City Clerk Asked to
Identify Racist Employees
CITY LOS ANGELES MAYOR AND COUNCIL
President NURY MARTINEZ, Sixth District . GILBERT A. CEDILLO, First District , PAUL KREKORIAN, Second District; BOB BLUMENFIELD, Third District; NITHYA RAMAN, Fourth District; PAUL KORETZ, Fifth District; MONICA RODRIGUEZ, Seventh District; MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON, Eighth District; CURREN D. PRICE, JR., Ninth District ;MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS, Tenth District; MIKE BONIN, Eleventh District; JOHN S. LEE, Twelfth District ; MITCH O’FARRELL, Thirteenth District; KEVIN DE LEÓN, Fourteenth District, President Pro Tempore JOE BUSCAINO, Fifteenth District
“Attention City Clerk: I understand in September 2020 the city mandated diversity training for all Neighborhood Councils. Does your office have any information on why NC’s discriminated against me as a candidate in the March 2020 CD10 District election and why no one has contacted me as to a resolution and why the city attorney’s office has not responded? I was physically assaulted by Church security guards and intimidated by event co- sponsors. (Unruh Act, CC section 51). On another note, I believe city employees Marcel Nicolas and Luis Tolentino should be fired for their racial discrimination and retaliation against me after I made valid code violation complaints re 1522 Hi Point St 90035, as reported to the Mayor and Council. Please provide a list of which city employees have been determined to be racist or retaliatory against Blacks who make housing complaints. Please provide a list of any and all city code violation inspectors who are racist. Please see the attached 36 page documents that was forwarded (June 7, 2021) to the City clerk for file number 14-0268-S13 as they relate to the relationship between harassment by landlords and the politics of exclusion by city funded NC’s (some of them are landlords). G. Juan Johnson, candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles 2022.”
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS)
Submitted To Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk (June 15, 2021)
DFEH Case Number 202004-09810703 Johnson/LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS – Your decisions are biased and not in compliance with Unruh
From: GJohnson
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
Phone (redacted)
Robert White v. Square, Inc. | Ninth Circuit | 06- 07-2018 | http://www.anylaw.com Research the case of Robert White v. Square, Inc., from the Ninth Circuit, 06-07-2018. AnyLaw is the FREE and Fr…
To Holly L. Wolcott, City Clerk
(June 15, 2021)
City CPRA Request # Request #21-5521
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 