LA City West Adams Neighborhood Council Charged with Racism

(Note from Editor: The original intake and complaint was filed with the DFEH on February 25, 2020 against city Los Angeles West Adams Neighborhood Council (“WANC”). Neighborhood council members are considered to be city employees also subject to the city’s ethics code. The DFEH does not allow “complaints” to be filed directly because first a DFEH Intake form must be filed. The DFEH conducts an interview and then they “decide” whether they will draft up a complaint for signature. Often a DFEH intake does not turn into a complaint and the intake is closed. In this case against WANC, a signed complaint was filed along with the intake. On June 30, 2020, an amended complaint was filed against WANC with the DFEH. Around August 14, the DFEH refused to investigate WANC. An appeal was filed August 14 and August 21 with the DFEH. The documents herein are meant to be indicative but not inclusive, and may be redacted. The WANC acts under the authority of the city Neighborhood Empowerment Department. It is possible the neighborhood councils will face punitive action before the city council or in a court of competent jurisdiction. The statute of limitations on personal injury is three years in California. Even though the DFEH has a mandate to address illegal discrimination, they IMO do more harm than good by not adhering to the laws. The intractable practices of the DFEH are proof that Blacks will have to continue to march and protest to get full and equal services and privileges. WANC members include Shawna Dungo, Karen Hernandez, Steven Meeks, Yolanda Davis, Kristyn Yancy, Sean Curley, Connye Thomas, Eva Aubry, Richard Williams, Leon Burdeos, Clinton Simmons.)

(This email has been redacted)

September 11, 2020

Subject: Racist Appeal Determination of DFEH Case Number 202003-09664120 Johnson/West Adams Neighborhood Council (“WANC”)

From: GJohnson (redacted)

To: selena.wong@dfeh.ca.gov; james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; maria.gonzalez@dfeh.ca.gov; elizabeth.reyes@dfeh.ca.gov; colleen.janatpour@dfeh.ca.gov; nai.saechao@dfeh.ca.gov; julia.araneta@dfeh.ca.gov; karina.arabolaza@dfeh.ca.gov; noah.frigault@dfeh.ca.gov; teri.houston@dfeh.ca.gov; susia.parra@dfeh.ca.gov; camilla.asuncion@dfeh.ca.gov; adele.cox@dfeh.ca.gov; gilbert.aragon@dfeh.ca.gov; kenady.hunley@dfeh.ca.gov

Cc: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; empowerla@lacity.org; askdoj@usdoj.gov; answers@hud.gov

Date: Friday, September 11, 2020, 11:18 AM PDT

Newsom-Kish DFEH Ok’s Lynching

of Negroes by LA city

Neighborhood Council

Dear DFEH:

I disagree with the appeal denial concerning this matter. It is not acceptable as a resolution. I will be filing another complaint against West Adams Neighborhood Council on the grounds your decision is biased.

The complaint Respondent West Adams Neighborhood Council, are city Los Angeles government employees, under strict requirements to comply with the city Ethics code and all civil rights laws. The WANC co-sponsored a candidate forum where the publicity and participation was not provided to all candidates alike.

The Unruh Act protects “all persons”. Although many in America may think that I am only 2/3 a person, it would not be true. Unruh protects me as a person and as a Black American, medium color, over aged 66, male, who has the personal belief that I was a legally qualified political candidate around January 6, 2020.

You indicated in your denial letter at least three racists in the employ of the State government: yourself, the intake interviewer, and the supervisor.

Under the state Unruh Act, a personal rights law, as a person I am “entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Pausing here for a second, did the Respondent WANC provide me with “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” ? No, they did not, thus this provides one of the elements necessary for the DFEH to investigate.

Pausing again, the DFEH has consistently taken the position in Unruh cases that a violation is actionable is the respondent acted “because of” a person’s protected characteristics. For those

DFEH employees in the English comprehension class, that is not what Unruh says. Unruh says was a person provided full and equal etc.
“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”. The phrase “no matter what” is not defined the same as “because of”. Did WANC violate the Unruh Act in this regard? Yes, thus this provides one of the elements necessary for the DFEH to investigate.

The link has clearly been established here between the basis —my protected categories—- and the harm —-denial of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” “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”—— denial of publicity and participation at the WANC forum.

LET’S EXAMINE PRIMA FACIE AND

TEST THE DFEH ON ENGLISH COMPREHENSION

The standard of proof required in Unruh Act cases is the same as that used in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a) cases. See Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co., 28 Cal. App. 4th 686, 694-95 (1994).

The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); (emphasizing the low threshold for a prima facie case and holding that even an employee’s self-assessment is relevant evidence). A plaintiff needs only to offer evidence which “gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 1983);

“With all inferences made in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and the minimal showing necessary at the prima facie stage, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit an inference of a discriminatory motive based on their allegations that defendant subjected them to treatment different from that accorded a similarly situated white passenger on their flight. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination. “TRIGUEROS v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES | Civil No. O5-CV- 2256-L(AJB). | S.D. Cal. | Judgment |

The DFEH appeal denial states as Prima Facie:

(1) the complainant is a member of a protected class

(2) the complainant sustained an act of harm and

(3) establish linking evidence between harm and basis (e.g. direct or circumstantial)

My Position

1. I have established that I am a member of a protected class(s)

2. I sustained an act of harm denial of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever


3. I have established linking evidence between the harm and the basis

(Note from editor: two candidates granted full and equal privileges at the candidates forums were Grace Yoo, female Asian, and a female Latino, Aura Vasquez).

RELATED LAWS ON POLITICAL

CANDIDATE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

The WANC candidate forum was sponsored using local government monies. The WANC forum was co-sponsored with a Church. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Under GC 82007, I was considered to be a legally qualified candidate, as of January 5, 2020. Under CFR below, I was a legally qualified candidate on January 5, 2020. Under the Communications act of 1934 below, and as the WANC event was being videotaped by the media, discrimination between candidates is prohibited.

MORE FROM THE DFEH DENIAL

The DFEH states in part, “the respondent identified candidates, who were on the Los Angeles County Certified List of candidates as of December 16, 2019, were invited to be panel members. You confirmed you were not on the list as a candidate. The reason for the denial of participation is unrelated to a protected category and does not support a link between your harm and basis.”

I disagree.

First, on my DFEH intake, the most recent date of harm was stated as January 12, 2020, not December 16, 2019. Documentation with the Intake showed email correspondence between the Respondent and myself as January 9, 2020 to January 11, 2020. The candidate event was held on January 12, 2020. There is no mention in this email exchange of the December 16, 2019 date.

Second, the denial of participation that I alleged, as a legally qualified Black candidate, concerned the events that occurred January 6 thru January 12, 2020 and the fact I appeared at the event to request full and equal advantages, at which time I was denied “full and equal etc.”. The laws and regulations below show that by January 6, 2020, I was a legally qualified candidate and entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” At the point of January 6, 2020 to January 12, 2020, the WANC was prohibited by law from discriminating against me.

The DFEH also has jurisdiction over intentional discrimination, arbitrary discrimination, and practices such as WANC where all persons (myself) were not treated in a full and equal manner “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”. “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).) The DFEH fails to mention this in their denial.

That the WANC made a decision on December 16, 2020 did not give it the right to violate the Unruh Act between January 6 and January 11, 2020. As of January 6, 2020, I was on the city authorized list of legally qualified write-in candidates and entitled to be treated in accordance with the state Unruh act, as well as other applicable civil rights laws. The DFEH, as proof of its systemic, intractable racial bias as government employees, completely ignores the evidence presented to them that I was a candidate on January 6, 2020.

I ask that HUD overturn the appeal denial on the basis stated herein, notwithstanding that I will file a new complaint.

Please forward me the name of the supervisor in this case. I hereby ask the Governor Newsom to terminate from employment Selena Wong and the investigator and supervisor in this case based on their racial animosity towards me and due to the fact said employees do not comprehend English. Your denial decision of September 2, 2020 is attached.

All rights reserved.

G. Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone (redacted)

cc: Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment via EmpowerLA@LACity.org; HUD; DOJ

The High-Tech Lynching

“And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. — U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

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)

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV
TITLE 9. POLITICAL REFORM [81000 – 91014] ( Title 9 added June 4, 1974, by initiative Proposition 9. )

CHAPTER 2. Definitions [82000 – 82054]

( Chapter 2 added June 4, 1974, by initiative Proposition 9. )

82007.
(a) “Candidate” means any of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) Anyone who receives a contribution, makes an expenditure, or gives their consent for another person to receive a contribution or make an expenditure, to bring about the person’s nomination or election to an elective office, even if any of the following apply: (A) The specific elective office for which the person will seek nomination or election is unknown at the time the contribution is received or the expenditure is made. (B) The person has not announced the candidacy or filed a declaration of candidacy.
(3) An elected officer, including any elected officer who is the subject of a recall.

(b) Anyone who becomes a candidate retains candidate status until that status is terminated under Section 84214. (c) “Candidate” does not include any candidate, as defined in Section 30101(2) of Title 52 of the United States Code, for federal office, as to the person’s activities related to seeking nomination or election to that federal office.

2020-9-2 DFEH Appeal Denial Adams.pdf

Newsom-Kish DFEH Ok’s Lynching

of Negroes by LA city Neighborhood Council

August 21, 2020

SUBJECT: Appeal DFEH case

# 202003-09664120

JOHNSON/ WEST ADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL –

Violation of the Unruh Act civil rights

From: GJohnson
To: james.baca@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; askdoj@usdoj.gov; answers@hud.gov
Cc: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; assemblymember.kamlager@assembly.ca.gov

Date: Friday, August 21, 2020, 09:22 AM PDT

DEAR DFEH:

I just received the Notice of Intake Form Closure re this case. My understanding is that the signed Amended Complaint to you dated 6/30/20 is still pending since your notice of closure only addresses the Intake.

The dated DFEH Aug 14 notice of closure is attached. It was postmarked on August 17.

The Governor Gavin Newsom DFEH by its intake closure acts in an arbitrary, unfair, and unjust manner, in violation of its mandatory duty to route out and eliminate all racial discrimination in the state of California.

I am further appealing this matter to James Baca at the DFEH. I attach my Aug 14, 2020 initial notice of appeal because I had not received the intake closure letter yet.

The Respondent West Adams Neighborhood Council (“WANC”) are city Los Angeles government employees. As complainant, I am a Black male American entitled to protection under the laws of the State of California and the state Unruh Act. I am entitled to “the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” (Unruh). By the proven actions of the Respondent, I was denied “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”.

Your intake closure states “we lack jurisdiction to proceed forward on your complaint because you do not have a basis under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)/Unruh.” The matter of “basis” has already been addressed because the DFEH made such a ruling in two previous signed complaints that are associated with WANC where the facts are substantially similar and where WANC was a party to the deprivation of rights. This acts as res judicata that the matter re WANC and “basis” has already been decided by the DFEH. The DFEH decisions regarding “basis” were part of DFEH drafted complaints signed by me July 6, 2020 and August 4, 2020; WANC was named in those supporting documents for those associated cases.

This is a matter of urgent public concern and will be posted to the worldwide web. All rights reserved.

Geary Juan Johnson

(Ham-Jew-DNA-Kushite/Black)

1522 HI POINT ST 9

LOS ANGELES CA 90035

“Black Lives Matter”

c: Federal Bureau of Investigation Paul D. Delacourt, Robert C. Bone II, Amir Ehsaei, Mathew Moon, Voviette Morgan, Stephen Woolery.

(As told to the DFEH February 25, 2020:
“The Holman Church Forum on Jan 12, 2020 was sponsored by members of the city Neighborhood Councils (“NC”). The Neighborhood Councils are part of the Los Angeles city Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which includes numerous neighborhood councils across the city. Some of the neighborhood councils have announced candidate forums where write-in candidates are excluded from the city funded advertising and from speaking at candidates at the forums. For further example, a candidate forum is announced for February 20, 2020 in which the write-in candidate has been excluded. The NC’s officials sponsoring this event include as announced on social media are: Greater Wilshire, Los Felix, Hollywood United, Bel-Air Beverly Crest, Central Hollywood, Greater Toluca Lake, Hollywood Hills West, and include city officials by name Ted Cannon, Raymond Duran, Josh Hertz, Robin Greenberg, Patricia Carroll, Tom Meredith, Elvina Beck, Richard McFalls, Anatasia Mann.”)

“Therefore, the pure righteous do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil,
but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but
increase wisdom.” Arpilei Tohar, p. 27-28. [As seen posted at 1522 Hi Point St Apts]

Thursday, January 23, 2020, 03:44 PM PST

Re: Jan 25th CD-10 Candidates Form

Your continued denial of “full and equal privileges”

Corruption under Garcetti Racism Under Garcetti

Forum Co-Sponsors
Empowerment Congress West NC (ECWA) Mid-City NC (MINC)
Olympic Park NC (OPNC)
South Robertson NC (SORONC)
United Neighborhoods NC (UNNC)
West Adams NC (WANC)
Wilshire Center-Koreatown NC (WCKNC) RAHEEM DAWSON
United Neighborhoods Neighborhood Council

Region 1 Representative & Communications Chair

TO: raheem.dawson@unnc.org; aura.meyers@unnc.org; esai.vergara@unnc.org; greg.jackson@unnc.org; marielle.farnan@unnc.org; gavin.abercrombie@unnc.org; john.arnold@unnc.org; tori.bailey@unnc.org; hmpeace63@gmail.com; cordell.hinton@unnc.org; chris.carlson@unnc.org; mazy.janey@gmail.com; tracey.hart@unnc.org; nanc09@gmail.com; najee.thornton@unnc.org; empowerla@lacity.org; voicesncchair17@gmail.com; garykasbarian@soronc.org; realtorericajung@gmail.com, clerk.election@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.smith@lacity.org; holman@holmanumc.com; hollywoodbureau@naacpnet.org

Dear Mr. Raheem Dawson, et al:

I am in receipt of your email of January 23, 2020. I don’t appreciate you sharing your racism, biases, and prejudices on behalf of the city government of Los Angeles and your biases and prejudices regarding the scheduled January 25, 2020 candidates forum.

Your letter reads like what Hitler would have said at the ovens of Auschwitz.

Your email is not acceptable as a resolution of the damages that have occurred. Your email is further violation of the state Unruh Act which provides for “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever—” which includes business establishments and public entities.

Your letter and the actions of those co-conspirators you allege, are not by accident, they are intentional violations of the city Los Angeles Code of Ethics sections II, V, XII, XIII, XIV.

Your email is further evidence of the elite class and racial bias, and corruption, that exists in this city with the use of city tax dollars, under mayor Eric Garcetti and others.

Without waiving the damages that have occurred, I again request that I be allowed equal privileges to speak (re Unruh) on the podium Jan. 25 with the other five candidates at your alleged 2020 Candidate Forum at FAME church. Please cease and desist immediately your violation of the state Unruh Act, CC 51 et seq.

Your email is not acceptable as a resolution of the damages that have occurred.

All rights reserved.


G. Juan Johnson

Certified Candidate 2020 Council District 10;

“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.” CC 51, Unruh

On Thursday, January 23, 2020, 10:49:43 AM PST, Raheem Dawson <raheem.dawson@unnc.org> wrote:

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We are in receipt of your e-mail dated January 19. Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the 2020 Los Angeles City Council District 10 Candidates Forum that is scheduled to take place on Saturday, January 25.

This Forum is a non-partisan event that is being held to inform members of the public about the issues and positions of candidates who will appear on the ballot in the March 3, 2020 election. Due to logistical and timing issues, it is not always possible for a candidate forum to accommodate every candidate in a given election. In selecting the participants in this Forum, the sponsors applied objective criteria — specifically, the candidates who appeared on the Los Angeles City Clerk’s December 13, 2019 Certified Official List of Candidates who qualified to appear on the ballot for the March 3, 2020 Primary Election, which was announced in a News Release issued by the Los Angeles City Clerk on December 16, 2019. (See attached.) Since you did not utilize the nominating process to be included on this list, we are unable to accommodate your request to be included as a participant in this Forum. Your allegations suggesting some form of discrimination are not valid and are belied by the diversity of the group of co-sponsors and the objective criteria used for participants.

We hope that this addresses your concerns. Please feel free to bring your campaign flyers to the Forum and place them on one of the tables that will be set up in the lobby.

Sincerely,

Forum Co-Sponsors
Empowerment Congress West NC (ECWA) Mid-City NC (MINC) Olympic Park NC (OPNC)
South Robertson NC (SORONC)
United Neighborhoods NC (UNNC)
West Adams NC (WANC)
Wilshire Center-Koreatown NC (WCKNC)

Let’s Chat!

RAHEEM DAWSON
United Neighborhoods Neighborhood Council Region 1 Representative & Communications Chair

(Editor note: The emails above have been redacted)

From: GJohnson
To: sandhya.panda@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com Cc: manuel.a.alvarado@hud.gov; askdoj@usdoj.gov; answers@hud.gov
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020, 02:20 PM PDT

Governor Newsom

Asked to Fire ‘Racist’ Worker

SUBJECT: DFEH Case Number 202003-09664120 Johnson/West Adams Neighborhood Council

Dear DFEH:

“…discrimination foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advance, and substantially and adversely affects the interest of employees, employers, and the public in general.” (§ 12920.)

Sandyha, I believe you are a racist. The Governor needs to remove you from your position.

Your decision to close the intake denies me as a Black American male the “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” as required under the Unruh Act. Racists like you, Sandyha, need to suffer the severest penalty under the law, as well as your supervisor, for practicing racial discrimination and retaliation against me.

My email of Wed,July 8 2020 at 10:48 am clearly lays out the undisputed violations of the law by Los Angeles city employees of West Adams Neighborhood Council.

Your decision is hereby appealed. I am not sure who is handling the appeal.
Please send me a regular PDF of the closure decision because I cannot access the link you sent me.

This email will be posted to the worldwide web.

All rights reserved.

Geary Juan Johnson 1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone (redacted)

(C: GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM)

On Friday, August 14, 2020, 02:26:01 PM PDT, Panda, Sandhya@DFEH <sandhya.panda@dfeh.ca.gov> wrote:

Panda, Sandhya@DFEH has shared a OneDrive for Business file with you. To view it, click the link below.

2020.08.14_.Johnson _ NIC.pdf

Dear Geary Juan Johnson,

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing has closed your case. Please see the attached Notice of Intake Closure letter for details.

Thank you

Sandhya Panda
Associa Governmenal Program Analyst Enforcement Division
Department of Fair Employment and Housing 2218 Kausen Drive, Sui 100
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Phone: 916-582-6934 sandhya.panda@dfeh.ca.gov

July 8, 2020

SUBJECT: DFEH Case Number 202003-09664120 Johnson/West Adams Neighborhood Council

From: GJohnson (email address redacted)

To: sandhya.panda@dfeh.ca.gov
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020, 10:48 AM PDT

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)

Sandhya:
Thank you for the intake interview today.
I include herein a copy of what was emailed July 6, 2020 and attachments.

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 WANC full and equal privileges and services, and that is actionable no matter how many other Blacks were provided the privilege.

Geary Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Amended Complaint for DFEH Case Number 202003-09664120 Johnson/West Adams Neighborhood Council

From: GJohnson
To: sandhya.panda@dfeh.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov

Date: Monday, July 6, 2020, 03:58 PM PDT

Amended Complaint for DFEH Case Number 202003- 09664120 Johnson/West Adams Neighborhood Council

contact.center@dfeh.ca.
Dear DFEH:
An initial intake form as well as Signed Complaint was received by you February 25, 2020 on this Respondent. The DFEH intake interview is set for July 8.
The June 30 amended complaint was emailed to DFEH on June 1, 2020.
I attach the following documents:

2020-1-25 Random Lengths RL Letters Page Published 2020-1-31 Email to Election Division re Final 2020-2-5 Updated Certified LA Clerk Write-ins
2020-1-6 Write-In Candidate Papers Filed (for G. Juan Johnson)

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

Claimant (myself) was a certified as qualified political candidate. That was my belief as expressed to the Respondent via email on or before January 12, 2020, and on January 12.

Respondent 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

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.

Geary Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035


2020-1-25 Random Lengths RL Letters Page Published.pdf

3.7MB

2020-1-31 Email to Election Division re Final.pdf

238.5kB

2020-2-5 Updated Certified LA Clerk Write-ins.pdf

101.1kB

2020-1-6 Write-In Candidate Papers Filed.pdf

377.7kB

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)

2020-1-25 Random Lengths RL Letters Page Published.pdf

3.7MB

2020-1-31 Email to Election Division re Final.pdf

238.5kB

2020-2-5 Updated Certified LA Clerk Write-ins.pdf

101.1kB

2020-1-6 Write-In Candidate Papers Filed.pdf

377.7kB

2020-6-30 Amended DFEH Complaint re WANC.pdf

373.3kB

6/6

(Note from Editor: this page talks about the allegations against West Adams Neighborhood Council. While the DFEH has so far chosen not to investigate and draft up its own complaint, prior to that, the complainant signed his own document entitled “complaint of discrimination”. A copy of that complaint of 34 pages 2/25/20 is NOT included on this page but was received by the DFEH 2/25/20.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s