Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

About the “Web” Unsolicited and Incorrect Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Publications Pertaining to Audrie Taylor Pott Sexual Assault as the Main Reason that Led to Her September 12th 2012 Suicide

About the “Web” Unsolicited and Incorrect Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Publications Pertaining to Audrie Taylor Pott Sexual Assault as the Main Reason that Led to Her September 12th 2012 Suicide

The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) regrets to inform members of the general public/representatives of the media (who may follow its work) that unknown others were very much eager to assert control over Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W written content pertaining to [1] the sexual assault Audrie Taylor Pott was victim of on (or around) September 04th 2012 in the State of California; [2] Audrie Taylor Pott September 10th 2012 attempted suicide, approximately 6 (six) days after the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) September 04th 2012; [3] Audrie Taylor Pott’s death on September 12th 2012, approximately 2 (two) days after her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; [4] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [5] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [6] the decision of the California government to recognize that “Senate Bill 838 is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of her were disseminated electronically;” [7] the decision of the California government to enact Audrie’s Law (also known as Senate Bill 838) on September 30th 2014, thereby recognizing (very possibly for the first time in California government history) sexual assault as a factor that has the potential to significantly increase the risk of suicide among girls/women; [8] the decision of the National Council on Disability (NCD) to recognize sexual assault as a factor that has the potential to increase the risk of suicide on (or around) January 30th 2018; [9] the application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in cases of suicides after a documented incident of sexual assault. Unfortunately, these eager and unknown others have gone on to intrusively insert themselves into the publications of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on his Internet Archive account with malice and without ever requesting for his prior approval. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was very much displeased upon learning that his written content on various digital platforms (pertaining to Audrie Taylor Pott sexual assault as the main reason that led to her suicide on September 12th 2012) were being filtered by Internet Search Engines (ISE), which include (but may not be limited to) AOL, Bing/MSN, and Yahoo!

On his official WordPress website, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W had created the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) tag for the first time in reference to the inconsistent legislative actions that were taken following the August 04th 2020 suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman and the September 12th 2012 suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott. It is the judgment of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the provisions of HIPAA enable current/former healthcare workers to express written objections to a specific course of medical treatment a patient is subjected to if the current/former healthcare worker believes the treatment to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist in nature. It is also the judgment of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the inconsistent legislative actions taken (in the State of California and the State of Missouri) following the suicides of Audrie Taylor Pott and Catherine Daisy Coleman merited discussions on the subject of “sexual assault as a factor increasing the risk of suicide” (particularly) among current/former healthcare workers. At the time Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W began to publish some of his written content on the inconsistent legislative actions taken by the governments of the State of California and the State of Missouri following the suicides of Audrie Taylor Pott (on September 12th 2012) and Catherine Daisy Coleman (on August 04th 2012); Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W had not signed any binding agreement that subjected his written content on the Internet Archive ( archive.org ) to evaluation, examination and unsolicited comments intended to “summarize” what the work is about. In other words, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has never agreed to take on the role of “Student” for his published works on the Internet Archive while the so-called “web” took on the role of “Professor.” Likewise, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has never agreed to take on the role of “Plaintiff” and/or “Defendant” for his published works on the WordPress while the so-called “web” took on the role of “Judge, Jury and Executioner.”

According to public records of the California state government, “Senate Bill 838 is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of her were disseminated electronically.” To the extent of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W’s knowledge, the first time the U.S government recognized on a state level the fact that sexual assault is a factor increasing the risk of suicide was through the enactment of Audrie’s Law. As you may be aware, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was in 2013 employed for the Fulton State Hospital (FSH): a Missouri state government agency, which is a component of the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH). Between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was subjected to an internal Missouri state government investigation following the self-injurious non-suicidal attempt of a patient/prisoner of the FSH now defunct Biggs Forensic Center (BFC) New Outlook Program (NOP). On (or around) November 21st 2013, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was “cleared” of that Missouri state investigation. Despite several efforts to obtain records relating to that Missouri state government investigation he was subjected to (between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013), Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has thus far been unable to obtain the documents he has asked for. Unfortunately, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has also been unable to obtain (thus far) records from Santa Clara County Counsel pertaining to [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689.

Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was very much concerned upon learning about the August 04th 2020 suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman because he was in Calendar Year 2013 a public employee of the MODMH (FSH). As a former employee of the MODMH (FSH), it remains unclear to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W whether or not his former employers (or their contractual partners) acknowledge as a matter of reality the fact that sexual assault is a factor increasing the risk of suicide. It also remains unclear to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W if the Personal Health Information (PHI) of Catherine Daisy Coleman reflected this risk. According to a January 30th 2018 report published by the National Council on Disability (NCD), [1] “affirmative and effective consent” is being taught to college/university students of the United States of America (U.S.A) during the course of their Freshmen year; [2] college/university students are informed about “healthy sexual relationships” during the course of their 1st year of post-secondary academic education; [3] twenty percent (20%) of women were sexually assaulted in a college/university setting by the time they had reached their Senior Year in Calendar Year 2005; [4] thirty two (32%) of women with a disability were sexually assaulted during Calendar Year 2014 and 2015 in a college/university setting; [5] sexual assault is a “deeply personal violation,” which leaves “physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” [6] sexual assault causes “long term physical, psychological and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicides and sleep disorders.”

Via email, the former employers of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W (i.e.: the MODMH) have refused to deny that Catherine Daisy Coleman was a patient of Missouri Girls Town following the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was subjected to in Nodaway County, Missouri (only confirming that Missouri Girls Town is indeed a contractual partner of the MODMH). The terms and conditions of the contractual agreements concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town recognize that Missouri Girls Town is a “time-limited placement resource for children requiring active coordinated and professional intervention in a highly structured environment by virtue of a demonstrated inability to function in any less restrictive setting. Children requiring residential treatment services exhibit a severe mental illness and/or persistent mental disorder as diagnosed according to the DSM-IV. These children may be unable to function consistently in an open, public school setting, may present a chronic runaway risk, and may present a history of showing rage, including physical aggression toward self and others.” It is the judgment of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the criminal charges filed by the State of Missouri on (or around) January 09th 2014 (which had been assigned Case No.: KIND - CR00011) failed to seriously take into consideration the damage that had been inflicted on the physical and mental well-being of Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) January 08th 2012.

Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W has used his advocacy skills to have his former employers as well as their contractual partners acknowledge the reality that sexual violence is a factor increasing the risk of suicide for the purpose of preventing in the future similar suicides such as the one committed by Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) August 04th 2020. Unfortunately, however, it remains unclear for Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W what the obligations of the MODMH pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) actually are. The MODMH were extremely vague to Sunshine requests submitted on the subject of [1] whether they have in the past disclosed the PHI of an individual in circumstances, where discrimination was at play (for the purpose of remedying the discrimination); [2] whether they were in the past required to disclose the PHI of an individual either to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or the courts (for the purpose of remedying the discrimination).

As a matter of principle, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W unequivocally condemns violence committed against women irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their religious affiliations and/or their disability status. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W also condemns malicious efforts designed to place women in circumstances encouraging the commission of suicide after a documented incident of sexual violence. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W takes full responsibility for this publication on the subject of “The ‘Web’ Unsolicited and Incorrect Filtering of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Written Publications Pertaining to Audrie Taylor Pott September 12th 2012 Suicide: Application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in Cases of Suicides After a Documented Incident of Sexual Assault.” Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W regrets the very bizarre frenzy that has surrounded his written publications pertaining to [1] the sexual assault Audrie Taylor Pott was victim of on (or around) September 04th 2012 in the State of California; [2] Audrie Taylor Pott September 10th 2012 attempted suicide, approximately 6 (six) days after the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) September 04th 2012; [3] Audrie Taylor Pott’s death on September 12th 2012, approximately 2 (two) days after her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; [4] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [5] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [6] the decision of the California government to recognize that “Senate Bill 838 is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of her were disseminated electronically;” [7] the decision of the California government to enact Audrie’s Law (also known as Senate Bill 838) on September 30th 2014, thereby recognizing (very possibly for the first time in California government history) sexual assault as a factor that has the potential to significantly increase the risk of suicide among girls/women; [8] the decision of the National Council on Disability (NCD) to recognize sexual assault as a factor that has the potential to significantly increase the risk of suicide on (or around) January 30th 2018; [9] the application of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in cases of suicides after a documented incident of sexual assault.

Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.

Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
Audio-Visual Media Analyst
Anti-Propaganda Journalist

Michael Ayele (W)

February 07, 2024
Tweet

More Decks by Michael Ayele (W)

Other Decks in Research

Transcript

  1. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review.
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 1/4
    Michael Ayele
    Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review.
    Michael Ayele Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:25 PM
    To: "Kerrigan, Hilary" , [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
    W (AACL) Date.: February 06th 2024
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal: Application for Further Review
    Hello,
    I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence from February 05th 2024, which I have since
    reviewed.
    Please be advised that I continue to have serious concerns with your processing of my PRA request because
    of your failure not to disclose responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful death complaint, which had been
    filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott that had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 by the Santa
    Clara County Superior Court; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which
    was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior
    Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689.
    According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concluded between the Superior Court of Santa
    Clara County and the County of Santa Clara, the “Court recognizes that [your] County is a public agency
    subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and must strictly
    comply with its requirements.” Furthermore, your “County recognizes that the Court is a judicial branch
    entity subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court and must strictly
    comply with its requirements.”
    [i]
    Additionally, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County can “provide
    access to Electronic Court Records to Authorized County Users in accordance with California Rules of
    Courts, rule 2.500 et seq., including rules 2.503, 2.507, and 2.540.”
    [ii]
    The terms and conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the
    County of Santa Clara stipulate that the Santa Clara County Counsel could request from the Superior Court
    of Santa Clara County documents filed during the processing of the case, which had been numbered: 1 – 13 –
    CV – 244689. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of
    Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara stipulate that members of the general public could
    “request access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form.” Additionally, the terms and

    View full-size slide

  2. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review.
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 2/4
    conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the County of
    Santa Clara stipulate that the “public’s right of access to judicial administrative records (…) must be broadly
    construed to further the public’s right of access.”
    Given the above mentioned facts, I request that you disclose responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful
    death complaint (as well as any amendments made to that complaint), which had been filed on behalf of
    Audrie Taylor Pott that had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 by the Santa Clara County
    Superior Court; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was
    concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court
    the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689.
    As a Black man who has in Calendar Year 2014 spent some time in the State of California, I hope your
    disclosure of the records I have requested will comply with your obligations under the CPRA as well as your
    obligations under California Rules of Courts, Rule 2.500 and Rule 10.500. I also hope that you will choose to
    bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara County as
    well as the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
    Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist
    Work Cited
    [i]
    Rule 10.500. Public access to judicial administrative records
    This rule clarifies and expands the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be
    broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.
    Judicial Council of California.: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&
    linkid=rule10_500
    [ii]
    Rule 2.500. Statement of Purpose
    The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public, parties, parties’ attorneys, legal organizations,
    court-appointed persons, and government entities with reasonable access to trial court records that are
    maintained in electronic form, while protecting privacy interests.
    Judicial Council of California.: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&
    linkid=rule2_500

    View full-size slide

  3. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review.
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 3/4
    On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:34 PM Kerrigan, Hilary wrote:
    Hello,
    I write in response to your records request dated January 30, 2024, requesting the following documents:
    [1] the documents Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has/had access to pertaining to Santa Clara County
    Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 prior/after the enactment of Audrie's Law (on or around) September
    30th, 2014.
    [2] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County
    District Attorney in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara
    County District Attorney
    [3] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County
    Superior Court in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara
    County Superior Court.
    With regards to request number 1, the County has identified no responsive documents. Case 1-13-CV-244689 is a civil
    action between private parties, and the County was not a party to the proceeding. Thus, there are no documents “…
    containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained…” by the
    County. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.530.)
    With regards to request number 2, please see a responsive document accessible at the following link: Board-Policy-
    3.70-Policy-Regarding-Public-Records-Requests.pdf (sccgov.org)
    With regards to request number 3, please see the responsive document attached to this email.
    This closes your request.
    Hilary Kerrigan | Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110
    Office: (408) 299-6925 Mobile: (669)250-8176
    [email protected] | counsel.sccgov.org
    Pronouns: she/her/hers
    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
    If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration,
    Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your
    system.
    2 attachments

    View full-size slide

  4. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review.
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 4/4
    W (AACL) Dec 14th 2023 Rec Req on Suicide After Sexual Assault.docx
    51K
    MOU county and court.pdf
    394K

    View full-size slide

  5. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 1/7
    Michael Ayele
    Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    Michael Ayele Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:32 PM
    To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
    [email protected], [email protected]
    Cc: Michael Ayele , Michael Ayele , "Michael Ayele (W)"

    W (AACL) Date.: January 30th 2024
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail : [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    Public Records Request - Application for Further Review
    Hello,
    This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W and I prefer to be referred to as such. I am writing
    this letter in response to your earlier correspondence, which I have since reviewed.
    As a Black man who has previously spent some time in the State of California in Calendar Year 2014, your earlier email
    (from January 30th 2024) gave me the impression that Santa Clara County played no role in the enactment of Audrie's
    Law. However, that is simply not true.
    While Santa Clara County was not a named "Defendant" in the judicial proceedings that took place in the Santa Clara
    County Superior Court, the Office of the District Attorney Jeff Rosen had issued a statement about Audrie's Law on (or
    around) June 24th 2014. That statement reads as follows: "I am thankful that the Assembly Public Safety Committee
    unanimously passed Senate Bill 838 ‘Audrie’s Law’ out of committee this morning. Audrie’s Law modernizes the
    consequences for those who sexually assault intoxicated, incapacitated, and handicapped victims. The Santa Clara
    County District Attorney’s Office stands alongside the Pott Family and State Sen. Jim Beall in their efforts to create
    positive and reasonable changes from the pain of Audrie’s tragedy. I am hopeful that the entire California Legislature
    will keep the 15-year-old girl’s memory close in their hearts and her legacy in mind when Audrie’s Law is presented for
    a final vote." If you wish, you can access the uniform resource locator (URL) of that statement here.: https://countyda.
    sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law
    Furthermore, the Santa Clara County District Attorney is explicitly mentioned (as a 'source') by the legislative branch of
    the California government in the text of Senate Bill 838 (also known as Audrie's Law). Please see
    here.: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html
    Based on the statements made by the Santa Clara County District Attorney as well as the legislative branch of California's
    government, I continue to have concerns with the thoroughness of the search you have performed. In my judgment, the
    statements made by the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the California legislature suggest that they had access to
    all documents related to the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. The statements also
    suggest that the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the California legislature have had conversations (in writing and
    verbally) about Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 alongside the American Association of
    University Women - California, the Association of Regional Center Agencies, the California District Attorneys Association,
    the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Protective Parents Association, the Counseling and Support
    Services for Youth Crime Victims United of California, the Arc of California and the United Cerebral Palsy California.
    Your processing of my PRA doesn't really bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of
    Santa Clara County because the wrongful death complaint, which had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 is a
    matter of public record (alongside all other documents filed with that case) and should be made available to the
    public/representatives of the media upon request.
    For the purpose of bolstering public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara

    View full-size slide

  6. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 2/7
    County government, I hope you will answer the following questions.
    1) Is it your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen did not have access to the wrongful death
    complaint assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 at the time he issued the
    June 24th 2014 statement mentioned above? Is it your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen
    did not have access to the wrongful death complaint assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 –
    CV – 244689 when dealing with members of California's legislature and other stakeholders to have Audrie's Law enacted
    by the California government?
    2) Is it also your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney does not keep copies of the wrongful death
    complaint (and related documents), which was assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV –
    244689 (in the event members of the general public/representatives of the media wish to examine them)?
    3) Does the Santa Clara County Counsel have access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County District Attorney? Has
    the Santa Clara County Counsel reached out to the Santa Clara County District Attorney to see if they'd be able to provide
    copies of documents related to the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 after I submitted
    my PRA request? If yes, can you provide the discussions you have had with the Santa Clara County District Attorney?
    4) Even if the Santa Clara County District Attorney did not maintain copies of the wrongful death complaint (and related
    documents) filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court during the processing of Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689, could
    the Santa Clara County Counsel not request these documents to the Santa Clara County Superior Court and provide them
    to members of the general public/representatives of the media who wish to review them?
    In the event you are either unable or unwilling to answer my questions, I hope you will perform a de novo review of my
    PRA request for responsive records detailing [1] the documents Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has/had
    access to pertaining to Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 prior/after the enactment of
    Audrie's Law (on or around) September 30th 2014; [2] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara
    County Counsel and the Santa Clara County District Attorney in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given
    access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County District Attorney; [3] the written/verbal agreements concluded
    between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County Superior Court in terms of the Santa Clara County
    Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County Superior Court.
    I do hope you reconsider your response in a manner that will bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements
    and the priorities of your local government.
    Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist
    On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:19 PM Kalami, Taby wrote:
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    The County of Santa Clara (County) has conducted a thorough search in response to your California Public Records
    Act (CPRA) request dated December 19, 2023, and your follow-up request dated January 27, 2024, requesting:
    [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County
    Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689;
    [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful
    death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 –
    13 – CV – 244689.

    View full-size slide

  7. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 3/7
    The County disclosed all non-exempt responsive documents on January 26, 2024.
    Case 1-13-CV-244689 is a civil action between private parties, and the County was not a party to the proceeding. Thus,
    there are no documents “…containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned,
    used, or retained…” by the County. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.530.)
    The County now considers your request closed.
    Thank you,
    Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110
    Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240
    [email protected] | counsel.sccgov.org
    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
    If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration,
    Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your
    system.
    From: Michael Ayele
    Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 7:05 PM
    To: Kalami, Taby ; Williams, Mona ;
    [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
    [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
    [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
    Cc: Michael Ayele ; Michael Ayele (W) ; Michael Ayele

    Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    W (AACL) Date.: January 27th 2024
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    Public Records Act (PRA) Request Appeal
    Hello,
    I am writing this letter in response to your earlier correspondence, which I have since reviewed. Please be advised that I
    have concerns with the thoroughness of the search you have performed for my California Public Records Act (PRA)
    request. One of my major concerns with your correspondence from earlier is because of your failure to disclose any
    records related to [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa
    Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and
    conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had

    View full-size slide

  8. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 4/7
    been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. Via email dated
    October 02nd 2023, the Santa Clara County Counsel had disclosed court documents that had been filed in the Superior
    Court of the State of California in the matter of People of the State of California v Brock Allen Turner. However, no
    such documents were produced during the processing of my PRA request, which I had submitted to Santa Clara County
    on (or around) December 19th 2023.
    For the purpose of bolstering public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara
    County Counsel, I hope you will perform a more thorough search for responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful death
    complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up
    being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement
    agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County
    Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689.
    I hope you reconsider your response. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist
    From: Kalami, Taby
    Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:52 AM
    Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request Response
    To: [email protected]
    Dear Mr. Ayele,
    Attached please find non-exempt records that are responsive to your December 19, 2023 request. Personal contact
    information has been redacted pursuant to section 1, article 1, of the California Constitution and Government Code
    section 7922.000.
    This completes the County’s response to your request.
    Thank you,
    Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110
    Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240
    [email protected] | counsel.sccgov.org
    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
    If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration,

    View full-size slide

  9. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 5/7
    Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your
    system.
    From: Kalami, Taby
    Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 4:20 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request Response
    Dear Mr. Ayele,
    The County of Santa Clara (“County”) has identified responsive records and is currently in the process of reviewing
    them for any exceptions. The County anticipates updating you on the status of your request within two weeks.
    Thank you,
    Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110
    Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240
    [email protected] | counsel.sccgov.org
    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
    If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration,
    Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your
    system.
    From: Kalami, Taby
    Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 2:45 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Public Records Act Request Response
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    The County of Santa Clara is in receipt of your California Public Records Act (CPRA) request dated December 19,
    2023, requesting:
    1. Your discussions about the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA)
    failing to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written
    objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment that offends their

    View full-size slide

  10. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 6/7
    conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if
    they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory
    and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii) representatives of the media and/or members of the general public from
    requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a patient in a medical facility who may have been the
    victim of discrimination, racism and/or sexism;
    2. The wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara
    County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689;
    3. The terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the
    wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following
    Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689;
    4. Your discussions about Audrie Taylor Pott as a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15 (fifteen) years of age,
    when she was sexually assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her
    sexual assault on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii) who was declared deceased on September 12th
    2012 following her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; vi (iv) whose suicide led the
    California legislature to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose name, image
    and likeness is extensively linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of the 2016 Netflix
    documentary entitled Audrie and Daisy;
    5. Your discussions about Catherine Daisy Coleman as a Caucasian woman, (i) who was victim of a
    sexual assault on (or around) January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii) who was
    under American national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was
    the victim of in the State of Missouri; (iii) attempted suicide following her very much publicized sexual
    assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been noted to have spent some time at
    Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many contracts with the Missouri Department of Mental
    Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or around) January 09th 2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have
    been “put at substantial risk” when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even
    though she was “incapable of protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative
    action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott;
    6. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed for
    the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a healthcare worker;
    (ii) has previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of Catherine Daisy Coleman
    personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or around) August 04th 2020; (iii) was
    provided by his former employers the contractual agreements that were concluded between the MODMH
    and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine Daisy Coleman was reported to have stayed in
    following the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012; (iv) has had his
    written publications on the subject of World Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) distorted in such a way that
    would give the impression that his conscience was not offended by the “investigation,” which had been
    launched against him between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 (even though he was very
    much vexed by that); (v) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way
    that would give the impression that he has not officially demanded for the MODMH to disclose the PHI of
    Catherine Daisy Coleman of the time she has spent at Missouri Girls Town following the sexual assault she
    was victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012 (even though he has asked for that document to be made
    available to him); (vi) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that
    would give the impression that his conscience was not shocked by the very lenient criminal charges filed
    by the State of Missouri on behalf of Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) January 09th 2014 (even
    though he is still very much dismayed by the way Missouri government authorities handled the sexual
    assault Catherine Daisy Coleman was the victim of on January 08th 2012);viii (vii) was very much annoyed
    to learn that his written publications on the subject of the National Council on Disability (NCD) January 30th
    2018 report were being distorted on the Internet by the so-called “Web;”

    View full-size slide

  11. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 7/7
    7. Your discussions about the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) as a state government
    agency, which has a history of citing HIPAA for the purpose of (i) shielding their employees from criticism
    for the medical treatment they provide that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (ii) not
    providing the personal health information (PHI) of their patients/prisoners who have been subjected to
    medical treatment that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist;
    8. Your discussions about the National Council on Disability (NCD) as a federal agency of the U.S
    government, which has on January 30th 2018 decided to recognize that sexual assault (i) “is a public
    health and public safety concern with far reaching implications;” (ii) “is a deeply personal violation,” which
    “leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical,
    psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide,
    flashbacks, and sleep disorders;”
    9. Your discussions about the decision of Joseph Biden / Kamala Harris White House Administration to
    recognize on (or around) September 09th 2022 that (i) they “are still in the early stages of learning about
    the conditions that can lead to suicide, including job strain or loss, serious illnesses, and financial, criminal,
    legal, and relationship problems;” (ii) “suicide accounts for 1 (one) of every 100 (one hundred) deaths
    globally;” (iii) suicide is “the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 10 (ten) and
    34 (thirty four).”
    The County of Santa Clara has designated the Office of the County Counsel as the office responsible for receiving and
    coordinating public records requests, and as such, I am providing an initial response to your request. Pursuant to
    California Government Code section 7922.535(c)(1), the County extends its time for responding to your request by an
    additional 14 days to search for and collect requested records from offices other than the Office of the County Counsel.
    The County will provide a response to your request by January 12, 2024.
    Thank you.
    Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110
    Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240
    [email protected] | counsel.sccgov.org
    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges.
    If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration,
    Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your
    system.

    View full-size slide

  12. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
    www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 1/4
    BILL ANALYSIS
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 838|
    |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
    |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
    |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
    |327-4478 | |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    UNFINISHED BUSINESS
    Bill No: SB 838
    Author: Beall (D), et al.
    Amended: 8/18/14
    Vote: 27
    SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/29/14
    AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
    NO VOTE RECORDED: De León
    SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14
    AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
    SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/28/14
    AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Corbett,
    Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani,
    Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno,
    Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley,
    Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Vidak, Walters, Wolk, Wyland
    NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Hancock, Liu, Wright, Yee
    ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 8/25/14 - See last page for vote
    SUBJECT : Crimes: sex offenses: juvenile hearing
    SOURCE : Santa Clara County District Attorney
    DIGEST : This bill reduces confidentiality protections and
    makes ineligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) juveniles
    who have committed or who are alleged to have committed
    specified sex crimes involving an unconscious or disabled
    CONTINUED
    SB 838
    Page
    2
    victim, as specified.
    Assembly Amendments remove the mandatory two-year out of home
    placement and the one-year sentence enhancement; and add a
    requirement for a juvenile who commits specified sex crimes to
    complete a sex offender treatment program as part of their
    probation.
    ANALYSIS :
    Existing law:
    1.Makes it an offense for a person to willfully threaten to
    commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily
    injury to another person, with the specific intent that the
    statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an
    electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat,
    and causes that person reasonably to be in fear for his/her
    own safety or for his/her immediate family's safety.
    2.Makes it an offense for a person who uses a concealed
    camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of
    any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record
    by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be
    in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of
    viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other
    person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person,
    in any area in which that other person has a reasonable
    expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy
    of that other person.
    3.Provides that any person under 18 years of age who commits a
    crime is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, except
    as specified.

    View full-size slide

  13. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
    www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 2/4
    4.Enumerates certain crimes for which a minor 14 years of age or
    older may be prosecuted under the general law in a court of
    criminal jurisdiction.
    5.States, as amended by Proposition 21, an initiative statute
    approved by the voters at the March 7, 2000 primary election,
    juvenile court hearings are closed to the public, except for
    juvenile court hearings alleging the commission of specified
    felonies. The Legislature may amend Proposition 21 by a
    CONTINUED
    SB 838
    Page
    3
    statute passed in each house by a 2/3-vote.
    6.Sets forth a list of 30 offense categories, commonly referred
    to as "707(b) offenses," which carry a number of consequences
    in terms of how a minor and his/her alleged criminal act is
    handled in the juvenile system, including remand to adult
    criminal court, as specified.
    This bill:
    1.Adds to the list of felonies, to which the public may be
    admitted for the juvenile court proceedings, certain sex
    offenses accomplished because the person is prevented from
    resisting due to being rendered unconscious by any
    intoxicating, anesthetizing, or controlled substance, or when
    the victim is at the time incapable, because of a disability,
    of giving consent, and this is known or reasonably should be
    known to the person committing the offense.
    2.Requires the court, in cases where a minor is adjudged or
    continued as a ward of the court for the commission of certain
    sex offenses, to order the minor to complete a sex offender
    treatment program, if the court determines, in consultation
    with the county probation officer, that suitable programs are
    available.
    3.Provides, in determining what type of treatment is
    appropriate, the court shall consider specified factors and
    any other relevant information presented.
    4.States if ordered by the court to complete a sex offender
    treatment program, the minor shall pay all or a portion of the
    reasonable costs of the sex offender treatment program after a
    determination is made if the ability of the minor to pay.
    5.Prohibits eligibility for DEJ minors charged with specified
    sex offenses where the victim was prevented from resisting due
    to being rendered unconscious by any intoxicating,
    anesthetizing, or controlled substance, or when the victim was
    at the time incapable, because of mental disorder or
    developmental or physical disability, of giving consent, and
    that was known or reasonably should have been known to the
    minor at the time of the offense.
    CONTINUED
    SB 838
    Page
    4
    6.States that this bill shall be known, and may be cited as,
    Audrie's Law.
    Background
    This bill is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie
    Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide
    after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of
    her were disseminated electronically. Her assailants were tried
    as juveniles. The allegations against them were sustained and
    they handed down sentences of 30 to 45 days, news reports said.
    Despite the severity of their crimes, they are freed from having
    to register sex offenders due to an omission in the law.
    FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
    Local: Yes
    According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown,
    likely minor, potentially in excess of $1 million statewide,
    local costs to require juvenile sex offenders to complete a sex
    offender treatment program, to the extent suitable programs are
    available and offenders are unable to pay.

    View full-size slide

  14. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
    www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 3/4
    Unknown, likely minor state and local incarceration and
    probation costs to the extent additional offenders are excluded
    from DEJ.
    Unknown, likely minor state trial court administrative costs for
    opening additional juvenile cases to the public.
    SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/14)
    Santa Clara County District Attorney (source)
    American Association of University Women-California
    Association of Regional Center Agencies
    California District Attorneys Association
    California Police Chiefs Association, Inc.
    California Protective Parents Association
    Counseling and Support Services for Youth
    Crime Victims United of California
    The Arc California
    The United Cerebral Palsy California
    OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/14)
    CONTINUED
    SB 838
    Page
    5
    California Public Defenders Association
    Youth Law Center
    ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
    Senate Bill 838 is the direct result of the tragic death of
    Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed
    suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and
    photos of her were disseminated electronically. The
    perpetrators, according to news reports, were tried as
    juveniles and the allegations against them were sustained, and
    released after serving 30- to 45-day sentences. They are free
    to continue their lives, education, and careers in anonymity
    thanks to outdated laws after publically destroying a young
    women's life.
    The incidents surrounding Audrie's death are not isolated but
    reflect a disturbing trend. Her case is eerily similar to the
    suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old student in Canada,
    who suffered nearly two years of bullying as photos of her sex
    assault were circulated by students, and the photographed rape
    of an unconscious 16-year-old girl by two high school football
    players in Steubenville, Ohio. It should be noted that the
    identities of the convicted football players, both 16, were
    released by the juvenile court.
    The nature of the crimes against Audrie, coupled with the
    growing use of social media to bully victims, demands that our
    statutes and codes be amended to reflect the severity of these
    offenses in the 21st century to not only give justice but to
    act as a deterrent.
    ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Youth Law Center writes:
    While it is very good that S.B. 838 no longer includes the
    original provisions
    expanding transfer to adult court, adding new crimes that
    would disproportionately affect juveniles, and mandatory
    minimum terms of confinement, the provisions that are still in
    the bill are objectionable and not in keeping with our mission
    and values.
    The provision of S.B. 838 that would open juvenile cases to
    CONTINUED
    SB 838
    Page
    6
    the public in cases involving certain sex offenses ignores the
    very reason we have a separate juvenile court system. Unlike
    the adult criminal system, where punishment is the stated
    purpose, our juvenile court law requires individualized "care,
    treatment and guidance" in which punishment is permitted, but
    the overarching purpose is rehabilitation of the young person.
    The expansion of open proceedings for juveniles is
    antithetical to those goals. Moreover, the specific expansion
    of open proceedings for sex offenses is troubling. Cases
    involving alleged sex offenses invariably involve a great deal

    View full-size slide

  15. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis
    www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 4/4
    of sensitive information and should not automatically be open
    to the public.
    ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 8/25/14
    AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
    Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
    Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
    Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
    Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
    Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández,
    Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
    Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
    Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A.
    Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
    Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
    Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
    NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy
    JG:k 8/26/14 Senate Floor Analyses
    SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
    **** END ****
    CONTINUED

    View full-size slide

  16. 1/31/24, 7:27 AM DA Rosen Urges Passage of Audrie's Law - Office of the District Attorney - County of Santa Clara
    https://countyda.sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law 1/2
    For release on June 24, 2014 DA ROSEN URGES PASSAGE OF AUDRIE’S LAW A statement
    from Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen regarding the passage of ‘Audrie’s Law’
    out of a state legislative committee today:
    “I am thankful that the Assembly Public Safety Committee unanimously passed Senate Bill
    838 ‘Audrie’s Law’ out of committee this morning.”
    “Audrie’s Law modernizes the consequences for those who sexually assault intoxicated,
    incapacitated, and handicapped victims. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office
    stands alongside the Pott Family and State Sen. Jim Beall in their efforts to create positive
    and reasonable changes from the pain of Audrie’s tragedy. I am hopeful that the entire
    California Legislature will keep the 15-year-old girl’s memory close in their hearts and her
    legacy in mind when Audrie’s Law is presented for a final vote.”
    ###
     Report a problem on this page

    COUNTY SERVICES DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
    BOARD AGENDAS, MINUTES, AND
    WEBCASTS
    VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
    CAREERS CONTACT US
    COUNTY HOLIDAYS ACCESSIBILITY
    LINKS POLICY PRIVACY POLICY
    TERMS OF USE
    County
    Services
    Departments About
    the
    County
    County of Santa Clara
    Office of the District Attorney
    Search...
    Menu 

    View full-size slide

  17. 1/31/24, 7:27 AM DA Rosen Urges Passage of Audrie's Law - Office of the District Attorney - County of Santa Clara
    https://countyda.sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law 2/2
    ©2024 County of Santa Clara. All rights reserved.

    View full-size slide

  18. 1
    MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
    AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
    This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into between the Superior Court of
    California, County of Santa Clara (“Court”) and the County of Santa Clara (“County”) for the
    purposes of (1) setting forth Court’s and County’s (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”)
    mutual understandings regarding data integrations between County and Court electronic record
    systems and (2) defining the County’s access to electronic court records and criminal justice data
    created or maintained in Court systems.
    1. Effective Date. This MOU shall be effective beginning on November 6, 2018, shall
    continue in effect until November 5, 2023, and shall be automatically renewed for five-year
    periods thereafter, unless terminated or amended by the Parties. Prior to the expiration of
    any five-year period, each Party shall evaluate whether any changes to the MOU should be
    made and provide notice to the other Party.
    2. Applicable Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the terms of this MOU:
    a. Electronic Court Record. The term “Electronic Court Record” refers to a “Court
    Record”—as that term is defined in Government Code section 68151 and California
    Rules of Court, rule 2.502—created, maintained, or preserved in electronic form, as
    set forth in Government Code section 68150 and rule 2.502. “Electronic Court
    Record” includes data created by the Court that is transmitted electronically to
    County Departments from the Court.
    b. Criminal Justice Data. The term “Criminal Justice Data” refers to data transmitted
    electronically to Court from County Justice Partners. It includes the standard data
    elements listed in Penal Code section 13125. It also includes “criminal offender
    record information” and “local summary criminal history information” as those terms
    are defined in Penal Code sections 13102 and 13300.
    c. County Justice Partners. The term “County Justice Partners” refers to the Office of
    the District Attorney, the Office of the Sheriff, the Department of Correction, the
    Probation Department, and the Office of Pretrial Services.
    d. County Departments. The term “County Departments” refers to all County
    departments, including but not limited to County Justice Partners.
    e. Court Services. The term “Court Services” refers to data integrations and file
    transfers between Court and County Systems through interfaces with County’s Law
    Enforcement Information Sharing Environment (“ISE”), Multi-Agency Electronic
    Sharing, Tracking, Results, and Outcomes (“MAESTRO”), and Criminal Justice
    Information Control (“CJIC”) system.
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855
    Approved: 11/06/2018

    View full-size slide

  19. 2
    f. Court Systems. The term “Court Systems” refers to the Court’s Case Management
    System.
    g. County Systems. The term “County Systems” refers to all existing and future
    County technology systems, including CJIC.
    h. Authorized County Users. The term “Authorized County Users” refers to current
    County employees who have been authorized by their County Department to receive
    a specified level of access to Court Systems and who have completed training and
    backgrounding requirements required by law, regulation, County policy, or the terms
    of this MOU.
    i. IT Support Staff. The term “IT Support Staff” refers to County employees,
    contractors, and vendors who have been authorized by a County Department to
    provide IT and related services for County Systems and Court Services.
    3. Scope of Agreement. This MOU applies to electronic access by County Departments to
    Electronic Court Records and to Criminal Justice Data maintained in Court Systems and
    electronically provided by Court to County through the following:
    a. Court’s Case Web Portal; and
    b. Court Services.
    4. Description of Services. Court shall provide electronic access to Electronic Court Records,
    Criminal Justice Data, and related Court Services to the County and Authorized County
    Users in accordance with the terms of this MOU.
    5. Authorized Access to Criminal Justice Data. Court shall provide access to Criminal
    Justice Data maintained in Court Systems to Authorized County Users and others in
    accordance with Penal Code section 13300 and related statutory provisions governing access
    to criminal offender record information and summary criminal history. Court recognizes that
    Authorized County Users from certain County Departments may be eligible to receive access
    to Electronic Court Records under the California Rules of Court, but may not be eligible to
    receive access to Criminal Justice Data under the Penal Code.
    a. Court shall not provide greater access to Criminal Justice Data than is provided via
    the County’s CJIC system on the date of executing this MOU, unless that expanded
    access is first approved by the County through its designated criminal justice data
    sharing governance structure. The County’s Technology Services and Solutions
    (“TSS”) department shall, upon request, provide the Court with any additional
    information the Court may need regarding the restrictions and permissions governing
    the sharing of Criminal Justice Data that are in place in CJIC on the date of executing
    this MOU.
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  20. 3
    b. Before a County Department, agent, or employee may request expanded access to
    Criminal Justice Data maintained by the Court, that department or individual shall
    apply and receive written approval through the County’s designated criminal justice
    data sharing governance structure.
    c. Court recognizes that the County is in the process of reconfiguring its criminal justice
    data sharing governance structure following the dissolution of the former CJIC
    Steering Committee. County agrees to keep Court apprised, through the Office of the
    County Counsel, of which body or individual(s) are responsible for reviewing and
    approving requests under Section 6.a and 6.b.
    6. Authorized Access to Electronic Court Records. Court shall provide access to Electronic
    Court Records to Authorized County Users in accordance with California Rules of Court,
    rule 2.500 et seq., including rules 2.503, 2.507, and 2.540.1
    a. Electronic Court Records may be accessed in juvenile cases only if the Authorized
    County User is authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 and
    California Rules of Court, rule 5.552.
    b. Court shall provide Electronic Court Records to County through Court Services.
    Prior to the date on which CJIC is decommissioned, the Court shall also provide some
    information from Electronic Court Records to County through data entry directly into
    CJIC. As part of the decommissioning of CJIC, County shall provide Court with the
    data specifications for Electronic Court Records in existing Electronic Report
    Distribution (“ERD”) and transaction reports compiled by County. After CJIC is
    decommissioned, Court shall ensure that these Electronic Court Records continue to
    be made available to (1) County through Court Services, and/or (2) Authorized
    County Users through the Case Web Portal.
    7. Case Web Portal. Court may use its Case Web Portal to display Electronic Court Records
    and Criminal Justice Data to Authorized County Users in accordance with the Penal Code,
    California Rules of Court, and the terms of this MOU. Court agrees to exercise caution and
    notify the County and provide the County an opportunity to provide input about changes in
    configuring the display of Electronic Court Records to Authorized County Users who are not
    entitled to summary criminal history information under the Penal Code. Court recognizes
    that where a defendant has multiple criminal cases filed with the Court, displaying Electronic
    Court Records for all cases relevant to that individual may generate summary criminal
    history information that is subject to greater restrictions on access under the Penal Code.
    8. Court Services. Parties shall work reasonably and collaboratively in integrating County and
    Court Systems. Parties shall solicit and incorporate the input of relevant County
    1 Rules 2.540, 2.541, 2.542, 2.543, 2.544, and 2.545—governing remote access to electronic court records by
    government entities—were adopted by the Judicial Council of California on September 20, 2018. Although the
    effective date of these new rules is January 1, 2019, the Parties agree that these rules, and any subsequent
    amendments, shall apply to the terms of this MOU at the time the MOU goes into effect and until its termination or
    expiration.
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  21. 4
    Departments in designing and planning for the integration and any subsequent changes to
    ensure their business needs are accounted for. After implementation of the Court’s Case
    Management System for criminal cases, Court technical staff shall be available to support the
    County’s goal of implementing a new Jail Management System in 2019.
    9. Terms of Use/Confidentiality. County acknowledges that information accessed through
    Court Systems is restricted and may be confidential. Access shall be governed by all
    applicable laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, including those related to privacy. County
    shall use Electronic Court Records, Criminal Justice Data, and Court Services received under
    this MOU only to perform its official duties, including for statistical and research purposes as
    expressly permitted by law, or for fulfilling employment, certification, or licensing duties as
    expressly permitted by law.
    For criminal and juvenile justice cases, County accepts sole responsibility for ensuring that
    its employees (a) access Court Systems solely for legitimate criminal and/or juvenile justice
    purposes; (b) do not sell, assign, misuse, or make any unauthorized disclosures of Electronic
    Court Records or Criminal Justice Data obtained from Court Systems; (c) transfer, distribute,
    or disseminate Electronic Court Records only if authorized by law; (d) transfer, distribute, or
    disseminate Criminal Justice Data only if authorized by law and approved under the
    County’s data sharing governance structure; and (e) comply with all other provisions of this
    MOU.
    Each Party agrees to notify the other immediately whenever any form of data breach occurs
    related to the services provided under this MOU. In the event that such a data breach occurs
    to a County System, the County bears sole responsibility for notifying the affected person(s)
    as required by Civil Code section 1798.29.
    10. Identity Management and Access Control. Court Systems that provide access to
    Electronic Court Records and/or Criminal Justice Data shall verify the identity of the
    Authorized County User seeking access, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 2.541,
    in collaboration with the County Departments. Named user accounts shall be used to
    authenticate Authorized County Users and permit their access to Electronic Court Records
    and/or Criminal Justice Data. Sharing of user accounts by multiple individuals is prohibited.
    County agrees to notify Court whenever a County employee (1) no longer requires access to
    Court Systems as part of his/her job duties or (2) is no longer employed by the County by
    removing the user account associated with the County employee. Each County Department
    shall provide a primary and secondary point of contact who shall be responsible for
    maintaining County user accounts and periodically reviewing their authorized users.
    11. County User and IT Support Staff Training and Backgrounding. County agrees to
    appropriately educate and train Authorized County Users and IT Support Staff regarding the
    terms of use set forth in this MOU. Before any Authorized County User may access
    Criminal Justice Data or systems containing or transmitting Criminal Justice Data, he or she
    must ensure the training and backgrounding requirements set forth in California DOJ’s
    CLETS Policies, Practices, and Procedures are satisfied. Each County Department is
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  22. 5
    responsible for ensuring that their Authorized County Users and IT Support Staff have
    completed the backgrounding and training requirements.
    12. Court Audits. Court shall have the ability to generate an audit trail of a County User’s
    access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data, pursuant to California Rules of
    Court, rule 2.543. Court shall provide limited audit trails to County upon request. Court
    reserves the right to perform audits as necessary to determine compliance with this MOU.
    13. Accuracy of Electronic Court Records. When Electronic Court Records are accessed by
    Authorized County Users, the records and data are intended to be copies of current court
    records and data at the time the documents are accessed. Parties shall mutually agree on the
    structure and validation of data being sent through interfaces between County and Court
    Systems. County shall provide Court in real time with error logs identifying the message,
    error, and data received. Court and County shall review the error logs to determine which
    Party is responsible for the error and the responsible Party will clear error logs, including any
    manual data entry and correction in Court Systems and CJIC, on a timely basis to ensure that
    County Systems continue to provide timely and accurate information supporting critical law
    enforcement and criminal justice functions.
    As the official court record may be updated, the Electronic Court Records may not reflect the
    official court record. Court Systems, internal Court processes, and Court Services may be
    designed such that there is an expected built-in delay between the time that an Electronic
    Court Record is updated and the time that an Authorized County User may access that
    updated record through Court Systems or Court Services. Court shall not be liable to the
    County for any claims arising from such delay so long as (1) the delay is not the result of the
    Court’s negligence or misconduct, (2) the delay does not arise from Court’s failure to timely
    review and clear error logs as described in Paragraph 13, including any manual data entry
    and correction in Court Systems and CJIC, (3) when making changes to the Court Services,
    Court notifies and consults with TSS’s Director of the Public Safety and Justice vertical (at
    [email protected]), or designee, and employs
    industry standard change management processes and techniques; and (4) the following
    conditions are satisfied:
    a. Court displays warnings to notify Authorized County Users when they access an
    Electronic Court Record through the Case Web Portal of the delay and its expected
    duration and consequences (e.g., that the Electronic Court Record accessed may not
    reflect updates made within the past half hour).
    b. Court continues to provide County with immediate access to critical court records and
    data by alternative means as provided in the following:
    i. Warrants. Court shall call the Office of the Sheriff’s Records Division or
    applicable Law Enforcement Agency immediately upon the recall of a
    warrant.
    ii. Warrant Service. Court shall call the Office of the Sheriff’s Record Division
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  23. 6
    or applicable Law Enforcement Agency if the Court sees an active warrant on
    the case when it enters warrant service information into Court Systems.
    iii. Court Scheduling. Court shall schedule all inmates that require a physical
    appearance in court in the Court System and CJIC. When Court requires the
    appearance of an inmate to AM Court, Court shall schedule the hearing in
    Court Systems and CJIC before close of business the day before, except that if
    Court schedules the hearing on the same morning as the AM Court, Court
    shall call the Sheriff’s Office Court Risk Assessment Unit to manually arrange
    for the transportation and appearance of the inmate. When Court requires the
    appearance of an inmate to PM Court and the hearing has not been scheduled
    in the Court’s System and CJIC by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing, Court
    shall call the Sheriff’s Office Court Risk Assessment Unit to manually arrange
    for the transportation and appearance of the inmate. Court shall also notify
    the Deputy assigned to the courtroom for any manual/late additions.
    iv. Court Orders. Court shall continue to provide the County, including the
    Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department, with court orders in paper form
    for those court orders that are provided in paper form at the time this MOU is
    executed until the Court implements electronic court orders and after such
    time as both Parties agree that implementation has been successful.
    14. Suspension of Court Services to County. Court reserves the right to suspend Court
    Services to County if Court determines that County has violated this MOU through willful
    misconduct or negligence. Before suspending Court Services, Court shall provide timely
    notice of the violation to County and give County a reasonable opportunity to correct the
    violation and take measures to prevent future violations.
    15. Suspension of Access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data to
    Authorized County Users. Court reserves the right to immediately suspend an Authorized
    County User’s access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data if that
    Authorized County User violates the terms of this MOU or accesses such records or data for
    any unauthorized purpose in violation of the Penal Code, California Rules of Court, or any
    other law, regulation, or policy. County shall inform Court of any such violation within a
    reasonable period of learning of such violation.
    16. Fees and Transaction Volumes. Court will provide Court Services to the County without
    charge and will not limit transaction volumes. However, Court may monitor County’s usage
    and the costs required to provide the Court Services. In the event that Court deems that the
    costs associated with maintaining the services are excessive or otherwise unmanageable,
    Court reserves the right to terminate or amend this MOU as provided herein.
    17. Liability and Indemnification. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation,
    which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code
    Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by either Party or both
    Parties shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, the Parties agree that, pursuant to
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  24. 7
    Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold
    the other Party, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any
    claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government
    Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful
    misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees or agents, under or in
    connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party
    under this MOU. No Party, nor any officer, board member or agent thereof shall be
    responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions
    or willful misconduct of the other Party hereto, their officers, board members, employees, or
    agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction
    delegated to such other Parties under this MOU.
    18. Severability. If any provision of this MOU shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction
    to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force
    and effect.
    19. Amendment. This MOU may only be amended by a written instrument signed by the
    Parties.
    20. Waiver. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this MOU shall
    constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted by
    a Party shall be in writing and shall apply to the specific instance expressly stated.
    21. Assignment. No assignment of this MOU or of the rights and obligations hereunder shall be
    valid without the prior written consent of the other Party.
    22. Termination of MOU. Court may terminate this MOU’s provisions governing the Case
    Web Portal at any time and for any reason, with or without cause. Either Party may
    otherwise terminate this MOU by giving at least 90 days written notice prior to the intended
    date of termination by specifying the effective date and scope of termination. County and
    Court recognize the mutual benefit of integrating County and Court Systems and transmitting
    Criminal Justice Data between County Justice Partners and the Court to ensure seamless,
    timely, and accurate coordination in the County’s criminal justice system.
    23. Dispute Resolution. Parties shall attempt to resolve issues arising from this MOU
    informally between County’s Chief Operating Officer, or designee, and Court Executive
    Officer, or designee.
    24. Governing Law and Venue. This MOU has been executed and delivered in, and shall be
    construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Proper venue
    for legal action regarding this MOU shall be in the Superior Courts of the State of California.
    25. Third-Party Beneficiaries. This MOU does not, and is not intended to, confer any rights or
    remedies upon any person or entity other than the Parties.
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  25. 8
    26. Notices. All notices required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing and delivered
    in person or by mail or email as follows:
    Court: Rebecca J. Fleming, Chief Executive Officer
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
    191 N. First Street
    San José, California 95113
    [email protected]
    With a copy to:
    Lisa Herrick, Assistant Executive Officer and General Counsel
    Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
    191 N. First Street
    San José, California 95113
    [email protected]
    County: Miguel Márquez, Chief Operating Officer
    Office of the County Executive, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Eleventh Floor
    San José, California 95110
    [email protected]
    With a copy to:
    Tara Lundstrom, Deputy County Counsel
    Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
    70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor
    San José, California 95110
    [email protected]
    Each Party shall notify the other in writing within fourteen days of electing to designate
    another person to receive notices under this MOU.
    27. Public Records. Court recognizes that County is a public agency subject to the disclosure
    requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and must strictly comply with
    its requirements. County recognizes that Court is a judicial branch entity subject to the
    disclosure requirements of Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court and must strictly
    comply with its requirements.
    28. Contract Execution. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or County policy, the parties agree
    that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same
    force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term
    “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail,
    or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document
    format. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by
    applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the County.
    DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855

    View full-size slide

  26. 2/7/24, 8:03 AM California Rules of Court: Title Two Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_500 1/1
    | Printer-friendly version of this page
    2024 California Rules of Court
    Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose
    (a) Intent
    The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public, parties, parties' attorneys, legal organizations, court-
    appointed persons, and government entities with reasonable access to trial court records that are maintained in
    electronic form, while protecting privacy interests.
    (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2019.)
    (b) Benefits of electronic access
    Improved technologies provide courts with many alternatives to the historical paper-based record receipt and
    retention process, including the creation and use of court records maintained in electronic form. Providing access
    to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form may save the courts, the public, parties, parties'
    attorneys, legal organizations, court-appointed persons, and government entities time, money, and effort and
    encourage courts to be more efficient in their operations. Improved access to trial court records may also foster in
    the public a more comprehensive understanding of the trial court system.
    (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2019.)
    (c) No creation of rights
    The rules in this chapter are not intended to give the public, parties, parties' attorneys, legal organizations, court-
    appointed persons, and government entities a right of access to any record that they are not otherwise legally
    entitled to access.
    (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2019; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)
    Rule 2.500 amended effective January 1, 2019; adopted as rule 2070 effective July 1, 2002; previously amended and
    renumbered effective January 1, 2007.
    Advisory Committee Comment
    The rules in this chapter acknowledge the benefits that electronic records provide but attempt to limit the potential for
    unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals involved in litigation that can occur as a result of remote access to
    electronic records. The proposed rules take into account the limited resources currently available in the trial courts. It
    is contemplated that the rules may be modified to provide greater electronic access as courts' technical capabilities
    improve and knowledge is gained from the experience of providing electronic access under these rules.
    [ Back to Top ]
    << Previous Rule [ Back to Title Index ] Next Rule >>

    View full-size slide

  27. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 1/10
    | Printer-friendly version of this page
    2024 California Rules of Court
    Rule 10.500. Public access to judicial administrative records
    (a) Intent
    (1) The Judicial Council intends by this rule to implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), added by
    Senate Bill X4 13 (Stats. 2009-10, 4th Ex. Sess. ch. 22), which requires adoption of rules of court that
    provide public access to nondeliberative and nonadjudicative court records, budget and management
    information.
    (2) This rule clarifies and expands the public's right of access to judicial administrative records and must be
    broadly construed to further the public's right of access.
    (b) Application
    (1) This rule applies to public access to judicial administrative records, including records of budget and
    management information relating to the administration of the courts.
    (2) This rule does not apply to, modify or otherwise affect existing law regarding public access to adjudicative
    records.
    (3) This rule does not restrict the rights to disclosure of information otherwise granted by law to a recognized
    employee organization.
    (4) This rule does not affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the
    laws of discovery of this state, nor does it limit or impair any rights of discovery in a criminal case.
    (5) This rule does not apply to electronic mail and text messages sent or received before the effective date of
    this rule.
    (c) Definitions
    As used in this rule:
    (1) "Adjudicative record" means any writing prepared for or filed or used in a court proceeding, the judicial
    deliberation process, or the assignment or reassignment of cases and of justices, judges (including
    temporary and assigned judges), and subordinate judicial officers, or of counsel appointed or employed by
    the court.
    (2) "Judicial administrative record" means any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the
    people's business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by a judicial branch entity regardless of the
    writing's physical form or characteristics, except an adjudicative record. The term "judicial administrative
    << Previous Rule [ Back to Title Index ] Next Rule >>

    View full-size slide

  28. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 2/10
    record" does not include records of a personal nature that are not used in or do not relate to the people's
    business, such as personal notes, memoranda, electronic mail, calendar entries, and records of Internet
    use.
    (3) "Judicial branch entity" means the Supreme Court, each Court of Appeal, each superior court, and the
    Judicial Council.
    (4) "Judicial branch personnel" means justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate
    judicial officers, members of the Judicial Council and its advisory bodies, and directors, officers, employees,
    volunteers, and agents of a judicial branch entity.
    (5) "Person" means any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association.
    (6) "Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing, photocopying, electronic mail, fax,
    and every other means of recording on any tangible thing any form of communication or representation,
    including letters, words, pictures, sounds, symbols, or combinations, regardless of the manner in which the
    record has been stored.
    (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2016.)
    (d) Construction of rule
    (1) Unless otherwise indicated, the terms used in this rule have the same meaning as under the Legislative
    Open Records Act (Gov. Code, § 9070 et seq.) and the California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, § 6250
    et seq.) and must be interpreted consistently with the interpretation applied to the terms under those acts.
    (2) This rule does not require the disclosure of a record if the record is exempt from disclosure under this rule
    or is the type of record that would not be subject to disclosure under the Legislative Open Records Act or
    the California Public Records Act.
    (e) Public access
    (1) Access
    (A) A judicial branch entity must allow inspection and copying of judicial administrative records unless the
    records are exempt from disclosure under this rule or by law.
    (B) Nothing in this rule requires a judicial branch entity to create any record or to compile or assemble data
    in response to a request for judicial administrative records if the judicial branch entity does not compile
    or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or for provision to other agencies. For
    purposes of this rule, selecting data from extractable fields in a single database using software already
    owned or licensed by the judicial branch entity does not constitute creating a record or compiling or
    assembling data.
    (C) If a judicial administrative record contains information that is exempt from disclosure and the exempt
    portions are reasonably segregable, a judicial branch entity must allow inspection and copying of the
    record after deletion of the portions that are exempt from disclosure. A judicial branch entity is not
    required to allow inspection or copying of the portion of a writing that is a judicial administrative record
    unless that portion is reasonably segregable from the portion that constitutes an adjudicative record.
    (D) If requested, a superior court must provide a copy of the certified judicial administrative record if the
    judicial administrative record requested has previously been certified by the superior court.
    (2) Examples

    View full-size slide

  29. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 3/10
    Judicial administrative records subject to inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure under
    subdivision (f) include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (A) Budget information submitted to the Judicial Council after enactment of the annual Budget Act;
    (B) Any other budget and expenditure document pertaining to the administrative operation of the courts,
    including quarterly financial statements and statements of revenue, expenditure, and reserves;
    (C) Actual and budgeted employee salary and benefit information;
    (D) Copies of executed contracts with outside vendors and payment information and policies concerning
    goods and services provided by outside vendors without an executed contract;
    (E) Final audit reports; and
    (F) Employment contracts between judicial branch entities and their employees.
    (3) Procedure for requesting records
    A judicial branch entity must make available on its public Web site or otherwise publicize the procedure to
    be followed to request a copy of or to inspect a judicial administrative record. At a minimum, the procedure
    must include the address to which requests are to be addressed, to whom requests are to be directed, and
    the office hours of the judicial branch entity.
    (4) Costs of duplication, search, and review
    (A) A judicial branch entity, on request, must provide a copy of a judicial administrative record not exempt
    from disclosure if the record is of a nature permitting copying, subject to payment of the fee specified in
    this rule or other applicable statutory fee. A judicial branch entity may require advance payment of any
    fee.
    (B) A judicial branch entity may impose on all requests a fee reasonably calculated to cover the judicial
    branch entity's direct costs of duplication of a record or of production of a record in an electronic format
    under subdivision (i). The fee includes:
    (i) A charge per page, per copy, or otherwise, as established and published by the Judicial Council, or
    as established by the judicial branch entity following a notice and comment procedure specified by
    the Judicial Council, representing the direct costs of equipment, supplies, and staff time required to
    duplicate or produce the requested record; and
    (ii) Any other direct costs of duplication or production, including, but not limited to, the costs incurred
    by a judicial branch entity in retrieving the record from a remote storage facility or archive and the
    costs of mailing responsive records.
    (C) In the case of requests for records for commercial use, a judicial branch entity may impose, in addition
    to the fee in (B), a fee reasonably calculated to cover the actual costs of staff search and review time,
    based on an hourly rate for salary and benefits of each employee involved.
    (D) For purposes of this rule:
    (i) "Commercial use" means a request for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or
    profit interests of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is being made. A
    request from a representative of the news media that supports its news-dissemination function is
    not a request for a commercial use.

    View full-size slide

  30. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 4/10
    (ii) "Representative of the news media" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects,
    photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local,
    national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for
    a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain.
    (iii) "Search and review time" means actual time spent identifying and locating judicial administrative
    records, including material within documents, responsive to a request; determining whether any
    portions are exempt from disclosure; and performing all tasks necessary to prepare the records for
    disclosure, including redacting portions exempt from disclosure. "Search and review time" does not
    include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the applicability of particular
    exemptions.
    (E) By January 1, 2012, the Judicial Council will review and evaluate the numbers of requests received,
    the time necessary to respond, and the fees imposed by judicial branch entities for access to records
    and information. The Judicial Council's review will consider the impact of this rule on both the public's
    access to records and information and on judicial branch entities' ability to carry out and fund core
    judicial operations.
    (5) Inspection
    A judicial branch entity must make judicial administrative records in its possession and not exempt from
    disclosure open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the judicial branch entity provided that
    the record is of a nature permitting inspection.
    (6) Time for determination of disclosable records
    A judicial branch entity, on a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, must
    determine, within 10 calendar days from receipt of the request, whether the request, in whole or in part,
    seeks disclosable judicial administrative records in its possession and must promptly notify the requesting
    party of the determination and the reasons for the determination.
    (7) Response
    If a judicial branch entity determines that a request seeks disclosable judicial administrative records, the
    judicial branch entity must make the disclosable judicial administrative records available promptly. The
    judicial branch entity must include with the notice of the determination the estimated date and time when
    the records will be made available. If the judicial branch entity determines that the request, in whole or in
    part, seeks nondisclosable judicial administrative records, it must convey its determination in writing,
    include a contact name and telephone number to which inquiries may be directed, and state the express
    provision of this rule justifying the withholding of the records not disclosed.
    (8) Extension of time for determination of disclosable records
    In unusual circumstances, to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular
    request, a judicial branch entity may extend the time limit prescribed for its determination under (e)(6) by no
    more than 14 calendar days by written notice to the requesting party, stating the reasons for the extension
    and the date on which the judicial branch entity expects to make a determination. As used in this section,
    "unusual circumstances" means the following:
    (A) The need to search for and collect the requested records from multiple locations or facilities that are
    separate from the office processing the request;
    (B) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of records that are
    included in a single request; or

    View full-size slide

  31. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 5/10
    (C) The need for consultation, which must be conducted with all practicable speed, with another judicial
    branch entity or other governmental agency having substantial subject matter interest in the
    determination of the request, or with two or more components of the judicial branch entity having
    substantial subject matter interest in the determination of the request.
    (9) Reasonable efforts
    (A) On receipt of a request to inspect or obtain a copy of a judicial administrative record, a judicial branch
    entity, in order to assist the requester in making a focused and effective request that reasonably
    describes an identifiable judicial administrative record, must do all of the following to the extent
    reasonable under the circumstances:
    (i) Assist the requester in identifying records and information responsive to the request or to the
    purpose of the request, if stated;
    (ii) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and
    (iii) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying inspection or copying of the
    records or information sought.
    (B) The requirements of (A) will be deemed to have been satisfied if the judicial branch entity is unable to
    identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying
    information from the requester that helps identify the record or records.
    (C) The requirements of (A) do not apply to a request for judicial administrative records if the judicial
    branch entity makes the requested records available or determines that the requested records are
    exempt from disclosure under this rule.
    (10) No obstruction or delay
    Nothing in this rule may be construed to permit a judicial branch entity to delay or obstruct the inspection or
    copying of judicial administrative records that are not exempt from disclosure.
    (11) Greater access permitted
    Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a judicial branch entity may adopt requirements for itself that allow
    for faster, more efficient, or greater access to judicial administrative records than prescribed by the
    requirements of this rule.
    (12) Control of records
    A judicial branch entity must not sell, exchange, furnish, or otherwise provide a judicial administrative
    record subject to disclosure under this rule to a private entity in a manner that prevents a judicial branch
    entity from providing the record directly under this rule. A judicial branch entity must not allow a private
    entity to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure under this rule.
    (Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2016.)
    (f) Exemptions
    Nothing in this rule requires the disclosure of judicial administrative records that are any of the following:
    (1) Preliminary writings, including drafts, notes, working papers, and inter-judicial branch entity or intra-judicial
    branch entity memoranda, that are not retained by the judicial branch entity in the ordinary course of
    business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in
    disclosure;

    View full-size slide

  32. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 6/10
    (2) Records pertaining to pending or anticipated claims or litigation to which a judicial branch entity is a party or
    judicial branch personnel are parties, until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or
    otherwise resolved;
    (3) Personnel, medical, or similar files, or other personal information whose disclosure would constitute an
    unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, including, but not limited to, records revealing home addresses,
    home telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers, private electronic mail addresses, and social
    security numbers of judicial branch personnel and work electronic mail addresses and work telephone
    numbers of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and
    their staff attorneys;
    (4) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to develop, administer, and score
    examinations for employment, certification, or qualification;
    (5) Records whose disclosure is exempted or prohibited under state or federal law, including provisions of the
    California Evidence Code relating to privilege, or by court order in any court proceeding;
    (6) Records whose disclosure would compromise the security of a judicial branch entity or the safety of judicial
    branch personnel, including but not limited to, court security plans, and security surveys, investigations,
    procedures, and assessments;
    (7) Records related to evaluations of, complaints regarding, or investigations of justices, judges (including
    temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and applicants or candidates for judicial
    office. This exemption does not apply to any settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2010
    for which public funds were spent in payment of the settlement, including any settlement agreement arising
    from claims or complaints of sexual harassment or sexual discrimination. The names of judicial officers may
    not be redacted from any settlement agreement that is produced under this rule; however, the names of
    complainants or witnesses, and other information that would identify complainants or witnesses, may be
    redacted.
    (8) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by
    the judicial branch entity related to the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and
    construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or the relevant contracts have been
    executed. This provision does not affect the law of eminent domain;
    (9) Records related to activities governed by Government Code sections 71600 et seq. and 71800 et seq. that
    reveal deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes,
    research, work products, theories, or strategy or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees
    who are not represented by employee organizations under those sections. Nothing in this subdivision limits
    the disclosure duties of a judicial branch entity with respect to any other records relating to the activities
    governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this subdivision;
    (10) Records that contain trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial and financial information
    submitted in response to a judicial branch entity's solicitation for goods or services or in the course of a
    judicial branch entity's contractual relationship with a commercial entity. For purposes of this rule:
    (A) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method,
    technique, or process, that:
    (i) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the
    public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
    (ii) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy;

    View full-size slide

  33. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 7/10
    (B) "Privileged information" means material that falls within recognized constitutional, statutory, or common
    law privileges;
    (C) "Confidential commercial and financial information" means information whose disclosure would:
    (i) Impair the judicial branch entity's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or
    (ii) Cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was
    obtained.
    (11) Records whose disclosure would disclose the judicial branch entity's or judicial branch personnel's
    decision-making process, provided that, on the facts of the specific request for records, the public interest
    served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record; or
    (12) If, on the facts of the specific request for records, the public interest served by nondisclosure of the record
    clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.
    (Subd (f) amended effective June 1, 2018.)
    (g) Computer software; copyrighted materials
    (1) Computer software developed by a judicial branch entity or used by a judicial branch entity for the storage
    or manipulation of data is not a judicial administrative record under this rule. For purposes of this rule
    "computer software" includes computer mapping systems, computer graphic systems, and computer
    programs, including the source, object, and other code in a computer program.
    (2) This rule does not limit a judicial branch entity's ability to sell, lease, or license computer software for
    commercial or noncommercial use.
    (3) This rule does not create an implied warranty on the part of any judicial branch entity for errors, omissions,
    or other defects in any computer software.
    (4) This rule does not limit any copyright protection. A judicial branch entity is not required to duplicate records
    under this rule in violation of any copyright.
    (5) Nothing in this subdivision is intended to affect the judicial administrative record status of information merely
    because the information is stored in a computer. Judicial administrative records stored in a computer will be
    disclosed as required in this rule.
    (h) Waiver of exemptions
    (1) Disclosure of a judicial administrative record that is exempt from disclosure under this rule or provision of
    law by a judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel acting within the scope of their office or
    employment constitutes a waiver of the exemptions applicable to that particular record.
    (2) This subdivision does not apply to disclosures:
    (A) Made through discovery proceedings;
    (B) Made through other legal proceedings or as otherwise required by law;
    (C) Made to another judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel for the purposes of judicial branch
    administration;
    (D) Within the scope of a statute that limits disclosure of specified writings to certain purposes; or
    (E) Made to any governmental agency or to another judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel if the
    material will be treated confidentially.

    View full-size slide

  34. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 8/10
    (i) Availability in electronic format
    (1) A judicial branch entity that has information that constitutes an identifiable judicial administrative record not
    exempt from disclosure under this rule and that is in an electronic format must, on request, produce that
    information in the electronic format requested, provided that:
    (A) No law prohibits disclosure;
    (B) The record already exists in the requested electronic format, or the judicial branch entity has previously
    produced the judicial administrative record in the requested format for its own use or for provision to
    other agencies;
    (C) The requested electronic format is customary or standard for records of a similar type and is
    commercially available to private entity requesters; and
    (D) The disclosure does not jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or the
    computer software on which the original record is maintained.
    (2) In addition to other fees imposed under this rule, the requester will bear the direct cost of producing a
    record if:
    (A) In order to comply with (1), the judicial branch entity would be required to produce a record and the
    record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals or;
    (B) Producing the requested record would require data compilation or extraction or any associated
    programming that the judicial branch entity is not required to perform under this rule but has agreed to
    perform in response to the request.
    (3) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require a judicial branch entity to reconstruct a record in an
    electronic format if the judicial branch entity no longer has the record available in an electronic format.
    (j) Public access disputes
    (1) Unless the petitioner elects to proceed under (2) below, disputes and appeals of decisions with respect to
    disputes with the Judicial Council or a superior court regarding access to budget and management
    information required to be maintained under rule 10.501 are subject to the process described in rule
    10.803.
    (2) Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of
    competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any judicial administrative
    record under this rule.
    (3) Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition that a judicial administrative record is being improperly
    withheld from disclosure, the court with jurisdiction will order the judicial branch entity to disclose the
    records or show cause why it should not do so. The court will decide the case after examining the record (in
    camera if appropriate), papers filed by the parties, and any oral argument and additional evidence as the
    court may allow.
    (4) If the court finds that the judicial branch entity's decision to refuse disclosure is not justified under this rule,
    the court will order the judicial branch entity to make the record public. If the court finds that the judicial
    branch entity's decision was justified, the court will issue an order supporting the decision.
    (5) An order of the court, either directing disclosure or supporting the decision of the judicial branch entity
    refusing disclosure, is not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section
    904.1 from which an appeal may be taken, but will be immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate
    court for the issuance of an extraordinary writ. Upon entry of an order under this subdivision, a party must,

    View full-size slide

  35. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 9/10
    in order to obtain review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service of a written notice of entry of
    the order or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the court may for good cause
    allow. If the notice is served by mail, the period within which to file the petition will be extended by 5 days. A
    stay of an order or judgment will not be granted unless the petitioning party demonstrates it will otherwise
    sustain irreparable damage and probable success on the merits. Any person who fails to obey the order of
    the court will be cited to show cause why that is not in contempt of court.
    (6) The court will award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in
    litigation filed under this subdivision. The costs and fees will be paid by the judicial branch entity and will not
    become a personal liability of any individual. If the court finds that the plaintiff's case is clearly frivolous, it
    will award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the judicial branch entity.
    (Subd (j) amended effective January 1, 2016.)
    Rule 10.500 amended effective June 1, 2018; adopted effective January 1, 2010; previously amended effective January 1,
    2016.
    Advisory Committee Comment
    Subdivision (a). By establishing a public access rule applicable to all judicial administrative records, the proposed rule would expand
    public access to these records. The Judicial Council recognizes the important public interest in access to records and information relating
    to the administration of the judicial branch. The Judicial Council also recognizes the importance of the privacy rights of individuals working
    in or doing business with judicial branch entities and the public's interest in an effective and independent judicial branch of state
    government. The report on this rule includes the Judicial Council's findings on the impact of this rule on these interests, and how these
    interests are protected by the rule.
    Subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2). This rule does not apply to adjudicative records, and is not intended to modify existing law regarding
    public access to adjudicative records. California case law has established that, in general, subject to specific statutory exceptions, case
    records that accurately and officially reflect the work of the court are public records open to inspection. (Estate of Hearst (1977) 67
    Cal.App.3d 777, 782-83.) However, documents prepared in the course of adjudicative work and not regarded as official case records,
    such as preliminary drafts, personal notes, and rough records of proceedings, are not subject to public access because the perceived
    harm to the judicial process by requiring this material to be available to the public is greater than the benefit the public might derive from
    its disclosure. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106.)
    Subdivision (c)(2). The application of this rule is intended to reflect existing case law under the California Public Records Act that
    exempts from the definition of "public record" certain types of personal records and information. The concept was first discussed in the
    California Assembly and establishes that if personal correspondence and information are "unrelated to the conduct of the people's
    business" they are therefore not public records. (San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 774, citing Assembly
    Committee on Statewide Information Policy California Public Records Act of 1968, section B, page 9, Appendix to Assembly Journal (1970
    Reg. Sess.).) Case law has further established that only records necessary or convenient to the discharge of official duty, or kept as
    necessary or convenient to the discharge of official duty, are public records for the purposes of the California Public Records Act and its
    predecessors. (Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332; City Council of Santa Monica v. Superior Court (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d
    68.)
    Subdivision (e)(4). The fees charged by a judicial branch entity under this rule are intended to allow the entity to recover an amount not
    to exceed the reasonable costs of responding to a request for records or information. In accordance with existing practice within the
    judicial branch and the other branches of government, the Judicial Council intends agencies and entities of the executive and legislative
    branches of the California state government to receive records or information requested from judicial branch entities for the agency's or
    entity's use free of charge. This subdivision is intended to provide, however, that requesters of records or information for the purpose of
    furthering the requester's commercial interests will be charged for costs incurred by the judicial branch entity in responding to the request,
    and that such costs will not be a charge against the budget of the judicial branch of the state General Fund.
    Subdivision (f)(3). In addition to the types of records and information exempt from disclosure under the corresponding provision of the
    California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6254(c), this provision includes a further nonexclusive list of specific information
    that is exempt under this rule. The rule does not attempt to list each category of information that is specific to judicial branch entities and
    that may also be exempt under this rule. For example, although they are not specifically listed, this provision exempts from disclosure
    records maintained by any court or court-appointed counsel administrator for the purpose of evaluating attorneys seeking or being
    considered for appointment to cases.

    View full-size slide

  36. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules
    https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 10/10
    Subdivision (f)(7). The 2018 amendments to (f)(7) clarify that settlement agreements are not exempt from disclosure. All judicial branch
    entities, including the Judicial Council, must disclose settlement agreements under a rule 10.500 request, given the public nature of these
    records. (See Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 909.) By clarifying the public
    nature of settlement agreements and judicial branch entities' obligation to disclose them, the amended rule also clarifies that a judicial
    branch entity's disclosure of these agreements, whether maintained by the entity or its attorneys, would not implicate any ethical or legal
    obligations under Business and Professions Code section 6068(e)(1) or rule 3-100(A) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. The
    duty of a judicial branch entity to disclose public records of settlements is not constrained by which persons, division, or office within the
    entity maintains the records.
    The 2018 amendments to rule 10.500 do not apply to records maintained by the Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent
    state entity established under article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution. Rule 10.500 is not applicable to the Commission on
    Judicial Performance which has separate rules that apply to its work and records.
    Subdivision (f)(10). The definition of "trade secret" restates the definition in Civil Code section 3426.1.
    Subdivision (f)(11). This subdivision is intended to reflect California law on the subject of the "deliberative process" exemption under the
    California Public Records Act, which is currently stated in the Supreme Court's decision in Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53
    Cal.3d 1325 and the later Court of Appeal decisions California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 159
    and Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.
    Subdivision (j)(1). Under current rule 10.803 a petitioner may file a writ in a superior court regarding a dispute with a superior court or the
    Judicial Council with respect to disclosure of records and information required to be maintained under current rule 10.802. The writ
    petition must be heard on an expedited basis and includes a right to an appeal. The statutory authority for the hearing process set forth in
    current rule 10.803, Government Code section 71675(b), does not extend this procedure to other disputes with respect to public access.
    The rule provides that petitioners with a dispute with any other judicial branch entity, or with respect to records that are not required to be
    maintained under rule 10.802, may follow the procedure set forth in (j)(2) through (j)(6), which is equivalent to the dispute resolution
    procedure of the California Public Records Act. A petitioner eligible for the dispute resolution process set out in current rule 10.803 may
    also elect to proceed with his or her dispute under the procedure set forth in (j)(2) through (j)(6).
    [ Back to Top ]

    View full-size slide

  37. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 1
    W (AACL) Date.: December 20th 2023
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail : [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    Request for Records
    Hello,
    This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am
    writing this letter to file a request for records with your office.i The bases for this records request
    are [1] the decision of the California government to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around)
    September 30th 2014 following the September 12th 2012 suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott, thereby
    recognizing sexual assault as a factor that could lead a girl (below the age of 18) and/or a woman
    (above the age of 18) to commit suicide;ii [2] the decision of the National Council on Disability
    (NCD) to formally recognize sexual assault as a factor increasing the risk of suicide on (or
    around) January 30th 2018; iii [3] the decision of the Missouri government to remain muted on the
    subject of sexual violence leading to suicide even after the August 04th 2020 suicide of Catherine
    Daisy Coleman.iv
    I) Records Requested
    What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing [1] your
    discussions about the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA)
    failing to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or
    written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment that
    offends their conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal
    and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment
    they consider to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii) representatives of the media
    and/or members of the general public from requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a
    patient in a medical facility who may have been the victim of discrimination, racism and/or
    sexism;v [2] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in
    the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV –
    244689; [3] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was
    concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County
    Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [4] your discussions about Audrie
    Taylor Pott as a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15 (fifteen) years of age, when she was sexually
    assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her sexual assault
    on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii) who was declared deceased on September 12th 2012
    following her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; vi (iv) whose suicide led the
    California legislature to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose
    name, image and likeness is extensively linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of
    the 2016 Netflix documentary entitled Audrie and Daisy;vii [5] your discussions about Catherine

    View full-size slide

  38. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 2
    Daisy Coleman as a Caucasian woman, (i) who was victim of a sexual assault on (or around)
    January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii) who was under American
    national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was the victim
    of in the State of Missouri; (iii) attempted suicide following her very much publicized sexual
    assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been noted to have spent
    some time at Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many contracts with the
    Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or around) January 09th
    2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have been “put at substantial risk” when she was left
    “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even though she was “incapable of
    protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State
    of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott; [6]
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed
    for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a
    healthcare worker; (ii) has previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of
    Catherine Daisy Coleman personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or
    around) August 04th 2020; (iii) was provided by his former employers the contractual agreements
    that were concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine
    Daisy Coleman was reported to have stayed in following the sexual assault she was the victim of
    on (or around) January 08th 2012; (iv) has had his written publications on the subject of World
    Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his
    conscience was not offended by the “investigation,” which had been launched against him
    between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 (even though he was very much vexed by
    that); (v) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that
    would give the impression that he has not officially demanded for the MODMH to disclose the
    PHI of Catherine Daisy Coleman of the time she has spent at Missouri Girls Town following the
    sexual assault she was victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012 (even though he has asked for
    that document to be made available to him); (vi) has had his written publications on the subject
    of WSPD distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his conscience was not
    shocked by the very lenient criminal charges filed by the State of Missouri on behalf of
    Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) January 09th 2014 (even though he is still very much
    dismayed by the way Missouri government authorities handled the sexual assault Catherine
    Daisy Coleman was the victim of on January 08th 2012);viii (vii) was very much annoyed to learn
    that his written publications on the subject of the National Council on Disability (NCD) January
    30th 2018 report were being distorted on the Internet by the so-called “Web;” ix [7] your
    discussions about the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) as a state government
    agency, which has a history of citing HIPAA for the purpose of (i) shielding their employees
    from criticism for the medical treatment they provide that is in reality discriminatory and/or
    racist and/or sexist; (ii) not providing the personal health information (PHI) of their
    patients/prisoners who have been subjected to medical treatment that is in reality discriminatory
    and/or racist and/or sexist; [8] your discussions about the National Council on Disability (NCD)
    as a federal agency of the U.S government, which has on January 30th 2018 decided to recognize
    that sexual assault (i) “is a public health and public safety concern with far reaching
    implications;” (ii) “is a deeply personal violation,” which “leaves physical and emotional
    impacts that change the lives of victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical, psychological, and
    emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks,
    and sleep disorders;” [9] your discussions about the decision of Joseph Biden / Kamala Harris

    View full-size slide

  39. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 3
    White House Administration to recognize on (or around) September 09th 2022 that (i) they “are
    still in the early stages of learning about the conditions that can lead to suicide, including job
    strain or loss, serious illnesses, and financial, criminal, legal, and relationship problems;” (ii)
    “suicide accounts for 1 (one) of every 100 (one hundred) deaths globally;” (iii) suicide is “the
    second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 10 (ten) and 34 (thirty four).” x
    II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing
    The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] the provisions of the Health Insurance
    Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) fail to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers
    from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been
    subjected to medical treatment that offends their conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare
    workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been
    subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii)
    representatives of the media and/or members of the general public from requesting the personal
    health information (PHI) of a patient in a medical facility who may have been the victim of
    discrimination, racism and/or sexism; [2] Audrie Taylor Pott is a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15
    (fifteen) years of age, when she was sexually assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who
    attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her sexual assault on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii)
    who was declared deceased on September 12th 2012 following her attempted suicide on (or
    around) September 10th 2012; (iv) whose suicide led the California government to enact Audrie’s
    Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose name, image and likeness is extensively
    linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of the 2016 Netflix documentary entitled
    Audrie and Daisy; [3] Catherine Daisy Coleman is a Caucasian woman, (i) who was subjected to
    a sexual assault on (or around) January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii)
    who was under American national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual
    assault she was victim of in the State of Missouri; (iii) who attempted suicide following her very
    much publicized sexual assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been
    noted to have spent some time at Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many
    contracts with the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or
    around) January 09th 2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have been “put at substantial risk”
    when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even though she was
    “incapable of protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative
    action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie
    Taylor Pott whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State of Missouri even though it
    was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott; [4] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is
    a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed for the Missouri Department
    of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a healthcare worker; (ii) has
    previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of Catherine Daisy Coleman
    personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or around) August 04th 2020;
    (iii) was provided by his former employers the contractual agreements that were concluded
    between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine Daisy Coleman was
    reported to have stayed in following the sexual assault she was victim of on (or around) January

    View full-size slide

  40. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 4
    08th 2012; (iv) has used his advocacy skills to encourage his former employers and their
    contractual partners to formally recognize sexual assault as a factor that increases the risk of
    girls/women to commit suicide; (v) has used his advocacy skills to encourage his former
    employers and their contractual partners to provide appropriate support for sexual violence
    survivors who may be considering suicide; [6] the Missouri Department of Mental Health
    (MODMH) is a state government agency, which has a history of citing HIPAA for the purpose of
    (i) shielding their employees from criticism for the medical treatment they provide that is in
    reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (ii) not providing the personal health
    information (PHI) of their patients/prisoners who have been subjected to medical treatment that
    is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; [7] the National Council on Disability
    (NCD) is a federal agency of the U.S government, which has on January 30th 2018 decided to
    recognize that sexual assault (i) “is a public health and public safety concern with far reaching
    implications;” (ii) “is a deeply personal violation,” which “leaves physical and emotional
    impacts that change the lives of victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical, psychological, and
    emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks,
    and sleep disorders.”
    In my judgment, the facts presented in this request for a fee waiver and expedited processing are
    not the sort to bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of
    the U.S government overall. As a Black man with a U.S college degree (who has previously been
    subjected to a racially motivated Missouri state government investigation), I would like to take
    this opportunity to condemn [1] violence committed against girls/women irrespective of their
    racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their religious affiliations
    and/or their disability status; [2] the January 08th 2012 sexual assault Catherine Daisy Coleman
    was victim of in the State of Missouri; [3] the September 04th 2012 sexual assault Audrie Taylor
    Pott was victim of in the State of California; [4] malicious efforts to place women in
    circumstances encouraging the commission of suicide as a form of retaliation/punishment for
    speaking about an incident of sexual harassment/sexual assault and/or rape to agents of law
    enforcement and/or other qualified individuals; [5] the racially motivated Missouri state
    investigation I was subjected to between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 when I was
    working for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH);
    [6] the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) processing of the Charge they had
    assigned Case No.: 28E – 2014 – 00485C.
    The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you had conversations
    about the provisions of HIPAA failing to prohibit current/former U.S healthcare workers from
    expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to
    medical treatment that offends their conscience? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 2) Have you had conversations about the provisions of HIPAA failing to prohibit
    current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they
    believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory
    and/or racist and/or sexist? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 3) Have you had

    View full-size slide

  41. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 5
    conversations about the provisions of HIPAA failing to prohibit members of the general public /
    representatives of the media from requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a patient in
    a medical facility who may have been the victim of discrimination and/or racism and/or sexism?
    4) Have you had conversations about the decision of the Missouri Department of Mental Health
    (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) to subject their former employee Michael A. Ayele
    (a.k.a) W to an “investigation” (that was offensive to his conscience) on October 26th 2013 and
    then afterwards “clear” him of that investigation on November 21st 2013 and then afterwards
    not provide him with documents of that “investigation” (they had conducted on him) and then
    afterwards not provide him with the PHI of Catherine Daisy Coleman? If yes, will you promptly
    disclose those records? 5) Have you had conversations about the written publications of Michael
    A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on the subject of World Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) being distorted in
    such a way that would give the impression that the January 08th 2012 sexual assault Catherine
    Daisy Coleman was victim of did not cause her “long term physical, psychological and
    emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks
    and sleep disorders” even though the evidence suggests otherwise particularly given her August
    04th 2020 suicide? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 6) Have you had
    conversations about the January 08th 2012 sexual assault Catherine Daisy Coleman was victim
    of? If yes, will you disclose those records? 7) Have you had conversations about the criminal
    charges that were filed by the State of Missouri on behalf of Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or
    around) January 09th 2014? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 8) Have you had
    conversations about the events and circumstances leading up to the August 04th 2020 suicide of
    Catherine Daisy Coleman following the sexual assault she was a victim of on (or around)
    January 08th 2012? If yes, will you disclose those records? 9) Have you had conversations about
    the decision of the State of Missouri not to take legislative action recognizing sexual violence as
    a factor increasing the risk of suicide even after what happened to Catherine Daisy Coleman in
    the days/weeks/months/years after January 08th 2012? If yes, will you disclose those records? 10)
    Have you had conversations about the decision of the State of Missouri not to take legislative
    action recognizing sexual violence as a factor that has the potential to increase the risk of suicide
    even though the State of Missouri had on January 09th 2014 filed criminal charges on behalf of
    Catherine Daisy Coleman, which recognized that she was on the night of January 08th 2012 “put
    at substantial risk” when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures”
    even though she was “incapable of protecting or caring for herself?” If yes, will you promptly
    disclose those records? 11) Has your local/state government ever formulated an opinion about
    sexual violence as a factor that increases the risk of girls/women to commit suicide? If yes, will
    you disclose those records? 12) Have you had conversations about the decision of the National
    Council on Disability (NCD) to recognize on January 30th 2018 that sexual assault (i) “is a
    public health and public safety concern with far reaching implications;” (ii) “is a deeply
    personal violation,” which “leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of
    victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including
    depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders?” If yes,
    will you promptly disclose those records? 13) Have you had conversations about the September
    04th 2012 sexual assault Audrie Taylor Pott was victim of in the State of California? If yes, will

    View full-size slide

  42. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 6
    you disclose those records? 14) Have you had conversations about the tragic decision of Audrie
    Taylor Pott to attempt suicide 6 days following her traumatic sexual assault? If yes, will you
    disclose those records? 15) Have you had conversations about the decision of the California
    government to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014, thereby recognizing
    sexual assault as a factor that could lead girls/women to commit suicide? If yes, will you disclose
    those records? 16) Have you had conversations about the wrongful death complaint that had been
    filed with the Santa Clara County Superior Court on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott, which ended
    up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689? If yes, will you promptly disclose those
    records? 17) Have you had conversations about the terms and conditions of the non-monetary
    settlement agreement, which was concluded following the filing of the wrongful death complaint
    that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following the Case No.: 1 -
    13 – CV – 244689? If yes, will you promptly disclose those records? 18) Have you had
    conversations about the decision of the Joseph Biden / Kamala Harris White House
    Administration to recognize on (or around) September 09th 2022 that (i) they “are still in the
    early stages of learning about the conditions that can lead to suicide, including job strain or
    loss, serious illnesses, and financial, criminal, legal, and relationship problems;” (ii) “suicide
    accounts for 1 (one) of every 100 (one hundred) deaths globally;” (iii) suicide is “the second
    leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 10 (ten) and 34 (thirty four)?” If yes,
    will you promptly disclose those records?
    This records request should be expedited because it puts into question the government’s integrity
    about the way that people are treated in the U.S.A on account of their gender, their racial
    backgrounds, their national origins and their disability status. My request for a fee waiver should
    be granted because [1] I have identified operations and activities of the federal government in
    concert with U.S local/state government; [2] the issues presented are meaningfully informative
    about government operations or activities in order to be ‘likely to contribute’ to and increase
    public understanding of those operations or activities; [3] this records request is being filed for
    non-commercial purposes and any records you disclose to me could be made available to the
    general public at no financial expense to them.
    Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that all the statements I have made to be true and
    accurate to the best of my knowledge. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    W (AACL)
    Michael A. Ayele
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist

    View full-size slide

  43. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 7
    Work Cited
    i Please be advised that I have previously disseminated a vast number of documents obtained
    through records request using the means of various digital publishing platforms. As a
    representative of the media, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the records
    you disclose to me could be made available to the general public at no financial expense to them.
    This records request is being filed for non-commercial purposes. As previously noted, any
    records you disclose to me could be made available to the general public at no financial expense
    to them.
    ii This bill is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High
    student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of
    her were disseminated electronically. Her assailants were tried as juveniles. The allegations
    against them were sustained and they handed down sentences of 30 to 45 days, news reports
    said. Despite the severity of their crimes, they are freed from having to register sex offenders due
    to an omission in the law. (…) They are free to continue their lives, education, and careers in
    anonymity thanks to outdated laws after publicly destroying a young woman's life.
    The incidents surrounding Audrie's death are not isolated but reflect a disturbing trend. Her
    case is eerily similar to the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old student in Canada, who
    suffered nearly two years of bullying as photos of her sex assault were circulated by students,
    and the photographed rape of an unconscious 16-year-old girl by two high school football
    players in Steubenville, Ohio. It should be noted that the identities of the convicted football
    players, both 16, were released by the juvenile court.
    The nature of the crimes against Audrie, coupled with the growing use of social media to bully
    victims, demands that our statutes and codes be amended to reflect the severity of these offenses
    in the 21st century to not only give justice but to act as a deterrent. Senate Bill 838.:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-
    0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html
    iii The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) has on December 15th 2022
    expressed dissatisfaction with the National Council on Disability (NCD) processing of the
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they had assigned Case No.: 2023 – 01 as a direct
    consequence of their failure to make clear [1] the research, which was performed by their federal
    agency on the subject of students with disabilities (i) being accused of sexual violence in
    college/university settings; (ii) being victims of sexual violence; (iii) requiring accommodations
    during Title IX hearings, judicial procedures, suspensions and other procedures on campus; (iv)
    being told about “affirmative and effective consent” in healthy sexual relations after informing
    them of the April 05th 1986 rape and murder Jeanne Ann Clery was a victim of; (v) being told
    about “affirmative and effective consent” after providing them with very limited background
    information on the rape and murder of a Caucasian woman (i.e: Jeanne Ann Clery) by a
    Black/African American man (i.e: Josoph Henry); [2] the date and time (i) representatives of the

    View full-size slide

  44. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 8
    media, (ii) members of the general public, (iii) current college students, (iv) current university
    students, (v) alumnae of U.S colleges/universities and (vi) alumni of U.S colleges/universities
    can expect a follow up report to the January 30th 2018 publication of the NCD entitled “Not on
    the Radar: Sexual Assault of College Students With Disabilities.”
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is an alumnus of Westminster College (located in Fulton, Missouri)
    who was in the month of January 2010 informed about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of
    Jeanne Ann Clery. He is responsible for the written publications of the Association for the
    Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL): a non-profit organization primarily engaged in the
    dissemination of public records obtained from the U.S government. It is the judgment of Michael
    A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery continues to leave several key
    questions about Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 unaddressed. The questions
    asked by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W about Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
    include but are not limited to the following. 1) What are/were colleges/universities in the U.S.A
    obligations pursuant to Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972? Were
    colleges/universities throughout the U.S.A required by law to condemn violence committed
    against women irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their religious
    affiliations and their national origins following the enactment of Title IX of the Education
    Amendments Act of 1972? If yes, were colleges/universities required to inform their students
    about what constitute appropriate sexual boundaries pursuant to Title IX of the Education
    Amendments Act of 1972? 2) Did colleges/universities throughout the U.S.A begin informing
    their students about what constitute “affirmative and effective consent” following the enactment
    of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972? If not, when did colleges/universities
    begin to inform their incoming freshmen/transfer students about the concepts of “affirmative and
    effective consent?” Did colleges/universities throughout the U.S.A begin teaching the concepts of
    “affirmative and effective consent” to their incoming freshmen/transfer students following the
    rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery (dated April 05th 1986)? If yes, why have
    colleges/universities throughout the U.S.A fixated on the rape and murder of this Caucasian
    woman by a Black/African American man to inform their incoming freshmen/transfer students
    about what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent?” 3) Are colleges/universities
    discussions pertaining to what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” consistent with
    Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 if they are first informing their
    incoming/freshmen students about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery? Are
    colleges/universities discussions pertaining to what constitutes “affirmative and effective
    consent” consistent with their academic integrity policy if they are first informing their incoming
    freshmen/transfer students about the rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery? 4) Were there forces
    out there in the 1970s and the 1980s looking for a case where a Black/African American man
    rapes and murders a Caucasian woman for the purpose of enacting a law similar to the Jeanne
    Clery Act? Was the enactment of the Jeanne Clery Act the result of racist and sexist individuals
    coming together for the purpose of [a] preventing racial minorities from climbing the social
    ladder through academic education; [b] cracking down on interracial relationships particularly
    between a Caucasian woman and a Black/African American man; [c] not applying the same
    standards in circumstances where a Caucasian man sexually assaults a woman from a racial
    minority (as in the case of Brock Turner and Chanel Miller following her rape on January
    18th 2015 at the campus of Stanford University)?

    View full-size slide

  45. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 9
    According to the National Council on Disability (NCD), [1] “affirmative and effective consent”
    is being taught to college/university students of the United States of America (U.S.A) during the
    course of their Freshmen year, [2] college/university students are informed about “healthy sexual
    relationships” during the course of their 1st (first) year of post-secondary academic education; [3]
    20% (twenty percent) of women were sexually assaulted in a college/university setting by the
    time they reached their Senior year in Calendar Year 2005; [4] 32% (thirty two percent) of
    women with a disability were sexually assaulted during Calendar Years 2014 and 2015 in a
    college/university setting; [5] sexual assault “is a public health and public safety concern with
    far reaching implications;” [6] sexual assault is a “deeply personal violation,” which “leaves
    physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” [7] sexual assault causes “long
    term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress,
    thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders.”
    As a matter of principle, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W unequivocally condemns violence
    committed against women irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their
    national origins, their religious affiliations and/or their disability status. Affirmative and Effective
    Consent in Healthy Sexual Relations on American College/University Campuses. Association for
    the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) Website on WordPress.:
    https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/2022/11/02/affirmative-and-effective-consent-in-
    healthy-sexual-relationships-on-college-campuses-index/
    iv The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) has obtained limited responsive
    documents concerning the suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman, which took place on August 04th
    2020. Among documents that were disclosed to the AACL are contracts concluded between the
    Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where
    Catherine Daisy Coleman is reported to have stayed in for a period of 90 (ninety) days before
    her permanent departure to the State of Colorado from the State of Missouri. According to the
    MODMH, Missouri Girls Town is a “time-limited placement resource for children requiring
    active coordinated and professional intervention in a highly structured environment by virtue of
    a demonstrated inability to function in any less restrictive setting. Children requiring residential
    treatment services exhibit a severe mental illness and/or persistent mental disorder as diagnosed
    according to the DSM-IV. These children may be unable to function consistently in an open,
    public school setting, may present a chronic runaway risk, and may present a history of showing
    rage, including physical aggression toward self and others.”
    Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W was a previous employee of the MODMH. He is also an alumnus of
    Westminster College (Fulton, MO). As an alumnus of Westminster College, who has previously
    worked for the Fulton State Hospital (a component of the MODMH), Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W
    doesn't know if the MODMH accept as a matter of fact the reality that sexual assault could lead
    a woman who has experienced it to commit suicide. Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W is very much a
    proponent of reviewing the personal health information (PHI) of Catherine Daisy Coleman.

    View full-size slide

  46. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 10
    Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W is very much concerned about the circumstances which led Catherine
    Daisy Coleman to leave the State of Missouri for the State of Colorado. Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W
    is also concerned about the things Catherine Daisy Coleman is reported to have gone through in
    the State of Colorado before her suicide on August 04th 2020. The MODMH have concluded an
    affiliation agreement with Westminster College.
    As a matter of principle, the AACL unequivocally condemns violence committed against women
    irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their national origins, their
    religious affiliations and/or their disability status. The AACL is gravely concerned about women
    being placed in circumstances encouraging the commission of suicide after having reported an
    incident of sexual harassment/sexual assault/rape to the authorities. The AACL unequivocally
    condemns malicious efforts to put women in circumstances encouraging the commission of
    suicide as a form of retaliation for having reported an incident of sexual harassment/sexual
    assault/rape. About the August 04th 2020 Suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman. Michael Ayele
    (a.k.a) W Official Website.: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/2021/12/10/catherine-daisy-
    coleman-january-08th-2012-sexual-assault-leading-to-august-04th-2020-suicide-hipaa-index/
    v The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a federal law that
    required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from
    being disclosed without the patient’s consent or knowledge. The US Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS) issued the HIPAA Privacy Rule to implement the requirements of
    HIPAA. The HIPAA Security Rule protects a subset of information covered by the Privacy Rule.
    (…)
    The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information
    (known as protected health information or PHI) by entities subject to the Privacy Rule. These
    individuals and organizations are called “covered entities.”
    The Privacy Rule also contains standards for individuals’ rights to understand privacy and
    control how their health information is used. A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to make sure
    that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health
    information needed to provide and promote high-quality healthcare, and to protect the public’s
    health and well-being. The Privacy Rule permits important uses of information while protecting
    the privacy of people who seek care and healing. (…)
    The law permits, but does not require, a covered entity to use and disclose PHI, without an
    individual’s authorization, for the following purposes or situations:
     Disclosure to the individual (if the information is required for access or accounting of
    disclosures, the entity MUST disclose to the individual)
     Treatment, payment, and healthcare operations
     Opportunity to agree or object to the disclosure of PHI
     Incident to an otherwise permitted use and disclosure
     Limited dataset for research, public health, or healthcare operation

    View full-size slide

  47. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 11
     Public interest and benefit activities – The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of
    PHI, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority
    purposes:
    1) When required by law
    2) Public health activities
    3) Victims of abuse or neglect or domestic violence
    4) Health oversight activities
    5) Judicial and administrative proceedings
    6) Law enforcement
    7) Function (such as identification) concerning deceased persons
    8) Cadaveric organ, eye, or tissue donation
    9) Research, under certain conditions
    10) To prevent or lessen a serious threat to health or safety
    11) Essential government functions
    12) Workers’ compensation
    Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Department of Health
    and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).:
    https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html
    vi Audrie Pott Suicide: Top 10 Facts You Need to Know. Heavy.:
    https://heavy.com/news/2013/04/audrie-pott-suicide-arrests-cyberbullying-rape/
    vii Audrie and Daisy. Trailer.:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1DUFZ4Fnd8&ab_channel=KinoCheck.com
    Audrie and Daisy. #Stop the Shame. Netflix.:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXw843GfNFw&ab_channel=Netflix
    viii The Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) regrets to inform members
    of the general public/representatives of the media (who may follow its work) that unknown
    others were very much eager to assert control over the narrative of events Michael A. Ayele
    (a.k.a) W was witness to between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 when he was an
    employee of the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH).
    Unfortunately, these eager and unknown others have gone on to intrusively insert themselves
    into the publications of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W on his Internet Archive (Archive.org)
    account both with malice and without his prior assent. Furthermore, these unknown others have
    gone on to distort his published written content detailing his recollections of the nights he had
    spent working as a public employee of the Missouri state government between October 26th 2013

    View full-size slide

  48. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 12
    and November 21st 2013 without ever requesting for his prior approval. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a)
    W was very much displeased upon learning that his written content on various digital platforms
    were being filtered by Internet Search Engines (ISE), which include (but may not be limited to)
    AOL, Bing/MSN, and Yahoo!
    As you may be aware, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was in 2013 employed for the Fulton State
    Hospital (FSH): a Missouri state government agency, which is a component of the Missouri
    Department of Mental Health (MODMH). Between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013,
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was subjected to an internal Missouri state government investigation
    following the self-injurious non-suicidal attempt of a patient/prisoner of the FSH now defunct
    Biggs Forensic Center (BFC) New Outlook Program (NOP). On (or around) November
    21st 2013, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was “cleared” of that Missouri state investigation. Despite
    several efforts to obtain records relating to that Missouri state government investigation he was
    subjected to (between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013), Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    has thus far been unable to obtain the documents he has asked for.
    On his official WordPress website, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W had created the Health Insurance
    Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) tag for the first time in reference to the inconsistent
    legislative actions that were taken following the August 04th 2020 suicide of Catherine Daisy
    Coleman and the September 12th 2012 suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott. It is the judgment of
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that the provisions of HIPAA enable current/former healthcare
    workers to express written objections to a specific course of medical treatment a patient is
    subjected to if the current/former healthcare worker believes the treatment to be discriminatory
    and/or racist and/or sexist in nature. It is also the judgment of the Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    that the inconsistent legislative actions taken (in the State of California and the State of Missouri)
    following the suicides of Audrie Taylor Pott and Catherine Daisy Coleman merited discussions
    on the subject of “sexual assault as a factor increasing the risk of suicide” (particularly) among
    current/former healthcare workers.
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W was very much concerned upon learning about the August 04th 2020
    suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman because he was in Calendar Year 2013 a public employee of
    the MODMH (FSH). As a former employee of the MODMH (FSH), it remains unclear to
    Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W whether or not his former employers acknowledge as a matter of
    reality the fact that sexual assault is a factor increasing the risk of suicide. It also remains unclear
    to Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W if the Personal Health Information (PHI) of Catherine Daisy
    Coleman reflected this risk. According to a January 30th 2018 report published by the National
    Council on Disability (NCD), [1] “affirmative and effective consent” is being taught to
    college/university students of the United States of America (U.S.A) during the course of their
    Freshmen year; [2] college/university students are informed about “healthy sexual
    relationships” during the course of their 1st year of post-secondary academic education; [3]
    twenty percent (20%) of women were sexually assaulted in a college/university setting by the
    time they had reached their Senior Year in Calendar Year 2005; [4] thirty two (32%) of women
    with a disability were sexually assaulted during Calendar Year 2014 and 2015 in a
    college/university setting; [5] sexual assault is a “deeply personal violation,” which leaves
    “physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” [6] sexual assault causes
    “long term physical, psychological and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic

    View full-size slide

  49. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 13
    stress, thoughts of suicides and sleep disorders.”
    Via email, the former employers of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W (i.e.: the MODMH) have refused
    to deny that Catherine Daisy Coleman was a patient of Missouri Girls Town following the
    January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was a victim of (only confirming that Missouri Girls Town
    is indeed a contractual partner of the MODMH). The terms and conditions of the contractual
    agreements concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town recognize that Missouri
    Girls Town is a “time-limited placement resource for children requiring active coordinated and
    professional intervention in a highly structured environment by virtue of a demonstrated inability
    to function in any less restrictive setting. Children requiring residential treatment services
    exhibit a severe mental illness and/or persistent mental disorder as diagnosed according to the
    DSM-IV. These children may be unable to function consistently in an open, public school setting,
    may present a chronic runaway risk, and may present a history of showing rage, including
    physical aggression toward self and others.” It is the judgment of Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W
    that the criminal charges filed by the State of Missouri on (or around) January 09th 2014 (which
    had been assigned Case No.: Kind CR00011) failed to seriously take into consideration the
    damage that had been inflicted on the physical and mental well-being of Catherine Daisy
    Coleman on (or around) January 08th 2012.
    Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W has used his advocacy skills to have his former employers as well as
    their contractual partners acknowledge the reality that sexual violence is a factor increasing the
    risk of suicide for the purpose of preventing in the future similar suicides such as the one
    committed by Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) August 04th 2020. Unfortunately,
    however, it remains unclear for Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W what the obligations of the MODMH
    pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Health Insurance Portability &
    Accountability Act (HIPAA) actually are. The MODMH were extremely vague to Sunshine
    requests submitted on the subject of [1] whether they have in the past disclosed the PHI of an
    individual in circumstances, where discrimination was at play (for the purpose of remedying the
    discrimination); [2] whether they were in the past required to disclose the PHI of an individual
    either to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and/or the courts (for the
    purpose of remedying the discrimination).
    As a matter of principle, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W unequivocally condemns violence
    committed against women irrespective of their racial backgrounds, their sexual orientations, their
    national origins, their religious affiliations and/or their disability status. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a)
    W also condemns malicious efforts designed to place women in circumstances encouraging the
    commission of suicide after a documented incident of sexual violence. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a)
    W takes full responsibility for this publication on the subject of “The ‘Web’ Unwelcome Filtering
    of the Night Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Spent on October 26th 2013 as a Public Employee of the
    Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) Now-Defunct
    Biggs Forensic Center (BFC) New Outlook Program (NOP): Context on the Inconsistent
    Legislative Action Taken by the Governments of the State of California and the State of Missouri
    Following the Suicides of Audrie Taylor Pott and Catherine Daisy Coleman.” Association for the
    Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL).:
    https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/2023/12/18/web-unwelcome-filtering-of-october-26th-

    View full-size slide

  50. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 14
    2013-at-missouris-fulton-state-hospital-context-on-2016-netflix-documentary-audrie-and-daisy-
    after-aug-04th-2020-index/
    ix Excerpt of Email Sent by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W to Scribd on (or around) December 18th
    2023
    Hello,
    This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am
    writing this letter because it has recently come to my attention that my written content on the
    subject of "affirmative and effective consent in healthy sexual relationships," which I had
    published on Scribd was distorted by the so-called "web."
    As you may be aware, all Freshmen undergraduate students of the United States of America
    (U.S.A) are now being taught what constitutes "affirmative and effective consent" in healthy
    sexual relationships as part of their formal post-secondary academic education. Furthermore, all
    Freshmen undergraduate students of the U.S.A receive Title IX training on what constitutes
    "sexual harassment" as part of their formal post-secondary academic education.
    In their January 30th 2018 report, the National Council on Disability (NCD) recognized this,
    writing in part that [1] “affirmative and effective consent” is being taught to college/university
    students of the United States of America (U.S.A) during the course of their Freshmen year; [2]
    college/university students are informed about “healthy sexual relationships” during the course
    of their 1st year of post-secondary academic education; [3] twenty percent (20%) of women were
    sexually assaulted in a college/university setting by the time they had reached their Senior Year
    in Calendar Year 2005; [4] thirty two (32%) of women with a disability were sexually assaulted
    during Calendar Year 2014 and 2015 in a college/university setting; [5] sexual assault is a
    “deeply personal violation,” which leaves “physical and emotional impacts that change the lives
    of victims;” [6] sexual assault causes “long term physical, psychological and emotional effects,
    including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicides and sleep disorders.”
    After reading the January 30th 2018 report of the NCD, I, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W filed a
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the NCD, which went on to be assigned by
    Case No.: 2023 - 01. After further consideration, I, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W decided to
    publish the entire content of my correspondence with the NCD on the subject of their January
    30th 2018 report as well as the issues I had taken with that report.
    Can you explain how it is possible for others to intrusively insert themselves into the content of
    my written correspondence with the NCD (on the subject of their January 30th 2018 report) after
    I had published this correspondence of mine on Scribd? In other words, can you explain how it is
    possible for others to filter the content of my written correspondence with the NCD (on the
    subject of their January 30th 2018 report) on Internet Search Engines (ISE) such as Bing/MSN
    and possibly others?

    View full-size slide

  51. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023
    MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 15
    I will encourage that you be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    x On World Suicide Prevention Day, our Nation joins the World Health Organization, the
    International Association for Suicide Prevention, and countries across the globe in mourning
    those who have died by suicide. Suicide is a devastating tragedy that leaves loved ones with
    unanswered questions and families missing a piece of their soul, wishing for more time
    together. We are still in the early stages of learning about the conditions that can lead to
    suicide, including job strain or loss; serious illnesses; and financial, criminal, legal, and
    relationship problems. Acknowledging suicide and the impact it has on our communities is a
    first step to understanding how it can be prevented more effectively. Suicide accounts for 1 of
    every 100 deaths globally, and it is the second leading cause of death for Americans between the
    ages of 10 and 34. (…)
    On this day of commemoration and action, we commit to studying the risk factors associated
    with suicide and to making mental health care accessible and affordable. Finally, to those
    experiencing emotional distress: please know that you are loved, and that you are not
    alone. There is hope, and there is help, and I encourage you to call or text 9-8-8 to reach the
    National Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of
    the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the
    laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 10, 2022, as World Suicide Prevention
    Day. I call upon all Americans, communities, organizations, and all levels of government to join
    me in creating hope through action and committing to preventing suicide across America. IN
    WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of September, in the year of
    our Lord two thousand twenty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
    two hundred and forty-seventh. A Proclamation on World Suicide Prevention Day, 2022. White
    House.: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/09/a-
    proclamation-on-world-suicide-prevention-day-2022/

    View full-size slide

  52. Michael A Ayele
    25 Payrolls at a time are displayed.
    Find Payroll End Date: (CCYY) (MM)
    FIND NOW
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    12/31/2013 1/15/2014 533.92 533.92
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: .00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 77 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 2.32
    Employee Contribution: 21.36 Retirement: 90.66
    Updated: 4/09/2014 LTD: 2.64
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    12/15/2013 12/31/2013 1,291.73 1,291.73
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.62
    Employee Contribution: 51.67 Retirement: 219.34
    Updated: 1/09/2014 LTD: 6.39
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    11/30/2013 12/16/2013 3,306.55 3,306.55
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 14.38
    Employee Contribution: 132.26 Retirement: 561.45
    Updated: 12/10/2013 LTD: 16.37
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    11/15/2013 11/27/2013 1,291.73 1,291.73
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.62
    Employee Contribution: 51.67 Retirement: 219.34
    Updated: 12/10/2013 LTD: 6.39
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay

    View full-size slide

  53. 10/31/2013 11/15/2013 2,572.91 2,572.91
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 11.19
    Employee Contribution: 102.92 Retirement: 436.88
    Updated: 11/08/2013 LTD: 12.74
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    10/15/2013 10/31/2013 1,285.00 1,285.00
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.59
    Employee Contribution: 51.40 Retirement: 218.19
    Updated: 11/08/2013 LTD: 6.36
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    9/30/2013 10/15/2013 3,888.73 3,888.73
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 16.92
    Employee Contribution: 155.55 Retirement: 660.31
    Updated: 10/09/2013 LTD: 19.25
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    9/15/2013 9/30/2013 1,243.10 1,243.10
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.41
    Employee Contribution: 49.72 Retirement: 211.08
    Updated: 10/09/2013 LTD: 6.15
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    8/31/2013 9/16/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00

    View full-size slide

  54. Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29
    Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39
    Updated: 9/10/2013 LTD: 6.02
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    8/15/2013 8/30/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: 4.00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29
    Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39
    Updated: 9/10/2013 LTD: 6.02
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    7/31/2013 8/15/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: .00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29
    Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39
    Updated: 8/09/2013 LTD: 6.02
    End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
    7/15/2013 7/31/2013 663.00 663.00
    Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance
    System: REG Member: .00
    Position Type: RS Spouse: .00
    Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
    Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 2.88
    Employee Contribution: 26.52 Retirement: 112.58
    Updated: 8/09/2013 LTD: 3.28

    View full-size slide

  55. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    St. Louis District Office
    Robert A. Young Building
    1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
    St. Louis, MO 63103
    Toll Free: (877)-895-1802
    TTY (314) 539-7803
    FAX (314) 539-7050
    Website: www.eeoc.gov
    December 13, 2016
    Via: [email protected]
    Mr. Michael Ayele, Founder
    Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties
    P.O.BOX 12596
    ADDIS ABABA
    Ethiopia
    Re: FOIA No.: 560-2017-002325
    (28E-2014-00485) Ayele v. MISSOURI DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on November 14, 2016 is processed.
    Our search began on November 14, 2016. All agency records in creation as of November 14,
    2016 are within the scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked
    below apply.
    [ ] Your request is granted.
    [ X ] Your request is denied pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the
    end of this letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these
    exemptions in more detail.
    [ ] Your request is procedurally denied as [ ] it does not reasonably describe the
    records you wish disclosed, or [ ] no records fitting the description of the records
    you seek disclosed exist or could be located after a thorough search, or [ ] the
    responsive records are already publically available. See the Comments page for
    further explanation.
    [ ] Your request is granted in part and denied in part. Portions not released are
    withheld pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this
    letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more
    detail.
    [ ] Your request is closed for administrative reasons. An attachment to this
    letter further explains this closure.
    [ ] A fee of $ 0.00 is charged. Charges for manual search and review services are
    assessed according to the personnel category of the person conducting the
    search a. Fees for search services range from $5.00 per quarter hour to $20.00
    per quarter hour. Direct cost is charged for computer search and in certain other
    circumstances. Photocopying is .15 per page. 29 C.F.R. §1610.15. The
    attached Comments page further explains the direct costs assessed. The fee(s)
    charged is computed as follows:
    [ ] Commercial use request: [ ] pages of photocopying; [ ] quarter hour(s)
    of [ ] review time; and [ ] quarter hour(s) of [ ] search time. Direct
    costs are billed in the amount of [ ] for [ ];

    View full-size slide

  56. [ ] Educational or noncommercial scientific institution or a representative of
    the news media request: [ ] pages of photocopying. The first 100
    pages are provided free of charge; and
    [ ] All other requests: [ ] pages of photocopying and [ ] quarter hour(s) of
    search time. Direct costs are billed in the amount of [ ] for [ ].
    The first 100 pages and the first two hours of search time are provided
    free of charge.
    [ ] Please submit payment of $ $ 0.00 by either:
    (1) Credit card at pay.gov. Visa, MasterCard, American Express and
    Discover credit cards are accepted. Debit cards bearing the Visa or
    MasterCard logo are also accepted. We will finish processing your
    request after EEOC receives a copy of your pay.gov credit or debit
    card receipt or
    (2) Check, payable to the United States Treasurer, to the address
    above.
    [ ] The disclosed records are enclosed. No fee is charged because the cost of
    collecting and processing the chargeable fee equals or exceeds the amount of
    the fee. 29 C.F.R. § 1610.15(d).
    [ ] The disclosed records are enclosed. Photocopying and search fees have been
    waived pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1610.14.
    [ ] I trust that the furnished information fully satisfies your request. If you need any
    further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of your request please do
    not hesitate to contact the FOIA Professional who processed your request or our
    FOIA Public Liaison (see contact information in above letterhead or under
    signature line).
    [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison for further assistance or to
    discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of
    Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation
    services they offer.
    The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
    Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-
    OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone
    at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202)741-5769.
    The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison: (see contact information in
    above letterhead or under signature line).
    [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively
    appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted
    in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA
    Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE,
    5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, or by fax to (202) 653-6034, or by email to
    [email protected]. https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx. Your appeal
    will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11.

    View full-size slide

  57. [ X ] See the attached Comments page for further information.
    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Smith
    District Resources Manager
    [email protected]
    Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b):
    Exemption Codes Used:
    (b)(3), , (A)(i) 706(b) - Section 709(e), Exemption (b)(3)(A)(i) states that disclosure is not
    required for a matter specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute
    (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave
    no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be made
    public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful for
    any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information
    obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the
    institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information
    Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII.
    See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S.
    590 (1981)., (A)(i) ADA, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that
    statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
    leave no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be
    made public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful
    for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information
    obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the
    institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information
    Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII.
    See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S.
    590 (1981)., (A)(i) GINA, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that
    statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to
    leave no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be
    made public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful
    for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information
    obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the
    institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information
    Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII.
    See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S.
    590 (1981).

    View full-size slide

  58. (b)(7)(C), Exemption (b)(7)(C) authorizes the Commission to withhold: records or
    information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the
    production of such law enforcement records or information . . . (C) could reasonably be
    expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . The seventh
    exemption applies to civil and criminal investigations conducted by regulatory agencies.
    Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States, 138 F.3d 1075, 1083 (6th Cir. 1998). Release
    of statements and identities of witnesses and subjects of an investigation creates the
    potential for witness intimidation that could deter their cooperation. National Labor
    Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 239 (1978). “Personal
    privacy” only encompasses individuals, and does not extend to the privacy interests of
    corporations. FCC v. AT & T Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1178 (2011).
    Re: FOIA No. 560-2017-002325
    Comments Page
    Your FOIA request for a copy of file 28E-2014-00485 is denied pursuant to the third and
    seventh exemptions to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(3)(A)(i) and (b)(7)(C).
    There was no lawsuit timely filed in court.
    Also the following information must be directly requested from the Missouri Dept. of
    Mental Health:
    1. Copy of his contract he signed when he was employed at the Fulton State Hospital
    2. All statements made on my behalf, or against me and the reasons for which he was under
    investigation at the Fulton State Hospital
    3. Reasons for his dismissal
    4. Records of Aschalew Belachew and Muhammer Suljacer
    The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and GINA
    prohibit the EEOC from confirming or denying the existence of a charge to a third
    party of the charge. The third exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from
    disclosure.
    The seventh exemption to the FOIA permits the agency to withhold information
    compiled in investigative files where disclosure of such information could result in
    an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL:
    https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx
    This response was prepared by Garry Stevens, FOIA Assistant, who may be reached at
    314-539-7800.

    View full-size slide

  59. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    St. Louis District Office
    Robert A. Young Building
    1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
    St. Louis, MO 63103
    Toll Free: (877)-895-1802
    TTY (314) 539-7803
    FAX (314) 539-7050
    Website: www.eeoc.gov
    April 13, 2020
    Via: [email protected]
    Mr. Michael Ayele
    Association For The Advancement of Civil Liberties
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa
    Ethiopia
    Re: FOIA No.: 560-2020-008405
    Charge No: 28E-2014-00485C Ayele, vs MISSOURI DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH
    Dear Mr. Ayele:
    Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on April 13, 2020 is processed. Our
    search began on April 13, 2020. All agency records in creation as of April 13, 2020 are within the
    scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply.
    [ x ] Your request is granted.
    [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison Stephanie D. Garner for further
    assistance or to discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact
    the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA
    mediation services they offer.
    The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
    Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-
    OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone
    at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202) 741-5769.
    The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison is as follows: Stephanie D.
    Garner, EEOC FOIA Public Liaison, Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division,
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M. Street, N.E., Fifth Floor,
    Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected], telephone at (202) 663-
    4634; or fax at (202) 653-6034.
    [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively
    appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted
    in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division,
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE, 5NW02E,
    Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected]; online at
    https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx, or fax at (202) 653-6034. Your
    appeal will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11.
    [ x ] See the attached Comments page for further information.
    Sincerely,

    View full-size slide

  60. L. Jack Vasquez, Jr.
    District Director
    [email protected]
    Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b):
    Exemption(s) Used:
    (b)(7)(C), Exemption (b)(7)(C) to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §
    552(b)(7)(C) (2016), as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No.
    114-185, 130 Stat. 538, authorizes the Commission to withhold:
    records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that
    the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . (C) could reasonably
    be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . .
    The seventh exemption applies to civil and criminal investigations conducted by
    regulatory agencies. Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States, 138 F.3d 1075, 1083 (6th
    Cir. 1998). Release of statements and identities of witnesses and subjects of an
    investigation creates the potential for witness intimidation that could deter their
    cooperation. National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., 437 U.S.
    214, 239 (1978); Manna v. United States Dep’t. of Justice, 51 F.3d 1158,1164 (3d Cir.
    1995). Disclosure of identities of employee-witnesses could cause "problems at their jobs
    and with their livelihoods." L&C Marine Transport, Ltd. v. United States, 740 F.2d 919,
    923 (11th Cir. 1984).
    The Supreme Court has explained that only "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an
    agency's performance of its statutory duties" merits disclosure under FOIA, and noted
    that "disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various
    governmental files" would "reveal little or nothing about an agency's own conduct." United
    States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773
    (1989).
    For the purposes of determining what constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal
    privacy under exemption (b)(7)(C), the term “personal privacy” only encompasses
    individuals, and does not extend to the privacy interests of corporations. FCC v. AT&T
    Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1178 (2011).
    DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO EXEMPTION (b)(7)(C):560-2020-008405
    Comment:
    Your FOIA request for a copy of file [ ] is denied pursuant to the third and Seventh
    exemptions to the FOIA. 5 U.S. 552 (b)(7)(C).
    The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and GINA
    prohibit the EEOC from confirming or denying the existence of a charge to a third party of
    the charge. The third exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from disclosure.

    View full-size slide

  61. The seventh exemption to the FOIA permits the agency to withhold information complied
    in investigation files where disclosure of such information could result in an unwarranted
    Invasion of personal privacy.
    If an employment discrimination lawsuit, based on the allegations in the charge, is
    pending. please resubmit your FOIA request with a copy of the “filed’ stamped court
    complaint indicating a pending Title VII, ADA, GINA ADEA, of EPA case for possible
    reconsideration
    NO LAWSUIT
    COMMENT
    No file stamped law suit was submitted with your request.
    Exemption 7( c ) to the Foia permits the agency to withhold information compiled
    In investigative files where disclosure of such information could result in an unwarranted
    Invasion of personal privacy.
    For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL:
    https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx
    This response was prepared by AZZIE HICKS, who may be reached at 314-539-7919.
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

    View full-size slide

  62. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    Office of Legal Counsel
    131 M St, N. E., Fifth Floor
    Washington, D. C. 20507
    Free: (833)-827-2920
    TTY(202) 663-6056
    FAX(202) 663-7026
    Website: www.eeoc.gov
    06/28/2021
    VIA: [email protected]
    Michael Ayele (aka) W
    Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties
    P.O. Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA 10013
    Re: FOIA No.: 820-2021-004999
    MOSERS (FSH)
    Dear Mr. Ayele (aka) W:
    Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on 05/31/2021, is processed. Our
    search began on 06/01/2021. All agency records in creation as of 06/01/2021 are within the
    scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply.
    [ X ] Portions of your request are as follows:
    [ X ] Granted. See the Comments page for further explanation.
    [ X ] Procedurally denied as no records fitting the description of the records you seek
    exist. See the Comments page for further explanation.
    [ X ] Denied pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this letter.
    An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more detail.
    [ X ] I trust that the furnished information fully satisfies your request. If you need any
    further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of your request, please do
    not hesitate to contact the FOIA Professional who processed your request or our
    FOIA Public Liaison (see contact information in above letterhead or under
    signature line).
    [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison for further assistance or to
    discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of
    Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation
    services they offer.
    The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
    Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-
    OGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone
    at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202) 741-5769.
    The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison: (see contact information in
    the above letterhead or under signature line).

    View full-size slide

  63. 820-2021-004999
    [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively
    appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted
    in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division,
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE, 5NW02E,
    Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected]; online at
    https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login, or fax at (202) 653-6034. Your appeal
    will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11.
    [ X ] See the attached Comments page for further information.
    Sincerely,
    Draga G. Anthony for
    Stephanie D. Garner
    Assistant Legal Counsel
    (202) 921-2542
    [email protected]
    Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b):
    Exemption(s) Used:
    [ X ] (3) (A)(i)
    [ X ] Section 706(b) of Title VII
    [ X ] Section 709(e) of Title VII
    [ X ] Section 107 of the ADA
    [ X ] Section 207 of the GINA
    For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL:
    https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login.

    View full-size slide

  64. 820-2021-004999
    Exemption 3 to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i) (2009),
    as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, states that disclosure is not required
    for a matter
    specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute
    (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave
    no discretion on the issue;
    Sections 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
    §§2000e-5(b), 2000e-8(e)(2006), are part of such a statute. Section 706(b) provides that:
    Charges shall not be made public by the Commission . . . . Nothing said or done during
    and as a part of [the Commission's informal endeavors at resolving charges of
    discrimination] may be made public . . . .
    Section 709(e) of Title VII provides:
    It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner
    whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this
    section [to investigate charges of discrimination and to require employers to maintain and
    submit records] prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such
    information.
    Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic
    Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) adopt the procedures of sections 706 and 709
    of Title VII.
    See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S.
    590 (1981); Frito-Lay v. EEOC, 964 F. Supp. 236, 239-43 (W.D. Ky. 1997); American
    Centennial Insurance Co. v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
    722 F. Supp. 180 (D.N.J. 1989); and EEOC v. City of Milwaukee, 54 F. Supp. 2d 885,
    893 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
    INFORMATION WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE THIRD EXEMPTION TO THE FOIA:
    Access to investigative files in which the issuance of your right to sue has long since
    expired; Charge Nos. 28E-2014-00485 and 28E-2014-01070

    View full-size slide

  65. 820-2021-004999
    COMMENTS
    The following is this office’s response to your request under the FOIA:
    1. Your request for “formal and informal ties existing between your offices, the MOSERS,
    the EEOC, the Office of Attorney General (OAG), the City of Los Angeles (California), the
    City of Oakland (California), the City of San Diego (California) and the City of San
    Francisco (California)” is granted.
    The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the
    federal government's equal employment opportunity program. The requested information
    is already available online, via EEOC’s public website. See the following link:
    https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector.
    The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, by employers
    such as state and local governmental departments, against a job applicant or an
    employee. The requested information is already available online, via EEOC’s public
    website. See the following link: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers.
    2. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the FBI background check [you] had passed in May 2013 to secure
    an employment with the DMH (FSH)” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the
    EEOC.
    3. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the stress and psychological trauma [you] have lived as a direct
    consequence of several critical incidents and emotionally difficult events in my previous
    employment with the DMH (FSH)” is denied pursuant to the third exemption to the FOIA.
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i).
    The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA,
    and GINA, prohibit the EEOC from granting access to, or copies of, a
    charge brought by an individual to a third party of the charge. The third
    exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from disclosure.
    4. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 failing to provide the same rights and
    privileges to health care workers as it does to law enforcement officers even though they
    are both required to pass similar FBI background checks” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    5. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the Joint Commission letter sent to [you] on April 23, 2014,
    indicating that “23 written complaints were filed against,” [your] former employer for a
    broad range of issues” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    6. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the EEOC and [your] previous employer (FSH) having thus far
    failed to promptly disclose the reasons for which [you] were under investigation in my
    former capacity as a health-care worker, who was assigned the title of Forensic Rehab
    Specialist (FRS),” is procedurally denied. No records exist.
    7. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the EEOC and [your] former employer (FSH) having failed to

    View full-size slide

  66. 820-2021-004999
    inform [you] in writing of the nature and alleged violation [you] had supposedly committed
    until after they concluded their investigation” is procedurally denied. No records exist.
    8. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the EEOC and [your] former employer having failed to promptly
    disclose the name(s), the academic background(s), the professional responsibilities, and
    annual salaries, of the investigator/investigators, who were assigned to the complaint of
    employee misconduct that had been filed against [you] in October 2013” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    9. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] having, pursuant to Lori Hollinger’s letter dated December
    20, 2013, given back on December 23, 2013, the uniform provided to [you] by the FSH, in
    order to claim [your] last paycheck” is denied pursuant to the third exemption to the FOIA.
    5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i).
    10. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the harassment [you] endured on December 23, 2013, after
    having presented a copy of Lori Hollinger’s letter and the uniforms provided to [you] by
    the FSH to staff thereof in order to claim my last paycheck” is denied pursuant to the third
    exemption to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i).
    11. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the vague answers [you] were provided by employees and legal
    representatives of the FSH to specific questions [you] had asked about [your] last
    paycheck, which failed to be forthcoming upon the return of the uniforms and the badge
    given to [you] by the FSH” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    12. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the receipt [you] were provided by the FSH on December 23,
    2013, following the return of five white polo t-shirts” is procedurally denied. No records
    exist within the EEOC.
    13. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the several unreturned phone calls [you] had made to [your]
    former employer between December 24, 2013, and December 30, 2013, where [you]
    reminded them that [you] had returned [your] badge and uniforms even though no
    paycheck was provided to [you]” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the
    EEOC.
    14. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] arrest dated December 30, 2013, at the FSH” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    15. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the Statement of Probable Cause failing to mention that [you]
    were present on Fulton State Hospital (FSH) lobby on December 23, 2013, to return
    [your] uniforms and request that it provide [your] paycheck for the work [you] performed in
    November and December 2013” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the
    EEOC.
    16. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the Statement of Probable failing to mention that the now posted
    video on YouTube showing the events before [your] arrest was deleted” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.

    View full-size slide

  67. 820-2021-004999
    17. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] previous use of the software called DiskDigger to recover
    the deleted video footage, of [your] arrest dated December 30, 2013, from [your] cell-
    phone” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    18. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Sibron v New
    York that “before an officer places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything,
    he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so”” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    19. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence
    about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Ornelas v United States that
    the “principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause
    will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision
    whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable
    police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause”” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    20. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Beck v Ohio
    that the “validity of an arrest depends upon whether, at the moment of the arrest, the
    officer had probable cause (or a warrant) to believe that the individual could be arrested””
    is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    21. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Florida v
    Royer that a “restraint on the person amounting to a seizure for the purposes of the
    Fourth Amendment is invalid unless justified by probable cause”” is procedurally denied.
    No records exist within the EEOC.
    22. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in
    Hayes v Florida that “police officers acting without probable cause and without
    a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by
    the Fourteenth Amendment, by forcibly removing a person from his home or
    other place where he was entitled to be and transporting him to the police
    station for fingerprinting”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the
    EEOC.
    23. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in McCurdy v
    Montgomery County that Plaintiff-Appellant James McCurdy First and Fourth Amendment
    were violated as a direct consequence of his arrest without probable cause”” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    24. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Centanni v
    Eight Unknown Officers that Marilyn Centanni’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated
    as a direct consequence of her detention, which required probable cause because it
    constituted an arrest”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    25. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Dunaway v
    New York that Dunaway’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the police

    View full-size slide

  68. 820-2021-004999
    who picked him up and took him to the police station to be questioned without probable
    cause”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    26. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in City of
    Houston, Tex. v Hill that “a municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a
    police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad, and therefore
    invalid on its face under the First Amendment”” is procedurally denied. No records exist
    within the EEOC.
    27. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Jean v. Mass. State
    Police that “the First Amendment prevents Massachusetts law enforcement officials from
    interfering with an individual’s internet posting of an audio and video recording of an arrest
    and warrantless search”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    28. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Butterworth v
    Smith that “state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of lawfully obtained
    truthful information about a matter of public importance”” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    29. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Daugherty v
    Campbell that a “strip search, regardless of how professionally and courteously
    conducted, is an embarrassing and humiliating experience”” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    30. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Jones v
    Buchanan that “to determine the appropriate amount of force used by a law enforcement
    officer, one should examine (a) the severity of the crime at issue, (b) the extent to which
    the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (c)
    whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight,”” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    31. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that a
    “reasonable juror could determine that the force Mayor Bise and Chief Shoemaker used
    was not objectively reasonable,” and that “Mayor Bise, acting on personal animosity,
    ordered Chief Shoemaker to arrest him,” in Richard Goff v Lloyd Bise”” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    32. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the “record
    evidence compelled the conclusion that the force with which Leporati effected the
    sudden, unannounced, violent seizure and removal of Alexis’s person was not objectively
    reasonable, especially since there is no evidence or suggestion that she posed a risk of
    flight, attempted to resist or evade arrest, or threatened the peace, property, or safety of
    anyone” in Alexis v. McDonald Restaurants of Massachusetts” is procedurally denied.
    No records exist within the EEOC.
    33. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to reverse “the
    grants of directed verdicts for Officer Macker on the state of tort claims of false arrest and
    imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, and the state and federal

    View full-size slide

  69. 820-2021-004999
    civil right claims for illegal arrest and civil rights conspiracy” in Santiago v Fenton” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    34. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the
    “problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an emotionally
    distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are, and must be,
    differentiated from those involved in efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal,
    who has recently committed a serious offense” in Deorie v. Rutherford” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    35. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that “police
    officers were called to take a mentally ill individual into custody for his own safety, but
    within a half-hour, they had caused him to fall into a coma that has left him in a vegetative
    state.” in Drummond v City of Anaheim” is procedurally denied. No records exist within
    the EEOC.
    36. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Meyers v
    Baltimore County that the police in Baltimore, Maryland, used force that was clearly
    “unnecessary, gratuitous and disproportionate”” is procedurally denied. No records exist
    within the EEOC.
    37. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Estate of
    Armstrong v Village of Pinehurst that the police in North Carolina used unconstitutionally
    excessive force, when seizing Ronald H. Armstrong” is procedurally denied. No records
    exist within the EEOC.
    38. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in Anderson v
    Creighton arguing that the “majority’s opinion unnecessarily expands the idea of qualified
    immunity beyond high political officials to police officers, whom it is in the public’s best
    interests to hold accountable for their actions” is procedurally denied. No records exist
    within the EEOC.
    39. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Brady v
    Maryland that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused
    who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt
    or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    40. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the “Sixth
    amendment’s guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants
    in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment,” in Gideon v Wainwright” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    41. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to appoint
    attorney of counsel to Petitioner Henry A. McClain following the filing of his Habeas
    Corpus complaint” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.

    View full-size slide

  70. 820-2021-004999
    42. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to appoint
    attorney of counsel to Petitioners Walter Pyles (aka Sonni Pyles) and Charles Pyles (aka
    Timbuk Pyles) following the filing of their Habeas Corpus complaint” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    43. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the societal benefits of appointing legal counsel to people who
    request it following the filing of a Habeas Corpus and/or a Civil Complaint” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    44. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) response to the
    protests that erupted in the city following the decision of the grand jury not to criminally
    prosecute former Ferguson Police Department Officer (FPD) officer Darren Wilson in
    November 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    45. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about residents’ of Oakland, California, reaction to the shooting death of
    Michael Brown” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    46. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the decisions of students associated with the University of
    California, Berkeley, to protest the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown in the San
    Francisco Bay area in December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within
    the EEOC.
    47. Your request for “the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Napa Police
    Department, the Oakland Police Department, the San Diego Police Department, and the
    San Francisco Police Department policies pertaining the use of tear gas and other
    chemical irritants in circumstances of protests following the death of an unarmed Black
    person” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    48. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] membership with the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) in
    November 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    49. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] membership with the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL)
    in December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    50. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about [your] previous visits to the University of California, Berkeley, in
    December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    51. Your request for “formal and informal ties existing between the University of California,
    Berkeley, International Student Office and the Office of California Senator Dianne
    Feinstein” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    52. Your request for “the date and time of [EEOC employees] last visit to the University of
    California Free Speech Center as part of an activity approved of by the Agency” is
    procedurally denied. No records exist.
    53. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the legislative branch of the Missouri government eagerness to
    penalize people who attend protests and demonstrations following the deaths of unarmed

    View full-size slide

  71. 820-2021-004999
    Black men at the hands of the police (taking into consideration what occurred in the City
    of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland California)” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    54. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the legislative branch of the Missouri government eagerness to
    penalize protesters (in Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill 66), who may
    wish to block traffic on highways to bring attention to police use of excessive force as
    residents of the City of Los Angeles (California) and the City of San Francisco (California)
    had previously done in November and December 2014” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    55. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the N-word having set off a series of unfortunate incidents in the
    State of Missouri between September and November 2014” is procedurally denied. No
    records exist within the EEOC.
    56. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Northwest Missouri State University response to [your] Sunshine
    request dealing with the events that occurred between September and November 2015”
    is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    57. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill 66 failing to
    recognize the N-word as a racial slur, which is belittling, derogatory, hurtful, inflammatory,
    offensive and unacceptable,” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    58. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill 66 failing to
    prohibit the display of the confederate flag, nooses and swastikas in and around
    Missouri’s Capitol located in Jefferson City” is procedurally denied. No records exist
    within the EEOC.
    59. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Missouri Senator Joshua David Hawley’s objections to certify
    President Joseph Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election” is procedurally denied.
    No records exist within the EEOC.
    60. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Missouri Senator Joshua David Hawley complaining about being
    cancelled and silenced, while being hosted on the Washington Post” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    61. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Cori Bush having become the first Black Congresswoman to
    represent the State of Missouri in Congress” is procedurally denied. No records exist
    within the EEOC.
    62. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the criticism faced by Congresswoman Cori Bush for her support
    to defund the police” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    63. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the criticism faced by Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez,
    Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, for their support to reallocate police
    funding” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.

    View full-size slide

  72. 820-2021-004999
    64. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about William Maher’s unfair comparison of Congresswoman Rashida
    Tlaib to Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on his HBO show broadcasting from the
    State of California” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    65. Your request for “all hateful e-mails and postal mail correspondence sent to employees
    and legal representatives of the City of Los Angeles Counsel, the City of Napa
    (California), the City of Oakland (California), the City of San Diego (California), and the
    City of San Francisco (California) for having acknowledged the existence of systemic
    racism like Rashida Tlaib has done on many previous occasions” is procedurally denied.
    No records exist within the EEOC.
    66. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s previous refusal to
    acknowledge in public the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
    (located in Parkland, Florida) on February 14, 2018,” is procedurally denied. No records
    exist within the EEOC.
    67. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s previous refusal to
    acknowledge in public the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on
    December 14, 2012,” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    68. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene following March for Our
    Lives co-founder David Hogg in Washington D.C to criticize his support for Red flag laws”
    is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    69. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about the reasons why Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    believes Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to be ‘deeply unwell”” is procedurally
    denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    70. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about former U.S President Barack Obama having called some of
    William Maher’s ideas ‘wacky’” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    71. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal
    correspondence about Chris Rock stand-up comedy dealing with U.S. policy on gun
    control” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
    This response was prepared by Joanne Murray, Government Information Specialist, who may be
    reached at (202) 663-4500.

    View full-size slide

  73. 11/17/23, 6:42 PM Gmail - FOIA Appeal Request Case No.: NCD - 2023 - 01
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-1131800410768610376&simpl=msg-a:r-11318004107686… 1/4
    Michael Ayele
    FOIA Appeal Request Case No.: NCD - 2023 - 01
    Michael Ayele Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:40 AM
    To: Amy Nicholas , Joan Durocher
    Cc: Michael Ayele , "Michael Ayele (W)" , Michael Ayele

    W (AACL) Date. : December 15th 2022
    Michael A. Ayele
    P.O.Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    E-mail : [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected]
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal Request Case No.: NCD – 2023 – 01
    Hello,
    Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of it. I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence
    from December 09th 2022 for the purpose of filing an appeal to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    request I had submitted on the subject of the National Council on Disability (NCD) January 30th 2018 report
    titled: “Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of College Students with Disabilities.”
    According to the report mentioned above, “students with disabilities (…) may (…) be accused of sexual
    violence, as well as being victims of such violence, and may require accommodations during Title IX
    hearings, judicial procedures, suspensions, and other procedures and actions on campus. While this is an
    important topic for further study, people with disabilities are far more likely to be victims of violence than
    instigators of it, and they are more likely to suffer physical and mental illnesses because of violence. In
    addition, students may experience mental health disabilities after an incident of sexual assault.” (See Page
    21 of the NCD report hereby attached).
    As a Black man with a U.S college degree, (who was in January 2010 informed what constitutes “affirmative
    and effective consent,”) I wholeheartedly agree with the statements made by the NCD about [1] students with
    disabilities being far more likely to be victims of violence than instigators of it; [2] students with disabilities
    being more likely to suffer physical and mental illness because of violence; [3] the experience of sexual
    assault leading people to experience (i) depression, (ii) sleep disorders, (iii) thoughts of suicide etc.
    However, I have concerns with the adequacy of the search you have performed for my FOIA request, which
    you have assigned Case No.: 2023 – 01 because of the statements made by your federal agency about the real
    possibility of a future NCD report that will examine the issue of [1] students with disabilities being accused
    of sexual violence (on college/university campuses), [2] students with disabilities being victims of sexual
    violence (on college/university campuses), [3] students with disabilities requiring accommodations during
    Title IX hearings, judicial procedures, suspensions, and other procedures on campus.
    Additionally, I have other concerns about a future NCD report that could be published dealing with the
    “sexual assault of college students with disabilities.” I (personally) cannot speak for the experiences of other
    U.S college/university students. However, I can tell you about my own. I was for the first time informed
    what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent” in the month of January 2010 when I was an
    undergraduate student of Westminster College (Fulton, MO). I was informed what constitutes “affirmative
    and effective consent” after having been told about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Ann Clery.

    View full-size slide

  74. 11/17/23, 6:42 PM Gmail - FOIA Appeal Request Case No.: NCD - 2023 - 01
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-1131800410768610376&simpl=msg-a:r-11318004107686… 2/4
    I would again like to reiterate this point because I believe it’s important. At the time I was informed about
    “affirmative and effective consent,” (at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri) I don’t remember being told
    that such education was necessary because [1] twenty percent (20%) of female students had experienced
    some type of nonconsensual sexual relations by the time they had graduated with a Bachelor of Arts
    (B.A)/Bachelor of Science (B.S) Degree in Calendar Year 2005; [2] the United States of America (U.S.A)
    had a history of slavery and that Black/African American women were “the property” of white men with
    wealth (who often times did with them what they wanted).
    I (personally) do not believe it’s academically honest and socially responsible to tell people what constitutes
    “affirmative and effective consent” after having informed them about the April 05th 1986 rape and murder of
    Jeanne Ann Clery. In other words, I don’t think it’s academically honest and socially responsible to tell
    teenagers, most of whom begin their post-secondary academic education when they’re 17 (seventeen), 18
    (eighteen) and 19 (nineteen) years old about “affirmative and effective consent” after laying on their
    conscience the rape and murder of a Caucasian woman (i.e: Jeanne Ann Clery) by a Black/African American
    man (i.e: Josoph Henry).
    Given the statements made by the NCD on page 21 (twenty-one) of their January 30th 2018 report, I
    (personally) was led to believe that your federal agency had begun discussions/research to examine the issue
    of [1] students with disabilities being accused of sexual violence, [2] students with disabilities being victims
    of sexual violence, [3] students with disabilities requiring accommodations during Title IX hearings, judicial
    procedures, suspensions, and other procedures on campus (for the purpose of a future report). For this reason
    in particular, I continue to have concerns with the adequacy of the search you have performed for my FOIA
    request.
    As a representative of the media and a member of the general public, I hope you will perform a more
    thorough search for responsive records detailing [1] the discussions/research, which was performed by the
    NCD on the subject of students with disabilities being accused of sexual violence in college/university
    settings; [2] the discussions/research, which was performed by the NCD on the subject of students with
    disabilities being victims of sexual violence; [3] the discussions/research, which was performed by the NCD
    on the subject of students with disabilities requiring accommodations during Title IX hearings, judicial
    procedures, suspensions, and other procedures on campus; [4] the discussions/research, which was
    performed by the NCD on the subject of students with disabilities being told about “affirmative and effective
    consent” after being provided some very limited background information on the April 05th 1986 rape and
    murder of Jeanne Ann Clery; [5] the discussions/research, which was performed by the NCD on the subject
    of students with disabilities being told about “affirmative and effective consent” after being provided some
    very limited background information on the rape and murder of a Caucasian woman (i.e: Jeanne Ann Clery)
    by a Black/African American man (i.e: Josoph Henry); [6] the date and time (i) representatives of the media,
    (ii) members of the general public, (iii) current college students, (iv) current university students, (v) alumnae
    of U.S colleges/universities and (vi) alumni of U.S colleges/universities can expect from the NCD a follow
    up report on the subject of “sexual assault of college students with disabilities.”
    I hope you reconsider your response. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.
    W (AACL)
    Michael A. Ayele
    Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist
    Audio-Visual Media Analyst
    Anti-Propaganda Journalist

    View full-size slide

  75. 11/17/23, 6:42 PM Gmail - FOIA Appeal Request Case No.: NCD - 2023 - 01
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-1131800410768610376&simpl=msg-a:r-11318004107686… 3/4
    From: Amy Nicholas
    Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 5:45 PM
    Subject: NCD FOIA request response 2023-01
    To: Michael Ayele
    Cc: Joan Durocher
    Dear W:
    Please find attached NCD's response to your FOIA request dated November 5, 2022.
    Best,
    Amy Nicholas
    FOIA Public Liaison
    National Council on Disability
    1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850
    Washington, DC 20004
    202-731-2313
    NCD.gov | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
    About the National Council on Disability (NCD): First established as an advisory Council within the Department of
    Education in 1978, NCD became an independent federal agency in 1984. In 1986, NCD recommended enactment of
    an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and drafted the first version of the bill which was introduced in the House and
    Senate in 1988. Since enactment of the ADA in 1990, NCD has continued to play a leading role in crafting disability
    policy, and advising the President, Congress and other federal agencies on disability policies, programs, and practices.
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic correspondence is intended solely for the
    individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
    disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited without express permission. If
    you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received
    the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
    The information contained herein does not reflect any official position or statement of the Members or staff of
    the National Council on Disability (NCD).

    View full-size slide

  76. 11/17/23, 6:42 PM Gmail - FOIA Appeal Request Case No.: NCD - 2023 - 01
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-1131800410768610376&simpl=msg-a:r-11318004107686… 4/4
    4 attachments
    FOIA response letter 2023-01 Ayele.pdf
    246K
    W (AACL) FOIA Appeal on Sexual Assault of College Students With Disabilities.pdf
    371K
    NCD_Not_on_the_Radar_Accessible.pdf
    1909K
    Affirmative and Effective Consent on College Campuses - Jeanne Clery - Catherine Coleman - Chanel
    Miller.pdf
    604K

    View full-size slide

  77. National Council on Disability
    An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress
    to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.
    1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004
    202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
    December 9, 2022
    Michael Ayele
    P.O. Box 20438
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
    Re: FOIA Request NCD-2023-01
    Dear W:
    This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, dated
    November 5 2022, in which you requested:
    “What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing [1]
    the formal/informal ties between your office, the National Council on Disability (NCD),
    the National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) and the
    Center for Campus Public Safety (CCPS); [2] your discussions about the NCD as a
    federal agency, which recognizes that the concept of “affirmative and effective consent”
    is being taught to college/university students in the United States of America (U.S.A)
    during the course of their first (1st) year of post-secondary academic education; [3] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which recognizes that the concept of
    “healthy sexual relationships” is being taught to college/university students in the U.S.A
    during the course of their Freshmen year; i [4] your discussions about the NCD as a
    federal agency, which recognizes that (approximately) 20% (twenty percent) of women
    in their 4th (fourth) year of college/university (after high-school) experienced some type
    of “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation” (on campus) in
    Calendar Year 2005; [5] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which
    recognizes that 20% of women in their Senior year of college/university (after high-
    school) experienced some type of “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or
    incapacitation” even though they had been told in their Freshmen year of
    college/university what constitutes “affirmative and effective consent;” [6] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which recognizes that 20% of women
    in their Senior year of college/university (after high-school) experienced some type of
    “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation” even though they had
    been told in their Freshmen year of college/university what constitutes “healthy sexual
    relationships;”ii [7] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which
    recognizes that (approximately) 32% (thirty two percent) of women with a disability
    experienced some type of “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or
    incapacitation” (during Calendar Years 2014 and 2015) on a college/university campus;
    [8] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which recognizes that one in
    three women with a disability experienced some type of “nonconsensual sexual contact
    involving force or incapacitation” (during Calendar Years 2014 and 2015) on a

    View full-size slide

  78. 2
    college/university campus; [9] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency,
    which recognizes that one in three women with a disability experienced some type of
    “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation” (during Calendar Years
    2014 and 2015) even though they had been told what constitutes “affirmative and
    effective consent” in their Freshmen year of college/university; [10] your discussions
    about the NCD as a federal agency, which recognizes that one in three women with a
    disability experienced some type of “nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or
    incapacitation” (during Calendar Years 2014 and 2015) even though they had been told
    what constitutes “healthy sexual relationships;”iii [11] your discussions about the NCD as
    a federal agency, which recognizes that “sexual assault is a public health and public
    safety concern with far-reaching implications;” [12] your discussions about the NCD as a
    federal agency, which recognizes that sexual assault is a “deeply personal violation,”
    which “leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” [13] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which recognizes that sexual assault
    causes “long term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression,
    post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders;”iv [14] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for Congress
    to amend the Jeanne Clery Act by “requiring colleges to collect the number of all
    reported sexual assaults on students with disabilities (not just when the assaults are
    hate crimes) and include this information in their annual security report;” [15] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for Congress
    to amend the Jeanne Clery Act by “requiring colleges to include a statement regarding
    the disability-related accommodations that will be made available to students with
    disabilities during the reporting and disciplinary process, such as auxiliary
    communication aids or interpreters, and how to request these accommodations;” [16]
    your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for
    Congress to pass the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (S. 856) by requiring “grant
    applications under proposed Section 8, part BB, to described how they will serve
    students with disabilities in their description of how underserved populations on campus
    will be served;” [17] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has
    recommended for Congress to pass S. 856 by adding “a survey question to proposed
    Section 19 on whether the victim had a disability at the time of the assault, and what
    type of disability;” [18] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has
    recommended for Congress to “require that research funded by the Office on Violence
    Against Women on campus sexual assault include students with disabilities to gather
    data on the problem as it pertains to students with disabilities, and to develop strategies
    for preventing and reducing the risk of sexual assault and effectively responding to
    victims with disabilities;” [19] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency,
    which has recommended for the Department of Education (DoED) to “develop and
    publish a technical assistance document or training for colleges on the rights of students
    with disabilities to have necessary accommodations in the process of reporting assault,
    utilizing sexual assault support services, and in the institutional disciplinary process;”
    [20] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for
    the Department of Education (DoED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to (i) inform colleges
    that they must provide required Title IX information in accessible formats to students
    with disabilities, (ii) encourage colleges to include information on how students can

    View full-size slide

  79. 3
    request disability related accommodations on their Title IX web pages, (iii) encourage
    colleges to make outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services
    available in accessible formats, and through various outlets accessible to students; [21]
    your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for the
    National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) to “include
    information on disability” and to communicate “with victims with disabilities who are Deaf
    or hard of hearing, in its trauma informed training programs;” [22] your discussions
    about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for the Center for
    Campus Public Safety (CCPS) to “include information on disability” and communicate
    “with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing in their trauma-informed
    training programs for school officials and campus law enforcement;” [23] your
    discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Services (BJS) to “include students with
    disabilities as a demographic when conducting research on sexual assault on college
    campuses;” [24] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which has
    recommended for the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office on Violence Against Women
    (OVW) to (i) communicate with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing,
    in its trauma informed training programs for school officials and campus local law
    enforcement, (ii) require all colleges that submit proposals under the Grants to Reduce
    Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program
    to “provide outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault services to
    students,” (iii) require researchers to include students disabilities as a demographic
    when they fund research on sexual assault on college campuses, [25] your discussions
    about the NCD as a federal agency, which has recommended for colleges/universities
    to (i) include students with disabilities as a demographic in campus climate surveys on
    sexual assault, (ii) create crisis policies and procedures on how to provide sexual
    assault services to students with sensory disabilities especially Deaf or hard of hearing
    students, so that students receive services within 24 hours, (iii) guarantee that sexual
    assault first responders and support providers have access to emergency interpreter
    services or other communication methods so that students can communicate with staff
    immediately, (iv) create formal agreements with community-based providers with the
    expertise to support survivors with disabilities, (v) develop and implement sexual assault
    prevention and support service training with messaging campaigns that are inclusive
    and welcoming to students with disabilities on college campuses, (vi) provide disability
    related and trauma informed practice training to prevention and first responder staff and
    campus security so that they understand how to effectively prevent and support
    students with disabilities after an incident of sexual assault, (vii) establish and maintain
    active collaborative relationships between Title IX, sexual assault services, counseling
    and health services and disability services, (viii) require their Disability Service Center
    staff to be actively involved in college sexual assault prevention and support efforts, (ix)
    require their Disability Service Center staff to be actively trained on Title IX procedures;
    v [26] the academic backgrounds, the professional responsibilities and the annual
    salaries of Clyde E. Terry, Benro T. Ogunyipe, Billy W. Altom, Rabia Belt, James T.
    Brett, Bob Brown, Daniel M. Gade, Wendy S. Harbour, Amged Soliman, Stacey S.
    Brown, Keith Woods, Nitya Venkateswaran, Talia Shalev, Jay Feldman and Deborah
    Tull.”

    View full-size slide

  80. 4
    For tracking purposes, your tracking number is NCD-2023-01.
    All NCD public records are available on our website at NCD.gov. Any responsive
    documents to queries 1 through 25 can be found on our website. As to query 26, NCD
    previously provided you the professional responsibilities and the annual salary of NCD
    councilmembers and NCD staffer Stacey Brown. “Nitya Venkateswaran, Talia Shalev,
    Jay Feldman and Deborah Tull” are not NCD employees, therefore we have no
    responsive records to this portion of your request. The professional responsibilities of
    Keith Woods and Amged Soliman can be found on NCD’s website. Keith Woods annual
    salary is $138,856 and Amged Soliman is $143,064.
    If you need further assistance, you may contact Amy Nicholas, NCD’s FOIA Public
    Liaison at 202-731-2313 or [email protected]. Please include your tracking number
    with any correspondence. If needed, it is your right to seek dispute resolution services
    from NCD’s Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS).
    OGIS may be reached at:
    Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
    National Archives and Records Administration
    8601 Adelphi Road
    College Park, MD 20740-6001
    [email protected]
    202-741-5770
    fax 202-741-5769
    NCD’s appeal process allows you to appeal withheld information or the adequacy of
    NCD’s search by writing within 90 days of your receipt of this letter to:
    Anne Sommers McIntosh
    Executive Director
    National Council on Disability
    1331 F St. NW.
    Suite 850
    Washington DC 20004
    Your appeal must be in writing and should contain a brief statement of the reasons why
    you believe the requested information should be released. Enclose a copy of your initial
    request, request number and a copy of this letter. Both the appeal letter and envelope
    should be prominently marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
    After processing, actual fees must be equal to or exceed $25 for the Council to require
    payment of fees. See 5 CFR §10000.10k. The fulfillment of your request did not exceed
    $25, therefore there is no billable fee for the processing of this request.
    Respectfully,

    View full-size slide

  81. 5
    Joan Durocher
    Chief FOIA Officer
    i Colleges are implementing a variety of education and prevention programs on their campuses
    and making information related to sexual assault readily available to students. Educational
    programs help develop students understanding of consent and healthy sexual relationships and
    supports the prevention of alcohol abuse. Colleges use a range of online education prevention
    programs to reach all first-year students and other targeted populations, while complying with
    federal mandates for sexual assault prevention training. Colleges also organize in person
    educational events facilitated by experts and peer educators throughout the year. Not on the
    Radar: Sexual Assault of College Students with Disabilities. See Page 32 of the Report here.:
    https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Not_on_the_Radar_Accessible.pdf
    ii The issue of sexual assault on college campuses has received increased attention since the 2007
    publication of the federally funded College Sexual Assault study, which found that 19 percent of
    female undergraduates were victims of sexual assault during their time in college. Another
    recent federally funded study surveyed 23,000 students across nine colleges
    and universities and found that the prevalence of sexual assault averaged 21 percent for females
    across the schools. The federally funded (National Institute of Justice) College Sexual Assault
    Study (CSA) was a survey conducted with 6,800 undergraduate students attending two large
    public universities during 2005 that examined the prevalence, nature, and reporting of sexual
    assault experienced by students to inform the development of targeted intervention strategies.
    The often-quoted figure from this study represents the experience of females since entering
    college: 19.8 percent of female college senior (1 in 5) responded that they had experienced
    nonconsensual sexual contact involving force or incapacitation during their time in college. This
    study, however, did not include disability as a demographic and, as such did not yield data on
    the prevalence of sexual assault on student with disabilities. Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of
    College Students with Disabilities. See Page 32 of the Report here.:
    https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Not_on_the_Radar_Accessible.pdf
    iii A recent large-scale study on campus sexual assault by the Association of American
    Universities revealed that college students with disabilities were victims of sexual violence at
    higher rates than students without disabilities —31.6 percent of undergraduate females with
    disabilities reported nonconsensual sexual contact involving physical force or incapacitation,
    compared to 18.4 percent of undergraduate females without a disability. This means one out of
    every three undergraduate students with a disability was a victim of sexual violence on campus.
    (…) The Association of American Universities (AAU) study is notable because it is one of the
    largest surveys on sexual assault and sexual misconduct in terms of both number of schools and
    number of students participating. Prior studies of campus sexual assault and misconduct have
    been implemented for a small number of colleges or for a national sample of students with
    relatively small samples for any particular college. Also, comparisons across surveys have been

    View full-size slide

  82. 6
    problematic because of different methodologies and different definitions. The AAU was one of
    the first to implement a uniform methodology across multiple colleges and to produce
    statistically reliable estimates for each college. Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of College
    Students with Disabilities. See Page 32 of the Report here.:
    https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Not_on_the_Radar_Accessible.pdf
    iv Sexual assault is a public health and public safety concern with far-reaching implications, and
    it is well documented that this deeply personal violation leaves physical and emotional impacts
    that change the lives of victims. (…) Sexual assault can be devastating to victims and cause long
    term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress,
    thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders. Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of College
    Students with Disabilities.
    v January 30th 2018 Recommendations of the National Council on Disability (NCD)
    1) Congress should amend the Clery Act including to:
    a. Require colleges to collect the number of all reported sexual assaults on students with
    disabilities (not just when the assaults are hate crimes) and include this information in
    their annual security report.
    b. Require colleges to include a statement regarding the disability-related accommodations
    that will be made available to students with disabilities during the reporting and
    disciplinary process, such as auxiliary communication aids or interpreters, and how to
    request those accommodations.
    2) Congress should pass the Campus Accountability and Safety Act (S. 856) with the
    following additions:
    a. Require grant applications under proposed Section 8, part BB, to describe how they will
    serve students with disabilities in their description of how underserved populations on
    campus will be served.
    b. Add a survey question to proposed Section 19 on whether the victim had a disability at
    the time of the assault, and what type of disability.
    3) Congress should require that research funded by the Office on Violence Against Women
    on campus sexual assault include students with disabilities to gather data on the problem
    as it pertains to students with disabilities, and to develop strategies for preventing and
    reducing the risk of sexual assault and effectively responding to victims with disabilities.

    View full-size slide

  83. 7
    4) The Department of Education (ED) should develop and publish a technical assistance
    document or training for colleges on the rights of students with disabilities to have
    necessary accommodations in the process of reporting assault, utilizing sexual assault
    support services, and in the institutional disciplinary process.
    5) The Department of Education (ED) Office of Civil Rights should
    a. Inform colleges that they must provide required Title IX information in accessible
    formats to students with disabilities.
    b. Encourage colleges to include information on how students can request disability related
    accommodations on their Title IX web pages.
    c. Encourage colleges to make outreach and educational materials regarding sexual assault
    services available in accessible formats, and through various outlets accessible to
    students.
    6) The National Center on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) should
    include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities
    who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma informed training programs.
    7) The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) should include students with disabilities as a
    demographic when conducting research on sexual assault on college campuses.
    8) The Center for Campus Public Safety (CCPS) should include information on disability,
    including communicating with victims with disabilities who are Deaf or hard of hearing,
    in their trauma-informed training programs for school officials and campus local law
    enforcement.
    9) The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) should
    a. Include information on disability, including communicating with victims with disabilities
    who are Deaf or hard of hearing, in its trauma-informed training programs for school
    officials and campus local law enforcement.
    10) The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) should require all colleges that submit
    proposals under the Grants to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating
    Violence, and Stalking on Campus Program to
    a. Require grantees that provide outreach and educational materials regarding sexual
    assault services to students to provide them in accessible formats and inform the college
    community that these are available.
    11) When OVW funds research on sexual assault on college campuses, require researchers to
    include students with disabilities as a demographic. For example, allow students to
    identify if they have a disability in surveys/questionnaires, etc.
    12) Colleges should
    a. Include students with disabilities as a demographic in campus climate surveys on sexual
    assault.

    View full-size slide

  84. 8
    b. Create crisis policies and procedures on how to provide sexual assault services to
    students with sensory disabilities especially Deaf or hard of hearing students, so that
    students receive services within 24 hours.
    c. Guarantee that sexual assault first responders and support providers have access to
    emergency interpreter services or other communications methods (i.e., Communication
    Access Real Time Translation) so that students can communicate with staff immediately.
    d. Create formal agreements with community-based providers with the expertise to support
    survivors with disabilities.
    e. Develop and implement sexual assault prevention and support service training with
    messaging campaigns that are inclusive and welcoming to students with disabilities on
    college campuses.
    f. Provide disability related and trauma informed practice training to prevention and first
    responder staff and campus security so that they understand how to effectively prevent
    and support students with disabilities after an incident of sexual assault.
    g. Establish and maintain active collaborative relationships between Title IX, sexual assault
    services, counseling and health services, and disability services.
    h. Require their Disability Service Center staff to be actively involved in college sexual
    assault prevention and support efforts and trained on Title IX procedures.
    Not on the Radar: Sexual Assault of College Students with Disabilities.
    https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Not_on_the_Radar_Accessible.pdf

    View full-size slide