The Wolves vs. The
Over Ron Branson's eighteen
years of experience in litigating with various corrupt government agencies,
Lockheed Martin, as an agent for the City of Los Angeles, was one of them. Most
people in Los Angeles think that when they receive a so-called "parking ticket,"
that it is the City of Los Angeles they are dealing with. They become shocked to
hear that they are actually paying over their hard-earned money to a
for-profit private corporation with stockholders on the New York Stock Exchange.
Here is how this mess developed. It
used to be that the City did its own dirty work and collected all the money from
the meters for the supposed upkeep of the city. However, as any conniving
operation would do, they began to think of ways in which they would do none of
the work and collect the same amount of money.
Remember, we are not talking here
about either right or wrong, but purely profits. You see, every property owner
legally owns their property out to the middle of the street, and only surrenders
an easement portion of their property for public use to pass
Enters now the city and sets up
"business" via meters on the owner's easement property and begins to
conduct for-profit business, otherwise known as a "fine." And who gets the
profits of this business? Is it the owner of the property who has
surrendered part of his property for this exclusive right of an easement?
No! The city steals the owner's profits by a fraud scheme that looks
legal, and gives the owner of the land nothing.
Keep in mind that there is an
enormous difference between passage of right-of-way, and stopping to do business
on private property. For example, an easement to the power company to pass
electrical wires over your land does not authorize the power company to set
up a concession stand on your property.
So now we have the city going into
the business of making money off your land, but they don't wish to attend
to that business. So they enter a contract with a private corporation in
which they raise the "fine" by double, and then agrees to split the bootie with
the corporation who takes half, and does all the work. The objective is
for the city to do none of the work, but collect half of the
profits on something that does not belong to them.
Some of you will be surprised to know
that most all large cities in America are also conduct this same scam. And
here you thought you owed your ticket money, and paid it to a municipality that
owned the property.
Below is an account of two thieves,
neither of whom justly are owned anything, fighting over the take.
I am probably less that one in a
million persons in America who has tested a this parking ticket
scam all the way up to the United Supreme Court twice, both state and
federal. It started out when I received in the U.S. mail a demand for $55 for
allegedly parking on their property. I told them that I was going to let them
off cheap, and that they were going to settle this matter with me by paying
me $2,000 and writing a letter of apology. They said "No! Sue me." So
I sued them. The matter went on for five years, and when the case
ended, Lockheed Martin had spent over $100,000 in attorney's fees. I knew what
their concern was. It was not the $55 parking ticket, but the precedent of my
destroying their entire parking ticket scam forever. For that, they would spend
millions to keep it going.
So enjoy the published story below re
The Wolves vs. The Jackals fighting over who gets the biggest slab of
meat off the suckers, (I mean the prey.)
Parking Windfall Angers Officials
Los Angeles authorities say the city did not receive its fair share of fines
collected by two firms. One contractor is $20 million richer.By Patrick
Times Staff Writer
February 1, 2005
In 1998, city
officials struck a deal to split the money from a new fine on scofflaws with the
firm that collected parking ticket payments. But for seven years, city officials
failed to ask for their share. Now, the firm is $20 million richer and city
officials want the windfall back.
But it may be too late.
city Department of Transportation has negotiated a tentative settlement with
Affiliated Computer Services, which took over the contract three years ago from
a unit of Lockheed. But Robert Andalon, a department official, said the deal may
provide the city with only "several million dollars" in free
Elected city officials are angry that the lapse went
uncorrected for seven years and the full amount may not be
"The loss of these kinds of public funds is staggering," said
Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the City Council's Transportation
Committee, which will take up the proposed settlement next week. Villaraigosa
said transportation officials failed to follow procedures.
The head of
the city union that represents parking ticket officers said the mix-up should
lead the city to take over the collection of its parking fines, so the city can
keep all of the money.
"We'll see an international company give something
back to the city? In my lifetime?" asked Julie Butcher, leader of Service
Employees International Union Local 347. "This is money that went to line
Lockheed's pockets instead of lining the streets with asphalt."
is related to a contract approved in 1997 by the City Council with Lockheed
Information Management Services to process and collect parking citations. The
contract was taken over in 2002 by Affiliated Computer Services, which bought
the information management unit from Lockheed.
In 1998, a city parking
administrator approved an amendment to the contract to give Lockheed more
incentives for collecting delinquent parking tickets.
amendment, Lockheed was allowed to collect an 18% special collections fee on the
fines taken in when the city seized a vehicle having five or more unpaid
Under the agreement, Lockheed could keep up to $2.5 million,
but would provide services to the city for revenue over that amount, said Wayne
K. Tanda, general manager of the Department of Transportation.
said the department never required Lockheed to provide any additional services,
leaving Lockheed with $20 million or more in extra cash. And the city paid
Lockheed $2.3 million for additional services that should have been covered by
An internal investigation found that the City Council,
not transportation officials, had the authority to approve the agreement. Tanda
said that because of that, the deal was not legally binding.
the lapse on "a loss of continuity of key DOT staff." He said the parking
administrator who approved the deal retired shortly afterward, as did one of his
key assistants. A second parking administrator retired a year later.
fourth parking administrator saw the agreement and raised alarms a few years
"When she became aware of the letter of agreement
she consulted with the city attorney's office and was advised that [it] was
probably not legally enforceable," Tanda wrote. "No further action was taken,
and the general manager was not consulted."
Tanda said the amendment
represented a "significant revision to the scope of work and the payments to the
contractor," and therefore should have been approved by the general manager,
subject to approval of the council.
"The contract required this
procedure. This was not done," Tanda wrote in a report to the City Council. "Due
to an extraordinary set of circumstances involving the departure of key DOT
staff, compliance with the letter of agreement did not occur," Tanda
Officials with Affiliated Computer Services did not return
Mayor James K. Hahn has asked the city administrative officer to
review the proposed deal before extending the firm's contract for another five
"The mayor, more than anything, wants to make sure the taxpayers
get the best possible deal and get what they are entitled to," said Sahar
Moridani, a spokeswoman for the mayor.