experience I have seen the courts look the other way when police altered evidence and where the courts would even seal documents to hide police illegal activity. There just is no incentive for the people in the system to bring charges against a police officer that is seen by them as doing his job -- that of enforcing government control. The police see the laws not as something that applies to them but only as tools of their trade to be used and misused against socially undesirable people and against people that threaten or ignore the power base of the established legislative, judicial, and law enforcement branches of government.

Our Government now has only a thin facade of legitimacy remaining, we must strip away that facade and expose the corrupt center -- the lust for power. We then must systematically strip away all of its unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust power so that it once again is the servant of the people not their master; so that it again protects the rights of the individual instead of violating those rights.

Back to "Government gone bad" menu

Our Government's Dirty Little Secret

Don't bother asking your congressman, your mayor, the police, or your city newspaper. They know it but they are the ones that are actively hiding it from you. They have too much invested in the status quo to tell you the truth.

Instead ask the survivors of the Waco Siege; ask Randy Weaver or the widow of Donald Scott. Ask anyone whose life has been destroyed or whose family has been forever torn apart by an anonymous tip and overzealous police. Or you could ask me about my personal experience.

What we will tell you is that today in the United States, individuals no longer have any rights at all. Our Bill of Rights is now little more than a historical artifact; the remnants of an experiment long ended.

What we have left is a supposedly "benevolent" police state enforcing laws of political correctness. Today judges look the other way when police falsify evidence to get the "bad" guys. Today undercover police use active entrapment to efficiently catch the potential criminal for violating thought crimes supposedly before he would break the law on his own and do real damage. Today, the public defender's real job is to get you to accept a plea bargain and to make you feel good about it even though you are innocent.

Technically, the Bill of Rights and our other Federal and State constitutional "protections" are still there but the federal, state and local law enforcement agencies can simply use procedure that circumvents them. For example, by working with a Federal crime task force the local police can use the Feds to get around certain State laws designed to protect the innocent - The Federal agency being immune to State law. The Feds might hold on to evidence that the police don't want to reveal in response to the defendants motion of discovery in a State court. Furthering "Justice" through the hiding of evidence, interesting concept.

Another trick of police is the use of a "Confidential Informant". This concept was supposedly created to allow the sealing of court documents that contain the name of an informant whose life would be placed in danger if his identity came out in court. It later was expanded to allow the details of any "on going investigation" to remain hidden. Today, it is used to hide all kinds of illegal police activity that they don't want the public to know about.

For example, when the police want authorization for a search warrant, wire tap, or arrest warrant they simply make up a fictitious reason, include the name of the "confidential informant" (who really is just another police officer) who supplied the information, then get a sympathetic judge to seal it. The warrant is authorized yet the lies in the document will never see the light of day, much less ever be questioned. [see Sealed Documents]

One of the most powerful tools of our police in their "War against Crime" is the ability to alter evidence and get away with it. If the police "know" that a person is guilty but don't have the evidence, instead of letting him go free they would much rather manufacture the needed evidence. The "Justice" system looks at the police officer who does this as simply "Creatively doing his job".

And finally, the keystone that allows all of these blatant violations of our rights to go on unchecked, the infamous plea bargain. Imagine yourself, the victim of an illegal police entrapment scam, arrested for committing thought crimes. As a defendant you have been denied a reasonable bail and kept in jail because the charges are so heinous (you are considered a threat to society) and you would most likely flee. You have been kept in jail now for almost a year waiting for your trial, what with various motions and extensions of time on advice from your public defender.

Now comes the moment of truth, if you went to trial you would be facing over ten years in prison; or you could accept a plea bargain and be home tonight (somehow you would no longer be a threat to society, I guess). You know you're innocent but you also know the police have fabricated evidence and lied under oath and you don't know whether or not you can prove it.

Our "Justice" system depends on the defendant accepting the plea bargain, not just to prevent a flood of defendants going to trial, but to allow the violations of the rights of the defendants to be covered up. With the acceptance of the plea bargain the defendant looses his rights of "Discovery", the sealed documents can remain hidden, the police can hold onto and eventually destroy altered evidence, and the unconstitutional laws and procedure used to catch the "criminal" of thought crimes can remain untested in higher court.

And most important, the police and our "Justice" system can show off their high conviction rate to the public making it easier for the police to get those additional laws in place that would give them still more power to better enact their form of "Justice".

Back to "Government gone bad" menu

Needed changes to the Laws:

What I will work toward, when elected.

Back to main menu

Proportional Representation:

Better representation of ideas and values.

In California (and in Washington DC) we have two "houses" of representatives that are both based on district "Winner take all" elections. The result is a legislature that does a fair job of representing the majority of each district only on questions of regional importance.

The failure of this system is that many of the most important questions that our legislature faces have nothing to do with regions, but instead have to do with philosophy and values. Examples abound: Death Penalty, Abortion, Drug laws, Government control of the market place, etc,.

As an example,

say that 30% of the population is against the Death Penalty. Since this issue has very little to do with regions, approximately 30% of the voters in each district would be against the Death Penalty. During times that this issue was a "Hot topic" each candidate would be forced to come down on one side or the other on it, and all candidates that represented the minority view in each district would be defeated. The result would be that no candidates would be elected that represented the minority view.

The State Legislature would then proceed to make laws concerning this critical issue with not one representative voicing the view of 30% of the people.

The solution...

is for one of the houses in the Legislature to be by proportional representation. For example, each major group that had a different political view would form a political party that would run state wide. Then when some group/party got 10% of the vote state wide, they would end up filling 10% of the representatives of that house of the Legislature thereby at least getting a voice in the legislative process. The elections would no longer be "Winner take all" and more people would vote their conscience rather than for the lessor of two evils.

I would further propose that before any bill would become law that it would have to get a super-majority (two thirds) in one house of the legislature, and only have to get a simple majority in the other. In practice this would mean that a bill of regional significance would have to do well in the house elected "by district"; a bill of philosophical significance would have to do well in the "proportional" house.

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

Child Abuse Laws:

Put sanity into these laws gone berserk.

Whenever Government has a mandate from the "people" to solve a problem, it will always seek the "solution" that gives itself the most control over peoples lives (ie. that takes away the most freedom from the people). The "Child Abuse Problem" is a case in point. By looking at the situation as one problem -- Child Abuse --, it has been able to enforce the standards and values of the most conservative family culture (ie. the religious right) on all of us.

In the real world, there are actually two overlapping problems. The first is real actual child abuse that should be a severely punished crime regardless of who commits it. The second is the crime of "Gross Custodial Interference", where a person would be punished for (and/or be liable for damages resulting from) his exposing someone else's children to something that the parent sees as totally inappropriate (paddling, nudity, pornography, light sexual experiences, different religion, etc.).

With this change in the law, different families would have the right to have different standards and different values. Parents would regain the right to raise their children as they believe to be best, and Government agencies could be held accountable when they inappropriately interfere into a family.

Child Pornography:

The original justification for punishing a person who purchased (or possessed) kiddy porn, was that he was supporting an industry that abused children to produce the pictures. Once those laws were in place, they were used to severely punish people that took or enjoyed pictures of teenagers in sexy poses, etc.. In other words, those laws were used to enforce our culture's standard of what is an appropriate depiction of children, even where there was no real "Child Abuse" involved.

The Law Enforcement agencies should be going after the people that committed the original abuse, if indeed there was actual abuse, and not wasting time and tax payer's money on enforcing what amounts to "thought" crimes.

These laws must be changed to reflect a strict interpretation of what constitutes real Child Abuse, and the punishment should be consistent with the real crime (ie. aiding an industry that commits child abuse), perhaps a minor fine with the money going to fight child abuse, and confiscation of the pictures (as evidence).

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

The Drug Laws: null and void on private property.

It is said that if we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. Somebody should send excerpts of history books, relating to the Prohibition Era, to our politicians and government leaders. Prohibition doesn't work. You have a tremendous lose of life, a huge amount of money dumped down a bottomless hole, and corruption rampant at all levels of government and law enforcement.

Our Government has used the "War on Drugs" as an excuse for the waging of war against both the citizens of the US and of neighboring countries. It has become justification for invalidating much of our "Bill of Rights", and for spending huge amounts of tax payer's money on law enforcement, courts, and the prison system. Come to think of it, maybe they have read their history books.

While government might have some legitimate concerns on how sellers, buyers, and users of drugs conduct their business on public property (being the recognized manager of public property), it has absolutely no justification for controlling this consensual activity on private property. I therefore will work to change the State Drug laws to only apply to public property. I further believe that concerning the immoral Federal drug laws, that State Law Enforcement agencies should actively intercede to protect the personal and property rights of California citizens, that are obeying state law, from attacks by Federal agencies (DEA, etc.)

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

The Gun Laws: restore the right of self-defense.

After reading the complicated laws concerning the possession of Fire Arms, I have come to the conclusion that the possession of a gun, concealed or not, loaded or not, should never be a crime (except as a condition of probation for a previous crime).

The current gun laws are an attempt to disarm us, to make us dependent on the police for our personal protection. Yet we can not even sue the police when they fail to protect us since the courts have ruled that the primary job of the police is not our protection, but the enforcement of the laws.

What this means, is that the real purpose behind the political agenda to disarm us is to make us easier to control. These laws are not in place to "take guns away from the criminal" or to "reduce accidents at home" or to "reduce suicides", as our governments P.R. would have you believe. These laws are for only one reason. They are so that when the government sends out its "law enforcers" to haul you into jail for committing "thought" crimes or for being Politically Incorrect, or when they try to take your property away, that you won't be able to shoot back.

I love my country, but I fear the Government.

We have a reason to fear the Government that fears our guns.

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

The Accused:

Restore real Justice to what is now only a facade.

The following items come from personal experience [See The Scam] :

Concerning the Public Defender:

The Public Defender and the defendant must be "co-counsel" by default, with the public defender also being the defendant's legal assistant. This would mean that the defendant must have the right to be present at all meeting where the public defender is "representing" him; he must be copied on all memos and court documents involving his case and have the facilities to submit his own court motions, etc.. He must also be informed of all pertinent evidence and given reasonable opportunity to analyze that evidence.

Concerning the Plea Bargain:
Concerning amount of Bail Bonds:

Where charges, that are later found to be without merit, were added against the defendant to simply raise the amount of the bail, the prosecuting agency shall be libel to the defendant for an amount equal to the market value of the interest (typically 10%) on the increase of the bail amount resulting from the frivolous charges. This liability shall be imposed regardless of whether or not the defendant posted the bond or remained in jail.

Concerning police altering evidence:

Where evidence has been held by police, the defense may, at their expense, request a polygraph examination by a licensed polygraph examiner, of the police officers involved, concerning the authenticity of collected evidence. The results of that examination, or the refusal of a police officer to take such an examination to be admissible as evidence.

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

The Marriage Contract: not a Government creation.

A marriage ceremony is when two people stand before their god and the leaders of their church, and in the presence of their friends and community, to declare their commitment to each other and most importantly (from the community's perspective), to declare their commitment to raising their expected offspring according to the values of that church, and of that community. After the ceremony, a formal contract is signed by the bride and groom attesting to these commitments. That contract is then filed with the local county recorder.

Aside from the legitimate concern of the community/government that someone legally accept the responsibility for the caring of any children that come out of this union (so that the community as a whole doesn't have to), the Government should have nothing to say about what actually is in that marriage contract. It's only part in this consensual agreement is to help in its enforcement.

In many ways, the Government should treat this contract just like it treats an agreement between any two business partners starting up a business. That marriage contract could establish rules that cover ownership, duties and responsibilities, divorce issues (property division, child custody and support), and inheritance. And then anything agreed to in that contract should then supersede any standard default provision established by the Government.

Our Government also should have nothing to say about who enters into such a consensual agreement (other than that both parties must be able to comprehend the meaning of the contract), in the same way that it should have nothing to say about who enters into a business agreement. Our Government instead has grossly interfered in the marriage agreement by establishing coercive mandates, thereby enforcing its own Politically Correct standards on couples and communities with different values.

I will work to remove these coercive Government mandates in this and all contracts.

Back to "Needed Changes" menu

Taking back our rights - how you can help

By contributing

to the "John Webster for State Senate" campaign. Contributions are not tax deductible; campaign laws require that I ask for your occupation and employer's name. For other options see "Financial aid", otherwise send your generous political contributions to:

          John Webster for State Senate
          809-B Cuesta Dr. #167
          Mountain View CA  94040

By writing

to the fore-person of the Santa Clara County Grand Jury. State that you have seen John Webster's Web Site with his accusations of police misconduct [See "The Scam"]. Demand that the Grand Jury look into these accusations. I already have written them and they have rejected my request to investigate [See "Failure of Grand Jury"]. We need enough of a public outcry to force them to investigate. As an alternate, demand that John Webster be charged with making False Accusations of Police misconduct. Such a charge would give me the right to call witnesses to prove my case.

          Civil Grand Jury 
          191 North First Street
          San Jose, CA 95113

By sharing

this information with others. Information on this Web Site may be reproduced only in complete logical units (ie. speeches, evidence, letters, etc., must be reproduced in whole). All links to this Web Site are appreciated.

Back to main menu

This HTML document was revised on 4/12/08 at 11:21 PM.