ADDENDUM “A”

/
 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

1. Introduction …………………………………………………………… Page 5

2. Violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ………………………… Page 8

3. Violation of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution … Page 8

4. Skid Row Containment Zone Policy ………………………………… Page 11

5. Title II/ Intellectual Disability ………………………………………… Page 13

6. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) …………………………… Page 14

7. “DONE” ……………………………………………………………… Page 19

“Section #1” ………………………………………………………… Page 19

Removing the “Help Desk” Option ………………………………… Page 39

“Section #2” ………………………………………………………… Page 43

Duplicate Voting …………………………………………………… Page 43

“Late Registration” …………………………………………………… Page 45

Voter Tampering …………………………………………………… Page 46

Voter Suppression …………………………………………………… Page 51

Polls Outside Proposed Boundaries ………………………………… Page 56

Pop-Up Poll Locations ……………………………………………… Page 58

Confusing Voter Tally Documentation ……………………………… Page 62

“Election Results #1” (April 6th) …………………………………… Page 68

“Election Results #2” (May 19th) …………………………………… Page 69

Additional Points Against “DONE” ………………………………… Page 70

Letter from the California Secretary of State ………………………… Page 71

8. SRNC-FC/ Skid Row Residents Speak ……………………………… Page 78

9. “BONC” ……………………………………………………………… Page 80

/
10. “DLANC” …………………………………………………………… Page 82

11. Department of Public Health (DPH) ………………………………… Page 98

12. “Connecting the Dots” ……………………………………………… Page 101

13. Unite DTLA and DTLA United ……………………………………… Page 101

14. Unite DTLA, Liner LLP and DLA Piper …………………………… Page 102

15. DLANC and Liner LLP ……………………………………………… Page 106

16. Liner LLP and City of LA …………………………………………… Page 107

17. Liner LLP and DONE ………………………………………………… Page 107

18. Explanation of IP Address …………………………………………… Page 108

19. Ann D’Amato and Liner LLP ………………………………………… Page 109

20. Ann D’Amato, DLANC and “Ranch Palos Verdes” ………………… Page 110

21. Ann D’Amato and Rocky Delgadillo ………………………………… Page 119

22. Rocky Delgadillo and Mayor Garcetti ……………………………… Page 120

23. Jose Huizar, DLANC, Liner LLP and Unite DTLA ………………… Page 121

24. Rocky Delgadillo, Liner LLP, Unite DTLA, DLANC, LA City Page 122
Council, City Attorney Mike Feuer, City Planner Vince Bertoni ……

25. DONE and City Attorney Mike Feuer ………………………………… Page 124

26. City Council President Herb Wesson and City Council Committee … Page 125

27. Jose Huizar, DLANC, Downtown Business Sector, and Mayor Page 126
Garcetti ………………………………………………………………

28. Ann D’Amato and Mayor Garcetti …………………………………… Page 131

29. Tom Gilmore and Mayor Garcetti …………………………………… Page 137

30. Mayor Garcetti and City of LA ……………………………………… Page 143

31. Mayor Garcetti and LA Police Commissioner Sandra Page 144

Figueroa-Villa …………………………………………………………

32. Flow Chart #1 (In Color) ……………………………………………… Page 146

33. Flow Chart #2 (City of LA) …………………………………………… Page 147

/
34. “Seabreeze” Development Project …………………………………… Page 148

35. Conclusion …………………………………………………………… Page 148

36. Summary ……………………………………………………………… Page 153

37. SRNC-FC Petitioner Signatures ……………………………………… Page 155

/
Honorable Magistrate Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Central District - Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street, Department 86
Los Angeles, California 90012

October 16, 2019

Dear Honorable Magistrate Judge Beckloff,

This informational document gives an in-depth summary of limited portions of the vast
primary and key evidence Petitioners have compiled since the previous filing of our
3rd-amended Petition for Writ of Mandate against the City of Los Angeles and it’s allies.

Provided within this document is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence which firmly
identifies many of the roles the City of Los Angeles played in undermining the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council- Formation Committee’s (SRNC-FC) efforts to legally create a Skid
Row Neighborhood Council. This document’s “clear picture” shows, among other things, a
deceitful collaborative alliance between members of the Downtown Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council (DLANC), Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE),
Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC), numerous City of Los Angeles employees
(including top City officials), and other influential individuals and entities, in the lead up to,
during, and after the 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood Council Subdivision election, which
ultimately amounted to unlawful and unjust oversight that greatly failed to uphold America’s
democratic process, without prejudice, as it specifically pertains to government-run elections.

Numerous actions taken by DONE, or lack thereof, violated various Los Angeles City
Election Codes and other City regulations, such as not negating duplicate votes in the final
1
vote tally , ignoring and/or misrepresenting it’s own election challenge remedy process (per
DONE’s own election manual and Election Challenge Review Panel [ECRP] “Final
Determination” document) along with violations as serious as Dereliction of Duty (by not
providing obligatory oversight in the form of a thorough internal investigation, along with an
independent investigation as recommended by the ECRP) regarding the existence of a strong
possibility of fraudulent election-related acts by neighborhood council board members and
it’s supporters, which is well within DONE’s scope of responsibilities. DONE also violated

1
Los Angeles City Election Code Article E, Section 1227(c) in Exhibit 5a.

/
 2
State election laws by selectively tampering with voter registration data, which they did by
changing multiple potential voter’s email addresses (an atrocious act referred to by DONE as
a “clean up” of multiple voter registration databases); illegally assisting online voters in the
voter registration process after the deadline for the clearly-defined voter registration period
had already ended; and participating in acts of voter suppression which included DONE staff
selectively providing pin numbers to some voter registrants while not at all providing any pin
numbers to countless others who were deemed eligible (by DONE themselves) to receive
them- which are all blatant violations of local, State and Federal election laws, from which
the SRNC-FC was able to easily deduct that DONE pre-determined whom it would provide
assistance to, based on the one-sided evidence to be provided herein.

Further, in June, 2016, LA City Council approved a ban on online voting for all subsequent
neighborhood council elections after significant mishaps during the 2016 neighborhood
council elections, which immediately created cause for concern due to the lack of a true
vetting process which would thereby ensure a safe, accurate and above-board online voting
experience for all interested parties and potential voters, of which we now know did not
happen3.

In March, 2017, LA City Council approved online voting ONLY for the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election while continuing the citywide ban for all other neighborhood councils.
This was a blatant act of Discrimination which thereby subjected the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election to a biased and reduced “guinea pig”, sacrificial lamb-type status, from
which DONE would make the necessary follow-up adjustments that would ensure all other
neighborhood council elections with online voting benefited from lessons learned at the
expense of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election itself4.

NOTE: It should be noted that the LA City Council decided to allow DONE to oversee the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election rather than the City Clerk, who normally oversees
elections for the City of Los Angeles- which includes general and neighborhood council
elections.

In addition, at no time during the creation process of the neighborhood council Subdivision
Ordinance (Council File 12-1681) which dates back to October, 2012, nor during the process

2
California State elections code Sections 2188, 18100(a),18109 & 19205.
3
See Exhibit 43 titled, “Los Angeles City Council Motion banning online voting for NC elections
15-1022-S2_mot_06-29-2016”.
4
See Exhibit 33 titled,
“Department-of-Neighborhood-Empowerment-Report-about-the-Skid-Row-Neighborhood-Council-E
lection (Jan 19, 2018)”.

/
which created the ban on online voting for neighborhood council elections (which dates back
to June, 2016- Council File 15-1022-S2) did City Council, Board of Neighborhood
Commissioners (BONC), DONE, City Clerk, nor the LA City Attorney, stipulate in any
council motion or any other official document and/or legal language, the option to extract a
single neighborhood council election from the lot for any purpose, especially as it
specifically pertains to subjecting the aforementioned affected group (SRNC-FC and the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election) to extremely harmful and damaging outcomes which
could thereby only cause irreparable results5. Not only did/does the City of Los Angeles’
actions in this regard qualify as Discrimination, they also qualify as Abuse of Power and
Abuse of Authority, which are each criminal acts in the United States of America.

Also, the City Council undemocratically rushed to approve and implement online voting less
than two weeks prior to the already scheduled 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, an
unlawful act Petitioners will address in detail infra. DONE on it’s own initiative, and without
prior City Council approval, used surprise and last-minute “pop-up” polls (additional voting
locations) for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election which also included the administering
of online voting by a third-party vendor which had/has it’s own internal issues regarding it’s
capability to provide a secure online voting process, of which the City of Los Angeles
completely failed to adequately vet and/or rectify prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election6, Further, the majority of the pop-up polls were held outside the proposed boundaries
for the Skid Row Neighborhood Council (per SRNC-FC Subdivision application) which is in
clear violation of the City of Los Angeles’ own Subdivision Ordinance7. DONE itself chose
the locations for said pop-up polls, the majority of which were held in DONE’s own office on
the 20th-floor of City Hall, along with other DONE-selected locations which each had
controlled-entry and access limitations along with other security measures, making an “open
and transparent” voting process literally impossible and immensely prohibitive for Skid Row
residents, supporters and the like, which is a violation of State and Federal election laws. It
must also be noted that the SRNC-FC never agreed to the inclusion of pop-up polls, nor
participated in the promotion of, nor securing locations for, pop-up polls because it was
feared that DONE would utilize them as tools to assist itself in suppressing “Yes” votes,
while also accommodating “No” votes, which is precisely what the SRNC-FC contends
happened.

5
See Exhibit 43 titled, “Los Angeles City Council Motion banning online voting for NC elections
15-1022-S2_mot_06-29-2016”.
6
See Exhibit 27 titled, “Los Angeles City Council File 15-1022-S2_mot_06-29-2016”.
7
See Exhibit 10 titled, “2017 SRNC Subdivision election polling locations/PUPS (map)”.

/
Of great importance, it MUST be stated that with the Skid Row community confirmed by
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) in it’s 2017 Homeless Count as a
majority African American community (62%)8, the City of Los Angeles’ myriad of
discriminatory practices in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election all qualify as blatant
violations of both the Voting Rights Act of 19659 and the 15th Amendment of the United
States Constitution10.

8
See Exhibit 28 titled, “2017 LAHSA Data Summary for Skid Row (highlighted”.
9
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, clearly indicates that the purpose of
the Act is to assist in the effectuation of the Fifteenth Amendment, even though that Amendment is
self-executing, and to insure that no citizen's right to vote is denied or abridged on account of race or
color. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966); Apache County v. United States, 256
F.Supp. 903 (DC 1966).
10
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by
declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

/
DONE conducted the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election in violation of the Federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965 with the imposition of strict voter ID requirements through a
hardly-known, third-party contractor who provided it’s own in-house unregulated online
voting portal. DONE’s discriminatory Voting Rights Act of 1965 violations also include the
imposition of online voting less than two weeks before the election, which had a
negative-lingering effect on potential Skid Row voters and supporters that automatically
included an oppressive undertone by disenfranchising voters in the majority African
11
American neighborhood of Skid Row . At no point during the entire 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election process did DONE and the City of Los Angeles attempt to communicate
in any form or fashion with the SRNC-FC that accommodations of any kind would be made
and/or attempted in order to satisfy any and all potential voters for the purpose of exhibiting
and/or enacting the required inclusionary efforts towards alleviating the possibility of
disenfranchising African American voters in a majority African American community.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

DONE’s discriminatory 15th Amendment violations pertain to Skid Row not only being
identified as having a majority African American residency, but more specifically is a
community consisting of a majority of African American males (76%), according to
LAHSA’s 2017 Homeless Count data12. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE’s voter
registration process was equivalent to a modern-day literacy test (which are illegal) aimed at
suppressing poor, homeless and mentally-ill African American voters in the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fifteenth-amendment

The 15th amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not
be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.” (source: history.com) (Emphasis added)

11
See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
Committee Special Meeting”.
12
See Exhibit 28 titled, “2017 LAHSA Data Summary for Skid Row (highlighted)”.

/
 The definition of servitude:

(source: the free dictionary.com)

servitude (ˈsɜːvɪˌtjuːd)
n
1. the state or condition of a slave; bondage
2. the state or condition of being subjected to or dominated by a person or
thing:

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that African American voters in Skid Row were forced into
a condition of being subjected to unjust rules and regulations by the City of Los Angeles
which also constituted to said voters being dominated by the rule of the City of Los Angeles,
for an extended period of time.

Also;

(source: Merriam-Webster.com) 

servitude ser·vi·tude | \ ˈsər-və-ˌtüd , -ˌtyüd\  

Definition of servitude

1: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of

action or way of life.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that a majority African American community in the 2017
Skid Row subdivision election was intentionally denied their right to “determine one’s course
of action or way of life” as it specifically pertains to the possibility of what a successful vote
to create the Skid Row Neighborhood Council would have meant in regards to transforming
each of their lives, as well as the overall Skid Row community.

10

/
For DONE and the City of Los Angeles to utilize voter suppression tactics to deny a majority
African American community the opportunity to “determine one’s course of action or way of
life” is not only illegal, but a grave injustice, especially as it relates to denying opportunities
for realistic solutions connected to the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council and
the impactful resources, opportunities and hope, with which to better one’s subjection to
inhumane conditions in Skid Row- which is commonly known as “the homeless capitol of
America” and has existed for well over one hundred years in which generation after
generation have struggled to overcome failed governing policies such as the “Skid Row
Containment Zone Policy”, which was enacted by the City of Los Angeles and the
Community Redevelopment Agency in the 1970’s.

The below July 30, 2006 LA Times article

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jul-30-op-mailander30-story.html states,

“Since 1970, containment has roped off L.A.'s skid row within a certain designated area
downtown, once again in the name of affordable housing.” and,

“The old policies and laws, of course, were not written in a housing market quite as
stratospheric as today’s. When one sector of a city is fenced off not just for the sake of
preserving below-market units, but to insulate the whole zone from natural market forces as
well, whether or not we can reasonably call this fencing-off a “policy” anymore remains a
question. It is more like an “anti-policy"; like cordoning off a crime scene for the sake of
perpetuating a crime, rather than solving it.” and further states,
“The policy of containment thereby makes for ordinances and actions that have no single
policy objective at all; thus, ordinances affecting downtown perpetually come down on no
particular side, while always making for more exceptions than rules.”

It is the firm position of the SRNC-FC that the “Skid Row Containment Zone” is a failed
policy the City of Los Angeles and it’s lead law enforcement arm- Los Angeles Police
Department- use to continue to police the Skid Row community with the aforementioned
“failed policy”, from which homelessness has expanded immensely, existing not only in Skid
Row, but is now nothing more than an invisible wall that has come crashing down and now
homelessness is widely visible across both Los Angeles city and county.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC, that the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council would be seen as a direct threat to the numerous failed policies initiated by the City
of Los Angeles, most which lean heavily towards embracing the gentrification of Skid Row,
hence further existence of the City’s motivations to undermine the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election. In actuality, the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council will

11

/
establish an entirely new governing body which can/should create new policies and/or
initiatives from which homelessness can be appropriately addressed, not only in Skid Row,
but across both the city and county. Anyone opposing the creation of the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council is either extremely misinformed, has selfish motivations or profits
directly or indirectly from the continued existence of homelessness- the latter is who the
SRNC-FC identifies as “Poverty Pimps”.

Below are additional links related to the Skid Row Containment Zone Policy.

http://crala.org/internet-site/Projects/City_Center/upload/citycenter.pdf

http://crala.org/internet-site/Projects/City_Center/upload/D4D_CI_CT_-RESIDENTAL_HO
TELS.pdf

http://evanescent-city.blogspot.com/2015/02/reaganomics-on-spring-st-and-skid-row.html

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-containment-plan/

Also of great importance, is the fact the City of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti, LA City
Council, LA City Attorney Mike Feuer, Board of Neighborhood Commissioners and DONE
all violated the Skid Row community’s collective legal protections, specifically, Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which states;

State and Local Governments (Title II)

Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified
individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services,
programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends
the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments
regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance. (source:
ADA.gov) (Emphasis added)

It cannot be stated in any other way other than the City of Los Angeles was “legally reckless”
in it’s inability to both “recognize and accommodate”, as it specifically pertains to the 2017
Skid Row Subdivision election, regarding the realization that a majority of Skid Row
residents and other stakeholders suffer from “intellectual disability”.

12

/
What is Intellectual Disability?
Intellectual disability involves problems with general mental abilities that affect functioning
in two areas:
○ intellectual functioning (such as learning, problem solving, judgement)
○ adaptive functioning (activities of daily life such as communication and independent
living)

Three areas of adaptive functioning are considered:

1. Conceptual – language, reading, writing, math, reasoning, knowledge, memory

2. Social – empathy, social judgment, communication skills, the ability (to) follow rules
and the ability to make and keep friendships
3. Practical – independence in areas such as personal care, job responsibilities,
managing money, recreation and organizing school and work tasks

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/intellectual-disability/what-is-intellectual-disabi
lity
(source: American Psychiatric Association)13

The City of Los Angeles was well aware that Skid Row is commonly known as “the
homeless capitol of America” prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and also that
Skid Row residents consist of a high-concentration of people who struggle with both
homelessness and mental illness (intellectual disability)14.

That still is no reason for the City of Los Angeles to discriminate against the SRNC-FC’s
effort to create a Skid Row Neighborhood Council. Even if only one future-SRNC Board
member and/or voter struggled with both homelessness and mental illness (intellectual
disability), they should be extended the opportunity to exercise their right to participate in the

13
See Exhibit 29 titled, “American Psychiatric Association, What is Intellectual Disability,
psychiatry.org (Physician Review By: Ranna Parekh, M.D., M.P.H., July 2017)”.
14
See Exhibit 28 titled, “2017 LAHSA Data Summary for Skid Row (highlighted)”.

13

/
American democratic process, which is a by-right given to each and every single adult
American-born citizen, regardless of his or her disability(s).

According to the City of Los Angeles’ Comprehensive Homeless Strategy (adopted February
9, 2016), of their “14 guiding principles”, #3 states;

“3. Adopt a "No Wrong Door" approach to improve the City's interactions with homeless
individuals and give City staff the tools, relationships and resources necessary to connect
individuals to appropriate services and systems of housing.”

By contrast, if the City of Los Angeles can be thorough in it’s thoughtfulness regarding the
housing of homeless people, it should also be as thoughtful and accommodating when it
comes to voting in neighborhood council Subdivision elections, specifically regarding access
to adequate online voting options, online voter registration assistance, and other related
services and/or voting accommodations. The City of Los Angeles’ Comprehensive Homeless
Strategy document proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the City is more than capable of
creating a wide-range of accommodations for people who struggle with homelessness,
intellectual disabilities and/or other hindrances which may affect their ability to participate in
a “regular” voting process.

Further, in DONE’s 70-page May 3rd Election Challenge Review Panel document15, on Page
1, paragraph 2, it states, “As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability and
upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to it’s
programs, services and activities.

It is the firm position of the SRNC-FC that intellectual disability (also known as mental
illness) is, in fact, a disability protected by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), which is defined by the ADA National Network Disability Law Handbook as;

(Below excerpt from ADA National Network Disability Law handbook)

What is the definition of disability under the ADA?

It is important to remember that in the context of the ADA, “disability” is a legal term
rather than a medical one. Because it has a legal definition, the ADA’s definition of

15
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1) titled , “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017”.

14

/
disability is different from how disability is defined under some other laws. (Emphasis
added)

The ADA defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This
includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not
currently have a disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a
disability but are regarded as having a disability. The ADA also makes it
unlawful to discriminate against a person based on that person’s association with a
person with a disability. (Emphasis added)
https://adata.org/publication/disability-law-handbook

The SRNC-FC strongly contends that at no point during the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election were “reasonable accommodations” extended to those within the SRNC-FC
proposed boundaries who suffer from intellectual disability, specifically as it pertains to
online voting and also despite numerous requests, demands, and/or verbal notifications from
various SRNC-FC members and/or concerned citizens.

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti’s official website

https://www.lamayor.org/HomelessnessCausesAndResponses acknowledges the existence of
mental illness (intellectual disability) and speaks to the “desperate need” for services and
even highlights the City of Los Angeles’ efforts in Skid Row- not only is Skid Row the only
community mentioned in the entire declaration, but also the only community mentioned
multiple times16.

Also, Mayor Eric Garcetti’s official website has an inner portal

https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-names-christina-miller-deputy-mayor-city-homeless
ness-initiatives which publicly announced the appointment of Christina Miller to head the
City’s Homeless initiatives, and again, Skid Row is the only community mentioned within
the entire text17.

This confirms the City’s acknowledgement of the great need for “reasonable
accommodations” for homeless and mentally ill (intellectual disability) persons in Skid Row,
even as it pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. For the City to “look the other
way” by taking a passive position in offering assistance only “upon request” to a
disenfranchised homeless community, can, and should, be frowned upon in each and every

16
See Exhibit 30 titled, “lamayor.org - Homelessness Causes And Responses”.
17
See Exhibit 31 titled, “lamayor.org - Mayor Garcetti Names Christina Miller As Deputy Mayor For
City Homelessness Initiatives”.

15

/
instance. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles’ collective acts of
Discrimination were intentional, revealed a lack of empathy for disabled persons of color in a
professional setting and strongly suggest a disdain for fair and unbiased inclusion into
politics as it specifically relates to a well-recognized and long-established homeless
community that also includes a high-concentration of people suffering from intellectual
disabilities. For the City of Los Angeles to justify it’s barely visible offer of “reasonable
accommodation” in a way that equates to someone whispering “fire” when a massive blaze is
fast-approaching, is not only extremely disingenuous, but should be frowned upon in every
instance and described as the City “appearing to help” as opposed to “actually
helping”....And because it pertains to a majority African American community with a
majority suffering from intellectual disabilities, the Discrimination, negligence, disrespect
and abuse is magnified tenfold.

Another example, from the non-profit political journalism website called, CALmatters,
which in the below link published the following article titled “Struggling Over Care for
Mentally Ill Homeless People” which demonstrates the widespread understanding that
Skid Row, homelessness and mental illness (intellectual disability) go hand-in-hand18;
https://calmatters.org/articles/newsletters/legislators-struggle-over-care-for-mentally-ill-hom
eless-people/

It is sheer disbelief that the City of Los Angeles would not be proactive and provide
“reasonable accommodations” for the Skid Row community involving a Skid Row-specific
election, the same as the City of Los Angeles naturally and normally anticipates in advance
the need for multiple language interpretation options in Chinatown prior to any City-involved
meetings, including but not limited to, neighborhood council meetings and/or elections
(languages in the Chinatown community include Chinese, Cantonese, Mandarin and more).

The following are excerpts taken from DONE’s own website which confirms the City of Los
Angeles is fully aware of it’s legal obligation to be ADA compliant in all City-related
business (including, but not limited to, neighborhood councils and neighborhood council
Subdivision elections) - http://empowerla.org/reference-library/

Governing Documents19

18
See Exhibit 32 titled, “Dan Morain, Struggling over care for mentally ill homeless people,
calmatters.org (June 27, 2018)”.
19
See Exhibit 34 titled, “empowerla.org - Governing Documents (reference-library)”.

16

/
Because Neighborhood Councils are created by the Los Angeles City Charter,
they are subject to many of the federal, state and local laws that govern other
City departments. Every Neighborhood Council also has bylaws and other
standing or procedural rules they follow, too. In addition, Neighborhood
Councils must abide by laws preventing workplace violence, sexual
harassment and discrimination.

The laws that apply to all Neighborhood Councils include the following:

Americans with Disabilities Act – A federal law designed to protect the

rights of individuals with disabilities. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) applies to the operations of state and local governments.

Los Angeles City Charter – 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.

The SRNC-FC examined Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm#a35101 , and came

to the following conclusions (below);

In the section titled, Title II Regulations Revised Final Title II Regulation with Integrated
Text- Part 35 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government
Services (as amended by the final rule published on August 11, 2016), Subpart B- General
Requirements, Section 35.130 - General prohibitions against discrimination, subsection (a )
states,

17

/
“No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public
entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.” (Emphasis added)

Subsection (b) (1), states, “A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not,
directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability—”
(continued)

Subsections (b) (1) (i, ii, and iii), state;

“(i) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or

benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

(ii) Afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or

benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others;

(iii) Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that
is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain
the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to
others;”

And Subsection (b) (1) (vi), states, “Deny a qualified individual with a disability the
opportunity to participate as a member of planning or advisory boards;”. (It should be
noted that neighborhood councils are advisory boards)

It is the firm conclusion of the SRNC-FC regarding ADA that AT NO POINT does ADA
Title II restrict, limit and/or condone any State or local government to only provide
assistance to people with disabilities “upon request” as the City of Los Angeles stipulates
in the above-mentioned- “DONE’s 70-page May 3rd Election Challenge Review Panel
document, which on Page 1, paragraph 2, states, “As a covered entity under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the
basis of disability and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure
equal access to it’s programs, services and activities.” (Emphasis added)

The SRNC-FC also concludes (regarding ADA) that the City of Los Angeles has squarely
placed any and all burden(s), as it specifically pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election, on individuals struggling with homelessness and/or intellectual disabilities, as

18

/
opposed to being true city officials and city leaders (with resources) and taking a more
proactive position to provide adequate accommodations to those in Skid Row who need it
for the purpose of ensuring the entire 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election process
provides equal opportunities for all interested parties, including but not limited to,
registering to vote and casting a vote.

Lastly, ADA.gov states, “Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established

by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all
activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities
receive Federal financial assistance.”

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that while DONE and the City of Los Angeles state that
neighborhood councils are not subjected to State law, neighborhood councils (and
neighborhood council Subdivision elections) are, in fact, subjected to ADA compliance
under Federal law...and according to the quote in the previous paragraph, it doesn’t matter
if the entire neighborhood council system receives “Federal financial assistance” or
not...which therefore means ADA compliance is mandatory and confirms the SRNC-FC
and Skid Row community were violated!

Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment - (DONE)

The following is a partial list of how the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Neighborhood
Empowerment (DONE) worked to create a culture of deceit, lies, malicious inconsistencies
and/or unnecessary confusion, Gross Negligence and most importantly Gross Misconduct, all
to undermine the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

SECTION #1

https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gross-misconduct/

Gross Misconduct Law and Legal Definition

(source: USLegal.com)

The first paragraph in the USLegal.com definition for Gross Misconduct, states;

19

/
“Misconduct means dereliction of duty or unlawful or improper behavior. Conduct is gross
misconduct if it is so outrageous that it shocks the conscience. [Morales Cotte v.
Cooperative de Ahorro y Credito Yabucoena, 77 F. Supp. 2d 237, 241 (D.P.R. 1999)]”
(Emphasis added)

In this very document, the SRNC-FC has already provided multiple examples of misconduct
(Dereliction of Duty) at the hands of DONE. We now further examine one specific moment
which will establish cause;

On May 3rd, 2017 during the DONE-convened Election Challenge Review Panel (ECRP)
regarding the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, DONE General Manager Grayce Liu
publicly testified to the following;

(Excerpts taken from Election Challenge Review Panel transcription20)

(Grayce Liu - 01:02:22)

“...I know that General Jeff mentioned that there were two different emails that this
came from, and for us that doesn't make a material difference in our determination of
the fact that we found this evidence to be inconclusive, we would not show that this
had to have come from DLANC, this email and said that Unite DTLA, two Unite
DTLA emails even though they came from two different Gmail accounts, it was still
basically representing Unite DTLA.”

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that it is unfathomable that the head of a City department
could make such a lethargic claim that “two Unite DTLA emails even though they came
from two different Gmail accounts, it was still basically representing Unite DTLA”.
(Emphasis added)

The evidence provided below by SRNC-FC in this very document clearly proves that there
were two separate e-mails sent from two separate e-mail accounts and each of the two
e-mails were identified as having been sent by two different groups- 1) Unite DTLA, and 2)
DTLA United - by the separate entities themselves. How realistic, then, can it be for the City
of Los Angeles to determine that even after publicly admitting knowledge of there being two
different entities- “even though they came from two different Gmail accounts...”- could the
City conclude that only one entity initially sent both “Vote No” e-mails in question from

See Exhibit 1d (Administrative 10) titled, “Transcript- May 3, 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood
20

Council Election Challenge Hearing”.

20

/
multiple Gmail accounts, without supplying any evidence and/or supportive documentation
to corroborate this so-called “finding”?

There are only two deductions to make from this specific evidence- 1) Either this is Gross
Negligence from total mismanagement and lack of knowledge of a basic e-mail principle that
two different e-mails from two different e-mail accounts, sent by two different groups are, in
fact, not one in the same, as was claimed by DONE GM Liu...Or, 2) It was a blatant attempt
to deceive both the SRNC-FC and the ECRP with false facts for the purpose of achieving a
“desired outcome” that did not favor the SRNC-FC. In further analyzing the latter, either
DONE GM Liu acted as a lone wolf or acted in concert with other City employee(s). And
since her General Manager position is an appointment by Mayor Eric Garcetti, it is quite
conceivable that Liu’s entry-level gaff by a high-ranking City department leader was
influenced by someone with the power to have her fired if she did not follow orders, and thus
initiated and/or engaged in a blatant misstep at a most critical point of the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election challenge process, in order to save her job.

Further wrongful and misleading testimony by DONE GM Liu;

(Grayce Liu - 01:05:25)

“...We go(t) this second Unite DTLA email. Even though that this Gmail account is
not the same account it's basically pushing the same message, right. When we look at
this, the logo has been removed and they also removed this P.O., Box. If you go to
why did I get this. Now this has changed to dtlaunited.us15, right, right up here.”

continued;
(Grayce Liu - 01:06:27)

“That means that there's been a change, it no longer says DLANC. If you were to
update your profile, and return to the website, so it goes to nothing now. But prior to
that it had a- go return to website look really quickly at the URL. It says DTLA
United, right?”

Again, DONE GM Liu clearly identifies, on multiple occasions, that there are
easily-identifiable differences between the two different e-mails….One sent by Unite DTLA
and the second sent by DTLA United…. Why is it so difficult for the head of a City
department to comprehend that two different e-mails, from two different e-mail addresses,
which were identified as having been sent by two different groups, may, in fact, be two
totally different e-mails altogether and thus, the metrics of each would stand to be different?

21

/
Further, DONE GM Liu’s “unique” position also suggests that other staff at DONE involved
in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and/or 2017 SRNC-FC Election Challenge
Review Panel (ECRP) were either in agreement with Liu or were in fear of possibly losing
their jobs also so they remained passively silent and allowed this total disregard for truth
and/or fact to exist.

What’s both jaw-dropping and puzzling is how DONE GM Liu draws a completely
unfounded conclusion during her testimony at the ECRP;

(Grayce Liu - 01:06:52)

“Okay, and if you look at this it says DTLA United. The website was supposed to be
dtlaunited.com.” (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the lack of ANY supportive documentation to
substantiate such wildly assumptive and illegitimately-made claims falsely presented as fact,
suggest the following: 1) DONE anticipated a specific outcome which failed to materialize,
which further suggests prior discussions with other involved parties (City of Los Angeles and
it’s allies) were held in advance to “coordinate” a desired outcome, and/or 2) DONE’s
findings were reached based on flawed metrics which prevented the “desired outcome” from
being obtained, and/or 3) The metrics DONE used were knowingly flawed so in order to
reach it’s “desired outcome” DONE GM Liu spoke with an undertone based on suggestion
and not fact.

Thus, it is the firm position of the SRNC-FC that each and every one of these analyzations
conclude that DONE’s statement is completely disingenuous in nature and calls one to
question, not only the in-house methods used to reach such blatantly biased outcomes, but
also question the sincerity, trust, judgement and professional responsibility to uphold the
American democratic process by a member of the United States’ local government itself.

Even further, the SRNC-FC contends that there is no such organization named “DTLA
United” and was merely created for the sole purpose of being a “front organization” (in name
and e-mail address only) which would be used to distribute the 2nd “Vote No” e-mail against
the SRNC-FC’s effort to create the Skid Row Neighborhood Council. The SRNC-FC
suggested as much during lead testimony at the May 3, 2017 ECRP hearing. Subsequently,
DONE’s failure to initiate a just and thorough investigation strongly suggests that it was
never interested in gathering the truth, nor exercising it’s due diligence, which thereby puts

22

/
emphasis on SRNC-FC’s already established position that a “desired outcome” against the
SRNC-FC was the only intention of DONE’s lackadaisical and incompetent “investigation”.

Also, the LA City Attorney’s office had their top legal representative for neighborhood
councils present at the May 3, 2017 ECRP, who also had ample opportunity to legally
intervene and correct the false metrics and wrongly-analyzed data publicly stated by DONE
GM Liu.

For example, towards the beginning of the ECRP, Deputy City Attorney Darren Martinez
(then-top neighborhood council legal representative for the City Attorney’s office) identified
himself during a disputed moment between SRNC-FC and the DLANC, in which DCA
Martinez established his authoritative position and rendered a final governing ruling on a
specific matter, as follows;

(DCA Darren Martinez - 00:41:53)

“This is Deputy (City) Attorney Darren Martinez, yes you can look at the binders, the
restriction on evidence is just on the challenge itself. If you think about it, it makes
sense because they don't, DLANC doesn't necessarily know, you know, the Board has
to meet, they may not come up with things till the last minute, they have to have an
opportunity to be able to rebut whatever is being alleged as well, so they're allowed to
present some information to the panel, the panel's allowed to hear it, at the end of this
evening everybody will have an opportunity to provide their input, and the panel's
going to evaluate that. Because in a sense all of it is evidence or information that's
coming in.” (Emphasis added)

The SRNC-FC understood that at this early point in the hearing DCA Martinez firmly
established that he would provide legal oversight for the entire ECRP proceedings, but
SRNC-FC members were shocked beyond belief when DCA Martinez (who sat in the front
row during the entire hearing) became passively silent when the matter of the two different
e-mails sent from two different “g-mail” accounts by two different groups (Unite DTLA and
DTLA United) was allowed to stand as valid and accurate testimony from the City of Los
Angeles. The SRNC-FC then gathered that multiple City agencies were either completely
incapable of comprehending basic computer/internet principles associated with e-mail
accounts or there was a secretive and dastardly plot against the SRNC-FC in the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election, as well as the 2017 SRNC-FC Election Challenge Review Panel
hearing.

23

/
It MUST be mentioned that towards the end of the May 3rd ECRP, DONE GM Liu spoke
directly to the hearing panel who were deliberating in public;

(Grayce Liu - 04:23:44)

“You know, before you go further, I just want to do my best to honor any remedies
that the panel comes forth with. I'll tell you that we did the best investigation that we
are capable of doing and that there will be no further investigation to this.”
(Emphasis added)

“...I just want to do my best to honor any remedies that the panel comes forth with…” and
“...did the best investigation we are capable of doing…”. How could that be true?...DONE
willingly and/or unwillingly failed to obtain a clear understanding of the concept that two
different e-mails from two different e-mail accounts which were sent by two different
groups- Unite DTLA and DTLA United- would easily give the conclusion that the two
“differing” e-mails are not one in the same, nor from the same source. Yet during the same
hearing, rather than decide to allow substantial time to appropriately research any and all
missteps, misspeak and/or the ECRP panel’s recommendations which included the option for
DONE to “conduct a 60-day investigation”, DONE GM Liu spoke on behalf of the City of
Los Angeles, stating they had (past tense) already done the BEST investigation the City is
capable of doing and also stated that there would be “no further investigation to this”. Again,
the City Attorney’s office also failed to provide adequate legal oversight into this
controversial point of the hearing which was strongly disputed by SRNC-FC members and
also numerous audience members who attended the ECRP and provided passionate public
comment. (Emphasis added)

Also, it was never conveyed at any time to the SRNC-FC, nor at any point during the ECRP,
publicly or otherwise, that DONE and the City Attorney’s office discussed the possibilities of
obtaining a court-ordered subpoena as part of undergoing a thorough investigation into any
of the matters at hand...So how is it possible that the City of Los Angeles can contend that it
“did the BEST investigation (they) are capable of doing”? (Emphasis added)

And please note that during the May 3rd, 2017 ECRP hearing, the SRNC-FC introduced an
e-mail from MailChimp- an industry-leading internet marketing company which provides
services such as opening an e-mail campaign account- of which each of the contentious “Vote
No” e-mails sent by - 1) Unite DTLA and 2) DTLA United - were created via separate
MailChimp accounts. During the May 3rd ECRP hearing, the SRNC-FC requested that both
DONE and the City Attorney’s office investigate this matter further since the City of Los
Angeles is a government entity and should be able to obtain much more detailed account

24

/
information than the grass-roots SRNC-FC itself, which still was able to obtain a direct
response from MailChimp in which MailChimp’s legal department stated that the entity
responsible for creating and sending the 1st “Vote No” e-mail “violated their (MailChimp)
Terms of Use (see below e-mail), of which, the SRNC-FC contends was enough new
qualifying evidence to warrant a further probe by the City of Los Angeles, and also which
was in line with the recommendation for further investigation made by the ECRP panel at the
conclusion of it’s May 3rd hearing; (Emphasis added)

MailChimp Legal <legal@mailchimp.com>

To General Jeff 05/19/17 at 4:32
AM
Hello Jeff,

Thank you for your reply.

To confirm, we've located the sender and have suspended the account for violation of our
Terms of Use.

We are unable to provide any information about a user's account without a valid court order
or subpoena.

If you have any specific questions, please let me know.

Best regards,
Liza
MailChimp Legal Department

Show original message

-------- Original message --------

From: MailChimp Legal <legal@mailchimp.com>
Date: 4/28/17 10:05 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: skidrownc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [MailChimp] Re: Abuse Report (2241215)

25

/
Hello Chance,

The account associated with the email address that you identified has been permanently
disabled for violating our terms of service.

Because of our commitment to Member privacy, we can’t comment on or divulge information

about a user’s account without a valid court order or subpoena.

Any/all documents can be provided to us at legal@mailchimp.com or can be mailed to our

physical address:

MailChimp Legal Department

675 Ponce de Leon Ave NE
Suite 5000
Atlanta, GA 30308

That being said, for more information on campaign URLs please see the following article:
http://kb.mailchimp.com/campaigns/archives/customize-campaign-urls

Best Regards,
Genevieve
MailChimp Legal Department

(NOTE #1): It should be noted that because the SRNC-FC obtained the aforementioned
response from Mailchimp’s legal department after our five (5) Subdivision election
challenges were already filed [three (3) successfully], DONE’s rules for the ECRP prevented
SRNC-FC from adding this or any other new information into evidence. And as previously
stated, DONE GM Liu stated during the ECRP that “no further investigation” would happen,
even in light of these new developments which specifically pertained to the matter at hand,
which shed new light in the middle of a strongly-disputed topic and which thereby raised
new and valid questions, which still have yet to be officially answered and/or adequately
investigated by the City of Los Angeles.

So with the SRNC-FC providing this critical information during the ECRP hearing, it is
blatant Gross Negligence by both DONE and the City Attorney’s office to immediately and
totally disregard multiple requests to initiate an official City-led investigation to discover
who, in fact, violated City of Los Angeles’ election laws for the purpose of illegally swaying
an election.

26

/
Again, the SRNC-FC contends that either the City was 1) Grossly Negligent in the form of
Dereliction of it’s Duties and exercised Gross Misconduct representations during official City
hearings, or 2) multiple City departments played significant roles in collaborating to
intentionally undermine the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, or both. The SRNC-FC is
steadfast in it’s position that it cannot be neither of the two.

In addition, it should be noted that the SRNC-FC subpoenaed MailChimp to obtain any and
all records in which the City of Los Angeles officially contacted them (Mailchimp) about an
investigation into the “Vote No” emails. Subsequently, the SRNC-FC received confirmation
that only one (1) total email on behalf of DONE was sent from Stephen Box, DONE’s Public
Information Officer, to MailChimp, but was never followed up with any further effort and/or
21
actions by DONE, nor the City Attorney’s office .

Therefore, the SRNC-FC and the Skid Row communities’ “high hopes” of entrusting the City
of Los Angeles to initiate the “best investigation possible” came to a screeching halt
immediately once it was learned that DONE only sent one total e-mail to MailChimp
regarding the two “Vote No” e-mails which illegally used City-owned intellectual property
and illegally swayed a City-governed election.

Further, the SRNC-FC points to various references and/or explanations of Gross Misconduct
and/or similar violations to best describe the atrocious behavior of the City of Los Angeles;

1) On the FBI.gov website

https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-fraud-schemes in the section titled “Scams
and Safety”, in the subsection “Common Fraud Schemes”, Business Fraud is described in the
following manner- “Business Fraud
Business fraud consists of activities undertaken by an individual or company in a
dishonest or illegal manner designed to be advantageous to the perpetrating person or
establishment.”

2) On the ZDWLaw.com website

https://www.zdwlaw.com/blog/2018/05/do-you-understand-the-meaning-of-professional-mis
conduct.shtml , examples of Gross Misconduct include;

See Exhibit 20 titled, “Stephen Box communication with MailChimp 2017.04.14_#2116751 Abuse
21

Report”.

27

/
 a) Any type of illegal activity
b) Using your position to discriminate against someone, whether
that person is a co-worker, subordinate, or client
c) Causing damage to your client or patient through an obvious act
of negligence

3) On the Bright HR (Human Resources) website

https://www.brighthr.com/articles/employee-conduct/professional-misconduct , it states;
“...gross misconduct can include: (Excerpts)
a) Discrimination
b) Bringing the organisation into serious disrepute
c) Causing loss, damage or injury through serious negligence
d) A serious breach of confidence

On the USLegal.com website https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gross-misconduct/ , the 1st

paragraph for Gross Misconduct states; “Misconduct means dereliction of duty or
unlawful or improper behavior. Conduct is gross misconduct if it is so
outrageous that it shocks the conscience. [Morales Cotte v. Cooperative de
Ahorro y Credito Yabucoena, 77 F. Supp. 2d 237, 241 (D.P.R. 1999)]”

Also, the 3rd paragraph in the USLegal.com definition of Gross Misconduct, states:

“Intentional behavior is needed to support a finding of gross misconduct. An act

which deliberately or willfully threatens the employer's rules, or shows a repeated
disregard for the employee's obligations to the employer or disregards the standard of
behavior which an employer has a right to expect of its employee", constitutes gross
misconduct. [Giles v. District of Columbia Dep't of Empl. Servs., 758 A.2d 522, 525
(D.C. 2000)]” (Emphasis added)

The SRNC-FC is confident that not only have we proven the City’s culpability regarding
both Gross Negligence and Gross Misconduct, but additionally are confident that we can
provide even more evidence which will undoubtedly prove the City’s involvement in the
undermining of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

28

/
Specifically, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that if DONE GM Liu were to take the
witness stand in a court of law under oath, she would quite easily be found guilty of violation
of moral turpitude, in the form of perjury, and also turpitude, in the form of corrupt, depraved
and/or degenerate acts or practices, all as it pertains to her public display of both iniquity-
which is defined as “grossly unfair behavior” and “a violation of right or duty”, and also
inequity- which is defined as “an act of injustice, lack of equity, unfairness or bias”. In
addition, there was an obvious presence of professional impropriety, which is defined in
OxfordDictionaries.com (see below) as “failure to observe standards of honesty; improper
behavior or character”.

Definitions:

Moral Turpitude - https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-turpitude/

Turpitude - https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/turpitude

Iniquity - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/iniquity

Inequity - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inequity

Impropriety - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/impropriety

Perjury - https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html

Perjury
(source: criminal.findlaw.com) 
 
Juries and judges often base their verdicts, sentences, or other important decisions 
on sworn testimony and signed documents. Statements given under oath and 
certain legal documents are presumed to be truthful, or at least made in good faith. 
But how do we know for sure that witnesses and other parties involved in a legal 
matter are telling the truth? We can’t always be certain, but those who are caught 
knowingly misleading a court face serious criminal charges of perjury. 
 
To “perjure” yourself is to knowingly make misleading or false statements under 
oath or to sign a legal document you know to be false or misleading. This crime is 
taken very seriously because the foundation of the legal system depends on trust 
and credibility. After all, just one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of 
justice and dramatically alter someone’s life. (Emphasis added) 

29

/
 
Perjury is considered a crime against justice, since lying under oath compromises 
the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. Other 
crimes against justice include criminal contempt of court, probation violation, and 
tampering with evidence.  
 
 
The City of Los Angeles’ violations are numerous. The legal definitions of said violations are
clear. The SRNC-FC and the Skid Row community are still suffering years later.

The presentation of evidence continues.

30

/
31

/
DONE’s “Final Determination” letter dated22 May 19, 2017 and signed by DONE GM Liu
(see above document), qualifies as a “legal document” as stated in the above-mentioned
definition of perjury. Said final determination letter, first confirms that each of the
SRNC-FC’s three (3) challenges were upheld by the ECRP hearing panel, is then followed by
the recommendation of an investigation of legitimate concerns, which made perfect sense
since the SRNC-FC produced new information from Mailchimp that confirmed suspicious
actions by a creator(s) of “Vote No” e-mails against SRNC-FC which violated Mailchimp’s
Terms of Use, leading to an unknown, but involved, account being suspended by MailChimp.
Surely, this was enough to warrant due diligence from the City of Los Angeles which would
easily be seen as a simple and standard act, but to no avail. Further into DONE’s
aforementioned “letter”, within the section titled “Inappropriate Remedy”, it states, “The
Election Challenge Review Panel requested an investigation of the origin of the “Vote No”
emails even after DONE and the City Attorney’s office stated that there could be no further
investigation of the matter. It should be noted that no detailed explanations were ever given
as to why no further investigation would be initiated. (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles bypassed officially
investigating this matter because it already knew who the involved culprit(s) was/were.
Additionally, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that, regarding the specific sentence by
DONE GM Liu speaking as fact determining “no further investigation”- use of the word
“would” would have suggested that a decision was reached by directly-involved individual
decision-makers, DONE for instance. However, said determination letter used the word
“could” which suggests the decision to not investigate the matter any further came from
exterior influence with executive decision-making power above that of DONE, also
suggesting that DONE was not allowed to initiate any further investigations. In this specific
instance, the two people in position of ultimate rule were City Attorney Mike Feuer and
Mayor Eric Garcetti - both elected officials for the City of Los Angeles, with each having the
power to make executive decisions on behalf of the City of Los Angeles…and Mayor
Garcetti having the power to fire anyone at DONE who didn’t comply with his orders,
including the General Manager whom he appointed. (Emphasis added)

The SRNC-FC extracts two additional eye-opening and critical instances in DONE’s “Final
Determination” letter; 1) In the section titled “No Proof of Explicit Use of Downtown Los
Angeles Neighborhood Council Logo by Candidate”, (2nd paragraph, Line 4), it states,
“...within hours of the original email being released, and it was removed within a day when a
new “Vote No” email was sent out again by Unite DTLA.” It is the position of the

See Exhibit 35 (Administrative 4) titled “ Letter to General Jeff Page Re Election Challenges Dated
22

May 19, 2017”.

32

/
SRNC-FC that this determination by DONE is a flat out lie and DONE GM Liu will perjure
herself at this very point of testimony on each and every witness stand, whether it be in State
or Federal court!, and 2) In the section titled “No Evidence the Challenges Made a Difference
in the Election Outcome” (1st paragraph, Line 10), DONE states “...which was replaced
within a day by another “Vote No” email without the DLANC logo by Unite DTLA so the
effect of the first email was likely minimal in the overall campaign.”. (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE intentionally misrepresented the facts after
previously confirming during the ECRP hearing that there were two separate entities- Unite
DTLA and DTLA United- which each sent “Vote No” e-mails against the SRNC-FC.
Because DONE chose to speak of only one of these entities- Unite DTLA- it confirms an
obvious bias in DONE’s “final determination”, and thus, bias within the City of Los Angeles
against the SRNC-FC. (Emphasis added)

Further, DONE using the word “replaced” is highly-suggestive, biased and a verbal indicator
of the slanted view within the City of Los Angeles’ collective position. Either it is a
subconscious admission of “insider knowledge” of the intentional framing of the “Final
Determination” to achieve a “desired outcome” (Especially in knowing that DONE had
already confirmed the existence of two separate entities- Unite DTLA and DTLA United- but
with this one word gave a glimpse into the true hidden intentions of the second “Vote No”
e-mail which was sent by DTLA United), or is another example of the “prejudiced
incompetence” at the hands of the City of Los Angeles, which time and time again “err’s on
the side of caution” against the SRNC-FC . (Emphasis added)

Also, DONE GM Liu’s use of the word “likely” indicates DONE remained unsure of all the
facts even in it’s own “final determination”. This is further validation that a more thorough
investigation should have been conducted, if the truth was what the City of Los Angeles truly
sought. (Emphasis added)

Lastly, DONE GM Liu’s signature on it’s “Final Determination” letter, is consistent with the
above legal definition of perjury in that “to sign a legal document you know to be false or
misleading” qualifies this matter as a case for perjury, with which the SRNC-FC requests this
court move forward with criminal prosecution of any and all violator(s).

(NOTE #2): It MUST be noted that Unite DTLA was mentioned twelve (12) times in
DONE’s ‘Final Determination” letter. By comparison, DTLA United was mentioned ZERO
times. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that this blatant omission was not by coincidence,
but instead a conscious attempt by DONE to distort the facts and, thus, wrongfully justify it’s
“desired outcome” against the SRNC-FC.

33

/
Also of note, prior to the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge Review Panel, DONE issued it’s
“Department Report on Skid Row Neighborhood Council Subdivision Election”23 (First page
below)...

23
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1) titled, “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017”.

34

/
...within that report is another report (with no title) (starting on Page 53) which was identified
within itself as issued by DONE GM Liu and DONE and was sent to “Neighborhood Council
Election Challenge Panelists” . The subset 3-page report was dated April 28, 2017- six (6)
days prior to the actual ECRP hearing panel. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE
used it’s report(s) to attempt to influence/sway the opinion of the hearing panelists with
numerous “misleading facts”. The SRNC-FC further contends that DONE and the City of
Los Angeles contrived their findings for the sole purpose of achieving a “desired outcome”
against the SRNC-FC. Some of the glaring misrepresentations in the subset report are as
follows;

1) On subset Page 1 (Page 53 overall), Paragraph 2, Line 5 - the report states “...even
though Unite DTLA is not known to be officially affiliated with DLANC...”. The
SRNC-FC questions DONE on how it came to this conclusion when the SRNC-FC
obtained proof that multiple then-sitting DLANC Board members were, in fact,
directly connected to Unite DTLA and possibly DTLA United as well. (Proof
provided herein).

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that either DONE was incompetent while failing to
perform it’s due diligence, DONE simply did not want the truth of the direct
connection between the two entities to be known publicly and/or DONE used it’s
position of power to wrongfully influence the ECRP panelists by using language
which constituted a false confirmation of separation between Unite DTLA and
DLANC- which thereby qualifies as Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Authority.

2) On subset Page 1 (Page 53 overall), Paragraph 3, Line 2 - the report states “On April
1st, 2017 at 10:35am, Unite DTLA sent out another e-mail removing not only the
DLANC logo, but also the PO Box number from the original e-mail, which was
DLANC’s.” DONE then identifies “Attachment C”. (Emphasis added)

The SRNC-FC has previously established in this very document that there were two
separate e-mails- one from “Unite DTLA”, and another from “DTLA United”.
Therefore the SRNC-FC concludes that DONE issued false and misleading
information in yet another “official document” (The other was DONE’s May 19, 2017
“Final Determination” letter in which DONE overturned the findings and
recommendations of the ECRP)

(NOTE #3): It MUST be noted that DONE, 1) issued wrongful findings and misleading
facts directly to the hearing panelists BEFORE the actual hearing, 2) responded to

35

/
SRNC-FC’s presentation of valid evidence of two separate e-mails coming from two
different groups- Unite DTLA and DTLA United- by publicly testifying at said hearing panel
with false findings, even after moments earlier acknowledging that there were, in fact, two
separate entities, and 3) issued a “Final Determination” letter which, again, used false data
and misleading facts to create flawed metrics in reaching “premeditated” conclusions which
were prejudiced against the SRNC-FC.

It is clear to the SRNC-FC that DONE was persistent in it’s blatant bias against the
SRNC-FC, because of the fact that it omitted several opportunities to correct it’s wrongful
positions, findings and/or determinations, not once allowing time for additional
investigations nor input from the City Attorney’s office- unless the City Attorney’s office
also, and simultaneously, reached the very same flawed conclusions...OR, there was
intentional bias performed against the SRNC-FC by multiple City departments.

To continue;

3) On subset Page 3 (Page 55 overall), Paragraph 6, Line 1 - The sentence starts, “In the
second Unite DTLA email…”. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE has
NEVER proven at any point in time to any governing body and/or entity that Unite
DTLA sent two (2) separate e-mails, even after the SRNC-FC publicly disputed
DONE’s claim with clear evidence stating otherwise during the ECRP hearing panel
on May 3, 2017. (Emphasis added)

Therefore, the SRNC-FC deducts that DONE promoted intentionally wrongful “facts”
and misleading information for a specific intent- to deny Skid Row it’s own
neighborhood council...period! (Emphasis added)

4) On subset Page 3 (Page 55 overall), Paragraph 6, line 1 - The aforementioned

sentence continues by stating “...the URL was changed as well as the PO Box address
and did not go to the DLANC website anymore.”

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that if DONE was able to detect these three
differences between the two different Unite DTLA and DTLA United e-mails, along
with the previous difference (above #3), DONE should have also and easily
concluded that the two similar, yet differing e-mails were sent by two different groups

36

/
 - simply by looking at the e-mail addresses listed on each e-mail- which were, 1)
UniteDTLA@gmail.com, and 2) DTLAUnited@gmail.com. 24

1st “Vote No e-mail

_____________________________________________________________________

2nd “Vote No” e-mail

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE intentionally omitted this glaring fact in order
to achieve a “desired outcome” against the SRNC-FC. Even after the SRNC-FC Chair

See pgs. 19 and 63 of Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1) titled, “ Election Challenge Panel Special
24

Meeting of May 3, 2017”.

37

/
publicly testified to the existence of the two different e-mail addresses during the ECRP on
May 3, 2017, DONE, to this day, continues to “overlook” such a simple, yet telling, fact.

The redundancy in which the SRNC-FC has to speak to in response to such a basic,
“entry-level omission” by a high-ranking City employee(s) working for a well-respected
government entity such as the City of Los Angeles is not only frustrating and disappointing,
but continues to instill trauma, depression and hopelessness not only within SRNC-FC
members, but also within countless members of the Skid Row community who are, to this
day, still in disbelief at being told Skid Row lost it’s bid to create the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council based on the reasonings given by DONE. The immediate sadness and
anger has over time converted into hatredness for one another, finger-pointing and utter
confusion as an already struggling community suffering from increased levels of “daily”
trauma associated with the widespread homelessness in our neighborhood, ongoing
difficulties associated with trying to comprehend “how the election was lost?”, seen and
unforeseen issues connected to trying to cope with “what went wrong?” and who, within
Skid Row, is to blame?.

It is extremely important to the SRNC-FC that this very document shed light on the truth so
the Skid Row community can finally begin to heal from such traumatic and malicious
negligence at the hands of the City of Los Angeles, and it’s allies.

** (NOTE #4): It MUST also be noted that United DTLA was mentioned twenty-two (22)
times in the 3-page “subset” report, while DTLA United was mentioned ZERO times. So in
all, in two separate documents (“Final Determination” letter and “Department Report on Skid
Row Neighborhood Council Subdivision Election”), DONE mentioned Unite DTLA
thirty-four (34) times while mentioning DTLA United ZERO times. (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the blatantly-slanted bias is well beyond obvious and
rises to astronomical levels of deceit when comparing DONE mentioning Unite DTLA
thirty-four (34) times to not mentioning DTLA United even once- Especially when DONE
GM Liu acknowledged the two separate entities immediately after the SRNC-FC Chair
testified to such while also specifically referring to DONE’s own report during the ECRP, in
which the City Attorney’s top representative for neighborhood councils (DCA Martinez) was
also in attendance- sitting in the front row during the ECRP, yet remained silent while the
bias was allowed to be presented as fact during an official City-governed hearing panel. The
ECRP video evidence of these instances is quite shocking also! (Emphasis added)

38

/
In the City of Los Angeles’ document which governs all neighborhood councils, titled “Plan
for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils”25, Article VII, on Page 19 includes a
section titled “Responsibilities of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment” (DONE).
On Page 20, Article VII, 12(c) it states, DONE’s responsibilities include “Providing
assistance to areas (communities) with traditionally low rates of participation in
government.” Also, Article VII, 12(d) states, “Mitigating barriers to participation, such as
the need for translation and childcare services”...all of which are similar in scope to
providing assistance with online voting barriers, such as those which arose during the 2017
Skid Row Subdivision election. (Emphasis added)

Clearly, DONE failed to “provide assistance” regarding an investigation into the

newly-presented evidence by SRNC-FC during the ECRP. Further, instead of “mitigating
barriers”, DONE created barriers which ultimately cost the SRNC-FC it’s 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election and election challenges.

REMOVING THE “HELP DESK” OPTION FOR ONLINE VOTING:

DONE inexplicably and secretly decided NOT to use Everyone Counts’ (*name of the
company- the third-party vendor which provided online voting services to the City of Los
Angeles for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election) (also identified in this document as
“E1C”) “Help Desk” option for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, but had previously
used it in the citywide 2016 neighborhood council elections less than one year prior. Emails
obtained by SRNC-FC (via CPRA requests) show 2016 neighborhood council voters needing
assistance were directed to the Everyone Counts “Help Desk” portal if they had problems
registering to vote. This option allowed for Everyone Counts to set-up individual accounts,
assign a file number, provide assistance and then close all requests for help while maintaining
each individual account’s information without any time limits and/or restrictions. DONE’s
decision to forgo this much-needed option for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election led to
DONE overseeing any and all election issues itself (even with the existence of a third-party
vendor already under contract), which subsequently led to the existence of increased voter
registration problems, and also included DONE selectively helping specific voters while
26
ignoring others, without any numbered individual records kept . This is a direct violation of
the American democratic process which is, in part, to provide a fair and equal election
opportunity for all American citizens.

25
See Exhibit 36 titled, “Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils (Adopted: May 30,
2001, Amended: November 8, 2002 and May 20, 2005, October 25, 2006)”.
26
See Exhibit 16 titled, “E1C confirming DONE wanted to cancel the "Help Desk" (March 24,
2017)”. Also see Exhibit 16a titled, “Examples of the E1C Help Desk used in 2016 NC elections
(2016)”.

39

/
(taken from Everyone Count’s website http://securevoting.everyonecounts.com/features )
“DEDICATED MEMBER HELP DESK

Live support is available 24/7. Members receive immediate response to

common customer calls, such as requests to reset PINs.”
It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE and the City of Los Angeles failed to honor it’s
responsibilities to provide unbiased and adequate assistance for an election and/or election
process, without discrimination, when it willingly chose to remove the “Help Desk” option
from the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, as stated in the City of Los Angeles’ own
governing documents.

In examining DONE’s Neighborhood Council Election Challenge Process, the SRNC-FC

contends said process was severely compromised by DONE as it relates to the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election in the following manner(s);

1) DONE’s Neighborhood Council Election Challenge Process (per DONE’s

Neighborhood Council Election Challenge Portal)
http://empowerla.org/election-challenge-process/
in the “Who reviews the challenge?” section, states,

There are three levels of review for all election challenges:

1. The Department staff will do an initial review to determine if the

challenge was submitted before the deadline. If it is deemed timely, the
challenge will move to the next level. If not, the challenge will be
rejected.
2. Three Independent Election Administers (IEAs), who were not
assigned to the region from which the challenge was filed, will review
the challenge with the Office of the City Attorney to determine if it falls
into one of the category of challengeable issues listed below and if it
has the supporting documentation. If so, the challenge will move to the
Election Challenge Panel for final determination. If not, the challenge
will dismissed by the IEAs.
3. Three Neighborhood Council Regional Grievance Panel members, who
are assigned by their Neighborhood Council to resolve grievances, will
review the challenge and supporting documentation at a Brown acted

40

/
 and posted meeting open to the public. The Department selects the
Panel members from Neighborhood Councils in other regions of the
City to ensure that they are neutral. If the Panel determines the
challenge is valid, they will sustain the challenge and recommend a
remedy to be implemented by the Department. If they determine the
challenge is not valid, they will dismiss the challenge.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE and the City of Los Angeles committed
numerous violations in this process. For instance;

A) On April 14, 2017, DONE sent and e-mail to the SRNC-FC with a subject line which
reads, “Update - Skid Row Subdivision Election Challenges”27. The 7th paragraph states,

“The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment reviewed the

election challenges, and will be convening an Election Challenge
Review Panel to resolve the pending challenges.”

In comparison with DONE’s NC Election Challenge Process (shown above), Step 2 clearly
states, “Three (3) Independent Election Administers (IEA’s) will review the challenge along
with the Office of the City Attorney...” However, DONE’s April 14, 2017 e-mail (see above
Section “A”) fails to mention that the required reviews by both the three (3) IEAs and the
Office of the City Attorney actually happened. The SRNC-FC can only interpret this as
ZERO IEAs and ZERO persons from the Office of the City Attorney ever reviewed the
election challenges submitted by the SRNC-FC prior to the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge
Review Panel.

Further, in multiple CPRA requests filed by the SRNC-FC, neither DONE nor the City
Attorney’s office turned over any evidence of communications confirming when the three (3)
IEA’s reviewed SRNC-FC election challenges, nor provided documented proof in which the
Office of the City Attorney reviewed SRNC-FC’s election challenges.

Thereby, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE violated it’s own Neighborhood
Council Election Challenge Process in this regard.

B) Another City of Los Angeles misstep in DONE’s Neighborhood Council Election

Challenge Process, also identified in Section 2 (above), states, “...to determine if it falls
into one of the category of challengeable issues listed below and if it has the

27
See Exhibit 55 titled, “DONE email sent after election re: recount (April 14, 2017)”.

41

/
supporting documentation.” So because three (3) of SRNC-FC’s five (5) election
challenges were approved as valid in which DONE moved them forward to the ECRP phase,
the SRNC-FC deems it safe to believe DONE also approved the “supportive documentation”
requirement. (Emphasis added)

(NOTE): It MUST be noted that the SRNC-FC also filed two additional election challenges
on April 10, 2017, but these were denied by DONE, thus confirming there was some sort of
review process. By comparison, in DONE’s Neighborhood Council Election Challenge
Process portal, in the section titled “What information will I need to submit for the
challenge?”, “Requirement” #5 states;

“The supporting documentation must prove that the alleged challenge is

not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election
outcome. Challenges without such supporting documentation will
automatically be rejected.” (Emphasis not added)

The aforementioned requirement strongly suggests that DONE approved three (3) SRNC-FC
election challenges because not only did it have supportive documentation, but also “would
have made a difference in the election outcome”. Said requirement then states that not having
supportive documentation which would have also made a difference in the election “will
automatically be rejected”. (Again, emphasis not added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that in it’s May 19, 2017 “Final Determination” letter,
DONE was not only disingenuous, it was manipulative and conniving in issuing the
following reason for denying the SRNC-FC of it’s three (3) sustained election challenges- On
Page 1, the last paragraph states, “Per section VII of the Subdivision Election Manual, the
supporting documentation for election challenges must prove that the alleged challenges are
not only valid, but would also have made a difference in the election challenge in order for
the Election Challenge Panel to have factual basis to uphold the challenges. The factual
basis was not met for any of the challenges…”. (Emphasis added)

Nowhere in the ENTIRE Subdivision Election Manual, Section VII titled “Challenges” does
it state anything about “factual basis”. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE
intentionally embellished it’s own rules to create a scenario commonly referred to as
”muddying the water” for the purpose to then declare the matter as being inconclusive.
DONE created “grey area” so their “desired outcome” could be achieved by declaring the
matter wasn’t as clear and concise as the colors black and white. For DONE and the City of
Los Angeles to add unforeseen additional language that is vague in nature, then base an

42

/
important “final determination” on such vagueness, combined with severely flawed metrics
(Unite DTLA vs. DTLA United e-mails) can only suggest that either “the fix was in” or
significant incompetence existed in abundance. Either way, DONE’s peculiar actions of not
ruling based on fact and instead drawing their conclusions based on non-existing parameters
not only lacks professionalism, it also lacks political couth, but even more so reveals the
political depths of the bias, prejudice and injustice deep within the City of Los Angeles’
political landscape against the SRNC-FC. The only question that remains is whether DONE
acted alone or in concert with other City departments? We address this further in the
document.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that each of our three (3) election challenges which
were upheld by the ECRP were wrongfully overturned by DONE which- a) refused to initiate
any investigations, b) failed to notify the City Attorney’s office to legally intervene, c)
wrongfully manipulated it’s own data, parameters and metrics, then reached biased and
unjust conclusions all under the guise of a fair and impartial American democratic election
process. Not only are DONE’s actions regarding the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election
demoralizing and unfair to the SRNC-FC and the Skid Row community, but should also be
insulting to America’s democratic election system in and of itself.

SECTION #2

DUPLICATE VOTING:
The list of “all voters” in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election requested by SRNC-FC
and provided to Petitioners by DONE includes names of people who (a) never voted, and (b)
persons who voted multiple times under duplicate names (all DONE-provided voter lists are
in Exhibit 4. Additional information connected to these issues can be accessed by following
28
the instructions listed below the link “PRA - Redacted Physical Copies.zip”).

A CPRA-subpoenaed email in Petitioner’s possession dated April 14, 2017, not only proves
there were duplicate votes by the same person(s) found in the final tally which were never
corrected, adjusted, nor announced publicly by DONE, even though DONE was made aware
29
of them , but also proves there was someone referred to as “Mr. Duplicate”, in
communication between Everyone Counts and DONE, who appears to have voted in the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election as well. In said email (see below excerpt), online
vendor Everyone Counts employee Dani Charleston informs DONE’s Stephen Box:

28
See Exhibit 4 titled, “Inconclusive DONE-provided election tally documents plus initial email
request”.
29
See Exhibit 5 titled, “E1C tells DONE about duplicate votes in final tally (April 14, 2017)”.

43

/
 “…these duplicate votes ARE currently in the vote totals.” (Emphasis added)

DONE, who clearly knew that duplicate voting did occur in the 2017 SRNC
Subdivision election, failed to correct the official final vote tally which is a
violation of Los Angeles City Election Code Article E., Sec. 1227, subsection
(c) which states, in pertinent part:

“The official canvass shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks:

(c) A reconciliation of the number of ballots counted, spoiled,

duplicated, and the number of undervotes and overvotes
with the number of votes recorded, including Early Vote,
Vote-By-Mail and Provisional Ballots, by the vote
counting system for the unofficial canvass.

Further, State law, while not controlling law in this matter, but which is nevertheless
30
persuasive, makes such a failure of reconciliation a crime.

The SRNC-FC obtained significant evidence via a CPRA subpoena in which an e-mail from
DONE staff to staff at Everyone Counts states, “Attached are the registered voters for the
HCNC and DLANC. I was not able to remove some of the duplicates from the lists…”.31
In analyzing all other e-mails obtained in multiple batches from CPRA subpoenas, the
SRNC-FC did not see any communication between DONE and E1C establishing the total
amount of “duplicates from the lists”. Also not seen were any communication between said
entities establishing the total number of duplicates which remained after said e-mail, nor was
it ever established if any of the remaining “duplicates” actually voted in the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election. (Emphasis added)

30
The California State election code 18001 states: “Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by
imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may
impose a fine on the offender not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) in cases of misdemeanors
or up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) in cases of felonies, in addition to the imprisonment
prescribed.” Further, California State election code 18002 states: Every person charged with the
performance of any duty under any law of this state relating to elections, who willfully neglects or
refuses to perform it, or who, in his or her official capacity, knowingly and fraudulently acts in
contravention or violation of any of those laws, is, unless a different punishment is prescribed by this
code, punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16 months or two or three years, or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
31
See Exhibit 78 titled, “DONE communication with E1C re HCNC and DLANC Registered Voters
(March 23, 2017)”.

44

/
Additional significant evidence the SRNC-FC identified within the very same e-mail is the
first sentence of the third paragraph which states, “The HCNC has over 200 voters that were
verified with same e-mail…”. The SRNC-FC interprets this to mean there were over 200
registered voters who all qualified by way of using the very same e-mail address. How were
this many voters “verified” using the very same e-mail address?...Whose responsibility was it
to screen for this?...Whose responsibility was it that “verified” over 200 illegal
voters?...DONE?....City Clerk?...E1C?...The SRNC-FC strongly believes it was the
responsibility of the City of Los Angeles to accurately vet these duplicate voter/duplicate
e-mail issues. (Emphasis added)

Further, said first sentence in the third paragraph continues with “...please hold on e-mailing
the pin numbers.” The next sentence states, “Those voters will need to go to the polling
location.” It is the position of the SRNC-FC that these two statements shed invaluable
insight as to how much control DONE had over who votes and who doesn’t vote. If DONE
decides to not issue pin numbers, regardless of the reason, those voters won’t be allowed to
vote online. While DONE is justified in this particular instance of duplicate e-mails being
used, there were multiple instances during the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election in which
DONE “verified” potential “Yes” votes for an SRNC for voters who qualified to vote via
“voter rosters”, but mysteriously were never issued pin numbers while incurring lengthy
delays regarding each individual’s voting status. In the same realm as the above-mentioned
scenario, DONE simply “decided on it’s own” to tell these voters at the last minute that they
will have to “go to the polling location”, even though there was still ample time to vote
online. While the above example was a matter of duplicate voting, the similar actions by
DONE amount to nothing more than voter tampering and/or voter suppression. The
SRNC-FC speaks more to these facts further in this document. (Emphasis added)

REGISTERING A PERSON PAST REGISTRATION DATE:

A DONE FAQ sheet titled, “Neighborhood Council Subdivision FAQs” states the online
voter registration period for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election was to end on April 2,
2017. However, DONE GM Liu helped verify Historic Core Business Improvement District
Executive Director Blair Besten for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election on April 3rd,
32
2017- one day AFTER online voter registration had closed. Petitioners argue that this is
further evidence of DONE’s efforts to assist likely “No” voters while not offering the same

32
See Exhibit 6 titled, “2017_04_03 Blair Besten gets verified by Liu a day after online registration
closes”.

45

/
type of “personalized” assistance to persons actually living in the Skid Row neighborhood
who were more likely to vote “Yes”. (Emphasis added)

33
The election code of the City of Los Angeles on Page 8, Sec. 116, states under the heading
“Penalties for Non-Compliance”, in pertinent part:

It shall be unlawful for anyone to violate any provision or to

fail to comply with any of the requirements of
this Code. Anyone violating any of the
provisions or failing to comply with any of the
mandatory requirements of this Code shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of
not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the
County Jail not to exceed six months or by both
a fine and imprisonment.

Thus, DONE GM Grayce Liu has violated the City of Los Angeles Elections Code by both
allowing and assisting in the late registration of Blair Besten after the deadline for voter
registration ended, and by comparison, it is important to note that these same
accommodations were not made to assist any Skid Row residents and/or supporters. There is
no proof in the form of documentation stating otherwise.

Further, California State Election Code Section 18100(a), sets forth criminal punishment
for any person who willfully “causes, procures, or allows himself or herself or any other
person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled
to registration”. (Emphasis added).

VOTER TAMPERING:
DONE had in it’s possession prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, “pre-verified
voter databases" from two separate Neighborhood Council elections which took place in
34
2016. These pre-approved voter databases were obtained from both the (a) Downtown Los

33
See Exhibit 5a titled, “Election Code of the City of Los Angeles”.
34
See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
Committee Special Meeting” for an explanation of DONE’s “pre-verified” voter databases starting at
the 31:00 mark. GM Liu explained that online voting would “pre-register” more than 1000 DLANC
and HCNC voters from 2016.

46

/
Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC) and (b) Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council
35
(HCNC), respectively.

An excerpt from the March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental
Relations, and Neighborhoods Committee “Special Meeting”36 depicts DONE GM Grayce
Liu and City Councilmember Jose Huizar discussing how voters from the aforementioned
past elections would automatically be “pre-registered” for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election.

Jose Huizar : 30:21 Here in Downtown, we've used online voting for the
two neighborhood councils that cover it. Correct? The
Historical Cultural Neighborhood Council, and
DLANC, and both of these, we had some issues, but
what is your opinion as to whether we can move
forward with online voting in Downtown with us
assuring that it is transparent, practical and reasonable
for everyone involved?

Grayce Liu: 30:53 Thank you Council member, Grayce Liu, General
Manager, for The Department Of Neighborhood
Empowerment. I'm joined here by Deputy City
Attorney Darren Martinez, who advises our department.
I think, wholeheartedly, that online voting is going to be
very beneficial to the subdivision vote for The Skid
Row Neighborhood Council, because we are able to
basically flip a switch, and turn on the existing
databases that were created for both Historic Cultural
Neighborhood Council, and for Downtown Los
Angeles Neighborhood Council.

35
See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
Committee Special Meeting” for an explanation of DONE’s “pre-verified” voter databases for the
DLANC and HCNC starting at the 31:34 mark.
36
See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
Committee Special Meeting”.

47

/
Grayce Liu: 31:34 I know that some folks express concern regarding the
process of voter registration. For us, the folks that
already voted, the 847 people for Downtown Los
Angeles Neighborhood Council in the 2016 elections as
well as 194 in Historic Cultural, they're already
pre-registered, and ready to vote. They will simply be
emailed information on how to register online to get
their user ID and password. They will not have to give
us their documentation again to show that they are
stakeholders.

Emails obtained by Petitioners via CPRA subpoenas prove DONE employee Ann-Marie
Holman tampered with voter registration data from said 2016 voter databases on
approximately
March 28, 2017. Ms. Holman’s tampering included selectively altering and/or changing
37
voter’s email addresses .

Specifically, in an e-mail dated April 2, 201738, DONE staff member Ann-Marie Holman sent
an enlightening, yet concerning, communication regarding numerous issues with what she
described as multiple “bounce lists from the pre-verified voter lists”, of which the concerns
of the SRNC-FC are as follows;

1) The very first sentence states, “I went over both the bounce lists from the pre-verified
emails, and found quite a few that seemed correctable”. The next sentence states,
“Of 125 total bounces, 46 of these seemed to be typos.” (Emphasis added)

In an election which resulted in a difference of 60 votes, any and all “alterations” of voter
data become paramount to the final vote tally, especially when evidence of a quest for a
“desired outcome” has been identified.

2) The third sentence of the second paragraph states, “Please resend the pre-verified
voter emails to everyone on the corrected email list. A lot of people from

37
See Exhibit 8 titled, “Examples of DONE altering voter registration data for some, which they call
“clean-up” (2017)”.
38
See Exhibit 79 titled, “E1C communication with DONE re Bounce list and Corrected emails (April
3, 2017)”.

48

/
 EmpowerLA (DONE) are on that list - Grayce, myself, Molly, Maury, Arin….”.
(Emphasis added)

It is unclear as to the total number of DONE staff (EmpowerLA) who were on pre-verified
voter lists. It is also unclear as to how many DONE staff actually voted in the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that there is great concern that if
numerous DONE staff members were on DLANC’s pre-verified voter list, then they were
also on HCNC’s pre-verified voter list- thus creating the possibility of “double-voting”. And
with DONE overseeing every facet of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, it’s quite
possible that DONE staff could vote at least twice without any negative recourse. Again, in
an election with a differential of only 60 votes, every “additional” vote or suppressed vote
matters greatly regarding the final vote tally., especially when evidence of a “desired
outcome” has been identified.

The SRNC-FC points to DONE GM Grayce Liu as one of the names identified on at least
one of the aforementioned “pre-verified” voter lists. The SRNC-FC MUST raise the
question- How can someone (in this case possibly an entire City department) present
themselves as an unbiased neutral party, responsible for providing the only official oversight
in a highly-contested election, while at the very same time casting a vote in said election
when to cast a vote means to pick one side over the other? If Mayor Garcetti gave the
instruction to vote against the SRNC-FC, which thereby created the “desired outcome” for
the City of Los Angeles in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, it would defy common
sense and logic for any DONE staff to vote in any way other than against the SRNC-FC,
especially when one’s job is hanging in the balance. The SRNC-FC deems it extremely
compromising for DONE to be “fair and balanced” in providing neutral oversight of said
election while at the very same time being “pre-verified” and able to cast numerous votes as
a department, without the threat of negative ramifications as individuals and/or as a City
department for malicious and deceitful acts.

3) The fourth paragraph in the aforementioned e-mail states, “The third section on the
spreadsheet are the unexplained failures. Research did not turn up any
info. This is 60 bounces total or about 48% of the bounce list.” (Emphasis
added)

It is the position of the SRNC that with a final vote tally differential of 60 votes, for there to
be exactly 60 “unexplained failures”, THIS is the greatest discrepancy of the entire 2017
Skid Row Subdivision election!

49

/
For DONE to vaguely explain away such a pivotal point in said election by only stating
“Research did not turn up any info”, is a grave injustice to the American democratic process.
The SRNC-FC contends that all 60 of these “mysteriously lost votes” could very well have
been cast as “Yes” votes. Combined with one other “Yes” vote, say from one of the many
voter rosters who all intended to cast “Yes” votes, but were thwarted by DONE, is the
SRNC-FC’s significant evidence that points to the strong possibility of a positive election for
the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council which was stolen by DONE and the City
of Los Angeles...period!

For DONE, City Clerk and/or Everyone Counts to provide “research” which was collectively
unfruitful in all phases as it pertains to the “unexplained failures”, resulting in ZERO
information and/or leads, is highly questionable especially when compared to DONE’s ability
to simply look at a different “pre-verified” voter list and immediately and visually see
“typo’s” that could be corrected. The disrespect towards SRNC-FC and the Skid Row
community goes even further in that DONE, et. al. didn’t even bother to provide an
explanation for it’s blatant shortcomings. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that in a
highly-contested election, providing an explanation, no matter how brief or how thorough, is
the professional thing to do. The SRNC-FC questions DONE and the City of Los Angeles as
to why they kept this critical matter a secret? If the potential voters were homeless, disabled,
suffered from a limited learning capacity in which they struggled to read and write, or had
some other ailments, thus resulting in “unexplained failures”, if DONE and the City of Los
Angeles would have contacted the SRNC-FC, we could have assisted in locating these
potential voters in order for them to correct the issue (if any) so they could then be able to
remain eligible to cast their vote. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that no professional
courtesy was extended by DONE and the City of Los Angeles to the SRNC-FC and Skid
Row community in the form of voter registration assistance nor other similar components
which were well within DONE’s capabilities for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.
Further, there is not one piece of evidence that shows DONE assisting ANYONE from the
SRNC-FC, Skid Row community and/or potential “Yes” voters. (Emphasis added)

4) In the very same e-mail thread and in response to Ann-Marie Holman, Dani
Charleston from Everyone Counts responds with an e-mail on April 3, 2017, and
states “Hi Ann-Marie, To make sure I am clear: the fist (first) section I am to
re-email. The second and third are emails we cannot resolve- would you like me to
make these voters inactive…? (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that Everyone Counts (E1C) deferred to DONE for
instructions regarding voter registration matters and other tasks related to the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election. This confirms that DONE and the City of Los Angeles were in

50

/
complete control regarding oversight of the aforementioned election, thus making the
possibility of reaching a “desired outcome” a strong reality. The aforementioned e-mail also
clarifies how simple it was for DONE to manipulate the election outcome by deeming voters
“inactive” with a simple word of “Yes” or “No”. The SRNC-FC clearly sees DONE’s biased
influence on the outcome of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election- an election with a
60-vote differential.

The SRNC-FC stands firm in it’s position that actions by DONE and the City of Los Angeles
qualify as voter tampering. It should be noted that DONE failed to provide to SRNC-FC any
“pre-election guidelines” as to what parameters would be potentially activated as oversight
options in each phase of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, including the altering of
e-mail addresses for the purpose of qualifying (and/or disqualifying) potential voters. To alter
even one person’s e-mail, regardless of whether consent was given or not, is a violation of
State and Federal election law. It should also be noted that no “pre-election guidelines” were
listed in the 2017 Subdivision Election Manual.

While the SRNC-FC can prove without a doubt that voter tampering did, in fact, occur as it
specifically pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, with the City of Los
Angeles limiting access to the necessary information (evidence), thus denying full
transparency, it is difficult to obtain and/or establish the exact number of voter accounts
which were tampered with.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that in such a close election which resulted in a
DONE-announced outcome of a 60-vote differential, it is quite conceivable that Ms. Holman
alone had access to, and the capability of, altering at least 61 votes, thus qualifying her
highly-questionable acts as possible “election-altering actions”.

VOTER SUPPRESSION OF A MAJORITY AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY:

Petitioners also have evidence that voters both from Skid Row, and those supporting the
Subdivision, had their votes suppressed.

DONE’s own voter tampering and voter suppression actions during the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election process revealed a pattern which favored the “Vote No” position
because there is ZERO evidence which points to DONE going out of it’s way to assist any
homeless residents, Skid Row stakeholders and/or “Vote Yes” voters. In fact, DONE’s use of
“pop-up” polls explicitly disfavored Skid Row residents and homeless voters in that
numerous voting locations had restrictive access in the form of controlled-entry and others

51

/
 39
had security stations with guards . DONE staff created a secret and/or hidden advantage for
those who were more likely to be opposed to the formation of a Skid Row Neighborhood
Council. For instance;

(1) In deciding which voter email addresses to alter (the terms DONE used were
“clean-up” and “salvage”40).
(2) In deciding which voters to give voter pin numbers to so they could vote online and
which voters not to issue pin numbers to41, thus preventing them from voting online.
(3) In favoring “pre-registered” DLANC and HCNC voters from prior neighborhood
council elections, who had ready access to computers and/or smartphones, by
distributing electronic 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election updates, as opposed to not
providing computer access options to homeless and/or impoverished voters, nor
providing any election updates to the latter-mentioned demographics.
(4) In suppressing the votes of homeless people by only allowing “self-affirmation”
voting at one election-day voting location, as opposed to not allowing
“self-affirmation” voting at any of the twelve (12) pre-election day “pop-up” polls nor
online voting portals42.
(5) In secretively creating a never-before-existing “Subdivision Election Manual” yet not
providing it to the SRNC-FC Chair, nor any other SRNC-FC members, prior to the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. Said election manual included entirely new
rules for self-affirming homeless voters, which were significantly different from the
previously-used 2016 Neighborhood Council Election Manual43.

Henriëtte Brouwers, who is the Associate Director of the Los Angeles Poverty Department, a
Skid Row-based arts non-profit organization, documented several problems their members
44
had with the online voting portal. Some are listed below.

39
For example, PUPs located within the Medallion Apartments https://www.liveatmedallion.com/ and
another in a medical building located at 420 E. 3rd Street had restricted access. Another in the
“Fashion District” at 110 E. 9th Street had a security station near the entryway.
40
See Exhibit 8 titled, “Examples of DONE altering voter registration data for some, which they call
“clean-up” (2017)”.
41
See Exhibit 8b titled, “Los Angeles Poverty Department’s Henriëtte Brouwers documentation of
Skid Row Stakeholders who had problems registering and/or voting (2017)”.
42
See Exhibit 8e titled, “DONE explaining how homeless voters would not be allowed to self-affirm
online or at any of the PUPs (April 4, 2017)”. Also see Exhibit 19a titled, “NC-Election-Manual -
2016”.
43
See pg. 23 of Exhibit 19a titled, “NC-Election-Manual - 2016“ and pg. 12 of Exhibit 19
(Administrative 8, to pg. 19) titled, “Neighborhood Council 2017 Subdivision Manual ”.
44
See Exhibit 8b titled, “Los Angeles Poverty Department’s Henriëtte Brouwers documentation of
Skid Row Stakeholders who had problems registering and/or voting (2017)”.

52

/
 “I never received my pin number after I was approved. I could not vote online as a
result and I was in Las Vegas at the time.” -Riccarlo Porter

“I registered online but did not receive a pin, but I voted in person instead.”
-Cue Jnmarie

“I got a confirmation from your website that all I had to do was wait for a PIN
number. Then I got an email that you couldn't confirm my identity. Then I
called your office multiple times. Then I sent emails. When I spoke to
Jasmine Duckworth (DONE staff), she felt it was indeed a mistake that could
be rectified. I uploaded my license and was on the LA Poverty Department
(voter) roster. What this seems like to me is grounds for voter tampering.”
-Melina Bielefelt

In addition, several members of the local Democratic Socialists of America- Los Angeles
chapter (DSA-LA) who support the SRNC-FC, tried unsuccessfully to get their members
registered (via a DONE-approved method of providing a “voter roster”) before the cutoff
date of April 2nd so their members could vote online. However, DONE didn’t get back to
45
DSA-LA until April 5th, thus making it more burdensome for them to vote.

(Excerpts of e-mails related to above subject matter);

(April 5th, 2017 2:05pm) “I wanted to confirm that Democratic Socialists of America are
verified as a stakeholder organization within the Historic Cultural Neighborhood
Council boundaries...Online voter registration closed this past weekend, so you may
have members that were unable to be verified in time to vote online. However, any of
your members – including those unable to register online – may come to the polls,
and vote in person.” -Ann-Marie Holman/DONE

(April 5th, 2017, 5:28pm) “Hi Anne Marie and Mike, just wanted to make sure you had
communicated this to your poll workers. One of our members just tried to vote and
they initially gave him a hard time about using the newsletter e-mail as proof of his
DSA membership…We have gone back and forth so many times and our members
are feeling pretty jerked around.” -Chris Jetton/DSA-LA

45
See Exhibit 8c titled, “DSA-LA communicating with DONE about problems their members had
registering and/or voting (2017)”. Also see Exhibit 8d titled, “Letter to Katherine McNenny from Jed
Parriott explaining problems that DSA-LA membership had registering and/or voting (Nov. 12,
2017)”.

53

/
(April 5th, 2017 5:43pm) “My apologies for the length of time it took to verify your
organization before, but we needed to make sure we had correctly documented DSA,
in order to prevent anyone from attempting to contest the votes your members cast.”
-Ann-Marie Holman/DONE

With regard to self-identified “homeless voters”, for whom past accommodations were made
as recently as the 2016 neighborhood council elections, and for whom any reasonable person
would assume would need at least the same accommodations for the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election, DONE made a biased decision to ONLY allow homeless persons
without documentation, or so-called “self-affirmed” (as homeless) voters, to vote within a
single four-hour window on election day (April 6th) at one voting location- and not at any of
the “pop-up” polls or online- showing clear bias against potential “Yes” voters.

An email dated April 4th, 2017 from DONE’s Ann-Marie Holman to LA City
Councilmembers Gil Cedillo, Curren Price and Jose Huizar reads:

“FOR HOMELESS STAKEHOLDERS WITHOUT ID OR

DOCUMENTATION…homeless stakeholders without the required qualifying
documents may self-affirm their identity and stakeholder status, but they are
only able to do so on election day, April 6th, at the official polling place
(3-7pm Thursday April 6th at the James Wood Community Center, 400 E 5th
Street Los Angeles, CA 90021).”

“Self-affirmed homeless stakeholders without documentation are required to register

and vote using paper forms, so they may not register and vote either online or
46
at the pop-up polls.”

47
In contrast, DONE’s 2016 Neighborhood Council Election Manual states, on Page 23;

Homeless voter with no identification documentation and an email address can:

1) Register in person with an Independent Election Administrator (IEA)
2) Indicate homeless status
3) Receive their pin by email

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election had distinct
advantages for some voters and biased disadvantages for others, which were both

46
See Exhibit 8e titled, “DONE explaining how homeless voters would not be allowed to self-affirm
online or at any of the PUPs (April 4, 2017)”.
47
See Exhibit 19a titled, “NC-Election-Manual - 2016”.

54

/
pre-determined and it’s processes controlled by DONE and the City of Los Angeles against
the SRNC-FC prior to, during and after said 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

It must also be mentioned that at no point during DONE’s presentation to City Council
regarding issues from the 2016 neighborhood council elections, before online voting was
approved for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, were ANY of the issues connected in
whole, or in part, to homeless voters, nor were any other negative experiences with homeless
voters given which could then justify the need to alter the voter registration and/or voting
requirements for homeless voters in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. (Emphasis
added)

LA Municipal Code (LAMC) section 49.5.5(A) states, in pertinent part;

 EC. 49.5.5 MISUSE OF CITY POSITION OR RESOURCES.

A. City officials, agency employees, appointees awaiting

confirmation by the City Council, and candidates for
elected City office shall not misuse or attempt to misuse
their positions or prospective positions to create or
attempt to create a private advantage or disadvantage,
financial or otherwise, for any person. (Emphasis
Added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE acted as a “criminal filter” in several ways
which ultimately thwarted more than 60 “Yes” voters from casting their votes and because
DONE’s final vote tally was only a difference of 60 votes, it’s in-house, devious election
oversight methods not only unlawfully dictated the outcome of the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election, but also prevented the American democratic process from existing
without bias and/or voter tampering and/or voter suppression.

It MUST be noted that the combined total of potential “Yes” voters on several voter rosters
which were turned in to DONE, and approved by DONE, yet somehow the majority of these
voters were unable to cast votes in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election for various
reasons, amass to several hundred in total, easily dwarfing the 60-vote differential announced
by DONE.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that had this been a fair and completely above-board
election process, the outcome of said election would have easily favored the “Yes” position,
thus automatically granting the creation of a Skid Row Neighborhood Council.

55

/
POLLS OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES:
48
The City of Los Angeles’ “Subdivision Ordinance” explicitly requires that there be only
one polling location and that it be within the boundaries of the “proposed” Neighborhood
Council district. Specifically, the ordinance section 22.819(b) states, in pertinent part:

Election Approving a Subdivision – The department shall conduct

an election within the boundaries stated in the
subdivision petition within 90 days of the departments
approval of the subdivision petition. (Emphasis
Added)

The below excerpt from the March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules, Elections,
Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee Special Meeting49 details DONE
GM Grayce Liu and Councilmember Jose Huizar verbally communicating how one polling
location, opened for four hours, is standard practice for neighborhood council elections.

Jose Huizar : 40:47 So, I think here, for the sake of consistency, we should
keep that. I am concerned however, that this is late
notice, that we're two weeks before the election. We're
saying, “Hey, we're gonna allow this.” But, if you go
back to the people who have voted, and if DLANC, and
the committee, forming committee let's people know
what the different options are, I think that would be
okay, but one my final question before I make a
recommendation is, for the day of voting, where ... how
many stalls are there? How many polling places are
there? Is there just one as we heard in testimony?

Grayce Liu: 41:24 That's correct. In our typical elections there's only one
polling location, which is why neighborhood councils
online voting was piloted in the first place so that we
could provide greater options for folks who couldn't
come to the at-poll location, so the same has been
applied in terms of equity. What we've done in the past

LAMC Ordinance #184526 enacted on 8/12/2016 and attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

48

See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
49

Committee Special Meeting”.

56

/
 was one location. It's located within the forming
neighborhood council boundaries, and it's four hours,
and we can set up many different booths so that people
can vote. They can-

Jose Huizar : 42:01 But, that's typical of every neighborhood council

election?

Grayce Liu: 42:03 That's correct.

Jose Huizar : 42:04 One polling location, four hours. That's what's done
every time.

Grayce Liu: 42:08 Four hours is the standard. We can extend if the
neighborhood council requests up to eight hours.

57

/
However, DONE mysteriously established twelve (12) Pop-Up Polls (PUPs) for the 2017
Skid Row Subdivision election, nine (9) of which were located outside the boundaries of the
proposed Skid Row Neighborhood Council (as depicted in the map set forth below);

-2017 Skid Row Subdivision election-

POP-UP POLLING LOCATIONS:
(1) March 29th at Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN)
838 East 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021. (Within proposed boundaries)

(2) March 29th at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall 200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

58

/
(3) March 30th at LA Fashion District BID (Business Improvement District) -
Main Office 110 East 9th Street, Suite A-1175, Los Angeles, CA 90079. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

(4) March 30th at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall 200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

(5) March 31st at Little Tokyo Library - Community Room

203 S Los Angeles St, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside proposed boundaries)

(6) March 31st at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall 200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

(7) April 3rd at Downtown Industrial District BID (Business Improvement

District) - Main Office
725 Crocker Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021. (Outside proposed boundaries)

(8) April 3rd at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall
200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside proposed
boundaries)

(9) April 4th at Little Tokyo Medical Plaza

420 East 3rd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. (Within proposed boundaries)

(10) April 4th at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall 200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

(11) April 5th at Medallion Apartments

334 South Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. (Within proposed boundaries)

(12) April 5th at Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Los Angeles City

Hall 200 North Spring Street Room 2005, Los Angeles, CA 90012. (Outside
proposed boundaries)

59

/
 (13) April 6th at James Wood Community Center - (election day polling location)
400 East 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. (Within proposed boundaries)

With 9 of the 13 total online voting locations existing beyond the proposed boundaries
established by the SRNC-FC in it’s own Subdivision application, said nine (9) legally
unauthorized pop-up polls are a clear violation of Sec. 22.820, (b), which clearly states that
“DONE shall conduct an election within the boundaries stated in the subdivision petition.”

In deciding where polling locations would be located and while completely ignoring the
specific language of the Subdivision Ordinance, DONE GM Liu and her staff abused their
positions and created a biased advantage for those who opposed the creation of the SRNC, as
well as created a previously unforeseen disadvantage for the residents, stakeholders and
homeless voters of the Skid Row neighborhood.

Further, “pop-up polls” were never specifically, nor otherwise, authorized by the City
Council, yet DONE appears to have simply decided on it’s own unauthorized initiative, to
bypass the clear language of said Subdivision Ordinance by coordinating numerous pop-up
polls, with the majority being outside said proposed boundaries. Even further, there were
instances in which DONE gave less than 24 hours’ notice of the creation of a “pop-up” poll
50
location to the SRNC-FC and sometimes no notice at all. This made any and all adequate
community outreach virtually impossible.

It MUST be noted that the SRNC-FC tabulates the total “Hours of Opportunity to Vote” as
being 216 hours for online voting (Online voting in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election
was first made available on March 29th) versus 4 hours for homeless election-day voting
(Election-day voting on April 6th at the polling location was from 3pm-7pm)...All polls
closed at 7pm on April 6th. That’s 216 hours versus 4 hours.

The SRNC-FC contends there was a massive discrepancy between voting hours for online
voters and homeless voters- another clear bias created by the City of Los Angeles.

In addition;

LA Municipal Code (LAMC) section 49.5.5(A) states, in pertinent part;

“City officials, agency employees, appointees awaiting

confirmation by the City Council, and candidates for

50
See Exhibit 60 titled, “Hayk Makhmuryan's communication to DONE about last minute PUP
changes (April 4, 2017)”.

60

/
 elected City office shall not misuse or attempt to
misuse their positions or prospective positions to
create or attempt to create a private advantage or
disadvantage, financial or otherwise, for any person.”
(Emphasis Added)

In the Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 22.820 (e), it states,

(e) Regulations. The Department (DONE) is authorized to promulgate

any further procedure, rule or regulation necessary for the
administration of the subdivision process contained in this
section, including, but not limited to, conducting the election for
subdivision, initial election for the subdivided Neighborhood
Council's governing board, eligibility for voting at any election,
and placing limitations the number of subdivision petitions
processed during any calendar year. (Emphasis added)

The Merriam-Webster definition of "promulgate" is as

follows;

prom·ul·gate /ˈpräməlˌɡāt/
1. promote or make widely known (an idea or cause). 
2. put (a law or decree) into effect by official proclamation.

It is the SRNC-FC’s clear understanding and unwavering interpretation of the

aforementioned definition, that DONE is only authorized to
“promote” what has already been decided (by City Council
and/or the Mayor, for instance), not make it's own decisions
regarding election processes, as it specifically pertains to
neighborhood council subdivision elections. Even more
specifically, DONE was not, nor is, authorized in any
law-creating, and/or rule-creating capacity, as it pertains to the
decision to create and/or expand “pop-up polls”, or any kind of
election voting methods, beyond what the Subdivision Ordinance
intently describes by specifically limiting authorization to
“within” the proposed boundaries for the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election which were first-identified in the SRNC-FC
Subdivision application and subsequently publicly acknowledged
by the DONE-created map of SRNC-FC’s proposed boundaries

61

/
 (see map on www.empowerla.org/srnc/). As previously stated in
this very document, the Subdivision Ordinance 22.820(b) states,
“ (b) Election Approving a Subdivision. The Department
shall conduct an election within the boundaries stated in the
subdivision petition…” (Emphasis added)

There is ZERO evidence stating otherwise on any official City of Los

Angeles documentation, website or any other entity containing
official City legal language .

It is the position of the SRNC-FC, which already disputes the existence of what DONE refers
to as “pop-up polls” being legally-approved in any capacity in the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election to begin with, further and strongly disputes any and all election results
from pop-up polls which collected electronic (online) votes beyond the proposed boundaries
of the anticipated Skid Row Neighborhood Council which was identified in the SRNC-FC
Subdivision application, and of which is a position supported by the limited interpretation of
the intent of the City’s own Subdivision Ordinance itself.

CONFUSING & INCONCLUSIVE VOTER TALLY DOCUMENTATION:

The 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood Council Subdivision election was certified by the City of
Los Angeles on May 19, 2017. The actual election day was April 6, 2017. A May 19 letter
certifying the election was emailed from DONE General Manager Grayce Liu to SRNC-FC
Chair “General” Jeff Page indicating DONE’s “final determination”, approximately two
weeks after the conclusion of the Election Challenge Review Panel hearing on May 3rd,
2017. At the time of issuance of DONE’s “final determination” letter, no physical voter rolls,
nor election/voter tally documentation had been provided to General Jeff nor anyone else on
the SRNC-FC, despite immediate election disputes officially initiated by the SRNC-FC,
which included; a request for a recount, multiple election challenges filed, multiple
grievances filed, an e-mail request for “preservation of evidence” process instructions, an
official complaint filed with LA City Ethics Commission and/or other 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election-related inquiries.

The only existing evidence of the final election voter tally results is the DONE “Official
Canvass of Votes” document, which was signed and dated 5/19/17. Said document, which
can be found at empowerla.org., claims there were 766 YES votes, 826 NO votes, and that
1,388 people voted online.
http://empowerla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Skid-Row-Official-Canvass-of-Votes.
pdf

62

/
In an effort to both confirm and analyze DONE’s voter tally documentation, SRNC-FC
member Katherine McNenny sent a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request to DONE
asking for, “all online voter information for the Subdivision election”. DONE
subsequently produced multiple batches of “records” for this request on October 27, 2017 via
email to Ms. McNenny. Of note, the City of Los Angeles alleges all votes (1601- overall
total) were technically cast “online” except for 202 paper ballot votes which were cast on
election day. Additional documents accompanied said e-mail, which included spreadsheets,
but they still lack clarity, transparency and most importantly accuracy.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1KHe2w473vWwDgyf-zS06dBuEc4QL4ss_

Said voter tally results (via spreadsheets) provided by DONE to Ms. McNenny were
analyzed by her, other members of SRNC-FC and also other outside professionals with
backgrounds in elections, mathematics and law- who each attempted to make sense of
DONE’s convoluted spreadsheet data. After numerous and separate attempts by each, it was
unanimously determined by way of independent discussions with SRNC-FC leadership, that
said voter tally data was found to be gravely inconclusive and literally impossible to
decipher.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC, that the City of Los Angeles’ ambiguous attempt at
complete transparency, as it specifically pertains to the election results provided to SRNC-FC
via said spreadsheets, can only be described as a blatant attempt of deception and/or severe
professional incompetence.

For example;

1. There are multiple lists of individual voter’s names spread out over many documents and
in different formats- none of them labeled in a way that makes sense when trying to confirm
the final voter tally for the election.

2. An Excel page labeled, “Final Original List online voters - Redacted” includes names of
potential voter(s) who SRNC-FC confirms never voted in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election and also includes multiple listings of “same names” without any clarification of
either these being the same individual or multiple persons with identical names.

3. An Excel page titled, “Final Original List online voters - Redacted” has 670 total names
listed, but DONE’s “Final Canvass” document says there were 1,388 people who voted
online.

63

/
4. The DONE-provided voter tally data fails to confirm that 1,388 different people actually
voted online in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, and it also fails to confirm that 1601
people voted in totality, as alleged in DONE’s own unofficial election results document from
April 6, 2017.

It is thereby the position of the SRNC-FC, that the City of Los Angeles failed it’s governance
and legal obligations to provide a safe and secure voting process, which most importantly
includes the safe delivery of all voter tally data.

What is also missing is the online voting documentation directly from “Everyone Counts”,
the third-party online voting vendor for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, which, in
theory, could be a different list of names altogether, and of which is data Petitioners wish to
review and analyze separately from the documentation provided by the City of Los Angeles.
Thus far, both the City of Los Angeles and Everyone Counts have failed to provide any of
the third-party online voting vendor’s voter tally documentation, final or otherwise, despite
numerous requests to obtain said documentation by the SRNC-FC.

It should be noted that on Everyone Count’s website, in which they announced it merged
with Votem Corporation in October, 2018, the 5th paragraph in their “About Us” section,
states;

https://www.everyonecounts.com/mission

“Both Votem and Everyone Counts are active charter members in the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sector Coordinating Council
(SCC), which serves as the driving force behind preventing and responding to
threats to the U.S. election infrastructure. We look forward to sharing the best
security practices developed from our work in the SCC with our customers in
order to better serve their voters more securely, accurately, and
transparently.”

Petitioners further contend that Everyone Counts’ online voting documentation should have
been included in DONE’s October 27th, 2017 production of records, and labeled accordingly.
Page 8 of the Professional Services Contract51 between Everyone Counts, INC. and the City

51
See Exhibit 37/Administrative 8 Starting at SRNC/ADMIN 000133 - Also See Exhibit 80,
“Amended” pages “Contract between Everyone Counts and the City of Los Angeles -
C-125827_C_06-23-15”.

64

/
of Los Angeles, which was in effect during the time of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election, states;

“19. CONTRACTOR shall record, tabulate and report the voting submission used by
voters submission methods (online or telephone) to the DEPARTMENTS after the voting
period ends.”

http://empowerla.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DONE-City-Clerk-Everyone-Counts-Cont
ract-031315.pdf

In the Los Angeles Election Code- Section 1220, it states;

(Los Angeles Election Code - http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/Election_Code.pdf)

“Sec. 1220. Storage of Ballot Count Program. Any magnetic or electronic storage medium
used for the ballot count program and any magnetic or electronic storage medium containing
election results shall be kept in a secure location and shall be retained for six months
following any City conducted election or so long thereafter as any contest involving the vote
at the City conducted election remains undetermined.”

It is thereby understood by the SRNC-FC that the responsibility of preserving voter tally
evidence lies solely on the City of Los Angeles due to the following “timeline” facts;

1) The 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election was held on April 6, 2017;
2) The SRNC-FC officially challenged the election on April 10, 2017 (well within
DONE’s election rule that challenges “must be filed within 5 days after an election”);
3) DONE convened the Election Challenge Review Panel on May 3, 2017;
4) DONE certified the election results on May 19, 2017;
5) The SRNC-FC filed it’s 1st Petition for Writ of Mandate on July, 19, 2017
(meeting the deadline of 60-days after the certification of the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election, to the day)
6) A SRNC-FC legal representative issued a Preservation of Evidence letter to DONE
in October, 2017;
7) Said Preservation of Evidence letter was issued well within the 6-month window,
per LA Election Code 1220;
8) Six (6) months from May 19, 2017 would be November 19, 2017, which thereby
means the City of Los Angeles is culpable for producing all of the voter tally
documentation to the SRNC-FC.

65

/
In conclusion, the City of Los Angeles has failed to provide to the SRNC-FC any and all
accurate and complete voter tally documentation (including both paper ballots and online
ballots) necessary to validate and/or confirm the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, while
publicly stating otherwise. Also, the City of Los Angeles has also failed to provide any and
all accurate voter tally documentation from it’s third-party online voting vendor which would
validate and/or confirm the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision online voting results.

** Without any of this vital information, how can the City of Los Angeles prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the SRNC-FC did not win it’s 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election? **

The City of Los Angeles’ unofficial election results released on April 6, 2017 (see below
document titled “Election Results #1”) confirm a total of walk-in ballots on election day as
being 183 YES votes (to create SRNC) to only 19 NO votes. Of the 826 NO votes, allegedly
807 were cast online. So without any proof of validity, the City of Los Angeles’ claim of 807
online “No” votes is completely unfounded and upon challenge from SRNC-FC, subject to
complete removal from any and all final election results, pending a determination by the
court.

It must be noted that the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge Review Panel, convened by
DONE, recommended, “If any laws were broken…then the election result shall be
overturned.”

The SRNC-FC, wholeheartedly agrees with the direction of said recommendation- To

overturn the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election result due to gross negligence,
discrimination, multiple election law violations, incompetence, abuse of power, failed
leadership, gross misconduct, failure to produce accurate voter tallies, conspiracy to rig an
election and most importantly election fraud by the City of Los Angeles, in favor of the
creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council.

(NOTE) Definition of Election Fraud — Criminal activity that impacts the integrity of an
election. Election fraud can include bribery, tampering with ballots, or other illegal ways to
interfere with the result of an election. (www.usa.gov) (Emphasis added)

Also of note, the below document titled Election Results #2 is DONE’s “Final” tabulation of
the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election results. The SRNC-FC finds it highly unusual that
the top-listed category titled “Paper Ballots” is virtually impossible to see with the naked eye,
while the rest of the document is much easier to interpret due to it’s darker ink. The
SRNC-FC contends that this is yet another example of the City of Los Angeles’ subtle tactics
to influence public perception by framing the appearance of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision

66

/
election- against the Skid Row community. Said biased “Final results” document continues to
be posted on DONE’s website for all to see, since May, 2017, without correction, amendment
and/or update.

The biased slant against the Skid Row community and the SRNC-FC is quite obvious…and
illegal.

67

/
Election Results #1
(Dated: April 6, 2017)

68

/
Election Results #2
(Dated May 19, 2017)

69

/
 Additional Points Against DONE

1) Via CPRA subpoenas, the SRNC-FC was able to uncover a suspicious e-mail sent by
DONE to Everyone Counts inquiring about a list of 16 YES voters on April 7, 2017, one day
52
AFTER the April 6th election . (Emphasis added)

2) Also via CPRA subpoenas, e-mails show DONE/City staff seem interested in following
letter of the law pertaining to the Subdivision Ordinance in other Subdivisions, just not with
53
the SRNC Subdivision election .

3) Nothing in the Subdivision Ordinance nor Subdivision Election Manual states that
pre-registered online voters could automatically be activated by DONE for the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election. However, CPRA-subpoenaed e-mails prove DLANC Board
member Estela Lopez e-mailed others about pre-registered voters being activated for the Skid
54
Row election.
To be clear, the SRNC-FC never agreed to, nor was contacted prior to, DONE’s decision to
add pre-registered voters from both the DLANC and HCNC 2016 Neighborhood Council
elections automatically into the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. The SRNC-FC is
totally unaware as to the specific City of Los Angeles’ election process in which this act
became officially approved. To add, neither the LA City Council, nor BONC, nor the City
Attorney’s office took any official action regarding the approval of the specific legal
language for this specific matter...In other words, ZERO documentation has been provided to
the SRNC-FC at any point in time regarding the validity of any and all pre-registered voters
automatically qualifying as eligible voters in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.
Neither DONE, nor any other City department has provided to SRNC-FC, documentation,
official or otherwise, which states anything contrary to what the SRNC-FC has put forth in
this very document. (Emphasis added)

4) The SRNC-FC is fully aware that neighborhood council elections are not subjected to
State law. In prior communication, the Secretary of State communicated directly to
SRNC-FC in August, 2018 that DONE should be contacted regarding oversight of online
voting for neighborhood council elections. (See below e-mail)

52
See Exhibit 15 titled, “Stephen Box asking E1C about list of names after election (April 7, 2017)”.
53
See emails from Sofia Anguiano to “Various” dated August 2, 2018, August 13, 2018, August 29,
2018 as well as an email from Christopher Garcia dated February 12, 2018 as Exhibit 14 titled,
“CPRA_18-2108_Response_Docs- (emails from the Los Angeles City Clerk's Office provided to
Katherine McNenny upon her request)”.
54
See Exhibit 12 titled, “Estela Lopez mentions pre-registered voters specifically (March 24, 2017)”.

70

/
RE: Request for Documentation from California Secretary of State
Aug 7, 2018 at 3:42 PM
Secretary of State, Constituent Affairs <constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov>
To: issuesandsolutions@yahoo.com <issuesandsolutions@yahoo.com>

Dear Jeff:
In response to your recent request, the Secretary of State’s office extended the time within
which to respond to the request by 14 days, pursuant to Government Code section 6253(c)
of the California Public Records Act.

After a diligent search, we were unable to locate any documents responsive to your request
for a copy of an official letter from the Secretary of State approving “pilot online voting
systems for neighborhood council subdivision elections in 2017.” Your other requests do not
appear to ask for documents that might be part of the Secretary of State's records.

While the Secretary of State oversees statewide elections, Los Angeles Neighborhood
Council elections are administered by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and
the City Clerk under Los Angeles Administrative Code section 20.36(b). Questions
regarding Los Angeles Neighborhood Council elections should be directed to:

General Manager

Los Angeles City

Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

200 North Spring Street, Suite 2005

Los Angeles, California 90012

http://empowerla.org/

We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have questions about this or another
matter related to the Secretary of State’s office, please contact us again.

Sincerely,

Constituent Affairs

Secretary of State

71

/
What is clear is the Office of the California Secretary of State confirms they DID NOT
approve “pilot online voting systems for neighborhood council subdivision elections in
2017”. Also, said Secretary of State doesn’t allow online voting in any statewide elections,
which thereby means online voting is prohibited by California State law. (pursuant to
Elections Code section 19205) (Emphasis added)
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/elections-code/elec-sect-19205.html

The following link https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ovsta/security/ is to the California

Secretary of State’s website regarding Election Security. Of note, Paragraph 2, Line 3,
states “New voting systems applying for certification must undergo months of
extensive testing…”. (Emphasis added)

What follows is a long list of protective measures that ensure any and all electronic voting
systems used in the State of California perform with peak performance and include
maximum protections. It is clear that said process “must undergo months of extensive
testing” (prior to usage). By comparison, the electronic voting system used for the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election was approved on March 24th and was first made available to
voters on March 29th (5 days later), well short of the statewide parameters set by the
Secretary of State. Said 5-day window included the City of Los Angeles’ first-hand
experience of multiple mishaps in it’s only prior use of an electronic voting system for
neighborhood council elections, which was in 2016. So without following the lead of the
Secretary of State who requires months of “extensive testing”, the City of Los Angeles
rushed to implement an electronic voting system that already proved to be quite problematic,
without adequate protections in place to ensure a safe and secure voting environment for all
interested parties.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles did not rush to implement
online voting to aid homeless voters, but instead rushed to accommodate the “Vote No”
segment of voters. Yet another example of the City of Los Angeles’ continued complicit bias
against the SRNC-FC.

What is also clear is while the LA City Clerk, who normally oversees all elections in the City
of Los Angeles, oversaw the 2016 citywide neighborhood council elections, the LA City
Clerk provided ZERO oversight of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and/or election
process. Instead, the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election was completely overseen by
DONE. No explanation was ever given as to why this important change happened for this
important election.

72

/
On March 24, 2017, thirteen days before the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election date (April
6, 2017), internet-connected online voting was authorized by the City Council, led by the
efforts of City Councilman Jose Huizar (whose council district includes Skid Row and the
rest of Downtown LA), and approved to be administered by DONE, who controlled every
aspect of said election. However, simultaneously the City Council maintained that online
voting remained illegal for all other city elections (including neighborhood councils), which
the SRNC-FC previously established herein this very document is Discrimination. Internet
voting is explicitly prohibited by the California State Elections Code section 19205 which
states, in pertinent part:

A voting system shall comply with all of the following:

 ( a) No part of the voting system shall be connected to the Internet at any time.

 ( b) No part of the voting system shall electronically receive or transmit election

data through an exterior communication network, including the public telephone
system, if the communication originates from or terminates at a polling place,
satellite location, or counting center.

It should also be noted that Everyone Counts (E1C), the third-party vendor DONE contracted
to administer online voting for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, is not certified by
the Secretary of State.

Thus, the California State election law, which the City Attorney opines is in fact applicable
law, clearly makes the use of online voting illegal. Further, California State election code,
Sections 18000-18002, makes violations of the code a crime, and Petitioners suggest to the
court that there is good reason that the State has banned online voting, to wit, it opens the
pandora’s box for fraudulence including, but not limited to, computer hacking, electronic
55
tampering and ballot box stuffing .

56
California’s Secretary of State website states, in pertinent part:

“Election security is a major concern at all levels of

government. The end goal of election security

55
See Exhibit 11 titled, “Yves Smith, Why Is CalPERS Aggressively Promoting Internet Voting
Despite Experts Like the National Institute of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Saying “Hell
No”?, nakedcapitalism.com (Sept. 9, 2018)”. Also see Exhibit 11a titled, “Ryan North, I’m a
Computer Scientist. Here’s Why You Should Never Trust a Computer. Especially when it comes to
voting, Medium Politics (Nov. 1, 2018)”.
56
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-systems/voting-system-approval

73

/
 is to deliver a process that is not only safe and
secure, but also fair, accurate and accessible. In
California, at both the state and county level,
there are a multitude of layered security
protocols in place…..”

On December 22, 2003, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office released a video entitled,
57
“Easy explanation of California's Open Meeting Law - The Brown Act” , where it is
explained that State law does apply to neighborhood councils with regard to the Brown Act.
Thus, Petitioners argue that if neighborhood councils must follow the Brown Act, then all
State laws should also apply to neighborhood council elections (including Subdivision
elections), and also of note, those State laws which identify online voting as already deemed
illegal. (Emphasis added)

At the 2:17 mark, the video host states:

“The Brown Act is a State law that governs open meetings for
local governmental bodies. The act ensures that all meetings of
commissions, boards, committees or other bodies of a local agency
are open to the public with access and input. Does this include
neighborhood councils? Yes it does. The Brown Act governs the
meetings of legislative bodies, including advisory bodies that are
created by charter, ordinance or by formal action of another
legislative body.

Because the City Charter created the system of neighborhood

councils (NC’s) and the ordinance governing the system mandates
certification or recognition by the City of Los Angeles, they are
subject to the Brown Act. Once certified, all neighborhood
councils in the City of Los Angeles are considered local
governmental agencies covered by the Brown Act and must hold
their meetings subject to the rules of that act.”

Then, at the 20:10 mark, the host states:

“All neighborhood councils are considered local governmental

agencies since they were created by city charter and city
ordinance and certified by the City of Los Angeles, thus they
must comply with the Brown Act.”

“Easy explanation of California's Open Meeting Law - The Brown Act”, published by Belsiss on
57

Mar 4, 2016 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BWG08wK-n0]

74

/
For the City of Los Angeles to offer a weak defense of “neighborhood councils are not
subject to State election laws”, even though taxpayer funding is allocated to Neighborhood
Councils annually (and for almost two decades since 2001), all Neighborhood Council
meetings are subjected to the Brown Act and annually millions of taxpayer dollars in the
form of City resources have also been specifically directed to Neighborhood Councils. These
long-standing factors clearly establish an environment and political culture which lack
oversight and accountability that is much-needed, especially when the merits of this very
case are closely examined. Therefore, it is the collective hope of the SRNC-FC that our
efforts lead to an immediate modification of State law that expands it’s rule to govern over all
neighborhood council matters, especially elections- both general and Subdivision- for the
purpose of removing the lawless nature in which the introduction of the potential for
corruption gives unyielding power to individual City officials who then benefit from the lack
of governance from higher levels of the American government and/or State and Federal
government systems.

Petitioners point out to the court that a “Subdivision Election Manual” originally created by
58
DONE on March 23, 2017 allowed for the immediate implementation of online voting,
which goes well beyond an administrational flaw and should be seen as extremely unusual
and blatantly illegal since online voting for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election was not
officially approved by the Los Angeles City Council until March 24, 201759 (One day later).

Either DONE had supernatural clairvoyant abilities or, more likely, had prior insider
knowledge that online voting was going to be approved by the City Council (prior to any
official vote) which is further evidence of a “collaborative alliance” between members of the
Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC), Unite DTLA, DTLA United,
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) and numerous City of Los Angeles
employees in the lead up to, during, and after the 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood Council
60
Subdivision election .
The fact that DONE immediately “revised” their own election manual and deleted the
relevant sections cited above shows circumstantial knowledge and intent, a necessary

58
See Exhibit 19 (Administrative 8, to pg. 19) titled, “Neighborhood Council 2017 Subdivision
Manual ”.
59
See pg. 16 on Exhibit 38 titled, “March 24, 2017 Agenda for Los Angeles City Council Meeting”.
60
See Exhibit 13 titled, “2017_03_14 Grayce Liu to E1C re online voting will move ahead“, which is
an email Ms. Liu sent to Bill Kunez of Everyone Counts, Ccing LA City Clerk Holly Wolcott,
indicating that “they” (DONE) “would be able to move forward with using the online voting and voter
registration platform for our subdivision election in a few weeks.” This email was sent while online
voting was still banned Citywide and before any vote was taken in City Council about approving
online voting.

75

/
element of the crime of fraud, but they did not delete said revised version before Petitioners
were able to download it and save the file61.

Petitioners agree with the conclusion of computer scientist Ryan North, in his Nov. 1, 2018
article titled, “I’m a Computer Scientist. Here’s Why You Should Never Trust a Computer.
Especially when it comes to voting.”

“The only safe-ish way to vote with a computer is one in which a paper ballot is
printed in sight of the voter, approved, and then stored in a ballot box. That
way, if someone thinks the computer systems were compromised—if there’s
any reason at all to suspect someone added the votes improperly—then there’s
a paper trail. In other words, the computer adding up the votes is a
convenience, nothing more. The real vote, the real power, still lies in the paper
ballot. Without that paper trail, you’re left trusting the computer. And nobody
62
should ever trust a computer.”

Even with the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election voter tally still in doubt over two years
63
after the election, both the Mayor and the City Attorney began aggressively moving
forward with plans to fund even more online neighborhood council elections. Petitioners
have emails in our possession which prove the City Clerk’s office, at the behest of the City
Council, was planning a new “online pilot” program for 2019 which would have included 10
64
neighborhood councils, one of them being the DLANC . But the City’s plans for said online
pilot program became complicated due to online vendor Everyone Counts merging with
another online vendor called, “Votem”, creating a bit of disarray within the company. Votem
uses a process called “blockchain” technology for online voting, while Everyone Counts does
not.

61
See Exhibit 19 (Administrative 8, to pg. 19) titled, “ Neighborhood Council 2017 Subdivision
Manual l”.
62
See Exhibit 11a titled, “Ryan North, I’m a Computer Scientist. Here’s Why You Should Never Trust
a Computer. Especially when it comes to voting, Medium Politics (Nov. 1, 2018)”. Also see Exhibit
11 titled, “Yves Smith, Why Is CalPERS Aggressively Promoting Internet Voting Despite Experts Like
the National Institute of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Saying “Hell No”?,
nakedcapitalism.com (Sept. 9, 2018)”.
63
See Exhibit 11b titled, “City Clerk IT Director Richard Truong communicating with E1C (which
was merging with Votem) about how the Mayor and City Attorney were in the process of finalizing a
new contract with them (Oct. 2018)”.
64
See Exhibit 11c titled, “Christopher Garcia from the City Clerk’s office notifies DLANC that
although they were selected for a new online voting pilot for 2019, it was not feasible for the vendor
(Nov. 21, 2018)”.

76

/
 65
An email dated November 19, 2018 from Richard Truong, the IT Director at the City
Clerk’s office to Midori Connolly at Votem (previously Everyone Counts), reads:

“I completely understand and if E1C/Votem is not comfortable with this pilot project,
we should pull the plug on the 2019 pilot sooner rather than later. In addition,
we have not seen the Votem system and have some concerns on our end as
well.”

The SRNC-FC is unaware if the City of Los Angeles even understands what “blockchain
voting” is. Certainly, this different voting system was never revealed to the public for input
and/or feedback. The above email raises various questions as to why the City would be so
eager to use something sight unseen considering all the many problems with past
neighborhood council online elections.

Further, as an example, the following link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/28/mississippi-election-machine-changes-v
otes-video/?fbclid=IwAR17SvUfxOugqdnwdm33ar9WSebUF5DMatxSbpN7mSXupOOj3N
HTKK2UXcU&noredirect=on is to an August, 2019 Washington Post article titled “‘It is
not letting me vote for who I want’: Video shows electronic machine
changing ballot in Mississippi” regarding multiple electronic voting machines which
malfunctioned in a recent election in Mississippi in which voters voted for one candidate, but
the electronic voting machines instead tallied their votes for an entirely different candidate.

The 4th-paragraph in the above-mentioned article states, “But the viral video and 
reports of other machine errors are sure to spark new concerns among 
election security advocates, who have long warned that electronic voting 
systems — particularly the type used in Mississippi, which do not
generate a verified paper backup — are vulnerable to hackers and
mistakes.” (Emphasis added) 
 
It MUST be noted that Everyone Counts (E1C), the third-party vendor who provided online
voting services under contract with the City of Los Angeles for the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election, also used an electronic voting system which did not generate a verified
paper backup, the same as in the above-mentioned news article.

65
See Exhibit 11d titled, “IT Director at the City Clerk’s office Richard Truong admitting to
E1C/Votem that they had not seen the new system yet and that they had some concerns (Nov. 19,
2018)”.

77

/
It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the totality of all of this online voting-specific
information leaves no doubt as to the fragility of the City of Los Angeles’ election
fundamentals and methods and/or capabilities as it specifically relates to the coordination,
administration, oversight and accountability of executing a mistake-free election which
should undoubtedly be it’s primary goal in upkeeping and preserving the American
democratic process.

It is clear, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the City of Los Angeles did not fulfill it’s
governmental obligation to uphold said American democratic process and further allowed
City department(s) to behave in a faux-decision-making capacity which is not condoned nor
substantiated in any City rules, regulations, election codes and/or administrative codes, and
because of the City of Los Angeles’ collective Dereliction of Duty, the Skid Row community
and the SRNC-FC were wrongfully denied the ability to create a Skid Row Neighborhood
Council in 2017.

SRNC-FC Members and Skid Row Residents Voice Election-Related

Concerns During Public Comment at City Council Committee Meeting on
March 22, 2017

The City of Los Angeles, City Council, City Attorney, City Clerk, BONC and DONE were
all fully aware of the many concerns the SRNC-FC had, specifically related to the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election, prior to the actual election, because each of these City
departments and/or commissioners heard explicit testimony from Petitioner Jeff Page
(General Jeff) as well as other members of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council-Formation
Committee (SRNC-FC) during public comment at a special March 22, 2017 LA City Council
Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental Relations and Neighborhoods Committee meeting66. The
following is an excerpt from said meeting;

General Jeff: 15:51 Yes. Good evening council. My name is General Jeff. I
am the Chair of The Skid Row Neighborhood Council
Formation Committee, and as I've said before this
committee previously, this is a very historic moment in

See Exhibit 1b titled, “Transcript of March 22, 2017 LA City Council Rules & Elections
66

Committee Special Meeting”.

78

/

Hayk Makhmuryan: 23:50
KevinMichael Key(RIP) 27:44
the history of Skid Row community, and so, we turned
in an application, the city approved it on January 11th,
and the ordinance language says that there must be an
election within 90 days. The election is gonna happen
as was assigned to us April 6th. We're ready for that, so
now this issue of online voting exists, and this is
through committee. By the time it gets before the full
council, the earliest it would be Friday. That'd be less
than two weeks out. It would be absolutely
disrespectful to the democratic process to even try to
push online voting through that fast when we've already
begun our outreach efforts, and people are ready to
show up at the polls without online voting. Thank you.
Hi, thank you. My name is Hayk Makhmurvan, and I'm
a community liaison with The Skid Row Neighborhood
Council Formation Committee, and I feel that what
needs to be said also is that, one particular point is that
having online voting, something that we haven't heard
at this desk yet, without proper ample advanced time,
grossly disadvantages, an already very disadvantaged
population of folks who are the residents of the Skid
Row neighborhood, hence one of the reasons to form
this council is to represent a group of folks who are
very underrepresented in the community, so I feel, it's
actually a disadvantage, and a disenfranchisement of
the residents of the Skid Row neighborhood to have
online voting without plenty of proper time.
I'm KevinMichael Key. Good evening Mr. President,
Mr. Huizar, Mr. Harris Dawson. When I came
downtown 20 years ago, I had a law license, and a drug
habit as hungry as lobo wolf with lockjaw. July 12,
2002. I entered treatment in Skid Row, and I became a
Skid Row advocate ever since then. I've appeared
before this panel often, and I've always treated you with
respect. The people that run DLANC that are here right
79
/
 now, they want online voting so they can continue to
disrespect us. They're scared to come to our community,
and if we put on online voting Skid Row, which is
home to the largest homeless population, many of
our most needy residents do not have ready access to
online voting, so once again, the lessors are gonna get
less. In addition, there have been prior problems with
online voting. It is subject to being abused….

Board of Neighborhood Commissioners - (BONC)

In DONE’s 70-page “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting” document67 and also
DONE’s “Final Determination”68 letter, each of BONC’s seven (7) then-sitting BONC
Commissioners are listed in the upper lefthand corner of the front page of both documents.

In the Los Angeles Administrative Code- Section 22.805- the following is stated;

“(b) The Board (BONC) shall be comprised of seven members all of whom shall represent
the City in its entirety.”

“(c) The Board members shall be appointed by the Mayor...and may be removed by the
Mayor.”

Section 22.806 states,

“(a) The Board shall be responsible for setting and overseeing policy, approving contracts
and leases, and promulgating rules and regulations…”

Both LA City Charter69 (Article IX, Section 902) and DONE’s website also state;

67
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1) titled, “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017”.
68
See Exhibit 35 (Administrative 4) titled, “Letter to General Jeff Page Re Election Challenges Dated
May 19, 2017”.
69
See Exhibit 39 titled, “Los Angeles City Charter - Article IX”.

80

/
“The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (The Commission) was
established by the City Charter in 1999 as a policy-setting and oversight
commission for the Neighborhood Councils and the Department of
Neighborhood Empowerment.”

They further state, “The Commission is comprised of 7 Commissioners appointed

by the Mayor…”

And lastly, DONE’s website states, “By increasing access to City government and
City services through the network of local Neighborhood Councils, the
(BONC) Commission strives to increase quality of life for everyone living in
Los Angeles.”

The SRNC-FC points to “City services” which weren’t rendered equally, adequately, nor
sufficiently, “through the network” as it pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election
and BONC primarily failed to provide any legally-binding oversight throughout the entire
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election cycle.

LA City Charter (source: American Legal Publishing Corporation)

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/laac/administrativecode?f=templates$f
n=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:losangeles_ca_mc

DONE website describing BONC

http://empowerla.org/commission/

2007 LA City Attorney document describing in-depth duties of BONC

http://empowerla.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Commission%20Authority.pdf
* (It should be noted that the above document was crafted under the leadership of then-City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who later in this very document will be proven to have played a
significant role against the SRNC-FC in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision Election process)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that BONC’s passive actions (or lack thereof) confirm it’s
complacency regarding the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election which thereby also confirms
BONC’s failure to provide any form of oversight and/or recommendations regarding the rules
and/or policies for neighborhood councils- which the SRNC-FC contends also includes
neighborhood council elections and more specifically, neighborhood council subdivision
elections.

81

/
It MUST also be noted that each of the seven (7) currently-sitting BONC commissioners
were appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti as were the seven (7) BONC commissioners at the
time of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council -

(DLANC)
The following is a partial list of key evidence in which various members of the Downtown
Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC) played significant roles, including malicious
inconsistencies, provided deviously-misleading statements and created unnecessary
confusion, all key factors in undermining the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

First, it must be clarified that it is the position of the SRNC-FC that the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election had only two choices- 1) A “Yes” vote would create a new Skid Row
Neighborhood Council or, 2) A “No” vote would continue the same structure since 2002 in
which the Skid Row area is governed by the DLANC. Therefore, the SRNC-FC contends the
DLANC is subsequently also a candidate in said 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election- “Yes”
for Skid Row to become independent, “No” for Skid Row to remain under DLANC’s rule-
hence, the heightened interest by DLANC and it’s allies, in said election.

On March 15, 2017, the DLANC submitted a Community Impact Statement on Council File
15-1022-S2 regarding online voting70.

Said CIS document is dated less than one (1) month before the April 6, 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election in which the two-page document speaks to the urgent need for online
voting and it’s ability to get more voters involved in the election process. It should be noted
that while the DLANC represents a large portion of Downtown LA, it also represents the
Skid Row community (and has since it’s inception in 2002). At no point in the CIS letter does
the DLANC even remotely mention Skid Row and/or attempt to address the needs of
potential voters in the Skid Row community, which include homeless and poor residents
suffering from extreme poverty, who historically have needed additional resources to be
included on a scale equivalent to the extent the DLANC spoke at length on and it’s
stakeholders it spoke on behalf of, especially as it specifically relates to online voting and the
need for electronic devices with compatible amenities necessary to document/scan/connect to

70
See Exhibit 40 titled, “DLANC Draft CIS RE online voting for Los Angeles City Council File
15-1022-S2 (March 15, 2017)”.

82

/
the internet and/or forward said documentation/etc for voter registration and then to also
connect to the internet again to cast a vote.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the DLANC was fully aware of the limitations the
Skid Row community was faced with prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and in
no way, shape or form attempted to represent it’s constituents in Skid Row. Hence, that is a
perfect example of the very existence of the need to create the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council- So the rest of Downtown LA can focus on the rest of Downtown LA, the same as it
has for the last 17 years (as it relates to neighborhood councils), and Skid Row can then focus
on Skid Row’s affairs.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the DLANC, which included Board members
directly connected to Unite DTLA, Ann D’Amato and former-City Attorney Rocky
Delgadillo (City Hall insiders) and who had meetings with at least one City Councilmember
(Huizar) regarding the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, as well as had direct access to
Mayor Garcetti, were fully abreast of what was happening in City Hall and participated in the
bias by fulfilling it’s role as “concerned citizens” on the outside looking in (as was the case in
the aforementioned CIS letter). Unfortunately, the DLANC totally and completely forsook
it’s Skid Row stakeholders so the effort to appear to be “neutrally-concerned”, had significant
limitations to it’s core, to say the least.

Moving forward, DLANC Bylaws state at Section 5(A)(2), in pertinent part;

“Upon discussing opinion on a topic that has not been voted upon
or adopted by the DLANC Board, THEN the Board
Member has a duty to make clear and clarify that this
is their opinion and is NOT the opinion of the DLANC
71
Board.” (Emphasis Added)

Petitioners can show that Estela Lopez, a sitting DLANC Board member at the time of the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, was heavily involved in the coordination, distribution,
and/or promotion of the “Vote No” emails. Petitioners have already provided proof to DONE
that then-DLANC board member Jacob Van Horn was also involved in the promotion of the
72
“Vote No” emails, as evidenced by his suggesting that the “Vote No” emails “slow down”
(but not cease & desist as he later claimed). Finally, DLANC President Patti Berman’s lack
of any attempts to show that her board was not behind the “Vote No” email blasts is

71
See Exhibit 1 titled, “DLANC Approved Bylaw Amendments (July 20, 2015)” pgs 7-8.
72
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1) titled, “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017“ pgs. 13-17.

83

/
evidenced by her own testimony at the Election Challenge Review Panel (ECRP). DLANC’s
failure to respond after becoming aware of the first “Vote No” emails using the DLANC logo
evidences complicit behavior, which is not consistent with the neutral position they claim to
have had.

After opening the 1st “Vote No” email with the DLANC logo on it, Ms. Berman neither
emailed her board about it, nor did she send out emails to anybody in the DLANC email
73
database about it. The Election Challenge Review Panel found this to be just as egregious
74
as the 1st “Vote No” email itself being sent out in the first place In fact, none of the
DLANC Board Members who received the 1st “Vote No” email did anything to correct the
perception that it was not from the DLANC Board, except then-DLANC Board member
Andrew Douglas, who forwarded the email to Petitioners and also attempted to get Ms.
Berman to officially, and more importantly, publicly act on behalf of the DLANC Board,
75
which she never did.

The SRNC-FC thinks it is commendable that Mr. Douglas was brave enough to contact both
sides of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election prior to the election itself, knowing that the
“Vote No” e-mails with the DLANC logo on it would have a significant effect on the election
results.

In addition, evidence obtained by the SRNC-FC in the form of a subpoena served on

76 77
“Mailchimp” proves at least 11 then-sitting DLANC Board Members not only were sent,
but opened the 1st “Vote No” email with the DLANC logo on it, within the first hours of it’s
78
initial distribution. The subsequent silence was, and still is, deafening.

List of DLANC Board members who opened the 1st “Vote No” e-mail
(info from MailChimp subpoena)

73
Ms. Berman admits to this during her testimony at the Election Challenge Panel, starting at the
1:24:54 mark in Exhibit 1d (Administrative 10) titled, “Transcript- May 3, 2017 Skid Row
Neighborhood Council Election Challenge Hearing”.
74
See testimony, starting at the 4:09:13 mark in Exhibit 1d (Administrative 10) titled, “Transcript-
May 3, 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood Council Election Challenge Hearingl”.
75
See Exhibit 1a titled, “Andrew Douglas communication with Katherine McNenny (2017)”.
76
“Mailchimp” is an “always on” marketing platform used by the senders of the “Vote No” emails,
argued herein to be Ann D’Amato, which gives the users several easy options to design and send
emails to a specified group of people.
77
See Exhibit 2 titled, “DLANC - MIN_BD_2017_03_14 (DLANC Board Meeting Minutes)”.
78
See Exhibit 3 titled, “Excel pages showing who opened their email from “Unite DTLA”, and how
many times they opened it, file labeled “72169510_Unite DTLA” (from MailChimp subpoena,
provided in full upon request)”.

84

/
Date Name Email Address
3/31/17 Robert Newman robertnewman1@gmail.com
3/31/17 Scott Bytof scottbytof@ca.rr.com
3/31/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/2/17 Arianna Nussdorf ariananussdorf@gmail.com
4/3/17 Amara Ononiwu amara.ononiwu@gmail.com
3/31/17 Ian Chi-Young ianyoung97@gmail.com
3/31/17 Josh Albrektson joshraymd@gmail.com
3/31/17 Andrew Douglas andrewbjdouglas@gmail.com
3/31/17 James Todd james_todd@sbcglobal.net
3/31/17 Estela Lopez elopez@centralcityeast.org
3/31/17 Amber Maltbie amber.maltbie@gmail.com

Thus, DLANC board member(s) were outwardly claiming a neutral stance, but actually
violated their own bylaws by taking a biased “Vote No” position on the election, and/or
appearance thereof, as evidenced by Petitioners herein.

An excerpt between DLANC President Patti Berman and ECRP Panelist Pamela Thornton
from the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge Review Panel79 reads:

Pamela Thornton: 01:24:46 Okay. Where's Ms. Berman?

Pamela Thornton: 01:24:54 My question to you as a leader of your Neighborhood

Council and this is not to be accusatory I just want to
know what was in your head. When you received
information regarding that email did you not contact
anybody at DONE or the City Attorney's office to let
them know that that was going on? Because your claim
is that it didn't come from you. Me as a Neighborhood
Council President, I would be alarmed because it's
misrepresenting my Neighborhood Council and my
board, and I need to have that documented that its been
investigated.

See Exhibit 1d (Administrative 10) titled, “Transcript- May 3, 2017 Skid Row Neighborhood
79

Council Election Challenge Hearing”.

85

/
Pamela Thornton: 01:25:39 My question to you is that, did you do that?

Patti Berman : 01:26:55 Quite truthfully no. I had been involved in this in the
record I was not involved in either side for a very long
time and I didn't pay any attention to it. (Emphasis
added)

But while Ms. Berman stated that she “didn’t pay any attention to it” with regard to the 1st
“Vote No” email, evidence Petitioners obtained from Mailchimp proves that she opened the
80
email 65 times! ...Including 12 times PRIOR to the SRNC-FC Subdivision election which
was held on April 6, 2017 and 61 times PRIOR to Ms. Berman testifying before the Election
Challenge Review Panel which was held on May 3, 2017. (Emphasis added)

List of the 65 times DLANC President Patti Berman opened the 1st “Vote No” e-mail
(info from MailChimp subpoena)
Date Name Email Address
3/31/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
3/31/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/03/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/04/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/04/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/15/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/17/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/17/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/18/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/18/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com

80
See Exhibit 3 titled, “Excel pages showing who opened their email from “Unite DTLA”, and how
many times they opened it, file labeled “72169510_Unite DTLA” (from MailChimp subpoena,
provided in full upon request)” and look at the Excel pg. labeled
“patti@pattiberman.com_54757_opens_REDACTED”.

86

/
4/18/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/19/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/19/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/19/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/19/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/20/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/28/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/28/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/30/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/30/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
4/30/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/01/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com

87

/
5/02/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/05/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/05/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/06/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com
5/08/17 Patti Berman patti@pattiberman.com

Later in the Election Challenge Review Panel after the “Vote NO” evidence had been
presented, Panelists David Greene and Ms. Thornton stated:

David Greene: 04:09:13 Again, the endorsement was not retracted, right? So an
email went out saying essentially implying that
DLANC endorses this position, in not so many words,
and it was never retracted. Is that enough to uphold
(election challenge number) 104 and say that was an
inappropriate endorsement? Because the people who ...
Think about it for a second. I know it's a little, it's a
different way to get there, but it avoids the he said, she
said about MailChimp, which could be disputed. What
can't be disputed is we have actual testimony [inaudible
04:09:48] but we have actual testimony that no email
was sent out to the MailChimp database that we do not
endorse-

Pamela Thornton: 04:10:24 That's what I mean. Outreach to the board first and then
doing whatever you could within your network of the
database members to further. That's to the point about,
that I'm concerned, it still put the word out that this is
what we found out. This happened. There's been a
breach to our database. Beware. And then do something
else to at least get it out there that this voting as of
whatever day.

Further, the claim that DLANC was not involved because these actions, and/or inactions,
were the result of “rogue” board members is without merit when it can easily be proven that
those board members who received the 1st “Vote No” email represented one member shy of

88

/
half the board (11 board member recipients out of 24), including DLANC’s President and
Vice-President.

Also, a crosscheck of datasets prove the 1st “Vote No” emails (sent with the DLANC logo)
went to a list of 133 people. 127 of those 133 people exactly match email addresses used in
the 2016 DLANC Voter List compiled by DONE after the previous 2016 DLANC
81
Neighborhood Council election and given to DLANC President Patti Berman prior to the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

List of the 6 additional names added to 1st “Vote No” e-mail list from 2016 DLANC
“Voter List” to comprise the aforementioned 133 names
(info from MailChimp subpoena)
Affiliation Name Email Address
DLANC Amara Ononiwu amara.ononiwu@gmail.com
3D Networks/Liner Ann D’Amato ann@3dnetworkscorp.com
DLANC/CCEA Estela Lopez elopez@centralcityeast.org
Liner Rocky Delgadillo rdelgadillo@linerlaw.com
Liner Matt Nichols mnichols@linerlaw.com
3D Networks Wendy Angel wendy@3dnetworkscorp.com

First set of email addresses used to blast “Vote No” emails with the DLANC logo:
The original set of email addresses used to send the 1st “Vote No” email blast82 with the
DLANC logo were exact matches of emails listed on the 2016 DLANC Voter List, with a
83
few additions . How is this possible when DLANC claims it had no knowledge of, yet were
complicit in the emailing of the 1st “Vote No” campaign that used the DLANC logo?

The only additional names to the first email blast not on the 2016 DLANC Voter List were
the email addresses of, (a) then-DLANC Board members, (b) Persons directly connected to

81
See Exhibit 3a titled, “DLANC Voters List 4.29.16 (Excel page)”.
82
See Exhibit 3d titled, “Excel pages showing who was sent an email from “Unite DTLA”, file
labeled “UID 72169510_CID 73137_Sent To””.
83
While true that the 2016 DLANC Voter List had 629 names and the “Vote No” list had only 133-
the court has to ask itself, how did these supposedly unknown individuals who sent out an email blast
with the DLANC logo on it obtain any part of DLANC’s email address database? Also see Exhibit 3e
titled, “Mike, It Seems That Piratical Swashbuckling Downtown Real Estate Vigilante Jacob Douglas
Van Horn Supplied Anti-Skid-Row-Neighborhood-Council Conspirators With Patti Berman’s Copy Of
A DLANC Voter Registration List In Advance Of The Subdivision Election For Purposes Of
Electioneering, Thereby Potentially Misusing His Power As A Member Of DLANC’s Board,
michaelkohlhaas.org (Oct. 3, 2017)”.

89

/
Liner LLP, such as former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, and (c) Individuals directly
connected to 3D Networks- a company who had contracts with the City of Los Angeles (at
the time the “Vote No” e-mails were distributed widely) while at the same time worked for
Liner LLP, which appears to be a blatant conflict of interest. Liner LLP for all intents and
purposes was a lobbying group for the “Vote No” campaign, and such has been stated by
Petitioners in our 3rd-amended Petition for Writ of Mandate, as well as proven herein.

Second set of e-mail addresses used to blast subsequent “Vote No” e-mails without the
DLANC logo:
As stated during Petitioner’s presentation at the Election Challenge Review Panel on May
3rd, 2017, there were additional “Vote No” e-mails sent with a similar-to-DLANC logo,
urging the same “Vote No” action. The first “Vote No” e-mails were sent from
UniteDTLA@gmail.com. Later, “Vote No” e-mails with the similar-to-DLANC logo were
sent from DTLAUnited@gmail.com. Both e-mail blasts used the Mailchimp platform.

Also explained by the SRNC-FC Chair during the Election Challenge Review Panel, the 1st
84
batch of “Vote No” e-mails included the DLANC’s P.O. Box address and also linked to
DLANC’s active website. This proves the creator(s) of said aforementioned e-mails wanted
potential voters to think the “Vote No” e-mails officially came from DLANC and/or there
was actual DLANC Board member involvement which felt the need to legitimize the “Vote
No” e-mails and/or deceive voters. Subsequent “Vote No” e-mails removed both the DLANC
85
P.O. Box number and the link to the DLANC website, presumably because it was quickly
learned, that their false representations were violations of City policy.

Implicating then-DLANC Board member Estela Lopez in both “Vote No” campaigns is the
fact that the “sent to” list of e-mail addresses from the second batch of “Vote No” e-mails
was identical to the first list, except it included the addition of nine (9) board members of the
Downtown Industrial District BID/Central City East Association. Ms. Lopez serves (then and
now) as the Executive Director of said aforementioned organization, which covers a large
86
swath of the Skid Row neighborhood , thus making the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election
of great interest to her and her organization’s Board of Directors.

84
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1), titled, “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017” pgs 31-32.
85
See Exhibit 1c (Administrative 1), titled, “Election Challenge Panel Special Meeting of May 3,
2017” pgs 63-64.
86
See Exhibit 3b titled, “Excel page showing who was sent an email from “DTLA United”, file
labeled “UID 72189346_CID 77677_Sent To””.

90

/
 List of Downtown Industrial District BID Board members added to second “Vote No”
e-mail database which were not on the first “Vote No” list
(info from MailChimp subpoena)

Name Email Address

Matt Klein mklein@hbkinv.com
Carolyn Leslie cleslie@atlas-cap.com
Bob Smiland bsmiland@inner-cityarts.org
Dilip Bhavnani dilip@sunscopeusa.com
Drew Bauer DrewBauer@YoungsHoldings.com
Ernie Doizaki edoizaki@kansasmarine.com
Howard Klein howard.klein@oceanbeauty.com
Larry Rauch lrauch@lacold.com
Mark Shinbane marks@ore-cal.com

(taken from CCEA/Downtown Industrial District BID website87)

During the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge Review Panel, DLANC President Patti Berman
stated (located at the 00:54:10 mark of the ECRP hearing transcription), “...if indeed one of
our board members was involved with Unite DTLA, I would love to find out about them,
because I'll be yelling at the board really fast. However, I have no idea who these people
are, I don't know anyone in my board who does, but we certainly have asked around. I

87
See Exhibit 3c titled, “Screenshot of Industrial District BID Board members from their website
industrialdistrictla.com”.

91

/
have board members here, we have nothing to do with this, I'm sorry it caused such a big
stink, …”. (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DLANC President Patti Berman was completely
disingenuous in her above testimony in numerous ways;

1) We now know that Ms. Berman knew then who on DLANC’s Board was “involved
with Unite DTLA”...Ms. Berman gave the DLANC Voter List to fellow DLANC
Board member Estela Lopez who then forwarded it to Ann D’Amato who used it to
distribute the 1st “Vote No” e-mail.
2) We now know that Ms. Berman never yelled ”at the board really fast” as she
indicated she would do upon learning that member(s) of the DLANC Board were
“involved with Unite DTLA”, nor did she attempt to remove anyone from the
Board…(It should be noted that the following link
https://michaelkohlhaas.org/wp/2017/10/07/at-the-srnc-appeal-hearing-dlanc-presiden
t-patti-berman-said-if-one-of-our-board-members-was-involved-with-united-dtla-i-be
t-we-could-get-them-off-the-board-really-fast-patti-news-flas/ identifies six (6)
then-DLANC Board members who were each connected to Unite DTLA at the time
of both the April 6, 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and the May 3, 2017
ECRP)...In said link Ms. Berman also states, “If indeed one of our board members
was involved with Unite DTLA, I would love to find out about it because I bet we
could get them off the board really fast” ...The six (6) then-DLANC Board
members identified as connected to Unite DTLA in the above link are listed, as
follows; (Emphasis added)

Robert Newman:

● Guided people to polling locations

● Lobbied DONE for more pop-up voting locations
● Investigated rumored election fraud — and randomly and seemingly
without evidence accused Becky Dennison of Venice Community Housing
of busing in homeless people to vote.
● Hung around the Skid Row polling place with a camera — to document
procedures.

92

/
Jacob Douglas Van Horn:

● Famously shared a spreadsheet with voter information — for

electioneering purposes. Did he not think to tell Patti Berman about that, or
did she not ask?
● Monitored Facebook to find putative election fraud — Or whatever he was
looking for, it’s hard to tell. Here’s a copy of the screenshot he’s talking
about.

Rena Masten Leddy:

● Famously participated in a conference call with United DTLA honchos

Rockard Delgadillo and Estela Lopez that that was planned just one day
after the public debut of the shadowy Delaware front corporation. Did she
not think to tell Patti Berman about that or did Patti Berman not ask?
● Sent out nastygrams like this little gem to her compatriots on the United
DTLA mailing list.

Dan Curnow:

● Participated in this email list with DLANC VP Robert Newman even after
he, Dan Curnow, was elected DLANC Secretary on April 12 and thereby
became a fellow member of DLANC’s executive committee. Did Patti

93

/
 Berman not ask Dan Curnow who was behind United DTLA or did he not
tell her?

Josh Albrektson:

● Shared his expertise as DLANC representative with the United DTLA

conspiracy to maximize the likelihood of their being able to vote. Again, did
he not think to tell Patti Berman about this or did she not ask him?
● Helped out the cause by using the phrase “unique identifier” in a way that
probably doesn’t make sense.

And last but never ever ever least, Estela Lopez was so involved with United
DTLA that she was collecting donations on their behalf. Did Patti Berman not
ask Estela Lopez who was behind the whole mishegoss or did Estela Lopez
lie to her when she did ask?

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that either DLANC President Patti Berman lied during her
testimony before a City-convened Election Challenge Review Panel (ECRP) about DLANC
Board members being connected to Unite DTLA (which distributed the 1st “Vote No”
e-mail) or Ms. Berman is too aloof to have noticed all the devious acts happening all around
her by her fellow DLANC Board members, of which she is the President of the Board, which
therefore seems highly unlikely.

3) DLANC President Patti Berman also testified during the ECRP that “we have
nothing to do with this” and “I’m sorry it caused such a big stink”.

Yet again, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that DLANC President Patti Berman publicly
lied during the ECRP with the former statement and it should be noted that it is unclear to the
SRNC-FC that when she says “we” whether Ms. Berman is referring to DLANC or Unite
DTLA. Lastly, the latter statement appears to be some sort of apology which has a built-in
“confession” connected to it because if you “didn’t have anything to do with any of this”,

94

/
why are you apologizing and exactly what are you apologizing for?.......Is it an admission of
wrongdoing?...Or an admission of incompetence in a leadership position?...Or both?

While there are even more significant discrepancies throughout Ms. Berman’s remaining
testimony, the SRNC-FC has decided that enough has been addressed at this time and will
instead choose to move forward with further evidence against DLANC.

Further, another DLANC Board member, then-DLANC Vice President Robert Newman,
testified during the May 3, 2017 Election Challenge Review Panel and stated, (located at the
00:56:06 mark of the ECRP transcription) “...And of course, there is also in the binder, a
response, as Ms. Berman eluded to, that was her response when she first saw this email, to
whether she hit reply and it went back to whoever sent this email, and basically saying it
brought their attention which they had used the DLANC logo which you cannot do.
Immediately, shortly thereafter, whoever sent that email, we do not know who it is, went
ahead and opened up another account,...” (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that even though multiple high-ranking DLANC Board
members (specifically Patti Berman and Robert Newman) testified that they, 1) Had nothing
to do with either of the “Vote No” e-mails, and 2) Had no knowledge of who was involved,
there was a consistent theme from DLANC Board members completely distancing
themselves from the “Vote No” e-mails, then giving specific-detailed insight as to how
“unknown strangers” committed illegal acts. It’s quite shocking to hear DLANC Board
members speak without pause, hesitance and/or doubt about something they claim to know
absolutely nothing about. The irony is quite telling to the SRNC-FC.

For instance, DLANC VP Robert Newman first testified (regarding the 1st “Vote No” e-mail)
that using the DLANC logo (which is City-owned property) “...you cannot do...”,
establishing that he knew the contents within the 1st “Vote No” e-mail included an illegal act.
Then, Mr. Newman states, “...shortly thereafter, whoever sent that e-mail, we do not
know who it is, went ahead and opened up another account…”. This is arguably the most
jaw-dropping statement made by DLANC in these proceedings! To say, “we do not know
who it is” establishes zero connection of any kind to whomever created the 1st “Vote No”
e-mail...Which was IMMEDIATELY followed in the very same sentence with “...went ahead
and opened up another account…”. It is beyond bewilderment to fathom how a DLANC
Board member, who is also a City-elected official, can say “I don’t know who did this, but
here’s exactly how they did it” (paraphrase). (Empasis added)

Unlike law enforcement detectives who often solve crimes in this manner, Mr. Newman
failed to provide any evidence and/or proof as to how he came up with this unwavering
conclusion as to what happened, nor did he qualify himself in any capacity as an expert in
cyber-security, information technology security, metadata analysis, or any similar applicable
level of expertise which could be used to obtain such crucial information, particularly
without knowing who the perpetrator(s) are.

95

/
It is important to note that DLANC Board members Berman and Newman, along with DONE
GM Liu didn’t share their “suggestively-framed narratives” in private conversations, but
instead shared their “coordinated scripted responses” during an official City-governed and
City-convened hearing, of which their testimonies are a matter of public record and can be
used against them in a court of law. Their conspiring testimonies also prove the level of
deceit the City of Los Angeles is willing to go to in order to achieve it’s “desired
outcome”....and in this instance, against the SRNC-FC and the Skid Row community.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that, without delay, Mr. Newman frames a preconceived
narrative- which leans more towards a rehearsed line as opposed to a natural statement-
which, then, renders his entire testimony unreliable (in the eyes of the SRNC-FC). To
seemingly not even consider that said “unknown strangers” may have had anything to do
with the 2nd “Vote No” e-mail which would mean a totally different person(s) would have
created the 2nd “Vote No” e-mail, sheds light on what really happened, as in a Freudian slip
of the tongue in which Mr. Newman subconsciously tells how the 2nd “Vote No” e-mail was
created- by the very same people who created the first because they “opened up another
account” and then made the necessary corrections to alleviate the concerns aroused from the
mistakes within the 1st “Vote No” e-mail. The subconscious insight revealed by Mr. Newman
proves that the DLANC was more involved in the creation and distribution of both “Vote
No” e-mails than how they tried to portray themselves to be in the eyes of the public.
(Emphasis added)

Also, on March 23, 2017, the SRNC-FC obtained the following social media post (comment)
from the internet which was written/shared by then-DLANC Board member Josh Albrektson
in a Facebook group named “DTLA Town Square”.

___________________________________________________________________

● Josh Albrektson
23 hrs
I was about to do a post about the Skid Row Neighborhood Council and I
realized that before I did that, I really need to talk about DLANC (Downtown
Los Angeles Neighborhood Council) and what neighborhood councils do.
As you may or may not know, I am the elected Area Wide representative for
DLANC. Neighborhood councils were made about 20 years ago and were a
response to people feeling the City Council was not responsive to the
individual people in the city. So they formed official advisory boards for each
neighborhood that advice the city council person on the needs of the
neighborhood. All decisions on which buildings are allowed to be built, who
can get liquor licenses, and positions on bills before the city council goes
through the Neighborhood Councils first.
There are a lot of great NCs out there that do a lot of great things. Movie
nights, propose legislation, CPR classes, neighborhood clean ups, job fairs,
etc, etc. DLANC does not do any of these things and for the most part
doesn't do much at all.

96

/
 The one thing that DLANC does do a great job on is planning. If you look at
any agenda over the past 2 years, it is 50-60% approving buildings/CUPs.
And not much else. At some point there will be doggie bags in the
Neighborhood, but outside of that there hasn't been much that DLANC has
done to improve the lives of the neighborhood. And that is also one of the
biggest complaints of the people forming the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council. They feel that DLANC isn't responsive to them, but they really are
not responsive to anybody.
And why is that?? Well, having been on DLANC, I know first hand. It is the
leadership. The same person has been president for (I think) 8 years and
holding onto power is more important than actually doing something that
would help the neighborhood. I've seen this first hand in many many different
ways.
And because one person has such a hold on the power of DLANC,
everybody else has left. Heck, one of the three biggest reasons I left
Downtown Los Angeles was my experience running for DLANC. In all the
other neighborhoods, the most important and active people in the
neighborhoods are on the council and they do things through the council.
The same people put on the same events every single year and institution
knowledge is passed down. The best of the best go to their neighborhood
councils and stay there.
That doesn't happen in DLANC. People run, are thrilled to be there, see
what it really is, and leave. And we lose a TON of great people who could be
doing a ton of great things.
Of the 23 people elected to DLANC in 2012 and only 5 are on the board
today (Patti Berman, Michael Delijani, Scott Bytof, Robert Newman, and
Wendell Blassingame) Of the 32 people elected to DLANC in 2014, the same
5 people are the only people on the board today. That is 43 people over two
elections who felt compelled to run to help out their neighborhood who felt it
wasn't worth coming back to DLANC. They are all great people (and the
people elected today are great). I personally know how they feel because I
will probably be resigning soon because there are other places I can do more
to change the city rather than concentrate on DTLA through DLANC. I
encourage you guys to go check out the websites of other NCs like Los Feliz,
Mid-City West, Venice, etc, etc and see what they are doing. The SRNC vote
is happening because of DLANC and I hope that in the future DLANC will be
able to change to be more receptive to the people of DTLA.
● DTLA Town Square
● Join Group
(Emphasis added)
___________________________________________________________________

97

/
It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the above comments by a then-sitting DLANC Board
member shed tremendous insight as to why the Skid Row community desires to create a Skid
Row Neighborhood Council. It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the DLANC
opposed the creation of the SRNC due to the anticipated loss of power and control it has over
the Skid Row community, as it pertains to neighborhood council-level business.

It MUST be noted that in the 17 years Skid Row has been subjected to the governance of the
DLANC (since 2002), Skid Row has gradually worsened regarding homelessness and still
remains “the homeless capitol of America” without any signs of significant improvements in
the area. There have been numerous outbreaks of diseases- including October, 2018 when a
“Typhus Zone” was created by the City of Los Angeles which remains active to this day and
covers the entire area of Skid Row, along with four (4) additional adjacent blocks, yet the
DLANC has still not addressed the matter in any capacity. By comparison, the Downtown
Business Sector boasts of tens of billions of dollars of new development, new restaurants,
dog parks and high-end retail, all combining to cause the creation of the phrase “Downtown
Revitalization”, yet Skid Row remains in deplorable, inhumane conditions.
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-downtown-boom-20161130-story.html

The SRNC-FC took on a leadership position and contacted the LA County Department of
Public Health directly to inquire about the Typhus Zone outbreak and also confirm the
validity of said outbreak for the purpose of easing the fears and concerns not only for the
people in Skid Row but also the numerous people from beyond Skid Row who volunteer
their time to visit Skid Row to donate food, clothing, hygiene kits and prayer to those in
need.

98

/
The following is the official response the SRNC-FC received from Dr. Barbara Ferrer,
M.P.H., M.Ed., Director of LA County Department of Public Health (DPH);

99

/
The above document continues on it’s Page 2, where Dr. Ferrer provides a chart which
removes any and all doubt about the “official” status of Typhus in Skid Row. In 2018, there

100

/
were only 5 cases in Skid Row. In 2017, there were less than 5 cases in Skid Row and in
2016, there were ZERO cases of Typhus in Skid Row. By comparison, in 2018, the rest of
Downtown beyond Skid Row had more than three (3) times as many cases of Typhus than
there were in Skid Row.

So why, then, did the City of Los Angeles declare a Typhus Zone for all 50 blocks of Skid
Row and only 4 blocks outside of Skid Row? It is the position of the SRNC-FC that an
official declaration of a Typhus outbreak in Downtown LA outside of Skid Row would be
“bad for business” for the City of Los Angeles. So, instead of enlightening the public with
the truth, the City of Los Angeles chose instead to “blame Skid Row” while keeping the
multi-billion dollar investment pipeline funneling into the rest of Downtown LA.

The DLANC would, and did, go along with the City’s false “Typhus Zone” declaration. It is
the position of the SRNC-FC that a Skid Row Neighborhood Council would not go along
with the City’s devious and dastardly plots, thus said resistance has led to motivations which
further prove the City’s concerted efforts to deny Skid Row it’s neighborhood council at all
costs, even via threats of extreme sickness, incarceration and death, al important components
of this very case.

Connecting the Dots

1. Evidence identifying Unite DTLA and lack of evidence identifying DTLA United
a) It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the first “Vote No’ e-mails were sent by a “front
organization” called Unite DTLA and/or United Downtown LA, LLC. (See below link)

https://www.bizapedia.com/de/united-downtown-la-llc.html

Evidence obtained by SRNC-FC, and it’s “tech support” team, by way of multiple online
searches confirmed said “front organization” was created and/or initially filed on March 3,
2017 (approximately one (1) month before the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election on April
6, 2017). There is no electronic evidence in any way, shape, form or fashion that indicates
Unite DTLA existed prior to March 3, 2017.

The Delaware-based registration agent- Delaware Incorporators and Registration Service-

have at least 250 “companies” registered to it’s Delaware address, including said United
Downtown LA, LLC aka Unite DTLA.

101

/
https://www.bizapedia.com/addresses/301-north-market-street-suite-1410-farmers-bank-bldg
-wilmington-de-19801.html

Taking this information into consideration, the only known people directly connected in any
capacity to Unite DTLA are Ann D’Amato (3D Networks/Liner LLP), Estela Lopez
(DLANC/DID BID), Rena Leddy (DLANC/Fashion District BID), Patti Berman
(DLANC/Historic Core BID), Wendy Angel (3D Networks), Jill Powell (Liner LLP), the
recipients of the Estela Lopez e-mail in which Lopez solicited money in the form of checks
on behalf of Unite DTLA, and Unite DTLA’s legal representative- former-City Attorney
Rocky Delgadillo88. Each of the persons named above have a direct connection to the City of
Los Angeles and/or Mayor Eric Garcetti.

b) It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the second “Vote No” e-mails were sent from a
second “front organization” called DTLA United. Upon numerous online searches by the
SRNC-FC and it’s “tech support” team, there have been ZERO connections and/or
identifications of the existence of any entities called “DTLA United”- before, during or after
the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. Which thereby leads to the position of the
SRNC-FC that DTLA United was nothing more than an e-mail address which sent out
anti-Skid Row Neighborhood Council election propaganda to a voter database connected to
the DLANC Voter List previously mentioned in this very document.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the City Attorney’s office and the City of Los
Angeles could very easily obtain the required court subpoenas for the purpose of gathering
all pertinent account information on the individual(s) who opened each of these Mailchimp
accounts with the e-mail addresses- UniteDTLA@gmail.com and DTLAUnited@gmail.com
...Also, the City of Los Angeles could issue court subpoenas to Google, who owns the g-mail
internet company, for the purpose of gathering all pertinent account information regarding
the individual(s) who created the g-mail accounts for UniteDTLA@gmail.com and
DTLAUnited@gmail.com .

2. Evidence connecting Unite DTLA, Liner, LLC and DLA Piper

The below graphic proves DLA Piper LLP (self-described as “a global law firm”), who
merged with (took over) Liner, LLP on July 20, 201789,
https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/news/2017/10/dla-piper-completes-merger-with-liner-llp/

See Exhibit 21 pgs. 1-3 titled, “Rocky Delgadillo connection to Estela Lopez (2017)”.
88

See Exhibit 22 titled, “Press release from DLA Piper Newsroom announcing merger with Liner
89

LLP (July 20, 2017)”.

102

/
provided information in it’s own Lobbying Report Registration Form (Form 31) (please see
below) that it represented United Downtown LA LLC aka “Unite DTLA” as a client
beginning February 21, 2017 (Nearly two months prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election). In the bottom right-hand corner it clearly states it’s #1 project on behalf of said
client was “Neighborhood Council Formation”. The SRNC-FC firmly believes this can only
reference Unite DTLA’s anti-Skid Row Neighborhood Council election campaign. It MUST
also be noted that DLA Piper listed in the column titled “Agency to be lobbied on behalf of
the client” as “Any City Agency”.

103

/
It is the fim position of the SRNC-FC that the aforementioned description specifically meant
“ANY department within the City of Los Angeles that has anything to do with the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election”. It is the firm position of the SRNC-FC that “Any City Agency”
as described by DLA Piper includes, DONE, BONC, City Attorney, City Council and Mayor
Eric Garcetti. It is unfathomable for the SRNC-FC to believe that an entity who describes
itself as “a global law firm” would “lobby” City Hall against SRNC-FC’s efforts to create a
neighborhood advisory board comprised of community members in Skid Row (mostly poor
and homeless residents) who are merely attempting to improve the inhumane conditions
where they live. Clearly, the stakes were much higher to those who opposed the creation of a
SRNC than to those attempting to actually create it. The true reasons for such strong
opposition are still unknown to the SRNC-FC, but the evidence speaks for itself. Also, it is
the position of the SRNC-FC that “a global law firm” didn’t focus it’s powerful lobbying
efforts on non-decision makers in City Hall. Instead, it makes much more sense that such a
powerful and global entity would focus it’s lobbying efforts on the top decision-makers in
City Hall- including Mayor Eric Garcetti- because to influence his position automatically and
simultaneously influences any and all General Managers and Commissioners Garcetti
himself appointed.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that political campaign contributions and/or donations
serve as clear motivation for multiple City departments to “overlook” and/or “intentionally
dumb down” their sworn civic duties. In addition, many other monetary benefits to all

104

/
involved parties associated with the anti-Skid Row Neighborhood Council effort helped to
influence the City of Los Angeles. For example, a 2018 Los Angeles Business Journal article
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2018/jul/22/l-mayor-garcetti-lead-trade-mission-east-asia/
In which Mayor Eric Garcetti led a delegation of business and civic leaders to Asia for
international business and trade purposes. Paragraph three (3) states, “According to the
announcement, trade last year (2017) between Los Angeles and Japan was valued at $40
billion; South Korea at $25 billion; and Vietnam at $19.5 billion. Also, in 2017, Los Angeles
accounted for 27 percent of all U.S.-Hong Kong trade. (Emphasis added)

With these numbers providing a one-year glimpse into the massive amounts of trade,
business and commerce affecting Los Angeles, and specifically Downtown Los Angeles, it’s
clear to see how the threat of the creation of a Skid Row Neighborhood Council might raise
concerns of possible interference with much bigger plans. The article goes on to list some of
the “nearly 60” delegation members, which include prominent Downtown Los Angeles
leaders Central City Association (CCA) Chief Executive Jessica Lall and Partner in DLA
Piper/Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce Executive Board Member (now Chair) Jerry
Neuman.

Further, on June 22, 2016, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced on his very own “Eric Garcetti,
Mayor of LA” website, which is also endorsed by the City of Los Angeles, that he launched a
new manufacturing initiative
https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-launches-new-initiative-support-manufacturing-los-
angeles

The last line in Mayor Garcetti’s (above link) press release states, “Additional founding 
partners of MAKE IT IN LA include Ernst & Young, the LA Cleantech Incubator (LACI), 
and DLA Piper…”. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DLA Piper had DIRECT access to
Mayor Garcetti prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election so it’s quite feasible to
ascertain that when DLA Piper self-declared they lobbied “Any City agency” against the
SRNC-FC on behalf of their client Unite DTLA, their lobbying efforts included contacting
Mayor Eric Garcetti.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the existence of a Skid Row Neighborhood Council
may cause great concern to the future plans, concerns and/or priorities of both the City of Los
Angeles and the Downtown LA Business Sector. With the DLANC already on-board and in
line with the City of Los Angeles and the Downtown LA Business Sector, supporting the
“Downtown Revitalization”, there is great concern (voiced in numerous social media
conversations leading up to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election) that the existence of a
SRNC may not be in sync and/or may disrupt the flow Downtown LA is headed in. In

105

/
contrast, with homelessness skyrocketing beyond the City of Los Angeles’ capacity to
properly address it, a constant presence of trash, rats and disease and property owners and
homeless residents constantly at odds, it is the belief of the SRNC-FC that the creation of a
Skid Row Neighborhood Council would not only connect Skid Row directly to
City-provided services, but more importantly provide a platform in which property owners,
business owners and homeless persons alike would all sit at a decision-making table together
and speak directly to, and with, one another about how best to improve the conditions in Skid
Row for all of it’s stakeholders, of which, would all be in the best interest not only for the
City of Los Angeles, but also it’s citizens.

That said, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that a City-run election should be administered
without prejudice, nor bias for the self-serving purpose of achieving a “desired outcome”. It
remains the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles failed to remain neutral
and non-prejudicial and also failed to honor it’s own legal obligations as a governing body as
it specifically pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

The SRNC-FC strongly believes DLA Piper played a significant role in the City of Los
Angeles’ lapse of judgement.

3. Evidence connecting DLANC and Liner LLP

a) The SRNC-FC possesses evidence indicating the first “Vote No” e-mail with the DLANC
logo went out to multiple DLANC Board Members. Additional evidence confirms said
e-mail was sent from inside Liner LLP, and more specifically by Ann D’Amato of 3D
Networks Corp. We further explain in this document that Ms. D’Amato not only has a direct
connection to Liner LLP, but specifically to Rocky Delgadillo and Mayor Eric Garcetti.
These connections make an e-mail sent by DLANC Board Member Robert Newman on April
6th, 2017 (election day) to 5 other DLANC Board Members and Mr. Delgadillo appear as
90
collaboration .

b) Additionally, then-DLANC Board Member Estela Lopez solicited donations on behalf of

“United Downtown LA, LLC.” on the very same e-mail with multiple DLANC Board
Members listed, while also referring to the work former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo was
doing on behalf of Unite DTLA (while Delgadillo was a Partner at Liner LLP) representing
91
“YOU stakeholders” .

90
See Exhibit 21 pg. 2 titled, “Rocky Delgadillo connection to Estela Lopez (2017)”.
91
See Exhibit 21 pg. 2 titled, “Rocky Delgadillo connection to Estela Lopez (2017)”.

106

/
(NOTE): Evidence of Rocky Delgadillo hired as a Partner at Liner, LLP (see below link).
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2011/03/14/442251/216171/en/Liner-Grode-S
tein-Hires-Former-LA-City-Attorney-Rocky-Delgadillo.htm

4. Evidence connecting Liner LLP and the City of Los Angeles

Liner LLP was hired as outside defense counsel for the City of Los Angeles in a recently
92
settled Department of Water and Power (DWP) class action lawsuit . According to a letter
from the DWP to the City Council, in addition to the original allocation of $4,800,000, Liner
LLP requested and received another $1,622,200 “to finish the job”. To do this, they needed
93
the City Council to adopt an amendment to the contract .

94
Ironically, Liner LLP announced it would be merging with DLA Piper on July 20 2017 ,
only one day after the SRNC-FC filed it’s 1st Petition for Writ of Mandate in Superior Court
95
. Liner LLP’s announcement to fold and/or merge was also suspiciously less than two
months after receiving additional monies from the City of Los Angeles for over $1.6 million
dollars “to finish the job”.

5. Evidence connecting Liner LLP and DONE in 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election
The 1st “Vote No” email with the DLANC logo (sent from inside Liner LLP according to
MailChimp metadata) went out to DONE employee, Sevak Paramazian (Systems Manager),
on the very first day and in the very first batch of widespread distribution. Subsequent “Vote
96
No” emails were also delivered to Paramazian . Systems Management is the administration
of the information technology systems in an enterprise data center- in this case, DONE’s IT
system. This proves that DONE was in receipt of the very first “Vote No” e-mail at the very
same time the DLANC received it. Yet DONE failed to act in a manner consistent with
unbiased election oversight.

(NOTE): It should be noted that the SRNC-FC learned from it’s “tech support” team that if
Mr. Paramazian forwarded said “Vote No” e-mail to anyone else at DONE, the City of Los
Angeles or anywhere else, the limited IP address information gathered from a Mailchimp

92
See Exhibit 22a titled, “Agreement amendment between City of LA/DWP and Liner LLP, signed by
both (May 11, 2017)”.
93
See Exhibit 22b titled, “Letter about agreement amendment between City of LA/DWP and Liner
LLP, signed by the GM and General Counsel of the DWP (June 1, 2017)”. Also see Exhibit 22d titled,
“Los Angeles City Council File 17-0648 (LA/DWP/Liner LLP)”.
94
See Exhibit 22 titled, “Press release from DLA Piper Newsroom announcing merger with Liner
LLP (July 20, 2017)”.
95
See Exhibit 22c titled, “SRNC-FC v. City of Los Angeles (Petition filed July 19, 2017)”.
96
See Exhibit 3d titled, “Excel pages showing who was sent an email from “Unite DTLA”, file
labeled “UID 72169510_CID 73137_Sent To””.

107

/
subpoena would not include indications of whether the e-mail was forwarded, and if so, to
whom it was forwarded to.

* Explanation of an IP Address
Much of the critical evidence the SRNC-FC received from it’s Mailchimp subpoena involves
what is commonly known as an “IP address”. IP addresses are defined as a unique string of
numbers separated by periods that identify each computer using the Internet Protocol to
communicate over a network. An IP address, according to the “Computer Desktop
97
Encyclopedia” , is:

“Every desktop and laptop computer,

server, scanner, printer, modem, router,
smartphone, tablet and smart TV is
assigned an IP address, and every IP
packet traversing an IP network contains
a source IP address and a destination IP
address.”

Also, on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC) website, https://www.sec.gov/privacy.htm
in the third section titled “Information Collected and Stored
Automatically”, the 2nd bullet point states,

“Internet Protocol (IP) address. A

computer’s IP address establishes its
location on the Internet and allows
communications with other computers
to send it content and other
information.”

While the SRNC-FC was able to uncover significant information which was previously
unknown, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles had, and still has,
the means and capabilities of obtaining even more critical IP address information, as it
specifically pertains to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and even more specific-
finding out exactly who created and/or sent the “Vote No” e-mails. As previously mentioned
above, the MailChimp metadata obtained by the SRNC-FC shows Ann D’Amato, using a
computer inside Liner LLP (based on IP address info) is the electronic origin of the 1st “Vote
No” e-mail. Will the City of Los Angeles initiate an investigation to confirm what the
SRNC-FC knows to be true?...Or will a different “person of interest” present themselves?

97
https://www.computerlanguage.com/results.php?definition=ip+address

108

/
6. Evidence connecting Ann D’Amato and Liner LLP
a) Petitioners deem it quite revealing that Ann D’Amato’s voter registration card for the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election shows she wrote “Liner” before crossing it out to write
98
“3D Networks” . Her voter registration card also shows a home address in Rancho Palos
Verdes.

b) In metadata Petitioners obtained from a Mailchimp subpoena, there is proof that one of
the IP addresses that Ms. D’Amato used to open her “Vote No” email was listed as belonging
99
to Liner LLP.

c) Information obtained via a MailChimp subpoena also identifies the name “Wendy”
(possibly “Wendy Angel”) with an e-mail address at 3D Networks (which is owned by and
was founded by Ann D’Amato), is also listed as having opened her email at the same Liner
LLP IP address as Ann D’Amato. In other words, Ms. D’Amato and “Wendy” used the very
same computer inside Liner LLP.

Liner LLP’s IP address where 1st “Vote No” e-mail was opened
(info from MailChimp subpoena)
IP Date Email Address Name
Address
104.180.90.65 3/31/2017 ann@3dnetworkscorp.com Ann D’Amato
104.180.90.65 3/31/2017 wendy@3dnetworkscorp.com Wendy Angel
104.180.90.65 3/31/2017 wendy@3dnetworkscorp.com Wendy Angel

d) Ms. D’Amato attended the first Skid Row Town Hall meeting DONE convened regarding
the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election at the James Wood Community Center in Skid Row,
along with Liner LLP employee Matthew Nichols. Petitioners have video of Ms. D’Amato
sitting immediately next to Mr. Nichols and also have video of her publicly asking a question
100
at this meeting, specifically in regards to online voting .

e) E-mails Petitioners obtained from Mathematics Professor Adrian Riskin, who also blogs
about Los Angeles’ Business Improvement Districts (BID’s) using documents he obtains
through California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests, not only prove Ms. D’Amato
communicated with various Downtown business executives, while CC’ing Liner LLP’s

98
See Exhibit 23 titled, “Ann D’Amato’s SRNC Subdivision election ballot (April 4, 2017)”.
99
Since shut down as was already shown supra.
100
See Exhibit 23b titled, “Video of Ann D’Amato at the SRNC-FC Townhall meeting at the James
Wood Community Center (Feb. 15, 2017). Ms. D’Amato speaks at the 34:14 mark.

109

/
 101
Rocky Delgadillo and Afshin Beyzaee , but also that D’Amato sent said emails from the
very same IP address that the first “Vote No” emails were sent from, (IP Address--
104.180.90.65), which at that time was listed as being directly connected to Liner LLP.

7. Evidence connecting Ann D’Amato, DLANC and “Rancho Palos Verdes”

a) Ann D’Amato joined a meeting originally scheduled between General Jeff (Chair of
SRNC-FC) and Estela Lopez (a DLANC Board member at the time of this meeting) at Estela
Lopez’s Downtown Industrial District/CCEA BID office on February 21, 2017. The purpose
of this meeting was so the SRNC-FC could present it’s position as to why a SRNC is needed.
This meeting was convened at the request of Ms. Lopez, less than two months before the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

General Jeff did not know beforehand that Ms. D’Amato would be in attendance at this
meeting. As a professional courtesy, prior to the meeting, Jeff extended to Ms. Lopez the
option of her inviting anyone she deemed interested, to also attend said meeting. Only the
three above-mentioned persons attended this meeting.

b) Petitioners have proof from a Mailchimp subpoena of the specific IP addresses in which
Ms. D’Amato used to open her “Vote No” emails102 - 1) at Liner LLP, and 2) at a Rancho
Palos Verdes location which Petitioners suggest is her Rancho Palos Verdes home. (While
research using Google Maps identifies the “Rancho Palos Verdes” location to be a house and
not an office building, the SRNC-FC chose not to add this layer of evidence out of respect to
the party of interest)

(NOTE): It should be noted that the below graphic shows multiple items of interest; 1) The
IP address for the computer of interest in this section; 2) The name “Jill Powell” (who has yet
to be identified); and 3) Identifies the specific location of the computer in question as “Liner
LLP” and also identifies an address for Liner LLP as “633 west 5th street, Floor 32”.
(The basic “633 west 5th street” is the address of the iconic US Bank Tower in Downtown
Los Angeles https://www.usbanktower.com/)

101
See Exhibit 23a titled, “Ann D’Amato business communication with accompanying EML files to
prove her IP address (2017)”. Also see (file.org/extension/eml) for “What is an EML file?”
102
See Excel page for “ann@3dnetworkscorp.com_54757_opens_REDACTED” in Exhibit 3 titled,
“Excel pages showing who opened their email from “Unite DTLA”, and how many times they
opened it, file labeled “72169510_Unite DTLA” (from MailChimp subpoena, provided in full upon
request)”.

110

/
Petitioners have also obtained proof from a Mailchimp subpoena that then-DLANC Board
member Estela Lopez opened her “Vote No” email103 at the identical Rancho Palos Verdes
location as Ms. D’Amato. This IP address confirmation links these two women firmly
together!
(please see below)

103
See Excel page for “elopez@centralcityeast.org_54757_opens_REDACTED” in Exhibit 3 titled,
“Excel pages showing who opened their email from “Unite DTLA”, and how many times they
opened it, file labeled “72169510_Unite DTLA” (from MailChimp subpoena, provided in full upon
request)”.

111

/
 Rancho Palos Verdes IP address where “Vote No” e-mail was opened
(info from MailChimp subpoena)
IP Date Email Address Name
Address
72.203.73.151 4/2/2017 ann@3dnetworkscorp.com Ann D’Amato
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez
72.203.73.151 4/20/2017 elopez@centralcityeast.org Estela Lopez

Further proof that Ann D’Amato claims an address in Rancho Palos Verdes can be found on a
City of Los Angeles “Lobbyist Quarterly Report” (Form 33) from 2014. (please see below)
(http://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/disclosure/CEC33/CEC33_17312.pdf?201607737214122737)

112

/
The below link is to a LA City Ethics Commission “Lobbying Firm Registration Form”
(Form 31) document from 2018, in which Ms. D’Amato again claims an address in “Rancho
Palos Verdes”. (please see below)
(https://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/disclosure/CEC31/CEC31_7202.pdf#view=Fit?B97237C0-D89
D-671A-5C38802D43A47E4D)

(It should be noted that while the specific address has been redacted, all other City-required
information remains identical to the aforementioned and/or previously provided links and/or
graphic(s) pertaining to this specified subject matter).

113

/
** The 1st “Vote No” email with the DLANC logo had “embedded” information inside of it
which Petitioners obtained from Mailchimp as the result of an SRNC-FC-issued subpoena104.
The IP address which created the email was, “104.180.90.65”- the very same IP address
that Ms. D’Amato (and Wendy Angel of 3D Networks) opened their emails from- which
also link directly to Liner LLP. (Emphasis added)
(*Note, because Liner LLP has since merged with DLA Piper, the specific
aforementioned IP address has been reassigned.)

(Below is a screenshot from Mailchimp showing the IP address from the computer of the
very 1st “Vote No” email).

104
See pg. 2 of Exhibit 24 titled, “UID 72169510_BSI SCREENSHOTS (“Unite DTLA” IP address
from MailChimp subpoena)

114

/
(NOTE #1): Due to MailChimp’s in-house Privacy Policies which include privacy
protections for it’s account holders, while the SRNC-FC was able to easily identify the IP
Address, MailChimp redacted the actual name of the person connected to creating the 1st
“Vote No” e-mail. Subsequently, the SRNC-FC and it’s “tech support” team were able to
gather additional significant evidence by way of external IP Address analyzation.

In the below link, is an article about IP addresses. The 2nd-paragraph states, “There is one 
big exception to being found. If you were to participate in illegal activities then a law 
enforcement agency can get a court order and submit it to your ISP to request your 
information. This is one way you can be found.”
https://www.whatismyip.com/can-someone-find-me-with-my-ip-address/

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that if the City of Los Angeles truly wanted to know who
initiated illegal activities related to illegal use of the City’s intellectual property in an
election, it clearly had/has a significant amount of means and time with which to enact a

115

/
formal investigation. It is extremely troubling and traumatic to the SRNC-FC and the Skid
Row community for multiple City departments to publicly declare and officially state that
“there will be no further investigation” early on in the election challenge phase of an
important and contentious election.

It is thereby the position of the SRNC-FC that based on the simplistic blunders and
unrealistic statements made by DONE and it’s GM Grayce Liu, the City of Los Angeles was
already fully aware of who created and sent each of the “Vote No” e-mails because said
e-mails were in sync with the City’s “desired outcome” against the creation of the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council.

(NOTE #2): It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles had ample
means and opportunities to initiate it’s due diligence, in the form of initiating a formal
investigation, at various stages throughout this entire process through the City Attorney by
contacting MailChimp, either directly or via court order, for the purpose of obtaining much
more pertinent information than what the grass-roots, resident-led SRNC-FC effort with
extremely limited resources was able to obtain.

But while all roads lead to the conclusion that Ms. D’Amato (and her staff) created the 1st
“Vote No” email, she would not have had direct access to the 2016 DLANC Voter List
database. For that, Ms. Lopez had means because of her position on the DLANC Board and
her close association with DLANC President Patti Berman as well. Already established are
the subsequent “Vote No” emails from “DTLA United” which went out to a slightly different
database105- one with nine (9) additional names only of DID/CCEA BID board members
added to the end of it (DID/CCEA being the entity in which Ms. Lopez serves as it’s
Executive Director).

All evidence points to Ms. D’Amato being both the creator and sender of the 1st “Vote No”
email out of then-Liner LLP’s Downtown LA offices, and with the assistance of DLANC
Board members Estela Lopez, Patti Berman and others, along with legal representation by
former-City Attorney and D’Amato close ally Rocky Delgadillo, the “Unite DTLA”
anti-Skid Row Neighborhood Council campaign was launched.

105
See Exhibit 3b titled, “Excel page showing who was sent an email from “DTLA United”, file
labeled “UID 72189346_CID 77677_Sent To” (from MailChimp subpoena, provided in full upon
request)”.

116

/
 (image taken from michaelkohlhaas.org, see Exhibit 3e)

The above image was taken from a blog and identifies VERY TELLING detailed information
regarding the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. The following is the SRNC-FC’s timeline
of events as it pertains to said above image;

1) This DLANC Voter List was created on April 29, 2016...It is the position of the
SRNC-FC that said “Voter List” was created for, and prior to, the 2016 DLANC
neighborhood council election in May, 2016.
2) This DLANC Voter List was created by “BShears” on April 29, 2019....It is the
position of the SRNC-FC that “BShears” is none other than Brett Shears- a City of
Los Angeles employee who is currently identified on DONE’s website
https://empowerla.org/department/ as a Neighborhood Empowerment Advocate.

117

/
 3) Official CPRA subpoenas filed by SRNC-FC prove this DLANC Voter List remained
dormant for nearly one year after DLANC’s 2016 neighborhood council election in
May, 2016. (Emphasis added)
4) The above image proves DLANC President Patti Berman “modified” said Voter List
on March 25, 2017 - twelve (12) days prior to the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election on April 6, 2017 and one (1) day after online voting was approved for said
Subdivision election by City Council on March 24, 2017.

It MUST also be noted that when DLANC President Patti Berman “modified” this
DLANC Voter List, the first “Vote No” e-mail was electronically detected six (6) days
later.
5) Official CPRA subpoenas filed by SRNC-FC prove DONE staff member Ann-Marie
Holman “cleaned up’ said DLANC Voter List on March 28, 2017.
6) On March 31, 2017, DLANC Board members Patti Berman, Estela Lopez and 9 other
DLANC Board members, along with Ann D’Amato each opened the 1st “Vote No”
e-mail on the very day MailChimp metadata suggests said “Vote No’ e-mail was first
distributed. This very document previously proved that 133 e-mail addresses from the
DLANC Voter List received the 1st “Vote No” e-mail.
7) During the May 3, 2017 ECRP, DLANC President Patti Berman testified that she
“didn’t pay any attention to it”, yet SRNC-FC was able to uncover (via MailChimp
subpoenas) that Ms. Berman opened the 1st “Vote No” e-mail 65 times overall,
including 12 times prior to the April 6, 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election and 61
times before the very May 3, 2017 ECRP hearing when she uttered the above
statement of not paying any attention to it. This is clear proof that DLANC lied
numerous times before, during and after the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.
(Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DLANC President Patti Berman, then-DLANC Board
member Estela Lopez and “City Hall insider” Ann D’Amato, and others, all played
significant roles in creating the “Vote No” against the SRNC-FC e-mails, utilized the 2016
DLANC Voter List in a variety of ways and coordinated anti-SRNC-FC sentiments/actions
on behalf of Unite DTLA and DTLA United- two front organizations created for the sole
purpose of lobbying against SRNC-FC’s efforts to create the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council.

In conclusion of this section, Ms. D’Amato, a long-time “City Hall insider” who has been
personally enriched through multiple and ongoing lucrative contracts for her undefined
“services” by the City of Los Angeles, having direct connections to, and close relationships
with, former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, current-Mayor Eric Garcetti, and other City

118

/
officials, played a pivotal role in the undermining of the creation of the SRNC, BUT it was
the City of Los Angeles that used her as an ally on an “as needed basis” and has kept Ms.
D’Amato “on payroll” for instances such as this.

For instance, the following link is to Council File 01-2073

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=01-2
073 in which LA City Council approved to expand an existing contract for $125K in which
D’Amato would provide “unique assistance” to the Office of the City Attorney. It MUST be
noted that the extremely vague specifics of the actual job description make this services
contract highly questionable...especially after learning D’Amato does not possess a law
degree.

It MUST also be noted that then-Councilmember Eric Garcetti voted to approve said above
City Council motion. Years later, then-City Council President Eric Garcetti would initiate his
own council motion (06-1511) to further extend the ongoing “services” contract with
D’Amato (see below listing #15) in which the City of Los Angeles paid an additional $175K
to D’Amato for “unknown services”.

8. Evidence connecting Ann D’Amato and Former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo

The following are two in-depth news articles which provide invaluable insight into the
long-existing relationship between Ann D’Amato, former- City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo
and “City Hall”;

1) LA Times article which identifies D’Amato as “a trusted (City Hall) insider”;

-Los Angeles Times-

Delgadillo Names D'Amato to Key Post

June 13, 2001|
JEAN MERL and TINA DAUNT | TIMES STAFF WRITERS
Deputy Mayor Rocky Delgadillo on Tuesday chose Ann D'Amato, a colleague from the
mayor's office, to be his chief of staff when he becomes Los Angeles' new city attorney next
month.
In D'Amato, who is Mayor Richard Riordan's deputy for legislative affairs, Delgadillo will
have a trusted insider whose City Hall experience stretches back more than two decades.
She worked as a deputy to then-Councilman John Gibson of San Pedro and his successor,
former Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores. D'Amato is Riordan's liaison to the City Council

119

/
and represents him as the city makes the transition to the administration of the new mayor,
City Atty. James K. Hahn.
Delgadillo's choice raised some eyebrows at City Hall because D'Amato is not an
attorney. But a spokeswoman said Delgadillo plans to name an attorney soon to head the
office's legal operations. Delgadillo, who earned his law degree at Columbia and worked six
years for the prominent L.A. firm O'Melveny & Myers, has headed Riordan's economic
development efforts.
Also on Tuesday, Councilman-elect Eric Garcetti said he is hiring his father's former top
political deputy as his own chief of staff.
Garcetti, 30, said he chose Richard Llewellyn--who worked as special counsel to former Dist.
Atty. Gil Garcetti--because he has know-how, lives in the 13th Council District and shares
the councilman-elect's agenda.
Llewellyn served as the elder Garcetti's liaison to the county supervisors and performed
political duties during Garcetti's 1996 campaign. The younger Garcetti said he did not
consult his father about this appointment.
Eric Garcetti beat former Councilman Mike Woo earlier this month to succeed Jackie
Goldberg, who was elected to the state Assembly last year. The council voted Tuesday to
allow Garcetti to serve out the remaining two weeks of Goldberg's unexpired term before
starting his term July 1, and he will be sworn in Thursday.
Delgadillo, who defeated Councilman Mike Feuer, will take office July 1.
(Emphasis added)
_______________________________________________________________________

2) The following link http://www.metnews.com/articles/dama0614.htm is to a Metropolitan

News Company article (published in 2001) in which D’Amato is described as “a City Hall
veteran of nearly 30 years”.

9. Evidence connecting former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to Mayor Eric Garcetti

While there are numerous ways to connect both former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo and
Mayor Eric Garcetti, the SRNC-FC chose to highlight one particular connection- Rich
Llewellyn because Llewellyn worked for Mayor Garcetti’s father- former LA County District
Attorney Gil Garcetti and also former City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo prior to working for
Mayor Garcetti multiple times. Further, the above news article states that Garcetti himself
described Llewellyn as someone who “shares the (then) councilman-elect’s agenda”.
(Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo (working for
Liner LLP and/or DLA Piper) used his “City Hall connections” to contact “Any City

120

/
Agency” for the purpose of lobbying against the SRNC-FC. Mr. Llewellyn would be another
close ally as an option for Mr. Delgadillo, besides contacting Mayor Garcetti directly, for the
purpose of either passing along information, using an additional “non-invested” voice, or
both, to better influence Mayor Garcetti to instruct his City employees to achieve a “desired
outcome”.

MAYOR GARCETTI ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENTS 

 
JULY 3, 2013 
 
Mayor Eric Garcetti today announced the appointment of former Councilmember 
Jan Perry as Interim General Manager of the Economic Development Department, 
Doane Liu as Deputy Mayor of City Services, and Rich Llewellyn as Counsel to the 
Mayor. 
 
Rich Llewellyn was most recently Chief of Staff to Councilmember Paul Koretz. He 
was Eric Garcetti’s first Council Chief of Staff and was Special Counsel to District 
Attorney Gil Garcetti. He was also Chief Deputy City Attorney under Rocky 
Delgadillo and served as Senior Deputy to L.A. County Supervisor Ed Edleman. He 
will continue as Transition Director and as Counsel will provide legal advice and 
serve as a senior advisor to the Mayor on a host of issues. (Emphasis added)

10. Evidence connecting Councilmember Jose Huizar, DLANC, Liner LLP and Unite
DTLA
An email the SRNC-FC obtained (via CPRA subpoenas) from Estela Lopez (DLANC) to
Joanne Kumamoto (of the Little Tokyo Business Association) proves former-City Attorney
Rocky Delgadillo (Liner LLP) met with City Councilmember Jose Huizar on behalf of Unite
DTLA and property owners opposed to the formation of the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council, which included then-DLANC Board member Ms. Lopez as a lead coordinator for
Unite DTLA, who was in the loop of most all communications between each of these entities
106
and/or individuals .

See Exhibit 25 titled, “Rocky Delgadillo met with Jose Huizar re SRNC Subdivision election
106

(March 16, 2017)”.

121

/
 11. Evidence connecting former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, Liner LLP, Unite
DTLA, DLANC, LA City Council, City Attorney Mike Feuer (Office of City Attorney)
and City Planner Vince Bertoni (Department of City Planning)
The below graphic was taken from City of LA Ethics Commission "Lobbying Firm Quarterly
Report" Form 34 for Liner, LLP for the calendar quarter ending on June 30, 2017 (Page 17 of
18) a time in which former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo worked for Liner, LLP
representing "United Downtown” who opposed the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council, of which the SRNC-FC makes the following points;

1) “United Downtown” aka Unite DTLA is listed as having the exact same physical
address as Liner LLP- “633 west 5th street, Suite 3200”. (Emphasis added)
2) The phone number provided by Liner LLP for Unite DTLA is exactly the same as
the long-standing main office number for Downtown Industrial District BID/CCEA-
213.228.8484, whose Executive Director was/is then-DLANC Board member Estela
Lopez. (Emphasis added)
(See below links to DID BID/CCEA website and/or screenshot of DID BID/CCEA
“Contact Info” taken from their website, to compare the phone numbers)
http://industrialdistrictla.com/contact
Or see-

122

/
 (The above screenshot was taken from the following blog)
http://michaelkohlhaas.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017_07_31_screenshot_
of_ccea_contact_info.png
3) “United Downtown” paid Liner LLP over $45K (over $45 thousand dollars) to lobby
on it’s behalf against the SRNC-FC and it’s efforts to create the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council.
4) While there is a non-profit organization named Skid Row Housing Trust (SRHT), and
while SRHT did in fact provide the SRNC-FC with a letter of support for the creation
of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council, there is no such entity as “Skidrow Housing
Trust Neighborhood Council” as listed on the document in question. The SRNC-FC is
unable to ascertain whether this mistake was made in error or had malicious intent.
5) Liner LLP identifies the “Office of the City Attorney” as whom they lobbied on
behalf of United Downtown against the SRNC-FC.
6) Liner LLP identifies the (Los Angeles) “City Council” as whom they lobbied on
behalf of United Downtown against the SRNC-FC. It should be noted that both
Downtown LA and Skid Row are both represented by City Councilmember Jose
Huizar.
7) Liner LLP identifies the (Department of) “City Planning” as whom they lobbied on
behalf of United Downtown against the SRNC-FC.

123

/
*(NOTE): It MUST be noted that in light of this shocking information, the SRNC-FC deems
the City Attorney’s office as an involved party and therefore SHOULD NOT be considered
as “non-involved counsel” in this very legal matter as it continues to represent the City of
Los Angeles. The SRNC-FC hereby requests that “outside counsel” be ordered to represent
the City of Los Angeles if this matter, in fact, goes to trial. It is also the position of the
SRNC-FC that City Attorney Mike Feuer was already aware of this conflict of interest
(which involves money and in the same matter of lobbying, also involves his office) and
should have recused himself and/or his office from ever representing the City of Los Angeles
in this matter to begin with. Further, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that Mayor Garcetti,
City Attorney Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Council (15 members, led in this matter by Jose
Huizar) and others in the City of Los Angeles, each have significant financial interests in this
very matter.

Further, the SRNC-FC contends that there are too many “coincidences” that the SRNC-FC
deems highly unusual, illegal and improper within the City of Los Angeles’ collective effort
in providing oversight in it’s alleged fair and impartial governance of the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election.

12. Evidence connecting DONE, City Attorney Mike Feuer and City Attorney’s office
The Subdivision Ordinance,
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-1681_ORD_184526_9-29-16.pdf of which the
legal language was finalized on September 26, 2016, was created and signed off on
(approved) by City Attorney Mike Feuer. City Attorney Feuer should be able to easily
determine what his original intent of the Subdivision language is. In the Los Angeles
Administrative Code, Article III, Section 22.819(b) it states, “The Department shall conduct
an election within the boundaries stated in the subdivision petition”. It is the position of the
SRNC-FC that “within the boundaries” specifically speaks to “in-person” voting. The
SRNC-FC further believes that within the boundaries also applies to in-person voting at
pop-up polls. There is no official documentation which shows the City Attorney provided
clarification of this contentious point. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that DONE
contacted the City Attorney and/or City Attorney’s office to gain said clarification prior to
commencement of the first-ever Subdivision election in the history of the City of Los
Angeles. It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that if DONE, City Attorney Feuer and the
City of Los Angeles all agreed to the same interpretation, then 1) It confirms that each of
these entities were acting in concert, and 2) With the above proof of the City Attorney’s
office being lobbied by DLA Piper on behalf of “United Downtown” against the SRNC-FC,
it is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City Attorney’s position could also be
compromised at any point of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election process against the

124

/
SRNC-FC, which includes the official interpretation of what “within the boundaries” means
as it specifically pertains to pop-up polls and “in-person” voting.

(NOTE #1): It MUST be noted that on September 28, 2016, even Mayor Eric Garcetti
himself signed off on the Subdivision ordinance
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-1681_MISC_9-29-16.pdf ,
thus subjecting Mayor Garcetti to the same “elements of compromise” as so many others
within the City of Los Angeles at the hands of lobbying by former-City Attorney Rocky
Delgadillo, Ann D’Amato, Liner LLP and DLA Piper.

(NOTE #2): Further, it MUST also be noted that said Subdivision ordinance
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2012/12-1681_MISC_9-29-16.pdf was signed off on by
THREE (3) City of Los Angeles entities- Los Angeles City Council on September 27, 2016,
City Attorney (date unconfirmed) and Mayor Eric Garcetti on September 28, 2016. Said
ordinance was also accepted by the City Clerk on September 27, 2016.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that it is hard to believe that DONE acted alone in it’s
“unique” interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance when so many other City officials
signed off on it initially and of which also included the lobbying of a self-proclaimed “global
law firm” with high-level connections throughout City Hall and Downtown LA, which
included a self-reported amount of more than $45K dollars exchanging hands related to this
specific matter.

Also of note, SRNC-FC Chair General Jeff has led this effort on behalf of SRNC-FC since
it’s inception in June, 2014. The SRNC-FC was very actively involved in the City’s public
process to create and approve the Subdivision Ordinance. The approval of the Subdivision
Ordinance is the only way a Skid Row Neighborhood Council could be created. Therefore, as
the SRNC-FC was extremely active in it’s efforts to ensure the Subdivision Ordinance would
be approved, at the very same instance, the City of Los Angeles was also fully aware of the
SRNC-FC’s intentions of creating the Skid Row Neighborhood Council and thus, had many
years to prepare and plan to achieve it’s “desired outcome”. After the Subdivision Ordinance
was approved by both Mayor Garcetti and City Council, the SRNC-FC was one of only two
communities to have it’s Subdivision application approved...And subsequently, this entire
“anti-SRNC” process was initiated and enacted- years in the making!

13. Evidence connecting City Council President Herb Wesson and City Council
Committee
City Council President Herb Wesson was Chair of Rules, Elections, Intergovernmental
Affairs and Neighborhoods Committee which initially vetted and later approved online

125

/
voting for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election....During their committee meeting on
March 22, 2017,
https://archive.org/details/20170322RulesAndElectionsCommitteeSpecialMeetingOnOnline
Voting Wesson was present and leading the meeting when Downtown property owner
Charlie Woo stated (7:13) "...I want to (this election should) include as many people as
possible....We need to make it easier for people to participate...The key to the success of the
future of neighborhood councils is to include everybody...". It is the position of the
SRNC-FC that Mr. Woo’s comments include the disenfranchised voters in Skid Row.
(Emphasis added)

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that with such an important election hanging in the
balance, Committee Chair/City Council President Wesson failed to do more to ensure and
protect the inclusion of poor Skid Row residents (including impoverished homeless persons),
the majority of which are African American in Skid Row, the same nationality as Wesson
who is also of African descent. The SRNC-FC strongly believes that Wesson is fully aware
of the demographic makeup of the Skid Row community and also it’s limitations regarding
access to electronic devices with which to cast online votes from. That said, no additional
accommodations were made and/or discussed during City Council committee meetings nor
during City Council meetings in which online voting for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election was an agenda item on any and all City Council meeting agendas.

Also during the aforementioned March 22nd meeting, Doug Fitzsimmons, President of South
Robertson Neighborhood Council, spoke during public comment (14:35) and voiced his
Board's concerns regarding pop-up-polling saying, "It is an issue that needs to be explored in
great detail before we continue using that as a system".

Multiple public comments were made during said meeting in which people from many
different backgrounds expressed concerns, either with the issues related to online voting
and/or the need to include all stakeholders, which automatically includes those deprived of
adequate resources in Skid Row. Yet and still, rather than move to fulfill these valid requests,
the City of Los Angeles was hellbent on achieving it’s “desired outcome” against the
SRNC-FC.

14. Evidence connecting City Councilmember Jose Huizar, DLANC, the Downtown
Business Sector and LA Mayor Eric Garcetti
A) The below link is to a blog regarding a Downtown Los Angeles political candidate’s
campaign contributions during their 2013 campaign.
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2013/04/can-you-spare-some-clarts-change-for.html

126

/
In the 2nd paragraph, the reporter compares the candidate’s low financial contributions to the
anticipated failed conquest of what was once deemed a successful campaign. The “Delijani
Clan’s” low financial contributions are used as a measuring stick.

“But by far, the biggest fundraising crash and burn,...

Plus, to add salt to the fiscal wound, only one member of the Delijani Clan
has donated so far in the runoff.”

Needless to say, the reporter was proved correct regarding the outcome of the candidate’s
campaign, which strongly confirms the power and influence the Delijani family has when it
comes to business and politics in Downtown LA.

B) The following chart was taken from a spreadsheet compiled by a member of the
SRNC-FC “tech support” team, which was originally posted by the Los Angeles City Ethics
Commision on it’s website.

It depicts a list of monetary donations made by influential Downtown LA property owners

and real estate investors collectively and commonly known as “the Delijani family” (of
which includes longtime-sitting DLANC Board member Michael Delijani, who is also
President of Delson Investment Company)
___________________________________________________________________

Page 88
12/11/2006 Ashraf Delijani Huizar 500
6/22/2010 Caroline Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Caroline Delijani Huizar 500
6/22/2010 Ezatollah Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Ezatollah Delijani Huizar 500
11/7/2005 Ezatollah Delijani Huizar 500
6/22/2010 Fred Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Fred Delijani Huizar 500
11/13/2015 Michael Delijani Huizar 700
6/26/2015 Michael Delijani Huizar 700
3/30/2015 Michael Delijani Garcetti 1400
10/21/2013 Michael Delijani Huizar 700
4/6/2013 Michael Delijani Garcetti 1300

Page 89
6/27/2012 MICHAEL DELIJANI GARCETT 300
12/27/2011 MICHAEL DELIJANI GARCETT 1000
6/22/2010 Michael Delijani Huizar 500

127

/
12/11/2006 Michael Delijani Huizar 500
11/7/2005 Michael Delijani Huizar 500
12/10/2012 Michael M. Delijani Huizar 1000
11/27/2012 Michael M. Delijani Huizar 500
4/12/2012 Michael M. Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Rahmatollah Delijani Huizar 500
1/20/2017 Ramin Delijani Huizar 700
6/26/2015 Ramin Delijani Huizar 700
6/24/2015 Ramin Delijani Garcetti 1400
5/21/2014 Ramin Delijani Garcetti 1300
10/21/2013 Ramin Delijani Huizar 700
12/10/2012 Ramin Delijani Huizar 500
5/29/2012 Ramin Delijani Huizar 500
6/25/2010 Ramin Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Ramin Delijani Huizar 500
11/7/2005 Ramin Delijani Huizar 500
11/13/2015 Shahram Delijani Huizar 700
6/26/2015 Shahram Delijani Huizar 700
6/23/2015 Shahram Delijani Garcetti 1400
10/21/2013 Shahram Delijani Huizar 700
4/6/2013 Shahram Delijani Garcetti 1300
11/13/2012 Shahram Delijani Huizar 1000
11/13/2012 Shahram Delijani Huizar 500
6/28/2012 SHAHRAM DELIJANI GARCETT 300
4/11/2012 Shahram Delijani Huizar 500
12/27/2011 SHAHRAM DELIJANI GARCETT 1000
6/25/2010 Shahram Delijani Huizar 500
12/11/2006 Shahram Delijani Huizar 500
11/7/2005 Shahram Delijani Huizar 500
(Emphasis added)
___________________________________________________________________________

The SRNC-FC concludes the totals of the above list are as follows- 45 individual donations
were made from 2005-2015 for a total of $31K (thirty-one thousand dollars).

*(NOTE): It MUST be noted that the above list of donations made to both City
Councilmember Jose Huizar and Mayor Eric Garcetti from the Delijani family include one
single donation made on January 20, 2017- the latest previous donation was June 26, 2015,
nearly two years prior. The January 20, 2017 donation was made nine days after DONE
officially accepted the SRNC-FC’s Subdivision application107 and notified the DLANC of
said acceptance. Almost immediately, multiple DLANC Board members (including Michael

See Exhibit 41 titled,

107

“Skid-Row-Neighborhood-Council-Subdivision-Application-Acceptance-Letter (Jan. 11, 2017)”.

128

/
Delijani)108 and other Downtown Business Sector members contacted Councilmember Huizar
to request a meeting in order to specifically discuss the SRNC-FC Subdivision effort. Also
included in those discussions was then-DLANC Board member Estela Lopez who was one of
the lead coordinators of the Unite DTLA effort against the SRNC-FC.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that each member of the aforementioned group which
contacted Councilmember Huizar regarding SRNC-FC’s Subdivision application were also
opposed to the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council.

The following link is to the LA City Ethics Commission’s “Public Data Portal-
https://ethics.lacity.org/data/campaigns/contributions#dt - and by selecting “campaign
contributions” in the left column, then selecting “all” in the center column, then inputting
“Delijani” as the last name in the right column and selecting the yellow search button
towards the bottom of said portal, what then appears is a specific lists of all reported
donations made by anyone with the uncommon last name Delijani and/or is connected to the
Delson Investment Company (a real estate business owned and controlled by the Delijani
family). Since 1998, the total amount of campaign contributions the Delijani family has made
to numerous political candidates in Los Angeles is $330K (three hundred thirty thousand
dollars) (per the LA City Ethics Commission’s website).

Said list includes “campaign contributions” made to the following City Hall officials
previously-mentioned in this very matter: Seven (7) made to then-City Attorney/candidate
Rocky Delgadillo totalling six thousand dollars ($6,000); Eleven (11) made to City
Councilmember Herb Wesson, Jr. totalling six thousand three hundred dollars ($6,300); Forty
(40) made to City Councilmember Jose Huizar totaling twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) (and an additional 5 donations totaling four thousand dollars ($4,000) to Richelle
Huizar’s short-lived campaign for her husband’s City Council seat; And also thirteen (13) to
Mayor Eric Garcetti totaling fourteen thousand seven hundred dollars ($14,700).

(NOTE): Of significant importance is the fact that on January 20, 2017 (nine days after
DONE approved the SRNC-FC Subdivision application109), two donations were made from
persons with the last name of Delijani and both self-identified as Beverly Hills investors for
Delson Investments Company. Each of the donations were to City Councilmember Jose
Huizar. This information also serves as confirmation that multiple donations were made from
the Delijani family during the time DLANC Board member Michael Delijani and others were

108
See Exhibit 42 titled, “Mayra Alvarez communication with Blair Besten about the SRNC
formation process (January 2017)”.
109
See Exhibit 41 titled,
“Skid-Row-Neighborhood-Council-Subdivision-Application-Acceptance-Letter (Jan. 11, 2017)”.

129

/
in the process of meeting with Councilmember Huizar specifically to discuss the SRNC-FC.
It has already been established in this very document that members of that group were
connected to Unite DTLA which was against the SRNC-FC.

To establish how far back the current Delijani family leadership has been involved in
prominent positions of power and influence, the following is a link to then-Mayor-elect
Antonio Villaraigosa’s transition team in 2005 -
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2005/05/villaraigosa_tr.php

Of the various media reports regarding said transition team, the Daily Breeze was
acknowledged for providing the “deepest” list;

(excerpt from an LAObserved article)

“The Daily Breeze gave the deepest and most varied list: 

• Richard Riordan 

• Earvin "Magic" Johnson 

• John Mack 

• David Fleming 

• Danny Bakewell, Los Angeles Sentinel 

• Monica Lozano, La Opini�n 

• Alfre Woodard 

• Christopher Pak, formerly on Board of Airport Commissioners 

• Cecilia Moreno, Wilmington activist  

• Michael Delijani, president of Delson Investment Co. 

• Andrew Cherng, Panda Restaurant Group 

• Dick Ziman, major property owner

(Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the Delijani family has a lot of longstanding power
and influence with current city officials inside City Hall. Their collective donations carried a

130

/
lot of weight and influence in what outwardly appeared to be their collective position against
the SRNC-FC.

15. Evidence connecting Ann D’Amato and Mayor Eric Garcetti

In 2006, then-City Councilmember Eric Garcetti (now Mayor) himself moved a City Council
motion for Ann D’Amato- for a six-figure salary ($175K) contract extension to assist the
City Attorney’s office for unspecified “services” (Council File: 06-1511).

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=06-1
511

131

/
132

/
A previous contract between the City of Los Angeles and Ann D’Amato in 2001 stated that
Ms. D’Amato was to be hired by Rocky Delgadillo for ten (10) months at ($125K) to provide
“unique assistance” to the City Attorney's office regarding their "relations" with other City
offices, in spite of not being an attorney herself. Then-Chief Administration Officer William
Fujioka was strongly opposed to hiring her because there was no job description, (see p.26 of
the Council File) but she was hired anyway. The City renewed Ms. D’Amato’s contract year
after year and the amount rose each year. It is the interpretation of the SRNC-FC that all
relative documentation shows that the City of Los Angeles paid Ms. D’Amato more than a
million dollars between 2001 and 2006 for what has officially been described by the City of
Los Angeles as “unspecified services”.

133

/
134

/
 (From left to right: unknown woman, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, former-LA City Attorney Rocky
Delgadillo, 3D Networks President and Founder/former-Chief Advisor to then-LA City Attorney
Delgadillo Ann D’Amato, unknown woman) (Photo taken from internet)

https://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=01-2
073

It is the firm position of the SRNC-FC that Ann D’Amato had the means and opportunity to
directly contact Mayor Garcetti, City Attorney Mike Feuer, City Council President Herb
Wesson and other City Councilmembers (including Jose Huizar), DONE GM Grayce Liu,
DLANC President Patti Berman, former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, then-DLANC
Board member Estela Lopez and many others involved in this conspiracy against the
SRNC-FC.

16. Evidence of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s interest in Neighborhood Councils

The following is an example of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s keen interest in neighborhood councils
as it correlates to development projects in communities across Los Angeles. The below link
is to a November 2, 2016 article of an interview in which Mayor Garcetti spoke with a
reporter from KCRW’s Design and Architecture (DnA) staff. Mayor Garcetti’s answer
suggests his understanding of the importance the roles neighborhood councils play regarding
development projects in a community, which would also include Skid Row, which thereby

135

/
continues the previously established motive of real estate developers being against the
creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council.

https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/design-and-architecture/mayor-garcetti-talks-about-bal
lot-box-planning-the-lucas-museum-and-gehrys-sunset-project

“DnA: And yet Mayor, you know the elected officials, including yourself as
well as developers, have been criticized by some of the slow growthers —
those behind the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative or in Santa Monica behind
LV — for making backroom deals, with campaign contributions going to
elected officials, giving developers the advantage, leaving voters out of what
they see as a compromised, borderline corrupt process. We’ve probably all
read the article about the developer Samuel Leung, who funneled campaign
donations to various acquaintances. Your name was there along with several
council people. How do you fend off that perception that elected officials are
compromised in the development process?

Mayor Garcetti: Well I’ve always had a very easy way of looking at
developments: If it’s supported by people in the neighborhood, the
neighborhood council and the residents, I’m inclined to support it. Not always,
sometimes I’ll disagree and actually be opposed to some things that
certain people are pushing but I think that’s the good test then and that’s
what I did as a neighborhood council leader in Council District 13, and when I
was a councilmember…”. (Emphasis added)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that Mayor Eric Garcetti is fully aware of what the creation
of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council would mean to the Skid Row community. It is also
the position of the SRNC-FC that Mayor Garcetti is fully aware of the opposition to the
creation of the SRNC. It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that those who oppose the
SRNC-FC, while also having money, power and influence, also have direct access to Mayor
Garcetti.

136

/
17. Evidence connecting Real Estate Developer Tom Gilmore and Mayor Eric Garcetti
a) In July, 2015, Mayor Eric Garcetti appointed real estate developer Tom Gilmore as
Chairman of the Sister Cities of Los Angeles.

https://larchmontledgerla.com/article/garcetti-appoints-tom-gilmore-as-chair-of-sister-cities-
of-los-angeles/
(excerpt from the Larchmont Ledger)

“...said Garcetti. “I welcome Tom Gilmore to his new role as Chairman, a

fitting continuation of the civic leadership he has already demonstrated as
President of Sister Cities of Los Angeles. I can think of no one better to
shape and strengthen the organization in its next iteration and look forward
to working with him to promote our City through these relationships.”
(Emphasis added)

(Photo of Mayor Eric Garcetti (middle) kneeling next to Tom Gilmore (right) while posing
with others...Photo was taken from the internet)

137

/
b) In November, 2016, Sister Cities of Los Angeles officially re-launched and held a
Relaunch Gala which was led by both Mayor Eric Garcetti and Sister Cities of Los Angeles
Chairman Tom Gilmore.

https://www.facebook.com/SisterCitiesofLA/posts/we-are-excited-to-share-that-sister-cities-
of-los-angeles-has-been-officially-re/
(excerpt from Sister Cities of Los Angeles Facebook page)

“The Relaunch Gala took place on November 9th with Mayor Eric Garcetti
and Chairman Tom Gilmore.”

c) In July, 2017, Tom Gilmore was selected by Mayor Eric Garcetti to join Garcetti as part of
a Los Angeles delegation which traveled to Berlin, Germany to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of L.A. and Berlin being sister cities.

https://www.ccala.org/news/2017/07/06/event/l.a.-and-berlin-celebrate-50-years-as-sister-citi
es/

d) It MUST be noted that real estate developer Tom Gilmore is also Chair of the Central City
Association (CCA) Board of Directors: https://www.ccala.org/main/about-us/

The CCA describes itself, as follows (taken from “About Us” section on CCA’s website);

“Central City Association (CCA) is the premier advocacy organization in the

Los Angeles region and leading visionary on the future of Downtown Los
Angeles (DTLA). Since its founding in 1924, we have produced meaningful
results for our members and the Downtown community. We maximize our
effectiveness by leading, convening and collaborating with stakeholders to
form strong partnerships and coalitions. CCA represents the interests of 400
businesses, trade associations and nonprofits from a broad range of
industries that collectively employ more than 350,000 people in the county.”

138

/
It is easy to describe the CCA as very influential leaders of the Downtown Business Sector.
In it’s “What We Do” section on it’s website, CCA states,

“Through advocacy, influence and engagement, CCA enhances Downtown

Los Angeles’ (DTLA’s) vibrancy and increases investment in the region. We
will build on DTLA’s success and expand our role as the region’s thought
leader on issues that impact urban areas. CCA will maximize its
effectiveness by leading, convening and collaborating with business,
government, elected and appointed leaders, residents, educational
institutions, nonprofits and other organizations and individuals to form strong
partnerships and coalitions.” (Emphasis added)

Also, in the CCA’s “Lobbyist Employer Registration Form” Form 31-LE (Amendment 4),
dated January 1, 2017, and filed April 28, 2017,
http://michaelkohlhaas.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC31-LE_5978_ccala_lobbyist
_employer_registration_2017_fourth_amendment_april_28.pdf
CCA identified four (4) “individual lobbyists” - President and CEO Jessica Lall,
Vice-President of Public Policy Marie Rumsey, Joanne Danganan and John Howland. Said
form states CCA lobbied for 81 projects during this reporting period. #71 on the list is “Skid
Row Neighborhood Council”. The SRNC-FC confirms that at no point in time did the CCA
lobby on it’s behalf, therefore it is safe to state the CCA lobbied against the SRNC-FC’s
effort to create the Skid Row Neighborhood Council. The CCA also states (the very same as
DLA Piper) they lobbied “Any City Agency”. Said form was e-signed by CCA President and
CEO Jessica Lall. (Emphasis added)

In addition, CCA’s “Lobbyist Employer Quarterly Report” Form 35, for the calendar quarter
ending March 31, 2017, and filed May 1, 2017,
http://michaelkohlhaas.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC35_25012_ccala_first_quart
er_lobbying_report_2017.pdf
CCA identifies that over $53K (53 thousand dollars) exchanged hands and also identifies
four (4) “registered lobbyists” (the very same individuals mentioned above) - President and
CEO Jessica Lall, Vice-President of Public Policy Marie Rumsey, Joanne Danganan and John
Howland. This form states CCA lobbied for 53 projects during the reporting period. #46 on
the list is “Skid Row Neighborhood Council”. The SRNC-FC confirms that at no point in
time did the CCA lobby on it’s behalf, therefore it is safe to state the CCA, again, lobbied
against the SRNC-FC’s efforts to create the Skid Row Neighborhood Council. At this time it

139

/
is unclear as to how much of the more than $53K (if any) was specifically in regards to the
SRNC-FC effort. (Emphasis added)

e) In December, 2017, Tom Gilmore donated $5K dollars to a then-new political action
committee (PAC) formed by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti

https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/02/02/80386/garcetti-s-pac-raises-120-000-in-first-few-wee
ks/

f) In June, 2019, real estate developer Tom Gilmore was mentioned in an article about an art
museum he founded called “The Main”.
https://news.artnet.com/market/what-happened-at-the-main

But the Main’s community-oriented ethos seemed at odds with its internal
culture. A few days into operation, Gilmore asked the staff to refrain from
making political statements of any kind. In early 2017, he also sent out an
email to all his staff, asking them to vote against the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council, a group formed by residents that would oppose the
more business-friendly Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, where
Gilmore has long been influential. (In 2005, the developer told scholar
Bernard E. Harcourt, “On some level the existence of poor and potentially
homeless people or borderline people is not antithetical to a healthy urban
environment.”)

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that Tom Gilmore’s “Vote No” against the Skid Row
Neighborhood Council e-mail mentioned in the above article is the very same as the “Vote
No” e-mails involving the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, Unite DTLA
and/or DTLA United, which was a strong point of contention during the Election Challenge
Review Panel (in which the DLANC willingly chose to participate in) and/or is extremely
similar in nature.

NOTE: To be clear, it should also be noted that the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood
Council would not be to “oppose the more business-friendly Downtown Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council (DLANC)” as the above article suggests. It is the position of the
SRNC-FC that the creation of the SRNC would be to create an advisory board that would

140

/
primarily focus on improving the conditions in Skid Row- which is such a daunting task that
there’s no time to waste “opposing” anything that the DLANC may be doing. Again, there
are currently 99 neighborhood councils across Los Angeles. Each of them focus on their own
communities, the same as a SRNC would do.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that Tom Gilmore had the means, ample opportunity
and direct access to Mayor Eric Garcetti to “lobby against” the SRNC-FC. Mayor Garcetti
subsequently had the power and means to “direct” City personnel to “act accordingly” which
best describes the previously mentioned blatant incompetence and failed leadership by
multiple City departments- Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, City Attorney’s
office, City Clerk’s office, Board of Neighborhood Commissioners and the City Council.

The widespread collusion against poor and impoverished Skid Row residents struggling to
survive in inhumane conditions is too profound to be overlooked. Over the years, many
homeless residents and homeless activists have argued that the extremely unhealthy living
environment in Skid Row has existed for decades- by design and intentional guidance from
City leaders who continue the Skid Row Containment Zone Policy..

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that it can also be argued that by allowing the extremely
inhumane conditions to continue to fester in Skid Row, the City of Los Angeles, and it’s
allies, are using the environment as a weapon against homelessness, in which annual death
counts of homeless people in Skid Row total in the hundreds110. This means in each decade in
recent years, over one thousand (1K) homeless people in Skid Row die without any City
resources used to prolong their lives, as a matter of public safety. The collective position of
Downtown real estate developers, the Downtown Business Sector, local property owners and
the aforementioned CCA would stand to benefit greatly once the homeless population was
significantly reduced to miniscule numbers...Unfortunately, though, homeless numbers are
instead rapidly increasing yet City resources are either inadequately distributed or
mismanaged altogether, which thereby means the need for viable solutions has greatened.
The creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council would be of great benefit to the
Downtown Business Sector and all nearby communities, including the City of Los Angeles,
which currently oversees 99 other neighborhood councils across the city.

See Exhibit 73 titled, “Anna Gorman and Harriet Blair Rowan, The Homeless Are Dying In Record
110

Numbers On The Streets Of L.A., Kaiser Health News (April 24, 2019)”

141

/
18. Evidence of City Ethics Commission’s 2017 “Top Ten Highest Paid Lobbyists” 3Q
Lobbying Report - which includes Liner, LLP representing United Downtown LA LLC
The following link https://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/lobbying/QRSummaries/2017-Q3.pdf is a City
Ethics Commission report of the 2017 3Q Top Ten Highest Paid Lobbyists, in which on Page
4 Liner, LLP is identified as the #1 highest paid lobbyist firm with $1,782,135 in payments
(Based on client payments reported as received in 2017 3Q). The alphabetical listing includes
United Downtown LA LLC as a client.

142

/
19. Mayor Garcetti and City of Los Angeles’ unusual cruelty towards Homeless Persons
The following link
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/eric-garcetti-homeless-encampment/
is to a shocking July, 2019 Los Angeles Magazine news article111 titled, “After Mayor
Garcetti’s PR Visit with a Homeless Woman, the City Threw
Out Her Stuff” in which Mayor Eric Garcetti first, photo-op’s with a homeless woman
at her encampment, then soon thereafter instructs his staff to coordinate City workers to
completely remove all of the woman’s personal belongings, including “her ID, phone,
medicine, food and clothes- as well as the outreach worker contact info she had just
received from the Mayor’s team. ‘Everything I own is gone again’, she said.”

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that Mayor Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles often
portray themselves as kind and caring political leaders, while actually initiating cruel and
unusual acts against homeless persons, encampments and poor communities across the City,
including Skid Row. Historically, the inhumane conditions in Skid Row are well
documented. The City of Los Angeles’ neglect and/or incompetence to adequately provide
the necessary oversight over the aforementioned demographics is blatantly inconsistent. It
can be argued that the City’s failure is by design. The SRNC-FC truly believes that as
billions and billions of dollars are allocated to Skid Row and homelessness from local, State
and Federal funding pots, the City of Los Angeles subsequently controls said multi-billion
dollar funding allocations on behalf of the government. And as long as Skid Row and
homelessness continues to exist in deplorable conditions, the “Poverty Pimps” will continue
to reap the benefits. In this instance, the Poverty Pimps are the City of Los Angeles and it’s
allies.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles undermined the creation
of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council because even in an advisory role, the SRNC will
create new solutions, along with innovative policies and initiatives that would greatly
improve the Skid Row community, which would greatly threaten the need for the
multi-billion dollar funding allocations to continue to be issued to the City of Los Angeles.

Each and every time Mayor Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles discard a homeless person’s
personal property, it prolongs each individual’s bout with homelessness from which Mayor

111
See Exhibit 45 titled, “Zoie Matthew, After Mayor Garcetti’s PR Visit with a Homeless Woman, the
City Threw Out Her Stuff, lamag.com (July 31, 2019)”.

143

/
Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles continue to not only qualify for billions of dollars, but
also continue to ask for more!

The SRNC-FC and other stakeholders in the Skid Row community wish to no longer live in
squalor and have chosen to take a pro-active position to combat homelessness, extreme
poverty and other negative realities that tens of thousands of individuals and families face on
a daily basis. The actions of Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles show
differently.

20. Evidence of Mayor Eric Garcetti orchestrating financial payments which equate to
Conflict-of-Interest violations, Failure to Disclose Financial Income and more.
The following link
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-29/lapd-commissioner-sandra-figueroa-vil
la-didnt-disclose-ties-to-city-contracts-or-predpol is to a scathing September, 2019 LA Times
article in which an LAPD Police Commissioner, who was appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti
in 2013, was exposed for failing to disclose $7.6 million dollars of constant funding since
2014 which was received from the City’s Gang Reduction and Youth Development (GRYD)
program, which operates directly under Mayor Garcetti’s office. Said “constant funding” was
given to LAPD Police Commissioner Sandra Figueroa-Villa’s non-profit organization (of
which she is the Executive Director, “earning” a six-figure salary), according to City records.

In said news article, Figueroa-Villa is attributed with making several pointed statements
aimed directly at Mayor Eric Garcetti;

1) “...Garcetti asked her to accept the money…”

2) “She urged Garcetti to accept responsibility...”
3) “The mayor needs to raise $7,500 so I can return that money,
period” she said.” 
4) “They threw me under the bus by not discussing it. They left it
to my responsibility.”
5) “I’m not going to cover for anybody,” she said. “I told the
mayor’s office, ‘I’m telling the truth.’”  
(Emphasis added) 

Another person quoted in the same above news article states, “This undermines the
public trust in government.” (Emphasis added) 
 

144

/
It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the above news article gives tremendous insight to the
conniving ways of Mayor Eric Garcetti which haven’t been widely displayed
publicly…..before now.

It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that the very same way Mayor Garcetti orchestrated
the political moves (which included millions of dollars in City contracts over several years)
described in the above news article is exactly how a Mayor controls his/her appointees- such
as the General Manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment- which oversaw
the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, or the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners
(which provides oversight of DONE) who were each appointed by Mayor Garcetti, or the
City Clerk (which oversees the City’s general elections) who was also appointed by Mayor
Garcetti.

There is now great concern amongst the SRNC-FC membership that if successful in this very
litigation process, would a newly-created Skid Row Neighborhood Council be subjected to
the vindictive wrath of Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City of Los Angeles?

145

/
146

/
The above flow chart and following link http://cao.lacity.org/misc/LAorgchart.pdf are City
of Los Angeles-released documentation which prove the direct connection of Mayor Eric
Garcetti to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE)- of which the Mayor
appoints the General Manager of DONE, who oversees the entire neighborhood council
system. Mayor Garcetti also appointed each member of the Board of Neighborhood
Commissioners (BONC) which acts as a governing body over DONE and also certain
functions of the neighborhood council system itself.

147

/
Mayor Garcetti has the power to replace any of his appointees at any given time. The
SRNC-FC wonders aloud what would happen to any of Mayor Garcetti’s appointees if they
failed to follow his directives?

“At one critical point, Garcetti invoked a mayoral prerogative — which he has used
only twice — to reduce the number of council votes required to approve the
(Seabreeze) project. In several cases, elected officials received the money as they
were poised to make key decisions about the development, known as Sea Breeze.”
(Excerpt from LA Times’ “Seabreeze” article)

SEABREEZE development project- Huizar, Garcetti and others- donations from

developer- LA Times- 2016
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-seabreeze/

The below link is to an LA Times investigative report which uncovered over 100 “campaign
donations” related to the Sea Breeze development project of which over thirty-five (35)
“campaign contributions” were made directly to, 1) City Councilmember Jose Huizar, and 2)
Committee for a Safer Los Angeles (An independent expenditure committee set up to
support then-LA City Councilmember Eric Garcetti’s 2013 bid for mayor).
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-seabreeze-donations-interactive/

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that “campaign donations” strongly influence the decisions
made in City Hall. It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that “campaign donations” played a
significant role in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

To conclude, it is the strong and unwavering position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los
Angeles had the motive, means, wherewithal and the collaborative effort to conspire against
the SRNC-FC and deny the creation of the Skid Row Neighborhood Council.
 
It is also the position of the SRNC-FC that both DONE and the City Attorney’s office had
ample opportunities to obtain a court order(s) for the purpose of exercising the necessary and
warranted “due diligence” as a matter of performing as thorough an investigation possible
regarding the “Vote No” emails, yet failed to actually do so.

The ECRP’s recommendations stated “Within 60 days , there shall be an independent

investigation to determine if any laws were broken…”

In light of information gathered by the SRNC-FC after the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election and also the May 3rd Election Challenge Review Panel, the SRNC-FC is confident

148

/
in it’s position that neither DONE nor the City Attorney’s office attempted to conduct
anything which could be considered a “thorough” investigation, per the ECRP
recommendations. While the City Attorney’s office (who was present during the ECRP on
May 3rd, 2017 in the form of their office’s top Deputy City Attorney who oversees all
neighborhood council activities and, thus, oversees all determinations of legal merit for
neighborhood council-related issues for the City of Los Angeles) completely ignored it’s
responsibility to investigate the matter by way of obtaining a court order, which is a common
truth-seeking tactic amongst government agencies across America. It can thereby be argued
that either the City Attorney’s office already had prior knowledge of exactly who was
responsible for creating and distributing the “Vote No” emails and knew all roads led back to
City Hall prompting the avoidance of an already justified need for a thorough investigation
OR the City Attorney’s office was completely and blatantly negligent in the required
performance of it’s duties.

Either way, the City of Los Angeles is culpable for such undeniably Gross Negligent acts,
among many others..

To continue, DONE’s “extremely brief” internal investigation consisted of a half-hearted,

token gesture under the guise of making an initial inquiry yet failing to undergo any form of
“follow-up”- thorough or otherwise- which thereby and automatically also suggests DONE
also had prior knowledge of exactly who was responsible for creating and distributing the
“Vote No” emails and also knew all roads led back to City Hall.

With DONE being tasked with complete oversight of all neighborhood council-related
matters, including day-to-day operations, Board meetings, elections, etc. per the Los Angeles
City Charter- Section 900, titled “Purpose” which states, “...make government more
responsive to local needs...”, establishes that it is clearly the City’s responsibility to
administer just and above-board operations and render fair and impartial rulings112.
(Emphasis added)

Further, with the City Charter stating the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC)
“shall be responsible for policy setting and policy oversight”113, even BONC was silent
throughout the entire SRNC-FC Subdivision election process. It MUST be noted that at the
time of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, each of the seven BONC commissioners
were directly appointed by Mayor Garcetti. The SRNC-FC communicated with BONC on

112
See Exhibit 39 titled, “Los Angeles City Charter - Article IX”.
113
See Exhibit 39, Section 902 (b) titled, “Los Angeles City Charter - Article IX”.

149

/
numerous occasions requesting it’s involvement, to no avail114. Also, with numerous
questions regarding the Subdivision Ordinance pending, it should also be noted that BONC
signed off on the language, but failed to provide any clarification regarding the lack of a
single word or phrase specifically regarding pop-up polls. Therefore, the SRNC-FC strongly
contends that the complacency of BONC’s commissioners, as it specifically pertains to the
2017 SRNC Subdivision election, was either influenced by Mayor Garcetti himself, seeing
that the Mayor has the power to appoint/replace any commissioner at any time he chooses, or
it was BONC’s own unwillingness to fulfill it’s obligations and/or duties as an oversight
commission out of fear of removal from their positions as Commissioners, or sheer
incompetence. (Emphasis added)

Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 904, subsection (d) states, “The Regulations
(Neighborhood Council governing document called ‘The Plan for a Citywide System of
Neighborhood Councils’) must ensure that all areas of the City are given an equal
opportunity to form neighborhood councils.”115 It is the position of the SRNC-FC that the
Skid Row community was denied it’s right to “an equal opportunity”. (Emphasis added)

Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 904, subsection (e) states, “The Regulations (‘The
Plan’) shall establish the procedure and criteria for recognition or certification of
neighborhood councils.” Clearly, based on this sole explanation which thereby
automatically and simultaneously designates DONE’s duties, DONE acted well beyond the
scope of “the regulations” by enacting rules which were not previously established in the
City Charter, nor any other governing document as it specifically pertains to the decision to
expand physical “in-person” voting beyond the proposed boundaries as clearly stated in the
Subdivision Ordinance.

It is the position of the SRNC-FC that there is a distinctive difference between “the
parameters” of an election and “the procedures” of an election. “The parameters” of the 2017
Skid Row Subdivision election are defined in the Subdivision Ordinance and are subjected to
approval by the Mayor and City Council. “The procedures” of the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election are the individual tasks and collective assignments which complete the
election process. It is clear to the SRNC-FC that DONE illegally overstepped it’s boundaries
regarding DONE’s decision to add pop-up polls beyond the proposed boundaries which were
established in the SRNC-FC’s Subdivision application, as a requirement per the Subdivision
Ordinance.

114
See Exhibit 74 titled “Judy Price, Communication to BONC/DONE Re: March 20, 2017 BONC
Meeting (March 28, 2017)” and also see Exhibit 75 titled, “Partial Transcript of May 25, 2017 BONC
Meeting (General Jeff and Katherine McNenny testimony)”.
115
See Exhibit 39 titled, “Los Angeles City Charter - Article IX”.

150

/
 In addition, DONE created numerous unwritten election rules, omitted obligatory oversight
responsibilities, and flat out lied when speaking before an Election Challenge Review Panel.
It can be argued that DONE invoked it’s own self-initiated governing stipulations which are
not permissible anywhere within the legal language of the City Charter which speaks with
specificity to DONE’s creation, duties and responsibilities. It can thereby be argued that
DONE is in violation of Abuse of Power, Dereliction of Duty and Improper Governance
(over an election). (Emphasis added)

Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 905, titled “Implementation of the Plan”, states,
“The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment shall complete development of the Plan
and present the Plan and all necessary Regulations for a system of neighborhood councils to
the Council and Mayor within one year of the establishment of the department and
commission. The Council shall consider the Regulations, and within six months after
presentation of the Plan to Council may adopt ordinances to implement the Regulations as
proposed, or as modified by the Council consistent with the requirements of the Plan set
forth in Section 904. If implementing ordinances are not adopted within this time period,
the Regulations shall become effective, and to the extent not inconsistent with law shall be
binding upon all City departments and offices.” It is the position of the SRNC-FC that “all
City departments and offices” stipulates the existence of a burden of responsibility and
equally stipulates said burden of responsibility be firmly placed upon the City of Los Angeles
and “all” of it’s departments and offices. Thereby implying that if ANY City department or
office is not in compliance with “the Regulations”, the entire City of Los Angeles is
responsible and/or at fault. (Emphasis added)

** Of significant importance, in the above paragraph, 2nd-sentence, Line 6, it states, “The

Council...may adopt ordinances to implement the Regulations as proposed, or as modified
by the Council…”. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that this sentence clearly identifies the
City Council as the only governing body that can “modify” the ordinances related to the Plan
and/or the Regulations. There is NO language which authorizes DONE nor any other City
department as qualified to have the capabilities to “modify” any of the legal language of the
Subdivision Ordinance. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that DONE is unauthorized
to implement pop-up polls beyond the proposed boundaries as stated in the Subdivision
Ordinance. (Emphasis added)

(NOTE): It should be noted that the creation of both the Neighborhood Council system and
DONE went into effect in 1999 (per the City Charter), which means the above stipulation
went into effect in year 2000. Again, numerous acts by DONE are not written (approved) in
any City legal language anywhere and, along with further negligence by DONE, the City

151

/
Attorney’s office and BONC, the aforementioned actions (or lack thereof) are illegal,
unauthorized, immoral and/or in violation of election laws, which thereby renders the City of
Los Angeles fully responsible and fully culpable for any and all wrongdoings associated with
the City’s governance over the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 914, titled “Effect of Ordinances” states, “The
Council may adopt ordinances concerning neighborhood councils consistent with
requirements for the Plan set forth in Section 904 at any time, which ordinances shall
supersede any
inconsistent Regulations that have become effective pursuant to Section 905.” It MUST be
noted that there is no official legal language in the form of a motion, ordinance, City Charter
amendment nor any other governing document which indicates that pop-up polls
(“in-person” voting) outside of the proposed boundaries were ever approved by City Council
and/or the Mayor. Therefore, the Mayor, City Council and City Attorney’s office, acting on
behalf of the City of Los Angeles, are all in violation of it’s own governing powers,
governance and/or legal language as it specifically pertains to any and all motions,
ordinances, City Charter, etc. regulating the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. (Emphasis
added)

To add, it MUST be highlighted that the language in the above Section 914 which
specifically states, “ordinances shall supercede” confirms the SRNC-FC’s position in which
the neighborhood council Subdivision Ordinance supercedes any and all other language the
City of Los Angeles could possibly offer in dispute. Los Angeles Administrative Code,
Article III, Section 22.820 (b) titled “Neighborhood Council Subdivision” stipulates, “The
Department (DONE) shall conduct an election within the boundaries stated in the subdivision
petition…”. It is the position of the SRNC-FC that said ordinance can only be interpreted to
imply that a physical “in-person” election shall happen within the boundaries proposed
within the SRNC-FC’s Subdivision application. Additionally, any and all other types of
voting options MUST remain in alignment with said ordinance. Therefore, pop-up polls
equate to “in-person” voting and must also be regulated to only be allowed to exist within the
proposed boundaries within the SRNC-FC Subdivision application. All “in-person” votes
cast outside of the proposed boundaries in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election (both for
and against) must be deemed as non-eligible votes. The responsibility for the improper
interpretation which allowed “in-person” voting beyond said proposed boundaries must fall
squarely on DONE, BONC, LA City Council, LA City Attorney and the City of Los
Angeles.

152

/
In summation, it is the position of the SRNC-FC that the City of Los Angeles and it’s allies
all played key roles in undermining the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election. (Emphasis
added)

A well-respected City Hall insider, Ann D’Amato, who is also a former City of Los Angeles
employee in the Mayor’s office, attended multiple SRNC-FC meetings prior to the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election and created and distributed at least one of the “Vote No” e-mails
against the SRNC-FC. Said “insider” also had direct access to her long-time ally Mayor Eric
Garcetti as well as another close ally, former-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who at the
time of the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election worked for a lobbyist organization, Liner,
LLP, which lobbied on behalf of “United Downtown LA, LLC”- a “company” who registered
it’s name on March 3rd, 2017 in the State of Delaware via a registered agent named
“Delaware Incorporations and Registration Service, LLC” and who also paid Liner, LLP to
lobby multiple City departments on it’s behalf against the SRNC-FC. Mr. Delgadillo not only
met with City officials (his former counterparts inside City Hall), he also wrote and
submitted letters and provided public comment and identified himself on numerous occasions
as a representative of Unite DTLA whom he also self-identified as his clients.

The City of Los Angeles’ Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) failed on

numerous occasions to create and maintain a fair and unbiased election environment and also
failed to maintain adequate oversight and/or governance over the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election process. The Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (BONC) failed to provide fair
and unbiased oversight throughout the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election process and also
failed to initiate a thorough investigation into possible fraudulent activities associated with a
neighborhood council Subdivision election, as it specifically pertains to the Subdivision
Ordinance and whether pop-up polls outside the proposed boundaries were illegal or not.
These two City entities (DONE and BONC) are led by individuals (a total of eight (8)
persons) who were each appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti and thus are subjected to Mayor
Garcetti’s decisions, including removal of their appointments to these positions.

The City Attorney’s office failed to provide fair and unbiased (and necessary) legal oversight
throughout the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election process. It also failed to initiate and/or
strongly advise DONE to initiate a thorough investigation into possible fraudulent
election-related activities on behalf of the City of Los Angeles’ best interest. The Downtown
Los Angeles Neighborhood Council (DLANC) failed to fully disclose the involvement of it’s
Board members as it relates to possible fraudulent election-related activities and also failed to
properly notify the City of Los Angeles of wrongdoing by an “unknown entity” which
involved intellectual property belonging to the City of Los Angeles.

153

/
The City Council, with a main focus on Councilmember Jose Huizar who met with multiple
members of the DLANC soon after DONE officially approved the SRNC-FC’s Subdivision
application, failed to provide specific Subdivision election process language, informational
outreach, guidelines and/or assistance to potential voters struggling with intellectual
disabilities. City Council also failed to provide adequate oversight regarding the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election, specifically the online voting rules, regulations and processes.
Most importantly, City Council failed to provide protections and/or oversight for the voting
rights of all voters (including African Americans and African American males in a majority
African American community) for the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election.

It must be noted that several DLANC Board members were involved in anti-Skid Row
Neighborhood Council activities- including one Board member who is also a real estate
developer and property owner in Downtown LA and another Board member with close ties to
City Hall who played a vital role as a coordinator on behalf of United Downtown LA, LLC
and a “go-between” for Ann D’Amato. It must also be noted that the formerly-mentioned
DLANC Board member also had multiple family members make at least two donations to
Councilmember Jose Huizar nine days after DONE approved the SRNC-FC’s Subdivision
application. Also of note, Councilmember Jose Huizar is “termed out” and at the time of said
donation (January 20, 2017) had no active campaign which would warrant a donation,
thereby rendering said donation as “suspicious” and/or “questionable” in the collective eyes
of the SRNC-FC.

Former-City Attorney-turned-lobbyist Rocky Delgadillo, who has direct connections to

Mayor Eric Garcetti, Ann D’Amato and City Councilmember Jose Huizar, utilized his power,
influence and access to sway his City Hall allies to approve online voting which strongly
favored those opposing the SRNC-FC, including his client- United Downtown LA, LLC.
While at this time it is unclear as to the specific role(s) Mayor Eric Garcetti played in the
2017 Skid Row Subdivision election, the many coincidental and circumstantial instances
Garcetti’s influence had to greatly and/or subtly impact the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision
election are simply too significant to overlook. The circumstantial evidence exposing the
City of Los Angeles’ collective acts are overwhelming. The roles of Ann D’Amato, DLANC
Board members, City Councilmember Jose Huizar and DONE GM Grayce Liu are well
beyond circumstantial and, in fact, very provable which the SRNC-FC has displayed in this
very document with the ability to provide even more evidence during a trial.

It baffles the mind that not a single person working for the City of Los Angeles that was
directly involved in the 2017 Skid Row Subdivision election can produce valid
documentation that confirms the exact voter tallies (including online voting) which have been
officially requested by the SRNC-FC on numerous occasions, to no avail.

154

/
With a Subdivision Ordinance which clearly states an election is to be held “within the
proposed boundaries” but with the sudden implementation of online voting allowing voting
to be conducted outside of the SRNC-FC’s proposed boundaries, the 2017 Skid Row
Subdivision election was influenced heavily in favor of those who opposed the creation of
the Skid Row Neighborhood Council. The many oversight and governance failures by the
City of Los Angeles, combined with the many discriminations against the SRNC-FC and the
Skid Row community, all combine to reveal and/or highlight the liability, gross negligence,
gross misconduct, conspiracy and election fraud, squarely placed on the City of Los Angeles.

We, the SRNC-FC, are prepared to bring forth an “eye-opening” case against the City of Los
Angeles as we fight to improve the deplorable and inhumane conditions homeless residents,
businesses, non-profit organizations and other Skid Row stakeholders all struggle with on a
daily basis in Skid Row- commonly known as the homeless capitol of America- and on
behalf of the preservation of the American democratic process as well as the voting rights for
all American citizens, including those of us who are disabled.

The City of Los Angeles has proven by it’s collective actions pertaining to the 2017 Skid
Row Subdivision election to have abandoned it’s moral compass in which honesty and
integrity are main ingredients in elections in America. The SRNC-FC and Skid Row
community should not be punished nor suffer the consequences due to the City’s collective
lack of morality, justice, law and above all- lack of respect for the American democratic
process.

Matter-of-factly,

Skid Row Neighborhood Council- Formation Committee (SRNC-FC)

______________________________ _______________________________
“General” Jeff Page Katherine McNenny
SRNC-FC Chair SRNC-FC Member

______________________ ________________________
Date Date

155