Department Fair Employment and Housing Unruh election complaints 2020

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

New DFEH race complaints filed against numerous Los Angeles elected officials

CALIFORNIA. New racism complaints have been filed as of September 13, 2020 against the following which are mostly city funded neighborhood councils:

United Neighborhood Neighborhood Council, Empowerment Congress West Neighborhood Development Council , Mid-City Neighborhood Council, Olympic park Neighborhood Council, South Robertson Neighborhood Council, Wilshire Center Korea-town Neighborhood Council, CHERRYWOOD LEIMERT BLOCK CLUB.

The DFEH requires the complaints be filed separately but this series of complaints concerns the same event co-sponsored by all above. Here is a redacted copy of the submitted complaint that is substantially the same for all parties. The DFEH requires an “intake” form which causes the DFEH to decide if “they” will turn it into a complaint. So what follows is our signed complaint delivered prior to the DFEH prior to the interview and “created” complaint:

   

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

(Phone)

SEPTEMBER 13, 2020

Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act

RE UNRUH

and Governor Gavin Newsom

DFEH NUMBER HUD NUMBER

PROPERTY TYPE NO.OF UNITS

ELECTION CAMPAIGN

I ALLEGE THAT I EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION

ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 12, 2020

BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED AGE, RACE

AS A RESULT, I WAS DENIED FULL AND EQUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS; DENIED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AS POLITICAL CANDIDATE

THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION

THE NAZI STORM TROOPER TACTICS OF EXCLUSION

Complaint for Denial of Equal Opportunity by Church and Neighborhood Councils- Civil Right Act of 1964

Complaint for Violation of the California Unruh Act, CC 51 et seq.

Complaint for Abuse of City Tax Dollars by Neighborhood Councils

Complaint for Violation of IRS regulations regarding Churches and Political Candidates

Complaint for damages by county employee Mark Ridley-Thomas for abuse of tax dollars used to participate in denial of equal opportunity of candidate G. Juan Johnson

Defamatory statements

Unfair Interference with the Election Process as to make the election results null and void

Intentional misrepresentation by Neighborhood Councils

Violation City Code of Ethics and (County Code of Ethics) sections II, XII, XIII, XIV.

Violation Los Angeles County Code of Ethics

Against respondent

Cherrywood/Leimert Block Club (“Cherrywood”)

P.O. Box 561634

Los Angeles, CA   90056

info@cherrywoodleimertblockclub.com

This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city funded candidate forum.

Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940]
Legally qualified candidates for public office

(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:
(1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;

(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and

(3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person: (1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot; or

(2) Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)

“A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who….
Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method” 47 CFR §73.1940

“Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.” Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)

My position, as expressed, is that the Unruh Act protects “personal rights” and entitles “all persons” to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”.

There is no disparate impact or disparate treatment requirement under Unruh CC 51. Therefore it is not relevant to allege there was no discrimination due to race since some Black candidates were allowed a turn at the podium; that distinction does not appear under Unruh because the Unruh Act protects “all persons” meaning all Black candidates, meaning “all candidates” should have received full and equal advance social media publicity and a turn at the podium, “no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.”

I was a Black, male, aged 66, color medium, qualified candidate who did not receive from RESPONDENT full and equal privileges and services, and that is actionable no matter how many other Blacks were provided the privilege.

The RESPONDENT knew or perceived my protected characteristics prior to the date of the publicity for the candidate forum and prior to the date of the forum.

Summary The law

The Unruh act requires that:

1. “All” persons are free and equal.
2. “All” persons are entitled to “full and
equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”.

3. “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.” (Emphasis added)

4. “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status” includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.”

5. Nevertheless, the enumerated categories, bearing the “common element” of being “personal” characteristics of an individual, necessarily confine the Act’s reach to forms of discrimination based on characteristics similar to the statutory classifications—such as “a person’s geographical origin, physical attributes, and personal beliefs.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1160.)

6. The Act’s “fundamental purpose” is “to secure to all persons equal access to public accommodations ‘no matter’ ” their personal characteristics. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1169.) To accomplish this purpose, the Act prohibits “arbitrary discrimination by business establishments.” (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216 (Cox); Sargoy, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1043 [the Act renders unlawful “arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable discrimination”].)

Summary of Facts

Claimant (myself) was a certified as qualified political candidate. That was my belief as expressed to the Respondent via email on or before January 19, 2020, and on January 19. However, as of Jan. 8 2020 Respondent would have had actual and constructive knowledge of my status as a legally qualified political candidate.

Respondent (thru others it participated with on January 12 2020) claimed I was being denied full and equal accommodations because I was not a qualified candidate. Since claimant was a qualified candidate, whose designation “write-in” candidate would appear on the ballot, I feel the reason of the Respondent was pretextual. The real reason I was intentionally denied full and equal privileges was because of my race Black, color medium, sex male, age 66, and my personal beliefs.

I note here that under an Unruh violation, no showing of disparate treatment/impact is needed because Unruh protects “all persons” and “all persons” are entitled to full and equal accommodations.

That the respondent provided services of social media advertising and candidates speaking on the podium, such action that denied full and equal treatment to myself as a Black, aged 66, color medium, male, who held the personal belief that I was a person and qualified candidate.

I was associated with the other qualified candidates because I was also a qualified candidate no matter my “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”‘ but respondent [discriminated and made a distinction and ] prohibited me from associating with the advertising and candidate forum provided to other candidates.

Discriminated against due to

Race, Black
Sex, male
Age, 66
Color, medium
Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate
Personal beliefs that I was a legally qualified candidate

Proven Violations committed by Respondent

Intentional discrimination
Unreasonable and invidious conduct
Arbitrary treatment
Did deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction

Unequal treatment due to business practice – the policy of exclusion to political candidates was not applicable alike no matter what a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status

Discrimination due to personal belief of Black, aged 66, color medium, qualified write-in candidate

Discrimination due to association with other candidates who were Black, write-in, aged 66, and color medium and qualified and held the personal belief that they were qualified candidates (there were at least 12 other qualified write-in candidates and for the entire county wide race about 250 qualified write-in candidates)

All rights reserved.

Did respondent CHERRYWOOD deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff?

Yes.

Was the actions of the respondent CHERRYWOOD intentional?

Yes. Without CHERRYWOOD’s participation, the discrimination to claimant would not have occurred at that location.

Is it proven that a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct was the defendant’s perception of the plaintiff’s protected basis under the Unruh Act; or that the protected basis of a person whom the plaintiff was associated with was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct ?

Yes. The CHERRYWOOD response, in concert, that claimant was not a qualified candidate, was pretextual. The real reason claimant was excluded was due to his race, Black, color medium, sex male, and age 66. Circumstantial evidence. The CHERRYWOOD had actual and constructive knowledge in advance of January 12, 2020, that claimant was African American Black, male, aged 66, and color medium. On January 12, 2020, claimant appeared at the CHERRYWOOD location and by appearance revealed his protected status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the ORGANIZERS and others in attendance on January 12, 2020 that he was a qualified candidate and would like to speak on the podium but such full and equal opportunity was repeatedly denied by those in charge. CHERRYWOOD had admitted by its conduct that its motivating reason for its conduct was the claimant’s association

with other Black, male, female, Asian, and Latinos persons who were candidates. (Associated with others in protected classes.)

Had claimant attempted to contract for services and afford himself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation ?

Yes.

Were such services available to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were treated better?
Yes. Two females, who were Latino of light color, Asian of light color, and both under age 66. Aura Vasquez and Grace Yoo.

Has it been proven that a certified “write-in” candidate was a legally qualified candidate?

Yes.

Did respondent give any reason why a Black, medium color, aged 66, male, legally qualified candidate should be denied full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation?
No.

Was there circumstantial evidence that the CHERRYWOOD denied claimant association with other Blacks at the candidate forum?
Yes.

Has claimant proven the acts of the respondent were intentional (planned in advance, not accidental) to discriminate against claimant ?
Yes.

Was the respondent practice of providing full and equal accommodations, up to and including the January 12, 2020 candidate publicity and forum, applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?
No.

Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of my personal beliefs

The Unruh Act protects “personal beliefs” and traits fundamental to a person’s identity; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination

Nevertheless, the enumerated categories, bearing the “common element” of being “personal” characteristics of an individual, necessarily confine the Act’s reach to forms of discrimination based on characteristics similar to the statutory classifications—such as “a person’s geographical origin, physical attributes, and personal beliefs.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1160.)

The “personal characteristics” protected by the Act are not defined by “immutability, since some are, while others are not [immutable], but that they represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person’s identity, beliefs and self-definition.” (Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, 842–843 (Koebke).)

In this instant case, the evidence shows that it was my personal belief that I was a legally qualified write-in candidate that should be associated with other legally qualified Black candidates and other legally qualified candidates who received full and equal treatment and privileges. The evidence shows that the Respondent used “write-in candidate” as its proffered reason for denying me full and equal accommodations; this is further proof that the Respondent violated the Unruh Act by denying me full and equal accommodations because of my personal beliefs.

Discriminated against due to

Race, Black

Sex, male

Age, 66

Color, medium

Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate

Personal beliefs

Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of unequal treatment; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination

The evidence proves that the practice of Respondent CHERRYWOOD —acting in concert with others to deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction— has excluded all write-in candidates from full and equal accommodations; and unequal treatment is the result of CHERRYWOOD ‘s practice. CHERRYWOOD has practiced unequal treatment to the class of qualified write-in candidates who are Black, medium color, male, and aged 66.

“The Act applies not merely in situations where businesses exclude individuals altogether, but also “where unequal treatment is the result of a business practice.” (Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 29 (Koire).) “Unequal treatment includes offering price discounts on an arbitrary basis to certain classes of individuals.” (Pizarro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174; Koire, at p. 29.)” (Source: Google Tinder case)

I ALLEGE THAT THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE FOLLOWING ADVERSE ACTIONS AGAINST THE

COMPLAINANT

Complainant was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services by a business establishment of one or more Fair Employment and Housing Act (which incorporates Civil Code 51) protected basis.

ON OR BEFORE

1/25/2020 12:00:00 AM

BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED

Color;Race;Sex/Gender;Age; Personal Beliefs

AS A RESULT, I WAS SUBJECTED TO

Denied Full or Equal Accommodations, Advantages, Facilities, Privileges, or Services by a Business Establishment – Including both Private and Public Entities

PARTICULARS

On January 25, I believe I was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color medium , gender (male), age 66, and personal belief that I was a legally qualified candidate

Specifically, on January 6, 2020, I became a formal political candidate by the City and County Election Clerk and on January 6, 2020 appeared on the City Clerk website as a qualified candidate. I became aware of a candidate forum event at FIRST AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH  to be held January 25, 2020 and emailed the listed contacts/Respondents on January 19, 2020, stating that I wanted to participate. I did not receive any response from any of the sponsors of the event.

I believe most of the sponsors of the event are government employees or authorized by the city government.

At a similar sponsored event by some of the same sponsors of this forum, I had been told by email and in person that I would not be allowed to participate in a full and equal manner as other person candidates who were allowed to participate.

I did not attempt to attend the event Jan. 25 2020 for fear that I would be physically assaulted as I had been at a previous candidate forum.

See attachments exhibits for the communications to the sponsors of the event.

Monetary damages are requested.

All rights reserved.

September 13, 2020.

Geary Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone(  )

EMAIL: (   )

This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city funded candidate forum
reference: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re crimes by Los Angeles city government employees

(Editor: This page is in the process of being updated. I will include more details on discrimination complaints filed regarding the city 2020 November 2019-March 2020 election. Complaints have been filed against:)

1. Adams Neighborhood Council
2. Holman United Methodist Church
3. Ethiopian Political Party
4. FAME Church
5. Messop Ethiopian Restaurant
6. City Los Angeles Empowerment Department

7. League of Women Voters

8. City Attorney’s office of Mike Feuer

To see previous information on these issues,

click here Election Claims Against City and County

To read about the complaint West Adams Neighborhood Council, click here:

LA City West Adams Neighborhood Council Charged with Racism

To read about the complaint Messob Ethiopian Restaurant, click here:

LA Messob Ethiopian Restaurant Charged with Election Racism

TO READ ABOUT THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS CLICK HERE:

LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas Charged with Racism

August 12, 2020

The Power of Racism is Among Us

The simple version vs the long version

Simply put, during an election any where in the world, there are forces that will try to undermine the elections, destroy the integrity and honesty. Look at history. Politics is much an animal of illusions where we do our best to make it a profession for the elite, while convincing the general public that they somehow have a part in shaping the democracy.

Around November 2019, candidates lined up after qualifying the nominating petitions. I was one of the candidates who did not get enough signatures. But by January 6, 2020, I signed up and qualified as a write-in candidate for the same election.

If you ever want to really experience the good and the bad of the public (including discrimination), run for elected office. You will meet many of the people who will tell you that you are not good enough because you don’t make enough money, or have enough connections, or own a house, etc. If you become a write-in candidate, you will experience even more discrimination. That is politics.

Around January 1 2020, a number of community organizations announced “candidate forums” where they claimed “qualified” candidates would be allowed to speak. Some of these organizations were churches, community groups, or government officials/employees, yes, organizing and sponsoring the events. The issue became that some groups allowed write-in candidates to speak along with regular non-write-in candidates, and some groups did not. Of particular concern to me was the (1) community groups who claimed they practiced inclusion (2) churches that receive tax exempt status and are prohibited from favoring one candidate over another and (3) government officials who participate in unethical conduct and civil rights violations.

The simple or easy part of this story is that the groups in question had enough time to allow me to speak as equal with the other candidates, and all the groups I had contact with refused. State of California government code section 82007 defines a “candidate” as “Anyone who is listed on a ballot or is qualified to have write-in votes cast on their behalf counted by elections officials for nomination or election to any elective office”. So six candidates qualified to be on the ballot, and for me, I qualified for write-in votes to be cast on my behalf. There are also federal regulations that define a candidate and determine when discrimination occurs. The long or hard part of this story is what follows in my quest to address the discrimination by contacting the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (enforcers of the Unruh Act) and also other government agencies like the city clerk election division, city ethics division, LA County registrar, LA County Board of Supervisor, State Attorney General, and city Mayor and Council. Most of these entities have not responded in any productive or positive manner or at all. Hence the Politics of Racism. This page primarily recalls communications with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. All emails are redacted. The DFEH has turned at least two of the numerous complaints into signed “complaints” while some of the others (inexplicably the facts are almost the same issue) were closed and some are still pending investigation.

Names of Los Angeles Mayor and Council; other candidate names

Subject: Appeal of Intake Closure DFEH Case Number 202002-09440429 – According to the DFEH All Black Lives do not Matter

From: GJohnson
To: selena.wong@dfeh.ca.gov
Cc: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; answers@hud.gov Date: Monday, June 22, 2020, 11:16 AM PDT

Newsom DFEH Says All Black Lives Do Not Matter – Governor says segregation of Blacks is ok- Governor told of racism (practiced) by Department of Fair Employment and Housing employees

Selena Wong, regional administrator DFEH
2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100
Elk Grove CA 95758

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Dear DFEH Governor Gavin Newsom and Kevin Kish:

I hereby appeal from the June 18 2020 closure of the civil rights Unruh case against MESSOB restaurant, such intake closure copy attached.

Your closure ignores and does not address the signed Feb 7 2020 “Complaint” against MESSOB that is pending with the DFEH against MESSOB. Your letter of closure says it only addressed the Intake form. Irregradless, I don’t believe the DFEH has the authority to close a signed Complaint.

Your closure is abuse of authority, abuse of discretion, and failure to comply with the provisions of the Unruh Act. This email shall constitute a claim for continuing damages against the State government of

California and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. This email is being forwarded to HUD for investigation and revocation of federal funds to the California DFEH.

I address your closure letter:
1. DFEH states: “We lack the information to proceed forward with a complaint for investigation.”

Response: I disagree. The DFEH has adequate information to proceed with an investigation, the same information it would have if Blacks were lynched and their bloody bodies dragged through the streets of the California state Capital in front of Governor Gavin Newsom.

2. DFEH states: “You provided information that individuals of your race and color were allowed to speak at the candidate forum.”

Response: As stated to the DFEH interviewer, the Unruh Act does not require a showing of a violation of disparate impact or disparate treatment, therefore the application of it here is a violation of the Unruh Act by the DFEH. Therefore, the inclusion of that in the DFEH closure letter is unauthorized and just as bad as the DFEH as it lynching a Nigger and leaving him to lie dead in the street bloody and gasping for air and without the protection of the very government that claims the Nigger is entitled to equal protection under the law. The entire letter of closure from the DFEH needs to be invalidated and reversed on those grounds alone. The government is obligated to provide Equal Protection to Blacks, and under Unruh full and equal privileges to all persons; but even in these days of “Black Lives Matter”, the Gavin Newsom DFEH still refuses to provide equal protection and Unruh protection to all Black Americans such as myself.

3. DFEH states: “You also indicated you were not allowed to speak at a candidate forum because you were not a qualified candidate. ” Etc.
Response: As indicated to the interviewer and on the written record, the respondent MESSOB indicated it was their opinion that as a Black, of medium color, I was not a qualified candidate. MESSOB had actual and constructive knowledge of my race and color as they saw me in person on the date of their candidate forum. As indicated to the Gavin Newsom DFEH interviewer, I was indeed a government qualified candidate and under the Equal Protection Clause, the Unruh Act, and the CFR, entitled to full and equal benefits and privileges of campaign exposure to social media as well as the benefit of speaking at a candidate forum. Your stated intake closure admits the fact that I am a Black American,

of medium color, a protected basis and activity under Unruh DFEH but because I was also a qualified candidate, in your Newsom-Kish decision, I am somehow not protected under Unruh or any enumerated basis under Unruh. That is not based on the law of Unruh or any authority of the DFEH, a nebulous government agency at best posing as an arm of the Ku Klux Klan.

The DFEH flyer states, “However, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.”

Certainly, in denying the authority of the Supreme Court, the DFEH has refused to validate me as a Black, medium color, qualified candidate, who undoubtedly has personal characteristics similar to the stated characteristics under Unruh of “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition”. But the DFEH intake closure states that I do not have such characteristics, or similar characteristics, so the DFEH is in the business of shuffling papers and supporting conditions that cause a George Floyd to be murdered in 8:46 minutes, but the DFEH says it is not in the business of of enforcing “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of  every kind whatsoever”, the rights that this Black, of medium color, qualified candidate is entitled to.

The Newsom-Kish-DFEH intake closure in favor of MESSOB is a crime before humanity that Black and Latinos government employees participate in this denial of full and equal rights, privileges, and protections to their own Black and Latino brothers and sisters; exactly what the worldwide Black Lives Matter is saying.

As a Black, of medium color, qualified candidate, I fall under the characteristics enumerated under the Unruh act, and the Act covers this case because the Act prohibits “all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.” As this case indicates, and the DFEH admits knowledge of, my race, Black, and color medium, were known to the Respondent MESSOB when they made their decision to exclude me from candidate publicity and from the candidate forum; at the time of the exclusion, the DFEH knows that I was Black, of medium color, such characteristics protected under Unruh. That I was Black, of medium color, and a qualified candidate, is also under the authority of the DFEH because as the DFEH says, I had personal characteristics similar to the protected categories i.e. I was a qualified candidate who was Black, of medium color. The DFEH admits knowledge that MESSOB’s conduct constituted “arbitrary and intentional discrimination”, thus this establishes the jurisdiction of the DFEH to investigate thru a complaint.

In Harris, the court interpreted this sentence to mean that a policy which limits access to public accommodations does not amount to prohibited discrimination so long as the policy “is applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1155; Beaty v. Truck Ins. Exchange, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463.). The DFEH knows that in this instant case MESSOB, the MESSOB conduct to exclude certain candidates from publicity and the candidate forums was not “applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc.” Thus, the DFEH has authority to investigate.

  1. That Respondent MESSOB denied/aided and incited a candidate forum publicized on social media and held at the restaurant January 11, 2020, open to the Public, that denied full and equal privileges, advantages, and services to Claimant Geary Johnson
  2. That Respondent MESSOB made a distinction that claimant was not a legally qualified candidate on the ballot, such distinction publicized on social media and held at the restaurant and advertised and open to the Public, that denied full and equal privileges, advantages, and services to Claimant Geary Johnson
  3. That a substantial motivating reason for MESSOB’s conduct was its perception of claimant GEARY JOHNSON’s race Black, color medium Black, and political candidate not on the ballot, not a legally qualified candidate on the ballot, and a write-in candidate
  4. That the race, Black, color medium Black, and political candidate not on the ballot and legally qualified status of persons claimant Geary Johnson was associated with , i.e up to two hundred and fifty other legally certified and qualified write-in candidates, was a substantial motivating reason for the Respondent MESSOB’s conduct.
  5. That claimant Geary Johnson was harmed including but not limited to being placed in a false light, denied campaign social media publicity, denied the privilege of having his campaign platform heard at a public forum, lost votes, loss of campaign contributions, denied full and equal advantages and privileges by respondent’s conduct
  6. That respondent MESSOB’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to claimant
  7. That respondent MESSOB’s conduct was intentional to cause harm to claimant
  8. That the alleged discrimination was not justified by a legitimate business reason
  9. That claimant was a Black, medium color, certified and legally qualified political candidate by order of the Los Angeles city clerk, and whose designation “write-in candidate” would and did appear on the official government authorized voter ballot

10. That allowing this complaint to proceed will serve to enforce the statutory provision of the Unruh act that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”

Dear Governor:

The DFEH is unresponsive. Please arrange to have this email and attachments placed with the above case number file. Thank you.

THE ACTIONS OF MESSOB, AIDED BY OTHERS, WAS MALICIOUS, HOSTILE, AND DAMAGING TO MYSELF, SUCH AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DFEH

“Invidious discrimination is the treatment of individuals in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging.” (Javorsky v. Western Athletic Clubs, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1404 [195 Cal.Rptr.3d 706].)

UNDER UNRUH, THE DEFH DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPLY A “DISPARATE IMPACT” TEST

“[T]he language and history of the Unruh Act indicate that the legislative object was to prohibit intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. We have been directed to no authority, nor have we located any, that would justify extension of a disparate impact test, which has been developed and applied by the federal courts primarily in employment discrimination cases, to a general discrimination-in-public- accommodations statute like the Unruh Act. Although evidence of adverse impact on a particular group of persons may have probative value in public accommodations cases and should therefore be admitted in appropriate cases subject to the general rules of evidence, a plaintiff must nonetheless plead and prove a case of intentional discrimination to recover under the Act.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1149.)

IN VIOLATION OF UNRUH, RESPONDENT MESSOB, AIDED BY OTHERS, DID DISCRIMINATE AND MAKE A DISTINCTION THAT ON ACCOUNT OF MY ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER BLACK POLITICAL CANDIDATES CALLED “QUALIFIED”, THAT I WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF MY ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER BLACK CANDIDATES WHO WERE OR WERE NOT PERCEIVED AS QUALIFIED CANDIDATES

“It is thus manifested by section 51 that all persons are entitled to the full and equal privilege of associating with others in any business establishment. And section 52, liberally interpreted, makes clear that discrimination by such a business establishment against one’s right of association on account of the associates’ color, is violative of the Act. It follows . . . that discrimination by a business establishment against persons on account of their association with others of the black race is actionable under the Act.” (Winchell v. English (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 125, 129 [133 Cal.Rptr. 20].)

In re Cox, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 210.) The court held the Unruh Civil Rights Act barred such treatment; in fact, the court held the Act “prohibit[ed] all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments.” (Id. at p. 216, italics added. (Source: Google)

THE POLICY OF MESSOB , AIDED BY OTHERS, ENGAGED IN PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE ITS PRIVILEGED POLICY OF INCLUSION IN THE CANDIDATE FORUM DID NOT APPLY ALIKE TO EVERY PERSON WHO WAS BLACK OR COLOR, MEDIUM. INFACT UNDER CFR 47 CFR §73.1940, MY PARTICIPATION WAS CONDITIONED UNDER LAW

THAT I WAS A LEGALLY GOVERNMENT QUALIFIED POLITICAL CANDIDATE ENTITLED NOT TO BE SEGREGATED FROM OTHER LEGALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES

“This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition.” In Harris, the court interpreted this sentence to mean that a policy which limits access to public accommodations does not amount to prohibited discrimination so long as the policy “is applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1155; Beaty v. Truck Ins. Exchange, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463.)

“…for purposes of standing, that he or she visited the business’s website, encountered discriminatory terms, and intended to make use of the business’s services. These requirements are sufficient to limit standing under the Unruh Civil Rights Act to persons with a concrete and actual interest that is not merely hypothetical or conjectural” (Source: Google. 2019 case California Supreme Court and online businesses).

Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940]
Legally qualified candidates for public office

(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:
(1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;

(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and

(3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person: (1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot; or

(2) Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona de candidate for nomination or office

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)

“A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who….
Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method” 47 CFR §73.1940

“Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.” Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)

I request this case be reopened and a DFEH complaint form be submitted to me for signing.

All rights reserved.

Geary Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone  (redacted)

reference: Damage Claim against the DFEH dated and received by the DFEH and HUD 5/20/20.
Note: according to the LA County registrar office, in the March 2020 election, there were over 250 qualified write-in candidates. For those that fall under the protected characteristics, Governor Newsom is saying that none of those persons are entitled to protection under the Unruh Act.

“California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act protects those with the characteristics listed in the section “Who is protected?” from discrimination or harassment by business establishments. This law requires both public and private businesses to provide individuals “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services.” It applies to housing and public accommodations as well as to establishments such as stores, restaurants, barber shops, among others.” (Source: DFEH).

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]

attached: 2020-6-18 DFEH Closure Johnson MESSOB Form Closure.pdf