June 10, 2021

Governor Gavin Newsom Told of Racist State Employees- re League of Women Voters

Subject: Appeal of DFEH Case against racist League of Women Voters- DFEH case number 202004-09810703

From: GJohnson (email address redacted)

To: appeals@dfeh.ca.gov; lwvdc1920@gmail.com; empowerla@lacity.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; cityclerk@lacity.org; clerk.election@lacity.org; ethics.commission@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.deleon@lacity.org

Cc: wanc@empowerla.org; senator.chang@senate.ca.gov; k.dibiase@whcouncil.org; adozal.wcknc@gmail.com; sresnick@wwnc.org; mary@caldelle.com; jamie@westlasawtelle.org; teri@westlasawtelle.org; info.wattsnc@gmail.com; wimwilltam@yahoo.com; norma.chavez@svanc.com; vahe.grigoryan@svanc.com; lorichoi@prnc.org; christinedemirtshian@gmail.com; josefelixlarios@gmail.com

Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:57 PM PDT

DFEH case numbers 202003-09557910; 202004-09810703; 202105-13536712; and related intakes against ECWA, MINC, OPNC, SORO, WCKNC, Leimert Club, Beverly Hills NAACP et al.

Dear DFEH/ Unruh Act Violations by League of Women Voters re qualified candidate(s) denied full and equal participation at a candidate forum January 2020:

I hereby respond to the DFEH June 6, 2021 “Notice of Case Closure”.

“James Byrd Jr. (May 2, 1949 – June 7, 1998) was an African- American man who was murdered by three white supremacists in Jasper, Texas, on June 7, 1998. Shawn Berry, Lawrence Brewer, and John King dragged him for three miles (five kilometers) behind a pickup truck along an asphalt road. Byrd, who remained conscious for much of his ordeal, was killed about halfway through the dragging when his body hit the edge of a culvert, severing his right arm and head. The murderers drove on for another 1+ 1⁄2 miles (2.5 kilometers) before dumping his torso in front of a black church.”

“(Re Emmett Till). Several nights after the incident in the store, Bryant’s husband Roy and his half-brother J.W. Milam were armed when they went to Till’s great-uncle’s house and abducted Emmett. They took him away and beat and mutilated him, before shooting him in the head and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, Till’s body was discovered and retrieved from the river.”

“There was some kind of scuffle two hundred yards down the street, again strangely noiseless, and a huddled knot of men opened up to reveal two brawlers being separated and pulled away from their fight. What I saw next gave me a fright: in the farther distance, beyond the listless crowd, the body of a lynched man dangling from a tree. The body was slender, dressed from head to toe in black, reflecting no light. It soon resolved itself, however, into a less ominous thing: dark canvas sheeting on a construction scaffold, twirling in the wind.”― Teju Cole, Open City

The state of California government cannot afford to have discrimination complaints such as this adjudicated by state employees who are themselves racially biased, as is the case of employee Robin Blackwell.

I disagree with your (Blackwell) statement that there is insufficient evidence. As a racist person, you failed to comprehend the issues presented to you in emails dated: May 23, 2021 (2:01 pm), May 23 (5:13 pm), May 24 (12:16 pm), May 28 (12:14 pm), May 29 (8:46 pm). Your letter of closure does not mention any of the rebuttal letters I sent you. This indicates your investigation was not thorough. You failed to mention them because you are a racist and you are not able to comprehend English; because you are a racist, it does not matter how much evidence I supplied, you would still act in an arbitrary, unjust, capricious, and racist manner. The department failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

Sufficient evidence has been provided and on that basis I appeal. I ask that the Governor supply an investigator or appeal employee who is not racist and who is able to comprehend English.

Your letters make reference to the statute of limitation in a housing case as two years, however since this is not a housing case, the statute of limitations is 3 years. GC 12980 (h) states “The (DFEH) notice shall also indicate, unless the department has determined that no civil action will be brought, that the person claiming to be aggrieved has the option of continuing to seek redress for the alleged discrimination through the procedures of the department if the person does not desire to file a civil action.” I elect to continue to seek redress thru the department rather than civil action.

Your letter of closure is unlawful in that it describes this case as a “housing case”. It is not a housing case. As this is a case brought under the Unruh Act CC 51, your letter claiming this is a housing case under GC 12980 is without weight and proves you have not closed the case under CC 51, nor have you made a thorough investigation.

As told to the DFEH May 23 email at 9:45 pm:

Did respondent LWV 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 intentional?

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

In this instant matter, the complaint and exhibits show “each and every offense” occurred from January 6, 2020, thru the date of the election or March 3, 2020. That would be statutory damages of $4,000 for each day between January 6 – March 3, 2020. 60 days x $4,000 = $240,000 against each co-sponsor.

For this appeal, I further disagree with the decision because the record shows that the complaint and evidence I submitted was ignored and never considered by the DFEH investigator.

Please forward me a copy of the entire file on this matter per GC 12980 (g) below. There is no waiver of the fact that this was not a housing discrimination case, as the racist and incompetent Blackwell has described it.

As the city neighborhood councils and others will be now preparing for the upcoming 2022 elections, I will be informing such NC’s that in their planning of “candidate forums” they should adhere to the City Ethics Code, the Unruh act and the government code section 82007 definition of candidate. I will inform the NC’s that in the planning stages for aiding these events to transpire, they should be aware of the penalties under the Unruh act CCC section 52(a). I hope the NC’s don’t neglect to respond to my inquiries in a timely manner. I hope the NC’s do not again engage in voter disenfranchisement and electoral fraud. Who knows, I may have to seek court injunctive relief to address any planned candidate forums that do not comply with the Unruh Act.

Geary Juan Johnson (address and phone redacted. This email has been redacted)

reference city clerk CPRA 21-4543; city clerk connect file 14-0268-S13, submission date 5/20/21.

re:

League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia 1100 15th St NW, 4th floor
Washington DC 20005

GC 12980: (g) Upon the conclusion of each investigation, the department shall prepare a final investigative report containing all of the following:

(1) The names of any witnesses and the dates of any contacts with those witnesses.

(2) A summary of the dates of any correspondence or other contacts with the aggrieved persons or the respondent.

(3) A summary of witness statements.
(4) Answers to interrogatories.
(5) A summary description of other pertinent records.

May 29, 2021

The case against the League of Women Voters and why the DFEH is racist

As told to the Los Angeles mayor and council

Subject: REBUTTAL. Re: DFEH case numbers 202003-09557910; 202004-09810703; 202105- 13536712; and related intakes against ECWA, MINC, OPNC, SORO, WCKNC, Leimert Club, Beverly Hills NAACP et al.

From: G Johnson (redacted)

To: robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov

Cc: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; empowerla@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; cityclerk@lacity.org; clerk.election@lacity.org; ethics.commission@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley-thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.deleon@lacity.org; senator.chang@senate.ca.gov

Date: Saturday, May 29, 2021, 08:46 PM PDT

DFEH Says LWV Admits Unlawful Retaliation Against Black write-in candidate

Dear DFEH:

This rebuttal occurs because I have just today read the May 23, 2021, DFEH “Closure determination and Request for additional information.” I also include as reference my rebuttal emails dated May 23, (2:01 pm), May 24 (12:16 pm), and May 28, 12:14 pm.

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˌkuː klʌks ˈklæn, ˌkjuː-/),[b] commonly shortened to the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist terrorist hate group whose primary targets are African Americans as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists

The Klan has existed in three distinct eras: the later 1800’s; 1920; 1950’s. (Wikipedia.) Membership of the KKK has often included government employees.

The KKK has existed longer than the League of Women Voters.

“In 1999, the (Los Angeles) City Charter established the Neighborhood Council System and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which supports the Neighborhood Councils “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs…” Charter Section 900. Neighborhood Councils receive public funds of about $42,000 each year to support their activities. “ (Johnson)

The neighborhood councils (“NC”) receive about $42,000 each per year from city tax dollars. The NC’s propose they can use city tax dollars to discriminate against qualified write-in candidates and prohibit candidates from speaking at “candidate forums”. (Johnson)

LAW

I think it is relevant to establish what is a “candidate” for political office and what is a candidate forum.

The court wrote: “The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose.”Providing a forum for candidates is not, in and of itself, prohibited political activity. See Rev. Rul. 74- 574, 1974-2 C.B. 160 (organization operating a broadcast station is not participating in political campaigns on behalf of public candidates by providing reasonable amounts of air time equally available to all legally qualified candidates for election to public office in compliance with the reasonable access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934). However, a forum for candidates could be operated in a manner that would show a bias or preference for or against a particular candidate. This could be done, for example, through biased questioning procedures. On the other hand, a forum held for the purpose of educating and informing the voters, which provides fair and impartial treatment of candidates, and which does not promote or advance one candidate over another, would not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” (IRS section 501) (emphasis added) (i.e. conspiracy to violate IRS section 501).

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 methods, 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)

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.

Summary, the most pertinent law may be California state government code section 82007 which defines “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.”. Thus, prior to January 6, 2020, write-in candidates were “candidates” and by January 6, 2020, the city clerk declares me to be a “candidate” as defined under GC section 82007.

UNRUH ACT, CC SECTION 51 ET AL.

(I quote from the May 23 (2:01 pm) email)

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”].)

The statute expressly provides that it does not apply to facially neutral policies: “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person … that
is applicable alike to persons” regardless of sex, sexual orientation, medical condition, and other classes. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) Thus, “[a] policy that is neutral on its face is not actionable under the Unruh Act, even when it has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.” (Turner, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1408 [emphasis added].)

Arbitrary discrimination is prohibited under the Unruh Act.

Intentional discrimination is prohibited under the Unruh Act.

“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)

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

The Unruh Act Prohibits Unequal Treatment and Bias due to personal beliefs

California Civil Code Section 52(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.

CIVIL CODE – CIV 51.
(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the (California) Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(b) 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.

FACTS

For the 2020 March election, county-wide, there were over 200 candidates that were designated write-in candidates for the county and city races. Some of the positions/candidates were judges.

Prior to January 6, 2020, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) has admitted in co- sponsoring the candidate forum, it knows what a “write-in candidate” is and that the LWV has known such for 100 years. Therefore on January 6, 2020, and for the days leading up to and including the election 60 days later, the LWV did know and should have known about GC section 82007, which defines write-in candidate.

The LWV has indicated its actions of exclusion of me were intentional.

Prior to Jan. 6, 2020, the LWV publicized on social media to thousands of voters its upcoming candidate forum. Nowhere in the publicity does the word “ballot” occur nor does the social media say, “write-in candidates are not allowed to speak on the podium.” (See claimant exhibit page 20).

The claimant writes organizers of the event and requests to be allowed to speak as a candidate. Numerous responses from organizers indicate claimant will not be allowed to speak on an equal level with other candidates.

The claimant appears at the event on January 12, 2020. Various persons in attendance who appear in charge tell the claimant he will not be allowed to participate on an equal basis with other candidates. The claimant exercised his freedom of speech rights to complain about the unfairness of the event. The claimant was physically assaulted by church security guards which can be seen in the video link supplied to the DFEH. The claimant stayed at the event a little longer to take pictures of the crowd in attendance, which included church officials and employees.

LWV said at the time it would not allow write-in candidates to participate who were not on the ballot, but this is not indicated on their event social media publicity. (See claimant exhibits page 20).

On January 6, 2020, I qualified as a certified write-in candidate; LWV would have access to this public city government announcement and should have accessed such a public announcement.

About three weeks before the March 3, 2020 election, The city cable station, under a mandate from the FCC, videotaped and aired the statements of all candidates including write- in candidates. Write-in candidates were described as “ballot write-in candidates”. A number of neighborhood councils in other district races did allow write-in candidates to participate in candidate forums as equals. I heard that city attorney Mike Feuer had a directive on this, but such directive was not passed on to me.

Even the city clerk’s office had problems publishing write-in candidate statements in a timely manner.

ARGUMENT

I further answer the concerns of the DFEH/Robin Blackwell letter that I feel are relevant. I don’t have a written copy of the LWV position, so I assume the words are hearsay and those of the DFEH and not the LWV, thus I respond anyway:

The evidence shows that the LWV and sponsors made a number of distinctions and discriminations which were arbitrary, intentional to cause harm, did not treat me in a like manner, and denied me “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The social media shows that the publicity stated the candidate forum was for “come and meet all the qualified candidates.” There is no mention that the candidates have to be “on the ballot” or that write- in candidates will be excluded. Only when I as an individual Black, male, over the age of 45, candidate, color light-skinned, with the personal belief (“other”) that I am entitled to participate as a candidate–only when I ask for inclusion, does the LWV say I am being excluded because I am not on the ballot and because I am a write-in candidate. We know this practice does not apply to all write-in candidates because, at another district candidate forum, the Neighborhood Council co-sponsor allows the write-in candidate to participate; so it is proven this practice was not directed at all write-in candidates. The applicable laws herein do not allow the LWV to make such distinctions because the applicable laws put the non- write in candidate and write-in candidate on the same level: they are both “candidates” and they are both able to be voted on thru the ballot designation. The only other reason that the LWV has for me being excluded is that I complained that I was being excluded and discriminated against; thus their action is personal to retaliate only against me, the sole write- in candidate who has complained.

I mention the word “Unruh” or discrimination in the Jan. 9-11, 2020 email chain (Exhibits pgs 17-19, Jan. 10, 2020, and Jan. 11, 2020. The actions of the LWV are not directed at all write- in candidates, they are directed solely at me in retaliation because I complained.

DFEH: “League of Women Voters of LA co-hosted with Holman United Methodist Church a candidate forum for the LA City Council District 10, office and invited all candidates appearing on the ballot. Invitations were mailed electronically to all (five) 5 candidates that were qualified by the City Clerk for the City of LA to appear on the ballot.”

My rebuttal: Respondent Holman has said they did not participate in the event; this statement by the LWV proves that Holman “aided” in the Unruh violations committed by LWV. The publicity for the candidate forum does not mention the phrase “appearing on the ballot.” Prior to Jan. 6, 2020, I was a legally qualified candidate for public office. Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940]. On Jan. 6, 2020, I was a legally qualified candidate. GC section 82007. I don’t have copies of the invitations so I cannot verify what they said. By January 6, 2020, when I appeared on the city clerk website as a legally qualified candidate, it was inherent that I would appear on the ballot under the designation “write-in candidate.” 47 CFR §73.1940; GC 82007 (a)(1). LWV knew on January 6, 2020, and after I wrote them by email, that candidates as well as the phrase “write-in candidate” would appear on the ballot. The purpose of the LWV was not to inform the public of their voting choices, but was to unfairly separate the regular candidates from the write-in candidates, and lie to the public in the process. Candidates and write-in candidates appear on the same ballot. The intent of the law is stated in GC section 82007.“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.”. There is no indication here under the law that the “ballot” candidates are to be treated any different from the write-in candidates. In fact, the United States Code on discrimination makes it clear: “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)”. Yes, the co-sponsors did violate federal law also because they hired licensed camera crews to record and broadcast an event where I was discriminated against as a candidate. Nevertheless, the LWV has admitted to making a distinction in the candidates as of January 6, 2020, such distinction that violated my rights under the Unruh act; the acts of LWV were intentional, arbitrary, constituted unequal treatment, and caused me damages. Such distinction by the LWV occurred over a 60 day period up to the election on March 3, 2020, and such subsequent communications by myself to the LWV/co-sponsors were ignored.

DFEH: “Invitations were sent to the candidates on December 20, 2019. A candidate participation agreement was included with the invitation. The only requirement was that the candidate must be certified to appear on the ballot.. Therefore no write-in candidates were allowed to participate.”

The LWV has admitted to making a distinction that violated the intent of federal and state law, and a distinction that they felt compelled to lie to the voters, a distinction that said that those candidates they perceived would be on the ballot was to be favored over write-in candidates who are designated to appear on the same ballot. The LWV admitted its intentional discrimination that no legally qualified write-in candidates would be allowed to participate. Did respondent LWV deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make the distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to me as CLAIMANT, in violation of the Unruh Act? Yes.

The allegation by the LWV that there were no write-in candidates allowed to participate is not mentioned in the social media publicizing the event. I am the only write-in candidate she is talking about; the applicable law does not give her the authority to separate me from the other candidates; applicable law states that a write-in candidate is considered to be “on the ballot”.

I mention the word “Unruh” or discrimination in the Jan. 9-11, 2020 email chain (Exhibits pgs 17-19, Kan. 10, 2020, and Jan. 11, 2020. The actions of the LWV are not directed at all write- in candidates, they are directed solely at me in retaliation because I complained.

DFEH: “Candidates of all races and genders were invited to participate. The candidates that attended the event represented all different genders and races/ethnicities.”

Not true. An Unruh violation does not require a showing of the effect of disparate impact or disparate treatment which is what the DFEH is alleging here. I was a Black, male, candidate and I was not invited to participate on an egual level with other candidates, publicity or otherwise. Unruh requires that “all persons” “are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” As a Black, male, person, over the aged of 45, and a candidate, I was denied “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” that were freely afforded to other candidates. I mention the word “Unruh” or discrimination in the Jan. 9-11, 2020 email chain (Exhibits pgs 17-19, Kan. 10, 2020, and Jan. 11, 2020. The actions of the LWV are not directed at all write-in candidates, they are directed solely at me in retaliation because I complained.

DFEH: “Three of the five candidates were male.”

As a Black, male, person, over the aged of 45, and a candidate, I was denied by the LWV “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” that were freely afforded to other candidates. An examination of disparate treatment or disparate impact is not required to show a violation of the Unruh Act. To say three of the five candidates were male is not a legitimate excuse to violate the provisions of the Unruh act. The acts of the LWV were intentional to discriminate against me, arbitrary, and I was not treated in a like manner to other candidates participating at the forum. Under Unruh “all persons” are protected, not just the three of five male candidates that the LWV alleges.

DFEH: “You were not certified by the LA City Clerk of LA as a candidate that would appear on the ballot, which was the only forum participation requirement.”

The LWV admitted its intentional discrimination that as a legally qualified write-in candidate, I would not be allowed to participate.

Did respondent LWV deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make the distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to me as CLAIMANT, in violation of the Unruh Act?

Yes.

My designation “write-in candidate” would appear on the ballot. “GC 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.” Also, see IRS section 501.

DFEH: “When you arrived onsite at the forum, you raised your complaint to Ms. Guevara and was invited to stay and listen to the forum and place your candidate literature on the information table but you refused to do this.”

Ms. Guevara was not in charge of running my campaign, so I was not under any obligation to put literature on the table. The LWV and Ms. Guervara denied me full and equal privileges and participation in the candidate forum, such privileges afforded freely to other candidates. Ms. Guevara’s actions are proof I was denied “full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services to myself as CLAIMANT, in violation of the Unruh Act. The policy of allowing non-write-in candidates to participate in the forum was not applied “alike” to all persons, since the advantageous policy of inclusion was denied to me as a Black, male, over the age of 40, candidate, and who complained about Unruh discrimination. As a person, I was excluded by the LWV.

“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) (CC 51(c) ) “Although the Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race, it does not prohibit a business from enacting “reasonable regulations that are rationally related to the services performed and facilities provided . . . as long as the policy is applied alike to all persons.” Lazar v. Hertz Corp., 69 Cal. App. 4th 1494, 1502 (1999) (citing Harris v. Capital Grouth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142, 1155 (1991)).

The LWV unequal practice and retaliation against me violated the Unruh act because their acts were not applied to every person equally.

DFEH: “Your repeated disruption of the candidate forum caused you to be removed by Holman Church staff.”

I was not “disrupting” the forum; I was expressing my freedom of speech as a legally qualified candidate. I was not removed from the room but I was physically assaulted by Holman Church staff when I exercised my freedom of speech and objection to the violations of the Unruh Act.

DFEH: “The League used the same standard of participation as it has for over 100 years.”

The KKK has similar standards of participation for over 100 years.

The LWV admitted to making a distinction between those candidates it perceived to be on the ballot, and those candidates it perceived not to be on the ballot, such as myself. Such distinction discriminated against me as a Black, male, color brown skin, age over 45, a political candidate whose designation would appear on the ballot as of January 6, 2020, or as soon thereafter.

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.

California Civil Code Section 52

(a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any
amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.

“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).) LWV said that as a Black male, brown-skinned, age over 40, a candidate, who has complained about racism, will not be entitled to equal treatment.

The LWV denied me “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, orservices in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The actions of the LWV were intentional. The actions of the LWV were arbitrary. The actions of the LWV did not treat me in a like manner to other candidates. The LWV admits to making discrimination or distinction that denied me as a person “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” CC section 51, 52. The LWV admits its actions were to retaliate against me because I complained about Unruh act violations. (See complaint Exh pgs 17-19 from Yolanda Davis-Overstreet complaining about my racism allegations.

I demand $4,000 for each day between Jan. 6, 2021 and March 3, 2021, that I was denied full and equal services, advantages, and privileges that were afforded to other candidates for the CD 10 election. This demand is against each co-sponsor of the event. Calculate $4,000 x 60 days.

Geary Juan Johnson

(This email has been redacted)

Reference:
City Department of Neighborhood Development

Los Angeles City Hall 20th Floor 200 North Spring Street, Suite 2005 Los Angeles, California 90012 EmpowerLA@LACity.org

Phone: 213-978-1551 Fax: 213-978-1751

State employee Robin Blackwell called ‘racist’

May 23, 2021 (5:13 pm)

Subject: DFEH Case Number 202004-09810703 Johnson/LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS – Your decisions are biased and not in compliance with Unruh

From: GJohnson(tainmount@sbcglobal.net)
To: robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com Cc: attorneygeneral@dojca.gov
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021, 05:13 PM PDT

Your position is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust, and not based on law.

I realize you have taken the biased position that the Unruh act does not protect me as a Black candidate but your position is not in compliance with the Unruh Act.

The Unruh act does not exclude Black political candidates from protection.

The CA legislative site says:

(b) In keeping with that history and the legislative history of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California courts have interpreted the categories enumerated in the act to be illustrative rather than restrictive. It is the intent of the Legislature that these enumerated bases shall continue to be construed as illustrative rather than restrictive. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml? bill_id=200520060AB1400&showamends=false

You have abused your authority by restricting the Unruh Act to the enumerated categories. The Unruh Act protects “all persons”, not just the ones that you choose.

What Governors Newsom’s DFEH is saying is that the Unruh act does not protect all persons, and does not protect all Blacks and that is a good reason why Newsom needs to be recalled.

“California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that “[a]ll 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.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). The California Supreme Court has held that the “identification of particular bases of discrimination – color, race, religion, ancestry and national origin – [in the current version of the act] . . . is illustrative rather than restrictive.” Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal. 3d 721, 725 (1982) (quoting In re Cox, 8 WHITE V. SQUARE, INC. 3 Cal. 3d 205, 216 (1970)). In other words, “the protection against discrimination afforded by the Unruh Act applies to ‘all persons,’ and is not reserved for restricted categories of prohibited discrimination.” Id. at 736. In this vein, Marina Point cited opinions of the California Attorney General as establishing that the Act applied to “exclusionary policies” directed against members of a “particular occupation.” Id. (citing 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 608, 613 (1975)). California Courts of Appeal have interpreted this reference to mean that the Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary occupational discrimination. Sisemore v. Master Fin., Inc., 151 Cal. App. 4th 1386, 1405–06 (2007); Long v. Valentino, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1287, 1297 (1989).” (emphasis added)
Robert White v. Square, Inc. | Ninth Circuit | 06-07-2018 | http://www.anylaw.com

Your decisions are biased and not in compliance with Unruh.

Geary Juan Johnson

May 23, 2021

State employee Robin Blackwell called ‘racist’

Subject: REBUTTAL CONSIDERATION Johnson / League Of Women Voters of Los Angeles – DFEH Case No.: 202004-09810703

From: G Johnson

To: robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov
Sunday, May 23, 2021, 02:01 PM PDT

Robin Blackwell | DFEH Consultant III

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

2218 Kausen Drive | Suite 100 | Elk Grove | California | 95758 Phone: (916) 582-6908
Email: Robin.Blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov

This shall follow up on our call today. You said I could provide additional info which I do below based on what we discussed today.

(1) FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW DO NOT ALLOW THE RESPONDENT LWV TO SEPARATE “CANDIDATES” FROM “WRITE-IN CANDIDATES” AS THE LWV ALLEGES IT HAS DONE FOR 100 YEARS

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.

(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

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. )

(2) IRS Regulations do not allow the LWV to co-sponsor an event with Holman church that violates IRS regulations

Political Campaign Activity (IRS publication “Tax Guide for Churches”)

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious 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. …On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner, or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Thus, it is my position that the LWV, by including but not limited to California GC 82007, if they called their event a CANDIDATE FORUM, as they did, then I was a Candidate, and should have been allowed participation with all other candidates. Anything less is a violation of the Unruh act by the LWV. The LWV admitted the event was co-sponsored with the Church, a church that favored candidates over write-in candidates, and admitted the bias of the LWV under IRS regulations, and bias and arbitrary treatment prohibited under Unruh.

(3) ARBITRARY TREATMENT PERSONAL BELIEFS. ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

The statute expressly provides that it does not apply to facially neutral policies: “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person … that is applicable alike to persons” regardless of sex, sexual orientation, medical condition, and other classes. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) Thus, “[a] policy that is neutral on its face is not actionable under the Unruh Act, even when it has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.” (Turner, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1408 [emphasis added].)

The practice of the LWV allowing certain Candidates to participate, intentional as they have admitted, is not applicable alike to persons “regardless of” the enumerated and non- enumerated classes. Their benefit was not applicable to me. Therefore the practice of excluding myself from the benefits of the candidate forum violated Unruh.

WRITE-IN CANDIDATE IS SPECIFIED IN ATTACHMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT- ENTITLED “Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act RE UNRUH and Governor Gavin Newsom – DATED AND SIGNED APRIL 2, 2020. Received by the DFEH

The phrase “write-in candidate” is mentioned eight times.
(4) The Unruh Act Bars Intentional Discrimination

The central principle of the Unruh Act is a prohibition of intentional discrimination based on certain characteristics. The California Supreme Court has explained: “the language and history of the Unruh Act indicate that the legislative object was to prohibit intentional discrimination …. [A] plaintiff must … plead and prove a case of intentional discrimination to recover under the Act.” (Harris, 52 Cal.3d at 1149 [rejecting Unruh claim on demurrer; italics in original, bold added].)22 The statute requires an allegation that a defendant adopted or applied its policy for the purpose of accomplishing discrimination or as a disguised device to accomplish discrimination. (Koebke, 36 Cal.4th at 854. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19- 1135/141465/20200413114040349_Dignity%20Health%20Brief.pdf

April 2, 2020, signed complaint- p. 8 – Exhibit:

“The actions stated herein were done with malice, with the intent to cause harm to the Claimant. This is a claim/complaint for continuing damages. “ (G. Johnson)

Thus, disparate impact or disparate treatment is not necessary to prove a violation of the Unruh Act. The LWV says it has intentionally excluded candidates who are write-in candidates for over 100 years.

(5) The Unruh Act Prohibits Unequal Treatment and Bias due to 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.

The complaint indicates it was my belief that I was a qualified candidate.

(6) Did respondent LWV deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make the distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to the CLAIMANT?

Yes.

Were the actions of the respondent LWV intentional?

Yes. Without LWV’s participation, the discrimination against the 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 LWV response, in concert, that claimant was not a qualified candidate, was pretextual. The real reason the claimant was excluded was due to his race, Black, color medium, sex male, and age 66. Circumstantial evidence. The LWV 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, the claimant appeared at the LWV location and by appearance revealed his protected status to the respondent. The 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. LWV 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 the claimant attempted to contract for services and afford himself of the full benefits and enjoyment of public accommodation?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

No.

6/23/2020 “Protected Class” and the 6th Circuit – Labor and Employment Law Blog – Labor and Employment Law

“The court indicated it did not have to review whether summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiff’s direct evidence claim because it found plaintiff had presented circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case and rebutted the nondiscriminatory reason offered by the defendant. The court stated that it was clear the plaintiff was replaced by someone outside of her racial class. With respect to the sex discrimination claim, the court noted that it could not be “untangled” from her race discrimination claim. The two characteristics do not exist in isolation. The court stated, “African American women are subjected to unique stereotypes that neither African American men nor white women must endure. (citation omitted) And Title VII does not permit plaintiffs to fall between two stools when their claim rests on multiple protected grounds” The court went on to state that if a female African American plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant cannot undermine it by showing that white women and African American men received the same treatment. The court stated, “The realities of the workplace, let alone Title VII, will not allow such an artificial approach.” http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/us_appeals/2014/021914/56493.pdf

(7) The DFEH feels the word “write-in candidate” is not enumerated in the Complaint. The attachment to the Complaint (signed and dated April 2, 2020) used the phrase eight times. According to state GC section 82007, the phrase “candidate” includes those “qualified” to receive write-in votes. The word “candidate”(s) appears four times in the Aug. 4, 2020, signed complaint.

Geary J. Johnson

(Editor: This email has been redacted)

January 12, 2020

Commentary by G. Juan Johnson

Racism-Elitism– Denial of Equal Opportunity by Government Assisted Entities

BREAKING ELECTION NEWS LOS ANGELES. “Candidate assaulted at candidate forum. ” I attended the candidate forum today. I am certified and qualified as a candidate (write-in) by the city clerk office. I talked with representatives of the League of Women voters, the church, and West Adams Neighborhood Council, before the speaking started, and they said I would NOT be allowed to speak on the podium with other candidates. I told them that was not acceptable and requested to be on the podium. The hundred person plus crowd was told by the representative, “You are not qualified to speak.” I disagreed and told her that I am qualified. Two church security guards physically assaulted me by pushing me twice as I persisted to speak. They threatened to call the Police but didn’t. The forum was co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, the Community Action Mobilization Team, West Adams Neighborhood Council and Beverly Hills/Hollywood NAACP. Neighborhood Councils receive $42,000 per year in government assistance. Mark Ridley-Thomas is a government paid employee on the LA County Board of Supervisors. The forum took place at Holman Methodist Church, 3320 West Adams Blvd., 90018. I plan to file a racism complaint (among other things) against all parties involved. STAY TUNED. We will post an audio of the confrontation soon.

Unlawful segregation

Segregated 2020 election candidate forum Jan 12, 2020.

2020 Los Angeles Candidate Forum. One of the sponsors explaining to Church members and voters her reasons for denying equal opportunity. She thinks she has authority to tell voters who she believes are qualified to be heard. Abuse of authority.

LOS ANGELES ELECTION. FAME church advertises on FB that it will hold a Los Angeles candidates forum on Saturday, January 25, 2020. As a certified and qualified write in candidate, I have not been invited to speak on the podium at this event. Other candidates that speak may be engaged in unethical participation in violation of city ethics regulations, and unfair participation in denial of equal opportunity. The Church has been put on notice that they must provide equal opportunity to all candidates or they run afoul of the IRS regulations. To see what the IRS says about churches and political campaigns, google “Charities, Churches, and Politics“. More on January 25. Let’s see if they refuse to allow me to speak as a city government approved candidate.

A government approved candidate.

Please vote G. Juan Johnson

“We have unfairly convinced many voters that instead of going with the best platform, they would rather go with who they think can win. It is the elitist agenda. This defeats the purpose of the election. I think we all want better government services, but we won’t get that by voting in the same elite people over and over, we need to bring in new people with fresh ideas, and those candidates may not be the most winnable, but they will be the most likely to succeed at bringing about the changes so sorely needed.”

January 10, 2019

League of Women Voters Says Candidate Prohibited from speaking- candidate calls them “elitist”

WEST ADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RESPONDS

(Written by G. Juan Johnson on Facebook)

Certain groups like the League of Women Voters and many neighborhood councils I am told are excluding certified qualified write-in candidates like myself from speaking on the podium with other candidates. The league of women voters wrote, “I am sorry but only the candidates who are actually on the ballot may participate in the forum or speak. You can hand out campaign material after the forum is over if you wish.”. While it is true that write-in candidates do not appear on the ballot, and a voter must write their name in, their vote still counts and they are still qualified candidates. I question can NC’s or any non-profit group (NC’s each receive $42,000 a year in city money) can use tax dollars to exclude qualified candidates like myself. Of course the good old boys network would not want me to protest this. I am certain I will receive push back on this, because it has been probably been like this for years. I just received an interesting email from Yolanda Davis-Overstreet, VP of WANC. Obviously she feels I am wrong to bring up this issue and assert my rights. I guess she feels as a candidate–and US citizen—I do not have the right to voice my opinion. As I believe she is an elitist, and feels she is better than others, she wants to keep this election in the hands of the good ole boys, the candidates you know spending the most money. I have heard that one before, even though she is not saying it in her words. Yolanda claims she knows another candidate in CD8 who is a write in and admits “she is not participating in forums”. So Yolanda is comparing me to her. I do not see any law that authorizes these groups to exclude qualified candidates, but I do see the Unruh law which may prohibit that. She accuses me of “slandering” the WANC ( I don’t think she even knows what the word slander means; I certainly have a right to voice my opinion) and the League of Women Voters, etc. I guess simply because I want to be heard on equal ground as the candidates spending the most money. These groups like the League of Women voters have practiced exclusion for years so it is not surprising the WANC would support their bias. If the WANC wants to sue me, let them. She suggests I get more clarity from the League of Women Voters, etc. She admits standing in “alliance” with the League of Women voters but objects to being called elitist, saying WANC is not elitist. WANC stands for West Adams Neighborhood Council. She sent her email to 24 other people. WANC is one of the sponsors of the candidate forum exclusion and they stand in alliance with the LWV. Enough said. The WANC expects us to look the other way while the elite run things. If that is not slander from me, then it is a fact. The WANC does not want me in the same room as the Elite; I get it. I disagree.

(The email from the West Adams Neighborhood Council:)

Date: On Friday, January 10, 2020, 03:20:01 PM PST

Yolanda Davis-Overstreet <ydavisoverstreetwanc@gmail.com> wrote:

Cc: councilmember.englander@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; clerk.election@lacity.org; ceeteela@yahoo.com; councilmember.smith@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; flapides@socal.rr.com; ed@lwvlosangeles.org; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; springfling@piconc.com; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; wanc@empowerla.org

“Hello Mr. Johnson – I have a been notified on the Facebook posts per slandering the WANC, the League of American Voters LA and other Neighborhood Councils. I am not aware of the direct activities of other Neighborhood Councils per your accusations, but I know for a fact that WANC is in no way an elitist group, nor do we practice elitist activities. I will also stand in alliance with the League who has demonstrated their role and commitment to our community and in particular communities of color.

“I would suggest that instead of jumping to conclusions on why you are unable to speak at the upcoming forum this Sunday, that you personally reach out to Francis at the League and get more clarity on protocol per hosting forums for certified candidates in the City of Los Angeles.

“I do know another candidate who is a write-in Candidate in CD8 that has effectively structured her campaign as a grassroots one. While she might not be a certified candidate in the City of Los Angeles, nor participating in forums, she is making meaningful and educational traction in her district.

“I would ask that you please not post false information on any entity and find ways to move forward in honest and informative ways. I wish you luck in your run for CD10 City Council.”

Regards,

Yolanda Davis-Overstreet
VP WANC,
Community Organizer / Mobility Justice Strategist

On Friday, January 10, 2020, 03:20:01 PM PST,

Yolanda Davis-Overstreet <ydavisoverstreetwanc@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Mr. Johnson – I have a been notified on the Facebook posts per slandering the WANC, the League of American Voters LA and other Neighborhood Councils. I am not aware of the direct activities of other Neighborhood Councils per your accusations, but I know for a fact that WANC is in no way an elitist group, nor do we practice elitist activities. I will also stand in alliance with the League who has demonstrated their role and commitment to our community and in particular communities of color.

I would suggest that instead of jumping to conclusions on why you are unable to speak at the upcoming forum this Sunday, that you personally reach out to Francis at the League and get more clarity on protocol per hosting forums for certified candidates in the City of Los Angeles.

I do know another candidate who is a write-in Candidate in CD8 that has effectively structured her campaign as a grassroots one. While she might not be a certified candidate in the City of Los Angeles, nor participating in forums, she is making meaningful and educational traction in her district.

I would ask that you please not post false information on any entity and find ways to move forward in honest and informative ways. I wish you luck in your run for CD10 City Council.

Regards,

Yolanda Davis-Overstreet
VP WANC,
Community Organizer / Mobility Justice Strategist

SUBJECT: NC Obligations re Candidate Forums

FROM: GJohnson(tainmount@sbcglobal.net)

TO: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.harris- dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; springfling@piconc.com; councilmember.smith@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; siroky.wanc@gmail.com; smeeks.wanc@gmail.com; lesgra@gmail.com

DATE: Friday, January 10, 2020, 03:14 PM PST

The neighborhood councils (“NC”) receive about $42,000 each per year from city tax dollars. The NC’s propose they can use city tax dollars to discriminate against qualified write in candidates and prohibit candidates from speaking at “candidate forums”.

“In 1999, the City Charter established the Neighborhood Council System and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which supports the Neighborhood Councils “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs…” Charter Section 900. Neighborhood Councils receive public funds of about $42,000 each year to support their activities. “

If any of the neighborhood councils propose to prohibit any write in candidate from speaking, they could be engaged in abuse of city tax dollars as well as violation of the State Unruh Act.

Hopefully the NC’s will contact me as to candidate forums in the 10th district.

G. Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone 323-807-3099
2020 Qualified candidate (write in)

THE ELITIST AND CONDESCENDING ELECTION

https://recordsrequest.lacity.org/requests/20-195#

Dear Los Angeles City Clerk and Election Division:

In this election cycle, certain organizations and community groups have declared to be holding “candidate forums” where they are refusing to allow qualified write-in candidates to speak. Some of the forums I have seen advertised will be held by the Ethiopian Democratic Club (set for January 11), West Adams Neighborhood Council, the Beverly Hills NAACP, and League of Women Voters of Los Angeles (Jan. 12) and a forum at FAME 2270 S HARVARD BLVD (set for Jan. 25). I believe such “candidate forums” that exclude qualified write in candidates are unfair, elitist and condescending to the election process and to voters.

The city clerk is requested to release any and all documents/writings in the Clerk’s possession that would

1. Indicate any city law that authorizes the League of Women Voters and any neighborhood councils to discriminate against qualified write-in candidates on the basis they are not on the ballot

2. Indicate any city law that authorizes the League of Women Voters and any neighborhood councils to discriminate against qualified write-in candidates by prohibiting them from speaking at so called “candidate forums”

3. Indicate any city law that authorizes any neighborhood council to discriminate against qualified write-in candidates and prohibit them from speaking at so called candidate forums.

“Document” and “writing” mean a writing, as defined in Section 250 of the Evidence Code.

G. Juan Johnson

ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND OTHERS ACCUSED OF ELITIST AND CONDESCENDING PRACTICE TOWARDS CANDIDATES AND VOTERS.

Some of the other neighborhood councils who have vowed to prohibit qualified write in candidates from speaking are Mid City Neighborhood Council (MCNC), Empowerment Congress West, Olympic Park NC, Pico NC, South Robertson NC, United Neighborhoods NC, Wilshire Center Koreatown NC. The neighborhood councils (“NC”) receive about $42,000 each per year from city tax dollars. The NC’s propose they can use city tax dollars to discriminate against qualified write in candidates and prohibit candidates from speaking at “candidate forums”. “In 1999, the City Charter established the Neighborhood Council System and the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment which supports the Neighborhood Councils “to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs…” Charter Section 900. Neighborhood Councils receive public funds of about $42,000 each year to support their activities. “

https://recordsrequest.lacity.org/requests/20-195#

Reference:

(NOTE: Frances Lapides REPRESENTS THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.)

SUBJECT: YOUR JAN. 12 FORUM FORWARDED

Fri 1/10/2020 12:06 PM

To: ‘Connye Thomas’ <ceeteela@yahoo.com>; Frances Lapides <flapides@socal.rr.com>

Cc: wanc@empowerla.org <wanc@empowerla.org>; ‘Marilu Guevara’ <ed@lwvlosangeles.org>; Mayor Garcetti <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org <councilmember.wesson@lacity.org>; City of Los Angeles <councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org>; City of Los Angeles <councilmember.bonin@lacity.org>; paul.koretz@lacity.org <paul.koretz@lacity.org>; Councilmember Rodriguez <councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org>; Councilmember Harris-Dawson <councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org>; City of Los Angeles <councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org>; City of Los Angeles <councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org>; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org <councilmember.martinez@lacity.org>; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org <councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org>; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org <councilmember.huizar@lacity.org>; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org <councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org>; City of Los Angeles <councilmember.englander@lacity.org>; Curren Price <councilmember.price@lacity.org>; P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council <springfling@piconc.com>; Councilmember Greig Smith <councilmember.smith@lacity.org>; Councilmember John S. Lee <councilmember.lee@lacity.org>; Clerk Election <clerk.election@lacity.org>

Not acceptable.

Please see my CPRA to the Los Angeles City Clerk.
What is the name of the organization you represent? Do they have a charter?

Where does it say in your forum announcement facebook that the forum is only for candidates that appear on the ballot?

Where does it say in the charter that you can discriminate against qualified candidates?

Is there any city or state law that authorizes you to represent to voters that qualified write in candidates are to be muffled from participating with candidates at government funded candidate forums?

G. Juan Johnson

qualified candidate- (write in)

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles, CA 90035

Phone 323-807-3099

On Friday, January 10, 2020, 11:51:31 AM PST,

Frances Lapides <flapides@socal.rr.com> wrote:

I am sorry but only the candidates who are actually on the ballot may participate in the forum or speak. You can hand out campaign material after the forum is over if you wish.

Fran Lapides

From: Connye Thomas [mailto:ceeteela@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:07 PM
To: G Johnson <tainmount@sbcglobal.net>; flapides@socal.rr.com Cc: WANC@empowerla.org
Subject: Re: Your Jan. 12 Forum forwarded

Hello Johnson,
The League of Women Voters are conducting our Candidate Forum.

1/10/2020

I have forwarded your request To them for a response. Thank you,
Connye Thomas

Sent from my iPhone.

On Jan 9, 2020, at 9:45 AM, G Johnson <tainmount@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I am a qualified write in candidate for District 10.
I would like to be allowed to speak on the dias at the forum on Sunday. Please contact me at the number below.

G. Juan Johnson

Phone 323-807-3099

http://2020committeetoelectjohnson.com

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Subject: Unfair advantage to segregated candidates – the Politics of Exclusion – Business as usual

From: G. Juan Johnson <rumcake42@live.com>

Date: Thu 1/9/2020 1:32 PM

To: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org <councilmember.wesson@lacity.org>; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org <councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org>; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org <councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org>; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org <councilmember.huizar@lacity.org>; councilmember.Lee@lacity.org <councilmember.Lee@lacity.org>

Cc: clerk.election@lacity.org <clerk.election@lacity.org>; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org <councilmember.bonin@lacity.org>; councilmember.price@lacity.org <councilmember.price@lacity.org>; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org <councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org>; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org <councilmember.martinez@lacity.org>; paul.koretz@lacity.org <paul.koretz@lacity.org>; david.ryu@lacity.org <david.ryu@lacity.org>; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org <councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org>

Dear United States Citizens:

I refer to the city Election code as it relates to write -in candidates. The only distinction I see between candidates and write-in candidates is that the write-in candidates names will not appear on the ballot.

A vote for a write-in candidate will count the same as a vote for a candidate.

Although it does not appear in the Election Code, the LA CityView Channel 35, the City of Los Angeles Cable Channel, offers free videos of candidate statements. I have signed up for such. According to the city clerk’s office, all certified candidate statements and “all certified write-in candidate statements” will begin airing on February 11, 2020 and will continue to have multiple plays thru March 3, 2020, even though much of the vote by mail may occur before February 11.

I also note that community groups like the West Adams Neighborhood Council, the Beverly Hills NAACP, and League of Women Voters of Los Angeles are sponsoring community candidate forums where they will not allow write in candidates to participate as speakers. This gives unfair advantage to candidates and denies such advantage to write-in candidates. It is also an advantage that is not authorized in the election code.

I ask that the city council and the public support that write-in candidates be allowed to participate as equals on the speaker panel in all community group sponsored candidate forums.

I ask that the city council and public support that the airing of free video tapings of all candidates (candidates and write in candidates) start on February 2, 2020 and that all tapings of candidates and write-in candidates will appear on the same program.

Sincerely,

G. Juan Johnson

2020 Candidate (write-in) for District 10

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

323-807-3099

(as seen on 2020committeetoelectjohnson.com )

League of Women Voters Bars Candidate

June 10, 2021

Governor Gavin Newsom Told of Racist State Employees- re League of Women Voters

Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021, 09:57 PM PDT

May 29, 2021

The case against the League of Women Voters and why the DFEH is racist

Date: Saturday, May 29, 2021, 08:46 PM PDT

LAW

Arbitrary discrimination is prohibited under the Unruh Act.

Intentional discrimination is prohibited under the Unruh Act.

The Unruh Act Prohibits Unequal Treatment and Bias due to personal beliefs

FACTS

ARGUMENT

Reference: City Department of Neighborhood Development

Los Angeles City Hall 20th Floor 200 North Spring Street, Suite 2005 Los Angeles, California 90012 EmpowerLA@LACity.org

Phone: 213-978-1551 Fax: 213-978-1751

State employee Robin Blackwell called ‘racist’

May 23, 2021 (5:13 pm)

From: GJohnson(tainmount@sbcglobal.net) To: robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com Cc: attorneygeneral@dojca.gov Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021, 05:13 PM PDT

State employee Robin Blackwell called ‘racist’

January 12, 2020

Racism-Elitism– Denial of Equal Opportunity by Government Assisted Entities

Unlawful segregation

A government approved candidate.

Please vote G. Juan Johnson

January 10, 2019

League of Women Voters Says Candidate Prohibited from speaking- candidate calls them “elitist”

WEST ADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RESPONDS

(The email from the West Adams Neighborhood Council:)

Date: On Friday, January 10, 2020, 03:20:01 PM PST

Yolanda Davis-Overstreet <ydavisoverstreetwanc@gmail.com> wrote:

SUBJECT: NC Obligations re Candidate Forums

DATE: Friday, January 10, 2020, 03:14 PM PST

G. Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

Phone 323-807-3099 2020 Qualified candidate (write in)

THE ELITIST AND CONDESCENDING ELECTION

Dear Los Angeles City Clerk and Election Division:

ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST QUALIFIED CANDIDATES. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND OTHERS ACCUSED OF ELITIST AND CONDESCENDING PRACTICE TOWARDS CANDIDATES AND VOTERS.

I am sorry but only the candidates who are actually on the ballot may participate in the forum or speak. You can hand out campaign material after the forum is over if you wish.

Dear United States Citizens:

2020 Candidate (write-in) for District 10

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035

323-807-3099

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Archives

Meta

Reference:
City Department of Neighborhood Development

From: GJohnson(tainmount@sbcglobal.net)
To: robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com Cc: attorneygeneral@dojca.gov
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021, 05:13 PM PDT

Phone 323-807-3099
2020 Qualified candidate (write in)