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
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
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 owned anything, fighting over the
I am probably less that one in a
million persons in America who has tested 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
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
Parking Windfall Angers Officials
Angeles authorities say the city did not receive its fair share of
fines collected by two firms. One contractor is $20 million
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
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
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
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
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.