Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Wolves vs. The Jackals

Expand Messages
  • victoryusa@jail4judges.org
    J.A.I.L. News Journal ______________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California February10,
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 10, 2005
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                             February10, 2005

      The Wolves vs. The Jackals
      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 over.
      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.)
      -Ron Branson



      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 McGreevy
      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.

      The 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 services.

      Elected city officials are angry that the lapse went uncorrected for seven years and the full amount may not be recovered.

      "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."

      The snafu 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.

      Under the 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 citations.

      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.

      Officials 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 the agreement.

      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.

      Tanda blamed 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.

      A fourth parking administrator saw the agreement and raised alarms a few years ago.

      "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 wrote.

      Officials with Affiliated Computer Services did not return calls.

      Mayor James K. Hahn has asked the city administrative officer to review the proposed deal before extending the firm's contract for another five years.

      "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.

      J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law - www.jail4judges.org
      Contribute to J.A.I.L. at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      See our active flash, http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm
      JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore unrealized.
      JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
      JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@...
      E-Group sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
      minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
      "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
      striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.