September 10, 2020
(Note from Editor: City Attorney Mike Feuer is running for Mayor of Los Angeles 2022. Mike Feuer does not believe “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.” That is why Feuer runs for Mayor. This same information below is part of today’s city CPRA 20-6377. This same information was emailed to the Los Angeles Mayor and Council today at 12:00 pm.)
Thursday , July 9, 2020. Re Election Complaints.
Via US Certified mail _________________________________ Via First Class Mail.
The Office of Mike Feuer
Los Angeles City Attorney
James K. Hahn City Hall East, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Civil and Human Rights Commission.
City Civil and Human Rights Commissioners Araceli Campos Aziza Hasan Helena Marissa Montex Executive Director Maegan E. Ortiz Capri Maddox Keith Parker Abigail Zelenski.
City Hall
200 North Spring Street Los Angeles CA 90012.
Office of the City Clerk – Election Division 555 Ramirez Street Space 300
Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Director
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
500 West Temple St. Ste 383 Los Angeles, CA 90012.
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
1/01/2020 12:00:00 AM.
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED.
Color;Race;Sex/Gender;Other.
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 1, 2020, I believe I was denied full or equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color, gender (male), and age (66).
Specifically, on January 6, 2020, I became a formal political candidate by the City and County Election Clerk and on July 6, 2020 appeared on the City Clerk website as a qualified candidate. I became aware of a candidate forum event at and emailed the listed contacts stating that I wanted to participate. When I arrived at the event, I was informed that I was not a ”qualified candidate” and would not be allowed to participate in the forum.
Specifically,
- Upon becoming a qualified candidate on January 6, 2020, I notified the LA County registrar that their posted website list needed to be corrected to include the write-in candidates.
- The county registrar would eventually post a separate list of city of Los Angeles write-in candidates but used the word “final” or did not use the word “final” which was intended to and did confuse voters and candidates as to what the word “final” meant. My inquiries to government officials were ignored.
- The city clerk election division claimed it would not be posting a “final” list of write-in candidates until 18 days before the March 3 election. This was not honest or transparent to the act that early absentee ballot voting had already started and such voters may have been confused as to whether they could even vote for a write-in candidate at that point. My inquiries to the election division and other officials were ignored.
- The same misinformation and lack of transparency occurred when the sample ballot booklet and vote by mail ballot were mailed out. Both stated that a list of write-in candidates would not be available until 18 days before the election; this was misleading and favored regular candidates because the county list of write-in candidates was posted to their website in December 2019. My inquiries on this issue to public officials were ignored.
- Numerous churches, community organizations, and city funded neighborhood councils held candidate forums where the write-in candidates were prohibited from speaking on the podium such as myself as a write-n candidate. I also was denied free social media election publicity by such organizations. My inquiries during this time period were essentially ignored.
- Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas participated and aided in three of the candidate forums from which I was excluded. This is a violation of the county code of ethics. Ridley-Thomas should be disqualified as a candidate.
- At many of the in person voting booths, the list of write-in candidates was either not available or not visible.
To City Attorney Mike Feuer and the
Civil Rights Commission,
city Los Angeles election division,
county of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, et al:
What corrective action, if any, has been taken against the city Empowerment Department , neighborhoods councils, and the Election Division?
What instruction has been given to neighborhood councils as regards the future treatment of candidate publicity and candidate forums?
The city civil rights department (civil and human rights commission) is requested to advise me in writing how I may make a formal complaint against the neighborhood councils for violation of city discrimination laws or ordinances and city ethics requirements.
For the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the city of Los Angeles Election Division, what corrective action, if any, has been taken against the office of the LA County Registrar? What instruction has been given to the LA County registrar as regards the future treatment of candidate lists and the inclusion of correct qualified candidate names in the sample ballot, ballot, and at the voting booths and the inclusion of the correct information to the Public as to when write-in candidates can receive the vote.
“…nominating signatures (should be) submitted online by voters”
I support the elimination of the nomination petition process in favor of candidates simply signing up to be a candidate. I support the elimination of write-in candidate process due to the extreme prejudice they have sometimes endured from the public, in favor of the number of candidates for the nominating petition being reduced from 500 to 50 registered voters for all candidate offices, and that during the nominating process, if the process is not eliminated, that the nominating signatures be submitted online by registered voters and that the clerk of the election division publish online a tally of the votes on a daily basis during the nominating period, such numbers to be published for each candidate.
Since I have a hearing disability, I request the reasonable accommodation that each entity respond to me in writing rather than via phone call.
All rights reserved:
Sincerely,
G. JUAN JOHNSON.
cc: Assembly person Sydney Kamlager; Senator Kamala Harris
Did respondent West Adams Neighborhood Council 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 West Adams Neighborhood Council intentional?
Yes. Without West Adams Neighborhood Council’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 West Adams Neighborhood Council 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 West Adams Neighborhood Council 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 West Adams Neighborhood Council location and by appearance revealed his 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. West Adams Neighborhood Council 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.
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 West Adams Neighborhood Council 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 West Adams Neighborhood Council —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 West Adams Neighborhood Council’s practice. West Adams Neighborhood Council 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).
Thursday , July 9, 2020. Re Housing Complaints
Via US Certified mail _________________________________
Via First Class Mail
The Office of Mike Feuer
Los Angeles City Attorney
James K. Hahn City Hall East, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90012.
Civil and Human Rights Commission
City Civil and Human Rights Commissioners Araceli Campos Aziza Hasan Helena Marissa Montex Executive Director Maegan E. Ortiz Capri Maddox Keith Parker Abigail Zelenski.
City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles CA 90012.
I ALLEGE THAT THE RESPONDENT HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT (“HCIDLA”) 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
1/01/2020 12:00:00 AM
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED
Color;Race;Sex/Gender, Age
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 1, 2020 , I believe I was denied full or equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color, gender (male), and age (66).
Specifically, on or around January 1, 2020, I had submitted numerous code violation and REAP complaints to the city HCIDLA rent stabilization and code enforcement departments. Based on the complaints submitted to the city, the city has authority to order the landlord to restore such services or the city has he mandatory authority and due diligence under city ordinances to restore the services and bill the owner. The city government agencies of Los Angeles city government have failed to exercise their mandatory duties of due diligence.
See the enclosed June 3, 2020 email sent to the city at 3:10 pm subject “Revised talk with code enforcement re 1522 Hi Point St – DFEH Case number 202004-09852207. The attachments to the email are not included with this complaint. See the enclosed email sent June 7, 2020 at 10:32 am. subject “Code violation Filed Against Hi Point Apts LLC”.
The city government HCIDLA has the authority to restore full and equal housing privileges at this location to me regarding intercom maintenance and tandem parking, and the city government has denied me such full or equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color, gender (male), and age (66).
To City Attorney Mike Feuer and the Civil Rights Commission:
What corrective action, if any, has been taken against the city HCIDLA in accordance with the attached emails and code violation complaint 763827?
The city civil rights commission is requested to advise me in writing how I may make a formal complaint against the HCIDLA.
Since I have a hearing disability, I request the reasonable accommodation that each entity respond to me in writing rather than via phone call.
All rights reserved:
Sincerely,
G. JUAN JOHNSON.
cc: Assembly person Sydney Kamlager;
Senator Kamala Harris
9/10/20 CPRA REQUEST:
The USPS certified numbers include to Mike Feuer 7020 1290 0000 2755 2712 and 7020 1290 0000 2755 2705; to the city clerk election division 7020 1290 0000 2755 2668; to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 7020 1290 0000 2755 2675.
Attached are copies of the two Certified Mails sent to perspective parties on July 9, 2020. Copies were also sent by US First class mail. I have not received a response from any party. I understand that city attorney Mike Feuer, in his quest to become Mayor, signifies that this is his current and future stance to ignore discrimination complaints against city entities and employees.
G. Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St #9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Is the city civil and human rights commission real or a scam?
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 