February 12, 2020
Unequal and Unethical Treatment of Write-in Candidates
From: G JUAN JOHNSON
To: ethics.commission@lacity.org
Cc: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov; voterinfo@rrcc.lacounty.gov; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.smith@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; clerk.election@lacity.org
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 09:14 AM PST
Bias of the City Election Division
Dear Ethics Commission, et al:
This is what the city clerk elections division wrote me by email in part:
“Upon the close of Write-in Candidate filing on February 18th, 2020, Candidate Statements and Contact Information will be submitted for Translation. Once received and reviewed, they will be posted to our website.
“In response to your email dated Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020, it is the City Clerk-Election Division’s policy to post candidate statement videos to its website AFTER the applicable candidate filing period has concluded. Likewise, this policy applies to write-in candidates; no write-in candidate statement videos will be posted to the Election Division’s website until the close of the write-in candidate filing period.”
In this instance, in my opinion, the “applicable candidate filing period” has concluded for those write-in candidates who have qualified to date. The issue of what happens on February 18 (“candidate filing period”) is an intriguing one because I told the city clerk that there is nothing in the City Election code stating what the city clerk has authority to do on February 18. That deadline only applies to what the “candidates” have to do. In this instance, the clerk has engaged in abuse of authority to make such a statement that they have the authority not to post videos until after the filing period has ended; I see no such authority. My understanding is the write-in candidate statements and contact information has already been received and reviewed and translated, to date. In the circumstances, this is an abuse of authority. There is nothing in the election code (or municipal code) that gives the city clerk the authority to do this, to exclude current qualified write-in candidates form having the equal benefit, privilege, and city funded campaign contribution of having their statement videos posted to the Election Division’s website, as of the date such candidates qualified.
The actions of the city clerk’s office employees in this regard constitutes a violation of the city of Los Angeles Code of Ethics sections II, XI, XII, XIII, XIV.
Please inform me today that the campaign statements (video and otherwise) will be posted to the city Election Division website along with the regular candidates, for those write-in candidates that have qualified to date.
G. Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St
Los Angeles CA 90035
Candidate District 10
Phone ( redacted)
cc: LA County Board of Supervisors
LA County Registrar
Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Elections Division (via fax)
February 7, 2020
SUBJECT: THE SAMPLE BALLOT RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND— HOW TO GET SCREWED BY THE GOVT—-LACK OF TRANSPARENCY–INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTION PROCESS
FROM: G. JUAN JOHNSON
DATE: Thu 2/6/2020 2:30 PM
TO: voterinfo@rrcc.lacounty.gov; executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov
Crime in broad daylight
DEAR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND LA COUNTY REGISTRAR:
I was able to see a copy of a fellow voters Official Sample Ballot. Mark Rildley Thomas is a supervisor on the County Board of Supervisors, connected to supervising the running of the election.
I note on the page “Voting for Write-In Candidates” it reads, “Write the name and office of the official write-in candidate in the write-in portion of the ballot. A list of “Qualified Write-In Candidates” is available eleven days before the election at LAVote.net. “
Transparent is defined as “without guile or concealment; open; frank; candid; specific., open to observation, public scrutiny, etc.: a transparent investigation into county corruption”.
That statement in the sample ballot booklet are not transparent and are meant to mislead the voters. The LA city election clerk, and other candidates who believe in election integrity, should mount a legal challenge to those sentences. First, because of the juxtaposition of the sentence two, it is implied that there is no current list of “qualified” write-in candidates; that would be an unfair statement because currently the LAVOTE.net does have a list of qualified write-in candidates that is been on their website since around December 31, 2019, of about 250 candidates. There is a list of qualified LA city write-in candidates. The statements, therefore, in the official sample ballot booklet, are therefore meant to mislead the voter into thinking they cannot currently vote by mail or otherwise for a write-in candidate, because there is no list of qualified write-in candidates until eleven days before the election.
The LA County registrar and the LA County Board of Supervisors, have obviously authorized this to give unfair advantage to the non-write in candidates. This violates the oath and ethics of all such county employees to act in a lawful manner. The LA County registrar has failed in its duty to provide “essential records management and election services in a fair, accessible and transparent manner.” The LA County Registrar, and others, by its actions herein, has failed to act in a fair, accessible, and transparent manner. I further wonder that if the County Registrar can so easily influence the election in a partial manner, what other interference will happen in the voting process under the supervision of Mark Ridley Thomas?
No one stands up against this government corruption except me.
G. JUAN JOHNSON
1522 HI POINT ST 9
LOS ANGELES CA 90035
via email January 24 , 2020
DEAR REGISTRAR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
CITY EMPLOYEE UNNC RAHEEM DAWSON HAS INDICATED BY EMAIL THAT THE ELECTION PROCESS LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS FIXED TO EXCLUDE WRITE-IN CANDIDATES FROM EQUAL PRIVILEGES OF SPEAKING ALONGSIDE CANDIDATES AT CITY FUNDED CANDIDATE FORUMS. THIS HIDDEN POLITICAL AGENDA WAS NOT TOLD TO ME IN THE PROCESS OF SIGNING UP TO BE A CANDIDATE.
THE EMAIL OF DAWSON AS WELL AS THE EMAIL OF THE WEST ADAMS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL (ATTACHED) INDICATES AN INSTITUTIONALIZED GOVERNMENT BIAS AND PATTERN AND PRACTICE TOWARDS WRITE-IN CANDIDATES. MY QUESTION IS HAS THE ELECTION PROCESS ALREADY BEEN TAMPERED WITH TO EXCLUDE THE VOTES CAST FOR WRITE-IN CANDIDATES?
G JUAN JOHNSON
2020 CANDIDATE DISTRICT 10 LOS ANGELES
(Editor note: this series of emails above has been redacted. It was also forwarded to Mayor Eric Garcetti and Council members via email Feb. 7, 2020 at 2:59 pm.)
Feb. 3, 2020
Voting starts but where are the candidates?
CITY AND COUNTY ADMIT PUBLIC NOT TOLD ABOUT MORE CANDIDATES
Election fraud charged
Los Angeles- Election fraud has been charged after voting started today at 8 am. Voters can start the interactive ballot process online, take their poll pass to Norwalk Registrar office and print out their ballot. The second way to vote is if you receive the online link email to print out a the paper ballot and mail it in.
SUMMARY
SUBJECT: ELECTION FRAUD – SEE UNREDACTED SERIES OF EMAILS WITH THE COUNTY REGISTRAR. ATTACHMENTS NOT INCLUDED
From: GJohnson
TO: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.smith@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org
DATE: Monday, February 3, 2020, 04:17 PM PST
From: Geary J Johnson
Subject: Re:QuestionsTOLACOUNTRYREGISTRAR
Date: February 3, 2020 at 2:13 PM
To: Alex Olvera AOlvera@rrcc.lacounty.gov
Cc: executiveoffice@bos.lacounty.gov
Dear Los Angeles County Registrar, Recorder and County Clerk
12400 Imperial Highway, Room 7020-B, Norwalk, CA 90650 :
Your email herein is not acceptable as a resolution to the damages that have occured to my candidacy, nor is your email acceptable to the damages claims forwarded to the city of Los Angeles and LA County Board of Supervisors.
I realize there are various government offices involved with this process so there are multiple communications occuring at the same time.
I refer to my Jan. 31, 2020 email to the County Board of Supervisors and City Clerk Elections Los Angeles which is attached. I also copy herein an email to your office. I also have written the Secretary of State Alex Padillo on this.
I quote from your email: “As you are aware, our office posted a hyper link on our website that connects to LA City’s web page that displays the City’s write-in candidate information. This additional information has been provided in response to and as an enhancement of what has been available in past election cycles. We believe this will be useful for voters now that voting in Los Angeles County has begun as of 8:00 this morning, Monday, 2/3/20.”
“…On the face of it, the way your website is designed, it will confuse and mislead the voter…”
MY RESPONSE: Yes, I did see your hyperlink to the city of Los Angeles list of write-in candidates. Your statement above does not indicate to voters how the Los Angeles list will be helpful to voters since the LA city list is separate from the LA County list, which you are aware of. There is no explanation on your website as of yesterday, what the word “final” means. You’re explaining it to me, but you have not explained it to voters who visit your website. You also have not explained why there is a list of write in candidates that stopped December 31 and there is a separate list from LA city with a different date, with no explanation as to why the two write-in lists are separate. The county list says “final” while the LA city list does not. I am on the city list, am I “final” for purposes of receiving the vote or not? You did not answer this question. On the face of it, the way your website is designed, it will confuse and mislead the voter. You keep using the word “final” but I do not see it on any of the candidate lists other than a description tacked onto the link.
I quote from your email:
“This is to confirm that the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and other elections officials such as the City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles must allow the legal period for write- in candidacy to conclude before a final list of write-in candidates is issued. Also, we must receive such lists from each city after the full list of candidates has been determined. Furthermore, the Elections Division of the Secretary of State also releases its final list of write-in candidates in this manner, not on a flow basis.”
“…Where does the election code say you cannot release write- in candidate names on a flow basis?…”
MY RESPONSE:
YOU: “…before a final list of write-in candidates is issued.” Please provide where it says that in the county or city election code? Where in the election code does it use the word “final”? You state that “we must receive such lists from each city after the full list of candidates has been that “we must receive such lists from each city after the full list of candidates has been determined”. So are you saying you have other lists that are coming from other cities? You state “not on a flow basis” yet you contradicted this by publishing the LA City write-in candidates list. Where does the election code say you cannot release write- in candidate names on a flow basis?
This is similar to any type of auto or horse racing. Everyone who is eligible to race starts at the same time. Period. That is called a fair race. As a government official, you have admitted that in this race there are other government officials who knowingly months ago designed an election race where you admitted all the candidates will not be starting the race at the same time, as you say, some candidates (write-ins) may be starting the race as late as February 18, and there is no explanation of this on your website, and I suppose you call this a fair race. My opinion is based on your actions, it is neither fair nor transparent, and patently illegal. This is not an election if all the candidates do not start at the same time, and the voter is not informed of this. This is something else, but it is not an election.
The LA County registrar has failed in its duty to provide “essential records management and election services in a fair, accessible and transparent manner.” The LA County Registrar, and others, by its actions herein, has failed to act in a fair, accessible, and transparent manner.
Your email herein is not acceptable as a resolution to the damages that have occured to my candidacy, nor is your email acceptable to the damages claims forwarded to the city of Los Angeles and LA County Board of Supervisors.
All rights reserved.
G. JUAN JOHNSON
C: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;Mayor and Council Los Angeles.
Attached: Claim for Damages against LA County Registrar received by LA County today’s date
JAN 31 TO REGISTRAR
TO: ELECTION DIVISION/ALEX PADILLO SECRETARY STATE.
THIS INFO IS THE SUBJECT OF AN EMAIL TODAY’S DATE TO THE CITY LOS ANGELES ELECTION CLERK AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TODAY AT 8:11 AM. SUBJECT: “RE: STATUS OF WRITE-IN CANDIDATES” IF YOU NEED A COPY FROM THEM. — The county has published to its election page a list of candidates and a list of write-in candidates. However, the county has also published a separate list of City of Los Angeles write-in candidates. Two of the county links use the title “final” in front of the candidate list. The list from the City of Los Angeles write- ins does not have the word “final” in front of it. Unfortunately the city of Los Angeles election clerk, is still taking names for the write-in candidates up into Feb. 18 so that list is subject to change; however, those who appear on the list now are certified thus valid for purposes of their vote counting.However, because the county site uses the superfluous word “final” without explanation, and no explanation as to why the City of Los Angeles is separate from the other 250 candidate write-in list, confusion can be created in the minds of voters. The word “final” should be used for all the candidate lists or not used at all. Please contact me as to how this can be resolved. My lists or not used at all. Please contact me as to how this can be resolved. My understanding is voting has already started yesterday by use of the sample e-ballot. The city of Los Angeles certified and qualified write-in candidates have already been prejudiced by the county registrar actions in this matter as of January 6, 2020. Please contact me as to how this can be resolved.1/31/2020. 289 words.
2020-1-31 Email to Elec…nal.pdf
2020-2-2 Scanne…es.pdf
On Feb 3, 2020, at 12:52 PM, Alex Olvera <AOlvera@rrcc.lacounty.gov> wrote: Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson.
This is to confirm that the LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk and other elections officials such as the City Clerk of the City of Los Angeles must allow the legal period for write- in candidacy to conclude before a final list of write-in candidates is issued. Also, we must receive such lists from each city after the full list of candidates has been determined. Furthermore, the Elections Division of the Secretary of State also releases its final list of write-in candidates in this manner, not on a flow basis.
As you are aware, our office posted a hyper link on our website that connects to LA City’s web page that displays the City’s write-in candidate information. This additional information has been provided in response to and as an enhancement of what has been available in past election cycles. We believe this will be useful for voters now that voting in Los Angeles County has begun as of 8:00 this morning, Monday, 2/3/20.
We hope this addresses your concern. Thank you again for bringing this to our attention. Sincerely,
Alex Olvera, Division Manager
Election Information and Preparation
Los Angeles County Registrar, Recorder and County Clerk 12400 Imperial Highway, Room 7020-B, Norwalk, CA 90650 (562) 462-2815 | aolvera@rrcc.lacounty.gov <image003.jpg>
From: Voter Info
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:09 AM
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:09 AM
To: Alex Olvera <AOlvera@rrcc.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Fw: Questions TO LA COUNTRY REGISTRAR
See below
From: Geary J Johnson < > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 10:43 AM To: Voter Info <voterinfo@rrcc.lacounty.gov>
Subject: Questions TO LA COUNTRY REGISTRAR CAUTION:
TO: ELECTION DIVISION/ALEX PADILLO SECRETARY STATE.
THIS INFO IS THE SUBJECT OF AN EMAIL TODAY’S DATE TO THE CITY LOS ANGELES ELECTION CLERK AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TODAY AT 8:11 AM. SUBJECT: “RE: STATUS OF WRITE-IN CANDIDATES” IF YOU NEED A COPY FROM THEM. — The county has published to its election page a list of candidates and a list of write-in candidates. However, the county has also published a separate list of City of Los Angeles write-in candidates. Two of the county links use the title “final” in front of the candidate list. The list from the City of Los Angeles write- ins does not have the word “final” in front of it. Unfortunately the city of Los Angeles election clerk, is still taking names for the write-in candidates up into Feb. 18 so that list is subject to change; however, those who appear on the list now are certified thus valid for purposes of their vote counting.However, because the county site uses the superfluous word “final” without explanation, and no explanation as to why the City of Los Angeles is separate from the other 250 candidate write-in list, confusion can be created in the minds of voters. The word “final” should be used for all the candidate lists or not used at all. Please contact me as to how this can be resolved. My understanding is voting has already started yesterday by use of the sample e-ballot. The city of Los Angeles certified and qualified write-in candidates have already been prejudiced by the county registrar actions in this matter as of January 6, 2020. Please contact me as to how this can be resolved.1/31/2020. 289 words.
G JUAN JOHNSON CANDIDATE 2020
How the Elite has fraudulently fixed the election in LA County
What is a “legally qualified candidate” so that the Churches and League of Women Voters and Neighborhood Councils Understand?
CITY DAMAGE CLAIM FILED OVER DENIAL EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. The candidate forum for District 10 for today at FAME Church is the subject of a Claim for Damages filed with the Los Angeles City clerk’s office on January 22, 2020. A similar complaint was filed with the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing for denial of “equal privileges, services” etc. under the State Unruh Act on January 23. The 32 page complaint asks for money damages for “the politics of exclusion”, “denial of equal opportunity by Church and councils”, “violation of IRS regulations re Churches and Political Candidates” abuse of city tax dollars, interference with the election process, violation city code of ethics etc. Named as parties are Los Angeles city department of Neighborhood Empowerment, all city funded neighborhood councils, Holman Church members and employees, FAME church members and employees, Messob Ethiopian Restaurant, the Ethiopian Democratic Club, USC, LA County Board of Supervisors, Mark Ridley Thomas, Melvin Snell, Channing Martinez, Aura Vasquez, Grace Yoo.
Related articles can be seen at the websites https://wp.me/P57D2C-KE or Google 2020committeetoelectjohnson.com or see 2020 Election Disqualifications Requested
Anyone who attends or participates in the forums may be in violation of civil rights statutes prohibiting denial of equal opportunity. The three candidate forums have prohibited certified and qualified write-in candidates the equal opportunity to speak as candidates. There are over 250 write-in candidates who could potentially invalidate the election results. Ridley-Thomas should be disqualified for using LA County monies and position to participate in denial of equal opportunity, a violation of his code of ethics. Business as usual for Ridley Thomas. This is the third candidate forum that denied qualified write-in candidates the equal privilege to speak as candidates.
CAMPAIGNS AND POLITICAL ADS. When it comes to politics, there are numerous laws that govern the involvement of certain groups. There may be separate laws for churches, news TV and radio companies, businesses. Churches and non-profit or government groups in addition may have their own set of ethics codes. Individuals damages may have rights under laws governing group rights or laws covering individual rights. Of course there are a whole host of discrimination laws. Generally speaking, TV and radio stations must provide equal time if running political ads or interviewing a political candidate. So if your group is having a candidate forum and it is taped by a TV station, the station may have to provide equal access to all candidates. Does someone taping a Youtube video owe equal time? Probably not. But you probably could be sued for fraud if you said something in the video that was not true, like you represented there were five candidates and there are really six.
Churches are under a set of federal regulations which can threaten their tax exempt status if they favor one candidate over another in an open forum. Conversely, the code of federal regulations (TV and radio, etc.) states that the law applies to not only candidates and write in candidates, but it also applies to nominated candidates or those intending to run. Recently local neighborhood councils —with their own set of ethics— excluded me from speaking. Numerous laws do not allow such exclusion.
THE LOS ANGELES CITY CLERK ELECTIONS OFFICE AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DISQUALIFY RIDLEY-THOMAS FROM THE ELECTION BASED ON HIS PARTICIPATION IN DENYING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE-IN CANDIDATES.
(G. JUAN JOHNSON: ) A church cannot discriminate and favor one candidate over another. If you know of any District 10 candidate forums that aired on local TV or radio, please let me know right away.)
What is a legally qualified candidate so that the Churches and League of Women Voters Understands?
Here is an excerpt from some of the laws:
Candidate appearance and advertising- radio and TV stations. 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)- 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.
IRS re churches
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.“
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.”
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 