The Freedom Minute

Vote for Adrin Nazarian for California State Assembly District 46

I’m proudly endorsing Adrin Nazarian to represent us in the newly formed California State Assembly District 46 which encompasses a large part of the east San Fernando Valley including North Hills, Panorama City, Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Toluca Lake and parts of the Hollywood Hills west of the 101.

I’ve know Adrin for a couple of years and worked with him in his capacity of Chief of Staff for LA Councilmember Paul Krekorian. I know Adrin to be an intelligent, thoughtful, honest and kindhearted person who will do his best to do the right thing for the people he represents. I have no doubt that Adrin will be the type of Assembly Member who will be open to input from his constituents and provide leadership on the issues that are important to the people of the San Fernando Valley.

I wholeheartedly endorse him and urge you to vote for him on Tuesday November 6th.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Recommendations for November 6th Statewide Ballot Measures

Quick Guide
PROP 30 – No
PROP 31 – No
PROP 32 – Yes
PROP 33 – No
PROP 34 – Yes
PROP 35 – No
PROP 36 – Yes
PROP 37 – No
PROP 38 – No
PROP 39 – No
PROP 40 – No

Detailed Discussion

PROP 30 – Increases Sales and Income Taxes – Vote No

Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years.

While the measure is touted as mechanism to fund schools and “public safety” it’s pretty much just a basic tax increase. I’m recommending a no vote for a few reasons.
1. If this measure passes, California will then have the highest sales tax and highest income tax rates in the nation. You want your state to be tops, but not in that measurement. It drives away business and that further erodes the tax base.

2. It’s always a bad idea to raise taxes if you can avoid them, but it’s especially bad to do it during a recession or even a mild recovery because it stunts economic growth. Now is not the time for any tax increase.

3. This year the legislature and the Governor pushed through funding for the “high speed” train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Regardless of whether you think this is a good project or not (I and a lot of other people think it’s a spectacularly wasteful boondoggle that won’t even really be “high speed”), they could have foregone this project and the proposed tax increase would not have been necessary.

4. They pulled a typical political move to get voters to support this tax increase by threatening big cuts to schools and safety services. They didn’t have to make those cuts where they made them, they could have chosen other areas to cut. But they figured if they threatened cuts in these areas, voters would be more likely to support the taxes. I’m not going to reward them for their duplicity.

5. The state has a huge structural revenue problem and the only way the politicians in Sacramento will have the fortitude to fix these problems long term is if their backs are up against the wall. Giving them more money now just gives them a reprieve so they don’t have to make the politically difficult choices that are necessary.

PROP 31 – Makes a Host of Changes to the Budgeting Process – Vote No

This measure is extremely complicated and most voters will have no idea what their vote actually will do. That’s reason enough to vote no. If you’re not sure, vote to keep the status quo and let the legislative process make the necessary changes.

One other reason I’m recommending a no vote is the provision the prevents the legislature from reducing revenue of $25 million or more without identifying a corresponding revenue increase or spending cut elsewhere in the budget. This provision could make it virtually impossible to get any tax or fee relief bill through the legislature. That means for example that if we tried to get them to reduce the fine for rolling right turns and they estimate that the reduction in fine revenue would be more than $25 million, we couldn’t get it passed.

PROP 32 – Bans Use of Payroll Deductions to Finance Spending for Political Purposes – Vote Yes

This measure prohibits corporations, government contractors, and unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It also prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees and prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees.

This measure helps take some of the money out of the political process and prevents some abuses. Special interests have spent millions of dollars to try to defeat this proposition. That’s reason enough for me to vote Yes.

PROP 33 – Allows Auto Insurance Company to Offer a “Continuous Coverage” Discount to New Customers – Vote No

It sounds good on the surface, but the flip side of this proposition is that those who don’t have “continuous coverage” will pay higher prices to make up the discount given to those who do have “continuous coverage”. This is what I call a “special interest” proposition because it was funded and put on the ballot by the owner of Mercury Insurance. The reason he wants this change is so that his insurance company (and others) can have a better shot at getting the customers of competing insurance companies who can currently give discounts to their own long term customers. It will help those who have had continuous coverage and hurt those who have chosen not to carry auto insurance for some period of time such as if they chose not to own a car, etc. I think this one is pretty much a wash, but I resist voting for propositions that primarily benefit one special interest. For that reason I’m recommending a no vote, but I’m not strongly persuaded on this one.

PROP 34 – Eliminates the Death Penalty in Favor of Life Without Parole – Vote Yes

Whether or not to have impose the death penalty generally has been a hot button issue and many people feel strongly on both sides of the issue. Here’s why I’m voting Yes to eliminate the death penalty.

1. It’s hugely expensive, more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.
2. Because of the time involved with appeals and legal maneuvering, it’s rarely imposed and most criminals on death row die of old age.
3. Murderers on death row get a host of perks that prisoners in the general population don’t get such as private cells and taxpayer funded appeals.
4. A number of death row inmates have subsequently be proven to be innocent. It doesn’t happen often but it does happen. No matter how careful we are, there’s always a chance that an innocent person might be put to death. I’m just not comfortable with that possibility.
5. Imposing the death penalty might make us feel good because we’ve gotten retribution, and it’s reasonable to feel that some of the most heinous criminals deserve to die. But deciding on how society punishes people should be done logically, not emotionally.

PROP 35 – Increases Penalties for Crimes Considered Human Trafficking – Vote No

This is another confusing proposition that most voters won’t understand. I’m still confused by exactly what it will do and how it will affect people. These are the types of issues that should go through the full legislative process so they can be fully vetted, not left up to a ballot initiative. If this change in the law makes sense, then the proponents should be able to get it passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. For that reason and since I can’t pinpoint exactly what unintended consequences might arise from this measure, I’m voting No.

PROP 36 – Changes Three Strikes Law to Impose Life Sentence Only if Third Conviction is Serious or Violent – Vote Yes

Currently, many inmates are serving life sentences due to the Three Strikes Law even though their third felony was for a non-violent offense. Under this proposal, these non-violent third time offenders would have their sentences doubled, rather than receiving 25 years to life as is the current practice. This makes good sense and it take a balanced approach of imposing a harsher penalty for non-violent repeat offenders but not so harsh a penalty as if their third offence was a violent one.

The current application of the three strikes law is one of the main reasons our prisons are overflowing with non-violent offender. This proposition would bring a measure of balance back to the sentencing process and save hundreds of millions of dollars a year while at the same time freeing up prison space for more violent offenders. I’m recommending a Yes vote.

PROP 37 – Genetically Engineered Food Labeling – Vote No

Another special interest proposition which is based on junk science and would primarily benefit certain special interests while creating more government bureaucracy, open the door to new frivolous lawsuits, and raise food costs for consumers. It contains a huge number of nonsensical exemptions for things like milk, cheese, meat, beer, wine, liquor, food sold at restaurants and other foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

There’s no scientific reason to force these food labeling requirements onto manufacturers who will have to spend huge amounts of money on re-labeling their products and who will simply pass those costs to consumers.

PROP 38 – Increases Income Taxes – Vote No

This tax increase proposal is even worse than Prop 30 as it raises taxes on even the poor. All of my objections to Prop 30 apply here as well.

PROP 39 – Increases Taxes on Out of State Corporations – Vote No

My objections to tax increases explained under Prop 30 mostly apply here as well. In addition, this measure would earmark some of the tax revenue for “alternative energy projects”. This would primarily benefit certain special interests such as the billionaire hedge fund manager who is bankrolling the measure. If taxes are raised, the proceeds should go to the general fund to offset other cuts, not be earmarked for special projects with dubious benefits.

PROP 40 – Rejects New State Senate Districts Chosen by the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission – Vote No

The proponents of this initiative have withdrawn their support and are now advocating a No vote. So vote no and move along, nothing to see here.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

MRCA Reinstalls Stop Sign Cameras in Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park

Apparently the MRCA got tired of our criticism about the placement of the stop sign and camera at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park, so they first removed it and have now reinstalled it up the hill further into the parking area. It’s still pretty much in the middle of the road, not at any intersection. But in order to try to justify ticketing drivers $175 if they slowly roll past the sign, the MRCA painted a crosswalk there. Of course there’s no valid reason to have a crosswalk at that location, other than the MRCA needing an excuse to generate millions of dollars in revenue from unsuspecting park visitors. Read my full post with photos on my other website, Safer Steets L.A., devoted exclusively to these issues including ridding our society of red-light cameras.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Voting Yes on Prop 23 Won’t Harm the Environment

If you had a friend that was about to commit suicide or maybe just inflict serious harm upon himself, you’d probably try to stop him. Well Californians are about to do just that. The implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, will inflict serious harm on California and the people who live here. Voting Yes on Prop 23 is the intervention that California needs to save itself from certain injury.

First, let’s talk about AB32 and what it won’t do. AB32 won’t reduce “air pollution” as that term is generally understood. It does nothing to limit real air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, or toxic soot. These emissions that contribute to smog and other conditions related to public health are regulated under numerous separate laws, which are the strictest in the country. The only substance AB32 seeks to limit is CO2. So basically, this is a law that attempts to reduce global warming. The debate as to whether CO2 is a significant source of climate change isn’t going to be solved here, but it’s important for voters to realize that AB32 is only about global warming, not air pollution. Furthermore, even if AB32 is fully implemented, it will have no effect on worldwide global warming. AB32 seeks to reduce California’s CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But that’s just a small fraction of California’s CO2 output. And, when compared to the worldwide output of CO2, the amount California emits is just a small fraction of 1%. On top of that, businesses that currently emit CO2 here in California may relocate to other states and continue to output the same amount of CO2, resulting in no net reduction overall. So, AB32 will have no effect on global warming and the air won’t be any cleaner.

But let’s see what AB32 would do. According to a report authored by Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D., dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, AB32 will cost California small businesses a net loss of “more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes”. In addition, consumers would likely see a 60% increase in electricity rates and a 57% hike in natural gas rates as well as a new $500 million per year water tax. Gasoline and diesel prices will likely increase by $3.7 billion a year as well.

Prop 23 seeks to limit the damage that will be done to our economy by delaying the implementation of AB32 until California’s unemployment rate returns to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It does not repeal AB32, nor does it have any effect on any other environmental laws in California. California is in deep financial trouble and our economy can’t afford the additional costs that will be imposed by AB32 at this time. I urge you to vote Yes on Prop 23. But if you’re still inclined to vote no, at least now you know what your vote will mean – the loss of millions of jobs and higher energy costs with no improvement in air quality.

By the way, there’s an excellent reason that some oil companies are backing Prop 23 and it’s not because they “want to keep polluting”. As I’ve said, Prop 23 does not lessen any of California’s stringent environmental laws. Oil companies support Prop 23 because their industry, the industry that fuels virtually our entire economy, will be severely penalized under AB32 and will be forced to expend millions of dollars in unnecessary costs that will most likely be passed onto the consumer. That’s you and me, in case you hadn’t realized just who is going to pay for all this. But it’s not just oil companies that are backing Prop 23. A whole host of groups support voting yes, including such disparate entities as the Los Angeles Homeless Restoration Advisory Coalition and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Here’s an entire list of supporters .

Finally, a word about moving to a “green economy”. While that might be a desirable goal, AB32 is not the way to get there. Making one type of energy more expensive so that less efficient forms of energy can compete is the wrong method of boosting alternative energy. If we are really serious about making renewable energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels, then we need to fund research that will make these types of energy more efficient and competitive in their own right. It’s entirely doable, especially if we don’t waste millions of dollars on an ill advised scheme to punish the use of fossil fuels.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

One Good Reason to Vote Yes on Prop 19

Almost everyone agrees that our drug laws don’t work, create more problems than they solve and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Most people also recognize that marijuana prohibition makes as little sense as alcohol prohibition did.  They understand that marijuana is nowhere near as harmful as tobacco or alcohol and attempts to prohibit its use have only led to associated street violence and a huge windfall for drug cartels.  But Prop 19, the initiative that would legalize marijuana and allow local governments to tax and regulate its use, has come under attack from a variety of critics.  Most criticisms are clearly just the same old scare tactics and misinformation put forth by anti-drug zealots or those who stand to profit from marijuana’s continued prohibition (I’m talking about you, Alcohol Lobby and Prison Industrial Complex).  These attacks include the usual nonsense about marijuana being addictive or a gateway drug or that legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids.

The truth, of course, is that marijuana has never been shown to be addictive (any more so than chocolate), has never been shown to be a gateway drug, and its legalization in other countries, like Portugal, has led to a reduction in use by teenagers.  Furthermore, removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana frees up law enforcement (and the courts) to concentrate on real crimes and real criminals.  And the ability to tax the state’s most lucrative crop would put a serious dent in our budget deficit.

So there are lots of reasons to vote Yes on 19.  But here’s the most important: If Prop 19 fails, politicians may get the mistaken belief that the majority of the public wants marijuana prohibition and our other onerous drug laws to continue unchanged.  They’ll believe that there just isn’t the popular support for reforming our broken drug policies in favor of a more sensible public health approach.  If we’re worried about sending the wrong message, this is the message we should be worried about sending.  Politicians live and die by popular opinion.  And supporting drug law reform can get you labeled as “soft on crime”, something no politician wants, unless it’s his opponent carrying the label.  But if Prop 19 passes, even if the Feds block its implementation, politicians might realize that there is popular support for doing away with drug prohibition, especially in the case of marijuana, and moving our country away from the failed drug policies we have been pursuing for decades.  That’s the message I want our elected officials to get, and it’s the main reason I’m voting Yes on Prop 19.  It’s why you should vote yes, too.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Recommendations for Nov. 2nd Ballot Measures

PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law – Vote Yes

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Allows local governments to regulate and tax the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

While much has been reported about this initiative, there’s one very good reason to vote yes. The drug war has cost this country untold billions of dollars, ruined countless lives, enriched drug cartels, and eroded our civil liberties. And it has done nothing to reduce the use of drugs. While Prop 19 won’t fix all those problems, it is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, its passage will signal the willingness of our citizens to seriously consider ending the war on drugs, especially for drugs like marijuana which is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and likely provides real medicinal benefits. Our elected official need political cover if they’re ever going to support meaningful drug law reforms. The passage of Prop 19 would give them that political cover.

PROP 20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts – Vote Yes

Transfers authority for establishing congressional districts to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Takes redistricting out of the hands of politicians who have used that power to gerrymander the districts to ensure their own reelection.

Voters approved Proposition 11 in 2008 which provided for the same transfer of authority for establishing state election districts. This proposition extends that authority to the establishment of US congressional districts. When politicians have the power to draw the boundaries of their districts, they artificially adjust those boundaries to include or exclude certain groups of voters such as those of a particular political party or ethnic or social group. This results in the elected officials having an unfair advantage in future elections and virtually assures that they will have little or no real competition for their seat. Taking the power out of the hands of elected politicians is the only way to ensure that congressional district boundaries are drawn fairly and don’t give an advantage to any one political party. – Vote Yes

PROP 21 – Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks – Vote No

Adds $18 to the vehicle license fee each year. This $18 would be earmarked for State Park funding.

While this might seem like a good idea to offset some recent budget cutbacks, imposing this fee is a colossally bad idea. First, while it’s called a fee, it’s actually an additional tax on every vehicle registered in the state. All drivers would pay the same amount, whether they drive an old junker or a Lexus. This means the tax would fall hardest on the lowest income citizens. Furthermore, once this fee is imposed, there’s no guarantee it won’t increase every year. $18 might not be much now, but it could easily rise to $50 or $100 within the next few years. Don’t give the politicians the ability to impose this new tax on California drivers. – Vote No

PROP 22 – Prohibits the State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services – Vote No

This measure reduces or eliminates the state’s authority to:
• Use state fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation bonds.
• Borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues.
• Redirect redevlopment agency property taxes to any other local government.
• Temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to schools.
• Use vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

This proposition is basically about a jurisdictional dispute between the State and local governments. Both sides make similar claims that passing the measure (or defeating it) will protect taxpayer funds from “the politicians”. Annual State and local funding is a complicated calculation and usually neither side is entirely happy with the outcome. I recommend that it’s best for voters to stay out of this issue and let our elected officials fight it out. Therefore I recommend a No vote to keep things the way they are now.

PROP 23 – Suspends Implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5% or Less for Full Year – Vote Yes

Contrary to the way opponents of this initiative would like to characterize it, AB32 does not reduce “pollution”, it reduces CO2 which is not an air pollutant per se. If AB32 is implemented, it would mean the loss of millions of jobs in California. Supporters of AB32 claim that some of those jobs would be replaced with “green jobs”, but there is no guarantee those jobs will ever materialize and even if they do, they would only be a tiny fraction of the number of jobs lost. Those that support AB32 (and oppose this initiative) are asking us to favor potential jobs over jobs that currently exist. Realize that each job lost really means that an actual person who currently has a job will become unemployed. Furthermore, even if AB32 is implemented and we are actually able to reduce CO2 emissions in California, there would be no net effect on global warming since the CO2 produced by California is only a minute fraction of the CO2 produced globally and much of the CO2 we now produce would stilled be produced, only in states other than California as companies relocate to other places (and take our jobs with them). California can’t afford the loss of millions of jobs. – Vote Yes

PROP 24 – Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability – Vote No

In 2008 and 2009, the state legislature adjusted the way some businesses were allowed to calculate their tax liability. This was done to make California more competitive with surrounding states and keep businesses from moving to places with a lower tax rate. California imposes one of the highest tax liabilities on businesses of any state. The previous changes were an attempt to make taxes a bit more fair. Now, however, the proponents of Prop 24 want to take away those adjustments and are mischaracterizing them as a “giveaway”. Businesses are not the enemy, they are the engine that drives our economy and provide jobs to our citizens. In order to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we have to stay competitive. – Vote No

PROP 25 – Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority – Vote No

Critics of the Two-Thirds vote requirement to pass a budget have been claiming that this is the source of all the state’s budgetary problems. This is an absolute lie. The Two-Thirds vote requirement does make it harder to pass a budget because it makes it harder to raise taxes. This forces our legislators to look more deeply at what the state is spending and to make tough choices. That’s a good thing. Granted, the budget is often late, but that’s better than imposing crippling tax increases on out citizens. The Two-Thirds vote requirement is the only thing standing in the way of higher taxes and fees. – Vote No

PROP 26 – Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote – Vote Yes

In order to get around the two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes, the politicians have begun to call those taxes “fees”. This initiative closes that loophole. – Vote Yes

PROP 27 – Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting – Vote No

This measure is basically the opposite of Prop 20. It puts redistricting back in the hands of politicians by reversing Prop 11 which voters approved in 2008. It’s a power grab by politicians who are afraid that they will lose reelection if they actually have to compete on a level playing field. For a more detailed discussion, see the explanation of Prop 20 above. – Vote No

Here’s my condensed summary:
PROP 19 – Legalizes Marijuana – YES
PROP 20 – Redistricting – YES
PROP 21 – $18 Car Tax – NO
PROP 22 – Prohibits Funds Transfers – NO
PROP 23 – Suspends Job Killing AB32 – YES
PROP 24 – Repeals Businesses Tax Adjustment – NO
PROP 25 – Eliminates Two-Thirds Requirement – NO
PROP 26 – Requires Two-Thirds Vote to Raise Fees – YES
PROP 27 – Eliminates State Redistricting Commission – NO

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Hire an Attorney to Fight Your MRCA Ticket

As I indicated in my previous post on this subject, I believe that the MRCA is violating both the spirit and letter of California law in issuing $175 photo enforced citations at stop signs in their parks and at other locations under their jurisdiction. I have personally spoken with many otherwise law abiding citizens who have been caught up in this revenue generating ticketing scheme. I have been struck by their frustration at the way they are being treated by this particular government agency and their feeling that our elected officials have betrayed us by failing to rectify this wanton disregard for the law and any sense of fair play. Unfortunately, their ability to fight back is impaired by the cost of hiring an attorney and the time and effort involved in educating themselves about their possible legal remedies.

I am happy to report that I may have information on a solution for anyone caught in this predicament. I have had a number of lengthy discussions with attorney R. Allen Baylis about what we might be able to do to help fight back and strike a blow for justice. As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Baylis recently won a very important case in Orange County regarding the admissibility of evidence in photo enforcement cases. The decision in that case has sent shockwaves throughout the state as it will now be much more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute photo red light violations based on evidence collected by third party camera companies such as those used by the MRCA.

During our recent discussion, I asked Mr. Baylis if he might be willing to help the scores of people ticketed by the MRCA. Specifically, I explained that since the ticket was $175 and didn’t add points to the driver’s record, it was not cost effective to hire an attorney to fight it. Mr. Baylis said that if enough defendants were interested in hiring him to fight their MRCA photo tickets, he would be willing to significantly reduce his fees to make it more practical to hire him.

Here’s how this might work. Mr. Baylis would need at least 10 people willing to work with him to fight their tickets. He is aware that the ticket is $175 so he’s willing to charge less than this fine amount, which is a considerable reduction from his regular fee for fighting a traffic ticket. If more than 10 people agree to band together, he will be able to reduce his fee even further. Of course, until he knows how many people are in the group, the exact amount can’t be determined, but the fee will be set before anyone commits to hiring him. In addition, each defendant should expect to pay a $25 filing fee to appeal their case to the Superior Court. Doing the right thing and fighting back against the abuses of government sometimes comes at a price. In this case, though, I’ve tried to find a solution that will cost each individual much less than it would otherwise.

This is just a preliminary inquiry to see who might be interested in joining up to fight back against the MRCA. A response does not commit you in any way, but please give this serious consideration before expressing your interest. There will be a cost, and there will be no guarantee that he will win your case, but if anyone has a chance of beating the MRCA, I think it’s Mr. Baylis.

If you might be interested in this, please send me the following information through my contact page. If enough people respond, I will forward this information to him: contact Allen Baylis directly at:

R. Allen Baylis
9042 Garfield Ave., Suite 306
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Phone: 714-962-0915

Mr. Baylis indicated that ideally defendants would not yet have attended their hearing, but even if they have already done that, he still should be able to help. Please note that if you have simply paid your ticket without contesting it, or if more than 20 days have elapsed since service of the final administrative order or decision and you did not file an appeal with the superior court, you will be unable to be included in this group. We are, however, still looking at the possibility of the class action suit and/or filing a case in small claims court. When I have further information about that, I will post it on this website.

I hope this offers those unjustly ticketed by the MRCA an alternative to simply rolling over and accepting the unfairness of their situation. I wish I could have found a way for everyone to fight their tickets for free, but I think this is the next best thing.

Please know that I am not soliciting clients for Mr. Baylis, nor am I being paid for passing along this information. My sole intention is to assist those who might not otherwise be able to fight their citations.

However this works out, thanks for your support of the Freedom Minute.

For the FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets, see this post.

UPDATE: Mr. Baylis has taken on a test case! The MRCA is expending a great deal of money, time, and manpower (even going so far as to fly their attorney down from San Francisco) to defend this. Imagine how quickly this scam would come to a halt if everyone started fighting their tickets in court. I will keep readers of this blog posted as to the outcome of this case.

UPDATE: Mr. Baylis was successful in defending a few people caught up in the MRCA ticketing scam. However, the courts continue to allow the MRCA to continue with this ticketing scheme. Due to the costs involved, we understand that Mr. Baylis is not taking on more of these cases at a reduced fee. However, feel free to contact him, he is an excellent traffic defense attorney.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets

First, if you haven’t already done so, read my post The $100 Stop Sign Scam about the MRCA issuing tickets at stop signs in their parks. Then, come back here to read about what you can do if you have been issued one of these tickets. Please note that I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Who is the MRCA?
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is a “Joint Powers Agency” (a local government agency) which manages the parklands of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as well as the Conejo and Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation Districts. As a government agency, the MRCA may exercise the common powers granted to its member entities by the State of California. It may not, however, exercise any powers not granted to its member entities or that conflict with State or Federal law. You can find their website here.

Does the MRCA have the authority to issue citations?
As a Joint Powers Agency, the MRCA is permitted create those ordinances which its member entities would be permitted to create. In this case, the MRCA has created an ordinance establishing rules and regulations for the use of the parklands under its control and the penalties for the violation of those rules. California law permits local agencies to exercise “police powers” and charge citizens with having committing certain crimes; generally misdemeanors or infractions. The law also permits local agencies to issue “administrative citations” rather than charge someone with an infraction.

So what’s an administrative citation?
Without getting too technical, an administrative citation is a lesser charge that carries no criminal penalties, only civil penalties, meaning just a monetary fine. Parking tickets are a form of administrative citation.

I got a ticket mailed from the MRCA claiming I ran a stop sign. What kind of ticket is this?
This is an administrative citation that carries no criminal penalties and no potential to put points on your license. You are being cited for violating the park rules, one of which is that you must obey all signs. The penalty that the MRCA imposes for this is $175.

But isn’t running a stop sign a violation of the Vehicle Code?
Yes. But you are not being charged under the vehicle code. You are being charged with violating park rules. The MRCA has set the park rules, set the penalties for violating those rules, set the conditions under which they can charge you with violating the rules, and set the rules for how you can defend yourself when you are charged with violating the rules.

Is that fair?
It doesn’t seem fair to me, or to a lot of other people who have looked into this issue. But whether or not it’s fair, the real question is, is it legal?

Ok, is it legal?
The MRCA, not surprisingly, claims that it is. And, using taxpayer funds, they’ve hired the law firm of Richards, Watson, & Gershon to come up with a legal rationale for this position. On the other hand, many other attorneys have offered numerous legal arguments as to why the actions of the MRCA are not permitted under State law. The bottom line is that regardless of any lawyer’s or layperson’s opinion, the MRCA will continue to issue these citations until either a court of law rules that their actions are impermissible or state lawmakers amend California law to make it clear that what the MRCA is doing is not allowed.

What are some of the legal arguments that the MRCA is acting illegally?
The answer to that question is quite detailed and is beyond the scope of this FAQ. We are preparing a document focusing on that subject alone and will link to it here once it is completed. In general, though, the arguments against the MRCA are the following:

1. The MRCA ordinance is pre-empted by state law, specifically the California Vehicle Code, which does not permit the use of automated enforcement at stop signs.
2. The MRCA may not use automated enforcement for violations of its ordinances because Public Resources Code 5786.17 which gives parks districts authority to issue citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifies that those citations may only be issued when the violation is committed in the presence of a uniformed employee issuing the citation.
3. The MRCA may not issue administrative citations in excess of $100.00 because Government Code 53069.4 which authorizes local agencies to issue administrative citations (and which the MRCA uses to claim its authority to do so) specifically limits these citations to $100.00.

There are other legal objections to the MRCA’s authority to use automated ticking cameras to issue citations at stop signs, but these are the most notable.

The video doesn’t show who the driver is. Is the citation valid without them identifying the driver?
If you were being charged under the rules of the vehicle code, the answer would be no. However, the MRCA is citing you under their own ordinance which makes the vehicle owner responsible for the violation, not the driver. See above where we discuss how the MRCA makes up all the rules.

Can I just ignore this ticket?
While we can’t give legal advice, here’s what may happen if you simply ignore this ticket. First, the MRCA will add interest and penalties to the violation (again according to their own rules). Then, they will likely send your info to a collection agency who will try to collect from you. The collection agency may also report the debt to the credit reporting agencies and it may show up on your credit report. This is similar to what happens when you don’t pay a parking ticket. However, we have some anecdotal information from readers of this blog that when they contacted the collection agency and stated that the debt wasn’t valid and that they would sue if the debt got reported to the credit reporting agencies, they never heard from the collection agency again and the debt never showed up on their credit report. We can not independently confirm that this is correct information. If we receive additional information on this subject, we will list it here.

Update: Literally hundreds of people have responded to this post and my original post The $100 Stop Sign Scam. All of those who have ignored the ticket have said that it has not been reported on their Credit Report. I cannot guarantee that this will be your experience, but we have little reason to believe that it is likely to change.

How can I fight this ticket?
The procedure for contesting the ticket is spelled out on the MRCA website. Basically, you must respond by the due date, pay the fine, and request a hearing at their location in Franklin Canyon Park off Mulholland Drive in Beverly Hills. Diana Hartman administers the citation program. Her number is 310-858-7272 ext. 103.

Do I have a chance at beating the ticket at the hearing?
Most likely, no. The hearing will be conducted by one of their employees whose job it is to find as many people guilty and collect as much revenue from this program as possible. If the employee found a large number of citizens not guilty, she would soon be out of a job. Therefore, unless you can prove that you were not the owner of the vehicle or that you clearly did come to stop at the stop sign, you are unlikely to prevail. Arguments such as “no one was put in danger”, or you slowed down but didn’t quite stop, or you can’t afford to pay, or the whole thing is a scam (which it is), are unlikely to get you anywhere.

What about the legal arguments you mentioned above?
Again, these arguments are unlikely to sway the hearing officer to find you not guilty. The MRCA has heard them all before and has rejected them. They don’t care how strong or well researched your legal argument is. They either really believe that they are correct or they don’t care if they’re not.

So why should I bother fighting this?
Two reasons. First, why give them your money without making them work for it. It costs them time and money to conduct these hearings and if enough people fought them, the program would be much less profitable. Plus, it’s the principle of the thing. I personally believe that when you are treated unfairly, especially by the government, you fight back, even when there is little hope of success. Second, if/when you are found guilty in the administrative hearing, you can appeal the decision to an actual court with an actual judge. But, if you don’t go to the hearing, you can’t appeal.

What’s the procedure for appealing to superior court?
Within 20 days of being served with the final decision from the hearing officer, you can file an appeal with the superior court. There is a $25 fee to appeal, but if you win, you get back your $175 fine plus the $25 fee. Of course, if you lose then you are out another $25. Note that the 20 day window to appeal may begin on the day the notice of final decision is mailed to you (if you don’t receive it at the hearing), not the day you actually receive it. Therefore, the best thing to do if you want to appeal is to file the paperwork with the court as soon as you receive your notice. If you miss the 20 day window, even if it is by one day, your appeal will be denied.

What’s the chance of beating the ticket in superior court?
Not great, but a whole lot better than at the administrative hearing. Note that this is a whole new trial, what happened at the hearing doesn’t count – although the file from the hearing will be part of the court record and the judge can refer to it. This is the time when you want to make all your legal objections to the citation. These objections would be of two kinds. First, the ordinance and ticketing program are illegal according to state law. (See the limited legal arguments above.) Second, you’d want to make legal objections to the introduction of the photo evidence and other “due process” arguments. There is some recent case law here in California that should make using photo enforcement evidence much more difficult for the MRCA, so getting the photo evidence tossed out is entirely possible. The caveat here is that these are fairly complicated arguments to make and while it’s not impossible for you to handle your case on your own, you will have a much better chance if you are represented by an attorney at this stage. Of course, attorneys cost money; likely more than the $175 fine. But don’t despair, there may be a solution for you. Read my post “Hire an Attorney to Fight Your MRCA Ticket”, for more information.

Update: The attorney mentioned in the above post has defended a few people and has won a couple of cases. We do not believe he is taking on more of these cases due to the costs involved. However, you are still free to contact him, he is an excellent traffic defense attorney.

If you decide you want to fight this on your own, let me know and I’ll try to help you as best as I can. Remember, though, that I am not an attorney and can’t give legal advice, just info on how you can help yourself.

What happens if I’m found guilty in superior court?
All is still not lost, you can appeal further – to the Appellate Court and then on to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The process for that is beyond the scope of this FAQ, but do know that it will be an option for you if you do things right in your superior court trial. This is another reason why having an attorney represent you is a good idea – to preserve your ability to appeal should you lose in your original trial. Again, it’s not impossible for you to do it all yourself (I have) but it will take a great deal of time and study to learn what you need to do. The good thing is that there are no additional fees to appeal your case beyond superior court.

Update: There have been a couple of cases that have been appealed above the Superior Court level. Our understanding is that the appellate court has upheld the MRCA’s ability to continue citing motorists. We, of course, believe that these cases have been wrongly decided. They may be on appeal to a higher court, perhaps up to the California Supreme Court. If we get more information, we will post it here.

What about this class action suit I’ve been hearing about?
At this point, the attorney, Michael Braun of the Braun Law Group has filed a case against the MRCA. There is a hearing in mid September. No class has been certified yet, meaning that there’s no ruling as to who can be part of the group that is suing (the class). When I have more information, I will pass it along. It is possible that if you pay your fine or have paid, that you will get your money back if (1) you qualify to be part of the suit and (2) the suit is successful. Those are two big “ifs” but hopefully that is exactly what will happen for the vast majority of people who have been ripped off by the MRCA.

Update: This case has either stalled or been settled. When we get more information, we will post it here.

Is there anything else I can do?
David Goldstein of Channel 2 news here in Los Angeles is considering doing a story about this. You can contact him at djgoldstein@cbs.com and tell him your story. Who knows, if enough people hear about this abuse of power, perhaps our legislators will actually do their jobs and reign in this rogue agency. Edit: The TV expose’ aired on Channel 2 here in Los Angeles in mid September. You can view it here.

Feel free to post additional questions in the comments section. Also, if you feel that this has been helpful, consider making a donation through the paypal link in the sidebar. It’s absolutely not required, but helps me to continue doing this work. Also, sign up for my newsletter and check the box for MRCA Alerts so you can get the most up-to-date and breaking news about legislation and court challenges.

Update: There is some new information about what the MRCA is up to posted at my other website, Safer Streets L.A.

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

Governor Christie of NJ Takes On Disgruntled Teacher

In this clip, Governor Chris Christie of NJ takes on a disgruntled teacher. What’s the teacher so upset about? Apparently, in order to deal with the current budget crisis, the governor has asked the teachers to forgo a raise for one year and contribute a small amount to their overall benefits package.

I wonder if we could entice Chris Christie to move to California and be our governor?

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments

The $100 Stop Sign Scam

Getting a traffic ticket is no fun. It stings, usually to the tune of hundreds of dollars. What can make the experience even worse, though, is the realization that you’ve just been caught in the latest government scam to separate you from your hard earned cash.

If you want to avoid falling victim to one of the most egregious abuses of government power, you’d best avoid the public parks under the jurisdiction of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, otherwise known as the MRCA. This little known state agency, which administers the lands belonging to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is out to get your money. And they’ll use every dirty trick possible to do it.

Their latest scheme is the installation of automated ticketing cameras at stop signs within their parks.  Anyone who fails to come to a complete stop is hit with a one hundred one hundred and seventy five dollar ticket.  Now we can all agree that blowing through a stop sign, especially in a park where pedestrians are likely to be present, is not only dangerous, but deserving of severe punishment as well as the contempt of your fellow citizens.  But that’s not what we’re talking about here.  We’re talking about what is commonly known as the California Stop, where a driver slows to a crawl but doesn’t quite stop completely before proceeding.  Most drivers who engage in the rolling stop only do so when it’s clear that there’s no one around.  You know, like in a quiet neighborhood or secluded park. And if there does happen to be another vehicle or pedestrian present, there’s plenty of opportunity to come to a full stop without putting anyone in danger.  So, this is what is known as a technical violation.  It’s a little like going 5 mph over the speed limit.  Everyone does it at some point and no harm comes of it.

But regardless of the fact that this behavior puts no one at risk, the MRCA believes that if you engage in this practice on their turf, you deserve a $100 $175 fine.  And to ensure that they can nab you, they’ve flagrantly skirted the state law that forbids the use of this type of automated enforcement.  That’s right, this type of enforcement is not permitted under the California Vehicle Code, which is intended to be the law for all vehicles on the state’s roadways.  So how can the MRCA get away with this abusive practice?  They’ve simply declared that the law doesn’t apply to them.  They’re special; they’re above the law.  The arguments they make in support of this theory are extensive and I’ll leave that for another post where I’ll rebut them all.

What I want to concentrate on in this post, is their self serving claim that this is not about revenue enhancement, but rather all about safety.  In fact, in response to the public outcry against this ticketing scheme, Joe Edmiston, executive director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, said: “I’m more worried about a law suit from somebody whose child is killed. We’d be sued for millions for not controlling the interface between visitors and cars.”  Wow, it sure sounds like there must have been massive carnage on the roadways within these parks. Joe Edmiston just had to implement these automated fines to save the children.

So how many accidents or injuries can be attributed to drivers failing to stop at the stop signs on the roadways within the jurisdiction of the MRCA?  Exactly zero.  Not one. Not ever.  When pressed, Joe Edmiston couldn’t cite even one accident or injury.  Yet it was necessary to install these automated cameras which extract tens of thousands of dollars from unsuspecting park visitors yearly all in an effort to save the children.  Of course, any reasonable person can see that safety has nothing to do with it.  On the contrary, this is clearly about filling the coffers of the MRCA and enhancing their power within their little fiefdom.

But if you’re still not convinced that this isn’t about safety, have a look at one of these stop sign installations enforced with an automated ticketing camera.

In this picture, taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana, you can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $100 $175 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop. Sure, it’s technically a violation, but only because the MRCA arbitrarily criminalized the behavior. What reason could the MRCA have for locating this sign in such a ridiculous and confusing location? Could it be purely in an attempt to collect as many $100 $175 fines as possible? It certainly isn’t to save the children.

And just to drive the point home, the reverse view of this idiotic photo enforced stop sign installation makes it even more obvious that it was placed in such a way as to ensnare the maximum number of park visitors and reap the greatest amount of revenue.

So be forewarned, the MRCA is out to rob you blind. Don’t get caught up in their revenue enhancement scheme. Photo enforced stop signs are also located in Temescal Gateway Park, Top of Topanga Overlook, Hollywood Bowl Scenic Overlook, and Franklin Canyon Park. There might be others coming soon.

And if you want to express your outrage at how a rogue government agency is engaging in highway robbery, call your city and state representatives. They’ll probably tell you it’s perfectly legal; it’s not. One field deputy for former state senator Sheila Kuehl told me, “Well if the government is doing it, it has to be legal”. Brilliant. But you don’t have to get into any legal debates. Just tell them you abhor this type of blatant revenue enhancement scheme. Tell them you want them to look into it. At the very least, they’ll be on notice that you’re keeping an eye on the actions of our public officials.

And if you happen to have gotten one of these tickets, I want to hear about it.  If you’re still fighting it, maybe you can be a test case to get this overturned.  If your case is already finished, you should know that there’s a class action lawsuit in the works.  I’ll post more about that when I have an update.

Finally, if you suspect that I’m so outraged about this because I’ve gotten one of these bogus tickets, you’d be wrong.  I’ve successfully avoided contributing to the MRCA’s stop sign fund, mainly because I refuse to visit and drive in their parks.  It’s my own little boycott.

After this article was posted, I found that the citation has recently been increased to $175.  Now we can all be doubly outraged.

If you’d like to be kept informed about lawsuits or other actions we’re taking to stop this illegal money grab by the MRCA, you can sign up for email alerts using the form under the heading “Subscribe to the Freedom Minute Newsletter” in the sidebar to the right of this post. Enter your name and email address and check the box for “MRCA Alerts” under “You can also sign up for specific lists” and you’ll always get the most up-to-date information.

For more detailed information about the MRCA photo enforcement scam, read the follow-up article FAQ About MRCA Stop Sign Tickets. It will answer many of your questions.

 Loading ...

November 2nd, 2012 Posted by freedomminute | Election, State Government | no comments